Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  CONTEXTUAL ART
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
Jan Swidzinski (b. 1923) has been the one of the main representatives of the post-conceptual movement since mid-seventies. His artistic doctrine Art as Contextual Art (published in February 1976), considered in confrontation with Joseph Kosuth's tautological model of art, makes it possible to appreciate Swidzinski's contribution to overcome the hegemony of conceptualism and New York. Swidzinski was right to indicate that conceptualism of the Art and Language group and Kosuth, although it did try to bring back the profound meaning of art (art is a meaning, not decoration) by introducing non-artistic considerations (self-consciousness), but in fact replaced the traditional formalism of art with the formalism of the neo-positivistic philosophy which was hard to maintain. Kosuth's thesis that the works of art are analytical and tautological sentences - was a mistake because Wittgenstein's theory of meaning as a method of expression, implied an entropy of meaning in art and revealed a need for some sort of verification of the theory of the meaning itself. The tautological model as a relativistic one, while assuming a self-reflection in the autonomous context of art, did not answer the question: why is the term 'art' used this way and not in a different way? So, in 1975 Swidzinski compared the artifacts not to analytical sentences but to sentences comprising intensional functors (their veracity depends upon the contents replacing the variables). The intensionality of artistic statements, that is to say, the presence of functors in them (I know, I believe, I suppose, I must etc.) studied by the epistemological or deontological logic, indicates that they are restricted by the pragmatic moment of experience. Swidzinski declared that Art as Contextual Art is an opposition to the multiplication of meaning, and thus to relativism, and at the same time he recognized the dissimilarity and changeability of contexts, stating that what is real in one context is not real in another, and therefore he tried to sanction relativism. This is the perspective shown in his book Art, Society and Self-consciousness (1979) in which he attempted to define the structure of intensionality as the antagonistic one. In the global context there coexist various logics that regulate our image of the world: the logic of norms, the logic of freedom, the epistemological logic and the logic of a game. The awareness of the intensional structure of the context requires from us today to work out a model of culture, different from the absolutistic and relativistic one, a model in which the repressive opposition of absolutism and relativism have lost significance. It is a question: what society should be? The book is an introduction to Swidzinski's Freedom and Limitation - The Anatomy of Postmodernism (1987). Today, in my opinion, Swidzinski does not resemble the old contextualist who would foster the intentions of a traveller-researcher. He is more of a neo-pragmatic contextualist-tourist. But his doctrine is very important for our understanding of the present art and culture, though the debate between Kosuth's conceptualism and Swidzinski's contextualism appears only to be a case of the history of conceptism and, last but not least, wit (ingenium comparans).
EN
The aim of this article is to critically analyse the theory of 'art as contextual art' by Jan Swidzinski. The theory of 'art as contextual art' has not been reconstructed sufficiently in terms of its logical constitution, or its formal assumptions. The area that should be analysed, through the means of logic, becomes analysed per analogiam: that is through searching until we find the simplest and the most obvious comparisons with other contemporary, or past art theories. Swidzinski claims that the logic of the game described by him, is a useful depiction of processes that take place in the reality that surrounds us, whereas the theory of 'art as contextual art' itself contains a set of events referred to as 'the logic of a game'. This text attempts to answer the following question: What do we need to verify the above assertion? (as well as others posted by Swidzinski.) Swidzinski attempts to employ the models outlined in the essay to reveal the conflicts brought on by the misunderstandings of concepts used to describe the worlds we live in. As such, models are inscribed in the long tradition going back to Hegel. They are also present in the writings of Marquard, Habermas, Welsch and Foucault; this is irrespective of the fact that the scopes of their conceptualisation differ within the writings of these writers. The models are the one of many ways in which reality may be encompassed. Their usability is determined by some particular aims. Finally, the models serve for Swidzinski to rationalise the crisis in art. It seems rather obvious that the ability to verify them is periodical – the facts, inasmuch, may both support and refute them. The essay tries to find an answer to a question: what if the categories used by the theory of 'art as contextual art' have the ability to describe reality, but only in relation to the past which is being negated and refuted by them? Doing so, they do not directly determine what the current state is, but what it is not, in relation to what has become to be accepted as such. This is a deductive method and what is more, a negative one (it is defined by negation). In this approach the theory of 'art as contextual art' turns out to be yet another archive, another collection of truths and norms. The worst that we could have done is to treat it as true. It will never be true, it will never be fully refuted, just like in the case of truths, aspiring to the status of righteousness, which will never be verified. Perhaps, what matters here is simply to remember to never accept anything as true by belief or habit. And perhaps persistently refute, verify and redefine those truths.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.