فصلنامه کیمیای هنر
پیاپی 27 (تابستان 1397)

Evaluation is a fundamental part of art criticism. Contrasting interpretations and conflicting evaluations with regard to a single work of art had led some thinkers to believe that there is no objective ground for evaluation. On the other hand, integration of evaluation and interpretation may aggravate the situation, in favor of relativism. We will argue that not only objective evaluations are not out of reach in art criticism, but that objectivity is surmised in the practice of criticism and evaluation. We hold that it is possible to find solutions for some problems and objections proposed by the proponents of relativism in evaluation. This can be done by focusing on contextualization, the intention of the author, and the relation of artistic form to the choices of the artist. Along with the elucidation of these ideas, we try to illustrate them by an example taken from the recent Iranian cinema.

Rudolf Arnheim and Ernst Gombrich tried to explain how to read an image based on visual perception almost contemporaneously in the second half of 20th century. Arnheim, given his attachment to Gestaltists, was more likely to admit psychic powers and modern art. Arnheim tended to utilize sensory organization to convert formal properties to significant generalities, and provide a basis for all representations; but Gombrich argued two division of perception, and insisted on process of proportioning the teachings reserved in mind and the current situation. Due to his commitment to making and matching, he spread the range of choices to the domain of distinctive properties, and believed that recognition of the mankind depends on conceptual thought. Now, the question is: How one can read an image from perspective of the contrast between Rudolf Arnheim’s subjectivism and Ernst Gombrich’s objectivism and practice it in studies of arts? The authors aim to define the process of perceiving an image through an adaptive-analytic method, utilizing documentary studies and apply the conclusion in study of two pices of Qajar textiles. The result shows that in the first approach, the viewer pays attention to what he desires, and ignores what he doesn’t wish for. Certainly, each image, being naturalistic or abstracted, is defined under a series of principals, in order to exhibit form of the object in a two-dimensional format. Therefore, all types of visualizations are products of mental abstraction defined on the canvas; and the viewer must rely on visual thought to perceive all types of images, and refer to his conjectures memory and earlier experiences of the object when necessary, in order to overcome the insufficiency resulted by inadequacy or excessive complexity, and choose or complete the general structure, position his desired details, and highlight them based on the complying conditions

Merleau-Ponty, through a connective approach to intellectualistic and empiricist attitudes and offering phenomenology as a “third direction”, propounds concepts as basis of his theory in his philosophical method that by using them we can amplify the studying scope related to experimental and perceptual dimensions of Iranian cultural performance. Overarching hypothesis of this paper is that we can utilize some of key concepts of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenological theory in surveying the process of perception in Shabihkhani; concepts such as “embodiment”, “temporality” and “relation between subject and object”. Therefore, perception of Shabihkhani depends on three determined foregrounds: 1) the embodiment quality of performance of Shabihkhani, 2) the quality of embodiment presence of audience and 3) the connection and coextensive of embodiment quality of Shabihkhani and audience’s lived experiences and temporal dimension. The achievement of these three foregrounds would lead to creation of a collaborative space between performer and audience. Therefore, Shabihkhani is not a self-sufficient object, but an “interactive-evolutionary” process based on the embodied “presence” of Shabihkhans and the audience, which itself turns into, in a teleological horizon, a “phenomenological imperative”.

Although Stephen Davies, the author of Artful Species, like other evolutionary aestheticians believes that aesthetic response and art behavior are rooted in evolution, it seems there is a conflict between some of his claims and evolutionary approaches. Particularly, Davies insists on the uniqueness of aesthetic inclinations and objectivity of aesthetic properties. He also disregards the evolutionary epistemology. In this article, we are going to show incompatibility in Davies views based on cases mentioned before.

In addition to its role in mysticism and especially the Islamic mysticism of Iran, the Imaginal World has important implications in Islamic philosophy. Considering that the most important feature of the Imaginal World is its inbetween role, this world has overcome some of the ambiguities and problems of Peripatetic philosophy and theology. But it seems that the necessities of presenting the Imaginal World in Islamic philosophy and mysticism are not reliable as the source of Persian traditional painting. Introducing the Imaginal World as a model and source of inspiration is a reason for the special space of Iranian traditional painting; however this opinion not only respond to many of the doubts and ambiguities in this issue, but also, it seems that many of the features of Iranian traditional painting are also ignored, which is associated with history and its visual media. The extension of this view by Traditionalists and some Orientalists can be reconciled with the theory of hidden Orientalism. Nevertheless, it seems that Persian traditional painting can be considered as a part of pictorial arts which is influenced by formal qualities and its cultural and social traditions instead of Imaginal World.

One of the terms that is currently used for art quiddity is the term “aesthetics”. Although this term has a new meaning in Western philosophy with the advent of the German philosopher Baumgarten and then Immanuel Kant, but nowadays it is used for different kinds of art, including the arts derived from the tradition, and this usage is considered controversial by Eastern philosophers. In this paper, we try to explain why using the term “Indian aesthetics” is not recommended for the remnants of this civilization by reviewing different aspects of traditional Indian art, and showing that such an usage causes some special aspects of Hinduism, that were the motivation to produce artworks, remain unknown. To achieve such goal, we try to list particular features of Indian art such as being ritual and then classify its conflict with the concept of aesthetics.