Title: Seeking the pattern of aesthetic value in a work of art
Source document: Pro-Fil. 2012, vol. 13, iss. 1, pp. [8]-28
Extent
[8]-28
-
ISSN1212-9097
Persistent identifier (DOI): https://doi.org/10.5817/pf13-1-286
Stable URL (handle): https://hdl.handle.net/11222.digilib/139061
Type: Article
Language
License: Not specified license
Notice: These citations are automatically created and might not follow citation rules properly.
Abstract(s)
The method and criteria that are used for detecting the aesthetic value in works of art are among the key themes of aesthetic epistemology. The object of this study is to attempt a rational reconstruction of the background of art criticism. In tradition Western thought, aesthetic value lies in archieving unity in complexity, unitas multiplex. In the 20th century, this duality was enriched by a third category, intensity. In 1989, Tomáš Kulka suggested that these three categorical features could be detected within works of art by applying a falsification proving method to the aesthetic value. Kulka described an intuitive process of assessing the aesthetic value of works of art by finding possible alternations that would contribute to improving and/or damaging the work of art. The number of possibilities thus found may lead us to recognize the aesthetic value of the work of art. This paper addresses Kulka's concept, emphasizing some of its potential problematic aspects and concluding with a suggested percentage modification of Kulka's concept that might better correspond with an practical background in assessing the aesthetic value of works of art.
Způsob a kritéria, kterými je odhalována estetická hodnota uvnitř uměleckých děl jsou jedním z klíčových témat epistemologie estetiky. Předmětem této studie je pokus o racionální rekonstrukci procesu, který stojí v pozadí umělecké kritiky. V tradici západního myšlení převládá názor, že estetická hodnota spočívá v dosažení jednoty v mnohosti (unitas multiplex). Ve 20. stol. byla tato dualita pojmů rozšířena o třetí kategorii, intenzitu. Způsob, jakým jsou tyto tři kategorické vlastnosti odhalovány uvnitř uměleckých děl, navrhl v roce 1989 Tomáš Kulka, který na tuto trojici pojmů aplikoval popperiánský falzifikační způsob ověřování hodnoty uměleckých děl. Kulka se pokusil popsat pozadí intuitivního procesu, kterým bývají hodnocena umělecká díla tím, že jsou nalézány možnosti (alterace), kterými je možné dílo znehodnotit a/nebo zdokonalit. Počet takto nalezených možností nám pak umožňuje roz-poznat estetickou hodnotu uměleckého díla. Naše práce se kriticky zabývá Kulkovým konceptem, zdůrazňuje některé jeho případné problematické aspekty a v závěru se pokouší o jeho percentuální modifikaci, která by mohla lépe odpovídat pozadí praktického způsobu hodnocení estetické hodnoty uměleckých děl.
eng
cze
References
[1] Záhlaví stránky
[2] Zvolte jazyk
[3] ročník 22 (2015), č. 2
[4] Inference to the Best Explanation and Disjunctive Explanations
[5] Lee, J. | doi:10.1162/002409400552649
[6] Four Quine’s Inconsistencies
[7] Picazo, G.
[8] Kant and the Problem of Self-Identification | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.4.336
[9] Forgione, L. | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/29.3.197
[10] How Choice Blindness Vindicates Wholeheartedness
[11] Kirkeby-Hinrup, A.
[12] K analýze deontických modalít v Transparentnej intenzionálnej logike
[13] Glavaničová, D.
[14] Suarézova teorie vzniku species sensibilis a kognitivního aktu vnějších smyslů v kontextu středověké a renesanční filosofie
[15] Heider, D. | doi:10.2307/1320696
[16] ročník VI. (2014), č. 2
[17] Trest jako věc veřejná
[18] Tomáš Sobek
[19] Traumatické vzpomínky a jednání
[20] Ondřej Beran
[21] Hans Albert: Kritický racionalismus jako návrh způsobu života
[22] Jitka Paitlová
[23] Realismus, relativismus a trápení ducha | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/39.1.40
[24] Jaroslav Peregrin
[25] Rortyho nespoutaná slova
[26] Jakub Mácha
[27] Domů
[28] Podrobnosti | doi:10.1348/000712605X47927
[29] Přihlášení
[30] Registrace | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.3.253
[31] Vyhledávání
[32] Aktuální
[33] Archiv
[34] Redakční rada
[35] Starší ročníky
[36] Domů > Vol 13, No 1 (2012) > Klimeš
[37] Seeking the Pattern of Aesthetic Value in a Work of Art
[38] Jan Klimeš
[39] Abstrakt
[40] The method and criteria that are used for detecting the aesthetic value in works of art are among the key themes of aesthetic epistemology. The object of this study is to attempt a rational reconstruction of the background of art criticism. In tradition Western thought, aesthetic value lies in archieving unity in complexity, unitas multiplex. In the 20th century, this duality was enriched by a third category, intensity. In 1989, Tomáš Kulka suggested that these three categorical features could be detected within works of art by applying a falsification proving method to the aesthetic value. Kulka described an intuitive process of assessing the aesthetic value of works of art by finding possible alternations that would contribute to improving and/or damaging the work of art. The number of possibilities thus found may lead us to recognize the aesthetic value of the work of art. This paper addresses Kulka's concept, emphasizing some of its potential problematic aspects and concluding with a suggested percentage modification of Kulka's concept that might better correspond with an practical background in assessing the aesthetic value of works of art.
[41] Klíčová slova
[42] Aesthetic value; aesthetic assessment; alteration; art criticism; complexity; epistemology; falsification; Gestalt; intensity; unitas multiplex; unity; work of art
[43] DOI: http:dx.doi.org/10.5817/pf13-1-286
[44] Celý článek:
[45] PDF (English)
[46] Reference
[47] Skrýt literaturu
[48] DICKIE, George. The Institutional Conception of Art. In. TILGHMAN, Benjamin (ed.). Language and Aesthetics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1973.
[49] DZIEMIDOK, Bohdan. O estetických a umeleckých hodnotách umenia. In. Filozofia, sv. 52, 1997, pp. 253-259.
[50] GAUT, Berys. Art, Emotion and Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2007.
[51] HANRAHAN, Siún. An Exploration of How Objectivity Is Practiced in Art. In. Leonardo, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2000, pp. 267-274.
[52] HUME, David. Of the Standart of Taste. In. LENZ, John W (ed.). Of the Standard of Taste and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965.
[53] ISEMINGER, Gary. The Beardsley-Dickie Debate. In. George. LEVINSON, Jerrold (ed.). The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 99-118.
[54] KULKA, Tomáš. The Artistic and the Aesthetics Value of Art. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1981, p. 336-350.
[55] KULKA, Tomáš. Art and science: An Outline of Popperian Aesthetics. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 29, No. 3, 1989, s. 197-212.
[56] Hebrew issue: KULKA, Tomáš. The Logical Structure of Aesthetic Value Judgements: An
[57] Outline of Popperian Aesthetics. In. Yeshiva World News, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1989, pp. 87-102.
[58] Czech issue: KULKA, Tomáš. Umění a věda: Nárys popperiánské estetiky. In. Estetika: časopis pro estetiku a teorii umění, 1992, č. 2, pp. 29-40.
[59] KULKA, Tomas. Kitsch and Art. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996; second printing 2002.
[60] Czech edition: KULKA, Tomáš. Umění a kýč. Praha: Torst, 1994.; second printing 2000.
[61] LANDKORF, Louis E. A Phenomenological Methodology for Art Criticism. In. Studies in Art Education. Vol. 25, No. 3, 1984, pp. 151-158.
[62] MARTINDALE, Colin. Art and Artists. In. PRITZKER, Steven R. Encyclopedia of creativity. Vol 1, Ae-h. London, New York: Academic Press, 1999.
[63] MOTHERSILL, Mary. Critical Reason. In. The Philosophical Quaterly, Vol. 11, No. 42, 1961, pp. 74-79.
[64] NIEDERLE, Rostislav, DUŽÍ, Marie. Explikace pojmu krásy. In. SOUSEDÍK, Prokop. Jazyk - logika - věda. 1. vyd. Praha : Filosofia, 2005. Logika. s. 205-221.
[65] NIEDERLE, Rostislav. Pojmy estetiky: analytický přístup. Brno: Muni Press, 2010.
[66] OSSOWSKI, Stanislaw. O przeciwienstwie przyrody i sztuki w estetyce. In. OSSOWSKI, Stanislaw. Dziela. 4 vol. Warsaw: 1966-1970.
[67] POPPER, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.
[68] POPPER, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge, 1963.
[69] ROVE, M. W. The Objectivity of Aesthetics Judgements. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1999, pp. 40-52.
[70] SLAVÍK, Jan. Problém chyby v tvořivě výrazové výchově. In. Pedagogika, Vol. 44, No. 2, 1994.
[71] SLAVÍK, Jan. LUKAVSKÝ, Jindřich. Didaktická analýza nefigurativního výtvarného vyjádření pojmů emocí u jedenáctiletých dětí. In. Současné metodologické přístupy a strategie pedagogického výzkumu. Sborník anotací 14. konference ČAPV. Plzeň: PdF ZČU v Plzni, 2006.
[72] SWAMI, Viren, GRANT, Nina, FURNHAM, Adrian, McMANUS, Christopher I. Perfectly Formed? The Effect of Manipulating the Waist-To-Hip Ratios of Famous Paintings and Sculptures. In. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2007-2008, pp. 47-62.
[73] TOKÁR, Michal. Kapitoly z teórie knižnej ilustrácie. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešově, Pedagogická fakulta, 2000.
[74] VARTANIAN, Oshin, MARTINDALE, Colin, PODSIADLO, Jacob, OVERBAY, Shane, BORKUM, Jonathan. The link between composition and balance in masterworks vs. paintings of lower artistic quality. In. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 96, Issue 4, 2005, pp. 493-503
[75] VERSTEGEN, Ian. Arnheim, Gestalt And Art: A Psychological Theory. New York, Wien: Springer, 2005.
[76] WINTERBOURNE, A. T. Objectivity in Science and Aesthetics. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1981, pp. 253-260.
[2] Zvolte jazyk
[3] ročník 22 (2015), č. 2
[4] Inference to the Best Explanation and Disjunctive Explanations
[5] Lee, J. | doi:10.1162/002409400552649
[6] Four Quine’s Inconsistencies
[7] Picazo, G.
[8] Kant and the Problem of Self-Identification | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.4.336
[9] Forgione, L. | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/29.3.197
[10] How Choice Blindness Vindicates Wholeheartedness
[11] Kirkeby-Hinrup, A.
[12] K analýze deontických modalít v Transparentnej intenzionálnej logike
[13] Glavaničová, D.
[14] Suarézova teorie vzniku species sensibilis a kognitivního aktu vnějších smyslů v kontextu středověké a renesanční filosofie
[15] Heider, D. | doi:10.2307/1320696
[16] ročník VI. (2014), č. 2
[17] Trest jako věc veřejná
[18] Tomáš Sobek
[19] Traumatické vzpomínky a jednání
[20] Ondřej Beran
[21] Hans Albert: Kritický racionalismus jako návrh způsobu života
[22] Jitka Paitlová
[23] Realismus, relativismus a trápení ducha | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/39.1.40
[24] Jaroslav Peregrin
[25] Rortyho nespoutaná slova
[26] Jakub Mácha
[27] Domů
[28] Podrobnosti | doi:10.1348/000712605X47927
[29] Přihlášení
[30] Registrace | doi:10.1093/bjaesthetics/21.3.253
[31] Vyhledávání
[32] Aktuální
[33] Archiv
[34] Redakční rada
[35] Starší ročníky
[36] Domů > Vol 13, No 1 (2012) > Klimeš
[37] Seeking the Pattern of Aesthetic Value in a Work of Art
[38] Jan Klimeš
[39] Abstrakt
[40] The method and criteria that are used for detecting the aesthetic value in works of art are among the key themes of aesthetic epistemology. The object of this study is to attempt a rational reconstruction of the background of art criticism. In tradition Western thought, aesthetic value lies in archieving unity in complexity, unitas multiplex. In the 20th century, this duality was enriched by a third category, intensity. In 1989, Tomáš Kulka suggested that these three categorical features could be detected within works of art by applying a falsification proving method to the aesthetic value. Kulka described an intuitive process of assessing the aesthetic value of works of art by finding possible alternations that would contribute to improving and/or damaging the work of art. The number of possibilities thus found may lead us to recognize the aesthetic value of the work of art. This paper addresses Kulka's concept, emphasizing some of its potential problematic aspects and concluding with a suggested percentage modification of Kulka's concept that might better correspond with an practical background in assessing the aesthetic value of works of art.
[41] Klíčová slova
[42] Aesthetic value; aesthetic assessment; alteration; art criticism; complexity; epistemology; falsification; Gestalt; intensity; unitas multiplex; unity; work of art
[43] DOI: http:dx.doi.org/10.5817/pf13-1-286
[44] Celý článek:
[45] PDF (English)
[46] Reference
[47] Skrýt literaturu
[48] DICKIE, George. The Institutional Conception of Art. In. TILGHMAN, Benjamin (ed.). Language and Aesthetics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1973.
[49] DZIEMIDOK, Bohdan. O estetických a umeleckých hodnotách umenia. In. Filozofia, sv. 52, 1997, pp. 253-259.
[50] GAUT, Berys. Art, Emotion and Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2007.
[51] HANRAHAN, Siún. An Exploration of How Objectivity Is Practiced in Art. In. Leonardo, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2000, pp. 267-274.
[52] HUME, David. Of the Standart of Taste. In. LENZ, John W (ed.). Of the Standard of Taste and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965.
[53] ISEMINGER, Gary. The Beardsley-Dickie Debate. In. George. LEVINSON, Jerrold (ed.). The Oxford handbook of aesthetics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 99-118.
[54] KULKA, Tomáš. The Artistic and the Aesthetics Value of Art. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1981, p. 336-350.
[55] KULKA, Tomáš. Art and science: An Outline of Popperian Aesthetics. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol 29, No. 3, 1989, s. 197-212.
[56] Hebrew issue: KULKA, Tomáš. The Logical Structure of Aesthetic Value Judgements: An
[57] Outline of Popperian Aesthetics. In. Yeshiva World News, Vol. 38, No. 2, 1989, pp. 87-102.
[58] Czech issue: KULKA, Tomáš. Umění a věda: Nárys popperiánské estetiky. In. Estetika: časopis pro estetiku a teorii umění, 1992, č. 2, pp. 29-40.
[59] KULKA, Tomas. Kitsch and Art. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996; second printing 2002.
[60] Czech edition: KULKA, Tomáš. Umění a kýč. Praha: Torst, 1994.; second printing 2000.
[61] LANDKORF, Louis E. A Phenomenological Methodology for Art Criticism. In. Studies in Art Education. Vol. 25, No. 3, 1984, pp. 151-158.
[62] MARTINDALE, Colin. Art and Artists. In. PRITZKER, Steven R. Encyclopedia of creativity. Vol 1, Ae-h. London, New York: Academic Press, 1999.
[63] MOTHERSILL, Mary. Critical Reason. In. The Philosophical Quaterly, Vol. 11, No. 42, 1961, pp. 74-79.
[64] NIEDERLE, Rostislav, DUŽÍ, Marie. Explikace pojmu krásy. In. SOUSEDÍK, Prokop. Jazyk - logika - věda. 1. vyd. Praha : Filosofia, 2005. Logika. s. 205-221.
[65] NIEDERLE, Rostislav. Pojmy estetiky: analytický přístup. Brno: Muni Press, 2010.
[66] OSSOWSKI, Stanislaw. O przeciwienstwie przyrody i sztuki w estetyce. In. OSSOWSKI, Stanislaw. Dziela. 4 vol. Warsaw: 1966-1970.
[67] POPPER, Karl. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.
[68] POPPER, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge, 1963.
[69] ROVE, M. W. The Objectivity of Aesthetics Judgements. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 39, No. 1, 1999, pp. 40-52.
[70] SLAVÍK, Jan. Problém chyby v tvořivě výrazové výchově. In. Pedagogika, Vol. 44, No. 2, 1994.
[71] SLAVÍK, Jan. LUKAVSKÝ, Jindřich. Didaktická analýza nefigurativního výtvarného vyjádření pojmů emocí u jedenáctiletých dětí. In. Současné metodologické přístupy a strategie pedagogického výzkumu. Sborník anotací 14. konference ČAPV. Plzeň: PdF ZČU v Plzni, 2006.
[72] SWAMI, Viren, GRANT, Nina, FURNHAM, Adrian, McMANUS, Christopher I. Perfectly Formed? The Effect of Manipulating the Waist-To-Hip Ratios of Famous Paintings and Sculptures. In. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2007-2008, pp. 47-62.
[73] TOKÁR, Michal. Kapitoly z teórie knižnej ilustrácie. Prešov: Prešovská univerzita v Prešově, Pedagogická fakulta, 2000.
[74] VARTANIAN, Oshin, MARTINDALE, Colin, PODSIADLO, Jacob, OVERBAY, Shane, BORKUM, Jonathan. The link between composition and balance in masterworks vs. paintings of lower artistic quality. In. British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 96, Issue 4, 2005, pp. 493-503
[75] VERSTEGEN, Ian. Arnheim, Gestalt And Art: A Psychological Theory. New York, Wien: Springer, 2005.
[76] WINTERBOURNE, A. T. Objectivity in Science and Aesthetics. In. British Journal of Aesthetics, Vol. 21, No. 3, 1981, pp. 253-260.