پژوهشنامه فرهنگستان هنر
پیاپی 11 (زمستان 1387)

The following article, while examining the famed article “Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” by Benjamin, will point out to the overturn of the works of art in the modern world. It will also claim that the concept of art and, in general, the experience of art have gone through radical changes. Additionally, concepts such as divine light, heavenly environment, and artistic authenticity have vanished in history, and the rituals have been replaced with political, social, and cultural experiences with regard to artistic works. I believe that the mechanical reproduction in the contemporary world has been another harsh stroke on the body of archaic traditional covenants, and it has open up new spaces for artistic experience.

Categorizing the criticism of drama into three parts as journalistic, academic, and artistic originates from Iranian tradition. It should be borne in mind that two great famous European critics, Lucian Goldman and Roland Barthes, had previously dichotomized criticism into two groups in their literary discussions. Goldman proposes genetic criticism instead of academic criticism, and Barthes in an analysis proposes academic criticism instead of interpretive criticism. In any case, our discussion about the criticism of drama entirely differs from their literary and critical discussions. While elaborating on the practicality of artistic criticism of drama, I propose, in this research, the hypothesis that the artistic criticism of art has priority over the journalistic criticism, which is propagandist, shallow, and non-productive, and it also has priority over the academic criticism, which is neutral and detached from the social and dynamic activities of daily life. The importance and the privileged status of the artistic criticism of art truly demand a full observation of the three major integral factors of drama- the play, performance, and the audience, and all this is meant to develop the aesthetics and the artistic language of drama in the contemporary era. To achieve this goal, a critic of art must heed the three following characteristics: knowledge, understanding, and professional conscientious.

Hermeneutics, generally known as interpreting and rewording a text, faces many complications. Although the theories of hermeneutics have appeared in various writings, the connections between these theories and the problems and limitations in the fields of understanding and transference of meaning, have not received much attention. In this article, the process of understanding, and many of its limitations will be examined and shown how the different hermeneutic theories were used to overcome these limitations and ambiguities. Some of these hermeneutic theories focus on the creator's limitations, some focus on the historical and cultural problems of that era, and some have focused on the reasoning of the interpreter on the nature of the work. Following, it will be demonstrated how each of the different pieces of literature, are more exposed to these hermeneutic theories. Finally, the theories of Emilio Betty will be discussed, and taking the limitations in mind we will be able to demonstrate solid and more general theories in all fields and all areas of understanding.

The pertinence of Martin Heidegger’s decisive questioning of the “meaning of Being” to the manifold problems of our “dis-oriented ” world can be best elucidated in terms of its emphasis on the latter’s radical finitude. Indeed, Heidegger came to transcribe “Being” as “Being” in order to better highlight the ontological contingence of the said world. One whose ultimate ontological foundation, according to Heidegger, is “nothing” other than the “Ab-ground” of “Being” understood as its “abyssal groundlessness”. In the texts of the postwar period and, notably, in the controversial 1949 “Bremen Lecture” entitled “The Danger”, Heidegger explicitly identifies the “Abground” of “Being” with the notion of “Death” conceived as the “Hearth of Being” (“Das Gebirg des Seyns”). In order to think “Death” in such a manner, Heidegger modified the notion of “World ” which had played a key role in his influential lecture on “art” delivered in the mid 1930s. In the wake of Heidegger’s own insistence on the “identity” of the “Origin of the Work of Art ”and “Truth” as the “Ab-ground of Being” we shall further argue that only an “art” practiced as “Poetry” (“Dichtung”) could purport to break with “mimesis” and “be-speak Death” as the “Hearth of Being” as well as the “Open” of the dispensation of its “safeguarded essence”.

Gadamer’s conception of “image” is of interest for a general philosophy of images and imaging in particular for the following reason: in contradistinction to most contemporary accounts of images, Gadamer does not give up the traditional horizon indicated by concepts such as “eidos” and “essence.” In this paper, I will first reflect on this general notion of image and the German term “Bild,” after which I will more concretely deal with the process by means of which images are constituted. I will conclude my reflections with a brief confrontation of the hermeneutic project with one of the more recent and for phenomenological theories important theories of pictures, namely, Richard Wollheim’s analysis of “seeing-in.” Gadamer’s main idea, as I will claim and briefly elucidate, ultimately leads to a theory of images that is superior to Wollheim’s account.

Constence School, which was inaugurated by Jauss and Iser, Had a great impact on the second half of the twentieth century’s hermeneutics. Emphasizing the aesthetics of reception and the importance of the reading, this school, which has a strong bond with the literary and artistic studies, regards a special position for the reader and the audience. Constence School has proposed very innovative ideas in this regard which have attracted the attention of so many theoreticians and critics. In this article, while having a short introduction on these two theoreticians’ ideas and their origin, I will try to scrutinize the relationship between this school and art. I will, additionally, discuss how theses ideas have sustained and how they have been criticized and analyzed.

How can we find access to the core of an artistic work as the manifestation of the artist’s presence and his work? To answer this challenging question, which has been raised in the hermeneutic discussions of art, the critics have come up with very innovative findings. This article will, while taking past and present into account, discuss some of these findings and implications.