后记

Abigail Zitin
{"title":"后记","authors":"Abigail Zitin","doi":"10.12987/yale/9780300244564.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this book, I have argued that the development in the eighteenth century of a distinct field of inquiry that we now know as aesthetics was slow to produce a concept of form that now seems central to humanistic study. Because of my training and my institutional position, my approach to this argument is literary. I use methods of interpretation associated with literary texts—but the texts I spend the most time with in this book are not literary in the most familiar sense, not plays or novels or poems. And arguably, my focus on form as a problem is just as much a product of my literary orientation; we in literary studies have been arguing about form for years. (We seem never to tire of calling formalism “new,” or of declaring that form is over.) But our form problem does not necessarily define the other humanistic disciplines that fall under the domain of the aesthetic. Moreover, my literary orientation does not mean that the understanding of form that I develop in this book lends itself easily to literary use, integrally related as it is to the practice of the visual arts. Should it, though? More fundamentally: could it? In the last few pages of this book, I speculate a bit in response to these two questions....","PeriodicalId":346989,"journal":{"name":"Practical Form","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epilogue\",\"authors\":\"Abigail Zitin\",\"doi\":\"10.12987/yale/9780300244564.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this book, I have argued that the development in the eighteenth century of a distinct field of inquiry that we now know as aesthetics was slow to produce a concept of form that now seems central to humanistic study. Because of my training and my institutional position, my approach to this argument is literary. I use methods of interpretation associated with literary texts—but the texts I spend the most time with in this book are not literary in the most familiar sense, not plays or novels or poems. And arguably, my focus on form as a problem is just as much a product of my literary orientation; we in literary studies have been arguing about form for years. (We seem never to tire of calling formalism “new,” or of declaring that form is over.) But our form problem does not necessarily define the other humanistic disciplines that fall under the domain of the aesthetic. Moreover, my literary orientation does not mean that the understanding of form that I develop in this book lends itself easily to literary use, integrally related as it is to the practice of the visual arts. Should it, though? More fundamentally: could it? In the last few pages of this book, I speculate a bit in response to these two questions....\",\"PeriodicalId\":346989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Form\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Form\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300244564.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Form","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12987/yale/9780300244564.003.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在这本书中,我认为,在18世纪,我们现在所知的美学的一个独特的研究领域的发展,缓慢地产生了现在看来是人文主义研究中心的形式概念。由于我的训练和我的机构地位,我对这个论点的方法是文学性的。我使用了与文学文本相关的解释方法——但在这本书中,我花了最多时间的文本并不是最熟悉的意义上的文学,不是戏剧、小说或诗歌。可以说,我对形式的关注作为一个问题也是我文学取向的产物;我们从事文学研究的人多年来一直在争论形式问题。(我们似乎不厌其烦地称形式主义为“新”,或者宣称形式已经终结。)但是我们的形式问题并不能定义其他属于美学范畴的人文学科。此外,我的文学取向并不意味着我在这本书中发展的对形式的理解可以很容易地用于文学,因为它与视觉艺术的实践是整体相关的。但应该这样吗?更根本的问题是:它能做到吗?在本书的最后几页,我对这两个问题的回答进行了一些推测....
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epilogue
In this book, I have argued that the development in the eighteenth century of a distinct field of inquiry that we now know as aesthetics was slow to produce a concept of form that now seems central to humanistic study. Because of my training and my institutional position, my approach to this argument is literary. I use methods of interpretation associated with literary texts—but the texts I spend the most time with in this book are not literary in the most familiar sense, not plays or novels or poems. And arguably, my focus on form as a problem is just as much a product of my literary orientation; we in literary studies have been arguing about form for years. (We seem never to tire of calling formalism “new,” or of declaring that form is over.) But our form problem does not necessarily define the other humanistic disciplines that fall under the domain of the aesthetic. Moreover, my literary orientation does not mean that the understanding of form that I develop in this book lends itself easily to literary use, integrally related as it is to the practice of the visual arts. Should it, though? More fundamentally: could it? In the last few pages of this book, I speculate a bit in response to these two questions....
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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