Volume 18. Krystyna Wilkoszewska (ed.). Aesthetics in Action. International Yearbook of Aesthetics. Volume 18. 2014 Content The 18th…More...
"Aesthetics and Mass Culture" Proceedings of the 20th International Congress of Aesthetics Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea Organised by the…More...
Zoltán Somhegyi (ed.). Retracing the past. Historical continuity in aesthetics from a global perspective International Yearbook of Aesthetics. Volume 19. 2017…More...
Misko Suvakovic and Vladimir Mako (ed.). The Aesthetics of Architecture – Beyond Form. International Yearbook of Aesthetics. Volume 20. 2020More...
CALL FOR PAPERS Abstract submissions are now open, until 15 September, 2021, for ICA 22. Please, find further details in…More...
Belo Horizonte, Faculty of Philosophy and Human Sciences [FAFICH] of UFMG, October 13-16, 2015
:: Professor Cíntia Vieira da Silva [UFOP]
:: Professor Débora Pazzeto Ferreira [CEFET/MG]
:: Professor Giorgia Cecchinato [UFMG]
:: Professor Rachel Costa [Escola Guignard/UEMG]
:: Professor Rodrigo Duarte [UFMG]
:: Professor Verlaine Freitas [UFMG – coordinator]
:: Professor Virginia Figueiredo [UFMG]
:: Graduate Program of Philosophy, Federal University of Minas Gerais [UFMG]
:: Graduate Program of Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art, Federal University of Ouro Preto [UFOP]
:: Brazilian Association of Aesthetics [ABRE]
The 12th International Congress of Aesthetics- Brazil will bring into discussion three significant concepts in the panorama of philosophical reflection about art (and nature): the tragedy, the sublime, and melancholy. All three indicate contradictory movements of overtaking and surpassing the negative link between subject and object, giving origin to a great new fortune of criticism in the tradition of philosophical writings about aesthetic phenomena, from the Greek period to present day.
It was Schelling that asked how Greek reason could bear the contradictions of Greek tragedy. It was inevitable that the philosopher’s curiosity investigate the strange pleasure that humans have with fear and passion, which are undeniably painful passions. The first systematic formula of this contradictory pleasure appeared in Aristotle’s Poetics, described as catharsis. Before this, Plato had condemned the tragedy to irresistible attraction that it produced in people. In the late18th and early 19th century, especially in Germany, the ‘modern’ interpretation of tragedy was intensified, particularly in the works of philosophers such as that of Schiller, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche. Even today, the importance of this concept cannot be denied in our contemporary concept, as seen in Adorno, Benjamin, and Heidegger.
The controversies generated by the philosophical appropriation of a theatre ‘genre’ were not few. For some authors, as is the case of Jacques Taminiaux, it consists of a sort of ‘deviation’ in direction of the ontological, ignoring the dimension of action (praxis) that was in play in the Aristotelian concept of tragedy. For his part, Peter Szondi put forth a very original thesis: the tragedy provided the origin and the matrix of dialectic thinking. Finally, Phillipe Lacoue-Labarthe, in his interpretation of the theater of Hölderlin (whose contribution to the thinking of tragedy is, to a certain extent, unsurpassable), concluded that the sublime, this art or the theory of modern art, is perhaps nothing more than a re-creation of the tragedy.
Quite similar to that contradictory pleasure was one of the definitions that Schiller offered us of the sublime, as “serenity in the face of pain”, a feeling justified by him due to intensity of painful emotions. Therefore, it is the vivacity and intensity of representations that unleash suffering upon us, which is the very motive that gives us pleasure.
Just as with the tragedy, we can also say that the Sublime has a double origin: the first was in the third century of the Christian era, when the rhetorician Longinus wrote a treaty “On the sublime” (Peri Hupsous). In that period, it was directed towards the artist and the work, not at the general concept of beauty, for this reason Poetics and Rhetorics were written, and not Aesthetics. Longinus was exclusively concerned on training the orators of the most efficient manner to impact their ‘audience’. The second origin of the sublime was in the late 17th and early 18th century, in Classical France, when in 1674 the writer and art critic, Nicolas Boileau, known for his conservatism, alleged Boileau-Despréaux, published, along with his The Art of Poetry, a surprising translation of the treatise of Longinus. This, very likely, provoked the reappearance of the sublime in reflections of art, making it return to be, as Jean-Luc Nancy would say, ‘in fashion’.
The sublime left France as a product of Classical rationalism and arrived in Dublin already totally transformed by a sensualist and empiricist aesthetics. In 1757, the Irishmen Edmund Burke published his famous Philosophical Enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. As could have been predicted, all of these adventures resulted in a strengthening of the question of the sublime, which, returning to the continent (European and ‘metaphysical’, but was ready to produce its ‘Critique’), only caused it to grow and solidify. For this reason, in 1790, when Kant published his Critique of the Power of Judgment, which with the reflections appears as systematized and divided into two contrasting analytical accounts: of Beauty and of the Sublime. If beauty is associated with ‘disinterested pleasure’, the sublime is characterized by a contradictory sentiment, marked equally by pleasure and displeasure. If beauty indicates a soothing feeling of harmony between man and nature, the sublime shows an enemy nature, an adversary to men that physically frights him. If beauty is a sentiment of the aesthetic pleasure, sensitive in the proper sense, the sublime is a sentiment, which, by its connection to morality, demands more of an Anti-aesthetics (as suggested by Deleuze) rather than an Aesthetics.
If just as tragedy and the sublime both express contradictory movements of the spirit, they have in common the fact of confronting us with an object or a nature that challenges us in our coherent positivity. We are called to a tense, living and conflicting dialogue with a reality alien to the habitual form of thinking and daily rituals. At the moment that the movement was radically internalized, impelled by a substantial and radical loss of an object, the sublime and the tragedy appear to converge in melancholy. With Greek origins, a combination of melas (black) and cholis (bliss), ‘melancholy’ does not designate only a long state of pathological depression, but a subjective state of our creative processes as well. It is referenced to in plastic arts, such as paintings by Albrecht Dürer and Goya, in literature, such as the works of Machado de Assis, and recently in film, an example being Lars von Trier’s “Melancholia”.
Sarah Kofmann explains in her book The Melancholy of Art that all beauty and artistic production is inexorably connected to a melancholic principle, defined by the absence of an object. In fact, if we follow the famous idea of Sigmund Freud that in melancholy the shadow of the object falls on the subject, in contemporary art the subject renounces ‘melancholically’ the mimetic/representative object as the principle that grants artistry or at least minimal condition of possibility to the artistic work. At the same time the inapprehensible loss of the object could push the subject into the background of paralyzing swirl, simultaneously, it can instigate an aesthetic elaboration that surpasses the subjective and obscure closing towards the elaboration of a new object, that is, the artwork, which transpose all the contradictory movement of the soul onto the stage of its imagetic/imaginary objectivity.
Considering the trajectory of these concepts, which even today are maintained in contemporary debates about aesthetic, the International Congress – The Tragic, the sublime, and melancholy, intends to approach some of their most pertinent aspects, being each one separately or in the context of their multiple interconnections. In this sense, the conference has amounted to a series of organized events, since 1993, through the Research Group of Aesthetic and Philosophy of Art, in the Graduate Program of Philosophy at UFMG (lately undertaken with the Master’s Program of Aesthetic and Philosophy of Art of UFOP and with the Association of Aesthetic of Brazil – ABRE): “Death of art, today” (1993), “Beauty, sublime, and Kant” (1995), “The lights of art” (1997), “Catharsis” (1999), “Mimesis and expression” (2001), “Aesthetic theory” (2003), “The aesthetic dimension” (2005), “Aesthetics of dislocation” (2007), “Dislocations in art” (2009); “Image, imagination, fantasy: Twenty years without Vilém Flusser” (2011) and “Taste, interpretation and critique” (2013). As the past three events of this series, the forthcoming will also be realized in conjunction with the Graduate Program of Aesthetic and Philosophy of Art of UFOP.
The conference will be composed of presentations by invited researchers in the mornings of all days. The afternoons will be reserved for the presentations and panel discussions which will be followed by debates not only focused on the main topic (being the tragedy, the sublime, and melancholy) in the strict sense, but also about the following related sub-topics:
:: The Greek tragedy
:: Theories of tragedy
:: The tragic and the sublime in Schiller
:: The sublime and contemporary art
:: The tragedy and modern and contemporary dramas
:: Melancoly in the arts
:: The uncanny in literature
:: Literature of the absurd
:: The sublime and sublimation
:: The culture industry
:: Art and psychoanalysis
:: Art and politics
:: Registration fee: U$80 for professors and U$40 for students
:: World limit of presentations: 2,500 words
:: Registration calendar:
– basic [without presentation]: September 1st- October 13th;
– presenters: send abstract submission: April 15th to June 15th;
– announcement of selected presentations: June 30th;
:: Virginia de Araujo Figueiredo [UFMG]
:: Suzanne Kogler [Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Graz]
:: Christian Bauer [Hochschule Würzburg-Schweinfurt]
:: Peter Pelbart [PUC-SP]
:: Jeanne Marie Gagnebin [UNICAMP/PUC-SP]
:: Roberto Machado [UFRJ]
"Eyes and Gazes in Philosophy and Arts"
directed by Atsushi Okada (Kyoto University) and Giuseppe Patella (University of Rome Tor Vergata) March 2-3, 2015 University of Rome Tor Vergata Via Columbia 1
00133 Rome (Italy).
The University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture and the Society for Aesthetics of Architecture and Visual Arts Serbia (DEAVUS) are pleased to announce the Call for papers for the IAA Conference 2015.
The 2015 Interim meeting of the Executive Committee of the International Association of Aesthetics (IAA) will take place June 26-28 2015 at the amphitheater of the University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture in Belgrade. The theme of the Conference is “Revisions of Modern Aesthetics”. We would like to invite all researchers and scholars interested in this topic to participate in the conference with a paper.
One of the important topics of contemporary global culture is the revision of modernism and its corresponding theories, aesthetics and philosophies. That is why we proposed for the Belgrade’s Conference the title “Revisions of Modern Aesthetics”.
Reviewing the history of modernity and especially aesthetic transformations in the 20th century are challenging issues for contemporary society and culture. We live in a world of permanent change; a world of desire to get out of the global crisis into the new world of unexpected modernity. Therefore, the project, research, emancipation and the new are the important questions. Through the paradigmatic models of modernity we will try to construct a theoretical, aesthetic and philosophical platforms for contemporaneity. The concept of the conference is developed in four sessions:
The first session deals with the revision, reconstruction and research of modernist theories of space and architecture. The aim is to show the viability of space and architecture in the changing world.
Session chair: Dr. Jale Erzen, professor, Middle East Technical University Faculty of Architecture, Ankara.
The second session deals with questions on the status of contemporary aesthetics that transformed the crisis of modern aesthetics into the expansion of aesthetic thinking, politicization of sensuality and discovering new aesthetic experiences and knowledges.
Session chair: Dr. Ales Erjavec, professor, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts - Institute of Philosophy at Scientific Research Center, Ljubljana.
The third session, relying on the idea of “historical distance”, indicates a comparison of medieval and modern in arts.
Session chair: Dr. Vladimir Mako, professor, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade.
The fourth session enters in the field of the fluidity, uncertainty and phenomenological transformation of the society of global spectacle and media totality.
Session chair: Dr. Misko Suvakovic, professor, University of Arts - Faculty of Music, Belgrade.
The Conference “Revisions of Modern Aesthetics” aims to initiate the discussion from the field of contemporary philosophical and applied aesthetics about who we are today compared to the past in relation to the future. Aesthetics has a right to these fundamental questions.
• Dr. Vladimir Mako, professor, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade
• Dr. Misko Suvakovic, professor, University of Arts - Faculty of Music, Belgrade
• Dr. Vladimir Stevanovic, assistant professor, Faculty of Media and Communications, Belgrade
• Dr. Aleksandar Ignjatovic, professor, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade
• Dr. Vladan Dokic, professor, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade
• Mr. Branko Pavic, professor, University of Belgrade - Faculty of Architecture, Belgrade
• Dr. Ales Erjavec, professor, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts - Institute of Philosophy at Scientific Research Center, Ljubljana
• Dr. Jale Erzen, professor, Middle East Technical University - Faculty of Architecture, Ankara
• Dr. Raffaele Milani, professor, University of Bologna - Institute of research on the cities, Bologna
• Dr. Gao Jianping, professor, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences - Institute of Literature, Beijing
• Dr. Tyrus Miller, professor, University of California - Division of Humanities, Santa Cruz
• All submitted papers will be presented during the Conference. More information will follow after paper submission.
• All accepted abstracts will be published in the Conference Proceedings book.
• A selection of papers will be published in the Serbian Architectural Journal (www.saj.rs).
• Abstract submission due: March 31, 2015.
• Paper submission due: May 31, 2015.
• Registration fee for participants: May 31, 2015.
• Registration fee for visitors: June 13, 2015.
Conference: June 26-28, 2015.
University of Antwerp & VU-University Amsterdam
September, 18-20, 2014, Antwerp
Ricoeur can be called the philosopher of all dialogues. He engaged virtually all the great movements of thought, entered into debate with scientists, and voices his concerns in the public debate. He never sought to engage in polemics but tried to engage seemingly unbridgeable positions or thinkers in a fruitful dialogue. Ricoeur was not a radical thinker in search of extremes, but rather committed to mediate between conflicting philosophers and streams of thought, therein lies part of his originality and creativity. Where others sees dichotomy, he sees dialectic. In this regard one cannot but note how often Ricoeur uses the word between (entre) in the titles of his articles, always in search of connections, confrontations, and unexpected syntheses between thinkers who have preceded him. He really is a thinker of the between.
But does Ricoeur’s ‘dialogical approach’ not result in a harmonization of often diverging positions? Is Ricoeur able to hear the radicalness of certain insights? Is it possible that his hermeneutical philosophy takes away the sharpness of certain problems in current religious, political and philosophical debates? Might it even be the case that he did not hear certain voices, precisely because they resist synthesis? This conference inquires what happens to Ricoeur’s hermeneutical approach if we confront it with its limits.
The conference will address topical philosophical, socio-political and religious issues, from a Ricoeurian perspective, but in conversation with other, more ‘radical’ thinkers
Possible topics include:
Justice and the Struggle for Recognition: Justice is an important concept in Ricoeur’s work, first of all, as an ethical concept. For Ricoeur, justice is a way of establishing peace, both in concrete relations to others, as on the level of institutions. In The Course of Recognition, Ricoeur however shifts the focus on political philosophy, and, in so doing he creates a tension in his understanding of justice. On the one hand, he agrees with Hegel and Honneth that justice is a justification for violence that is part of “the struggle for recognition”. On the other hand, Ricoeur also points again to the role of justice for peace. As he argues with Marcel Hénaff, in the exchange of gifts for instance, the parties involved proof their recognition to one another, and, in this sense, they maintain a peaceful relationship. This session aims at investigating the tension between justice and recognition in Ricoeur’s work, and especially in The Course of Recognition
see also: http://www.eurosa.org/esa2014/
Art in & of the Streets
Date: March 5th - 7th, 2015
Location: New York City
Hosts: The Pratt Institute & New York University
Possible topics include but are not limited to the following:
This conference is funded through generous gifts from:The American Society for Aesthetics and The Pratt Institute.