scholarly journals Aesthetics as politics: Reflections on an architecture of dissensus

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-122
Author(s):  
Helen Tatla

Contributing to the debate for a democratic articulation of the urban environment, this paper focuses on the reinterpretation of the relation between thinking and perception in Kant's Second Moment of the Analytic of the Beautiful, by Jacques Rancière. Rancière argues that the dissensual operation implied in Kant's definition of the beautiful involves a superimposition that transforms the given form or body to a new one. Social emancipation for Rancière becomes an aesthetic matter, a matter of dismemberment of a body animated by a particular belief. When the loss of destination implicit in aesthetic experience, as explained by Rancière, disrupts the way in which bodies fit their functions in a social order, then a political effect is produced. The aesthetic effect presupposes dis-identification. Within the aesthetic community, political subjectivisation is based on a dis-identification process. Furthermore, reconsideration of modernity for Rancière means going back to Schiller's idea of the aesthetic education of man which originated in Kant's Analytic of the Beautiful. We can argue with reference to an architecture of dissensus that through a process of dislocation, dismemberment and dis-identification, tradition opens up to a constant transformation to something new, involved in a never-ending play between totally different layers that make up everyday experience.

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 630-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Skov ◽  
Marcos Nadal

Empirical aesthetics and neuroaesthetics study two main issues: the valuation of sensory objects and art experience. These two issues are often treated as if they were intrinsically interrelated: Research on art experience focuses on how art elicits aesthetic pleasure, and research on valuation focuses on special categories of objects or emotional processes that determine the aesthetic experience. This entanglement hampers progress in empirical aesthetics and neuroaesthetics and limits their relevance to other domains of psychology and neuroscience. Substantial progress in these fields is possible only if research on aesthetics is disentangled from research on art. We define aesthetics as the study of how and why sensory stimuli acquire hedonic value. Under this definition, aesthetics becomes a fundamental topic for psychology and neuroscience because it links hedonics (the study of what hedonic valuation is in itself) and neuroeconomics (the study of how hedonic values are integrated into decision making and behavioral control). We also propose that this definition of aesthetics leads to concrete empirical questions, such as how perceptual information comes to engage value signals in the reward circuit or why different psychological and neurobiological factors elicit different appreciation events for identical sensory objects.


Author(s):  
В.В. Горячев

В статье раскрыта актуальность проблемы эстетического воспитания в трудах П. П. Блонского, отмечена значимость его педагогических идей для современной системы образования, обращено внимание на то, что значительное влияние на понимание ученым красоты оказала его семья. Показано, как П. П. Блонский оценивал способность к восприятию и оценке эстетических явлений и предметов у ребенка в разном возрасте. По его мнению, возможность определить красивое у детей появляется в период старшего дошкольного и младшего школьного возраста. У подростков эстетическое отношение сильно сливается с половым влечением и появляется восхищение красотой природы. В юношеский период морально-эстетические установки могут выступать, по мнению исследователя, в качестве защитных механизмов личности в ситуациях межличностной неопределенности для индивида. Описаны средства, которые предлагал использовать П. П. Блонский в целях эстетического воспитания школьников. Рассмотрены методы, предложенные ученым и имеющие ценность для развития эстетического потенциала современного школьника. Среди них наиболее интересным может считаться эстетическое воспитание учащихся на основе идей национального фольклора и искусства. Ученый исходил из того, что при социализации детей необходимо полагаться на старинное художественное творчество, поскольку оно ближе к народу. В этом основа генетического метода в воспитании, при котором ребенок на всю жизнь сливается с историей родной культуры. Он считал, что процесс воспитания будет более эффективным, если имеет двухсторонний характер: воспитательные воздействия и собственная активность школьника. Рассмотренные в статье методы, предложенные П. П. Блонским, с использованием современных технологий могут значительно расширить эстетический потенциал школьников. The article highlights the relevance of the issue of aesthetic education in P. P. Blonsky’s works. It underlines the importance of his pedagogical ideas for modern educational system. The article highlights that the scholar’s idea of aestheticism was largely shaped under the influence of his family. The article explains how P. P. Blonsky assessed young children’s ability to perceive and appreciate the beauty of objects and phenomena. According to the scholar, senior preschool children and primary-school children can fully perceive beauty. Adolescents, whose aesthetic experience is largely interconnected with sexual attraction, start admiring the beauty of nature. During the period of adolescence, moral and aesthetic guidelines often function as protective mechanisms in cases of uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. The article describes methods and tools P. P. Blonsky proposed to use in order to promote schoolchildren’s aesthetic education. The article focuses on methods and tools that can be used to develop the aesthetic potential of modern schoolchildren. One of such methods is aesthetic education of students through national folklore and art, which is exceptionally interesting and appealing. P. P. Blonsky maintains that children’s socialization is most successful if it relies on folk art and folk traditions, which is the principle of the genetic method of education and ensures children’s involvement with their native culture. The scholar believes that the process of education is more efficient if students’ innate desire to learn is accompanied by external support provided by teachers. The authors maintain that by combining P. P. Blonsky’s methods discussed in the article and modern information technologies, we can largely improve students’ aesthetic potential.


2021 ◽  
pp. 42-48
Author(s):  
Sierykh L.V.

In the provisions of the scientific article the author reveals the features of the interaction of general secondary and out-of-school education institutions in the aesthetic education of teenagers. The scientist offers the developed and tested vectors of the interaction of general secondary and out-of-school education in the aesthetic education of teenagers. The interaction is aimed at achieving this goal – the aesthetic education of teenagers and which provides for direct or indirect involvement in the educational process of the subjects of pedagogical interaction.The developed vectors violate the subject-subject relations in general secondary education institutions, indicate the subject-subject relations in out-of-school education institutions and combine (integrate) subject-subject relations in the specified institutions. Vectors allow us to trace the relationships between all subjects of educational activities and the environment (nature, architecture, production, the Internet, etc.), relationships with other institutions (subjects and objects), creative associations, unions, museums, philharmonics, theaters, studios, galleries, exhibitions, photo galleries, parks of culture and recreation, public organizations, libraries, Internet cafes, etc.), to support the subject-object and subject-subject relationships in the aesthetic education of teenagers.The scientific definition is analyzed and clarified «esthetic environment of interaction», which the author interprets as a pedagogically organized educational environment in which there is a dynamic pedagogical action, cooperation of the subjects of pedagogical interaction. These are the subjects of interaction of general secondary education institutions, out-of-school education institutions, subjects-object relations of other institutions. These relationships support the complex relationship of social phenomena-systems of general secondary and extracurricular education and enable the aesthetic education of teenagers, the development of society, the fulfillment of the social order, and so on. Key words: aesthetic education, aesthetic environment, interaction, interaction vectors, general secondary education institution, out-of-school world institution, teenagers. У положеннях наукової статті автор розкриває особливості взаємодії закладів загальної середньої та позашкільної освіти в естетичному вихованні підлітків. Науковець пропонує розроблені й апробовані вектори взаємодії закладів загальної середньої та позашкільної освіти в естетичному вихованні підлітків, які діють в естетичному середовищі. Вектори взаємодії спрямовані на досягнення означеної мети – естетичного виховання підлітків і в якій передбачається прямо або опосередковано залучення до освітньо-виховного процесу суб’єктів педагогічної взаємодії.Розроблені вектори порушують суб’єкт-суб’єктні відносини у закладах загальної середньої освіти, указує суб’єкт-суб’єктні відносини у закладах позашкільної освіти, поєднує (інтегрує) суб’єкт-суб’єк-тні відносини у означених закладах. Вектори дозволяють прослідкувати взаємозв’язки між усіма суб’єктами освітньо-виховної діяльності й навколишнім середовищем (природа, архітектура, вироб-ництво, інтернет тощо), взаємозв’язки з іншими інституціями (суб’єктами та об’єктами) (творчі об’єднання, спілки, музеї, філармонії, театри, студії, галереї, виставки, фотогалереї, парки культури та відпочинку, громадські організації, бібліотеки, інтернет-кафе тощо), підтримувати суб’єкт-об’єктні та суб’єкт-суб’єктні взаємовідносини в естетичному вихованні підлітків.Проаналізовано й уточнено наукову дефініцію «естетичне середовище взаємодії», яку автор трактує як педагогічно організоване виховне середовище, в якому відбувається динамічна педагогічна дія, співпраця суб’єктів педагогічної взаємодії. Суб’єктами взаємодії є заклади загальної середньої освіти, заклади позашкільної освіти, суб’єкт-об’єктні відносини інших інституцій. Ці відносини підтримують складний взаємозв’язок суспільних явищ-систем загальної середньої та позашкільної освіти і уможли-влюють естетичне виховання підлітків, розвиток суспільства, виконання соціального замовлення тощо. Ключові слова: естетичне виховання, естетичне середовище, взаємодія, вектори взаємодії, заклад загальної середньої освіти, заклад позашкільної освіти, підлітки.


Psihologija ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Toskovic ◽  
Slobodan Markovic

In this study three hypothesis were evaluated. The first claims that the golden section position is an ideal position of an object on a picture and that this position does not depend on picture shape, or on the number of objects on it. According to the second hypothesis, the aesthetically optimal effect is achieved when the focus is on the right side of the picture ( for asymmetrically composed pictures). According to the third hypothesis, there is an influence of previous stimulation on aesthetic experience; that is, because of the monotony, the aesthetic preference of observers will change. An experiment was done, with two sections. In the first section, subjects were asked to put a little black circle, on three different shapes of cards (square, golden rectangle and rectangle), in a such way that the given configuration is the most beautiful one in their own opinion. The second section of the experiment was almost identical to the first one, with the exception that the subjects were asked to put two circles on each of the cards. Each one of the three hypothesis was confirmed by the results of this experiment. The preferred position of the circle is the same as the position of the golden section and it does not change with the change of card shape and number of objects. There is a clear preference of the upper-right corner of cards. The preferred position of an object is changed with repetition of the same stimulation (the same shape of cards and the same number of circles).


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (26) ◽  
pp. 32-50
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Dziamski

Many lecturers of aesthetics feel that the subject of their lectures is not necessarily aesthetics, but history of aesthetics, the aesthetic views of Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Hume and Burke, the British philosophers of taste and German romanticists. Does that mean that aesthetics feeds on its own past, is nurtured by reinterpretations of its classics, defends concepts and categories that inspire no one and do not open new cognitive perspectives? Does it mean that aesthetics is dead today, like Latin or Sanskrit, while its vision of art and beauty is outdated, invalid and totally useless? Aesthetics is a polysemous concept, which has never been sufficiently defined. It can determine a way of perceiving and experiencing the world that is specific for a given community, in other words, taste, yet it can also mean certain countries’ or regions’ contribution to aesthetic thought, to the aesthetic self-knowledge of man. Thus its dimension is practical, cultural and philosophical. Today aesthetics faces new challenges that it has to live up to; its major tasks include the defence of popular art, polishing the concept of aesthetic experience, aestheticization of everyday life and de-aestheticization of art, transcultural aesthetics and its approach to national cultures. In the book “Aesthetics: the Big Questions” (1998) Carolyn Korsmeyer reduces the main issues of contemporary aesthetics to six questions. The first question, old but valid, is a question about the definition of art. What is art? Nowadays everything can be art because art has shed all limitations, even the limitations of its own definition, and has gained absolute freedom. It has become absolute, as Boris Groys says. It has become absolute, because it has made anti-art a full-fledged part of art, and it has not been possible either to question or negate art since, as even the negation of art is art, legitimized by a more than 100 year long tradition, going back to the first ready-made by Marcel Duchamp in 1913. Today making art can be art and not making art can be art, as well, art is art and anti-art is art. The old question: “What is art?” loses its sense, and so does Nelson Goodman’s question: “When art?”. When does something become art? These questions are substituted by new ones: “What is art for you?”, “What do you expect from art?”. There can be a lot of answers, because defining art has a performative character. Louise Bourgeois has expressed the performative character of defining art in an even better way: “Art is whatever we believe to be art”. And for some reasons, which we do not fully realize ourselves, we want to make others share our belief.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 91
Author(s):  
Yi-Huang Shih

Since broadening the aesthetic experience for young children is an element of early childhood education, aesthetic education is important at this stage. By reading and analyzing related studies, this article aims to give preschool teachers a better understanding of the importance and purpose of aesthetic education in early childhood so young children can receive the appropriate aesthetic education in Taiwan.


2021 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-120
Author(s):  
Sasa Grbovic

This article is dedicated to the interpretation of the aesthetic thought of Nicolai Hartmann and Edmund Burke, that is, the interpretation of their different understandings of the sublime, and its relation to the beautiful. While Hartmann?s sublime is an aesthetic value that is subordinate to the beauty, Burke defines the sublime as a form of aesthetic experience that is on the same level as beautiful. Burke forms an understanding of the sublime based on his analysis of the aesthetic experience, which includes his understanding of passions, states of the soul and the analysis of the sensible qualities of the aesthetic objects, while Hartmann formally considers sublime as one kind of beautiful, and reaches his understanding of it based on his inquiry of the aesthetic object and his definition of beautiful.


Author(s):  
Danijela Zdravić-Mihailović

The paper focuses on the aspects of aesthetic education and aesthetic experience of music under the conditions of online teaching of music due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The new mode of teaching affected the teaching process, particularly in the field of performance arts which involves direct experiencing of music, stage performances and direct cooperation of musicians. Aside from certain advantages, mostly regarding the organization of teaching and more time for practice, the results show that students were for the most part deprived of a comprehensive experience of music during the teaching process, and particularly of a specific aesthetic experience. A general conclusion is drawn that direct contact between the student and the professor in face-to-face teaching practice is an irreplaceable segment of music education.


Author(s):  
Peter Cheyne

The ‘aesthetic’ referred to throughout Chapter 3 is not especially the aesthetics of art, but that of everyday experience, the shared world, and of nature. Section 3.1, following up some Coleridgean notes that relate ‘Ideas’ to ‘thoughts & enjoyments’, performs a Socratic elenchus on unreflective cognitive attitudes in aesthetic states to distinguish value in the experience from prejudice. Section 3.2 then explores Coleridge’s concern with the activity of ideas in everyday aesthetics and the aim of enlightening ‘our feelings’ so they ‘actualize our reason’ ‘with their vital warmth’, relating this to Schiller’s concept of aesthetic education. Section 3.3 introduces the author’s theory of inchoate contemplation that commences in aesthetically informed feelings, in local or national culture, as an initial and perhaps universal, non-intellectualist form of the intuition of ideas. This theory then helps to illuminate a Coleridgean ‘philosophy of life’ where everyday symbols and aesthetic practices reach ‘far higher and far inward’.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (26) ◽  
pp. 32-49
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Dziamski

Many lecturers of aesthetics feel that the subject of their lectures is not necessarily aesthetics, but history of aesthetics, the aesthetic views of Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel, Hume and Burke, the British philosophers of taste and German romanticists. Does that mean that aesthetics feeds on its own past, is nurtured by reinterpretations of its classics, defends concepts and categories that inspire no one and do not open new cognitive perspectives? Does it mean that aesthetics is dead today, like Latin or Sanskrit, while its vision of art and beauty is outdated, invalid and totally useless? Aesthetics is a polysemous concept, which has never been sufficiently defined. It can determine a way of perceiving and experiencing the world that is specific for a given community, in other words, taste, yet it can also mean certain countries’ or regions’ contribution to aesthetic thought, to the aesthetic self-knowledge of man. Thus its dimension is practical, cultural and philosophical. Today aesthetics faces new challenges that it has to live up to; its major tasks include the defence of popular art, polishing the concept of aesthetic experience, aestheticization of everyday life and de-aestheticization of art, transcultural aesthetics and its approach to national cultures. In the book “Aesthetics: the Big Questions” (1998) Carolyn Korsmeyer reduces the main issues of contemporary aesthetics to six questions. The first question, old but valid, is a question about the definition of art. What is art? Nowadays everything can be art because art has shed all limitations, even the limitations of its own definition, and has gained absolute freedom. It has become absolute, as Boris Groys says. It has become absolute, because it has made anti-art a full-fledged part of art, and it has not been possible either to question or negate art since, as even the negation of art is art, legitimized by a more than 100 year long tradition, going back to the first ready-made by Marcel Duchamp in 1913. Today making art can be art and not making art can be art, as well, art is art and anti-art is art. The old question: “What is art?” loses its sense, and so does Nelson Goodman’s question: “When art?”. When does something become art? These questions are substituted by new ones: “What is art for you?”, “What do you expect from art?”. There can be a lot of answers, because defining art has a performative character. Louise Bourgeois has expressed the performative character of defining art in an even better way: “Art is whatever we believe to be art”. And for some reasons, which we do not fully realize ourselves, we want to make others share our belief.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document