Results found: 2

Search results

Search:
in the keywords: ANTI-ART

Sort By:

Limit search:

HAS THE AVANT-GARDE DIED ?

100%

Kappanyos A.

Slovak Review. A Review of World Literature Research

2004

vol. 13

issue 1

90-96

The study offers a new perspective on a frequently researched question of the supposed end of the Avant-gardes. He mentions various researches on this issue to finally disagree with Peter Bürger who claims the end of the Avant-gardes as inevitable consequence of their basic structure. Bürger wants to discredit the whole 'neo' Avant-garde as a rootless, meaningless phenomenon and criticizes Adorno for not distinguishing between faddish (arbitrary) and historically necessary newness. What Bürger ignores here is the historical fact that Pop Art and its heirs (especially Fluxus) reflects very consciously this difference, and this in itself makes them legitimate. Bürger attributes to Avant-garde the intention of destroying the institutional system of arts and holds the whole Avant-garde a failure as it failed to fulfil this aim. The general acceptance of Duchamp's 'Fountain' as a work of art is for Bürger a proof of the Avant-garde's fall, or even of its failure. However, this is possible to interpret also as its success, because even Duchamp never wanted to destroy these institutions altogether: he wanted to subvert them. As he managed to make them accept an urinal as a work of art, he certainly achieved his goal to change the institutions of art. Moreover, by no means is the Duchamp's radical conception of anti-art the only incarnation of Avantgardes. The author mentions dadaists, expressionists and others. Finally he recognizes the acceptance of Duchamp's urinal as the success of subversion, the chief goal of Avantgarde movements, claiming that the refusal of it would have meant that 'we stay with a 19th century concept of art plus an ordinary urinal that remains outside the history of art'.

Performatywny charakter estetyki

51%

Dziamski G.

DYSKURS: Pismo Naukowo-Artystyczne ASP we Wrocławiu

2018

vol. 26

32-50

The performative character of aesthetics Many lecturers of aesthetics feel that the subject of their lectures is not necessarily aesthetics, but history of aesthetics, the aesthetic views of Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Hume and Burke, the British philoso- phers of taste and German romanticists. Does that mean that aesthetics feeds on its own past, is nurtured by reinterpretations of its classics, defends concepts and categories that inspire no one and do not open new cognitive perspectives? Does it mean that aesthetics is dead today, like Latin or Sanskrit, while its vision of art and beauty is outdated, invalid and totally useless? Aesthetics is a polysemous concept, which has never been sufficient- ly defined. It can determine a way of perceiving and experiencing the world that is specific for a given community, in other words, taste, yet it can also mean certain countries’ or regions’ contribution to aesthetic thought, to the aesthetic self-knowledge of man. Thus its dimension is practical, cultural and philosophical. Today aesthetics faces new challenges that it has to live up to; its ma- jor tasks include the defence of popular art, polishing the concept of aes- thetic experience, aestheticization of everyday life and de-aestheticiza- tion of art, transcultural aesthetics and its approach to national cultures. In the book “Aesthetics: the Big Questions” (1998) Carolyn Korsmeyer reduces the main issues of contemporary aesthetics to six questions. The first question, old but valid, is a question about the definition of art. What is art? Nowadays everything can be art because art has shed all limita- tions, even the limitations of its own definition, and has gained absolute freedom. It has become absolute, as Boris Groys says. It has become absolute, because it has made anti-art a full-fledged part of art, and it has not been possible either to question or negate art since, as even the negation of 50 Grzegorz Dziamski art is art, legitimized by a more than 100 year long tradition, going back to the first ready-made by Marcel Duchamp in 1913. Today making art can be art and not making art can be art, as well, art is art and anti-art is art. The old question: “What is art?” loses its sense, and so does Nel- son Goodman’s question: “When art?”. When does something become art? These questions are substituted by new ones: “What is art for you?”, “What do you expect from art?”. There can be a lot of answers, because defining art has a performative character. Louise Bourgeois has ex- pressed the performative character of defining art in an even better way: “Art is whatever we believe to be art”. And for some reasons, which we do not fully realize ourselves, we want to make others share our belief. The text in an introduction to a new book on contemporary aesthetics by Grzegorz Dziamski.

Refine search results

1 DYSKURS: Pismo Naukowo-Artystyczne ASP we Wrocławiu

1 Slovak Review. A Review of World Literature Research

1 2018

1 2004

1 Dziamski G.

1 Kappanyos A.

Search results

HAS THE AVANT-GARDE DIED ?

Performatywny charakter estetyki