The following article deals with the problem of the perception of aesthetic ugliness in art. The research presented in the article focuses on the reception of contemporary art assessed by two groups of students of the Faculty of Arts of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University. One of the groups has got acquainted with the description (in the form of a text and guided curatorial tours) and other one has not. Students’ assessments from the two groups are later on compared. The aim of the article was therefore an attempt to answer the question: does being familiar with the description of studied works of art and their authors in the form of a text and curatorial guidance influence the scope of understanding and assessment of the work being watched, and therefore how the information about the work or its lack affect the perception and aesthetic value of the work?
This article presents a detailed analysis of the aesthetics contained in the poetry of Bolesław Leśmian. The point of departure for the discussion of poetry is a theoretical and literary essay entitled Thinking about Bergson. The poetic works are discussed in detail in terms of the quantitative and qualitative presence of the aesthetics of ugliness, with particular emphasis on images of impurities, and the aesthetics of kitsch and Camp.
A certain tradition of philosophical considerations on the interrelation between sport and art has already been established. According to Tim L. Elcombe (Elcombe, 2012, p. 201), such considerations on the subject first appeared in English-language literature in the 1970s and 1980s, and were fruitful. Usually, they appear together with questions on the aesthetic properties of sport - in this case, a special issue of the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport dedicated to ―Sport and Aesthetics‖ (2012, vol. 39, no. 2), and an excellent postdoctoral dissertation by Jakub Mosz entitled ―Estetyczne aspekty uczestnictwa w sporcie‖ (English: Aesthetic aspects of participation in sports) may serve as good examples. In his article (Elcombe, 2012), Tim L. Elcombe describes the contention and briefly characterizes the main differences between the two opposing viewpoints (Elcombe, 2012, pp. 202-204). It should be noted that he sympathizes with the view of David Best, who some years ago argued that sport is not art (1988, pp. 527-539). He believes that ―although art could use sport as a subject, art could not be the subject of sport‖ (Elcombe, 2012, p. 202). I would like to make that statement more specific by adding that its second part suggests that the display of artistic values cannot be the fundamental purpose of sport. I shall expand on that later. Best's viewpoint was criticized by Jan Boxil (1988), Spencer Wertz (1988), and Terry Roberts (1995), who believed that sport could be treated as art. Christopher Cordner (1995a; 1995b) and Joseph Kupfer (1988) also challenged Best, although they did not entirely disagree with him (see: Elcombe, 2012, pp. 202-204). Because literature on the subject published in English presents diversified statements on the interrelation between sport and art, and the circle of people engaged in the matters of physical culture in Poland is still in favor of equating sport with art, I have decided to present my own stance on that matter.
Homosexuality is not the head subject of Tadeusz Różewicz’s works, but it is worth to pay attention to the unusual model of masculinity, which he presents especially in the case of gays. The author analyses two Różewicz’s poems: Zakatrupiony and Tate Gallery Shop. In these texts high culture art is situated next to the common dirt and ‘shit of the world.’ This contrast is used to present the main characters’ corporeality as problematic and depict their sexuality as stigmatic. Unexpected references to camp aesthetics are adjacent to the turpist ugliness and physiology of death. Różewicz’s interest in the social margin, due to the ‘pop’ tricks like fragment and assembly techniques typical for the fine and visual arts, alludes to the painting and film contexts of poems, as well as to the biographies of the heroes of these texts: Piero Paolo Pasolini and Francis Bacon. It effectively directs the readers’ attention to the problems of contemporary world which are important for the poet.
PL
Tadeusz Różewicz nie poświęca homoseksualizmowi naczelnego miejsca w swojej twórczości, warto jednak zwrócić uwagę na przewijający się w niej nietypowy model męskości, a zwłaszcza na postaci gejów. Przedmiotem zainteresowania autora będą dwa teksty Różewicza: Zakatrupiony oraz Tate Gallery Shop. W wierszach tych podniosła sztuka sąsiaduje z powszednim brudem i „gównem świata”. Zarysowujący się w utworach kontrast sprowadza problem do cielesności bohaterów i ukazuje ich seksualność jako rodzaj piętna. Nawiązania do estetyki kampowej nieoczekiwanie sąsiadują tu z turpistyczną brzydotą i fizjologią śmierci. Zainteresowanie Różewicza społecznym marginesem, dzięki zastosowanym „popowym” chwytom: technikom fragmentu i montażu, właściwym sztukom plastycznym i wizualnym, nawiązuje do malarskich i filmowych kontekstów wierszy, a także biografii bohaterów tych tekstów: Piera Paola Pasoliniego i Francisa Bacona, skutecznie zwracając uwagę odbiorcy na zajmujące poetę problemy współczesnego świata.
Artykuł niniejszy podejmuje problem percepcji estetycznej brzydoty w sztuce. Celem prezentowanych badań jest poznanie recepcji dzieł sztuki współczesnej w ocenie studentów Wydziału Artystycznego UMCS, a także porównanie tych ocen grup studentów, którzy zapoznali się bądź nie z deskrypcją (w formie opisu dzieł sztuki i oprowadzania kuratorskiego). Celem artykułu była zatem próba odpowiedzi na pytanie: czy poznanie informacji w formie opisu tekstowego i deskrypcji kuratorskiej, dotyczących badanych dzieł sztuki i ich autorów, ma wpływ na zakres rozumienia i ocenę oglądanego dzieła, a więc w jaki sposób informacja o dziele lub jej brak wpływają na percepcję i wartościowanie estetyczne dzieła.
EN
The following article deals with the problem of the perception of aesthetic ugliness in art. The research presented in the article focuses on the reception of contemporary art assessed by two groups of students of the Faculty of Arts of the Maria Curie-Skłodowska University. One of the groups has got acquainted with the description (in the form of a text and guided curatorial tours) and the other one has not. Students’ assessments from the two groups are later on compared. The aim of the article was therefore an attempt to answer the question: does being familiar with the description of studied works of art and their authors in the form of a text and curatorial guidance influence the scope of understanding and assessment of the work being watched, and therefore how the information about the work or its lack affect the perception and aesthetic value of the work?
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.