Zeitschrift für Ästhetik und Allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft, Band 61. Heft 1

This essay discusses Jacques Rancière’s political philosophy with respect to its ‘aesthetic’ basis that rests on a theory of the division of the sensible (partage du sensible). The author raises the question whether Rancières conception of this partage goes beyond traditional theories of perspectivity and political plurality. The evaluation of this approach of Rancière’s political theory focuses on critical potentials of a political sensitisation for the fact that (and how) we live in a shared and at the same time divided political world.

The rise and development of the interdisciplinary academic discipline of cultural studies is part of a broader cultural turn in the humanities and social sciences that represents a fare- well to mono-causal and reductionist methodologies in favor of a more complex, holistic and dialectical analysis of social and cultural processes. In so-called ‘critical theory’ this has led to a shift from economic and political sources of social inequality and struggles towards the persistence and irreducible complexity of cultural difference or otherness, evidenced by important studies of the role of nationalism, the aestheticization of everyday life or the growing influence of new media of communication and imagination. This cultural turn in humanities and social sciences is related to a growing influence of cultural and at the same time post-political forms of power in everyday life, exemplified by the dominance of a meritocratic culture of ‘positive thinking’ in different areas of society, or in other words: of a neoliberal culture and ideology. In cultural studies historical awareness of this growing influence of cultural power is combined with anthropological research into the specificities of contemporary everyday culture and with a strong sensibility for the tensions, inequalities and contradictions in that culture, due to an ever growing globalization of its conditions. This inter- or transdisciplinary perspective on the power of culture finally cannot do without a serious rethinking of the aesthetic quality or dimension of everyday culture – and at the same time a rethinking of the scope and substance of aesthetics itself.

The article poses the question to what extend Josef Koenig’s aesthetic approach represents a continuation of the Kantian approach by means of philosophy of language. Its starting point is Kant’s notion of aesthetic ideas for which concepts – in their metaphorical use – are an indespensable condition. Both authors presuppose the free play of cognitive faculties as a foundational principle of aesthetic experience. While for Kant beauty immediately results from pleasure concerning a perception, for Koenig this pleasure is mediated by the purposiveness of a description of an aesthetic impression. A description is purposeful if it is expressed by an appropriate metaphor. Hence its interpersonal validity is only verifiable by resonance.

The auto-drama Bildbeschreibung (1984), written by Heiner Müller in the form of a poetic prose, can be read as a response to the emergence of a post-dramatic theater of images and media. In the work of the playwright Müller, it plays a key role as a performance-related Sehtext (viewing text). Under the agenda of image aesthetics, the article explores how the theater text Bildbeschreibung adopts the classical tradition of ekphrasis in order to transform it by transcription. It discusses the literary form and activity of image description as a process of intermedial translation through which the described picture – a drawing of a stage setting – is continuously covered with writing and this way “overpainted” in layers. In a close reading of the written (not staged) dramatic text the multilayered entanglements between description, viewing and observation are exposed. A special focus is drawn on the poetic method of over- painting(Übermalung) as an iconoclastic collision between images – literary images, theater images, film images, and artistic images. The article conclusively argues that Heiner Müller’s overpaintings (Übermalungen) can be qualified as an image-critical strategy of performative iconoclasm by means of which the surrogate function and staging character of images can be crossed and suspended, but also the productive power of imaginatio as a free and uncontrolled stream of images can be activated.

In the opinion of the art critic Julius Meier-Graefe (1867-1935), pictures have a specific logic which is impossible to translate into spoken language. Given this premise, Meier-Graefe develops a specific theory of how art history constructs itself as an interpictorial, self-regulated reference system. Furthermore, in order to convey works of art, he operates with pictures and images in a remarkable way: on the one hand, he makes specific use of reproductions, on the other hand, he communicates via body language that parallels the iconic deixis: By describing and presenting himself in his texts in the physical act of perception and/or reception, he turns himself into a tableau and makes the effect as well as the potential of the artwork visible. The basis of these ideas and methods seems to be the modern experience of museum presentation and reception. Meier-Graefe develops a kind of “practical aesthetic” which can enrich the current debates on interpictoriality.

Most historical accounts of the relations between phenomenology and film take their departure from essays written by Merleau-Ponty and Roman Ingarden after 1945. Thus, they completely ignore the period before the outbreak of World War II. However, if one indeed has difficulties finding any detailed analysis of cinema among the writings of “early phenomenologists,” the subject is nevertheless referred to by authors such as Husserl, Heidegger, Eugen Fink, Moritz Geiger, Felix Kaufmann or Oskar Becker. The present article attempts to reconstruct the implicit conception of cinema which circulated in the phenomenological movement during the interwar period and thus arrives at some significant conclusions regarding the conservative tendencies of phenomenology.

The image and imagining of culture are highly dependent on what we perceive, choose and institutionalize as art, as one of the building bricks in culture’s conception. As approved commodity with literally transcendent powers, art, thus incomparable and beyond any other kind of good, succeeded in serving an entire, increasingly globalized art world. Negotiating the absent, in this regard, is the wish for and the enactment of a system of transfiguration beyond the trivial of the good, encountering the “tracing” of creation. In this context, mechanisms of institutionalization within the structures of the art industry, as we are facing it nowadays, are the essential vehicle of these negotiations. Hence, in the present essay, that system and its structures of enforcement of artistic positions and discourse shall be denominated in order to comprehend the status of shock as subject and artistic as well as societal form which equally has found entrance to the negotiations of common “consecration” within the by now global “Kunstbetrieb.”