Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory offers one of the most powerful and comprehensive critiques of art and of the discipline of aesthetics ever written. The work offers a deeply critical engagement with the history and philosophy of aesthetics and with the traditions of European art through the middle of the 20th century. It is coupled with ambitious claims about what aesthetic theory ought to be. But the cultural horizon of Adorno's Aesthetic Theory was the world of high modernism, and much has (...) happened since then both in theory and in practice. Adorno's powerful vision of aesthetics calls for reconsideration in this light. Must his work be defended, updated, resisted, or simply left behind? This volume gathers new essays by leading philosophers, critics, and theorists writing in the wake of Adorno in order to address these questions. They hold in common a deep respect for the power of Adorno's aesthetic critique and a concern for the future of aesthetic theory in response to recent developments in aesthetics and its contexts. (shrink)

Dans le cadre des rencontres Contested Territories : Conversations in Practice qu’elle organise en partenariat avec la Chelsea School of Art and Design et la Naked Punch Review, la Tate Modern a réuni le 2 février 2006 Arthur Danto, Thierry de Duve et Richard Shusterman pour une table ronde portant sur le célèbre article publié par Danto en 1964, « Le monde de l’art 1 », et les questions qu’il continue de soulever. Voici la traduction de leurs exposés et de (...) leurs échanges. (shrink)

Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Judgment, Thierry de Duve argues in the first volume of Aesthetics at Large, is as relevant to the appreciation of art today as it was to the enjoyment of beautiful nature in 1790. Going against the grain of all aesthetic theories situated in the Hegelian tradition, this provocative thesis, which already guided de Duve’s groundbreaking book Kant After Duchamp (1996), is here pursued in order to demonstrate that far from confining aesthetics to a stifling formalism isolated (...) from all worldly concerns, Kant’s guidance urgently opens the understanding of art onto ethics and politics. Central to de Duve’s re-reading of the Critique of Judgment is Kant’s idea of sensus communis, ultimately interpreted as the mere yet necessary idea that human beings are capable of living in peace with one another. De Duve pushes Kant’s skepticism to its limits by submitting the idea of sensus communis to various tests leading to questions such as: Do artists speak on behalf of all of us? Is art the transcendental ground of democracy? Or, Was Adorno right when he claimed that no poetry could be written after Auschwitz? Loaded with de Duve’s trademark blend of wit and erudition and written without jargon, these essays radically renew current approaches to some of the most burning issues raised by modern and contemporary art. They are indispensable reading for anyone with a deep interest in art, art history, or philosophical aesthetics. (shrink)

Au paragraphe 59 de la Critique de la faculté de juger, juste avant de se lancer dans la Critique du jugement téléologique, Kant écrit une phase que rien dans la Critique du jugement esthétique, qu’il s’apprête à conclure, n’annonçait : “Je dis maintenant que le beau est le symbole du bien moral”. Il fait toutefois précéder cette ligne d’une explication de ce qu’il entend par “symbole”, qu’il illustre par un exemple qui semble aussi abrupt et hors contexte que la phrase (...) sur le symbolisme moral du beau lui-même : “Ainsi représente-t-on un état monarchique apr un corps animé s’il est gouverné selon des lois internes du peuple, mais par une simple machine (comme, par exemple, un moulin à bras) s’il est gouverné par une volonté singulière absolue.” Le présent article prend son départ dans la précipitation quasi-freudienne de Kant, qui concerne tant la phrase sur le symbolisme que l’exemple étrangement politique illustrant ce qu’il entend par “symbole”, afin de mettre à jour la validité de son affirmation sur le symbolisme moral du beau pour notre époque. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to offer some theoretical clarification of the word art in the wake of the reception of Duchamp's readymades and their acknowledgment by art history.It became clear in the sixties that it is now both technically possible and institutionally legitimate to make art from absolutely anything whatever.To this a priori possibility would like to give the term art in general. After which shall define three other terms which may help clarify our usage of the word (...) art in the post-Duchamp situation: art, period; art altogether; and art itself. Their articulation is intended to lay the ground for an aesthetic theory of art adapted to our times. (shrink)

Thierry de Duve’s essay is anchored to the one and perhaps only hard fact that we possess regarding the story of Fountain: its photo in The Blind Man No. 2, triply captioned “Fountain by R. Mutt,” “Photograph by Alfred Stieglitz,” and “THE EXHIBIT REFUSED BY THE INDEPENDENTS,” and the editorial on the facing page, titled “The Richard Mutt Case.” He examines what kind of agency is involved in that triple “by,” and revisits Duchamp’s intentions and motivations when he created the (...) fictitious R. Mutt, manipulated Stieglitz, and set a trap to the Independents. De Duve concludes with an invitation to art historians to abandon the “by” questions and to focus on the “from” questions that arise when Fountain is not seen as a work of art so much as the bearer of the news that the art world has radically changed. (shrink)