{"title":"Sublime","authors":"Ian Balfour","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The sublime as an aesthetic category has an extraordinarily discontinuous history in Western criticism and theory, though the phenomena it points to in art and nature are without historical limit, or virtually so. The sublime as a concept and phenomenon is harder to define than many aesthetic concepts, partly because of its content and partly because of the absence of a definition in the first great surviving text on the subject, Longinus’s On the Sublime. The sublime is inflected differently in the major theorists: in Longinus it produces ecstasy or transport in the reader or listener; in Burke its main ingredient is terror (but supplemented by infinity and obscurity); and in Kant’s bifurcated system of the mathematical and dynamic sublime, the former entails a cognitive overload, a breakdown of the imagination, and the ability to represent, whereas in the latter, the subject, after first being threatened, virtually, by powerful nature outside her or him, turns inward to discover a power of reason able to think beyond the realm of the senses. Many theorists testify to the effect of transcendence or exaltation of the self on the far side of a disturbing, disorienting experience that at least momentarily suspends or even annihilates the self.\n A great deal in the theoretical-critical texts turns on the force of singularly impressive examples, which may or may not exceed the designs of the theoretical axioms they are meant to exemplify. Examples of sublimity are by no means limited to nature and art but spill over into numerous domains of cultural and social life. The singular force of the individual examples, it is argued, nonetheless tends to work out similarly in certain genres conducive to the sublime (epic, tragedy) but somewhat differently from one genre to another.\n The heyday of the theory and critical engagement with the sublime lasts, in Western Europe and a little beyond, from the late 17th century to the early 19th century. But it does not simply go away, with sublime aesthetic production and critical reflection on the sublime present in the likes of Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and—to Adorno’s mind—in the art of modernism generally, in its critical swerve from the canons of what had counted as beauty.\n The sublime flourished as a topic in theory of criticism of the poststructuralist era, in figures such as Lyotard and Paul de Man but also in Fredric Jameson’s analysis of the cultural logic of late capitalism. The then current drive to critique the principle and some protocols of representation found an almost tailor-made topic in Enlightenment and Romantic theory of the sublime where, within philosophy, representation had been rendered problematic in robust fashion.","PeriodicalId":207246,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","volume":"11 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1095","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The sublime as an aesthetic category has an extraordinarily discontinuous history in Western criticism and theory, though the phenomena it points to in art and nature are without historical limit, or virtually so. The sublime as a concept and phenomenon is harder to define than many aesthetic concepts, partly because of its content and partly because of the absence of a definition in the first great surviving text on the subject, Longinus’s On the Sublime. The sublime is inflected differently in the major theorists: in Longinus it produces ecstasy or transport in the reader or listener; in Burke its main ingredient is terror (but supplemented by infinity and obscurity); and in Kant’s bifurcated system of the mathematical and dynamic sublime, the former entails a cognitive overload, a breakdown of the imagination, and the ability to represent, whereas in the latter, the subject, after first being threatened, virtually, by powerful nature outside her or him, turns inward to discover a power of reason able to think beyond the realm of the senses. Many theorists testify to the effect of transcendence or exaltation of the self on the far side of a disturbing, disorienting experience that at least momentarily suspends or even annihilates the self. A great deal in the theoretical-critical texts turns on the force of singularly impressive examples, which may or may not exceed the designs of the theoretical axioms they are meant to exemplify. Examples of sublimity are by no means limited to nature and art but spill over into numerous domains of cultural and social life. The singular force of the individual examples, it is argued, nonetheless tends to work out similarly in certain genres conducive to the sublime (epic, tragedy) but somewhat differently from one genre to another. The heyday of the theory and critical engagement with the sublime lasts, in Western Europe and a little beyond, from the late 17th century to the early 19th century. But it does not simply go away, with sublime aesthetic production and critical reflection on the sublime present in the likes of Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and—to Adorno’s mind—in the art of modernism generally, in its critical swerve from the canons of what had counted as beauty. The sublime flourished as a topic in theory of criticism of the poststructuralist era, in figures such as Lyotard and Paul de Man but also in Fredric Jameson’s analysis of the cultural logic of late capitalism. The then current drive to critique the principle and some protocols of representation found an almost tailor-made topic in Enlightenment and Romantic theory of the sublime where, within philosophy, representation had been rendered problematic in robust fashion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
崇高
崇高作为一种美学范畴,在西方的批评和理论中有着极不连贯的历史,尽管它在艺术和自然中所指向的现象是没有历史限制的,或者实际上是没有历史限制的。崇高作为一种概念和现象比许多美学概念更难定义,部分原因是它的内容,部分原因是在关于这个主题的第一部幸存的伟大文本中没有一个定义,朗吉努斯的《崇高》。崇高在主要理论家那里有不同的变化:在朗吉努斯那里,崇高使读者或听众感到狂喜或狂喜;在伯克那里,它的主要成分是恐怖(但辅以无限和模糊);在康德的数学的崇高和动力的崇高两种不同的体系中,前者是一种认知的超载,一种想象的崩溃,一种表现的能力,而在后者中,主体在最初受到外部强大的自然的威胁之后,实际上,转向内在,去发现一种理性的力量,能够超越感官的领域去思考。许多理论家证明,超越或提升自我的影响远远超出了令人不安的、迷失方向的经历,至少暂时暂停甚至消灭了自我。在理论批判的文本中,大量的例子都是令人印象深刻的,这些例子可能会也可能不会超过它们所要例证的理论公理的设计。崇高的例子绝不局限于自然和艺术,而是渗透到文化和社会生活的许多领域。有人认为,个别例子的独特力量,在某些有助于崇高的体裁(史诗、悲剧)中往往会产生类似的效果,但在不同的体裁中却有所不同。从17世纪末到19世纪初,在西欧和更远的地方,崇高理论和批判参与的全盛时期持续了。但它并没有简单地消失,随着崇高的美学生产和对崇高的反思,在波德莱尔、尼采等人身上,以及在阿多诺看来,在现代主义艺术中,在它从被视为美的经典的批判转向中。崇高作为后结构主义时代批评理论的一个话题而蓬勃发展,在利奥塔德和保罗·德曼等人物身上,以及在弗雷德里克·詹姆逊对晚期资本主义文化逻辑的分析中。当时批判表征的原则和一些协议的动力在启蒙运动和浪漫主义的崇高理论中找到了一个几乎是量身定制的话题,在哲学中,表征已经以一种强大的方式呈现出问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Turkish Novel as Transnational Planetary Urbanization and Contemporary Fiction Ethology: The Narrative Turn The Reception of Ancient Greece and Rome in the Victorian Period Early Modern Literature and Food in Britain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1