Rather, the concept forces dialectics on art and makes art look up to the truth or the universal. Yet from the beginning, this discourse was distorted by a series of faults, in all senses of the word, that recognized while also limiting the autonomy of the arts. This conflict—despite many shifts, dissolutions and reversals—has never since ceased.
It has fought against its demise and can be found in diverse art theory texts to this day. Hegel once again re-situated that which was thought of in antiquity as a cosmology—the unity of the true, the good, and the beautiful.
معلومات عن المنتج
These triumphs mirror the transition from nature to spirit, from the material to the speculative, from sensuality to the spirituality of reflection, and from perception to the dialectical self-realization of the concept. Art, which deals mostly with materials and objects, therefore occupies the lowest position. Homologous to metaphysical tradition, the least abstract arts are furthest removed from language—the ranking begins with the fine arts of architecture, painting, and sculpture and moves, step-by-step, towards poetry which does not yet speak in concepts, but is articulated in the exhilaration of linguistic metaphors and figurations , and finally the moral solemnity of the tragedy, which is already partly imbued with religion.
Art is merely one step on the way, it is not knowledge in and of itself, and does not manifest its own truth.
The Knowable and the Unknowable
Clearly this hierarchization of forms of knowledge is founded on the general assumption of the superiority of one medium, namely philosophical conceptualization, as the medium of reflection. In his Science of Logic , Hegel followed this processual logic of conceptualization from the abstract identity of being and nothingness to the constitution of the absolute idea, whose privileged position seems to be justified only by the fact that it is an integral element of discourse.
Thus from the very first, the epistemic enhancement of art led to its simultaneous devaluation. This depreciation is due to the presumptuousness of reason, which judges art only in accordance with logic.
- UPF Books in Print by University Press of Florida - Issuu.
- Introduction to Computational Proteomics.
- John Paul II and the Legacy of Dignitatis Humanae (Moral Traditions series).
For it is the concept and the definition that deliver the appropriate framework for the judgment or argument, not the painting or the poem or the musical composition, which at best regulate the emotions. Undertaking the act of synthesis is, as in Kant, left to the productive imagination, which must form the material, concurrently bestowing appearance Erscheinen upon both intuition and the object. As we can see, Hegel did in fact make a direct link between the two previously divided domains of aesthetics: the theory of sensuous knowledge on the one hand and the theory of art on the other.
Heidegger, as we shall see further on, later picked up on and radicalized these same thoughts. Baumgarten had similar ideas, reflected in the structure of his Metaphysics and the division of his Aesthetics into a theoretical and a practical section. But Hegel also believed this to be exactly the problem, the irreparable defect of art and its inventions. They continually confront us with a contradiction, with the disparate—and irreconcilable—poles of the material and the idea.
In this concept, the idea and its form are substantial, while material and its materiality are merely insubstantial mediators that must be overcome.
In consequence, truth in art is at the same time its falsity. It is necessary to read this passage, which at first seems self-evident, more closely. Hegelian aesthetics is satiated with this obsession. This has discredited it and earned the resistance of both contemporaries and following generations up until the twentieth century. Art is art-as-art and everything else is everything else. Art-as-art is nothing but art. Art is not what is not art. A good artist does not need anything.
- Provincial power and absolute monarchy: the Estates General of Burgundy, 1661-1790.
- Learning Technology for Education in Cloud: 4th International Workshop, LTEC 2015, Maribor, Slovenia, August 24-28, 2015, Proceedings!
- Currently Reading - The Philosophy Forum!
- Beauty as Truth.
- Big Gay Ice Cream: Saucy Stories & Frozen Treats: Going All the Way with Ice Cream.
- The Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels.
- Afterword(s): Contrary to the ‘Logic of the Heading’.
- Starstrikers: From The Galaxy Collision Series?
- Almost a Miracle: The American Victory in the War of Independence.
- The Atf Contenders Yf-22 & Yf-23.
Art does not allow itself to be led on by philosophy. That however went hand in hand with putting the aesthetic above the philosophical and its enlightened, rational discourse. Nietzsche joined this nihilistic chorus with verve. Concurrently, art decidedly does not connote actions concerned with mirroring or representing the world and what holds it together, rather it springs from a practice of non-identity.
It is the sign of the abyss of the real, which does not evoke wonder thaumazein , but strikes with horror. That is why the aim was no longer beauty, but the evocation of the sublime. One consequence was that art could then only articulate itself indirectly. It needed to be deconstructed or inverted; art necessitated intervention as a strategy of severance. Art no longer had a fitting medium , an adequate means of expression, except for the penetration, separation, and disruption of all means and media. Accordingly, knowledge gained through art cannot be derived from the manifestation of an as or from the form and its purpose.
Instead, it falls out of line, leaving the limits within which something can be said or formed, because it is about the modality or mediality of just this saying or forming. Art is thus something other than the speakable and its concepts. Art leaves and transverses the circles of discourse and of science to point towards that which cannot be the object of an assertion or an analytical observation, and is therefore out of reach of exact results or methods.
Perhaps art may even be a necessary correlative and supplement of science? Nietzsche is at the beginning of a discovery of two different truths or concepts of truth, as well as of two different means of gaining knowledge. These stand in opposition to one another, because the one is symbolic, while the other extols the destruction of all symbol-making to find, beneath the rubble, another knowledge that has been abandoned by language and its manifestations. While scientific knowledge is geared in the main towards the positive, artistic knowledge is geared towards the negative.
This does not mean that action within the arts should be seen as being in opposition to science, or as its corrective or compensation, although the passage above does suggest the same and has often been interpreted in this way. Rather we are looking at an aesthetic practice of knowledge in its own right that cannot be reduced to either scientific knowledge or to philosophical thought.
It occupies another territory and therefore asks other questions and provokes other answers. It is to science as to philosophy something strange and excluded. It reminds us of what science has missed or not thought, as well as what it cannot interpret or mean, and it acts within the world in a way that science never could. At best it moved in this direction and offered, despite its pathos of suffering and rootlessness, a model.
At first, and by Zarathustra at the latest, writing in a style that was no longer philosophical but itself artistic or literary, Nietzsche contented himself with the polemical reversal of hierarchies. For there is an infinite number of points on the periphery of the circle of science, and while we have no way of foreseeing how the circle could ever be completed, a noble and gifted man inevitably encounters, before the mid-point of his existence, boundary points on the periphery like this, where he stares into that which cannot be illuminated.
When, to his horror, he sees how logic curls up around itself at these limits and finally bites its own tail, then a new form of knowledge breaks through, tragic knowledge, which, simply to be endured, needs art for protection and as medicine. But it is no longer in need of such exaggerated clarion calls. It is enough to instantiate those reflections within the medial in which artistic practices exhibit their own, idiosyncratic research perspectives without needing to justify themselves or mirror scientific precision or worry about the relevance or validity of their results.
Nietzsche was still thinking in terms of the opposition of science and art and their reversal: the apotheosis of aesthetics. Heidegger would be the first to mediate between Hegel and Nietzsche and to develop a non-metaphysical concept of truth, which he applied to the arts. First, he freed art from an ontology coupled solely to a focus on the form.watch
This process is not guided by the imagination, just as little as the epistemic of the arts is realized in the delineation, the outline or the sketch as sites of the concetto , the conceit or idea. Artistic creativity had always stressed shaping or manifesting thought or the immersion of form in material. But, according to Heidegger, the productivity of art constitutes itself in a continuous process of figuration and defiguration. It gives birth to the symbolic and at the same time contains an integral, irrevocable tension, an irreconcilability that contradicts Hegelian dialectics and is made up of what Heidegger dubbed the Riss rupture, tear.
Arkady Plotnitsky books and biography | Waterstones
This field of connotations creates an additional shift in the concept of truth. If for Nietzsche Dionysus was the god of destruction, for Heidegger Hermes is the mediator of what cannot be mediated. It creates a rift Riss , rips aside the veil of the usual and displaces us or alienates us from the world we know. Truth as difference is for Heidegger no longer a moment of sublime suddenness, but of a conflict that cannot be resolved.
This opposition seems at first to revive the old dichotomies between form and material or idea and materiality. This connection is entangled. In a painting, the difference of figure and ground is possible as long as the figure can be distinguished because of the ground and the ground is signified or marked by the figure to show itself as such. The work lets the earth be an earth.