• 미술이론과 현장
• /
• 제16호
• /
• pp.257-272
• /
• 2013

This paper analyzes six different ways of articulating the relationship between art and politics. It calls attention to the differences that lurk behind the seemingly simple phrase-everywhere in vogue today-the "politics of aesthetics." Five of these models are drawn from contemporary discussions regarding the politics of art. The last model is the attempt to develop an account of the politics of aesthetics that is faithful to the difficult and ambiguous dimensions of the aesthetic experience that were hinted at by the texts of classical philosophical aesthetics. Most notably, this paper is concerned with the idea that the aesthetic experience can be understood as a form of disinterested contemplation-one that is not reducible to cognitive or moral considerations-and with some of the consequences that this entails. It explores some of the political significance that can be attributed to this idea of disinterested contemplation, arguing that the aesthetic should be understood as a withdrawal from the world's pre-established meanings. Unlike some of the other thinkers discussed in this paper, this author doubts that a single, uniform meaning can be ascribed to the aesthetic experience. I thus argue that we need to approach the aesthetic through the networks of textual significance that have been built up around it. Throughout this paper, I attempt to explain how the efforts to link art and aesthetics to politics simultaneously give rise to ideas about the nature of the human community. In looking at the sixth and final model, what I have called the "anarchical politics of aesthetic ambiguity," I argue that the aesthetic tradition offers a rather unique way of understanding the relationship between the individual and the community. Here, we see that the aesthetic is prone to a number of paradoxes, central among them the one that makes art the bearer of a solipsistic pleasure in which we nevertheless discover our capacity for genuinely communicating with others, outside of cliches and banalities.

• 한국조경학회지
• /
• 제25권4호
• /
• pp.89-106
• /
• 1998

This essay addresses the role of environmental aesthetics in landscape architecture : how can environmental aesthetics enrich landscape architectural theory and practice\ulcorner It begins by criticizing the predominant notions toward theory : theory as an instrumental design method, theoretical vacuum in modernism of landscape architecture, and the intimate relation of theory and practice in 18th-century England. It suggests that the expulsion of theory in landscape architectural academics and profession is nothing but an inappropriate bias. In the second place, the essay explores a remaining question : why environmental aesthetics is a part of landscape architectural theory\ulcorner I would argue that environmental aesthetics can transcend the man-nature(subject-object) dichotomy, one of heritages of Western modernity project. Here, landscape architecture meets environmental aesthetics, and both can intermediate between theory and practice. For landscape architecture is (and ought to be) a device of embodied communication, creating symbolic settings wherein an interconnection of man and nature can occur. Finally, this essay examines the aesthetics of engagement that Arnold Berleant claimed recently. This theory of aesthetic experience has a possibility of making corrections some improper conventions in landscape architectural creation and appreciation : disinterested contemplation, visual-orientedness, decoration-denteredness, and so forth. I would conclude that environmental aesthetics can be a significant theory which can correct misconceptions in landscape design and appreciation and, further, can lead contemporary practice. As the great mediator between man and nature, between theory and practice, environmental aesthetics has a profound role to play in the realm of landscape architecture, and vice versa.

• 철학연구
• /
• 제123권
• /
• pp.87-110
• /
• 2012

본 논문은 그린버그, 카플란, 칼리니스쿠를 중심으로 반키치론을 비판적으로 검토한다. 이를 통해 반키치론이 이론적 실천적으로 정당화될 수 있는지를 탐구한다. 반키치론은 근대 미학에서 '예술' 개념의 내포적, 외연적 기준에 근거하여 키치를 비판한다. 이들은 키치가 사심 없는 즐거움의 대상이 아니라 쾌적함과 감상성을 추구하므로 나쁜 취미라고 간주한다. 그러나 반키치론의 기초 개념인 '사심 없는 즐거움'과 '미적 판단의 보편성과 필연성'은 문화중재자의 편향성을 가정한다. 또한 미적/반성적 예술과 쾌적하고/감상적인 키치 개념을 분류하는 기준은 모호하다. 반키치론자들은 개념 논증의 결함을 보완하기 위해 경제적, 정치적 논거를 추가한다. 이들은 키치의 미적 부절적성을 증명하기 위해 과시적 소비와 정치적 우민화를 키치 평가의 논거로 제시하지만, 변화하는 문화 환경 속에서 대중들의 요구가 반영된 다양한 양태의 키치를 공정하게 다루지 못한다. 결국 반키치론자들은 엘리트주의와 형식주의 미학만을 제한적으로 승인하면서 키치에 대한 폄하를 계속한다. 예술의 죽음 이후 포스트예술 시대의 변화된 문화적 실천은 키치에 대한 재평가와 더불어 대안적 대중 미학을 필요로 한다.