Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Band 58. Heft 1

Bei dem Anliegen der Grundlegung einer zeitgemäßen Kunstwissenschaft, das die Forscher um M. Dessoir verbindet, kommt der Auseinandersetzung mit der experimentellen Ästhetik G. Th. Fechners eine zentrale Rolle zu. So werden die antimetaphysische Haltung und die Phänomennähe dieses Ansatzes, der dezidiert die Position des ästhetischen Subjekts in den Blick nimmt, begrüßt. Allerdings bemängelt man zugleich, dass dies um den Preis der Vernachlässigung des ästhetischen Objekts geschieht, wie es vor allem K. Fiedler in erkenntnistheoretischer Absicht thematisiert hatte. Umkehrt betrachtet man es an Fiedlers Objektivismus als problematisch, dass hier die Subjektivität des Rezipienten und des Künstlers programmatisch ausgeblendet bleibt. Neben Dessoir entwickeln daher u.a. E. Utitz, M. Geiger und E.W ind sehr unterschiedliche Ansätze, die das gemeinsame Ziel verbindet, beide Aspekte als komplementären Zusammenhang zu thematisieren.

The term »iconic pregnance« is coined to describe images within which diverse layers of time and action coincide. It brings together Cassirer’s account of »symbolic pregnance« with Lessings iconological conception of the »most pregnant moment«. This still controversial concept, which primarily adresses premodern imagery, will be examined in view of four diff erent sujets which at the same time reflect different time-relations: the detemporalisation of presence, the ubiquity of temporal conditions, the disappearance of the moment in time, and finally the synthesis of historical, receptive, and pictorial time.

The essay draws on Paul Valéry’s motif of the »white thing« young Socrates finds on the beach, taking it as a paradigmatic description of the objects of art. It conceptualizes these as transitory objects in the sense of Donald Winnicott’s psychoanalytic theory which stresses their undecidability concerning their status as being inside or outside, real or imaginary. This does not entail a fixation on works nor their – theoretical or practical – rejection. The transitoriness of art is pursued from its realization within reception through the transition between simultaneity and succession, the objects’ indeletable relations to other spheres within and outside the world of art, and the blurring of borders between different art genres, eventually turning to explicit interventions into other contexts. Finally, undecidability is posited even concerning the difference between culture and nature.

Our estimation of art works we sometimes express by calling them felicitous. This ascription is problematic since the criteria are not governed by descriptive properties but by possible ascriptions. Thus, some problems result for an aesthetic realist concerning the provability of an artwork’s felicitousness and the validity of this judgement. An artwork’s status as a felicitous one depends not only on descriptive criteria with cognitive force to agree with this judgement. Rather, this ascription takes place on a background of a communicatively anchored aesthetical acceptance.

Autonomous music is conceivable only as a commodity. This striking insight is already underlying Adam Smith’s aesthetics of music, but it should not be misunderstood as an economic determinism on music. Rather, Smith’s economic theory itself is subject of aestheticisation. Both levels, aesthetics and economics, are structurally coupled. This is particularly evident in Smith’s musical-aesthetic considerations. He distinguishes clearly between vocal and instrumental music. While vocal music is characterised by the communication of relations of sympathy, instrumental music communicates only itself and is therefore autonomous. Thus it corresponds to the figure of the invisible hand, which actually has its most precise expression in instrumental music.

The article undertakes a rereading of Nietzsche’s Birth of Tragedy with a focus on its two central achievements – reviving the Dionysus myth and making the origin of tragedy evident – whose mutual interrelatedness has attracted only sparse critical attention to date. Working more as a myth-maker than a theorist, Nietzsche advances a groundbreaking portrayal of the story of Dionysus that allows him to lay bare the origins of tragedy. Simultaneously, his identification of tragedy’s ultimate source suggests a configuration that lends the Dionysus myth new currency. In so doing, Nietzsche conceives the manifest presence of this myth – as well as that of the origins of tragedy – as a specific recombination of the Dionysian and the Apollonian: not as an Apollonian taming or sublimation of the Dionysian, nor yet as dialectical mediation, but rather as the Apollonian’s seizure by the Dionysian, which teeters on the threshold between lurching toward and postponing a new, more comprehensively Dionysian loss of boundaries. In this way, Nietzsche suggests, there is generated a »Schauen und Sehnen über das Schauen hinaus,« a mode of viewing amplified by longing, through which the specific form of the Dionysus myth from the perspective of tragedy and conversely of tragedy from the perspective of myth becomes apparent. The fulfillment of Nietzsche’s vision in dramatic art is here exemplified by Hofmannsthal’s Elektra.