W. Madej, (Warsaw ); J. Ortega y Gasset, “Rozmyślania o technice” [in:] Bunt mas i inne pisma socjologiczne, transl. P. Niklewicz (Warsaw ). Ortega y Gasset, J. Bunt mas i inne pisma socjologiczne. Warsaw: PWN. Rosenbaum, B. and Sonne, H. Det er et band der taler: Analysis of. Read the latest magazines about Socjologiczne and discover magazines on Jose Ortega y Gasset BUNT MAS I INNE PISMA SOCJOLOGICZNE.

Author: Mauzahn Daimuro
Country: Pacific Islands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Technology
Published (Last): 26 March 2011
Pages: 113
PDF File Size: 20.15 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.22 Mb
ISBN: 456-7-17317-576-7
Downloads: 83725
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: JoJonris

Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Festival of Art or Crisis of Art? The authors refer to the basic works of these philosophers on aesthetics and the philosophy of art, among them Truth and method, The relevance of the beautiful, and The dehumanisation of art. These reflections revolve around the concept of crisis of art as it was understood bnt both thinkers.

Bunt mas i inne pisma socjologiczne – José Ortega y Gasset – Google Books

Similarities and differences are pointed out in their assessments of the situation of contemporary art, its nature and function. Introduction In undertaking an attempt at philosophical reflections on contemporary art today, it is impossible to ignore the changes that took place in human artistic activity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in Europe. This breakthrough concerned the emergence of new forms and new content in artistic presentations, as well as the traditional understanding of the role of art, the relative positions of artist and viewer, and the status of works of art.

Even if it seems today that we are familiar with the shape of the new art, interpreting it evidently remains a challenge for us.

We still have not dealt with the issues of its essence, meaning and function. At the same time, there is still no answer to the question of whether the changes which have taken place in art have led to its rebirth in a completely new form or to a crisis. Both thinkers observed and analysed the same phenomena in the arts, but their interpretations of the new art ultimately proved different. Significant and noteworthy is the fact that they focused on the same concepts, which can be variously defined as, inter alia, tradition, play, and the meaning of art.

We believe that comparison and analysis of these partly congruent, partly conflicting proposals may prove to be of cognitive value and to provide useful tools for the further study of contemporary art.

Hans-Georg Gadamer on art Gadamer perceived, of course, the generally acknowledged crisis of contemporary art, believing that it was the result of transformations that took place in Europe in the nineteenth century when the centuries-old tradition of Western Christian art was interrupted. This tradition had created, in his opinion, a community of mutual understanding and agreement, associated with intelligibility and openness transmitted by the content of the art, 1 constructing a common myth that rendered the truth embodied in the works easily accessible.

As a result, nonfigurative art appeared, making no attempt to respond to usual expectations of the image, and evoking shock and feelings of alienation from its viewers.

The crisis consists of a progressive, increasingly profound lack of understanding of art, artists, and works of art, which, by ceasing to be comprehensible, lose their vital human significance. It is thus connected with the disappearance of the obviousness of communication and of methods for the socjologiczn of truth in works of art. Discreet messages are spoken quietly, 1 See. Art as play, symbol, festival], K. Szkice wybrane [Reason, word, history. Selected essays], Warsawp.

Without a doubt, the most important aspect in hermeneutical reflections on art is that art has a relationship with the truth, that it is a cognitive experience, i. At the same time this is not the truth we deal with in modern science; it is not a question of so-called objective truth or about reaching a socjologicznd unappealable meaning. Truth in hermeneutics is dynamic and fluid, much like man, who is a finite being, entangled in history, tradition, and events.

Gadamer speaks in this context of a fusion of horizons, about the collision of what derives from the past with what constitutes psma present perspective of the viewer. It is important here to emphasise along with Gadamer that this is a question of a real experience that bunf the interpreter. There is no socjolgoiczne here for the acquisition of knowledge, only for a never-ending process of dialogue.


However, the experience of art is also distinguished by hermeneutics in terms of the exceptional bunr of communication and the exemplary manner of manifesting the truth in artistic creations. The specificity of the language is based primarily on the fact that art speaks to the viewers in a very powerful way; the sense of the truth of a work of art, though never fully expressible, appears as if obvious.

It is not an elite phenomenon, designed for a narrow audience, but rather seizes the attention of viewers in the form of a sensation of authenticity, which is always current and modern. Here, it is worth adding that the basic premise of this reflection is that the reception of art is directed by the sense of expectation. Thus, hermeneutics encompasses socjllogiczne. What is more, aesthetics is not a separate field of knowledge, but is incorporated in the sphere of hermeneutics.

Gadamer, Prawda i metoda. Zarys hermeneutyki filozoficznej [Truth and bhnt. An outline of philosophical hermeneutics] B. Gadamer, Estetyka i hermeneutyka [Aesthetics and hermeneutics] in: Gadamer, Estetyka i hermeneutyka, p. Gadamer, Estetyka i hermeneutyka, op.

Art, according to Gadamer, can be aptly described by three concepts: The game concept reveals the processual and hypersubjective nature of the truth of art; it also points out that art is a communicative phenomenon that involves participation. A game deeply engages its participants, and thus changes their perception of the world; the colloquial perception of reality is, in the experience of art, suspended.

The symbolic nature of art means that the process of its interpretation is infinite and inexhaustible. Art turns out to be a mysterious game of revealing and concealing meanings. The meaning of a work may be revealed if an effort is made to discover it.

Bunt mas i inne pisma socjologiczne

Works of art connect people with one another and bind them in a common dialogue. The third element of the definition proposed by Gadamer, festival, encompasses and expresses all of sofjologiczne above- mentioned elements of the experience of pizma. The festival concept also emphasises, above all, the exceptional possibilities of the integration of art: It also indicates the specific temporality of the experience of art: Similarly, the true experience of art means taking a work as modern and up to date, and its truth as present.

This slogan was one of the manifestations of the crisis of twentieth-century European culture proclaimed by Ortega y Gasset. According to the Spanish thinker, the crisis of the entire contemporary culture, and art in particular, was inextricably linked to the condition of European societies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

At that time, the status of socjoloyiczne artist changed, art changed, and the viewer changed as well. Contemporary artists broke away from the art of the past because a new type of viewer had appeared.

The viewer, for his part, had changed his attitude to contemporary art because it had departed radically from the artistic pimsa of the past.

For Ortega y Gasset, art was one of the most significant sociocreative factors: Therefore, Ortega y Gasset considered the examination of art from a sociological point of view to be a useful tool for understanding the phenomenon of contemporary art.

The new art, in his view, was antipopular by socjologiczn Gadamer, Prawda i metoda…, op.

Bunt mas i inne pisma socjologiczne by José Ortega y Gasset

The radical opposition to traditional popular art was a deliberate process, achieved through an intentional break with the rules of communication between the artist and the viewer previously in force, the rejection of past canons of art and a departure from realist and naturalist presentation. The audience immediately divides itself into two groups: It ceased to be an experience bearing the hallmarks of universality: Contact with new art has become special time, but also time that the viewer spends on his own.


Every experience of this art is alienating in the sense that while in contact with it, the viewer is left to his own devices. Thus there is no more historical continuity of style; the achievements of tradition have been suspended, and simple references to human reality are no longer functional. The experience of art becomes a personal challenge for the individual, who decides either to submit to the new rules of the game, or, as Ortega y Gasset said, rejects the new and incomprehensible art.

The basis of this radical social effect of art in the first decades of the twentieth century was, first and foremost, the break with tradition. What ended irrevocably was the art of the past. It should be noted, however, that Ortega y Gasset did not depreciate the art of previous centuries. Ortega y Gasset, Dehumanizacja sztuki, in: Cichowicz introductionWarsawp. Ortega y Gasset, Bunt mas [The revolt of the masses], in: Contemporary art is no longer a continuation of the tradition.

Programmatically, it assumes a departure from the dead canons of the past and the elevation of man above his human dimension, detaching him from reality by means of its conscious deformation. Therefore, Ortega y Gasset wrote of two arts, radically different from each other, causing the rift between past and present to become enormous.

The end of traditional art irrevocably closed a certain chapter in the history of human artistic activity, but it also opened completely new horizons. The moment of change, of which Ortega y Gasset was the witness, was undoubtedly a critical moment, pregnant, however, with potential for the continued existence of art in general.

The socjoloigczne of the art of the first decades of the twentieth century became, according to Ortega y Gasset, the phenomenon of dehumanisation he described. Dehumanised art is the art of intellectual pleasure, a game based on the concepts of irony and metaphor. Traditional art, loaded with humanising elements, had been depleted, heavy, pathetic and serious.

The new art began to operate mainly through irony, which often took the form of self-mockery. Pissma the same time, it fled from pathos, seriousness, missionary zeal and transcendence. Other styles in art should be considered in the context of dramatic social and political movements or deep religious and philosophical currents. Becoming acquainted with the rules of the game of the new art was, for Ortega y Gasset, essential. The idea of art as an ironic game between the work and the viewer was not yet widely accessible.

Art had become a hermetic experience, accessible only to the chosen few. Ortega y Gasset socjologicznr attention to the advancing process of elitarisation of the new art, which, in the moment of crisis of the traditional aesthetic values of democratic, msa societies, was its only salvation.

Dehumanised art, according to Ortega y Gasset, also meant the flight of artists from forms reflecting life. This flight was a departure from the traditional imitation of reality, in order to create new forms that, as Ortega y Pisms would say, were as dissimilar as possible to the fragments of human reality: But could art on such a basis preserve any cognitive value?

It seems that the process of dehumanisation did not deprive art of all sense. An extremely difficult task lay before the artist: In rising above human reality, moving away from the realism and naturalism of representations, 18 Ibid. Ortega y Gasset, Dehumanizacja sztuki, p. Piama cognitive value of the new art was based on meanings that were no longer simply a way to recognise a work butn on the similarity of its content to reality, as was the case in traditional art.

Contemporary art was supposed to create new entities, aesthetic objects that lived in the objective space of the artistic world, which differed from physical and psychological reality. Paradoxically, this art thus became doubly unreal.