The artwork’s community

The paper explores the inherent political dimension of art, theorized as the artwork’s community: the community structurally constitutive of the work of art as a phenomenon. I distinguish between two major paradigms of the artwork’s community: the Kantian and the Heideggerian. The Kantian is a trans...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Pioter Shmugliakov
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2020-01-01
Series:Journal of Aesthetics & Culture
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2020.1733847
id doaj-2f7f323e66f94499a411a0b4271615d2
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2f7f323e66f94499a411a0b4271615d22020-12-17T14:55:56ZengTaylor & Francis GroupJournal of Aesthetics & Culture2000-42142020-01-0112110.1080/20004214.2020.17338471733847The artwork’s communityPioter Shmugliakov0Freie Universität BerlinThe paper explores the inherent political dimension of art, theorized as the artwork’s community: the community structurally constitutive of the work of art as a phenomenon. I distinguish between two major paradigms of the artwork’s community: the Kantian and the Heideggerian. The Kantian is a transcendental aesthetic community, evoked in aesthetic judgment, which thus claims the possibility of emancipated political existence. The Heideggerian, in contrast, is an actual community, sharing the understanding of reality inaugurated by the truth-disclosing event of art. I further distinguish between two possible interpretations of the Heideggerian artwork’s community. The orthodox interpretation conceives of it in terms of Volk, which renders it largely irrelevant for the art of our age. I suggest a new interpretation of the Heideggerian artwork’s community, which keeping with the historical actuality as its essential treat, reduces its scale to the type of community defined by Hakim Bey as temporary autonomous zone (TAZ). I undertake a comparative analysis of two contemporary artistic phenomena, which seem to be informed by an interpretation of the artwork’s community in terms of the latter paradigm: the participatory practices of contemporary art (also known as relational art) and the psytrance dance movement. I show that while psytrance indeed embodies the Heideggerian artwork’s community in its TAZ-version, participatory art operates within the Kantian paradigm, while taking TAZ as the privileged medium of its aesthetic operation.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2020.1733847art and communityaesthetics and politicsrelational aestheticsparticipatory artpsytrancekantheideggerhakim bey
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Pioter Shmugliakov
spellingShingle Pioter Shmugliakov
The artwork’s community
Journal of Aesthetics & Culture
art and community
aesthetics and politics
relational aesthetics
participatory art
psytrance
kant
heidegger
hakim bey
author_facet Pioter Shmugliakov
author_sort Pioter Shmugliakov
title The artwork’s community
title_short The artwork’s community
title_full The artwork’s community
title_fullStr The artwork’s community
title_full_unstemmed The artwork’s community
title_sort artwork’s community
publisher Taylor & Francis Group
series Journal of Aesthetics & Culture
issn 2000-4214
publishDate 2020-01-01
description The paper explores the inherent political dimension of art, theorized as the artwork’s community: the community structurally constitutive of the work of art as a phenomenon. I distinguish between two major paradigms of the artwork’s community: the Kantian and the Heideggerian. The Kantian is a transcendental aesthetic community, evoked in aesthetic judgment, which thus claims the possibility of emancipated political existence. The Heideggerian, in contrast, is an actual community, sharing the understanding of reality inaugurated by the truth-disclosing event of art. I further distinguish between two possible interpretations of the Heideggerian artwork’s community. The orthodox interpretation conceives of it in terms of Volk, which renders it largely irrelevant for the art of our age. I suggest a new interpretation of the Heideggerian artwork’s community, which keeping with the historical actuality as its essential treat, reduces its scale to the type of community defined by Hakim Bey as temporary autonomous zone (TAZ). I undertake a comparative analysis of two contemporary artistic phenomena, which seem to be informed by an interpretation of the artwork’s community in terms of the latter paradigm: the participatory practices of contemporary art (also known as relational art) and the psytrance dance movement. I show that while psytrance indeed embodies the Heideggerian artwork’s community in its TAZ-version, participatory art operates within the Kantian paradigm, while taking TAZ as the privileged medium of its aesthetic operation.
topic art and community
aesthetics and politics
relational aesthetics
participatory art
psytrance
kant
heidegger
hakim bey
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20004214.2020.1733847
work_keys_str_mv AT piotershmugliakov theartworkscommunity
AT piotershmugliakov artworkscommunity
_version_ 1724379201883078656