GAKhN: an aesthetics of ruins, or Aleksej Losev’s failed project
In the course of his collaboration with GAKhN, whose task was to create a systemic ‘scientific’ theory of art, Losev undertook a systematic interpretation of German classical aesthetics as the historical presupposition for his own Christian, Platonist doctrine of art conceived as a dialectical universe comprising totalizing connections at all levels. This interpretation was concealed in a masterful way within the ‘Commentaries’ to Dialektika khudozˇestvennoj formy. Independently of the significant results achieved by this revival of the classical tradition, Losev’s mythologized theory of art called forth a critical reaction on the part of his GAKhN colleagues and brought to light some of the broader theoretical attitudes present among GAKhN’s collaborators.
Actual Problems of Theory and History of Art conference is an international academic forum held biannually by Lomonosov Moscow State University and Saint Petersburg State University, supported by major Russian museums. The conference takes place alternately in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. In Saint Petersburg, the State Hermitage Museum acts as its permanent partner. In 2018, the conference is held in Moscow, with the State Tretyakov Gallery as partner museum. The conference is dedicated to a wide range of issues related to history and theory of visual arts and architecture, conservation and interpretation of Russian and international cultural heritage, and interaction between academic science and museum experience. The chronological scope of this interdisciplinary forum spans from prehistoric era to contemporary stage. The conference welcomes art historians, culture theorists, archaeologists, art conservators, museum practitioners, and other humanities scholars whose research areas include architecture, visual and decorative arts.
This paper considers Barry Smith’s substitutional theory of art as way to overcome the difficulties of Meinongian theories, difficulties connected with the polysemy of meaning of the notion «existence». On the contrary Smith’s theory deals with the acts of cognition (not objects), and this could help us to solve Meinongian problems, especially when we are trying to explain the work of our mind with the pieces of art. Smith’s theory has a lot in common with phenomenological conception of Polish philosopher Roman Ingarden. So it also is useful to analyze these theories and to decide, whether Smith’s theory could be considered as phenomenological.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.