Goodmanova a Levinsonova autenticita vs. estetická hodnota aplikované na preklad
Goodman and Levinson's authenticity vs. aesthetic value applied to translation

Summary/Abstract: Nelson Goodman (1906-1998) poses the theoretical question inspiring our reflections in this study; "...why is there an aesthetic difference between a convincing forgery and an original work?" We are interested in answering it in the broader context of different kinds of art. We also add to the consideration the context of confronting the original text and its translation as the imaginary original of fine arts and its copy; while remaining preferably focused on exploring the aesthetic aspects of selected kinds of art; including the art of translation.Goodman considers art as one of the systems of symbols through which; as through science or ordinary everyday discourse; we view; classify; and represent the world around us. His book The Languages of Art is ostensibly concerned only with the philosophy of art; but in the book's introduction Goodman says that by "languages" in the book's title; he means "systems of symbols" in general. Central to his thinking is the concept of reference. He argues that something need not resemble another thing in order to represent it. "If an image is to represent an object; it must designate it; represent it; refer to it; and no amount of similarity is sufficient to establish the desired relation of reference. [...] Almost anything can represent almost anything else. The image it depicts; like the text it describes; refers to the object in question; more precisely denotes it. The essence of representation is denotation; and denotation does not depend on similarity" (Goodman 2006; p. 13). Goodman's aesthetic concept of art as a system of symbols and denotation; i.e. referring to something; underpins our considerations; which is developed in the study as we move into the realms of visual; musical; literary and translation language.The question of "the aesthetic difference between a convincing forgery and an original work;" according to Goodman; "undermines the basic premise on which the very mission of the collector; the museum; and the art historian derives." The theoretical side of the issue brings with it many question marks in everyday practice; as "art forgeries present an unpleasant practical problem for collectors; curators; and art historians; who often have to expend considerable time and energy to determine the authenticity of the objects in question" (Goodman 2006; p. 96). Similar considerable efforts are also made by translation scholars; who follow its historical development; confront different approaches to translation theory; and try to "guard" the original; its original meaning; or inspiringly justify platforms for different translation variations. The key framework for our answers is Goodman's statement regarding aesthetic activity; since this undoubtedly occurs in the translation of art texts: '...if practicing and improving our ability to distinguish between works of art is an obvious aesthetic activity; then the aesthetic properties of an image include not only those we find in the process of perceiving it; but also those that determine the way we perceive it' (Goodman 2006; p. 106). We generalize the concepts inspired by Goodman's theory; such as aesthetic difference; aesthetic activity; or aesthetic qualities; to the translation endeavor.In the study; we are interested in Goodman's aspects of the confrontation of "convincing forgeries" and "original works" in the visual arts; and his different perspectives on this issue in music and literature. Goodman differentiates between autographic and allographic; one- and two-phase art. We also include the art of translation in his categories and relate examples from the visual and musical fields to the work of translation. The notion of aesthetic difference is emphasized by Goodman when examining the authenticity of a work of art; and in music and literature he emphasizes the constitutive qualities of notation. In general; he distinguishes between the authenticity of a work of art and its aesthetic value. We find the aesthetic reflections mentioned above also inspiring when considering translations. Goodman's reflections lead us to their confrontation with the theory of Jerrold Levinson (b. 1948); emphasizing intention; the artist's intention; as one of the most essential in the evaluation of art. In conclusion; we draw attention to the authenticity of the painter; the musical performer and the translator; closely linked to their credible; crafted precision; mastery or virtuoso; expert mental performance. We liken the instantiation – the musical performance of the performer to the translation of the translator. Both are believable and provide the recipient with the same; or a very similar; authentic aesthetic experience as was expressed as the composer's intention in the score or the author's intention in the original text. In doing so; we will be comparing the necessary conditions and means by which such a result can be achieved; since works of translation also require a great deal of original and authentic mastery.

• Details
• Contents