Революция в искусстве: эстетическая теория Кандинского в интерпретациях Мишеля Анри и Анри Мальдине

EINAI: Проблемы философии и теологии. 2016. Т. 5. № 1/2. С. 107–118.

Yampolskaya A.

In this paper I compare how Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney interpret Kandinsky’s heritage. Henry’s phenomenology is based on a distinction between two main modes of manifestation — the ordinary one, that is, the manifestation of the world and the «manifestation of life». For him Kandinsky’s work provides a paradigmatic exam- ple of the second, more original, mode of manifestation, which is free from all forms of self-alienation. Henry claims that this living-though of the work of art is transformative; it is a kind of ascetic practice or mystical experience that goes beyond the distinction of the subject and the object. Maldiney recognises in Kandinsky’s work an attempt to pro- vide an access to an acosmic and ahistoric experience of one’s inner self; yet for him this is not a positive characteristic. For Maldiney, the key distinction is not between modes of phenomenalisation, but between the dimensions of meaning (sens). For him there is no radical self-transformation which is not a transformation of one’s being-in-the-world and one’s meaning of the world, and so Kandinsky’s acosmic paintings cannot induce a true transformation of self. I conclude that the disagreement of Henry and Maldiney on Kandinsky does not unfold on the level of the phenomenological description of the concrete aesthetic experience, but on the level of metaphysics. I suggest that Henry and Maldiney can be seen as representatives of two great mystical traditions: those are of Meister Eckhart and Jakob Böhme. 

Keywords: Кандинский, Мишель Анри, michel henry, new French phenomenology, henri maldiney, Анри Мальдине, современная французская феноменология, Kandinsky