Patočka's Interpretations of Hegel's Thesis on the Past Character of Art

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F49777513%3A23330%2F15%3A43927661" target="_blank" >RIV/49777513:23330/15:43927661 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Patočka's Interpretations of Hegel's Thesis on the Past Character of Art

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The article shows that Patočka argues that Hegel rightly recognized a fundamental difference between classical and contemporary art. In developing Hegel's insight he offers a conception of two eras of art, the 'artistic' era and the era of 'aesthetic culture'. Patočka supposes that artworks of both the artistic era and the aesthetic era always open up a certain 'meaning' that gives human existence its fundamental points of reference. The status of this world, however, radically changed from one era to the next. The art of the artistic era offered objective and binding meaning, whereas aesthetic art offers personal or individual meaning. The current article points to an important discrepancy in Patočka's treatment of the relation between the two eras, and presents Patočka's later reading of Hegel's notion of the past character of art. From the perspective of this interpretation, art reveals temporality as such, that is, as the ontological basis of the revelation of meaning. The article

Název v anglickém jazyce

Patočka's Interpretations of Hegel's Thesis on the Past Character of Art

Popis výsledku anglicky

The article shows that Patočka argues that Hegel rightly recognized a fundamental difference between classical and contemporary art. In developing Hegel's insight he offers a conception of two eras of art, the 'artistic' era and the era of 'aesthetic culture'. Patočka supposes that artworks of both the artistic era and the aesthetic era always open up a certain 'meaning' that gives human existence its fundamental points of reference. The status of this world, however, radically changed from one era to the next. The art of the artistic era offered objective and binding meaning, whereas aesthetic art offers personal or individual meaning. The current article points to an important discrepancy in Patočka's treatment of the relation between the two eras, and presents Patočka's later reading of Hegel's notion of the past character of art. From the perspective of this interpretation, art reveals temporality as such, that is, as the ontological basis of the revelation of meaning. The article

Druh

J_x - Nezařazeno - Článek v odborném periodiku (Jimp, Jsc a Jost)

CEP obor

AL - Umění, architektura, kulturní dědictví

OECD FORD obor

—

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

V - Vyzkumna aktivita podporovana z jinych verejnych zdroju

Rok uplatnění

2015

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Estetika

ISSN

0014-1291

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

LII

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

CZ - Česká republika

Počet stran výsledku

21

Strana od-do

78-98

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—