Likovna umetnost med primarnim in sekundarnim diskurzom

Povzetek

Ključne besede

Podatki

Jezik:	Slovenski jezik
Leto izida:	2010
Izvor:	Ljubljana
Tipologija:	2.08 - Doktorska disertacija
Organizacija:	UL ALUO - Akademija za likovno umetnost in oblikovanje
Založnik:	[J. Selan]
UDK:	7.01(034.4)
COBISS:	2816110
Št. ogledov:	1560
Št. prenosov:	676
Ocena:	0 (0 glasov)
Metapodatki:

Ostali podatki

Sekundarni jezik:	Angleški jezik
Sekundarni naslov:	Fine arts between primary and secondary discourse
Sekundarni povzetek:	One of the most distinctive characteristics of postmodern art is, on one hand, a tendency to suspend what was traditionally known as “the artistic form” and “the experience of art”, and on the other hand, a sort of rivalry between artistic creativity and art interpretation (i.e. primary and secondary discourse) — in some cases the first one even being substituted by the latter. A postmodern individual, being a creator and a viewer, feels relentless desire to overtly intellectualize creative and interpretative processes and to interpolate an immense amount of (secondary) discourse between him and artwork. Such an approach which reduces the experience of art to the discourse on art, is what I call the social-constructionist approach because it defines an artwork exclusively as a social construction or convention. Although at first sight this approach may seem quite “logical” — given that one cannot deny that art is a social phenomenon and that it is affected by the culture “politics” — one cannot comply with it because it does not correspond to the reality of our experience. It can indeed explain the particular type of art that demands discursive determination — such as for instance postduchampian conceptual art — but it does not match any other artwork that primarily depends upon the lived experience, which is largely independent of social conventions and discourse. Namely, it is central for works of art such as for example Michelangelo's David that we experience as something special, irrespective of the changes in the discourse and regardless of the importance various experts affix them. This is the reason why the discourse cannot deprive David of its importance (because the experience would not verify it); however the change in the discourse can shake the status of Duchamp’s Fountain quite easily. The research presented in the dissertation thus finds its motivation in the recognition that the secondary discourse, as has been established in the Western art, only determines what an artwork means but does not concern with the way an artwork was made and what kind of psychosomatic experiences it elicits, despite the fact that the primary discourse shows just that — how art is and how it activates our psychosomatics. This recognition thus led me to thoroughly reflect on the hermeneutic problem — the relationship between the artistic practice (primary discourse) and the art interpretation (secondary discourse). Dissertation follows the thesis that today the search for the hermeneutic alternatives should be oriented towards »the primacy of the object«, that is towards the experiential value of the artwork itself and the specific laws of the artistic practice. This recognition eventually led the dissertation into the methodological problem and its primary research goal: to establish such a hermeneutic method that would put the proposed hermeneutic alternative to practice. This kind of hermeneutics, which primarily shows but does not tell, I call the deictic hermeneutics. Since the hermeneutic condition reveals itself as particularly problematic in the field of education, I try to verify the suggested method by relating it to the educational issues. Consequently, sections of the dissertation are succeeding in the following way: in the first section, I introduce the problem of the dissertation by the assistance of something I call a hypothetical art. Hypothetical art draws my attention to the conditions of existence in Western culture, which I then explore in the second section pursuing the perspective of two cultural types, culture of meaning and culture of presence. In the third section, I address the relationship between primary and secondary discourse and investigate the hermeneutic condition which prevails today. In the fourth section, I subsequently search for the hermeneutic alternatives by investigating the nature of an artwork and its primary discourse. The special attention in this section is drawn to the phenomenon of the artistic language and to the specific semiotic nature of artifacts. Based on that, I then propose the method of deictic hermeneutics. Finally, in the last section, I verify the proposed hermeneutic methodology in relation to the pedagogic and didactic problematic.
Sekundarne ključne besede:	Teorija umetnosti;Disertacije;Vizualna umetnost;
Vrsta datoteke:	application/pdf
Vrsta dela (COBISS):	Doktorska disertacija
Komentar na gradivo:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Akademija za likovno umetnost in oblikovanje, likovna teorija
Strani:	IV, 452 str.
Vrsta dela (ePrints):	thesis
Naslov (ePrints):	Fine arts between primary and secondary discourse
Ključne besede (ePrints):	diskurz
Ključne besede (ePrints, sekundarni jezik):	discourse
Povzetek (ePrints):	K najbolj vpadljivim značilnostim postmoderne umetnosti spada po eni strani tendenca k razpuščanju tega, kar smo tradicionalno označevali z izrazoma »umetniška forma« in »izkušnja umetnosti«, po drugi strani pa neke vrste rivalstvo med umetniško ustvarjalnostjo in umetnostno interpretacijo (t. i. primarnim in sekundarnim diskurzom), ki ponekod privzema celo že oblike substitucije prve z drugo. Postmoderni človek namreč čuti neustavljivo potrebo po tem, da kot ustvarjalec in tudi kot gledalec med sebe in umetniško formo interpolira čim večje količine (sekundarnega) diskurza in eksplicitno intelektualizira tako kreativne kot recepcijske procese. Tak pristop k umetnosti, ki izkustvo umetnosti reducira na diskurz o umetnosti, v disertaciji imenujem socialno-konstrukcionističen pristop, saj definira umetniško delo izključno kot družbeni konstrukt oz. konsenz. Čeprav se morda zdi tak pogled na umetnost na prvi pogled povsem »logičen«, saj nikakor ni mogoče zanikati, da je umetnost družbeni pojav in da nanjo vplivajo »politični« tokovi v kulturi, pa ne ustreza realnosti našega izkušanja umetnosti. Lahko sicer razloži tisti tip umetnin, ki se zanaša izključno na diskurzivno determinacijo (kakršne so na primer postduchampovske konceptualne umetnine), vendar pa se mu večina umetniških del »upira«, saj ta stavijo na doživetje likovne forme, ki je v veliki meri neodvisno od družbenih konvencij in diskurza. Za umetniška dela, kot je na primer Michelangelov David, je namreč odločilno prav to, da jih doživljamo kot nekaj posebnega, ne glede na to, kako močno se diskurz okoli njih spremeni in neodvisno od tega, kakšno pomembnost jim pripisujejo različni strokovnjaki. Prav zato Davidu s spremembo diskurza ne moremo odvzeti statusa pomembnosti, saj izkušnja tega ne bo potrdila, medtem ko lahko s spremembo diskurza precej pretresemo umetniški status Duchampove Fontane. V disertaciji predstavljena raziskava tako išče izhodiščno motivacijo prav v ugotovitvi, da se je sekundarni diskurz v zahodni umetnosti uveljavil predvsem kot nekaj, kar določa, kaj neka umetnina pomeni, kaj dosti pa ne da na to, kako je umetnina nastala in kakšna psihosomatska doživljanja vzbuja v subjektu, čeprav primarni diskurz kaže ravno to — kako umetnina je in kako aktivira našo psihosomatiko. To izhodišče me je zato opozorilo na nujnost poglobljene likovnoteoretske obravnave razmerja med umetniško ustvarjalno (oblikotvorno) prakso in umetnostno po-ustvarjalno (hermenevtično) izkušnjo (primarnim in sekundarnim diskurzom), kar se razkriva kot hermenevtični problem razumevanja likovnih del. Disertacija sledi tezi, da je potrebno danes hermenevtične alternative razvijati v usmeritvi v t. i. »prednost objekta«, to je v doživljajsko vrednost likovnega dela ter v specifične zakonitosti likovne oblikotvorne prakse. To spoznanje jo naposled vodi tudi v metodološko problematiko k utemeljitvi hermenevtičnega postopka, ki bi predlagano hermenevtično alternativo operacionaliziral, kar predstavlja tudi raziskovalni cilj disertacije. Tako hermenevtiko, ki primarno riše namesto piše, najprej pokaže in nato pove, imenujem deiktična hermenevtika. Ker se hermenevtično stanje kot posebno problematično razkriva na področju izobraževanja, skušam predlagano hermenevtično alternativo v odnosu do izobraževalne tematike preoblikovati v posebno metodo inter-aktivne likovne interpretacije in jo tudi pedagoško-didaktično verificirati. Sklopi poglavij si v disertaciji zato sledijo na naslednji način: v prvem delu vpeljem v problematiko disertacije ob pomoči nečesa, čemur pravim hipotetična umetnost. Hipotetična umetnost me opozori na širše pogoje eksistence človeka v zahodni kulturi, ki jih nato v perspektivi dveh kulturnih tipov, kulture pomena in kulture prezence obravnavam v drugem delu. V tretjem delu nato naslovim specifično situacijo odnosa med primarnim in sekundarnim diskurzom v likovni umetnosti in analiziram hermenevtično stanje, ki danes prevladuje. V četrtem delu poskušam nato poiskati temelje za hermenevtične alternative, ki jih iščem v usmeritvi v likovno naravo umetniškega dela in njegov primarni diskurz. Pri tem posebno pozornost namenim fenomenu likovnega jezika in specifični semiotični naravi likovnih artefaktov, v odnosu do česar oblikujem metodo deiktične hermenevtike. V zadnjem delu pa v navezavi na izobraževalne konsekvence, ki so se mi na osnovi hermenevtičnih spoznanj razkrile, predlagano hermenevtično metodologijo še preoblikujem v metodo inter-aktivne likovne interpretacije in jo pedagoško-didaktično verificiram.
Povzetek (ePrints, sekundarni jezik):	One of the most distinctive characteristics of postmodern art is, on one hand, a tendency to suspend what was traditionally known as “the artistic form” and “the experience of art”, and on the other hand, a sort of rivalry between artistic creativity and art interpretation (i.e. primary and secondary discourse) — in some cases the first one even being substituted by the latter. A postmodern individual, being a creator and a viewer, feels relentless desire to overtly intellectualize creative and interpretative processes and to interpolate an immense amount of (secondary) discourse between him and artwork. Such an approach which reduces the experience of art to the discourse on art, is what I call the social-constructionist approach because it defines an artwork exclusively as a social construction or convention. Although at first sight this approach may seem quite “logical” — given that one cannot deny that art is a social phenomenon and that it is affected by the culture “politics” — one cannot comply with it because it does not correspond to the reality of our experience. It can indeed explain the particular type of art that demands discursive determination — such as for instance postduchampian conceptual art — but it does not match any other artwork that primarily depends upon the lived experience, which is largely independent of social conventions and discourse. Namely, it is central for works of art such as for example Michelangelo's David that we experience as something special, irrespective of the changes in the discourse and regardless of the importance various experts affix them. This is the reason why the discourse cannot deprive David of its importance (because the experience would not verify it); however the change in the discourse can shake the status of Duchamp’s Fountain quite easily. The research presented in the dissertation thus finds its motivation in the recognition that the secondary discourse, as has been established in the Western art, only determines what an artwork means but does not concern with the way an artwork was made and what kind of psychosomatic experiences it elicits, despite the fact that the primary discourse shows just that — how art is and how it activates our psychosomatics. This recognition thus led me to thoroughly reflect on the hermeneutic problem — the relationship between the artistic practice (primary discourse) and the art interpretation (secondary discourse). Dissertation follows the thesis that today the search for the hermeneutic alternatives should be oriented towards »the primacy of the object«, that is towards the experiential value of the artwork itself and the specific laws of the artistic practice. This recognition eventually led the dissertation into the methodological problem and its primary research goal: to establish such a hermeneutic method that would put the proposed hermeneutic alternative to practice. This kind of hermeneutics, which primarily shows but does not tell, I call the deictic hermeneutics. Since the hermeneutic condition reveals itself as particularly problematic in the field of education, I try to verify the suggested method by relating it to the educational issues. Consequently, sections of the dissertation are succeeding in the following way: in the first section, I introduce the problem of the dissertation by the assistance of something I call a hypothetical art. Hypothetical art draws my attention to the conditions of existence in Western culture, which I then explore in the second section pursuing the perspective of two cultural types, culture of meaning and culture of presence. In the third section, I address the relationship between primary and secondary discourse and investigate the hermeneutic condition which prevails today. In the fourth section, I subsequently search for the hermeneutic alternatives by investigating the nature of an artwork and its primary discourse. The special attention in this section is drawn to the phenomenon of the artistic language and to the specific semiotic nature of artifacts. Based on that, I then propose the method of deictic hermeneutics. Finally, in the last section, I verify the proposed hermeneutic methodology in relation to the pedagogic and didactic problematic.
Ključne besede (ePrints, sekundarni jezik):	discourse
ID:	8308777