Axiological and dialogic concept of art culture Cover Image

Аксіологічні та діалогічні концепції художньої культури
Axiological and dialogic concept of art culture

Author(s): Natalia Vitaliyivna Barna
Subject(s): Visual Arts, Aesthetics, Sociology of Art
Published by: Національна академія керівних кадрів культури і мистецтв
Keywords: visual arts; art culture; aesthetics;

Summary/Abstract: In the article it was considered the context of Visual Arts Reasonings as the part of artistic culture in which arises a problem of culture values in general, all things that are already done and not done in time and space, which becomes current time and space of culture and creative work. The problem of values was represented by postkantian aesthetics and in general by all movement of postkantian philosophy. However, only later axiology became wide spread, self-sufficient sphere of reflection, that is implicitly turns its attention to the work of art. Art is becoming one of the dimensions of existential values, ontology coexistence of human being and the world, the man and the universe, the man and the absolute. But axiology, which was not enough liked and appreciated by Martin Heidegger becomes dramatic intersection of different ideas which are transformed differently in artistic and philosophical contexts, aesthetic projects. It is important to note that it is precisely Kant was one of the first who founded axiological approach. His categorical imperative, judgment capability, which was understood as a transcendental subject and all Kant’s transcendentality then entered in the circulation of philosophical reasoning postkantian’s value philosophy. The practical intelligence and aesthetic intelligence or intelligence capability are becoming main to understand exactly judgments in the axiological context. However, it should be noted that Kant was more formalized by Neo-Kantian philosophers. They believed that the formal principle deprives itself experience of any content, while Kant's demand of formal generality of categorical imperative was not unconscious. However, it is also important to understand that values are more the result of culture and creative work than principle. They themselves need adequation and understanding of the cultural field of their adequation and culture phenomenology transforms into axiology when the value is set together as object and subjective reality. That’s why arise the closure with Marxist philosophy, subjective and object space that is becoming simple, enough structural for understanding value of culture adequation. Martin Heidegger against this categorically, he writes that value are not tenuous sign of culture, but rather deep, fundamental reality that cannot be defined neither from the middle of the business, nor from outside. The value is the gift of existence (Dasein), which is not subjected to any subjective or object adequations. If Martin Heidegger understood beingness widely and all ontology of values were formulated in the context of this broad understanding of life, then the life for M. Hartmann remained within the Kantian tradition. The value does not occur with any of the real things or relationships, or with subjects. Neither realism nor subjectivity are not inherent their way of being. It is considered that the values are mediating point that link man with world, things, with objects, with all that is its real world. Aesthetic pleasure is higher than material happiness of harmonious personal communication. However, "Aesthetics" of Hartmann increasingly belongs to phenomenological tradition. Interesting here is the description of unreflective components of aesthesis, which he associates with aesthetic perception. Aesthetic perception is one of the interesting points. But the case is that this reflection disposal and at the same time integrity rather interesting interpreted by other theorists who call it straight mysticism and insight. Dichotomy of internal and external are quite widespread, both in phenomenology of Kant and Husserl’s phenomenology, it easily moves in the context of Marxist aesthetics, begins to break into the value and valuation and to structure as subjective and objective fact. And in subject-object opposition it is deployed as a game, combination of internal and external, it is presented above art. Creation exists as comparison of land, it puts itself back into the interior of the earth. It's self closed ground, it is imaginative and immovable absorption, self closing earth unfolds in inexhaustible fullness of simple ways and simple images. It is clear that the sculptor uses stone exactly as stonecutter use it, as he uses stone, he does not use the stone to the end without destroying the stone to the end no remnant, to some extent, this happens only occasionally, when creation failed sculptor. The artist also uses paint, but uses so that the paint is not lost, but rather first starts to glow. Of course, the poet uses words because using them does not usually speak and write, people who speak plain language, for using the word as if the first word became a word. The human being is a dialogical relationship that in the same way is a monologue (better to say – logical monads according to Leibniz), because this monologue is hidden, like a neologism. The dialogue and monologue overcome predistancing, the ratio of general and special happens as wide material dialogue, where you can hear voices, hear relations between "I" and "you". Perhaps ontologism and general pronoun "I" and "you" are explicitly implicit aesthetic work of art or human creations in general, where dialogue, communication relations as "I" and "you" is creativity, is creations. Creation of common existence, ontology co-creation. Understanding as dialogue as an endless fabric conversations, making discourses, conversation is not just speaking as ontological fabric verbal self-realization in Word or Word creation of world, the author creates a kind poesis, a kind of poetic self-realization of man as man modern European sample, the New Rights time