The aesthetics of the twentieth century favored the psychological dimension of art and beauty more than speculate about the intrinsic nature of the work of art, the authors have preferred to consider the experience of the observer in such Indeed, their interpretation and subjective vision, to Learning-up some extent, inherited from Romanticism. This conception "experiential" art relates Heidegger, considered one of the main features of modern society. Yet Heidegger also found in more essentialist contributions, not as "hands" with respect to art. For Heidegger, there is the artist, there's work and of course there is art, a third element through which both claim. This approach, seemingly innocent, is intended to "break the specularity metaphysics between the object and the subject ." The art is not limited to the subjectivity of the artist and is not entirely objective in their creation. The Art refers to a "way of being ." Of course that works of art are "things" like other ordinary things, but these things are not exhausted by its mere nature of things. Heidegger begins by admitting that the work of art is one thing to get something added, a supplement that makes it an allegory or a symbol of something else. " Things are much closer to us than any feeling." Never hear "pure noise" but the creaking of the hinges of a window, the engine of a car, the cat's meow. We must try to find the point at which the thing itself lies. " Things in their insignificance, seem reluctant to be thought. And just in this resistance, in this book that Heidegger wants to find its essence. " has been the work of art" says Heidegger which made us know what is really a shoe "(...)" The play is not playing the singular entity that is present at all times, but the reproduction of the general nature of things . " Nietzsche was one of the main references of the thought of Heidegger, and the first to make a forceful critique of romantic thought without falling into the positivist bias of the time. Perhaps Nietzsche's main contribution to the history of thought, let alone that of "being and being in the world" was the concept of nihilism. Nihilism, loss of sense of values, as defined by Nietzsche, would be the essential thrust of the story, the necessary condition of historical development: "What does nihilism ?: That the highest values \u200b\u200bhave lost their value. Missing the target, missing the answer to why . " Does this intuition about the lack of values \u200b\u200bhas something to do with the abandonment of the path of truth, beauty, art? Art is, for Nietzsche, a "religion of the appearance . " Appearance is not the opposite of the truth, but its expression. What appears, the surface-has a metaphysical depth. Art does not want to impose their constraints, does not "know" or want "direct" only wants things to each and every one of them, may be ... The art world stops copy-or-tune with Transamund to become a "model for life." Art, for Nietzsche, is the force antinihilista par excellence, is the "will of party " endlessly stimulating life. Towards religion, which revolves around the "devotion", art prompts "creation" ... This is a creative process to some extent dying, always turning on itself. Constantly questioning ... and always ironic (conscious of his own inability to answer fully) ...
nihilism must be considered as a historical process, the devaluation of the values \u200b\u200bconsidered so far, at all times, as supreme principles holding what authorities if they have, everything that serves as a model of what it is, is it true, beautiful and good. Rather than declining, the movement of devaluation would be to Nietzsche the same legitimacy of Western history, internal logic. The world does not disappear with the devaluation of what constituted the highest values, new values \u200b\u200bappear. The denial of old values \u200b\u200bis the affirmation of new values, a "revaluation" of previous values \u200b\u200b... This nihilism tragic that the world does not seek to recover its value: it is not in the new establishment of values, replacing old with new, but to make an investment in the mode value, a change in sensibility, an aesthetic transformation or revolution ...
With Nietzsche art ceases to be fun, virtuous, exemplary ... Art does not have to beautify the world, but merge into him once back in spirit to the body, so long differentiated ... Faced with the bourgeois frivolity of an "art for art's sake, we now recognize an insubordinate art which gives our images look human, too human, in this state of being" in and "the world, seeking beauty, express it, no longer an exercise in cruelty ... This disobedience to the bourgeois taste of art, power, explain the interest of the" ruling right-thinking, "what we now call" political correctness " - to deactivate the corrosive and lethal load of engaged art reduced to a matter of "extravagant", "mischief" fun hobby of intellectuals and exquisite ... Art was to be established absolutely unproductive, it was precisely their power of subversion. Something very different from what happens today, in my opinion, where the art system has become one of the most docile of the complicit postmodern late capitalist society, who best portrays, who best represents the simulation state widespread ... "also characterizes the simulations of institutionalized power.
Lyotard defines modern art as that which " devotes its 'little technique' as Diderot said, to present what is of unpresentable. To show that there is something that can be conceived and can not see or do: This is the area of \u200b\u200bmodern painting "... In many ways this" present the unpresentable "has to do with the conception of the sublime in Kant - the feeling of the sublime, Kant, takes place when the imagination fails and fails to present an object, even in principle, come to settle in accordance with a concept ... If modern art is somewhat sublime, it is because at all times alludes to the unpresentable. But this allusion is done so negative, and visible forms. The abstract painting is but a degree of expression of these principles, because it presents something preventing figuration and representation. Some trends in contemporary art are incomprehensible if not recognized this sublime vocation.
And in this vagabond life of art and history, admired by the body or spirit, seemingly representing real or wandering about the unpresentable, where was the beauty? What beauty or virtue or morality can give us the modern art? Thomas Mann, a subtle thinker and author of unforgettable works - The Magic Mountain, for example, poses suggestive relationships between beauty, life (and reality) and the spirit ... Thomas Mann wonders about the problem of beauty: " The problem of beauty that the spirit is conceived as 'beauty' to life, while the latter understood as 'beauty' to the spirit ... "(...)" For the nostalgia goes back and forth between the spirit and life. It also claims the life spirit. Two worlds, whose relationship is erotic without being sexual polarity is clear, no one representing the male principle and the other the female principle, that is life and spirit. Hence there is a union between them, but the brief and heady illusion of unity and understanding, an unresolved tension eternal. " The art would be something like as the erotic attraction of life on the spirit, the spirit to life, between spirit and life ... ''Yet it is this that makes the art so worthy of being loved and exercised, is this wonderful contradiction which is or may be both delight and court conviction, honor and praise of his pleasant life through imitation and critical-moral annihilation of life, which makes raising pleasure documentation contained in the same way that raises awareness " ... However, although it seems distilled some positive attitude towards art and their virtues "therapeutic" about the existential libido, Thomas Mann does not expect much of their ability to remedy other anxieties and dangers, " Art is the ultimate in wishful thinking about their influence on the fate of men. Dismissive of evil, has never been able to stop the triumph of evil. Worried about giving a sense, has never been able to avoid the most glaring absurdities. There is a power, is only a consolation "...
" The art is dead. Their movements do not reflect the lower vitality, or even show the agonizing convulsions preceding death are only the mechanical reflex actions of a body subjected to a galvanic force "..." who thus expressed is Arthur Coleman Danto one of the most influential critics and theorists of contemporary art in recent decades and author of controversial article The end of art (1984) of great importance in the debate on contemporary art. On Beauty, for example, Danto acknowledges that at present " beauty has almost disappeared from the artistic discourse. It was something that worried at the beginning of the century, but now people is shocked when told of this. Has disappeared. There remains some connection between art and beauty, but not as deep as before "(...)" In my opinion, if people return to the concept of beauty must be asked what meaning now has the concept of beauty. What purpose meets or what is this beauty. Art is a proposal, not only beautiful objects. If they are is because it contributes to its artistic significance "... "Any object can be a work of art? "Yes " says the American critic- anyone can be, but that does not mean that anyone is. There are some restrictions, but that there are limitations on what this object might look artistic. For example, this ashtray is on the table now is not art as object, but do not know if it could be in another context. I would say that would to consider what it means and how it is connected with the artist's work and its contents "(...)" In our narrative, at first the art was mimesis, then several things were art but each tried to extinguish the competition, and finally, it became clear that there was no philosophical or stylistic constraints. The artwork must not be in a special way. And this is the present and, as I said, the final moment of the master narrative. It's the end of the story "... The Chronicle of a Death Foretold to which Danto spent the last paragraphs of Article The end of art" ... can be an abstract artist in the morning, an afternoon photo realistic and a minimalist night minimum. Or you can cut out paper dolls, or do whatever you damn well please. Has reached the age of pluralism, ie it does not matter what you do. When an address is as good as any other, the concept of "direction" is meaningless. The decoration, self-expression and entertainment are obviously enduring human needs. Art always have a role to play if they so wish artists. Your freedom ends in their own performance, but always will have a servile art. The art world institutions (galleries, collectors, exhibitions, journals), who have preached and said it again throughout history, will fade gradually. It is hard to predict what will make us happy is happiness, but notice how the food is all the rage in the traditional American way of life. In any case, has been an immense privilege to have lived in the history "... I confess: it is an immense privilege to survive even in the last throes of art and beauty ...
Pictures: of series My walks through the MoMA in New York "January 2005
0 comments:
Post a Comment