《美女与野兽:镜厅中的艺术与法律

Q3 Social Sciences
A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos
{"title":"《美女与野兽:镜厅中的艺术与法律","authors":"A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos","doi":"10.1080/1473098042000275765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A connection between art and law is the focus of this article. This connection is based on their autopoietic, self-referential nature as described by Niklas Luhmann in his legal sociology and his treatise on art. Expectedly, the two systems have different behavioural patterns. While art takes a narcissistic pleasure in its self-referentiality and augments the paradox by reproducing itself and its structures as a conscious hyperreality, law is still tied up in its missionary role as an instrument for social justice and regards any insinuation to self-referentiality as an affront. While some basic but ultimately prosaic questions such as 'what is art?' and 'what is law?' will inevitably be posed, they will happily be left unanswered, not only for sanity's sake, but also for a specific methodological reason: the questions will be projected onto themselves in an attempt to locate the respective roles of the two systems - those of art and law. The result is an observation on whether there is indeed a need for an 'external', hallopoietic standpoint from which to exert critique and instigate social change, or whether the so-perceived 'offensiveness' of self-referentiality is a vehicle for unspectacular yet effective social amelioration.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"60 1","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beauty and the Beast: Art and Law in the Hall of Mirrors\",\"authors\":\"A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1473098042000275765\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A connection between art and law is the focus of this article. This connection is based on their autopoietic, self-referential nature as described by Niklas Luhmann in his legal sociology and his treatise on art. Expectedly, the two systems have different behavioural patterns. While art takes a narcissistic pleasure in its self-referentiality and augments the paradox by reproducing itself and its structures as a conscious hyperreality, law is still tied up in its missionary role as an instrument for social justice and regards any insinuation to self-referentiality as an affront. While some basic but ultimately prosaic questions such as 'what is art?' and 'what is law?' will inevitably be posed, they will happily be left unanswered, not only for sanity's sake, but also for a specific methodological reason: the questions will be projected onto themselves in an attempt to locate the respective roles of the two systems - those of art and law. The result is an observation on whether there is indeed a need for an 'external', hallopoietic standpoint from which to exert critique and instigate social change, or whether the so-perceived 'offensiveness' of self-referentiality is a vehicle for unspectacular yet effective social amelioration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36418,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interactive Entertainment Law Review\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"1-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interactive Entertainment Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1473098042000275765\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1473098042000275765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

艺术与法律之间的联系是本文的重点。这种联系是基于他们的自创生,自我参照的性质,正如Niklas Luhmann在他的法律社会学和他的艺术论文中所描述的那样。意料之中的是,这两个系统有着不同的行为模式。虽然艺术在自我参照中获得了自恋的乐趣,并通过将自身及其结构复制为有意识的超现实来增加悖论,但法律仍然被束缚在其作为社会正义工具的传教士角色中,并将任何暗示自我参照的行为视为一种侮辱。而一些基本但最终平淡无奇的问题,如“什么是艺术?”和“法律是什么?”的问题将不可避免地被提出,它们将被愉快地留下答案,这不仅是为了理智,也是为了一个特定的方法论原因:这些问题将被投射到它们自己身上,试图定位两个系统——艺术和法律的各自角色。结果是观察是否确实需要一个“外部的”、创造的立场来施加批评和煽动社会变革,或者所谓的自我参照的“冒犯性”是否是一种不引人注目但有效的社会改善的工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beauty and the Beast: Art and Law in the Hall of Mirrors
A connection between art and law is the focus of this article. This connection is based on their autopoietic, self-referential nature as described by Niklas Luhmann in his legal sociology and his treatise on art. Expectedly, the two systems have different behavioural patterns. While art takes a narcissistic pleasure in its self-referentiality and augments the paradox by reproducing itself and its structures as a conscious hyperreality, law is still tied up in its missionary role as an instrument for social justice and regards any insinuation to self-referentiality as an affront. While some basic but ultimately prosaic questions such as 'what is art?' and 'what is law?' will inevitably be posed, they will happily be left unanswered, not only for sanity's sake, but also for a specific methodological reason: the questions will be projected onto themselves in an attempt to locate the respective roles of the two systems - those of art and law. The result is an observation on whether there is indeed a need for an 'external', hallopoietic standpoint from which to exert critique and instigate social change, or whether the so-perceived 'offensiveness' of self-referentiality is a vehicle for unspectacular yet effective social amelioration.
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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