Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-23T07:13:49.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Art and Aesthetics: From Modern to Contemporary

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2024

Aleš Erjavec
Aleš Erjavec*
Affiliation:
SRC SASA, Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Aleš Erjavec, Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Novi Trg 2, Ljubljana, SI-1000, Slovenia. Email: Ales.Erjavec@zrc-sazu.si
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The author sketches the development of the relationship between art and aesthetics in the past four decades. He takes as his starting point the change that artists established in the sixties in relation to philosophical aesthetics. He argues that 1980 represented a historical threshold as concerns transformations both in art and its philosophy. He then discusses three theories of art and aesthetics— Nicolas Bourriaud’s “relational aesthetics” from the nineties, Jacques Rancière’s aesthetic project from the following decade, and the very recent “theory of contemporary art” developed by Terry Smith. In the author’s opinion, these three aesthetic or art theories not only disprove the pervasive opinion that contemporary aesthetics understood as philosophy of art is once more separated from contemporary art and the art world, but also manifest their factual import and impact in contemporary discussions on art.

Type
Articles
Information
Diogenes , Volume 59 , Issue 1-2: Why New Aesthetics? , May 2012 , pp. 148 - 157
Copyright
Copyright © ICPHS 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T W (1997) Aesthetic Theory, trans. Hullot-Kentor, R. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Badiou, A (2007) The Century, trans. Toscano, A. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Z (1989) Legislators and Interpreters. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bishop, C (2004) ‘Antagonism and Relational Aesthetics’, October, 110(1): 51–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourriaud, N (2002) Relational Aesthetics, trans. Pleasance, S., Woods, F. Dijon: Les presses du réel.Google Scholar
Danto, A C (1986) The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art. New York: Columbia UP.Google Scholar
Foucault, M (1994) The Order of Things. An Archeology of Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Groys, B (2008) Art Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J (1983) ‘Modernity – An Incomplete Project’, in Forster, H (ed.) Postmodern Culture, pp. 3–15. London: Bay Press; http://www.peripatetic.us/habermas_modernityproject-1.pdf.Google Scholar
Jameson, F (1991) Postmodernism, or, The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Jencks, C (1987) The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. London: Academy Editions.Google Scholar
Rancière, J (2003) ‘Politics and Aesthetics. An interview’, Angelaki, 8(2): 194–211.Google Scholar
Rancière, J (2009) Aesthetics and its Discontents, trans. S. Corcoran. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Smith, T (2008) ‘Introduction’, in Smith, T, Enwezor, O, Condee, N (eds) Antinomies of Art and Culture. Modernity, Postmodernity, Contemporaneity, pp. 1–19. Durham, NC: Duke UP.Google Scholar
Smith, T (2010) ‘Contemporary Art of the World Today: Patterns in Transition’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Welsch, W (1988) ‘Modernité et postmodernité’, Les Cahiers de Philosophie, 6 (‘Postmoderne . Les Termes d’un usage’): 21–31.Google Scholar