Beauty and the Beast: Art and Law in the Hall of Mirrors

A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos
{"title":"Beauty and the Beast: Art and Law in the Hall of Mirrors","authors":"A. Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos","doi":"10.1080/1473098042000275765","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A connection between art and law is the focus of this article. This connection is based on their autopoietic, self-referential nature as described by Niklas Luhmann in his legal sociology and his treatise on art. Expectedly, the two systems have different behavioural patterns. While art takes a narcissistic pleasure in its self-referentiality and augments the paradox by reproducing itself and its structures as a conscious hyperreality, law is still tied up in its missionary role as an instrument for social justice and regards any insinuation to self-referentiality as an affront. While some basic but ultimately prosaic questions such as 'what is art?' and 'what is law?' will inevitably be posed, they will happily be left unanswered, not only for sanity's sake, but also for a specific methodological reason: the questions will be projected onto themselves in an attempt to locate the respective roles of the two systems - those of art and law. The result is an observation on whether there is indeed a need for an 'external', hallopoietic standpoint from which to exert critique and instigate social change, or whether the so-perceived 'offensiveness' of self-referentiality is a vehicle for unspectacular yet effective social amelioration.","PeriodicalId":36418,"journal":{"name":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","volume":"60 1","pages":"1-34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interactive Entertainment Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1473098042000275765","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

A connection between art and law is the focus of this article. This connection is based on their autopoietic, self-referential nature as described by Niklas Luhmann in his legal sociology and his treatise on art. Expectedly, the two systems have different behavioural patterns. While art takes a narcissistic pleasure in its self-referentiality and augments the paradox by reproducing itself and its structures as a conscious hyperreality, law is still tied up in its missionary role as an instrument for social justice and regards any insinuation to self-referentiality as an affront. While some basic but ultimately prosaic questions such as 'what is art?' and 'what is law?' will inevitably be posed, they will happily be left unanswered, not only for sanity's sake, but also for a specific methodological reason: the questions will be projected onto themselves in an attempt to locate the respective roles of the two systems - those of art and law. The result is an observation on whether there is indeed a need for an 'external', hallopoietic standpoint from which to exert critique and instigate social change, or whether the so-perceived 'offensiveness' of self-referentiality is a vehicle for unspectacular yet effective social amelioration.
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
《美女与野兽:镜厅中的艺术与法律
艺术与法律之间的联系是本文的重点。这种联系是基于他们的自创生,自我参照的性质,正如Niklas Luhmann在他的法律社会学和他的艺术论文中所描述的那样。意料之中的是,这两个系统有着不同的行为模式。虽然艺术在自我参照中获得了自恋的乐趣,并通过将自身及其结构复制为有意识的超现实来增加悖论,但法律仍然被束缚在其作为社会正义工具的传教士角色中,并将任何暗示自我参照的行为视为一种侮辱。而一些基本但最终平淡无奇的问题,如“什么是艺术?”和“法律是什么?”的问题将不可避免地被提出,它们将被愉快地留下答案,这不仅是为了理智,也是为了一个特定的方法论原因:这些问题将被投射到它们自己身上,试图定位两个系统——艺术和法律的各自角色。结果是观察是否确实需要一个“外部的”、创造的立场来施加批评和煽动社会变革,或者所谓的自我参照的“冒犯性”是否是一种不引人注目但有效的社会改善的工具。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and evolving issues under US copyright and patent law EULAs: Flexible tools of governance or instruments of authoritarianism? Are streaming rights the new broadcasting rights of the 21st century? A comparative review on the specific case of esport competitions Mr. Feige, I don’t feel so good … Copyright ownership, creators’ rights, and the Marvel Cinematic Universe Dark clouds gather – The development of cloud gaming, and competition agencies’ efforts to enable it on mobile app stores
×
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