Search

The article "Criticism as Art Criticism - Flight Lines of Aesthetic Education" by Martina Lütke-Harmann deals with the question of the relationship between the subject and knowledge in the field of aesthetics. In their anthology "The End of Art Education," authors Jörg Ruhloff and Wolfgang Fischer examine the justifiability of pedagogical knowledge in the field of aesthetics. They argue that contemporary art represents a dialectic of withdrawal and blurs the boundaries between art and objecthood. The authors argue that art education should engage with this transformation of form and address the diffusion of boundaries between art and objecthood. Art critics Michael Fried and Georges Didi-Huberman respond to the challenge posed by these works by adapting and correcting aesthetic concepts. The text discusses how anti-aesthetic art can be evaluated when it refuses to be aesthetically conventional in the traditional sense. The authors argue that contemporary art breaks the formal conventions of modern aesthetics and involves the viewer at the center of the art. The text discusses aesthetics as a philosophical discipline and its relationship to epistemology and moral philosophy. It argues that aesthetics examines a specific form of cognition and judgment and that art is a doctrine of laws. The authors emphasize the importance of objectivity and the claim to objectivity mediated by validity theory in art. It also addresses the anti-aesthetic direction of contemporary art and points out that the production of meaning in art is now left to the arbitrariness of the viewers. The authors criticize the substitution of aesthetics by the transcendental-critical method and argue that this leads to the marginalization of aesthetics. The text deals with the topic of criticism of contemporary art and its relationship to aesthetics. It points out the critical function of art in revealing the inadequacy of the rational and social conditions. It also discusses art criticism and theory after 1960, particularly Michael Fried's criticism of theatricality and Georges Didi-Huberman's re-auratization of art in the objects of Minimal Art. It emphasizes that the contemporary art form is formally conditioned and emphasizes the viewer's perspective. Fried's central criticism refers to the theatrical effect of minimalist objects. These objects divert the viewer's attention away from themselves and towards the overall situation in the exhibition space. Unlike works of aesthetic modernism, they have lost the character of an autonomous entity and depend on the viewer's activity and reflection on the overall situation. The minimalist objects have a phantasmatic effect and can both attract and distance the viewer. They are inexhaustible in their meaning and resist a clear evaluation. The text criticizes Fried's analysis of the minimalist objects by Robert Morris, Tony Smith, and Donald Judd. Didi-Huberman argues that Fried discredits the indeterminacy and self-reversal of these objects as an anti-modernist strategy, while they actually represent a subtler level of gift and loss. Didi-Huberman suggests supplementing Fried's analysis with Walter Benjamin's concepts of aura and the dialectical image. [Extracted from the article]