The artwork’s community

IF 0.4 Q3 CULTURAL STUDIES
Pioter Shmugliakov
{"title":"The artwork’s community","authors":"Pioter Shmugliakov","doi":"10.1080/20004214.2020.1733847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paper explores the inherent political dimension of art, theorized as the artwork’s community: the community structurally constitutive of the work of art as a phenomenon. I distinguish between two major paradigms of the artwork’s community: the Kantian and the Heideggerian. The Kantian is a transcendental aesthetic community, evoked in aesthetic judgment, which thus claims the possibility of emancipated political existence. The Heideggerian, in contrast, is an actual community, sharing the understanding of reality inaugurated by the truth-disclosing event of art. I further distinguish between two possible interpretations of the Heideggerian artwork’s community. The orthodox interpretation conceives of it in terms of Volk, which renders it largely irrelevant for the art of our age. I suggest a new interpretation of the Heideggerian artwork’s community, which keeping with the historical actuality as its essential treat, reduces its scale to the type of community defined by Hakim Bey as temporary autonomous zone (TAZ). I undertake a comparative analysis of two contemporary artistic phenomena, which seem to be informed by an interpretation of the artwork’s community in terms of the latter paradigm: the participatory practices of contemporary art (also known as relational art) and the psytrance dance movement. I show that while psytrance indeed embodies the Heideggerian artwork’s community in its TAZ-version, participatory art operates within the Kantian paradigm, while taking TAZ as the privileged medium of its aesthetic operation.","PeriodicalId":43229,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/20004214.2020.1733847","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aesthetics & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2020.1733847","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT The paper explores the inherent political dimension of art, theorized as the artwork’s community: the community structurally constitutive of the work of art as a phenomenon. I distinguish between two major paradigms of the artwork’s community: the Kantian and the Heideggerian. The Kantian is a transcendental aesthetic community, evoked in aesthetic judgment, which thus claims the possibility of emancipated political existence. The Heideggerian, in contrast, is an actual community, sharing the understanding of reality inaugurated by the truth-disclosing event of art. I further distinguish between two possible interpretations of the Heideggerian artwork’s community. The orthodox interpretation conceives of it in terms of Volk, which renders it largely irrelevant for the art of our age. I suggest a new interpretation of the Heideggerian artwork’s community, which keeping with the historical actuality as its essential treat, reduces its scale to the type of community defined by Hakim Bey as temporary autonomous zone (TAZ). I undertake a comparative analysis of two contemporary artistic phenomena, which seem to be informed by an interpretation of the artwork’s community in terms of the latter paradigm: the participatory practices of contemporary art (also known as relational art) and the psytrance dance movement. I show that while psytrance indeed embodies the Heideggerian artwork’s community in its TAZ-version, participatory art operates within the Kantian paradigm, while taking TAZ as the privileged medium of its aesthetic operation.
艺术品的社区
摘要本文探讨了艺术的内在政治维度,理论上是艺术的共同体:作为一种现象,艺术作品在结构上构成的共同体。我区分了艺术共同体的两个主要范式:康德主义和海德格尔主义。康德是一个超越的美学共同体,在审美判断中被唤起,从而主张政治存在解放的可能性。与之相反,海德格尔是一个实际的共同体,分享着由艺术的真相揭示事件所开启的对现实的理解。我进一步区分了对海德格尔艺术共同体的两种可能的解释。正统的解释是根据沃尔克的观点来构思的,这使得它在很大程度上与我们这个时代的艺术无关。我建议对海德格尔艺术的共同体进行一种新的解读,以符合历史现实为基本处理方式,将其规模缩小为哈基姆·贝所定义的临时自治区(TAZ)类型。我对两种当代艺术现象进行了比较分析,这两种现象似乎是从后一种范式对艺术社区的解释中得到的:当代艺术(也称为关系艺术)的参与实践和psytrance舞蹈运动。我表明,尽管psytrance确实在其TAZ版本中体现了海德格尔艺术的共同体,但参与式艺术在康德范式中运作,同时将TAZ作为其美学运作的特权媒介。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
33.30%
发文量
15
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信