Menas - prasmė - pažinimas

LTKnygoje nagrinėjamos šiuolaikinėje meno epistemologijoje paplitusios meno ir pažinimo ryšio aiškinimo kryptys, atskleidžiami filosofiniai ir estetiniai principai, kuriais remiasi kognityvinės bei antikognityvinės meno sampratos. Grindžiama nuomonė, pažintinę meno funkciją siejanti su analogijų tarp meno kūrinio ir tikrovės įžvalga, aptariama pažintinės funkcijos reikšmė teoriškai apibrėžiant meno specifiką. [Anotacija knygoje]

ENThe cognitive role of art is one of the epistemological issues arousing controversial interpretations in European aesthetic thought since its beginnings. Aristotle, a disciple of Plato, was convinced that art is able to provide a knowledge of outward reality, and that the knowledge brings about a satisfaction in people appreciating artworks. Plato, on the contrary, believed that art is far from a knowledge of the real essence of external phenomena. According to this philosopher, art is capable of transmitting only the appearances of things that don't reflect correctly their true nature. For this reason, Plato thought, the results of artistic activities must be seen, in general, as having little worth. The watersheds between different views concerning the cognitive significance of art that became apparent in the early stages of the European history of aesthetics, have been preserved through many centuries and are manifested in contemporary aesthetic theory. The philosophical and methodological principles peculiar to positivistic movement and post-modern theoretical culture created an atmosphere especially propitious for the proliferation of new distinct solutions to epistemological problems in art. It is no wonder that the present landscape of the epistemology of art is marked by many dividing lines, demarcating different approaches to epistemological issues, and separating opposing solutions to the problems discussed. Lithuanian aesthetic thought is not abundant in theoretical investigations devoted to the epistemology of art. The existing works don't display a systematic picture of the main solutions found in the current epistemology of art. They don't provide a convincing theoretical evaluation of the solutions that dominate in the modern literature dealing with epistemological problems in art.The lack of necessary answers to urgent problems is felt sensitively by many representatives of our humanitarian culture and hinders the development of national aesthetic thought. These circumstances determine the necessity to prepare an analytical report devoted to the systematic examination and evaluation of the basic approaches to the problem of the relationship connecting art and knowledge and to fill the remaining gap in our theoretical literature. This monograph is an attempt to fill, at least partly, the gap. The main aim of scrutiny, the results of which are reflected in the monograph, is to carry out a detailed examination of characteristic answers to questions which are usually conceived as the focus of research in the epistemology of art. The questions are the following: Does art fulfil a cognitive function? If so, how is the function performed? Does the cognitive function play any role as a factor helping to define the specific nature of art? A close look at widely acknowledged epistemological conceptions of art permits us to assert that there are reasons to believe that the answers to the above questions are determined mostly by the characteristic features of philosophical positions shared by the authors of corresponding conceptions. From this point of view, the notion of knowledge, on the basis of which the question of the cognitive role of art is explained, deserves special attention. There is undeniable evidence which testifies to a considerable impact exerted upon the notion of knowledge from the part of a) metaphysical philosophical traditions, b) a scientistic understanding of knowledge, and c) postmodern epistemological conceptions. An understanding of the essence of art is another factor exerting a strong influence on the character of solutions given to the problem of the cognitive role of art.The authors of theories dominated by mimetic traditions in aesthetics are inclined to interpret a work of art as a representative, referential, imitative structure. Its relationship to outward reality is in this case conceived as a natural one, and scrutinized by means and terms peculiar to epistemology. A contrary position is adopted by authors who emphasize the creative dimension of art and interpret an artwork as an opaque structure with respect to which the notions of representation, reference, reflection, image, and truth are seen as irrelevant. Both an understanding of the nature of knowledge and a conception of the essence of art determine to a considerable extent the general character of answers given to the question of the cognitive significance of art. There is a whole range of answers, and each of them represents a distinct epistemological interpretation of the cognitive role of art. Broadly speaking, we can distinguish two main groups of epistemological conceptions of art. The first group consists of conceptions which manifest a more or less clearly expressed positive attitude towards the cognitive role of art, and acknowledge its cognitive function. It unites the conceptions according to which artistic knowledge should be interpreted: 1) as knowledge of essences; 2) as a distinctive kind of intuitive knowledge; 3) as knowledge, the results of which are expressed directly through propositions; or 4) indirectly through so-called "suggested" or "implied" propositions. The second group of conceptions is marked by a negative attitude towards the cognitive function of art. This attitude is shared by 5) the anti-propositional theory of art; 6) the theory which assigns to artworks a sense of false propositions; 7) theories in which the notion of truth is interpreted in a non-epistemic sense. All the above theories are subjected to a more detailed examination in the light of modem epistemological principles. [...]. [From the publication]