Publication: Arte: ontología de la diferencia
Loading...
Files
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication Date
2016-02-25
Authors
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Citations
Exportar
Abstract
Esta investigación se inicia con la presentación de la estética como ciencia fundadora de un conocimiento específico de la filosofía a partir del siglo XVIII. No se tratará, entonces, de un seguimiento cronológico de todos los datos y fechas en tan intenso periodo de fundación, sino de sugerir, tratar ciertos planteamientos que condicionan los criterios de la finalidad de la estética. Se opta por un claro enfoque ontológico como eje radical y vertebrador para comprender las reflexiones filosóficas que giran alrededor del arte, y que podrían, a partir de estas reflexiones dar cuenta de las manifestaciones artísticas contemporáneas. El arte siempre ha sido un asunto para el pensamiento filosófico. La obra de arte tiene su ser en la re-presentación, traer para sí lo que ha sido de algún modo destinado a ser visto, re-conocido, mostrar su sentido en relación con su sin-sentido. Este preludio del ser del arte, que es la obra de arte, lleva comprometido un mutuo reconocimiento que aparece cuando se es interpelado, de modo frontal, con una obra de arte. Lo que nos interpela como un fragmento de la verdad se convierte en un todo-mundo finito e inmanente. Por eso, cada vez es menos pertinente la pregunta ¿qué es el arte? porque resulta inoperante y ajeno a la experiencia del ser del arte. Sin embargo, la pregunta se amplía en una diversidad de preguntas aclaratorias, ¿qué hace el arte?, ¿qué preguntas conoce el arte?, ¿A qué se dirige el arte? o ¿el arte no es la obra de arte? Sobre la primera ¿qué hace el arte? su respuesta viene de largo, desde los grandes filósofos griegos, Platón y Aristóteles. Lo que hace el arte puede ser contestado de forma inmediata, el arte es un saber producir (poésis), una técnica, luego en todo arte hay un conocimiento previo que posibilita producir convenientemente una obra y su uso. Su conocimiento es relativo a su uso pero ese saber hacer, con lo que Aristóteles clasifica a los saberes productivos, al arte como tecné, aún no alcanza el sentido de la pregunta. La Estética y la Modernidad son parte de un tejido filosófico que nace con la filosofía de la subjetividad y sus avatares. No obstante, a modo de percepto de esta investigación, parte de la siguiente consideración, el arte excede el ámbito de la estética, para que esto pueda ser asumido se tienen que ubicar las interpretaciones que surgen desde la subjetividad y la representación. Se dijo que el arte excede el ámbito de la estética, pues, el "algo" del arte apunta a la naturaleza simbólica y originaria que aquí se piensa como diferencia/ límite, sin pérdida del valor dimensionado de la actividad artística, y su mostrarse como "algo" dado, donado como parte de un mundo...
This investigation begins presenting aesthetics as a founding science of a specific knowledge of philosophy since the 18th century. It will not try to be a chronological sequence of facts and dates in such an intense founding period, rather an attempt to suggest certain approaches which influence the criteria regarding the purpose of aesthetics. A clearly ontological point of view is chosen as a radical and vertebrating reference to understand the philosophical reflections that revolve around art and, from these reflections, inform about contemporary artistic expression. Art has always been a subject for philosophical thought. The essence of the work of art is representing, reveal what has in some way been destined to be seen, recognized, and show its meaning in relationship to its lack of meaning. This prelude of art‟s existence, the work of art, implies a mutual recognition that appears when one is questioned directly by a work of art. Something that poses us questions as a fragment of truth becomes a complete finite and immanent world. Therefore the question “what is art?” is less and less relevant since it is ineffective and alien to the experience of art‟s essence. However the question broadens into a series of clarifying questions, ”what does art do?”, “what questions does art know?”,”what is art for?”, or “is not art the work of art?” The answer comes from long ago, from the great Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. What art does can be answered immediately. Art is knowledge of how to produce (poesis), a technique, therefore in all art a prior knowledge exists that makes possible the useful production of a piece of art. This knowledge is related to its use but this “know how to” with which Aristotle classifies productive knowledge, art as a techne, still does not reach the meaning of the question. Aesthetics and Modernity are part of a philosophical fabric which starts with the philosophy of subjectivity and its avatars. However, part of the object of this study, starts from the following consideration, art exceeds the area of aesthetics. For this to be accepted, the interpretations that arise from subjectivity and representation must be situated. It was said art exceeds the area of aesthetics, then, the “something” of art points towards its symbolic and original nature which here is considered difference/limit, without loss of the measured value of artistic activity, something given, donated as part of a world. It is not a case of situating that “something” within the controversy of modern aesthetics or the philosophy of art in the binomial nature-art or the problematical sequence of the gnosealogical implications of nature/beauty/art with which the modernity of a Kant, Hegel, Adorno, etc. is consummated, because this whole fabric participates in and is nourished by the relationship subject-object. This Kantian subjectivism penetrates into the theories about art and affects the analytical focus on works of art: this is the case of Clement Greenberg, who in the full 20th century influences the analysis of historical vanguards. If every fine art has its own specifity, all share a way of representing the world (aesthetically): form. If formalism is in the field of aestheticism, it is because it considers that any object can be an artistic motive if an aesthetic experience follows...
This investigation begins presenting aesthetics as a founding science of a specific knowledge of philosophy since the 18th century. It will not try to be a chronological sequence of facts and dates in such an intense founding period, rather an attempt to suggest certain approaches which influence the criteria regarding the purpose of aesthetics. A clearly ontological point of view is chosen as a radical and vertebrating reference to understand the philosophical reflections that revolve around art and, from these reflections, inform about contemporary artistic expression. Art has always been a subject for philosophical thought. The essence of the work of art is representing, reveal what has in some way been destined to be seen, recognized, and show its meaning in relationship to its lack of meaning. This prelude of art‟s existence, the work of art, implies a mutual recognition that appears when one is questioned directly by a work of art. Something that poses us questions as a fragment of truth becomes a complete finite and immanent world. Therefore the question “what is art?” is less and less relevant since it is ineffective and alien to the experience of art‟s essence. However the question broadens into a series of clarifying questions, ”what does art do?”, “what questions does art know?”,”what is art for?”, or “is not art the work of art?” The answer comes from long ago, from the great Greek philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. What art does can be answered immediately. Art is knowledge of how to produce (poesis), a technique, therefore in all art a prior knowledge exists that makes possible the useful production of a piece of art. This knowledge is related to its use but this “know how to” with which Aristotle classifies productive knowledge, art as a techne, still does not reach the meaning of the question. Aesthetics and Modernity are part of a philosophical fabric which starts with the philosophy of subjectivity and its avatars. However, part of the object of this study, starts from the following consideration, art exceeds the area of aesthetics. For this to be accepted, the interpretations that arise from subjectivity and representation must be situated. It was said art exceeds the area of aesthetics, then, the “something” of art points towards its symbolic and original nature which here is considered difference/limit, without loss of the measured value of artistic activity, something given, donated as part of a world. It is not a case of situating that “something” within the controversy of modern aesthetics or the philosophy of art in the binomial nature-art or the problematical sequence of the gnosealogical implications of nature/beauty/art with which the modernity of a Kant, Hegel, Adorno, etc. is consummated, because this whole fabric participates in and is nourished by the relationship subject-object. This Kantian subjectivism penetrates into the theories about art and affects the analytical focus on works of art: this is the case of Clement Greenberg, who in the full 20th century influences the analysis of historical vanguards. If every fine art has its own specifity, all share a way of representing the world (aesthetically): form. If formalism is in the field of aestheticism, it is because it considers that any object can be an artistic motive if an aesthetic experience follows...
Description
Tesis inédita de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filosofía, Departamento de Filosofía Teorética, leída el 11-01-2016