Page 211 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 211
summary
say that an ever recurring redefining of art represents a part of any “gener-
ative formula” of art along with aesthetic theory. The whole history of re-
flections on art – from Plato’s and Aristotle’s concepts of mimetic function
at the core of the meaning of art to the many explicit negative and positive
definitions of art in relation to the sensual experiences, insights, truth and
social action in avant-garde manifestos – one way or the other – expos-
es various aspects of manifestations of subjectivity through artistic prac-
tice. It is important to stress an innermost determination of subjectivity,
which in spite of all efforts by philosophers such as René Descartes, Jo-
hann G. Fichte or Jean-Paul Sartre, makes any total reduction of the dual-
ity as an inevitable attribute that determines the subject impossible. As we
know, especially from the times of German idealist philosophy in the peri-
od of romanticism, this duality as a determination of the notion of the Sub-
ject can be discerned ontologically, epistemologically, ethically and, very
significantly, also aesthetically. What I basically have in mind is the oppo-
sition subject-object, which in the relevant articulations finds everything
from Kant‘s epistemology to Hegel‘s dialectics. However, this duality bears
importance for aesthetics because it differs from just “simple” duality of
empirical sciences, since the activity of the subjective side makes the oppo-
sition decisively asymmetrical.
Art is taking positions in the symbolic universe by affirming singu-
larity, which by virtue of being always some artefact transcends any par-
ticularity of the singular as such. Agamben’s observation of art that “recog-
nizes itself in the ‘golden ball’ of the will to power” could be clearly joined
with Benjamin’s hint that actually the instance of l’art pour l’art achieves
the total opposite of the intent, which is inscribed in it. Still, as Benjamin
remarks, the theory “(...) must do justice to these relationships, for they lead
us to an all-important insight: for the first time in world history, mechan-
ical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical depend-
ence on ritual”. The principle of montage in pluralist settings in today’s
world of interplay between constructed realities operates not just through
artistic practices, but also through a whole complex of various communi-
cation, information, and presentations.
The triumph of the museum as the institution in the sphere of art is
paralleled by some other such triumphs like University in the area of educa-
tion. However, historically and socially such triumphs tend to have a tran-
sitional and mediating role. Therefore, for example, the institution of Uni-
versity keeps determining levels of education as well as a global academic
209
say that an ever recurring redefining of art represents a part of any “gener-
ative formula” of art along with aesthetic theory. The whole history of re-
flections on art – from Plato’s and Aristotle’s concepts of mimetic function
at the core of the meaning of art to the many explicit negative and positive
definitions of art in relation to the sensual experiences, insights, truth and
social action in avant-garde manifestos – one way or the other – expos-
es various aspects of manifestations of subjectivity through artistic prac-
tice. It is important to stress an innermost determination of subjectivity,
which in spite of all efforts by philosophers such as René Descartes, Jo-
hann G. Fichte or Jean-Paul Sartre, makes any total reduction of the dual-
ity as an inevitable attribute that determines the subject impossible. As we
know, especially from the times of German idealist philosophy in the peri-
od of romanticism, this duality as a determination of the notion of the Sub-
ject can be discerned ontologically, epistemologically, ethically and, very
significantly, also aesthetically. What I basically have in mind is the oppo-
sition subject-object, which in the relevant articulations finds everything
from Kant‘s epistemology to Hegel‘s dialectics. However, this duality bears
importance for aesthetics because it differs from just “simple” duality of
empirical sciences, since the activity of the subjective side makes the oppo-
sition decisively asymmetrical.
Art is taking positions in the symbolic universe by affirming singu-
larity, which by virtue of being always some artefact transcends any par-
ticularity of the singular as such. Agamben’s observation of art that “recog-
nizes itself in the ‘golden ball’ of the will to power” could be clearly joined
with Benjamin’s hint that actually the instance of l’art pour l’art achieves
the total opposite of the intent, which is inscribed in it. Still, as Benjamin
remarks, the theory “(...) must do justice to these relationships, for they lead
us to an all-important insight: for the first time in world history, mechan-
ical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical depend-
ence on ritual”. The principle of montage in pluralist settings in today’s
world of interplay between constructed realities operates not just through
artistic practices, but also through a whole complex of various communi-
cation, information, and presentations.
The triumph of the museum as the institution in the sphere of art is
paralleled by some other such triumphs like University in the area of educa-
tion. However, historically and socially such triumphs tend to have a tran-
sitional and mediating role. Therefore, for example, the institution of Uni-
versity keeps determining levels of education as well as a global academic
209
