le rôle de la théorie en esthétique ; WEITZ (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Epistemic and Logical Role of Definition in the Evaluation of Art
2007
This Ph.D. dissertation is a result of more than a decade of studies in analytic aesthetics/philosophy of art. The first seeds of the dissertation were planted approximately seven years ago when I started to doubt Weitz's view of a particular (traditional) aesthetic theory, and whether the purpose of aesthetic theory is definitional. This was a topic that had received relatively little attention as compared to conceptual issues of his work (the open-concept and family resemblance). These studies resulted in two main papers that appeared in Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Science and in Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, which are mostly spread over the final part of my dissertation. Shortly after the papers appeared, as a logical step I think, I became interested in the purpose of the definition of art generally. The main trigger of this drive was the famous paper of William Kennick, "Does Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake?". This topic subsequently narrowed quite naturally into the role of definition in the evaluation of art-the very hard core of my dissertation. Parts of my work on this appeared in journals like Kunstiteaduslikke uurimusi (Studies on Art and Architecture) and Studia Philosophica, as well in my first book Of Aesthetics. It would be a delightful task, but impossible, to thank all who have encouraged and helped me in the "era" of writing this thesis. Special thanks are due to my supervisors, Prof. Margit Sutrop and Prof. emer. Eero Loone for suggestions based on their reading of the manuscript as a whole. They have followed my work closely and guided me through many difficult parts. Their searching questions and numerous valuable written as well as oral comments helped me to clarify my topic and position and to improve the text in all possible ways. Of course, throughout these years the whole of our department, and the Centre for Ethics, has been friendly towards me. In particular, I felt encouragement and warmest support from Prof. Rein Vihalemm, Dr. Endla Lõhkivi, and Dr.Valdar Parve. My special thanks to Dr. Paul McLaughlin not only for checking my poor English but also for improving the very content of my work. The same is true of Dr. Daniel Cohnitz, Professor (extraordinarius) of Theoretical Philosophy, who, reading the whole manuscript, made valuable suggestions at the very last minute. And I owe debt of gratitude to Prof. emer. Jaak Kangilaski, my supervisor in the days of my master's studies, for being a good consultant to me. Appreciation also is due to Ruth Jürjo, Triin Paaver and Aire Vaher who assisted in checking my references and summary several ways, and of course to Vaiko Tigane of Tartu University Press for flexible deadline policy. And I would also like to thank all the participants of my Ph.D. seminars (especially Tiiu Hallap, Jaan Kangilaski, Rainer Kivi and Eduard Parhomenko, for their provocative questions) and all my students at the University of Tartu who have done much to contribute to this work. Many people, in addition to my super-8 visors, read papers as these appeared in Trames, Kunstiteaduslikke uurimusi (Studies on Art and Architecture), and Studia Philosophica.
Revista de Investigaciones Universidad del Quindío, 2022
Scientists and neuroscientists have recently conducted scientific and neurological research to discover what is behind the beauty and power of artwork in conveying its meaning to its audience. Philosophers have studied black boxes for years and researchers have delved into them lately. In this regard, the present study was conducted to investigate the impact of beauty when facing familiar and unfamiliar works of art. Aesthetics is one of the most important and controversial factors in the history of art and its influence cannot be ignored. Various methodologies of the mind process in the presence of art and aesthetics were discussed for this purpose. The present article has tried to follow up on the origin of beauty in the perceiver by looking at a beautiful phenomenon and by adopting three biological, cognitive, and psychological perspectives and achieve a relatively comprehensive view of beauty and its place in the process of human perception. Based on this, aesthetic pleasure is not only limited to the sense of sight and the external appearance of the city, but it is the result of the effect of all design purposes on the human senses.
Aesthetics without Theory (proper file now attached)
It's been a long time since Morris Weitz declared, "Aesthetic theory -all of it -is wrong" and argued that a theory of art, while "of the greatest importance for our understanding of the arts," is "not just factually difficult" but "logically impossible." 1 In a more recent publication, Dominic Lopes urges us to "pass the buck" on a theory of art, leaving the worthwhile labor of fashioning a theory of art in general to others while we take on the more satisfying and promising work of providing theories of the individual arts. 2
The Aesthetic Possibility of the Work of Art
Qui Parle, 2014
A familiar way of starting to think about art is to submit it to the standard form of philosophical investigation defined by the sequence of an existential statement followed by a question. The existential statement concerns a particular class of things. The question concerns what makes these things possible. Let us say preliminarily: the question concerns the potential whose actualization is to be understood as a thing of that particular kind.
Method and Metaphysics in the Philosophy of Art
This article is concerned with the question of the proper place of substantial general metaphysics in aesthetics and the philosophy of art. For reasons articulated in writings from the 1950s, analytic aesthetics denies that there is any relation of dependence and regards the intrusion of metaphysics into reflection on art as not merely superfluous but also methodologically inappropriate. Against this I argue (1) that analytic aesthetics in its circumscription of the bounds of the discipline is not metaphysically neutral, (2) that it is vulnerable to the challenge of scientific naturalism, and (3) that a case for the necessity of metaphysics in aesthetics and the philosophy of art can be made on the grounds of the constitutive opacity of art and the aesthetic from the standpoint of ordinary consciousness. The analytic reception of Kant's aesthetic theory, I argue, supports this conclusion.
Creative mind, 1915
The aesthetic creation experience surpasses the regular known form of aesthetic subject-object relationship. It is unfortunately not sufficient to approach the problem in terms of sustaining subject and/or object side in this relation. However, the classical explanation of arts consider the relation according to one-sided approach(es). It is known that the fundamental approaches of aesthetics in the history of philosophy can be reduced to epistemological, ontological or ethical divisions. The contemporary approaches in aesthetics are in need of psychological theories as much as they require philosophical holistic outlook.
NOTES ON THE 'MEANING' AND THE 'ABOUTNESS' OF ART
Published by the Academy of Creative and Performing Arts Leiden University, 2022
This article was written as a lecture for the emeritus celebration of prof. Janneke Wesseling (Leiden University) in June 2022 One must distinguish between asking 'what a work (does or does not) say' (= its 'meaning') and asking 'what the work is about' (= its aboutness). The subject or issue of a work, what it is about, is not a 'message' that is said. Art is always about something, and that means that it presents something, raises something, talks about something, opens a conversation... One cannot limit the 'aboutness' of art and inscribe it in an essentialist definition of what art is. But art is indeed - retrospectively, historically and therefore factually - mainly about certain issues. History has excavated a bed in which art flows today, and which serves as a frame of reference for what art can be and can possibly do. Art concerns issues that every society faces because, anthropologically speaking, they concern basic facts of human existence and the human condition. This historical ‘aboutness’ of art concerns, schematically, three issues. First of all: art is about the image. Art still remains the only or most important place where the understanding, production and use of the image can be historically and critically framed, and discussed. Art is therefore relevant and potentially interesting, when it deals with what an image is and does. Secondly: Art is about the aesthetic gaze and the aesthetic approach of the world: that special, artificial kind of attention to the way in which reality immediately presents itself, and isolates it, abstracts it from the meaning, use and value of things. The exclusive focus on 'first appearance' places this basic condition in brackets, and places us in a hazardous and potentially dangerous relationship to things can be socially very disrespectful, cruel and disruptive. In Western culture, the aesthetic gaze has its own well-defined place and play field in the arts. Within art, it is then possible to experiment fairly freely, without great danger, with the appearance of things, and to test the elasticity of the aesthetic approach. Finally: art deals with the 'poetic'. The poetic is the effect of meaning that comes with the failure, with the not immediate succeding, of ‘reading’ the work of art, when this is experienced as an obstacle and a riddle. The poetic is in the language what the distance is in the landscape. Riddle games exercise in enduring and mastering incomprehensibility. Art is interesting when it is, in some way, about what images are and do, and thus contributes to the 'taming' of the image; when it is about experimenting with the 'aesthetic'; when it varies on reenacting the confrontation of the profoundly incomprehensible.