Arsalan Aghakhani; Seyed Mohammadreza Hoseini Beheshti; shamsolmolouk Mostafavi
Abstract
Immanuel Kant's aesthetics in Critique of Judgment has always been the subject of discussions and the discovery of many points about the anatomy of the faculty of Taste and its judgments. Because of contemporary aesthetic issues, the inquiry concerning the possibility of the reflective perception ...
Read More
Immanuel Kant's aesthetics in Critique of Judgment has always been the subject of discussions and the discovery of many points about the anatomy of the faculty of Taste and its judgments. Because of contemporary aesthetic issues, the inquiry concerning the possibility of the reflective perception of dissatisfaction and following that the position of ugliness in Kant’s aesthetics has been considered by commentators. Ugliness and its judgments have different places in Kant's pre-critical philosophy in comparison with his ideas in the framework of the critical system. Before writing triple critiques, he has taken note of Ugliness in the format of sensorial perceptions and anthropological concepts as the object of merely empirical positive displeasure perception. But the query about Ugliness as a reflective judgment is impossible on his critical aesthetic horizon because the possibility of such a judgment would be contradictory with the systematic purposes and methodology of the third critique. In order to clarify the position of Ugliness in Kant's aesthetic horizon, while the present article examines his view on Ugliness in the pre-critical horizon, it explains the reasons for the absence of the Ugly as a reflective judgment in Kant's critical considerations and proves the impossibility of realizing the reflective judgment on Ugliness in transcendental philosophy.
ahmad rahmanian; shamsol moluk mostafavi
Abstract
While the ancient Greek never had a specific term for what we know today as art, they used poiesis and techne to refer to concepts broader than contemporary fine arts. Poiesis meant "to make" and "to bring forth". It was a verb, an action that transformed and continued the world. This transformation ...
Read More
While the ancient Greek never had a specific term for what we know today as art, they used poiesis and techne to refer to concepts broader than contemporary fine arts. Poiesis meant "to make" and "to bring forth". It was a verb, an action that transformed and continued the world. This transformation was done through techne and physis. In physis, now translated as nature yet having a broad connotation then as it covered the gods, the creatures came into being by themselves. In techne, they were, however, created by technites. Plato changed not only the Greek thinking but also its attitudes towards the art. According to Heidegger, eidos (idea) is innate and equal to ekphanes and ekphanestaton (what properly shows itself as the most radiant of all is the beautiful). By way of the idea, a work of art comes to appear in the designation of the beautiful as ekphanestaton. Heidegger goes on to consider this a main component of the aesthetic attitude towards the art. One would also recognize two other events in Platonic thinking which could be considered the origins of other components of aesthetics: separation of art and truth as well as separation of beauty and truth. As to on should necessarily be divided into aletheia (truth) and phainomenon (image), the artist is an on phainomenon, and the art and truth become separated. Following his ancestors, Plato draws similarities between to kalon (beauty), to agathon (good) and to alethes (truth) and considers beauty to belong to the realm of on phainomenon and truth to the realm of alatheia in Phaedrus. Therefore, the three mentioned aesthetic components are all rooted in the Platonic Idealism.
Sharareh Teimouri; Shamsolmolouk Mostafavi; Maryam Bakhtiarian
Abstract
Jacques Derrida was one of the few philosophers who seriously became involved with architecture. Despite his innermost desire, Derrida seems to have never made a proper connection with architecture. As soon as Derrida's theory of deconstruction was developed in architecture, it was thought that a practical ...
Read More
Jacques Derrida was one of the few philosophers who seriously became involved with architecture. Despite his innermost desire, Derrida seems to have never made a proper connection with architecture. As soon as Derrida's theory of deconstruction was developed in architecture, it was thought that a practical way to translate and represent an idea was found. Concerning the output of the deconstruction style, the feedback of that opinion in the design of architectural spaces demonstrates that it was a complete failure. It showed the reflection of Derrida's idea on architecture was based on a poor understanding. The aim of this study is how accurate and complete the style of deconstruction in architecture represented Derrida's opinion on deconstruction? Derrida entered the deconstruction style project in architecture to show that arts are the best objectives to represent the manifestation of deconstruction. Although other studies accepted the formation of the deconstruction style in architecture as the fact of Derrida’s deconstruction, Parc de la Villette’s project really contradicts his hypothesis. Not from an architectural point of view, but from a philosophical point of view instead, this study emphasizes the philosophical basis of Derrida's views on deconstruction according to his thought on texts. Accordingly, as a strong and steady connection, Derrida's deconstruction is a kind of exposure to our relationship with the world, while the architecture's deconstruction style breaks the connection and even disrupts our relationships with this surrounding world.
