In his article ‘Art and Time’ Patočka argues that Hegel rightly recognized a fundamental difference between classical and contemporary art. In developing Hegel’s insight he offers a conception of two eras of art, the ‘artistic’ era and the era of ‘aesthetic culture’. Patočka supposes that artworks of both the artistic era and the aesthetic era always open up a certain ‘meaning’ that gives human existence its fundamental points of reference. The status of this world, however, radically changed from one era (...) to the next. The art of the artistic era offered objective and binding meaning, whereas aesthetic art offers personal or individual meaning. The current article points to an important discrepancy in Patočka’s treatment of the relation between the two eras, and presents Patočka’s later reading of Hegel’s notion of the past character of art. From the perspective of this interpretation, art reveals temporality as such, that is, as the ontological basis of the revelation of meaning. The article emphasizes that such an interpretation demonstrates the ontological relevance of the artwork in greater detail. Yet Patočka continued to use the concepts of the artistic era and the aesthetic era, without sufficiently clarifying the relationship between the two eras. Finally, the author argues that the discrepancy in the concept can be resolved with the help of Patočka’s later reflections on the ‘problematic nature’ of meaning. The article argues that in classical art such a nature is concealed, whereas in modern art it is revealed again. The article includes an English translation of Patočka´s ‘Art and Time’. (shrink)

The article deals with José Gil’s considerations on the relationships between the virtuality and the actuality of the dancing body. At first, it analyses Gil’s idea of projecting the current position of the dancing body into virtual images and explores Gil’s notion of the multiplicity of virtuality. Further, it demonstrates how in the space of the body a consistent compound of movements is created at the level of the monstrous virtual body. Finally, the article emphasizes that, despite the connections between (...) the actual position of the body and its virtual images, there is a fundamental distinction between the actuality and the virtuality of the dancing body. It shows that the idea of the distinction between the virtual and the actual reflects Gil’s concept of virtual memory as a zone of accumulated possibilities of movement. (shrink)

A report on the International Congress of Aesthetics: Aesthetics Bridging Cultures, which was held in Ankara, Turkey, 9–13 August 2007.