Why beauty and why now? Historical perspectives of the contemporary discourse on beauty

Authors

  • Adrián Kvokačka University of Presov, Ul. 17 novembra 15, 080 01, Prešov, Slovakia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2018.405

Abstract

The term beauty has been a key category of aesthetic thinking for a long time. Relevancy of beauty of art, represented in ancient times by Plato’s transcendental theory of beauty or more factual inductive beauty of empirically oriented Aristotle and many others thinkers, placed beauty as a priority category of the world, including the world of art. Modern approaches follow primarily Kantian and Hegelian idealistic aesthetics of beauty, however, the state of today’s art world, or in the broader context, the aesthetic world of the 20th century, doubt beauty and even dethrone it from its pedestal. Does it make sense today to inquire about beauty of art? Has beauty as an attribute of art not ended its journey together with the idea of end of art? The paper aims to follow the connotations of losing beauty’s place in art in the context of the end of art (Hegel and Danto) or end of its history (Belting). Contemporary new thematization of beauty after a century dominated by the ugly or the noble in art (from Kant’s and Lyotard’s point of view) is an important shift showing beauty not only as a residuum of history but rather as a vital deposit that is worthily gaining a renewed attention and new varieties with the contribution of interdisciplinary approaches.

Keywords:

aesthetics, end of art, beauty

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
 

References

References

Danto, A. C. (2008), Zneužitie krásy [Abuse of beauty], Kalligram, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Scruton, R. (2009), Beauty . Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Hegel, G. W. F., Aesthetics. Lectures on fine art, vol. I, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1975.

Sošková, J. (2007), “Otvorenosť klasických estetických kategórií pre súčasnú estetiku” [Openness of classical aesthetic categories for contemporary aesthetics], in Sošková, J. (ed.), Estetika — filozofia — umenie III [Aesthetics — Philosophy — Art III], Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, Prešov, Slovakia, pp. 76–95.

Nancy, J. L. (1993), “The Sublime Offering”, in Courtine, J .F. and al. Of the Sublime: Presence in Questions: essays, State University of New York Press, New York, NY, pp. 25–53.

Danto, A. C. (1964), “Artworld”, Journal of Philosophy, vol. 61, no. 19, pp. 571–584.

Hepburn, R. W. (1966), “Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty”, in Williams, B. and Montefiori, A. (eds.), British Analytical Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, UK, pp. 285–310.

Dadějík, O. (2010), “Environmentální estetika” [Environmental aesthetics], in Zahrádka, P. (ed.), Estetika na přelomu milénia [Aesthetics at the turn of the millennium], Barrister & Principal, Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 373–384.

Danto, A. (1998), “Konec umění” [End of Art], Estetika, vol. 35, pp. 1–18.

Shusterman, R. (1999), “Somaesthetics: A Disciplinary Proposal”, Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 57, p. 299–313.

Berleant, A. (1991), Art and Engagement, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA

Downloads

Published

2019-01-14

How to Cite

Kvokačka, A. (2019). Why beauty and why now? Historical perspectives of the contemporary discourse on beauty. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies, 34(4), 515–522. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2018.405

Issue

Vol. 34 No. 4 (2018): Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies

Section

Philosophy

License

Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Philosophy and Conflict Studies" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.