产品与零件之间:审美拜物教与艺术融资

IF 0.1 4区 艺术学 0 ART Zivot Umjetnosti Pub Date : 2019-07-01 DOI:10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05
M. Đorđević
{"title":"产品与零件之间:审美拜物教与艺术融资","authors":"M. Đorđević","doi":"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper focuses on the ideological transformation of modernistic aesthetic fetishism into what Professor Rastko Močnik has termed “aesthetic imperialism” in contemporary art. Our hypothesis is that this transformation is an effect of the overdetermination of artistic production to fictitious capital. In order to examine this hypothesis, we shall explore the transformation of the simple, modernist work of art into the twofold, contemporary work of art (which must first be a claim to aesthetic evaluation and only then a work of art). We do not suggest that modernism did not know the term “artwork,” as applying to those art products that were not recognized as works of art, but rather that there was a change in the very process of aesthetic evaluation. We believe that, unlike the unitary modernist recognition of products as works by the institution of art, there is twofold recognition in the contemporary age. Here the claim to aesthetic evaluation is allowed to every product, but confirmed only to those that successfully reproduce the ruling “aesthetic imperialism.” Even though ideologists of contemporary art present this change as a result of progressivism that is inherent to the institution of art, we would like to argue that it is an effect of the abovementioned overdetermination of artistic production by fictitious capital, that is, its effects in aesthetic and legal fetishism. This hypothesis will be examined in two relatively autonomous instances: economic and ideological (artistic).","PeriodicalId":41082,"journal":{"name":"Zivot Umjetnosti","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Između proizvoda i dela: estetski fetišizam i finansijalizacija umetnosti\",\"authors\":\"M. Đorđević\",\"doi\":\"10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper focuses on the ideological transformation of modernistic aesthetic fetishism into what Professor Rastko Močnik has termed “aesthetic imperialism” in contemporary art. Our hypothesis is that this transformation is an effect of the overdetermination of artistic production to fictitious capital. In order to examine this hypothesis, we shall explore the transformation of the simple, modernist work of art into the twofold, contemporary work of art (which must first be a claim to aesthetic evaluation and only then a work of art). We do not suggest that modernism did not know the term “artwork,” as applying to those art products that were not recognized as works of art, but rather that there was a change in the very process of aesthetic evaluation. We believe that, unlike the unitary modernist recognition of products as works by the institution of art, there is twofold recognition in the contemporary age. Here the claim to aesthetic evaluation is allowed to every product, but confirmed only to those that successfully reproduce the ruling “aesthetic imperialism.” Even though ideologists of contemporary art present this change as a result of progressivism that is inherent to the institution of art, we would like to argue that it is an effect of the abovementioned overdetermination of artistic production by fictitious capital, that is, its effects in aesthetic and legal fetishism. This hypothesis will be examined in two relatively autonomous instances: economic and ideological (artistic).\",\"PeriodicalId\":41082,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zivot Umjetnosti\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zivot Umjetnosti\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zivot Umjetnosti","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31664/ZU.2019.104.05","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文关注的是现代主义审美拜物教在当代艺术中的意识形态转变,即Rastko mo nik教授所说的“审美帝国主义”。我们的假设是,这种转变是艺术生产对虚拟资本的过度决定的影响。为了检验这一假设,我们将探讨简单的现代主义艺术作品向双重的当代艺术作品的转变(这必须首先是对审美评价的要求,然后才是艺术作品)。我们并不是说现代主义不知道“艺术品”这个词,因为它适用于那些不被认为是艺术作品的艺术产品,而是说在审美评价的过程中发生了变化。我们认为,与现代主义对产品作为艺术机构作品的单一认可不同,当代存在着双重认可。在这里,每一种产品都可以要求审美评价,但只有那些成功地复制了占统治地位的“审美帝国主义”的产品才可以得到证实。尽管当代艺术的意识形态家将这种变化视为艺术制度固有的进步主义的结果,但我们愿意认为,这是上述虚构资本对艺术生产的过度决定的结果,也就是说,它在审美和法律拜物教中的影响。这一假设将在两个相对独立的实例中进行检验:经济和意识形态(艺术)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Između proizvoda i dela: estetski fetišizam i finansijalizacija umetnosti
This paper focuses on the ideological transformation of modernistic aesthetic fetishism into what Professor Rastko Močnik has termed “aesthetic imperialism” in contemporary art. Our hypothesis is that this transformation is an effect of the overdetermination of artistic production to fictitious capital. In order to examine this hypothesis, we shall explore the transformation of the simple, modernist work of art into the twofold, contemporary work of art (which must first be a claim to aesthetic evaluation and only then a work of art). We do not suggest that modernism did not know the term “artwork,” as applying to those art products that were not recognized as works of art, but rather that there was a change in the very process of aesthetic evaluation. We believe that, unlike the unitary modernist recognition of products as works by the institution of art, there is twofold recognition in the contemporary age. Here the claim to aesthetic evaluation is allowed to every product, but confirmed only to those that successfully reproduce the ruling “aesthetic imperialism.” Even though ideologists of contemporary art present this change as a result of progressivism that is inherent to the institution of art, we would like to argue that it is an effect of the abovementioned overdetermination of artistic production by fictitious capital, that is, its effects in aesthetic and legal fetishism. This hypothesis will be examined in two relatively autonomous instances: economic and ideological (artistic).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Community-Based Photographic Archives and “Potential” Histories of the Cold War in Eastern Europe Field notes revisited Bringing Down the “Archive Fever” Archival Transformations and the Value of Photographic Objects Our Photographs, Old and New
×
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