‘미학의 정치’에 있어 유희의 역할: 랑시에르의 칸트 이해를 중심으로
The Role of Play in the Politics of Aesthetics: Focusing on the Rancière’s Understanding of Kant’s Aesthetics
0
조회
0
다운로드
6
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to read Rancière’s “Aesthetics as Politics” in relation to Kant’s aesthetics. The relations between Rancière and Kant are found in two aspects. The first is the re-joining of two meanings of aesthetics. Following Kant’s terminology, aesthetics has been used in two different senses: as a theory of human sensibility and as a theory of art (more exactly, what he calls the “aesthetic regime of art”). Combining the two in his own way, Rancière argues that politics has a characteristic of the theory of human sensibility (aesthetics of politics) in the same manner that the theory of art has a political characteristic (politics of aesthetics). Especially for the latter, the politics of aesthetics, he makes reference to Kant’s “Analytic of Beauty” in the Critique of Judgment. Rancière defines it as a politics of aesthetic experience/ education, for which Kant’s concept of play is used as a theoretical model. In the Kantian sense, play means a sort of aesthetic attitude. It takes on a double role: The first is the transition from regulative judgment to reflective judgment. Through this transition, reason loses its control over sensibility. The second is the indifference of aesthetic judgment. Benefiting from this indifference, aesthetic judgment can assert its universality, despite being a singular judgment. Existing theories of modernism have explained the political function of art based on the autonomy of the artwork and the personality of the artist. Contrary to such theories, Rancière insists that the main point of his aesthetics is in the aesthetic experience/education (more exactly, the possibility of expanding a certain aesthetic attitude, i.e., play), not in the artwork or the artist. However, the thing with Kant is, he only rediscovers the order of nature in play. In contrast to him, Rancière expresses sympathy with Schiller’s view, insisting on the advent of renewed humanity through aesthetic experience/education. If a new distribution of the sensible (Le partage du sensible) can be established, it would be possible in the aesthetic experience/ education acquired and expanded in play.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to read Rancière’s “Aesthetics as Politics” in relation to Kant’s aesthetics. The relations between Rancière and Kant are found in two aspects. The first is the re-joining of two meanings of aesthetics. Following Kant’s terminology, aesthetics has been used in two different senses: as a theory of human sensibility and as a theory of art (more exactly, what he calls the “aesthetic regime of art”). Combining the two in his own way, Rancière argues that politics has a characteristic of the theory of human sensibility (aesthetics of politics) in the same manner that the theory of art has a political characteristic (politics of aesthetics). Especially for the latter, the politics of aesthetics, he makes reference to Kant’s “Analytic of Beauty” in the Critique of Judgment. Rancière defines it as a politics of aesthetic experience/ education, for which Kant’s concept of play is used as a theoretical model. In the Kantian sense, play means a sort of aesthetic attitude. It takes on a double role: The first is the transition from regulative judgment to reflective judgment. Through this transition, reason loses its control over sensibility. The second is the indifference of aesthetic judgment. Benefiting from this indifference, aesthetic judgment can assert its universality, despite being a singular judgment. Existing theories of modernism have explained the political function of art based on the autonomy of the artwork and the personality of the artist. Contrary to such theories, Rancière insists that the main point of his aesthetics is in the aesthetic experience/education (more exactly, the possibility of expanding a certain aesthetic attitude, i.e., play), not in the artwork or the artist. However, the thing with Kant is, he only rediscovers the order of nature in play. In contrast to him, Rancière expresses sympathy with Schiller’s view, insisting on the advent of renewed humanity through aesthetic experience/education. If a new distribution of the sensible (Le partage du sensible) can be established, it would be possible in the aesthetic experience/ education acquired and expanded in play.
참고문헌 (13)
- 랑시에르, 자크, "정치적인 것의 가장자리에서" (2008), 도서출판 길
- 박기순, "랑시에르에서 미학과 정치", 美學(미학), (61), pp.59~100 (2010), 한국미학회
- 아리스토텔레스, "시학" (2002), 문예출판사
- 진은영, "숭고의 윤리에서 미학의 정치로 ―자크 랑시에르의 미학의 정치―", 시대와 철학, 20(3), pp.403~437 (2009), 한국철학사상연구회
- 칸트, 임마누엘, "순수이성비판" (2006), 아카넷
- 칸트, 임마누엘, "판단력비판" (2009), 아카넷
- Aristotle, "The Politics of Aristotle" (1957), Oxford University Press
- Plato., "Edited, with Introduction and Notes" (1997), Hackett Publishing Company
- Poppe, Bernhard, "Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten : seine Bedeutung und Stellung in der Leibniz-Wolffischen Philosophie und seine Beziehungen zu Kant", 박사, pp.1907
- Rancière, Jacques, "Le partage du sensible" (2002), La Fabrique-éditions
- Rancière, Jacques, "Malaise dans l’esthétique" (2004), Galilée
- Rancière, Jacques, "La Subversion esthétique", 홍익대학교 강연문, ~ (2008)
- Schiller, Friedrich, "On the Aesthetic Education of Man, in a Series of Letters" (1967), Oxford University Press