In this paper I will attempt to look at the city-place as a work of art. Such an approach will allow us to take into consideration its aesthetic, sensual and reflective qualities and, at the same time, contemplate those aspects which go beyond the philosophy of art, such as practical needs of everyday life. I am analyzing the opinions expressed by Olsen, Christie Boyer and the architects, Le Corbusier and Kevin Lynch. The positive view of the place emphasizes the role played by its shape and layout, by the sense of security and beauty, by harmony, sensuality and emotions, by the sense of belonging and identity. The city, however, also means ruins, abandoned places invisible to its inhabitants. I am examining an approach adopted by Urban Explorer and I am underlining the aesthetic and artistic way of depicting the city. In the final part I am discussing the spatial-temporal dimensions/indicators of the city as a work of art.
In aesthetics, as a philosophy of art, the body of the viewer is juxtaposed with the image of the painting, before which it stands still; both body and image are considered to be independent, which is a condition of a full aesthetic experience. In the present article I demonstrate how, through phenomenology, pragmatism and the idea of incarnation, post‐Kantian aesthetic is broadened. I limit myself to three theoretical perspectives; in each of them the duality of body and image is neutralised according to different rules. Phenomenology develops the relations between consciousness and body, while in pragmatism the encounter of body and image takes place in the process of the performative creation of image. The idea of incarnation, on the other hand, develops both of these currents in two divergent approaches: a theological and an anthropological one. Bringing together perspectives, which are so different methodologically reveals the existence of a profound tie between body and image.
Art museum is a space of visualisation of myths and narration of modernity, combines in itself rationality with emotionality, thus provides ambivalent experiences to the audience. Critics of museums such as D. Preziosi present the negative side of the Enlightenment rationality: objectification of artworks and of the subject, building of scientific constructions acting for authorities. In turn, theoreticians who are favorably disposed towards museums such as O. Marquard or A. Huyssen convince that the museum in modern times performs a compensatory role, and its postmodern form allows a magnitude of histories and aesthetics. However, it was ultimately J.-F. Lyotard who becomes its patron, since artist choosing museum for their activities resist the established thought, realising Lyotard's idea of justice as a dispute.
For ages works of art have helped to constitute the shared experience of the world. In traditional societies it was the religious conviction that unified the community; in the contemporary world the metre for both artists and viewers is established by the institution: the Academia, the authority of the museum. In the times of the avant-garde movements the conventions ruling creativity as well as the forms of reception became diversified, and the resulting plurality of stances and viewpoints can be seen through three perspectives. The first one unites those artists and viewers who claim that a work of art is a political tool. Others form a community based on the principle that art itself is fundamentally political, as defined by Jacques Rancière. Finally, as Hans Belting argues, what bonds the community might be its relation to time, space and death.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.