Disinterested Pleasure and the Universality of Taste
The concept of "disinterestedness" (Interesselosigkeit) is Kant's answer to the question of how an aesthetic judgment, which is grounded in nothing but a subject's own felt pleasure, can nonetheless differ fundamentally from a mere private preference such as liking a particular wine. Kant defines "interest" as "the satisfaction that we combine with the representation of the existence of an object," and argues that in a pure judgment of taste we are indifferent to whether the object actually exists; what matters is solely the way its form is represented to us in contemplation. This is why Kant insists a judgment of taste is not, strictly, a cognitive judgment about the object's properties at all, but rather refers the representation, via the feeling of pleasure or displeasure, to the subject and its state — the judgment "this rose is beautiful" reports something about the harmonious activity of the judging subject's own faculties occasioned by the rose, not a predicate straightforwardly true of the rose as an object of empirical knowledge like its colour or weight.
Why do you think there's historiographical debate about "Disinterested Pleasure and the Universality of Taste"?