首页> 外文OA文献 >On “secondary aesthetics, without isolation” : philosophical origins of Bakhtin’s theory of form.
【2h】

On “secondary aesthetics, without isolation” : philosophical origins of Bakhtin’s theory of form.

机译:关于“没有隔离的次要美学”:巴赫金形式理论的哲学渊源。

摘要

This paper discusses the philosophical origins as well as the social context of Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of aesthetic form. Bakhtin’s critique of the Russian Formalist conception of form, which reaches its most elaborate form in his 1924 article “The Methodological Questions of Literary Aesthetics” (“K voprosam metodologii estetiki slovesnogo tvorchestva”), is methodologically rooted in various strands of neo-Kantian philosophy and aesthetics, most notably, in the works of Hermann Cohen and Broder Christiansen. It was from the neo-Kantian philosophical repertoire that Bakhtin derived his foundational argument that aesthetic activity represents a “secondary creation.” Art, according to Bakhtin, stands in contrast to the “primary creative acts” of cognition and ethical judgment, hence it encounters a “reality” that had already been articulated and ordered by cognitive and moral acts. In keeping with this principle, Bakhtin postulates that the aesthetic act is the reassessment of, rather than a direct intervention into, empirical reality. In this constellation, artistic form is seen as the quintessential achievement of aesthetic activity that incorporates, but is categorically irreducible to, cognitively and ethically inarticulate material. Having traced the philosophical origins of Bakhtin’s meditation on form in turn-of-the-century German neo-Kantianism, the paper finally aims to appraise Bakhtin’s inquiry into aesthetic form, especially his emphatic rebuttal of the Russian Formalist assertion of the idea of aesthetic autonomy, against the background of more general trends in the humanities, both European and Russian, toward the separation and specialization of disciplines. Bakhtin’s neo-Kantian unitary vision of arts and humanities, the paper concludes, was fundamentally in conflict with the modernizing tendency in arts and humanities, the offshoots of which he recognized, and thus fervently denied, in a number of contemporaneous artistic and intellectual movements and practices.
机译:本文讨论了米哈伊尔·巴赫金(Mikhail Bakhtin)审美形式理论的哲学渊源和社会背景。巴赫金对俄罗斯形式的形式主义的批判在其1924年的文章“文学美学的方法论问题”(“ K voprosam metodologii estetiki slovesnogo tvorchestva”)中达到了最详尽的形式,其方法论根植于新康德哲学的各个层面。和美学,最著名的是赫尔曼·科恩(Hermann Cohen)和布罗德·克里斯蒂安森(Broder Christiansen)的作品。巴赫金从新康德的哲学著作中得出他的基本观点,即审美活动代表着“次要创造”。根据巴赫金的说法,艺术与认知和伦理判断的“主要创造性行为”形成鲜明对比,因此它遇到了已经由认知和道德行为阐明和命令的“现实”。按照这一原则,巴赫金假定美学行为是对经验现实的重新评估,而不是对现实的直接干预。在这个星座中,艺术形式被看作是审美活动的典型成就,它结合了但在认知和伦理上没有表述的材料,但是在分类上是无法还原的。在追溯了本世纪初德国新康德主义对形式的巴赫金冥想的哲学渊源之后,本文最终旨在评估巴赫金对美学形式的质疑,尤其是他对俄国形式主义者对美学自主性主张的强调性反驳。在欧洲和俄罗斯的人文科学朝着学科的分离和专业化发展的更普遍趋势的背景下。该论文得出的结论是,巴赫金对新康德的艺术和人文科学的统一视野与艺术和人文科学的现代化趋势有根本的冲突,他在许多同时代的艺术和思想运动中认识到并因此强烈否认了这些分支。实践。

著录项

  • 作者

    Radunović Dušan;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号