This article is concerned with Niklas Luhmann's theory of art which he formulated in the 1990s, based on his general theory of autopoietic systems. This theory regards modern society as a functionally differentiated formation whose sub-systems operate according to their inner principles of communication. According to this, the domain of art can also be seen as an operationally closed and self-referential communicative system. The basic problem in these notions lies in the way in which their description of the relationships existing (...) between different systems is only in very narrow terms. Consequently they partially ignore the present process of de-differentiation which has noticeably changed the status of art in society. Instead, Luhmann's ideas expressly emphasize that functional differentiation is an ongoing process. In order to describe the process of de-differentiation, social theory does not need to abandon the concept of autopoiesis, but it does need to understand social systems as interlaced formations which, to an increasing extent, contain common normative and organizational constituents. Because social systems are not altogether self-referential formations, the concept of autopoiesis can describe them only in part. This particular concept of system has been developed in particular by Richard Münch, and as such it forms a productive alternative to the theory of autopoietic social systems. (shrink)

The paper argues that Nikolai Berdyaev’s doctrine of theurgy has remained relevant in today’s cultural-historical context because it highlights a continuing problem in the philosophy of art. The problem is the misunderstanding of the ludic nature of art, its role in the evolution of consciousness and transformation of reality. The author questions the idea that artistic play is deficient compared with religious expression. As a result of this critique, he proposes that the theurgic quest for a radically new form of (...) creativity was misguided and that the true meaning of the aspiration behind it is the need to comprehend culture as a dialectically articulated integral system of the cultural forms that constitute it. (shrink)

Bullot & Reber (B&R) put forth a design stance to fuse psychological and art historical accounts of visual thinking into a single theory. We argue that this aspect of their proposal needs further fine-tuning. Issues of transgression and coherence are necessary to provide stability to the design stance. We advocate looking to Art Education for such fundamentals of picture understanding.

Research seeking a scientific foundation for the theory of art appreciation has raised controversies at the intersection of the social and cognitive sciences. Though equally relevant to a scientific inquiry into art appreciation, psychological and historical approaches to art developed independently and lack a common core of theoretical principles. Historicists argue that psychological and brain sciences ignore the fact that artworks are artifacts produced and appreciated in the context of unique historical situations and artistic intentions. After revealing flaws in the (...) psychological approach, we introduce a psycho-historical framework for the science of art appreciation. This framework demonstrates that a science of art appreciation must investigate how appreciators process causal and historical information to classify and explain their psychological responses to art. Expanding on research about the cognition of artifacts, we identify three modes of appreciation: basic exposure to an artwork, the artistic design stance, and artistic understanding. The artistic design stance, a requisite for artistic understanding, is an attitude whereby appreciators develop their sensitivity to art-historical contexts by means of inquiries into the making, authorship, and functions of artworks. We defend and illustrate the psycho-historical framework with an analysis of existing studies on art appreciation in empirical aesthetics. Finally, we argue that the fluency theory of aesthetic pleasure can be amended to meet the requirements of the framework. We conclude that scientists can tackle fundamental questions about the nature and appreciation of art within the psycho-historical framework. (shrink)

Vilém Flusser introduces a Kulturrevolution produced by computers and by the universe of technical images, leading to a re-conceptualization of society and identity, thus producing a complex theory of the media. According to Flusser, communication always depends on the media and upon each medium’s own logic and ways of transmitting information. By changing the structure of the media, information also changes, and at the same time, the reality we experience. Flusser describes this communicational revolution starting from the proliferation of images (...) into multi-visual information. The collapse of texts and the hegemony of images, according to Flusser, led to a revolution of technical images, which no longer refer to an existing world, but to the concepts that we make. Technical images are born to rebuild guidance and a re-conquest of sense perception. The screen becomes the place, the skin in which the philosophy of feeling is currently developing. Through this new mirror-device, we have an aesthetic touch-screen that redefines our gestures. While McLuhan communicates, Flusser “envisions,” and Roy Ascott produces visions. Technologies and miniaturization invade the body inside and outside, thus bringing the digital world into the physical one, within and around us: ubiquitously. The new situation, beyond contemporary communication, is producing a new type of media: moist media. This advancing, post-digital mutations, imply a variable reality while our space-time dimension becomes an exciting constellation of Flusser's flows and movements. (shrink)

[ES] En este trabajo, ofreceré una reconstrucción sucinta de los argumentos sobre el significado de la noción de mundo del arte, así como de sus implicaciones en la ontología del arte. En primer lugar, describiré de manera esquemática los principios básicos de la noción de mundo del arte de Danto, y a partir de estos principios delinearé su influencia en la teoría institucional del arte de George Dickie. Sobre esta base, apoyado en la crítica al rol de la teoría en (...) estética de Morris Weitz, intentaré evidenciar las dificultades de lo que se ha dado en llamar la teoría institucional del arte al momento definir lo que es el arte. En la parte final del trabajo, presentaré algunas sugerencias que podrían tomarse en consideración al momento de abordar la relación entre el mundo del arte y la ontología del mundo del arte. [EN] In this paper, I will offer a succinct reconstruction of the arguments about the meaning of the notion of the world of art, as well as its implications in the ontology of art. First, I will outline the basic principles of Danto's notion of the art world, and from these principles I will outline its influence on George Dickie's institutional theory of art. On this basis, supported by Morris Weitz's critique to the role of the theory of aesthetics, I will try to highlight the difficulties of what has been called the institutional theory of art at the moment of defining what art is. In the final part of the paper, I will present some suggestions that could be taken into account when considering the relation between the world of art and the artworld ontology. (shrink)