[Lawyer] Now, Mr. Whistler . Can you tell me how long you spent to ship that night? .
[Whistler]: [...] Well, as I recall, a day or so.
[Lawyer]: Just one day ?.
[Whistler]: not assert with certainty, perhaps he retouched a little the next day, when the paint had not dried yet. So should I say rather than two days I worked on it.
[Lawyer]: Ah, two days! So for two days work you ask 200 guineas?.
[Whistler]: Absolutely. The urge for knowledge I have gained in a lifetime. (Applause from the audience of the room) [1]
To date, I can say almost without hesitation, I have not read a book (and on) Chair film than , at best, highly recommended.
This I'm going to comment, "The aesthetics today" of Jacques Aumont, is no exception to this.
Aesthetics, remember, comes from the Greek words "aisthetikos" , which would perception "aisthesis" would sensitivity, and "ica" , which is "on" . The aesthetic has made an interesting branch of philosophy that focuses on art, its qualities, its forms of representation and its reasons.
"science of beauty, one to which is added a study of the essence of art, its relations with beauty and other values, "said Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten [2].
This I'm going to comment, "The aesthetics today" of Jacques Aumont, is no exception to this.
Aesthetics, remember, comes from the Greek words "aisthetikos" , which would perception "aisthesis" would sensitivity, and "ica" , which is "on" . The aesthetic has made an interesting branch of philosophy that focuses on art, its qualities, its forms of representation and its reasons.
"science of beauty, one to which is added a study of the essence of art, its relations with beauty and other values, "said Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten [2].
 |
| The canons of beauty before. |
In this book, Aumont, makes a journey through history from the point of view of aesthetics, philosophy, and the mutations it has undergone over time, with special emphasis on concepts so difficult to define as are "art", "artist", "artwork", "genius", "beauty" ...
Thus, for example, explores the questions we all have sometimes done, as in fact trying to discern how much of an author, artist, is in his own work.
"the creative force of an author does not always obey his will, the work takes shape as can be and often comes to terms with its author as an autonomous creation, even bizarre" [3] .
When we say that a work is beautiful, or that something is beautiful, exactly what we mean, is it the same for all the beautiful?, "Beauty can be not nice?," by What about works that seem more sublime than others and call them masterpieces?.
"All that [...] [...] want to draw attention to what happens in them, their feelings and their way of thinking, they will realize that when they say something is "beautiful" express a certain relation of an object with good feelings or ideas of approval, and will agree to say "that's beautiful" I sense something is to say that I approve of or something that gives me pleasure " [4 ]
"One thing is certain: that works of art does not stop comparing. In fact, they tend to annihilate each other. For if the various works of art are only partial representations of the idea of \u200b\u200bBeauty , is adamant that each of them aspires to embody this idea entirely and claiming for himself in his uniqueness, the beauty whose spread could not support herself without annulled. A true and not be mere appearance and free of such individuation, beauty is represented in the synthesis of all the works, in the unity of the arts and art, but really only embodied in each work: the death itself Art. This death of the Arts each work when pointing tends to kill all the other " [5]
" art is not necessarily in connection with the beauty perfectly logical position if we limit the term to the concept of beauty that Greeks proposed and the European classical tradition continued. I prefer to consider the meaning of beauty as a fluctuating phenomenon, some of whose manifestations in the course of history is highly uncertain and often descondertantes. Art should include all of these manifestations, and the seriousness of research in art is that the researcher, whatever his sense of beauty, admitted to the master the art of authentic manifestations of this effect in other towns and in other periods. For him, the primitive, classical and the gothic have the same interest and does not care much for determining the relative merits of such epochal events of the meaning of beauty as to distinguish it authentically and false in every one of those times " [6]
is sublime compared to that in which everything else is small " [7]
And if it comes to defining what is art and what is not, what can we include in that category and what we tend to separate and define how redundant and small talk, we in swampy and difficult to define. It is difficult for two people, of diverse tastes, to discuss on this subject, come to similar conclusions. For what is worth more than the classical or modern art?. Why this distinction?. Are not the two ways, Art?.
 |
| Is not it beautiful?, but it is art. |
"One thing is certain: that works of art does not stop comparing. In fact, they tend to annihilate each other. For if the various works of art are only partial representations of the idea of \u200b\u200bBeauty , is adamant that each of them aspires to embody this idea entirely and claiming for himself in his uniqueness, the beauty whose spread could not support herself without annulled. A true and not be mere appearance and free of such individuation, beauty is represented in the synthesis of all the works, in the unity of the arts and art, but really only embodied in each work: the death itself Art. This death of the Arts each work when pointing tends to kill all the other " [5]
" art is not necessarily in connection with the beauty perfectly logical position if we limit the term to the concept of beauty that Greeks proposed and the European classical tradition continued. I prefer to consider the meaning of beauty as a fluctuating phenomenon, some of whose manifestations in the course of history is highly uncertain and often descondertantes. Art should include all of these manifestations, and the seriousness of research in art is that the researcher, whatever his sense of beauty, admitted to the master the art of authentic manifestations of this effect in other towns and in other periods. For him, the primitive, classical and the gothic have the same interest and does not care much for determining the relative merits of such epochal events of the meaning of beauty as to distinguish it authentically and false in every one of those times " [6]
is sublime compared to that in which everything else is small " [7]
 |
| Chelsea Girls, Andy Warhol. |
And if it comes to defining what is art and what is not, what can we include in that category and what we tend to separate and define how redundant and small talk, we in swampy and difficult to define. It is difficult for two people, of diverse tastes, to discuss on this subject, come to similar conclusions. For what is worth more than the classical or modern art?. Why this distinction?. Are not the two ways, Art?.
"Why" The Chelsea Girls "is art?, Andy Warhol was asked in an interview. And he gave the following answer: Well, first of all, it is the work of an artist; Of course, because it has been revealed as art [8]
"I call [post] modern art that is dedicated to representing the unpresentable there. To show that there is something that can be conceived and can not see or do see: here is the commitment of the painting [post] modern. " [9]
" A vibrant force manifests, our art Modern has tried to sweep around the existing art to deny any significance for modern times " [10]
"Contemporary art is fundamentally eclectic and hybrid. Herein lies his Junstwollen, the reason for its remarkable vitality and fragility" [13] Has the
art be a reflection of reality or is it necessary to delve into fantasy and surreal land?
"The old movie viewing experience for whom the street is an extension of the show that just left, because it tends to replicate the world of everyday perceptions, has become a production test. The more we get, Thanks to its technical offer a similar reproduction of real objects, the easier it is to believe that the outside world is the prolongation of which is found in the film. No need to distinguish between real life and film " [11]
" to give the illusion of life, to feel the objects, to experience the stone is a stone, there is what has occurred in call art. The purpose of art is to give a sense of purpose and vision and not in recognition, the procedure dela art is the process of picking out of objects and the way is dark, increase the difficulty and duration of perception. The act of perception in art is an end in itself and should be extended: the art is a means to experience the evolution of the object, as in art no matter what and become " [12]
How can we say with total conviction, that a play or movie is better than another and the other is worthless at all?. Why some artists, writers, directors, raise to the top and others ostracized?.
"It considered undemocratic to say that the work of an artist is most successful, deeper, more innovative than other artist [...] It is rare that an artist's work is seriously evaluated in qualitative terms: very good, good, fair , bad, awful, lacking [...] No one dares to say of an artist who is second order, or the long term is not so bad " [14]
from all this and much more is Aumont what recomendabilísimo discussed in this book that, as a bonus, add a recommended bibliography at the end of each chapter of the text. And send us your concerns, your message, a so brilliant and simple, which makes the book suitable for all audiences, both for experts and for those who come to distrust the issue first.
"I call [post] modern art that is dedicated to representing the unpresentable there. To show that there is something that can be conceived and can not see or do see: here is the commitment of the painting [post] modern. " [9]
" A vibrant force manifests, our art Modern has tried to sweep around the existing art to deny any significance for modern times " [10]
 |
| Goya Vision of the horrors of war ... |
"Contemporary art is fundamentally eclectic and hybrid. Herein lies his Junstwollen, the reason for its remarkable vitality and fragility" [13] Has the
art be a reflection of reality or is it necessary to delve into fantasy and surreal land?
"The old movie viewing experience for whom the street is an extension of the show that just left, because it tends to replicate the world of everyday perceptions, has become a production test. The more we get, Thanks to its technical offer a similar reproduction of real objects, the easier it is to believe that the outside world is the prolongation of which is found in the film. No need to distinguish between real life and film " [11]
" to give the illusion of life, to feel the objects, to experience the stone is a stone, there is what has occurred in call art. The purpose of art is to give a sense of purpose and vision and not in recognition, the procedure dela art is the process of picking out of objects and the way is dark, increase the difficulty and duration of perception. The act of perception in art is an end in itself and should be extended: the art is a means to experience the evolution of the object, as in art no matter what and become " [12]
 |
| ... And Chapman's vision of Goya's work. |
How can we say with total conviction, that a play or movie is better than another and the other is worthless at all?. Why some artists, writers, directors, raise to the top and others ostracized?.
"It considered undemocratic to say that the work of an artist is most successful, deeper, more innovative than other artist [...] It is rare that an artist's work is seriously evaluated in qualitative terms: very good, good, fair , bad, awful, lacking [...] No one dares to say of an artist who is second order, or the long term is not so bad " [14]
from all this and much more is Aumont what recomendabilísimo discussed in this book that, as a bonus, add a recommended bibliography at the end of each chapter of the text. And send us your concerns, your message, a so brilliant and simple, which makes the book suitable for all audiences, both for experts and for those who come to distrust the issue first.
NOTES:
[1] Whistler, contre Le procces Ruskin, 1890.
[2] philosopher and teacher who was the first to introduce into their work "Philosophical reflections on poetry" (1735), first introduced the term "aesthetic" , which appointed science is knowledge reaches sensory apprehension of beauty and is expressed in art images, as opposed to logic and cognitive science of knowledge.
[3] S. Freud. Moïse et le monotheism.
[4] JP Crousaz, Traité du beau , 1725.
[5] TW Adorno, Minima Moralia , 1944.
[6] Herbert Read, The Meaning or Art, 1934.
[7] Kant, Critique of Judgement .
[8] Harold Rosenberg, The De-definition of art .
[10] Ehrenzweig, "The Order Cahe del art."
[11] Horkheimer, Adorno, "Industrial production of cultural goods", 1944.
[12] Victor Sklovski, "art as process"
[13] Bernard Lafargue "The look so tired of the preachers of death of art"
[14] Donald Judd, "A long essay, which traite pas des chefs-d'oeuvre, mais qu'il font des raisons qu'il in there if peu, Escrits.
[7] Kant, Critique of Judgement .
[8] Harold Rosenberg, The De-definition of art .
[10] Ehrenzweig, "The Order Cahe del art."
[11] Horkheimer, Adorno, "Industrial production of cultural goods", 1944.
[12] Victor Sklovski, "art as process"
[13] Bernard Lafargue "The look so tired of the preachers of death of art"
[14] Donald Judd, "A long essay, which traite pas des chefs-d'oeuvre, mais qu'il font des raisons qu'il in there if peu, Escrits.
0 comments:
Post a Comment