Page 91 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 91
counter-identification and politics of art
one can say that an ever recurring redefining of art represents a part of any
“generative formula” of art along with aesthetic theory. The whole histo-
ry of reflections 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
– exposes various aspects of manifestations of subjectivity through artistic
practice. It is important to stress an innermost determination of subjectiv-
ity, 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 duali-
ty as an inevitable attribute that determines the subject impossible.2 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.
Giorgio Agamben brought forward an aspect of the duality within
subjectivity, which more or less determines a whole period of bourgeois
culture. The fact that within this culture aesthetics and art were largely
linked by the concept of beauty situates subjectivity at the centre of any re-
flection and consideration of the activity of the perception of art. Agamben
exposes the determination, which I talk about here, by evoking Friedrich
Nietzsche‘s criticism of Kant from Genealogy of Morals in view of aesthetic
“pleasure without interest”, which introduces the “spectator” into the con-
cept of “beautiful”. Nietzsche disagrees with Kant and therefore, as Agam-
ben says, his point is to “purify” the concept of “beauty”:
This purification takes place as reversal of the traditional perspec-
tive on the work of art: the aesthetic dimension – the sensible appre-
hension of the beautiful object on the part of the spectator – is re-
placed by the creative experience of the artist who sees in his work
only une promesse de bonheur, a promise of happiness. Having
reached the furthest limit of its destiny in “the hour of the short-
2 “Mais la dualité est indéfectible,” (But duality is ceaseless) said also Jean Baudrillard
not so very long time ago. See: Baudrillard, 2004, p. 159.
89
one can say that an ever recurring redefining of art represents a part of any
“generative formula” of art along with aesthetic theory. The whole histo-
ry of reflections 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
– exposes various aspects of manifestations of subjectivity through artistic
practice. It is important to stress an innermost determination of subjectiv-
ity, 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 duali-
ty as an inevitable attribute that determines the subject impossible.2 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.
Giorgio Agamben brought forward an aspect of the duality within
subjectivity, which more or less determines a whole period of bourgeois
culture. The fact that within this culture aesthetics and art were largely
linked by the concept of beauty situates subjectivity at the centre of any re-
flection and consideration of the activity of the perception of art. Agamben
exposes the determination, which I talk about here, by evoking Friedrich
Nietzsche‘s criticism of Kant from Genealogy of Morals in view of aesthetic
“pleasure without interest”, which introduces the “spectator” into the con-
cept of “beautiful”. Nietzsche disagrees with Kant and therefore, as Agam-
ben says, his point is to “purify” the concept of “beauty”:
This purification takes place as reversal of the traditional perspec-
tive on the work of art: the aesthetic dimension – the sensible appre-
hension of the beautiful object on the part of the spectator – is re-
placed by the creative experience of the artist who sees in his work
only une promesse de bonheur, a promise of happiness. Having
reached the furthest limit of its destiny in “the hour of the short-
2 “Mais la dualité est indéfectible,” (But duality is ceaseless) said also Jean Baudrillard
not so very long time ago. See: Baudrillard, 2004, p. 159.
89
