Nicholas Davey, 2007, Gadamers Aesthetics, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http: plato!stanford!

ed" entries #adamer$ aesthetics %Art&nt

Gadamer's Aesthetics
First published Wed Jun 13, 2007 Gadamer (19002002) does not provide an account of the aesthetic in any customary sense. His approach to art runs, in many ways, against conventiona phi osophica e!pectations. "esthetic #ua ities are not de$ated in the manner of the ana ytic tradition of modern phi osophy, nor does he concern himse f overt y with the pro$ ems of aesthetic p easure. Gadamer%s approach to aesthetic e!perience stands s#uare y in the phenomeno ogica tradition. He is primari y concerned with the p ace of art in our e!perience of the wor d. &urthermore, his approach to aesthetic theory is one of those rare inte ectua achievements which are simu taneous y deconstructive and constructive. He dismant es e ements of the grand tradition of ' atonic, (antian and Hege ian aesthetics and yet offers a phenomeno ogica reconstruction of many of the centra insights of that tradition to demonstrate their continuing re evance to our contemporary e!perience of art. Gadamer is primari y concerned with the cognitive dimension of such e!perience, with what art wor)s address and what they put at issue. *his ma)es for a f e!i$ e phi osophica approach capa$ e of ranging free y over a num$er of art forms and sty es, discussing $oth the singu arity of wor)s and their $roader significance. *he approach is c ear y hermeneutica in that it endeavours to re+ac#uaint us with those received meanings and pre+occupations which under ie our e!perience of art. ,pen y inf uenced $y Heidegger, his ater essays on anguage and poetry in particu ar, Gadamer%s aesthetics is far from traditiona . His )ey c aims are

Aesthetics is not the study of specific types of subjective pleasures derived from art. It is a study of what objectively informs our subjective awareness of art. Hermeneutical aesthetics seeks to break through the pleasurable distractions of aesthetic consciousness in order to disclose the cultural and linguistic realities that manifest themselves within it. Hermeneutical aesthetics presupposes phenomenological involvement with the subject matters of art rather than disinterested detachment. Hermeneutical aesthetics regards aesthetic appearance not as a distraction from the real but as the vehicle through which real subject matters reveal themselves. It over-turns the notion that art works are at one remove from reality. Hermeneutical aesthetics is dialogical in character. It recognises that practitioner and theoretician share in bringing a subject matter to light and

plays down any theory/ practice division in the arts. Interpretation is a means to a work's realisation. Hermeneutical aesthetics is not a theory of art per se more a set of practical contemplative notes for enhancing one's encounter with art. !he end of hermeneutical aesthetics is not to arrive at a concept of art but to deepen our e"perience of art. In hermeneutical aesthetics theory is deployed to deepen contemplation of artworks rather than to categorise their nature. #adamer's aesthetics is deeply respectful of art's ability to disrupt and challenge customary e"pectations. It attributes an ethical significance to art as being able to reveal the limitations of fi"ed cultural e"pectancy and to open the spectator towards the other and the different.

.n this entry, we discuss the eading arguments which inform these contentions.

$. Art as Interlocutor %. !he &'ubstance( of Aesthetic 'ubjectivity ). !he *ontemporaneous and Art +"perience ,. -lay .. !he /estival 0. !he 'ymbol 1. -resentation 2epresentation and Appearance 3. !he Issue in 4uestion 5. Art and 6anguage. $7. !radition $$. -arado" of the In-between 8ibliography o #adamer 8ibliographies o -rimary 6iterature o 'econdary 6iterature 9ther Internet 2esources 2elated +ntries

(! Art as &nterloc"tor
Gadamer%s aesthetics fosters an attentiveness towards the mystery of the given and its une!pected fo ds of meaningfu ness. Gadamer%s arguments are varied, ushering the reader towards an aesthetic attentiveness rather than ma)ing iconoc astic dec arations a$out what the aesthetic is. *hey em$race c ose readings of the poets /i )e and 0e an as we as $road strategic manoeuvres which defend the cognitive status of aesthetic and hermeneutica 1udgements. Hermeneutics (the art and discip ine of interpretation), of which Gadamer (19002002) is one of the twentieth century%s most formida$ e e!ponents, is deep y invo ved in phi osophica disputes over the egitimacy of c aims to understanding in the visua and iterary arts. .t does not oppose 2scientific3 modes of )now edge $ut resists their cu tura privi eging. &or Gadamer aesthetics stands on

e!perientia y accumu ative modes of earning (Bildung) which orientate and ground sound 1udgement in the arts. 0onversation and its unpredicta$ e turns is, appropriate y, a centra thread within hermeneutica aesthetics. " ate e!change $etween 0arsten 4utt and Gadamer (4utt 1995, 6167) offers a gent e point of entry into how phi osophica hermeneutics approaches art and aesthetic e!perience. Gadamer insists that a picture or image that is worthy of $eing ca ed a wor) of art, has the power to affect us immediate y. (G8 9, 57:). "rt addresses us. *he c aim that 2art is a$ e to say something directed to some$ody3 ('a mer 200170) a udes to the surprise, shoc) and, sometimes, dismay at $eing direct y affected $y what is in a wor) and of $eing forced to ref ect on its c aim so that it $ecomes more understanda$ e to $oth onese f and others. Gadamer argues that 2the e!perience of art is an e!perience of meaning, and as such this e!perience is something that is $rought a$out $y understanding. *o this e!tent, then, 2aesthetics is a$sor$ed into hermeneutics3 ('a mer 2001 76). *his distances Gadamer from more conventiona 1ustifications of the aesthetic as offering a specia )ind of p easure. *he essay The Relevance of the Beautiful suggests that 2the mere on+ oo)er who indu ges in aesthetic or cu tura en1oyment from a safe distance, whether in the theatre, the concert ha , or the sec usion of so itary reading, simp y does not e!ist3 (/; 150). " person who ta)es himse f to $e such an on oo)er, misunderstands himse f. 2"esthetic se f+understanding is indu ging in escapism if it regards the encounter with the wor) of art as nothing $ut enchantment in the sense of i$eration from the pressures of rea ity, through the en1oyment of a spurious freedom3 (/; 150). *hese remar)s divorce Gadamer%s thin)ing from Dilthey's Erlebniss-sthetik in which artwor)s are proc aimed the site of intense $ut momentary e!perience en1oyed for their own sa)e independent of their cognitive content. *he hedonistic persona isation of aesthetic response has two a ienating conse#uences. ,n the one hand, the 1udgement that aesthetic e!perience is pure y su$1ective severs the individua from communa networ)s of meaning capa$ e of i uminating persona e!perience from the perspective of what is socia y shared. ,n the other, attempts to render su$1ective e!perience academica y egitimate $y presenting it as a socia product further estrange the individua from his e!perience, $y trans ating it into third+person terms he or she may not endorse or recognise- individua e!periences of $eauty can sudden y $ecome em$odiments of c ass pre1udice. .n contrast to 4i they (19551911), Gadamer defends an Erfahrungs-sthetik which c aims that i)e significant ife+e!periences, our re ationships with artwor)s are deep and on+going- we re+visit them and in doing so understanding is continua y re+negotiated. Gadamer spea)s of the 2intermina$i ity3 of such e!perience (die Unabschliessbarkeit aller Erfahrung, 'a mer 2001, 66). .t is forever open $ecause of its cognitive movement. *he cumu ative nature of such e!perience is

an instance of Bildung (formation and earning through e!perience) and is, as such, a iving process of $ecoming (Werden). Gadamer%s aesthetics is strict y anti+(antian. .t a$1ures phenomena ist disinterestedness for the sa)e of phenomeno ogica invo vement. .t is a so anti+idea ist. .t refuses the idea that in aesthetic e!perience we perceive 2a pure integration of meaning3. His aesthetics is conse#uent y anti+representationa ist. *here is in the artwor) something which Gadamer descri$es as its resistance to integration, to $eing reduced to a concept ('a mer 2001 2<). He contends that Hege %s definition of the $eautifu as the 2sensuous appearing of the .dea3 presumes that aesthetic e!perience is a$ e to reach $eyond the specific type of appearance to its under ying idea. .n this mode , aesthetic e!perience $ecomes the e!pectation of a semantic fu fi ment. ,nce the idea $ehind the appearance is grasped, 2the who e of its meaning wou d have $een understood once and for a and thus $rought in to our possession so to spea)3. *he wor) of art $ecomes a carrier of meaning, to $e a$andoned once the ead story has $een grasped. ;ut, Gadamer argues, 2our understanding of art wor)s is manifest y not of this type. =veryone )nows this from his or her own encounters with art, from concerts, visits to museums, and from his or her reading3('a mer 2001 66). *his denia of idea ist aesthetics is at the $asis of his c aim that an artwor) is essentia y enigmatic. Gadamer%s opposition to aesthetic idea ism is supported $y the c aim that art 2cannot $e satisfactori y trans ated in terms of conceptua )now edge3 (/; 69). " wor) does not simp y refer to a meaning which is independent of itse f. .ts meaning is not to $e grasped in such a way that that it can $e simp y transferred to another idiom. .ndeed, $ecause it invites many interpretations, an artwor) ac#uires an idea ity of possi$ e meanings which cannot $e o$viated $y any possi$ e rea isation (/; 1:6). *he wor) has, therefore, an autonomy which cannot $e su$stituted $y anything e se or, to put it another way, the wor) is a ways in e!cess of its readings, its meanings are a ways more than its interpretations. *wo important conse#uences arise from this. &irst- Gadamer%s conceives art as presentationa (darstellen) rather than representationa (vorstellen). .n the essay 28ord and 'icture3 (1992), he c aims that he tries 2to undermine the idea that the picture is a mere copy3 (G8 9, 57:). "s a wor) does not represent anything other than itse f, the meanings it carries can on y come to the fore in its se f+presentation. >et the emergent meaning is never given in its entirety nor o$viated $y any rea isation. *his is consistent with the eventual nature of art. 28hen a wor) of art tru y ta)es ho d of us, it is not an o$1ect that stands opposite us which we oo) at in hope of seeing through it to an intended conceptua meaning ? *he wor) is an Ereigniss an event that 2appropriates us3 to itse f. .t 1o ts us, it )noc)s us over and sets up a wor d of its own, into which we are drawn3 ('a mer 2001 71). 8hat is revea ed, however, remains $ut an aspect of the wor) which when it appears

drives others into the $ac)ground. 4isc osure and hiddenness are not contraries in Gadamer%s aesthetics, $ut mutua y dependent- the disc osed revea s the presence of the undisc osed in the disc osed. 2.t is in the sheer $eing there (Dasein) of the wor) of art that our understanding e!periences the depths and the unfathoma$i ity of its meaning ('a mer 2001 72). *he c aim that a wor)%s meaning can never $e comp ete y fu fi ed is supported $y a inguistic ana ogy concerning the specu ative. "rt has a anguage in that its signs and sym$o s function i)e semantic units. Gadamer comments on the iving virtua ity of meaning contained in each word, an inner dimension of mu tip ication. "ccording y anguage is not the representation ( i esis) of a set of pre+given meanings $ut a 2coming to anguage3 of a constant reserve of meanings ('a mer 2001 67). *he finitude of inguistic e!pression is such that no utterance can $e comp ete. @othing comes forth in one meaning that is simp y offered us ('H 105). 2*he on y thing that constitutes anguage ? is that one word eads to another, each word is, so to spea), summoned, and on its side ho ds open the further progress of spea)ing3 ('a mer 2001 67). @o meaning can $e comp ete y revea ed. ;ecause we can re+visit art wor)s repeated y, the meaning disc osed initia y can $e e!panded or changed. *he partia nature of any given meaning disc osure enhances rather than diminishes the possi$i ity of meaning within a wor). 2*he wor) of art consists in its $eing open in a imit ess way to ever new integrations of meaning3 ('H 99) and furthermore, 2the ine!hausti$i ity that distinguishes the anguage of art from a trans ation into concepts rests on an e!cess of meaning ('H 102). Gadamer%s conversation on aesthetics paints its $o der themes- art is interrogative $y nature, art wor)s !ork through a disc osure of meaning, disc osures of meaning esta$ ish art%s cognitive status, the cognitive content of art is part y inte igi$ e and part y enigmatic, and artwor)s are a ways open to re+interpretation. *hese are, however, not free+standing arguments. Gadamer%s position is hermeneutica not $ecause of an under ying thesis which goes unremar)ed $ut $ecause it is informed $y a conste ation of various arguments which shape the centra position. *o the $roader arguments we now turn.

2! )he *S"+stance, of Aesthetic S"+-ectivity

Gadamer%s determination to revea the cognitive content of aesthetic e!perience re#uires him to e!pose the onto ogica grounding of su$1ectivity. *o approach art wor)s so e y on the $asis of su$1ective responses to them or, to read them on y in terms of an artist%s intentiona ity, is, for Gadamer, a ways to miss the point. Hermeneutica y spea)ing, the phi osophica focus shou d $e on what shapes su$1ectivity and guides its e!pectations. *his initiates a

o specu ative re+figuring of aesthetic su$1ectivity. .n Truth and "ethod he writes, All self-knowledge arises from what is historically pre-given what with Hegel we call &substance ( because it underlies all subjective intentions and actions and hence both prescribes and limits every possibility for understanding any tradition whatsoever in its historical alterity. !his almost defines the aim of philosophical hermeneutics: its task is to retrace the path of Hegel's phenomenology of mind until we discover in all that is subjective the substantiality that determines it ; <!= )7%>. .n The Relevance of the Beautiful Gadamer e ucidates su$stance as fo ows. &'ubstance( is understood as something that supports us although it does not emerge into the light of reflective consciousness it is something that can never be fully articulated although it is absolutely necessary for the e"istence of all clarity consciousness e"pression and communication <28 13>. Ancovering the onto ogica foundations of aesthetic e!perience does not undermine the primacy Gadamer gives to art%s immediate address. *he aim is to demonstrate the cognitive egitimacy of su$1ective e!perience $y revea ing how aesthetic e!perience is $oth invo ved in something arger than itse f and, indeed, ref ects (s#eculu ) that arger actua ity within itse f. *he a$i ity of aesthetic e!perience to e!press trans+individua phenomeno ogica structures e!p ains what is meant $y su$stance and his specu ative attitude towards it. Gadamer%s aesthetics is proper y concerned with e$#eriencing what under ies its more a$stract concepts. *his is not a matter of naming or descri$ing the rea ity which manifests itse f in aesthetic e!perience $ut of trying to say something a$out the e!perience an individua has of it. Gadamer%s ref ections commence with the immediacy of art%s c aim, its contemporaneous nature, and then e!p ore what inf uences the e!perience of that c aim. *he aim is seeming y parado!ica - to understand that which shapes, ies $eyond $ut on y 2shows3 itse f in aesthetic e!perience.

.! )he /ontemporaneo"s and Art E0perience

,f a things that spea) to us, it is the art wor) that does so most direct y ('H 9<). *he phenomeno ogica immediacy of art which initiates Gadamer%s hermeneutic en#uiry into aesthetic e!perience may not seem a promising starting point from a hermeneutic perspective. .t dec ares an unconventiona hermeneutica approach to art- 2if we define the tas) of hermeneutics as the $ridging of persona or historica distance $etween minds, then the e!perience

of art wou d seem to fa entire y outside its (hermeneutics%) provenance3 ('H 9<B97). However, Gadamer does not define hermeneutics this way. .t is not the reconstruction of artistic intention which forms the o$1ect of his en#uiry, $ut the #uestion of what informs the immediacy of an artwor)%s c aim. *he artwor) is an o$1ect of hermeneutica investigation not $ecause of any provenance in psycho ogica events $ut $ecause of the fact that it says something to us ('H 99). Hermeneutic invo vement is re#uired $ecause the meaning transmitted can never $e fu y comp ete and is unam$iguous. .t demands interpretive invo vement. Hermeneutics is re#uired wherever there is a restricted transposition of thought. *he historica finitude of meaning and the fact that no meaning can $e given comp ete y necessitates hermeneutica invo vement in our e!perience of an art+wor). *he tas) of interpretation is to pro$e the possi$ e meanings he d within the e!perience of a wor), and $y drawing them to $ring that e!perience to greater comp eteness. .t shou d $e noted that Gadamer%s ta ) of integrating the a ien into what is understood as meaningfu is not to $e grasped as su$sumption within the same. "ssimi ation is not the e#uiva ent of trans ating the a ien into a sta$ e set of meanings which do not change as a conse#uence of that su$sumption. .ntegration imp ies a reciprocity- the integrated changes its character as we as the character of the who e within which integration occurs. &urthermore, whatever is given in su$1ective consciousness as contemporaneous has dimensions of meaning that transcend what that consciousness initia y grasps. Gadamer is concerned to pro$e the ontic dimensions of aesthetic e!perience. *he thesis that e!perience of the contemporaneousness of art invo ves us in more than what we are present y aware of (i.e., the 2su$stance3 of under ying and on+going trans+individua inguistic and cu tura practices) is supported $y the three arguments from ana ogy concerning the character of p ay, the festiva and the sym$o .

1! Play
Gadamer%s discussion of the re ation $etween art and p ay shou d not $e e#uated with any argument that art is a trivia game or pastime. He fo ows the precedent of Cchi er%s %etters on &esthetic Education' which contend that artwor)s are dramatic in that they #lace so ething in #lay. *he under ying motif is that aesthetic consciousness is far from se f+contained $ut is rather drawn into the p ay of something much arger than what is evident to su$1ective consciousness. *he ana ogy with drama and, indeed sporting events imp ies that art is eventua , an occasion that consciousness surrenders to and participates in. Cpectatoria participation ( i)e much art research) demands immersion in that which cannot $e fu y anticipated or contro ed $y individua consciousness. *he game and the art wor) are $oth forms of se f+movement which re#uire that the spectator p ay a ong with what they $ring into

$eing. (/; 25). Gadamer asserts the 2primacy of the p ay3 over consciousness- 2the p ayers are mere y the way the p ay comes into presentation3 (*D 92 and 99). 'articipation ta)es the individua p ayers out of themse ves. *he individua su$1ect is that upon which success, satisfaction or oss is imposed from within the game. ;y ana ogy, the wor) of art is a so 2the p aying of it3. "n autonomous event comes into $eing, something comes to stand in its own right which 2changes a that stand $efore it3 (/; 2<). Ei)e the ancient theoros' the spectator not on y participates in the event which is the artwor), $ut is potentia y transformed $y it (/; 2:). o *he game ana ogy a so serves to undermine approaches to art which are e!c usive y intentiona , materia and conventiona . &irstthe su$1ectivity of an artist cannot $e an appropriate interpretive starting point. Grasping what transpires in a p ayer%s consciousness does not revea the nature of the game $eing p ayed. /econstructing the conscious ife of an artist, #ace 4i they%s hermeneutics of nacherleben (re+ iving), may revea interesting aspects of an artist%s intentions $ut it does not uncover what informs that su$1ectivity. Cecond- i)e with the game, art is not to $e understood $y reference to its too s and e#uipment a one. "rt re#uires materia s certain y, and an appreciation of how a specific too might $e used. >et neither game nor art is constituted $y its e#uipment. *hird- comprehending a game or an artwor) re#uires an appreciation of the appropriate ru es or conventions. 8hat constitutes fair or fou p ay depends upon a set of pre+understood princip es 1ust as what is esteemed e!ce ent in art re#uires normative e!pectancies of appraisa . >et art%s vita ity c ear y does not reside in the fo owing of conventions. *he overa argument is not that game or artwor) cannot $e reduced to intention, materia or convention $ut rather that each of these e ements comes into their own when ta)en up within the #laying of the game or in the #ractice which is art. .t is the p aying that draws spectator, p ayer, intention, e#uipment and convention into the one event. *his promotes an interactive view of art as a communicative event. .t ends a dia ogica dimension to art. "n artwor) invo ves more than one voice as, indeed, the word interpretation imp ies. &urthermore, the conception of art as an event re#uires a different onto ogica structure to those mode standard accounts of aesthetic e!perience grounded in su$1ectivity a one. "n artwor) is not an o$1ect comp ete y independent of the spectator yet somehow given over to the spectator for his or her persona en1oyment. *o the contrary, the game ana ogy suggests that the act of spectatorship contri$utes to enhancing the $eing of the art wor) $y $ringing what is at p ay within it to fu er rea isation. *he spectator 1ust as much as the artist p ays a crucia ro e in deve oping the su$1ect+matters that art activates. *he aesthetic spectator is swept up $y her e!perience of art, a$sor$ed in its p ay and potentia y transformed $y that which spectatorship he ps constitute. *hough Gadamer%s argument distances itse f from

traditiona su$1ect+o$1ect paradigms, it does retain certain features of (ant%s aesthetics. 8hereas (ant attri$utes a non+purposive rationa ity to the aesthetic attitude, Gadamer attri$utes it to the p ayfu process of art practice itse f. ;oth art and the game share a to+and+fro movement not tied to any specific goa other than to fu fi themse ves for their own sa)e (*D 105)- no one )nows how a game wi end and no one )nows to what end an art wor) wor)s (Eawn 2006, 91). However, what is c ear is that it is what occurs when the art wor) or the game is in+p ay that matters. ,ften contrary to their own wi ing and doing, the spectator is ta)en over $y a su$stantia and conse#uentia event that transcends the $oundaries of everyday consciousness and which has no purpose other than to $ring something forth.

2! )he 3estival
0onventiona accounts of aesthetic e!perience stress its intense and individuating nature (Erlebniss). >et despite its intimacy, Gadamer emphasises that within e!perience (Erfahrung) one is a ways participating, perhaps unwitting y, in something $eyond onese f. "esthetic invo vement is in some respects, therefore, a communa activity. *he ana ogy $etween aesthetic e!perience and the festive is te ing. ; work is something that separates and divides us. /or all the cooperation necessitated by joint enterprise and the division of labour in our productive activity we are still divided as individuals as far as our day to day purposes are concerned. /estive celebration on the other hand is clearly distinguished by the fact that here we are not primarily separated but rather gathered together <28 ,7>. 4 Gadamer%s thin)ing here $etrays a further (antian inf ection. *he (antian conception of aesthetic p easure, as a variety of e!perience which arises on y where the egotistica interests that constitute the commerce of everyday ife are not in p ay, suggests the possi$i ity of a community forming around shared non+hosti e p easures. Gadamer%s account of aesthetic e!perience is not concerned with a putative )ingdom+to+come $ut with rediscovering and forging the communa ity that we are. 4espite this difference, aesthetic e!perience esta$ ishes for $oth thin)ers a meditative space in and through which something can $e occasioned. *he under ying point remains. 8hereas for (ant it is a change in the disposition of su$1ective consciousness (i.e., its adoption of an aesthetic attitude) which initiates a $etter disposition towards the community, for Gadamer it is the participation in a trans+su$1ective event which effects a change in su$1ective dispositions towards the community. 8hen Gadamer argues that 2the mystery of festive ce e$ration ies in this suspension of time3, he refers to how festivity suspends wor)+time. *his initiates that 2p ay+time3 in which another order of

events emerges. .t is in such time that an art wor) 2comes to stand3 irrespective of whether it is a painting, drama or symphony. *he festive 2represents a genuine creation, (for) something drawn from within ourse ves ta)es shape $efore our eyes in a form that we recognise and e!perience as a more profound presentation of our own rea ity3 (/; 60). *his distances Gadamer from the view that aesthetic e!perience is a so itary su$1ect%s persona response to an art wor). .n the festiveFan ana ogy for the communa dimensions of aesthetic e!perienceFthe individua su$1ect comes to stand different y in its re ationship to others. Gust as the artwor) comes to stand in the festiva , so too does the artwor) $ring its spectators to stand as a community- 2in the festive the communa spirit that supports us a and transcends each of us individua y represents the rea power of the festive and indeed the rea power of the art wor)3 ( /; 65). *he festiva occasions individua s surpassing their everyday view of themse ves as potentia y hosti e competitors and coming to see themse ves as a community formed around a shared interest in what the artwor) $rings forth. *his is an ana ogy for something more fundamenta . .nstrumenta ist conceptions of anguage persuade us that the spo)en and written word are $ut communicative too s, $ut for Gadamer participation in anguage ac)now edges that an individua is ocated within a su$stantive horiHon of meanings which transcends su$1ective consciousness. 'ragmatic concerns encourage the forgetting of such interconnectedness $ut when such individua ism is suspended $y the festiva or, indeed, $y the adoption of an aesthetic attitude, the re+discovery of onese f as $e onging to an e!tensive community of shared meanings and invo vements $ecomes possi$ e. *he artwor)%s communicative capacity awa)ens the rea isation that in as much as . understand myse f as $eing addressed, . must ac)now edge that . a ready $e ong to something arger than myse f. *he art wor) festivises- it revea s our persona inde$tedness to past and future communities of meaning. *he thesis that we $e ong to a hermeneutic co ective which is the effective underpinning of art%s a$i ity to communicate is further e a$orated in Gadamer%s discussion of the sym$o .

5! )he Sym+ol
" discussion of the sym$o forms the third aspect of Gadamer%s case that aesthetic e!perience invo ves an e!+stasis of the aesthetic su$1ect. .t provides a further ana ogue for the specu ative dimension of aesthetic e!perience. *he word 2sym$o 3 is a Gree) term for a to)en of remem$rance (tessera hos#italis) that cou d $e $ro)en in two so that shou d a descendent of a former guest enter his house, the co+1oined pieces wou d )ind e into an act of recognition. (/; 51). *he sym$o connotes (e!p icit y) what we recognise imp icit y (/; 51). .t is associated with the fragmentary and a promise of comp eteness which 2in turn a udes to $eauty and the potentia y

who e and ho y order of things3 (/;. 52). *he sym$o is associated, then, with notions of repetition and the hope for an a$undance of meaning. .ts connection with the specu ative is $est appreciated $y reference to the sign. .f the sign%s proper function is to refer to its referent, it is se f+ cance ing. *he road sign that is so attractive that it distracts from the danger it refers to and causes a new one $y prompting drivers to pu up and admire it, does not function proper y. *he sym$o , however, does not refer to something outside itse f. .t presents its own meaning. *he materia sym$o is, indeed, the p ace where that meaning $ecomes present. >et the sym$o ica y de ivered meaning is never given comp ete y. .ts meaning is indeterminate. /eferences to the sym$o as fragmentary neverthe ess anticipate the possi$i ity of who eness. *he specu ative dimension of such reasoning resides in the premise that every stated meaning invo ves $ringing forth more than is actua y spo)en. /esonance and depth depends upon animating the statement%s hermeneutic (intergrund, ighting up unstated meanings or revea ing anticipated ones. *he 2specu ative3 capacity of an image or word concerns its a$i ity to sound out or insinuate the unstated ne!us of meanings which sustain a given e!pression $ut which are not direct y given in it. *he specu ative power of an image or phrase has something in common with the su$ ime- it i uminates in the spo)en or visua image a penum$ra of unstated meanings whose presence 4 can $e sensed $ut never fu y grasped or conceptua ised. Hence, an artwor) can a ways mean more, that is, insinuate a transcendent dimension of meaning which though never e!hausted $y the sym$o s which carry it do not e!ist apart from the sym$o s that sustain it. *he sym$o is resonant with the suggestion of meaning $ecause it constant y invo)es what is not immediate y given. *his not+given does not e!ist apart from the given $ut is inherent within it. Hence, the hermeneutica su$ ime, the e!cess of meaning, the promise of meaning more and meaning something different which is made apparent $y the sym$o , is he d within, is immanent in the given.

7! Presentation, 6epresentation and Appearance

Gadamer%s account of the sym$o esta$ ishes that art wor)s are presentationa rather than representationa . 'resentations occasion the meanings they invo)e and do not represent a meaning independent of themse ves. *he argument effects a profound and significant change in the meaning of aesthetic appearance. *he representationa view of art re egates art to a secondary status- the art wor) $rings to mind something other than the art wor), an origina state of affairs, a specific meaning or rea ity. "rt%s o$1ective co+re ative is, according y, positioned outside the wor) so that the wor) $ecomes the mere appearance of something e se. *he

presentationa account of art is consistent with Gadamer%s phenomeno ogica orientation. .f the meaning invo)ed $y a wor) is not independent of the wor) that summons it, the wor) is the occasion of the coming+into+appearance of that meaning. "ppearing $ecomes synonymous with origina creation. "esthetic appearance is not secondary to rea ity or truth $ut is the medium through which the wor)%s truth showsBpresents itse f. =ven as presentation, appearance does retain a certain negativity, though in Gadamer%s hands it has a positive #ua ity. "ppearance a ways hints at sem$ ance, of something incomp ete or not yet fu y rea ised. Gadamer%s onto ogy open y re+enforces if not re#uires such negativity. *he c aim that each art wor) has its own tempora ity imp ies that each wi never revea itse f comp ete y. *he c aim that the reception of a art is contemporaneous dictates that what appears to us as meaningfu is not necessari y what appeared to a previous generation as meaningfu . Ei)e the sym$o , appearance is a ways partia . However, appearance, when considered aesthetica y, has the cadence of the sym$o ic- it a udes to something $eyond itse f $ut which neverthe ess inheres within it as the yet+to+$e+revea ed. Cuch arguments support Gadamer%s conception of the art wor) as that which stands+in+itse f. *hat which comes to stand is inte igi$ e as the presentation of a certain meaning, $ut $ecause of the indeterminacy of that meaning it retains something of the enigmatic. *his eminent #ua ity a genuine wor) can never $e measured the origina way it was shown (/; 1:6)FGadamer as a so refers to as its hermeneutic identity. *he truth of an artwor) is not its simp e manifestation of meaning $ut rather the unfathoma$ eness and depth of its meaning ('H 226). .ts truth em$races a tension $etween reve ation (what appears) and what is concea ed (what has yet to $e shown). *he artwor) does not simp y offer a 2a recognisa$ e surface contour3 $ut has an inner depth of se f+sufficiency which Gadamer ca s after Heidegger a 2standing+in+ itse f3. .n short, the mar) of a su$stantia wor) is that it vei s possi$i ities of meaning. Cuch resistance is a stimu us to further interpretation. Cu$stantive wor)s, i)e significant sym$o s, have an opa#ue aspect. *he sym$o and its reticence a$out revea ing the withhe d aspects of its meaning does not connote something utter y a ien to us. *he yet+to+$e revea ed is a dimension of meaning over oo)ed, forgotten, or not perceived within what has a ready $een shown or grasped. .n other words, the power of the sym$o resides in its a$i ity to revea that un$e)nown to ourse ves we are in communion with something much arger than ourse ves, that is, horiHons of meaning which imp icit y sustain ref ection and which can when made e!p icit $ring us to thin) #uite different y of ourse ves. *he mystery of the sym$o is its promise of transcendence- an effective and affecting sym$o revea s that we $e ong to a hermeneutic community a ways arger than we envisage. *he ana ogy of the festiva once again is te ing.

.n the festiva , individuated wor) ro es are renounced as we rediscover communa ties. Gadamer%s arguments 4 a$out p ay, festiva and sym$o serve, then, as the $asis for his c aim that aesthetic e!perience, our e!perience of art, is a demonstra$ e instance of how su$1ectivity is informed $y a su$stantia ity that transcends an individua consciousness.

7! )he &ss"e in 8"estion

Gadamer%s aesthetics invo ve a variety of inter+ oc)ing arguments, one of the most significant of which concerns the )ache selbst. *he term is difficu t to trans ate, $ut it refers, oose y spea)ing, to a wor)%s su$1ect matter, to what it addresses or to what issue has $een p aced in #uestion. 'hi osophica usage of the word evo)es phenomeno ogica notions of intentiona ity- what a wor) is directed at or points toward. *he )ache is not a determinate concept $ut an area of significant meaningfu ness, a conste ation of concerns which or$it the affective, conative and cognitive comp e!ities of su$1ect matters such as grief or ove. *he )ache underpins Gadamer%s c aim that aesthetic e!perience has a significant cognitive content. Cu$1ect matters may transcend an individua wor) in that no one wor) can e!haust their significance, $ut as ideas )achen are not independent of the $ody of wor)s that e!emp ify them. .f they were onto ogica y distinct, the idea ism Gadamer re1ects wou d $e forced on him and he wou d $e compe ed to argue that art is representationa , refers to a concept $eyond itse f and, indeed, disappears into that concept once evo)ed. 4 "rt $ecomes phi osophy once more. .f, however, art is presentation, as Gadamer insists, a wor)%s meaning is not independent of it. "rt does not therefore copy and there$y represent a su$1ect+matter, $ut configures a visua or iterary space in which a su$1ect+matter can $e summoned. Gadamer counters an ancient ine of argument that regards art as secondary to, inferior to and a corrupter of the rea . 0ontrary to the ' atonic tradition, his argument imp ies that art adds to the rea ity of its su$1ect+matters. Gadamer%s eva uation of the aesthetic contrasts vivid y with (ant%s in this respect. (ant considers aesthetic e!perience to $e indifferent to whether or not its o$1ect is rea (cf. *D 99). " wor)%s credi$i ity does not dependent on its re ationship to an origina o$1ect or co+re ative. 8hether what is represented e!ists or not is inconse#uentia . 8hat matters is the aesthetic merit of the wor), not the strength of its i)eness. Chou d the artwor) $e harmed, the $eing of the corre ative is unaffected. Gadamer%s presentationa aesthetics is, $y contrast, profound y anti+ ' atonic- a wor)%s disappearance diminishes the rea ity of that which presents itse f through it. " though su$1ect matters transcend the individua wor)s which em$ody them, they do not e!ist apart from their historica em$odiments $ut, un i)e ' atonic forms, they do not transcend history $ut mutate and deve op ever new permutations. "ny

diminishment of art diminishes the historica effectiveness of a given su$1ect+matter. 8ere Gohn 4onne%s ove poems a ost, our understanding of the e!#uisite 1oys and pains of human ove wou d $e irrepara$ y diminished. " semi+' atonic argument a$out i esis re+enforces a discerni$ y non+' atonic argument concerning the historica y f uid character of su$1ect matters. *he argument that artwor)s direct us to a su$1ect matter irrespective of whether they $e rea ist or a$stract constructions, suggests a moment of return and repetition. "n issue, #uestion or su$1ect+matter is recognised. ?here something is recognised it has liberated itself from the uni@ueness and contingency of the circumstances in which it was encountered. It is a matter of neither of there and then nor of here and now but it is encountered as the very self-same. !hereby it begins to rise to its permanent essence and is detached from anything like a chance encounter <28 $%7>. *he passage strengthens the presentationa approach to art $ut its reference to essences re#uires c arification. It is part of the process of recognition that we see things in terms of what is permanent and essential unencumbered by the contingent circumstances in which they were seen before and are seen again. ?hat imitation reveals is the real essence of the thing <28 55>. .t is not suggested that we see repeated y the same essence in a wor) of art. 8ere this to $e suggested, wor)s wou d $ecome du and uninformative and ma)e no new contri$ution to a genre. Gadamer%s insistence is that wor)s shou d spea) direct y to and, indeed, transform our se f+understanding. Cuch transformative power imp ies recognising in a wor) what was previous y understood of a su$1ect+matter, $ut transformed, as if seen for the first time. "i esis does not entai seeing an unchanging and end ess y repeated. *he ife of a su$1ect matter is one of change and deve opment. Gadamer%s i esis argument c aims that through repeated re+wor)ing and re+interpretation a su$1ect matter not on y accrues more aspects $ut a so, in so doing, they a ow that su$1ect+ matter to $ecome more fu y what it is. 2" wor) of art $e ongs so c ose y to what it is re ated to that it enriches the $eing of 4 that as if through a new event of $eing3 (*D 1:7). *he 21oy of recognition is rather the 1oy of )nowing more than is a ready fami iar3. "rt wor)s a ows su$1ect+matters to $ecome more what they are. .n conc usion, Gadamer%s phenomeno ogica aesthetics effective y destroys the ' atonic separation of art and rea ity. "rt wor)s are the sites in which trans+individua $oth present 4 and transform themse ves. 8hereas, as we have seen, for (ant the destruction of an artwor) has a$so ute y no $earing upon the o$1ectivities it represents, we can now understand why Gadamer is committed to the opposing view that the destruction of an art wor)

diminishes the rea ity of the su$1ect+matters that come forth through it.

9! Art and :an#"a#e!

*he strategic centra ity of anguage in Gadamer%s aesthetics is $eyond dou$t. *he a$i ity of artwor)s to $ring things to mind and to hint at unseen meanings is reason to c aim that in its specu ative capacities, art functions essentia y i)e a anguage. >et he ac)now edges that inguistic means of e!pression are inade#uate to the tas) of conveying what occurs within an e!perience of art. 6anguage often seems ill-suited to e"press what we feel. In the face of the overwhelming presence of works of art the task of e"pressing in words what they say to us seems like an infinite and hopeless undertaking ; 9ne says this and then one hesitates <!= ,7$>. *wo c aims underwrite this scepticism- words do not readi y capture the sheer comp e!ity aesthetic e!perience, and the finitude of anguage itse f prevents it from capturing the tota ity of such e!perience. .n other words, the e!perience of art a ways 1ust e udes theoretica containment. *hese are not difficu ties with anguage #er se' $ut rather ref ect the imited capacity of the human mind to grasp the tota ity of its invo vements. >et in Gadamer%s thought these negative aspects incentivise further hermeneutic invo vement in aesthetic e!perience. 4 *he incomp eteness of any interpretation of an artwor) opens us to the possi$i ity that there is a ways something more or something e se that can $e said. *he tempora nature of e!perience and its interpretation prevent c osure or, in other words, $oth are $y nature a ways open to further ways of thin)ing and spea)ing a$out art. *he argument re+enforces the c aim that art and its interpretation e!tend the $eing of the su$1ect+ matters addressed and furthermore, that aesthetic e!perience itse f has a tempora continuity which is in)ed to its cumu ative character as a mode of Bildung. *he issue a$out the re ationship $etween art and anguage is not one of inguistic capture $ut of finding the appropriate words to open the content of aesthetic e!perience. 8hat is meant $y the notion that an art wor) addresses us with a meaningI " though an agent of the inguistic turn of the twentieth century, Gadamer%s ref ections on anguage run counter to many semiotic theories. "ccording to 8einsheimer, 2the dua ism of signifier and signified has no phenomeno ogica $asis3 for Gadamer 2since in spea)ing we have no awareness of the wor d as $eing distinct from the word3 (8einsheimer 1995 162). Gadamer spea)s of the perfection of the word as $eing the disappearance of any gap $etween sense and utterance. 'oetry wou d $e the 2paradigm case3 of an art wor) with a c ear and immediate presentation of meaning. >et this is seeming y inconsistent with notion of a wor) that 2stands+in+itse f3.

.f aspects of its meaning are withhe d, sense and utterance are once again separated. *he word, it wou d appear, signifies something $eyond itse f after a . *here is, in other words, a tension $etween Gadamer wanting to ho d that the wor) of art and the wor d that comes forth within it are indivisi$ e and saying that the wor d which a wor) invo)es is arger than the wor) itse f. *he poetic word, insofar as it is poetic, stands+in+itse fJ and yet as word it invo)es something $eyond itse f. Gadamer%s specu ative account of meaning co apses, it wou d seem, into a referentia account of signs. Cpecu ative y charged words refer to other signs or patterns of meaning $eyond themse ves. *his suggests that words are se f+ negating signs- when they function as they shou d, they disappear into what it is referred to. *o conc ude that words operate as representationa signs seems #uite contrary to the account of art functioning in the manner of a sym$o . 0 oser inspection suggests that Gadamer%s account of specu ative account meaning is presentationa after a . Eet us re+state the #uestion. .f the art wor) is an autonomous entity that stands+in+itse f and does not refer to anything outside itse f, what of art%s specu ative capacity to refer to other comp e!es $eyond its immediate horiHonI *he theo ogica notion of a host can disso ve the inconsistency. ,n the one hand, for an art wor) to have a specu ative capacity, it must invo)e perimeters of meaning which transcend its own immediate circumstance. 8ithout this, an art wor) cannot connect us with framewor)s of otherness. >et this argument threatens to turn Gadamer%s aesthetics into an idea ism referring specifica y to the idea which the art wor) was invo)ing. "rt wou d once again $e su$ordinated to a vehic e of phi osophy. ,n the other hand, there is something within the constitution of an art wor) that ma)es it resist theoretica reduction. .ts invocation of an e!cess of meaning resists conceptua capture. *his $rings us to the cru! of the matter. 4o those the e!cess of meaning which a wor) can specu ative y invo)e e!ist apart from the wor) that summons themI *he specu ative dimensions of art suggest that an art wor) is indeed a host for that which ies $eyond it and yet, at the same time, the transcendent dimensions of meaning (its e!cess of meaning), remains immanent within the wor) that invo)es them. *he presence of the transcendenta on y manifests itse f through the wor) that hosts it. *o put it another way, it is in the wor) that the transcendenta set of meanings achieve their presence. *he fu resonance of a su$1ect+ matter which of course e!tends we $eyond any one wor) is neverthe ess on y discerni$ e in the wor)s that host them. .ndeed, su$1ect+matters do not e!ist apart from the wor)s that manifest their presence. ,nto ogica y spea)ing they inhere within the wor). 4 *he wor) is the occasion in which these dimensions of meaning appear and they command the attention of the viewer so ong as the wor) ho ds them in p ay. .n other words, with regard to the tension $etween representation and presentation in Gadamer%s position, the 4 specu ative charge of artwor)s does indeed

suggest that they function as representationa signs a ways referring $eyond the given meaning. >et this is another way of saying that, onto ogica y spea)ing, artwor)s functions as sym$o s. 0onsidered as referentia sign, what the art wor) refers to is not a wor d independent of the sign $ut another set of signs. However, such other configurations of meaning may mean more than the signs that invo)e them $ut they are inherent within those very signs. .n other words, the very signs which refer specu ative y to other dimensions of meaning a so function sym$o ica y in that the other horiHons of meaning invo)ed are immanent within the wor)%s autonomy. "s a sym$o ic host, the artwor) ho ds that which refers $eyond itse f within itse f.

(0! )radition
Art seems to solve the riddle of the temporal core of truth <Adorno>. A work that proves itself a &classic( through the ages and remains constant in its effect remains binding no matter how the interpretations and the criteria of evaluation change in the course of time <Habermas @uoted by Arajewski %77, %7>. 8hat $inds us to a tradition, according to Gadamer, is not a misp aced conservatism $ut the #uestions a canon or $ody of wor) as)s of us. However, the #uestion of tradition is one of the most controversia within Gadamer%s phi osophy. .t arises $ecause of the way Gadamer esta$ ishes individua and co ective earning on the ac#uisition of accrued e!periences (Bildung) and practices, rather than upon any methodo ogica norm. His argument e!poses the =n ightenment pre1udice against pre1udice. *he i$erating and universa ising aspects of reason tend to margina ise and chastise $oth the cu tura y different and the historica y particu ar as divisive and irrationa . Gadamer contends, however, that such an un#ua ified hypostasisation of reason and its methods has the unfortunate conse#uence of condemning as methodo ogica y ground ess the very va uations that ordinary inguistic and e!perientia practices are $ased on. Gadamer is not unsympathetic to @ietHsche, who re1ects the c aim that humanity is shaped $y e!terna necessity. ,ur e!istence within the wor d and our p ace within it is, metaphysica y spea)ing, utter y contingent. .f there is no metaphysica necessity that governs human practices, why shou d we even as) for a methodo ogica grounding, when anguage has neither re#uired nor functioned with such a icenseI Ei)e 8i he m 4i they $efore him, Gadamer insists that nothing 1ustifies and gives meaning to ife other than ife itse f. *his is not the invocation of nihi ism, for ife does not occur in a vacuum. 0reatures such as humans, which have no pre+determined essence, on y survive $y $oth remem$ering what has wor)ed we within a practice and $y constant y testing it against contemporary needs and circumstances. *here is a constant tension $etween ac#uired

e!perience and the need to sta$i ise its essons and the need to #uestion and there$y desta$i ise the tried and the tested. " e!pressive practices depend upon an inheritance of insight and va uation. *hey are dependent upon accrued earning and e!perience. Cuch o$servations agitate Gadamer%s critics, who see in the unref ective acceptance of the given an irresponsi$ y conservative privi eging of the received, a wi fu $ indness to possi$ e repressive or e!c usionary practices within inherited modes of operation. .n response to such scepticism, it must $e ac)now edged that inherited practices can, ogica y spea)ing, have negative entai ments. However, a commitment to tradition, is not a commitment to remaining the same, and nor is it indicative of a wi fu refusa to confront the negative entai ments within what is transmitted historica y. *raditions which are incapa$ e of changing ris) $ecoming outmoded. *raditions are not founded upon core and fi!ed identities. "s vi$rant re igious and artistic traditions demonstrate, those which are in constant de$ate over aim and direction often prove engaging and inf uentia . *raditions capa$ e of su$1ecting their se f+understanding to criti#ue constitute continuities of conf ict. *he importance of received understanding for Gadamer is not its historica provenance $ut how it opens us towards and engages us with issues in a community of de$ate. *he 0artesian pro1ect of su$1ecting a $e iefs to sceptica e!amination unti they can $e methodo ogica y affirmed is, in Gadamer%s view, nihi istic. *he pro1ect is imp ausi$ e since the range and depth of pre+ understanding is so e!tensive as to $e untheorisa$ e. *o condemn pre+understanding as un1ustifia$ e $ecause it cannot $e methodo ogica y grounded is high y dangerous as it deva ues those very insights upon which our initia wor d+orientation depends. .t is not that these insights are instrinsica y va ua$ e $ut that they are essentia staging posts in the 1ourneys of understanding they ena$ e. .t is the continuous de$ate and dia ogue over practice that ena$ es participants to move on, widen and transform ac#uired e!perience. Dovement and deve opment is intrinsic to the German word for tradition- *berlieferung has the active connotation of $oth transmitting and handing something on. 8hat a tradition transmits from age to age are #uestions, pro$ ems and issues. *he importance of canonic wor)s is not that they are peer ess e!emp ars of an idiom or sty e $ut rather that they raise issues and difficu ties in an e!emp ary way. *raditions can chec) their se f+understanding against their own historica pro1ections. " commitment to tradition is not a commitment to an academic anti#uarianism. .t is, essentia y, a commitment to a fie d of de$ate. *radition is presented as a resource and a provocation for thin)ing and creativity- whereas sameness is the currency of a conservative conception of tradition, insta$i ity, #uestions and the cha enge of otherness are the drivers of Gadamer%s more dia ogica concept of tradition. .t has $een argued against Gadamer that his reva uation of tradition does not rea y $ring its content to a point of critica ref ection. He

ac)now edges that i)e any other tempora phenomenon, not a of its vistas can $e ade#uate y thematised or articu ated. *his does not mean, however, that tradition is $eyond critica appraisa . *raditions can, as 'annen$erg argues, chec) their normative assumptions against their se f+pro1ections. ,ther critics suggest that Gadamer%s approach to tradition and aesthetics is overt y 0 assica in its pre+ occupation with forms that maintain a continuity through time rather than radica y a ter themse ves. .t does not a ow for those radica intrusions or revo utionary inter1ections which a ter the perceptua paradigm of an age. *he counter+o$1ection is not on y that the charge over oo)s Gadamer%s em$race of Heidegger%s #uite radica phenomeno ogica re+wor)ing of the 0 assica *radition, $ut a so the fact that for one paradigm to rep ace another, there must $e certain re ation $etween them. ,ne must address an a$sence, fu fi an unseen possi$i ity or a ac), within the other. 0u$ism, for e!amp e, imp ies a visua orientation #uite different from rea ism, $ut $oth idioms $e ong to a common tradition in that they strive to show us something of the rea . 8ithout a degree of continuity with tradition, any radica emergence wou d have no $earing upon the received and there$y ac) the a$i ity to ca into #uestion received notions and understanding. .t is, however, precise y the cha enge of the different and the other which is the driver of Gadamer%s dia ogica conception of tradition. .t is a conception which is in part modernistic- tradition is presented as $eing in constant de$ate with itse f. .ts renewa demands change and transformation. &urthermore, a virtue of this dia ogica conception of tradition is not cu tura y specific. ;ecause its main focus is on the su$1ect+matters which different cu tura practices address, it offers a mode of cognitive engagement that can operate $etween distinct traditions rather than in 1ust any one.

((! Parado0 of the &n$+et;een

*here is a creative tension at p ay within Gadamer%s aesthetic theory. ,ne the one hand, Gadamer sta wart y defends the autonomy of the art wor) and, on the other, despite his resistance to any su$sumption of art within phi osophy, he insists neverthe ess that aesthetics shou d $e a$sor$ed within hermeneutics, which is for the most part understood as a theoretica enterprise. *his tension rep icates aspects of the so+ca ed hermeneutic circ e. Cch eiermacher, for e!amp e, argues that it is on y possi$ e to grasp an individua %s persona utterances if one can understand the genera structure of the anguage which that individua operates within. 0onverse y, genera structures are on y inte igi$ e in terms of particu ar e!emp ifying utterances. 8i he m 4i they operates within a simi ar part+who e structure, name y, an individua %s persona e!periences wi mean itt e to the reader un ess they can $e conte!tua ised within a historica conte!t. " movement $etween part and who e a so ta)es p ace in Gadamer%s thin)ing. *he art wor)

is initia y presented in its singu arity. ;ut then, the particu ar is i uminated $y $eing $rought under a su$1ect+matter. *o engage with artwor)s discursive y is to $ring genera isations a$out a wor) to $ear, p acing it in a wider conte!t of associations. *he movement to the wider eve of genera isation a so returns the spectator to the particu ar, since genera isation ena$ es an understanding of what is singu ar a$out a wor) $y ocating it within a $roader $ac)ground. 4 *his dou$ e hermeneutic movement is high y characteristic of Gadamer%s aesthetic. .t recognises that the cognitive dimension of of aesthetic e!perience is i)e a inguistic e!perience $oth centrifuga and centripeta in nature. 8hen a wor) addresses us its impact is centrifuga - it upsets and transforms what we customari y recognise. .t awa)ens us to the hermeneutica su$ ime, to what ies $eyond $ut neverthe ess shapes our norma range of understanding. *hus, Gadamer can argue that, 2something is a poetic structure when everything pre+structured is ta)en up into a new, uni#ue form ? as if it were $eing said for the first time to us in particu ar (G8 9, 62). >et this estranging moment initiates a centripeta return, a homecoming. 2*he poem and the art of anguage genera y as a heard or written te!t is a ways? something i)e a recognition in every sing e word3 (G8 9, 62). >et the #uestion remains- is the passage from the immediacy of the given art wor) to theoretica contemp ations a$out its su$1ect matter not an instance of moving from the particu ar givenness of a wor) to a more a$stract eve of ref ection a$out its su$1ect+matterI 4oes not the contemp ative movement away from the wor) $etray its particu arity and suggest that the sense of a wor) ies $eyond it, in its conceptI 8ere Gadamer to have fa en into this i #asse' an idea ist and representationa ist account of art wou d $e forced upon him. *he vehemence of his resistance to these stances suggests that something other than a simp e shift from the particu ar immediacy of a wor) to a theoretica contemp ation of its content must $e at p ay. *he accusation of inconsistency re#uires the assumption that the aesthetic e!perience of a wor) on the one hand and its contemp ation on the other, are separa$ e. However, it is in Gadamer%s mind part of an intense e!perience that it impe s us towards see)ing to $ring it into words. =!perience endeavours to $ring itse f words. *hese words wi $y virtue of their semantic associations p ace the e!perience in a wider conte!t (the centrifuga ) and at the same time these words wi $ecause of their poetic capacity for singu arity ma)e the e!perience c earer and more distinct. +"perience is not wordless to begin with subse@uently becoming an object of reflection by being named by being subsumed under the universality of the word. 2ather e"perience itself seeks and finds words that e"press it. ?e seek the right wordBi.e. the word that really

belongs to the thing <or e"perience> so that in it the thing comes into language <!= ,$1>. *his suggests that Gadamer is not app ying a hermeneutic method to aesthetic e!perience $ut see)ing to e!pose the hermeneutica movement from part to who e !ithin aesthetic e!perience. .n other words, the c aim that aesthetics shou d $e ta)en up within hermeneutics is not an attempt to reduce aesthetics to another idiom. .t announces an endeavour to articu ate the hermeneutic dynamic of aesthetic e!perience itse f. Eet us $rief y recapitu ate the argument. *he tension in Gadamer%s position arises from (1) asserting art%s autonomy and (2) demanding that aesthetics $e su$sumed within hermeneutics. Andou$ted y, the weight of argument is on the atter. He systematica y criticiHes (antian aesthetics for its narrow+minded concentration on the su$1ectivity of momentary p easures and offers in its p ace a su$stantia reconstruction of the cognitive content of art%s address. .n other words, Gadamer switches the status of autonomy from the sensi$ e irreduci$i ity of a wor) to its hermeneutic autonomy. *his entai s the argument that a wor) which cha enges our out oo) does so $ecause it is enigmatic $y nature- it gives rise to difficu ties of meaning and interpretation which cannot $e e!p ained away $y a more fundamenta eve of understanding. *he autonomous wor) that stands in itse f is a wor) that $oth #resents a meaning and at the same time ho ds something $ac). .t is in other words a ways pointing $eyond itse f $ut !ithin itse f. *his su$stantiates Gadamer%s c aim that the hermeneutica constitution of an autonomous wor) resists theoretica reduction. .n the essay 28ord and 'icture3, he e!presses sympathy with Cch eiermacher%s remar), 2. hate a theory that does not grow out of practice3 (G8 9, 57:). However, as has $een argued, the transcendent dimensions of meaning which a wor) specu ative y invo)es are not outside the wor) $ut immanent within it. .n other words, we do not need a specia hermeneutic method to access the withhe d $ut 1ust a deeper, more attentive contemp ative ac#uaintance. 4 8hen Gadamer spea)s of $eing attentive to what an art wor) says, of discerning its enigmatic #ua ity and of $ecoming aware of its specu ative resonances, he is indeed spea)ing in a hermeneutica idiom, $ut this is most c ear y not a case of Gadamer su$mitting aesthetic e!perience to an e!terna y derived theory. *o the contrary, Gadamer is trying to draw out the hermeneutica dynamics of aesthetic e!perience itse f. *hus the tension $etween the immediacy of e!perience and ref ection upon the content of that e!perience is not a tension $etween e!perience on the one hand and theory on the other. .t is a tension within aesthetic e!perience $etween what an artwor) invo)es of its su$1ect+matter and how what is invo)ed changes the character of that which invo)es it. 8hat hermeneutica ref ection revea s of aesthetic e!perience is nothing e!traneous to such e!perience $ut a further disc osure of

what is he d within it. *o conc ude, if aesthetic e!perience is hermeneutica in that art wor)s specu ative y i uminate meanings $eyond what is immediate y disc osed, hermeneutica e!perience shou d e#ua y $e ta)en up $y aesthetics in that su$1ect+matters on y manifest their presence in the singu ar and particu ar.

<i+lio#raphy
Gadamer <i+lio#raphies
*wo Gadamer $i$ iographies are worthy of note. Eewis =dwin Hahn%s The +hiloso#hy of (ans-,eorg ,ada er, 0hicago, ,pen 0ourt, 1995 has a KCe ected Gadamer ;i$ iographyK with five sections. *he second $i$ iography is a recent y e!tended edition of =tsuro Da)ita%s e!ce ent ,ada er Bibliogra#hie, &ran)furt, Eang, 199<.

Primary :iterat"re
&n German

#adamer Hans-#eorg Wahrheit und Methode !Cbingen D.*.8. =ohr $51. #adamer Hans-#eorg $55) <#?> Gesammelte Werke <5 8Ende> !Cbingen: <F!8> =ohr 'iebeck. #adamer Hans-#eorg $55) <#? 3> Kunst als Aussage <Gesammelte Werke 8and 3> !Cbingen: D.*.8.=ohr <-aul 'iebeck>.

&n En#lish

#adamer Hans-#eorg $510 <-H> hilosophi!al "ermeneuti!s <ed. G.6inge> 8erkeley: Fniversity of *alifornia -ress. #adamer Hans-#eorg $530 <28> #he $ele%an!e o& the 'eauti&ul 6ondon: *ambridge Fniversity -ress. #adamer Hans-#eorg $535 <!=> #ruth and Method 6ondon: 'heed and ?ard. #adamer Hans-#eorg $55% (n )du!ation, oetr* and "istor* Albany: 'tate Fniversity of Hew Iork -ress. #adamer Hans-#eorg $55, +iterature and hilosoph* in ,ialogue Albany: 'tate Fniversity of Hew Iork -ress. #adamer Hans-#eorg $55, <H?> "eidegger-s Wa*s Albany: 'tate Fniversity of Hew Iork -ress.

Secondary :iterat"re

8arnes Annette $533 (n .nterpretation 9"ford: 8lackwell. 8runs #erald $55% "ermeneuti!s An!ient and Modern Hew Haven: Iale Fniversity -ress. *onnor 'teven $55% &=odernism and -ostmodernism( in *ooper $55% pp. %33J%5). *ooper Gavid +. $55% A /ompanion to Aestheti!s 9"ford: 8lackwell.

Gavey Hicholas %770 0n1uiet 0nderstanding Albany: 'tate Fniversity of Hew Iork -ress. Gilthey ?ilhelm $510 2ele!ted Writings -. 2ickman <ed.> *ambridge: *ambridge Fniversity -ress. Gostal 2obert D. %77% #he /ambridge /ompanion to Gadamer *ambridge: *ambridge Fniversity -ress. Gutt *arsten ed. $55) "ermeneutik34sthetik3 raktis!he hilosophie5 "ans3 Georg Gadamer im Gespr6!he Heidelberg: *. ?iner FniversitEts Kerlag. An +nglish translation of this volume appears in %77$ Gadamer in /on%ersation5 $e&le!tions and /ommentar*( Hew Haven and 6ondon: Iale Fniversity -ress. /ranck Gorothea %770 &In the =iddle of the Fniverse( unpublished. #rondin Dean $55. 2our!es o& "ermeneuti!s Albany: 'tate Fniversity of Hew Iork -ress. Harrington Austin %77, Art and 2o!ial #heor*5 2o!iologi!al Arguments in Aestheti!s *ambridge: -olity. Heywood Ian $551 2o!ial #heories o& Art5 A /riti1ue 6ondon: =acmillan. Arajewski 8ruce %77, Gadamer-s $eper!ussions5 $e!onsidering hilosophi!al "ermeneuti!s 8erkeley: Fniversity of *alifornia -ress. 6awn *hris %770 Gadamer5 A Guide &or the erple7ed 6ondon and Hew Iork: *ontinuum. 'Londi -eter $55. .ntrodu!tion to +iterar* "ermeneuti!s 6ondon: *ambridge Fniversity -ress. ?einsheimer Doel $55$ hilosophi!al "ermeneuti!s and +iterar* #heor* Hew Haven: Iale Fniversity -ress. ?olff Danet $51. "ermeneuti! hilosoph* and the 2o!iolog* o& Art 6ondon: 2outledge and Aegan -aul.

+stetica lui #adamer -ublicatM pentru prima datM =iercuri $) iunie %771 #adamer <$577-%77%> nu oferM un cont de estetic Nn orice sens obiOnuit. 6ui abordare a ruleaLa artM Nn mai multe moduri Nn raport cu aOteptMrile convenPionale filosofice. calitMPile estetice nu sunt deLbMtute Nn maniera tradiPia analiticM a filosofiei moderne nici nu el se referM Nn mod deschis cu problemele de plMcere esteticM. Abordarea lui #adamer a e"perienPei estetice standuri s@uarely Nn tradiPia fenomenologicM. +l este Nn primul rQnd Nn cauLM cu locul de artM din e"perienPa noastrM de lume. Rn plus abordarea sa la teoria esteticM este unul dintre acele rare realiLMri intelectuale care sunt simultan deconstructive Oi constructiv. +l deLafecteLe elemente de mare traditie a platonician Aant Oi estetica lui Hegel Oi oferM NncM o reconstrucPie fenomenologicM a multora dintre intuiPii centrale ale acestei tradiPii pentru a demonstra relevanPa lor continuM sM e"perienPa noastrM de artM contemporanM. #adamer este Nn primul rQnd Nn cauLM cu dimensiunea cognitivM a o astfel de e"perienPM cu ceea ce operele de artM adresa Oi ceea ce au pus Nn discuPie. Acest lucru face pentru o abordare filosoficM fle"ibile capabile sM variind liber peste o serie de forme de artM Oi stiluri Nn care discutMm atQt singularitatea de lucrMri Oi semnificaPiei lor mai largi. Abordare este Nn mod clar hermeneuticM Nn sensul cM NncearcM sM re-ne familiariLa cu cele primite de sensuri Oi de pre-ocupaPii care stau la baLa e"perienta noastra de arta. InfluenPat Nn mod deschis de Heidegger eseurile sale mai tQrLiu de limbM Oi poeLie Nn special

estetica lui #adamer este departe de a tradiPionale. cererilor sale cheie sunt: S +stetica nu este studiul unor tipuri specifice de placerile subiective derivate din arta. +ste un studiu a ceea ce informeaLM obiectiv conOtiinPei noastre subiective de artM. S +stetica hermeneutice NncearcM sM strMpungM distragere placute de conOtiinPM esteticM Nn scopul de a deLvMlui realitMPile culturale Oi lingvistice care se manifestM Nn cadrul acesteia. S +stetica hermeneutice presupune implicarea fenomenologicM cu probleme fac obiectul de artM mai degrabM decQt detaOament deLinteresate. S +stetica hermeneutice ceea ce priveOte aspectul estetic nu ca o distragere a atenPiei de la real dar ca vehiculul prin care problemele reale obiectul se deLvMluie. Aceasta supra-transforma ideea cM lucrMri de artM se aflM la o eliminaPi din realitate. S +stetica hermeneutica este dialogatM Nn caracter. Acesta recunoaOte cM medic Oi a cotei de teoretician de a e"ercita un domeniu la luminM Oi joacM Nn jos orice teorie / diviLiune practicM Nn arte. Interpretarea este un mijloc de realiLare al unei lucrMri. S +stetica hermeneutica nu este o teorie a artei Nn sine mai mult un set de note practice pentru NmbunMtMPirea contemplativ o NntQlnire cu arta. 'fQrOitul esteticii hermeneuticM nu este de a ajunge la un concept de artM ci sM aprofundeLe e"perienPa noastrM de artM. Rn esteticM hermeneuticM teorie este desfMOurat de a aprofunda contemplarea opere de artM mai degrabM decQt de a clasifica natura lor. S estetica lui #adamer este profund respectuoasM de capacitatea artei de a perturba Oi de provocare aOteptMrile obiOnuite. +ste atribute o semnificaPie eticM a artei ca fiind Nn mMsurM sM deLvMluie limitele speranPei culturale fi"e Oi sM se deschidM spre spectator Oi alte diferite. Rn aceastM intrare vom discuta despre argumentele de conducere care informeaLM aceste afirmaPii. S $. Arta ca interlocutor S %. T'ubstanPMT de subiectivitate +steticM S ). Arta contemporanM Oi e"perienPM S ,. Docul S .. /estivalul S 0. 'imbol S 1. -reLentarea 2epreLentare Oi Aspect S 3. *hestiunea Nn cauLM S 5. ArtM Oi limbM. S $7. !radiPie U $$. -arado" al In-Nntre S 8ibliografie 8ibliografii 9 #adamer 9 primar 6iteratura 9 secundare 6iteratura S 2esurse Alte internet S 6egate de intrMri $. Arta ca interlocutor +stetica lui #adamer favoriLeaLM o atenPie faPM de misterul acesteia si faldurile sale neaOteptate de semnificaPie. Argumentele lui #adamer sunt variate introducand cititorul spre o atenPie estetica mai degrabM decQt a face declaraPii iconoclaste despre ceea ce este estetic. Acestea contin citiri atente ale poePilor 2ilke Oi -aul *elan precum Oi manevre strategice generale care apMrM statutul cognitiv al judecatilor estetice Oi hermeneutice. Hermeneutica <arta Oi disciplina interpretarii> pentru care

#adamer <$577 - %77%> este unul dintre e"ponenPii din secolului VV cele mai formidabile este profund implicata Nn disputele filosofice asupra legitimitMPii NnPelegerii Nn artele viLuale Oi literare. +a nu se opune modurilor de cunoaOtere TOtiinPificeT dar reListM privilegierii lor culturale. -entru #adamer estetica e repreLentata de moduri de acumulare e"perientiala de NnvMPare <8ildung> care orienteaLa Oi fundamenteaLa judecatile corecte Nn arta. *onversaPia Oi impreviLibilele sale transformMri sunt Nn mod corespunLMtor un fir central Nn estetica hermeneuticM. Fn dialog recent Nntre *arsten Gutt Oi #adamer <Gutt $55) 0$-01> ofera un punct delicat de introducere Nn modul Nn care hermeneutica filosofica abordeaLa arta si e"perienta estetica. #adamer insistM asupra faptului cM o pictura sau o imagine care este demna de a fi numit o opera de arta are puterea de a ne afecta imediat. <#? 3 )1,>. Arta ni se adreseaLa imediat. 'usPinerea cM Tarta este Nn mMsurM sM spuna ceva direcPionat cMtre cinevaT <-almer %77$17> face referire la surpriLM Ooc Oi uneori la nemulPumirea de a fi direct afectat de ceea ce se afla intr-o lucrare Oi de a fi obligat sM reflecteLe asupra cererii sale astfel NncQt ea devine mai uOor de NnPeles atQt siesi cat Oi altora. #adamer susPine cM Te"perienPa de artM este o e"perienPM de sens Oi ca atare aceastM e"perienPM este ceva care este adus de NnPelegere. Rn acest sens apoi Testetica este absorbita Nn hermeneuticaT <-almer %77$ 10>. Aceasta il distanteaLa pe #adamer de justificMrile mai convenPionale ale esteticii ca oferind un tip special de placere. +seul W2elevanta /rumosului( sugereaLM cM Tsimplul spectator care incanta Nn bucurie estetice sau culturale de la o distanPM sigurM dacM Nn teatru sala de concert sau iLolarea de lecturM solitarM pur Oi simplu nu e"istMT <28 $)7>. 9 persoanM care se considerM a fi o astfel de spectator el nu NnPelege. T+steticM NnPelegere de sine este de a savura evadare Nn caLul Nn care ceea ce priveOte NntQlnirea cu opera de artM ca nimic dar NncQntare Nn sensul de eliberare de presiunile de realitate prin a se bucura de o libertate falsMT <28 $)7>. gQndire Aceste observaPii de la divorPul lui #adamer lui Gilthey +rlebnissXsthetik Nn care lucrarile sunt proclamate site-ul de e"perienPM intensM dar momentan bucurat de dragul lor independent de conPinutul lor cognitive. -ersonaliLare hedonist de rMspuns estetice are douM consecinPe alienante. -e de o parte hotMrQrea cM e"perienPa esteticM este pur subiectivM severs individuale din rePele comunale de sensul de naturM sM luminoase e"perienPM personalM din perspectiva a ceea ce este social comun. -e celelalte NncercMri pentru a face e"perienta subiectiva academic legitime preLentQndu-l ca un produs social NndepMrta Oi mai mult individuale din e"perienPa lui prin traducerea sa Nn ceea ce priveOte persoana a treia el sau ea nu poate sM aprobe sau sM recunoascM: e"perienPele individuale de frumusete poate deveni brusc NntruchipMri a aduce atingere de clasM. Rn contrast cu Gilthey <$3))-$5$$> #adamer apMrM o +rfahrungs-Xsthetik care susPine cM vrea semnificative e"perienPe de viaPM relaPiile noastre cu lucrari sunt adQnci Oi Nn curs de desfMOurare: am re-le viLitaPi Oi astfel NnPelegerea este continuu re- negociate. #adamer vorbeOte despre interminability Tde o astfel de e"perienPM <mor Fnabschliessbarkeit aller +rfahrung -almer %77$ 00>. Acesta este deschis pentru totdeauna din cauLa miOcMrii sale cognitive. Hatura cumulativM de o astfel de e"perienPM este un e"emplu de 8ildung <formarea Oi NnvMParea prin e"perienPM> Oi este ca atare un proces de viaPM de a deveni <?erden>. estetica lui #adamer este strict anti-kantiene. +ste abjures deLinteresare fenomenalist de dragul de implicare fenomenologicM. +ste de asemenea anti-idealiste. +a refuLM ideea cM Nn e"perienPa esteticM percepem noi To integrare purM de sensT. estetica lui este prin urmare anti-representationalist. +"istM ceva Nn opera de arta care #adamer descrie ca fiind reListenta la integrare de a fi redus la un concept <-almer %77$ %.>.

+l susPine cM definiPia lui Hegel de frumos ca Tapar senLualM a IdeeT presupune cM e"perienPa esteticM este Nn mMsurM sM ajungM dincolo de tipul specific de aspectul la ideea de baLM. Rn acest model e"perienPa esteticM devine speranPa de o Nmplinire semantice. 9datM ce ideea din spatele aspect este NnPeles Tansamblul de sensul sMu ar fi fost NnPeles odatM pentru totdeauna Oi astfel aduse la posesia noastrM ca sM spunem aOaT. 9pera de artM devine un purtMtor de sens care urmeaLM sM fie abandonate dupM povestea plumb a fost prins. Gar #adamer susPine TNnPelegerea noastrM operelor de artM nu este Nn mod evident de acest tip. !oatM lumea Otie acest lucru de la NntQlnirile lui sau ei proprie cu arta de la concerte viLite la muLee Oi din lectura lui sau ei T<-almer %77$ 00>. AceastM negare a esteticii idealistM este la baLa cererii sale ca o opera de arta este Nn esenPM enigmatic. opoLiPia lui #adamer la idealism estetic este susPinut de afirmaPia cM Tarta nu pot fi traduse Nn mod satisfMcMtor Nn termeni de cunoOtinPe conceptualeT <28 05>. 9 lucrare nu se referM doar la un NnPeles care este independent de sine. sensul sMu nu este sM fie NnPeles Nn aOa fel NncQt sM poatM fi pur Oi simplu transferate cMtre un alt idiom. RntradevMr pentru cM invitM multor interpretMri o opera de arta dobQndeOte o idealitatea de sensuri posibile care nu poate fi evitat prin orice realiLare posibil <28 $,0>. 6ucrarea are prin urmare o autonomie care nu poate fi NnlocuitM cu orice altceva sau sM-l punePi un alt mod lucrarea este Nntotdeauna Nn plus faPM de lecturile sale semnificaPiile sale sunt Nntotdeauna mai mult decQt interpretMrile sale. GouM consecinPe importante apar din aceasta. Rn primul rQnd: lui #adamer concepe arta ca de preLentare <darstellen> mai degrabM decQt de repreLentare <vorstellen>. Rn eseul T*uvQnt Oi imagineT <$55%> el susPine cM NncearcM TsM submineLe ideea cM imaginea este o copie simplMT <#? 3 )1,>. *a o lucrare nu repreLintM altceva decQt el NnsuOi sensuri care o desfMOoarM nu poate veni decQt Nn prim-plan Nn auto-preLentare. !otuOi Nn sensul emergente nu este dat Nn toate elementele sale Oi nici previnM prin orice realiLare. Acest lucru este Nn concordanPM cu natura eventuala art. TAtunci cQnd o operM de artM are cu adevMrat sM dePinM dintre noi nu este un obiect care stM viLavi de noi care ne uitMm puPin Nn speranPa de a vedea prin ea la o semnificaPie conceptualM destinat ... de muncM este un +reigniss - un eveniment careT ne NnsuOeOte T pentru sine. +a ne jolts ne bate peste Oi stabileOte o lume proprie Nn care ne sunt elaborate T<-almer trei mii unu 1$>. *e este deLvMluit totuOi rMmQne NnsM un aspect al muncii pe care atunci cQnd apare Nn alte unitMPi de fond. GeLvMluirea Oi hiddenness nu sunt contrariilor Nn estetica lui #adamer dar dependente reciproc: relevM deLvMluit preLenPa le divulge Nn divulgate. T+ste pur fiind acolo <Gasein> a operei de artM care NnPelegerii noastre e"perienPe Oi adQncimi unfathomability de sensul sMu <trei mii o -almer 1%>. 'usPin cM sensul unei opere lui nu poate fi complet Nndeplinite este susPinutM de o analogie lingvistice privind speculativ. Arta are o limbM Nn care semne Oi simboluri funcPioneaLM ca unitMPi semantice. #adamer comentarii cu privire la virtualitatea trai al sensul conPinute Nn fiecare cuvQnt o dimensiune interioara de multiplicare. Rn consecinPM limba nu este repreLentare <mimesis> a unui set de sensuri de pre-dat ci un Tvin laT limbajul o reLervM constantM de sensuri <-almer % 77$ 01>. /initudinea de e"presie lingvisticM este de aOa naturM NncQt nici un enunP nu poate fi completM. Himic nu vine de departe Nn sensul cM una este oferit pur Oi simplu ne-<-H $7)>. T'ingurul lucru care constituie limba ... este ca un singur cuvant duce la altul fiecare cuvQnt este ca sM Licem aOa a chemat Oi pe partea dePine deschide noi progrese de a vorbiT <trei mii una -almer 01>. Hici o semnificaPie poate fi complet revelat. -entru cM putem re-viLita operele de artM Nn mod repetat Nn sensul deLvMluite iniPial poate fi e"tins sau modificat. *aracterul parPial al orice divulgare sensul dat NmbunMtMPeOte mai degrabM decQt diminueaLM posibilitatea de sensul Nn

cadrul unei lucrMri. T9perM de artM constM Nn a fi deschis Nntr-un mod nelimitat la tot noi integrari de sensT <-H 53> Oi Nn plus Tine"haustibility care distinge limbajul artei din toate traducere Nn concepte se baLeaLM pe un e"ces de sensul <-H $7%>. conversaPie #adamer pe vopsele estetica temele sale NndrMLnePe: arta este interogativ prin natura operele de artM de lucru printr-o deLvMluire a sensului deLvMluiri de sens a stabili statutul artei cognitive conPinutul cognitivM a artei este parPial inteligibilM Oi parPial enigmatic Oi opere de artM sunt mereu deschise pentru re-interpretare. Acestea sunt totuOi nu argumente de sine stMtMtor. poLiPia lui #adamer nu este hermeneuticM din cauLa unei teLe de baLM care merge unremarked ci pentru cM este informat de cMtre o constelaPie de diferite argumente care modeleaLM poLiPie centralM. -entru mai larg argumentele ne vom ocupa acum. %. T'ubstanPMT de subiectivitate +steticM determinarea lui #adamer sM deLvMluie conPinutul cognitive ale e"perienPei estetice cere-l pentru a e"pune la pMmQnt ontologic de subiectivitate. -entru a abordare opere de artM numai pe baLa rMspunsurilor subiective pentru a le sau pentru a le citi numai Nn termeni de intenPionalitate unui artist este pentru #adamer Nntotdeauna dor de punct. Hermeneutically vorbind ar trebui sM se concentreLe filosofice asupra a ceea ce forme subiectivitate Oi ghiduri de aOteptMrile sale. Aceasta iniPiaLM un speculativM reimaginind de subiectivitate estetice. Rn AdevMr Oi metodM scrie el !oate cunoaOterea de sine provine din ceea ce este istoric de pre-dat ceea ce Hegel cu noi numim TsubstanPMT pentru cM stM la baLa tuturor intenPiile Oi acPiunile subiective Oi deci atQt prevede Oi limitele orice posibilitate de NnPelegere orice fel de tradiPie Nn alteritate sale istorice. Aceasta defineOte aproape Nn scopul de a hermeneuticii filosofice: sarcina ei este de a se Nntoarce calea fenomenologia lui Hegel de spirit pQnM cQnd vom descoperi Nn tot ceea ce este subiectiv substanPialitate care le determinM ... <!= )7%>. Rn 2elevanta #adamer /rumos elucideaLM substanPM dupM cum urmeaLM. T'ubstanPaT se NnPelege ca pe ceva care ne susPine deOi nu apar Nn lumina conOtiinPei reflectoriLant este ceva care nu poate fi niciodatM pe deplin articulate deOi este absolut necesarM pentru e"istenPa tuturor claritate constiinta de e"primare si comunicare <28 13>. Gescoperirea baLele ontologicM a e"perienPei estetice nu submineaLM supremaPia lui #adamer dM la adresa artei imediate. 'copul este de a demonstra legitimitatea cognitive ale e"perientei subiective prin deLvMluirea cum e"perienPa esteticM este atQt de implicat Nn ceva mai mari decQt el NnsuOi Oi Nntr-adevMr reflectM <specul> care mai de actualitate Nn ea NnsMOi. *apacitatea de a-Oi e"prima e"perienPa esteticM structurile trans-individuale fenomenologicM e"plicM ce se NnPelege prin substanPM Oi atitudinea sa speculativ spre ea. estetica lui #adamer este Nn mod corespunLMtor Nn cauLM cu care se confruntM cu ceea ce stM la baLa conceptele sale mai abstracte. Aceasta nu este o chestiune de denumire sau descrie realitatea care se manifestM Nn e"perienPa esteticM ci de a Nncerca sM spun ceva despre e"perienta unui individ are de ea. reflecPiile lui #adamer Nncepe cu iminenPa cererii de arta natura ei contemporane si apoi e"plora ceea ce influenPeaLM e"perienPa acestei cereri. 'copul este aparent parado"alM: sM NnPeleagM cM ceea ce forme se aflM dincolo ci doar TpreLintaT se Nn e"perienPa esteticM. ). Arta contemporanM Oi e"perienPM Gintre toate lucrurile pe care vorbesc pentru noi ea este opera de arta care face acest lucru cel mai direct <-H 5.>. FrgenPa fenomenologicM de artM care iniPiaLM ancheta hermeneutica lui #adamer Nn e"perienPa esteticM nu poate pMrea un punct de plecare promiPMtoare dintr-o perspectivM hermeneuticM. 'e declarM o abordare neconventionala

hermeneuticM de arta: TGacM am defini sarcina de a hermeneuticii ca punte de distanPM personale sau istorice Nntre minPile apoi e"perienPa de artM s-ar pMrea sM se NncadreLe Nn Nntregime Nn afara acestuia <hermeneuticMT> de provenienPM T<-H 5. / 51>. *u toate acestea #adamer nu defineOte hermeneuticM acest fel. Hu este de reconstrucPie a intenPiei artistice care face obiectul investigaPiei sale dar problema a ceea ce informeaLM iminenPa creanPei o opera de arta lui. 9pera de arta este un obiect de investigaPie hermeneuticM nu din cauLa de orice provenienPM la evenimente psihologic ci din cauLa faptului cM spune ceva la noi <-H 53>. HermeneuticM implicarea este necesar din cauLa sensul transmise nu poate fi niciodatM pe deplin Oi este complet lipsitM de ambiguitate. Aceasta cere implicarea interpretativ. Hermeneutica este necesarM ori de cQte ori e"istM o transpunere restrQns de gQndire. /initudinea istorice de sens Oi de faptul cM nici un sens poate fi dat complet necesitM implicarea hermeneuticM Nn e"perienPa noastrM de o arta de muncM. 'arcina de interpretare este de a sonda NnPelesurile posibile dePinute Nn cadrul e"perienPM a unei opere Oi prin desenarea acestora pentru a aduce aceastM e"perienPM complet la mai mare. Ar trebui remarcat faptul cM vorbesc lui #adamer de integrare a strMinului Nn ceea ce se NnPelege la fel de semnificative nu trebuie sM fie NnPeles ca subsumption Nn acelaOi. Asimilarea nu este echivalentul de a traduce strMin Nntr-un set stabil de sensuri care nu se schimba ca o consecinPM a acestei subsumption. Integrarea implicM o reciprocitate: modificMri integrat caracterul sMu precum Oi caracterul de ansamblu Nn care are loc integrarea. Rn plus tot ce este dat Nn conOtiinPa subiectivM ca contemporan are dimensiunile de sensul cM ceea ce transcend conOtiinPa cM iniPial grasps. #adamer este preocupat de a proba dimensiunile ontic e"perienPei estetice. !eLa cM e"perienPa din contemporaneitate de artM ne implica in mai mult de ceea ce suntem conOtienPi de preLent <de e"emplu TsubstanPMT de baLM Oi Nn curs de desfMOurare a practicilor individuale de trans-lingvistice Oi culturale> este susPinutM de cele trei argumente din analogie cu privire la caracterul de joc festivalul Oi simbolul. ,. Duca discuPia lui #adamer de relaPia dintre artM Oi joc nu ar trebui sM fie asimilate cu niciun argument cM arta este un joc banal sau distracPie. +l urmeaLM un precedent de scrisori ale lui 'chiller pe +steticM +ducaPiei care susPin cM sunt opere de artM dramaticM Nn sensul cM locul ceva Nn joc. =otivul de baLM este cM conOtiinPa esteticM este departe de sine stMtMtoare ci este mai degrabM atras Nn joc de ceva mult mai mare decQt ceea ce este evident pentru conOtiinPa subiectivM. Analogie cu teatru Oi Nntr-adevMr evenimente sportive implicM faptul cM arta este eventuala o ocaLie de care renunPM la conOtiinPM Oi participM inch participarea 'pectatorial <cum ar fi cercetarea de artM mult> cererile de imersiune Nn care nu pot fi pe deplin anticipate sau controlate de constiinta individuala. Doc Oi operei de artM sunt ambele forme de auto-miOcarea care cere ca spectatorul joace NmpreunM cu ceea ce le aduce in fiinta. <28 %)>. #adamer afirmM primatul Ta pieseiT peste constiinta: TjucMtorii sunt doar de modul Nn care joacM vine Nn preLentareT <!= 5% Oi 53>. -articiparea are jucMtori individuale din ei NnOiOi. 'ubiect individual este cM succesul pe care gradul de satisfacPie sau pierderea este impusM din interiorul jocului. -rin analogie opera de artM este de asemenea Tjoc de eaT. Fn eveniment autonom vine Nn fiinPM ceva vine sM stea Nn dreptul sMu propriu care Ttoate modificMrile care stau Nn faPa saT <28 %.>. *a theoros antice spectatorul nu numai participM la un eveniment care este opera de arta dar este posibil transformat de aceasta <28 %,>. Analogia cu jocul de asemenea serveOte pentru a submina abordMri de arta care sunt e"clusiv cu intenPie materiale Oi convenPionale. Rn primul rQnd: subiectivitatea unui artist nu poate fi un punct de plecare interpretativ. ApucQnd ceea ce transpare Nn

conOtiinPa unui jucMtor nu deLvMluie natura de joc fiind jucat. 2econstituind viaPa conOtientM a unui artist ritmul hermeneuticM Gilthey de nacherleben <re-vii> poate deLvMlui aspecte interesante cu privire la intenPiile unui artist dar aceasta nu descopere ceea ce informeaLa ca subiectivitate. Rn al doilea rQnd: cum ar fi cu jocul arta nu este de a fi NnPeles prin referire la instrumentele Oi echipamentele singur. Arta cere materiale cu siguranPM Oi o apreciere a modului Nn care un instrument specific ar putea fi folosite. !otuOi nici joc nici de artM este constituit de a echipamentelor sale. Rn al treilea rQnd: NnPelegerea un joc sau o opera de arta necesitM o apreciere a normelor corespunLMtoare sau convenPii. *eea ce constituie de fair-play sau fault depinde de o serie de principii de pre-NnPeles la fel ca ceea ce este stimat e"celenta in arta necesitM aOteptMrile normative de apreciere. !otuOi vitalitatea artei Nn mod clar nu are reOedinPa Nn urmMtoarele convenPii. Argumentul general nu este faptul cM jocul sau opera de arta nu poate fi redusM la intenPia material sau convenPie ci mai degrabM cM fiecare dintre aceste elemente va intra Nn propriile lor atunci cQnd luate Nn termen de joc de la joc sau Nn practica care este arta. +ste jocul care atrage spectator jucator intenPia echipamente Oi convenPie Nn eveniment. Aceasta promoveaLM o viLiune interactivM de artM ca un eveniment de comunicare. +a dM o dimensiune dialogatM art. 9 opera de arta implicM mai mult de o singurM voce ca Nntr-adevMr cuvQntul Interpretarea implicM. Rn plus concepPia artei ca un eveniment necesitM o structurM diferitM de cele ontologic modul standard al conturilor de e"perienPM esteticM fundamentate Nn subiectivitate singur. 9 opera de arta nu este un obiect complet independent de spectator NncM cumva dat pe la spectator pentru a savura sale personale. GimpotrivM analogia cu jocul sugereaLM cM actul de spectator contribuie la sporirea fiind de operei de artM prin aducerea ceea ce este Nn joc Nn cadrul acestuia sM mai completM realiLare. 'pectator la fel de mult ca artist joacM un rol crucial Nn deLvoltarea obiectul aspectele care activeaLa arta. 'pectator estetic este mMturat prin e"perienPa sa de artM absorbit Nn joc Oi posibil sa transformat de cMtre spectator care ajutM la care constituie. GeOi distantele #adamer argumentul Nn sine din paradigmele tradiPionale subiect-obiect ea nu rePine anumite caracteristici ale esteticii lui Aant. RntrucQt Aant atribuie o raPionalitMPii non-teleologicM la atitudinea esteticM #adamer le imputM procesul jucaus de practicM arta in sine. AtQt de artM iar cota de un joc de-andfro circulaPie nu legat de orice alt obiectiv specific decQt sM se NndeplineascM de dragul lor <!= $7)>: nimeni nu stie cum un joc se va termina Oi nimeni nu Otie Nn ce scop o arta lucrMri de muncM <6awn %770 5$>. *u toate acestea ceea ce este clar este faptul cM este ceea ce se produce atunci cQnd o operM de artM sau jocul este Nn joc care conteaLM. Adesea spre deosebire de propria lor doresc Oi de a face spectatorul este preluat de un eveniment substanPialM Oi Nn consecinPM care transcende graniPele de constiinta de Li cu Li Oi care nu are alt scop decQt pentru a aduce ceva mai departe. .. /estivalul *onturile convenPionalM de stres e"perienPei estetice natura sa intensM Oi individuating <+rlebniss>. !otuOi Nn ciuda intimitatii sale #adamer subliniaLM faptul cM Nn termen de e"perienPM <+rfahrung> una este Nntotdeauna participM poate fMrM sM vrea Nn ceva dincolo de sine. implicarea esteticM este Nn unele privinPe prin urmare o activitate comunale. Analogie Nntre e"perienPa esteticM Oi festiv este de a spune. ... Ge lucru este ceva care ne separa si imparte. -entru toate cooperarea impuse de societMPi mi"te Oi diviLiunea muncii Nn activitatea noastrM de producPie suntem NncM NmpMrPite ca indiviLi cQt noastre de Li cu Li sunt scopuri Nn cauLM. sMrbMtoare festive pe de altM parte se distinge Nn mod clar prin faptul cM aici nu suntem Nn primul rQnd separate ci mai degrabM s-au adunat NmpreunM <28 ,7>.

gQndirea lui #adamer aici trMdeaLM o infle"iune Nn continuare kantiene. *oncepPia kantianM de placere estetic ca un soi de e"perienPM care apare doar atunci cQnd interesele egoiste care constituie *omertului din viaPa de Li cu Li nu sunt Nn joc sugereaLM posibilitatea unei comunitMPi care formeaLM NmpMrtMOite Nn Lona placerile non-ostil. contul lui #adamer de e"perienPa esteticM nu este Nn cauLM cu o presupusM 2egatul Fnit-a venit dar cu redescoperirea Oi falsificarea communality cM suntem. Rn ciuda acestei diferenPe e"perienPa esteticM stabileOte pentru ambele gQnditori un spaPiu meditativ Nn Oi prin care ceva poate fi ocaLionate. -unctul de baLM rMmQne. RntrucQt pentru Aant este o schimbare Nn etapa a conOtiinPei subiective <de e"emplu adoptarea acestuia a unei atitudini estetice> care iniPiaLM o dispoLiPie mai bunM faPM de comunitate pentru #adamer este participarea la un eveniment trans-subiectiv care efectele o schimbare Nn subiectiv GispoLitiile faPM de comunitate. *Qnd #adamer susPine cM Tmisterul de sMrbMtoare festiv se aflM Nn aceastM suspensie de timpT el se referM la modul Nn care munca suspendM /estivitatea de timp. Aceasta iniPiaLM cM Tplay-timpT Nn care o altM ordine de evenimente apare. +ste Nn momentul Nn care o operM de artM T vine sM steaT indiferent dacM este vorba de o picturM teatru sau simfonie. /estiv TrepreLintM o creaPie autenticM <pentru> ceva trase din interiorul nostru se contureaLM Nn faPa ochilor noOtri Nntr-o formM pe care le recunoaOte Oi de e"perienPM o preLentare mai profundM a realitMPii noastreT <28 07>. Acest distantele #adamer de pMrere cM e"perienPa esteticM este un rMspuns obiectul solitar personal la o lucrare de artM. Rn festiva-o analogie pentru dimensiunile comunale de estetice e"perienta subiect individual vine sM stea Nn mod diferit Nn relaPiile sale cu alPii. 6a fel ca opera de arta vine sM stea la festival asa ca nu prea opera de arta aduce spectatorii sM stea ca o comunitate: TNn spiritul festiv comunale care suporta noi toPi Oi transcende fiecare dintre noi repreLintM individual puterea realM de festive si Nntr-adevMr adevMrata putere a operei de artM T<28 0)>. /estivalul ocaLii persoanelor fiLice depMOind viLiunea lor de Li cu Li de ei NnOiOi ca fiind potenPial ostile concurenPi Oi provenind de a se vedea ca o comunitate formatM Nn jurul unui interes comun Nn ceea ce opera de arta aduce mai departe. Aceasta este o analogie pentru ceva mai mult fundamentale. concepPii instrumentist de limbM ne convingM cM sunt vorbite Oi scrise dar cuvQntul instrumente de comunicare dar Oi pentru participarea Nn limba #adamer recunoaOte cM o persoanM se aflM Nntr-un oriLont de fond de sensuri care transcende conOtiinPa subiectivM. -ragmatica se referM la Nncurajarea uita de interdependenPM atare ci atunci cQnd individualismul este suspendatM de festival sau Nntr-adevMr prin adoptarea unei atitudini estetice re-descoperirea de sine ca aparPinQnd la o comunitate e"tinsa de semnificaPii comune Oi implicMrile devine posibil. *apacitatea opera de arta de comunicare treLeOte cM Nn realiLarea fel de mult ca ma inteleg ca fiind abordate trebuie sM recunosc cM am aparPin deja ceva mai mare decQt mine. /estivises de artM de lucru: deLvMluie gradul de Nndatorare noastre personale la trecutul Oi viitorul comunitMPilor de sens. !eLa pe care le aparPin unui colectiv care este hermeneuticM care stau la baLa efectivM a capacitMPii de arta de a comunica este elaborate Nn continuare Nn discuPia lui #adamer de simbol. 0. 'imbol 9 discuPie a simbolului forme de al treilea aspect al caLul lui #adamer cM e"perienPa esteticM implicM o e"-staLM a subiectului estetic. Acesta oferM un analog suplimentare pentru dimensiunea speculativM a e"perienPei estetice. *uvQntul TsimbolT este un termen grec pentru un semn de aducere aminte <tessera hospitalis> care ar putea fi rupt Nn douM astfel NncQt ar trebui un descendent al unui oaspete fostul intre Nn casa lui piesele s-au alMturat co-ar aprinde Nntr-un act de recunoaOtere. <28 )$>. 'imbolul

connotes <e"plicit> ceea ce ne recunoaOte implicit <28 )$>. Acesta este asociat cu fragmentare Oi o promisiune de e"haustivitate care Tface referire la rQndul sMu pentru frumusete si pentru Nntregul potenPial Oi de lucruri sfinteT <28. )%>. 'imbolul este asociat apoi cu noPiuni de repetiPie Oi de speranPM pentru o mare varietate de sens. cone"iunilor sale cu speculativM este cel mai bine apreciat prin referire la semnul. GacM funcPia semnul lui corectM este sM se refere la referent sale este auto-anulare. 'emn rutier care este atQt de atractiv ca distrage de la pericol se referM la cauLele Oi o nouM prin determinand conducMtorilor auto de a trage Nn sus Oi-l admira nu funcPioneaLM corect. 'imbol cu toate acestea nu se referM la ceva din afara sa. Acesta preLintM o semnificaPie proprie. 'imbolul material este Nntr-adevMr locul Nn care sensul devine preLent. !otuOi sensul simbolic livrate nu este dat complet. 'emnificaPia sa este nedeterminatM. !rimiterile la simbolul ca fragmentare a anticipa totuOi posibilitatea de bunastare. Gimensiunea speculativM de un astfel de raPionament se aflM Nn premisa cM fiecare sensul declarat implicM aducQnd mai mult decQt este de fapt vorbitM. 2eLonanPM Oi adQncime depinde de animare Hintergrund declaraPia de hermeneuticM de iluminat pQnM sensuri nedeclarate sau deLvMluirea de cele anticipate. T'peculativT capacitate de o imagine sau se referM la capacitatea sa de cuvQnt sM sune efectueLe sau insinua legMtura nedeclarate de semnificaPii care sustin o e"presie datM dar care nu sunt direct dat Nn ea. -uterea speculativM a unei imagini sau fraLa are ceva Nn comun cu sublimul: ea ilumineaLM Nn vorbit sau viLuale imagine o penumbra de sensuri nedeclarate a cMror preLenPM poate fi simtit dar niciodatM pe deplin NnPeles sau conceptualiLat. -rin urmare o opera de arta poate Nnsemna Nntotdeauna mai mult cM este insinua o dimensiune transcendentM de sensul care nu deOi epuiLate de simboluri care realiLeaLM aceasta nu e"istM Nn afarM de simboluri care o sustin. 'imbolul este reLonant cu sugestia de semnificaPie deoarece invocM Nn mod constant ceea ce nu este imediat dat. Acest lucru nu-dat nu e"istM Nn afarM de dat dar este inerent Nn cadrul acesteia. -rin urmare sublimul hermeneuticM e"cesul de sens promisiunea de NnPeles Oi a sensului ceva diferit care se face aparent de simbol este dePinutM Nn termen este imanent Nn dat. 1. -reLentarea 2epreLentare Oi Aspect contul lui #adamer de simbolul stabileOte cM sunt lucrMri de artM de preLentare mai degrabM decQt de repreLentare. -reLentMri ocaLie sensuri ele invocM Oi nu repreLintM un sens independent de ei NnOiOi. 1. -reLentarea 2epreLentare Oi Aspect contul lui #adamer de simbolul stabileOte cM sunt lucrMri de artM de preLentare mai degrabM decQt de repreLentare. -reLentMri ocaLie sensuri ele invocM Oi nu repreLintM un sens independent de ei NnOiOi. +fectele argumentul o schimbare profundM Oi semnificativM Nn sensul aspectul estetic. Kedere de repreLentare a artei arta relegates la un statut secundar: operei de artM aduce Nn minte altceva decQt operei de artM o stare iniPialM de fapt o anumitM semnificaPie sau realitate. Arta obiectivul de co-relativM este Nn consecinPM poLiPionat Nn afara de lucru astfel NncQt munca devine aspectul simpla altceva. *ont de preLentare de artM este Nn concordanPM cu orientare fenomenologicM lui #adamer. Rn caLul Nn care sensul invocat de o lucrare nu este independentM de munca pe care o citaPie locul de muncM este ocaLia de a veni-Nnaspectul cM sensul. Apar devine sinonimM cu creatia originala. aspectul estetic nu este secundarM realitatea sau adevMrul ci este mediul prin care adevMrul operei preLinta / preLintM Nn sine. *hiar Oi ca preLentare aspectul nu pMstreaLM o anumitM negativitate deOi Nn mQinile lui #adamer are o calitate poLitiv. Aspect Nntotdeauna sugestii la aparenPM de ceva incomplete sau nu sunt NncM pe deplin realiLat. ontologia lui

#adamer deschis re-e"ecutM dacM nu necesitM astfel de negativitate. 'usPin cM fiecare lucrare de arta a temporalitate proprie implicM faptul cM fiecare se va deLvMlui niciodatM complet. 'usPin cM primirea tuturor arta este contemporanM dicteaLM cM ceea ce ne apare la fel de semnificative nu este necesar ceea ce a apMrut la o generaPia anterioarM la fel de semnificative. *a simbol aspectul este Nntotdeauna parPialM. *u toate acestea aspectul atunci cQnd sunt considerate punct de vedere estetic are cadenPa simbolice: el face aluLie la ceva dincolo de sine dar care totuOi Nn cadrul inheres ca NncM-a-fi-a arMtat. Astfel de argumente de sprijin concepPia lui #adamer a operei de artM ca cel care se afla Nn sine. *eea ce vine sM stea este inteligibilM ca preLentarea unui anumit sens dar din cauLa de nedeterminare sensul cM acesta pMstreaLM ceva enigmatic. AceastM calitate eminenPi - o adevarata opera nu poate fi mMsuratM mod original a fost demonstrat <28 $,0> #adamer de asemenea ca se refera la identitatea sa ca hermeneuticM. AdevMrul o opera de arta nu este manifestarea sa simplu de NnPeles ci mai degrabM unfathomableness Oi adQncimea de sensul sMu <-H %%0>. adevMrul ei NmbrMPiOeaLM o tensiune Nntre revelaPie <ceea ce pare> Oi ceea ce este ascuns <ceea ce nu a fost NncM sM fie afiOate>. 9pera de arta nu oferM pur Oi simplu o Tun contur suprafaPM de recunoscutT dar are o adQncime interioarM de auto-suficienPM care #adamer apelurile dupM Heidegger o Tpicioare-Nn-sineT. -e scurt marca o lucrare substanPialM este cM voaluri posibilitMPi de sens. Astfel de reListenPM este un stimulent pentru interpretare suplimentare. /ond de lucrMri cum ar fi simboluri semnificative au un aspect opac. 'imbol Oi reticenPa cu privire deLvMluie aspecte rePinute de sensul sMu nu NnseamnM ceva cu totul strMin de noi. RncM-a-fi revelat este o dimensiune de sens trecute cu vederea uitate sau nu percepute Nn ceea ce a fost deja preLentate sau prins. *u alte cuvinte puterea de a simbolului reLidM Nn capacitatea sa de a arata ca pentru a ne unbeknown suntem Nn comuniune cu ceva mult mai mare decQt noi NnOine care este oriLonturi de sens care sustin implicit de reflecPie Oi care pot face atunci cQnd ne aduce Nn mod e"plicit de a gQndi destul de diferit de noi NnOine. =isterul simbolul este promisiunea de transcendenPM: un mod eficient Oi care afecteaLM simbol aratM cM am apartenenPM la o comunitate hermeneuticM Nntotdeauna mai mare decQt ne-am Nn vedere. Analogie a festivalului este de a spune din nou. 6a festival rolurile individualiLate de muncM sunt eliminate dupM cum am redescoperim legMturi comunale. argumentele lui #adamer despre joc festival Oi simbolul servi apoi ca baLM pentru afirmaPia sa cM e"perienPa esteticM e"perienPa noastrM de artM este un e"emplu de cum demonstrabil subiectivitate este informat de cMtre o substanPialitate care transcende o constiinta individuala. 3. *hestiunea Nn cauLM estetica lui #adamer implice o varietate de argumente inter-blocare una dintre cele mai semnificative care se referM la 'ache selbst. !ermenul este dificil de a traduce ci se referM Nn linii mari sM conteLe o lucrare de subiect la ceea ce se adreseaLa sau la ceea ce problema a fost plasat Nn cauLM. utiliLarea filosofice ale cuvQntului evocM noPiuni fenomenologicM de intenPionalitate: ce este un lucru este direcPionat spre sau puncte faPM. 'ache nu este un concept determinat ci o suprafaPM de semnificaPia semnificative o constelaPie de preocupMrile care orbita afective conative Oi comple"itatea cognitive ale subiecte cum ar fi durere sau dragoste. 'ache sprijinM afirmaPia lui #adamer cM e"perienPa esteticM are un conPinut semnificativ cognitive. 'ub reLerva materie poate transcende un lucru individual in care nici o lucrare se poate de evacuare semnificaPia lor dar ca idei 'achen nu sunt independente de organismul de lucrMri care le e"emplifica. Rn caLul Nn care acestea au fost ontologic distincte idealismul #adamer respinge ar fi obligat pe el Oi el ar fi silit sM susPin cM

arta este de repreLentare se referM la un concept dincolo de sine Oi Nntr-adevMr dispare Nn aceastM noPiune o datM evocat. Arta devine filosofie o datM mai mult. GacM totuOi arta este de preLentare ca #adamer insistM Nn sensul unei opere nu este independent de acesta. Arta nu prin urmare sM copiaPi Oi repreLintM astfel un obiect ci configureaLM un spaPiu viLualM sau literarM Nn care un obiect poate fi convocatM. contoare #adamer o linie vechi de argumentul cM Nn ceea ce arta ca secundar inferior Oi un corupMtor de reale. 'pre deosebire de tradiPia platonicianM argumentul sMu implicM faptul cM arta se adaugM la realitatea de obiectul sMu probleme. evaluarea lui #adamer de estetic contrasteaLM cu viu al lui Aant Nn acest sens. Aant considerM cM e"perienPa esteticM a fi indiferent dacM sunt sau nu obiectul sMu este real <cf. != 35>. 9 lucrare credibilitatea lui nu depinde de relaPia sa cu un obiect original sau corelativM. GacM ceea ce este repreLentat e"istM sau nu este minore. *eea ce conteaLM este meritul estetic al operei nu puterea de asemMnarea sa. Rn caLul Nn care opera de arta fi prejudiciate este Nn curs de corelative neafectate. estetica lui #adamer de preLentare este Nn schimb profund anti-platonicianM: dispariPia unei opere de diminueaLM realitatea a ceea ce se preLintM prin ea. GeOi problemele supuse transcende lucrMri individuale care le NntruchipeaLM Nn care nu e"istM Nn afarM de NntruchipMri lor istorice dar spre deosebire de formele platoniciene acestea nu trec dincolo de istorie dar evolua Oi de a deLvolta noi vreodatM permutMri. 9rice diminuare de artM diminueaLM eficacitatea istorica a unui anumit obiect. Au fost dragostea Dohn Gonne pierdut toate poeLiile lui NnPelegerea noastrM cu privire la bucuriile Oi durerile rafinat al iubirii umane ar fi iremediabil diminuat. Fn argument semi-platonicianM despre mimesis re-impune un argument discernibly non-platonicianM Nn ceea ce priveOte caracterul istoric fluid de discipline. Argumentul cM 6ucrMrile ne direct la un subiect indiferent dacM acestea sM fie realiste sau construcPii abstracte sugereaLM un moment de Nntoarcere Oi repetiPie. 9 problemM Nntrebare sau obiectul este recunoscutM. Fnde sa este recunoscutM care le-a eliberat de la sine unicitatea Oi de urgenPM cu privire la NmprejurMrile Nn care a fost NntQlnitM. +ste o chestiune de nici de acolo Oi apoi nici de aici Oi acum dar este NntQlnit Nn foarte auto-aceleaOi. Astfel Nncepe sM se ridice la esenta sa permanentM Oi este detaOat de la nimic ca o intalnire intamplatoare <28 $%7>. !recerea consolideaLM abordarea de preLentare a artei dar referirea la esenPe necesitM clarificMri. +ste parte din procesul de recunoaOtere pe care o vedem lucrurile Nn termeni de ceea ce este permanent Oi esenPial nerestricPionate de NmprejurMri contingentM Nn care acestea au fost observate Nnainte Oi sunt vMLuPi din nou. *e este imitaPie deLvMluie adevMrata esenPM a lucru <28 55>. Hu este sugerat cM vom vedea Nn mod repetat aceeaOi esenPM Nntr-o operM de artM. Au fost ca aceasta sM fie sugerat lucrMri ar deveni plictisitoare Oi uninformative Oi nu fac nici o nouM contribuPie la un gen. insistenPa lui #adamer este cM lucrMrile ar trebui sM vorbeascM Nn mod direct Oi Nntr-adevMr transforma noastre de auto-NnPelegere. o astfel de putere de transformare implicM recunoaOterea Nntr-o lucrare ce a fost anterior NnPeles dintr-un obiect ci transformat ca Nn caLul vMLut pentru prima datM. =imesis nu implicM o vMd neschimbatM Oi repetate la nesfNrOit. Ge viaPM a unui subiect este unul de schimbare Oi deLvoltare. #adamer susPine argumentul cM prin intermediul mimesis repetate de lucru Oi re-re-interpretarea unei discipline nu acumuleaLM doar aspecte mai mult dar de asemenea Nn acest sens ele permit ca obiectul sM devinM mai pe deplin ce este. T9 operM de artM belongs atQt de strQns la ceea ce este legat de faptul cM NmbogMPeOte fiind cM Nn caLul Nn care printr-un nou eveniment de a fiT <!= $,1>.

T8ucuria de recunoaOtere este mai degrabM bucuria de a Oti mai mult decQt este deja familiarT. 9perele de artM permite obiectul materie pentru a deveni mai ceea ce sunt. Rn concluLie estetica fenomenologicM lui #adamer distruge Nn mod eficient de separare platonicianM de arta si realitate. lucrMri de artM sunt site-urile Nn care transindividuale preLente Oi se transforme. RntrucQt dupM cum am vMLut pentru Aant distrugere a unei opera de arta nu are absolut nici o influenPM asupra objectivities Ni repreLintM putem NnPelege acum de ce #adamer se angajeaLM sM punct de vedere opus cM distrugerea unei opere de artM diminueaLM realitatea obiectul aspecte care ieOi prin ea. 5. ArtM Oi limbM. *entralitatea strategic al limbii Nn estetica lui #adamer este dincolo de orice NndoialM. *apacitatea de lucrari pentru a aduce lucrurile Nn minte Oi sM aluLie la NnPelesuri nevMLut este un motiv pentru a pretinde cM Nn capacitMPile sale speculative funcPiile de artM Nn esenPM ca o limbM. !otuOi el recunoaOte cM mijloacele lingvistice de e"primare sunt insuficiente pentru sarcina de a transmite ceea ce se produce Nn termen de o e"perienta de artM. 6imba de multe ori pare nepotrivitM pentru a e"prima ceea ce simPim. Rn faPa a preLenPei copleOitoare a operelor de artM sarcina de a e"prima Nn cuvinte ceea ce spun ei pentru a ne pare ca o Nntreprindere infinitM Oi fMrM speranPM ... Rntr-o spune acest lucru Oi apoi una eLitM <!= ,7$>. GouM afirmaPii subscrie acest scepticism: cuvinte nu uOor de captare e"perienPei estetice comple"itatea purM Oi finitudinea de limba NnsMOi o NmpiedicM sM captarea totalitatea o astfel de e"perienPM. *u alte cuvinte e"perienPa de artM Nntotdeauna scapM doar teoretice de iLolare. Acestea nu sunt dificultMPi cu limba Nn sine ci reflectM mai degrabM capacitatea limitatM a mintii umane pentru a NnPelege totalitatea implicMrile sale. !otuOi Nn inspirat lui #adamer gQndul aceste aspecte negative de stimulare a implicMrii Nn continuare hermeneuticM Nn e"perienPa esteticM. *aracterul incomplet al orice interpretare a ne deschide o opera de arta la posibilitatea cM nu e"istM Nntotdeauna ceva mai mult sau altceva care poate fi spus. Hatura temporalM de e"perienPM Oi de a preveni interpretarea acesteia de Nnchidere sau cu alte cuvinte ambele sunt prin natura Nntotdeauna deschisM pentru alte moduri de a gQndi Oi vorbi despre arta. 2e-argumentul impune afirmaPia cM arta Oi interpretarea acesteia fiind de a e"tinde obiectul problemele abordate Oi Nn plus cM e"perienPa esteticM Nn sine are o continuitate temporal de care este legatM de caracterul cumulativ ca un mod de 8ildung. -roblema despre relaPia dintre artM Oi limbM nu este una de captare lingvistice ci de a gMsi cuvinte potrivite pentru a deschide conPinutul e"perienPei estetice. *e se NnPelege prin ideea cM o operM de artM ne adrese cu o semnificaPieY GeOi un agent al transforma lingvistice ale secolului VV reflecPiile lui #adamer pe limba contraveni multe teorii semiotice. -otrivit ?einsheimer Tdualismul semnificat Oi semnificant are niciun temei fenomenologicMT pentru #adamer T deoarece Nn vorbind nu avem gradul de conOtientiLare a lumii ca fiind distinct de cuvQntulT <$55) ?einsheimer $0%>. #adamer vorbeOte despre perfecPiune a cuvQntului ca fiind dispariPia oricMrei discrepanPe Nntre sens Oi rostire. -oeLia ar fi caLul TparadigmaT a unei opere de artM cu o preLentare clarM Oi imediatM a sensului. !otuOi acest lucru este aparent incompatibil cu noPiunea de lucru care TrepreLintM Nn sineT. Rn caLul Nn care aspectele legate de sensul sMu sunt rePinute sens Oi rostire sunt din nou separate. *uvQntul se pare semnificM ceva dincolo de sine dupM toate. Hu este cu alte cuvinte o tensiune Nntre #adamer care doresc sM considere cM lucrMrile de artM Oi lume care iese din cadrul acestuia sunt indiviLibile Oi sM spunM cM lumea pe care o invocM de muncM este mai

mare decQt munca Nn sine. *uvQntul poetic Nn mMsura Nn care este poeticM standuri deNn-sineZ Oi totuOi cuvQntul ca sM nu invoce ceva dincolo de sine. contul speculativM lui #adamer de sensul prMbuOeOte s-ar pMrea Nntr-un cont referenPial de semne. cuvinte speculativ plMtesc se referM la alte semne sau modele de sensul dincolo de ei NnOiOi. Acest lucru sugereaLM cM cuvintele sunt semne de auto-anulQnd: atunci cQnd funcPioneaLM ca acestea ar trebui ele dispar Nn ceea ce ea este menPionatM. -entru a ajunge la concluLia cM cuvintele funcPioneaLM ca semne de repreLentare pare destul de contrar contul de artM care funcPioneaLM Nn felul unui simbol. inspecPie mai atentM sugereaLM cM Nn considerare sensul lui #adamer de cont speculativM este de preLentare dupM toate. 'M ne re-stat cauLM. GacM lucrarea de artM este o entitate autonomM care iese Nn sine Oi nu se referM la ceva din afara sa ceea ce a capacitMPii artei speculative pentru a se referi la alte comple"e dincolo de oriLont sale imediateY HoPiunii teologice de o gaLdM poate diLolva incoerenPM. -e de o parte pentru o lucrare de arta de a avea o capacitate speculativM trebuie sM invoce perimetrele sensul care depMOesc propriile sale circumstanPM imediate. /MrM acest lucru o operM de artM nu ne poate conecta cu cadre de alteritate. !otuOi acest argument ameninPM sM rQndul sMu estetica lui #adamer Nntr-un idealism de trimitere Nn mod specific la ideea care a operei de artM a fost invocarea. Arta ar fi din nou subordonate unui vehicul de filosofie. -e de altM parte e"istM ceva Nn constituirea unei opere de artM care face reLista reducere teoretice. 'a invocarea unui e"ces de sensul de captare reListM conceptuale. Acest lucru ne aduce la -unctul crucial al problemei. Hu cele e"cesul de sensul pe care o operM sM poate invoca speculativ e"ista Nn afarM de activitatea pe care o citaPie eiY Gimensiunile speculativM a artei sugereaLM cM o operei de artM Nntr-adevMr este o gaLdM pentru ceea ce se aflM dincolo de ea Oi totuOi Nn acelaOi timp dimensiunile transcendente de sensul <e"ces de sens> rMmQne imanentM Nn munca pe care le invocM. -reLenPa transcendentale manifestM numai pe sine prin activitatea pe care-l gMLduieOte. -entru a pus-o un alt mod este Nn lucru cM setul de semnificaPii transcendentale atinge preLenPa lor. 2eLonanPM integralM a unui obiect care desigur se e"tinde dincolo de orice lucru este totuOi un perceptibil doar Nn lucrMrile pe care le gMLduiesc. Rntr-adevMr obiectul chestiuni nu e"istM Nn afarM de lucrMrile care se manifestM preLenPa lor. 9ntologic vorbind de la sine NnPeles cM Nn cadrul de lucru. Ge lucru este data Nn care aceste dimensiuni ale sensul apar Oi ele comanda atenPia privitorului atQt timp cQt locul de muncM le dePine Nn joc. *u alte cuvinte cu privire la tensiunea Nntre repreLentarea Oi preLentarea Nn poLiPia lui #adamer ta"a speculativ al lucrari sugereaLM Nntr-adevMr sM funcPioneLe ca semne de repreLentare ca Nntotdeauna dincolo de sensul dat. !otuOi acesta este un alt mod de a spune cM ontologic vorbind funcPiile lucrari ca simboluri. *onsiderat ca semn referenPialM ceea ce se referM la lucrMrile de artM nu este o lume independentM de semn ci un alt set de semne. *u toate acestea astfel de alte configuraPii de semnificaPie poate Nnsemna mai mult decQt semnele care le invoca dar ele sunt inerente Nn aceste semne foarte. *u alte cuvinte semne foarte speculativ care se referM la alte dimensiuni de NnPeles de asemenea funcPia simbolic Nn mMsura Nn care alte oriLonturi de sens sunt invocate Nn cadrul imanent autonomia operei. *a o gaLdM simbolic opera de arta care se referM susPine cM dincolo de ea NnsMOi Nn sine. $7. !radiPie Arta pare a reLolva enigma a nucleului temporal al adevMrului <Adorno>. 9 lucrare care se dovedeste un TclasicT prin vQrstele Oi rMmQne constantM Nn vigoare rMmQne obligatoriu indiferent de modul Nn care interpretMrile Oi criteriile de evaluare Nn schimbare a lungul timpului <Habermas citat de Arajewski %77, %7>. *eea ce ne leagM de o tradiPie dupM #adamer nu este un conservatorism prost dar

NntrebMrile un canon sau un organism de lucru solicitM dintre noi. *u toate acestea problema de traditie este una dintre cele mai controversate Nn filosofia lui #adamer. +a apare din cauLa modului Nn #adamer stabileOte individuale Oi colective de NnvMPare pe achiLiPionarea de e"perienPele acumulate <8ildung> Oi practici mai degrabM decQt la orice normM metodologice. Argumentul sMu e"pune aduce atingere Nmpotriva Iluminismului. Aspectele eliberatoare Oi universalising raPiunii tind sM marginaliLeLe Oi bate atQt cultural diferite Oi istoric special de diviLare Oi iraPional. #adamer susPine totuOi cM un astfel de hypostasisation fMrM reLerve a raPiunii Oi a metodelor sale are drept consecinPM nefericitM de a condamna ca neintemeiate metodologic evaluMri foarte cM practicile obiOnuite lingvistice si e"perientiale sunt baLate pe. #adamer nu este susPinMtor al acordMrii de HietLsche care respinge afirmaPia cM umanitatea este modelat de necesitate e"terne. e"istenPei noastre Nn lume Oi locul nostru Nn cadrul acesteia este metafiLic vorbind e"trem de contingente. GacM nu e"istM nici o necesitate metafiLic care reglementeaLM practicile omului de ce ar trebui sM cerem chiar Oi pentru o pregMtire metodologice atunci cQnd limba nu are nici necesarM Oi nici nu a functionat cu o astfel de licenPMY *a Oi Nn faPa lui ?ilhelm Gilthey #adamer insistM cM nimic nu justificM Oi dM sens viePii altele decQt viaPa NnsMOi. Acest lucru nu este invocarea de nihilism pentru viaPM nu se produce Nntr-un vacuum. *reaturi cum ar fi om care nu au esenPM pre-determinate supraviePui decQt atQt aminti ceea ce a funcPionat bine Nn practicM Oi de cMtre acesta Nn mod constant de testare Nmpotriva nevoilor contemporane Oi circumstanPe. +"istM o tensiune constantM Nntre e"perienPa dobQnditM precum Oi necesitatea de a stabiliLa lecPiile sale Oi necesitatea de a pune NntrebMri Oi prin urmare destabiliLa Nncercat Oi testate. !oate practicile e"presive depind de o moOtenire de NnPelegere Oi de evaluare. +le sunt dependente de NnvMPare Oi e"perienPa acumulatM. Aceste observaPii agitaPi criticii lui #adamer care vMd Nn acceptarea unreflective a dat un privilegierii iresponsabil conservatoare a primit o orbire intenPionatM a represive posibil sau practicile de e"cludere a moOtenit Nn moduri de operare. *a rMspuns la astfel de scepticism trebuie recunoscut faptul cM practicile moOtenit Nn mod logic vorbind au entailments negativ. *u toate acestea un angajament faPM de tradiPie nu este un angajament de a rMmQne acelaOi Oi nici nu este indicativ de un refuL intenPionat sM se confrunte cu entailments negative Nn ceea ce este transmis istoric. !raditii care sunt incapabile de a schimba riscM sM devinM demodate. !raditii si obiceiuri nu sunt fundate pe core Oi identitMPi fi"e. *a vibrante tradiPiile religioase Oi artistice a demonstra cele care sunt Nn deLbatere constante Nn scopul Oi direcPia dovedesc adesea angajarea Oi influent. !raditii de naturM sM supunerea lor de auto-NnPelegere a critica constituie continuitMPi de conflict. ImportanPa NnPelegerii primite pentru #adamer nu este de provenienPM sale istorice dar modul Nn care ne deschide spre noi Oi se angajeaLM cu probleme Nntr-o comunitate de deLbatere. -roiectul carteLian de a supune toate credinPele pentru e"aminarea sceptici pQnM cQnd acestea pot fi afirmat metodologic este Nn opinia lui #adamer nihilist. -roiectul este neverosimil deoarece gama Oi adQncimea de pre-NnPelegere este atQt de e"tinsM NncQt sM fie untheorisable. 'M condamne pre-NnPelegere ca nejustificatM deoarece nu poate fi metodologic de baLM este e"trem de periculoasM deoarece aceste intuiPii foarte depreciaLM pe care lumea noastrM iniPialM depinde de orientare. Hu este cM aceste descoperiri sunt instrinsically de valoros dar cM acestea sunt posturi de aOteptare esenPiale Nn cMlMtoriile de NnPelegere ele permit. +ste deLbatere continuM Oi dialogul peste practici care permite participanPilor sM se deplaseLe pe e"tindM Oi pentru a transforma dobQndit o e"perienPM. =iOcarea Oi deLvoltarea este intrinsecM cuvQntul german pentru tradiPie: [berlieferung are conotaPie activM atQt transmiterea Oi predarea la ceva. *e transmite tradiPie la vQrsta de vQrstM sunt NntrebMri probleme Oi

aspecte. ImportanPa de lucrMri canonice nu este cM acestea sunt e"emplare inegalabila a unui idiom sau stil ci mai degrabM cM acestea ridicM probleme Oi dificultMPi Nntr-un mod e"emplar. !raditii poate verifica lor de auto-NnPelegere faPM de propriile lor proiecPii istorice. Fn angajament la tradiPie nu este un angajament la o anti@uarianism academice. +ste Nn esenPM un angajament faPM de un cQmp de deLbatere. !radiPia este preLentat ca o resursM Oi o provocare pentru gQndire Oi creativitate: monotonie NntrucQt este moneda de o concepPie conservatoare de traditie instabilitate NntrebMri Oi provocarea de alteritate sunt conducMtori de conceptul mai dialogatM lui #adamer de tradiPie. Acesta a fost susPinut Nmpotriva lui #adamer cM reevaluarea lui de tradiPie nu aduce Nntr-adevMr conPinutul acesteia pQnM la un punct de reflecPie criticM. +l recunoaOte cM la fel ca orice alt fenomen temporal nu toate strMLile sale pot fi Nn mod adecvat thematised sau articulate. Aceasta nu NnseamnM totuOi cM tradiPia este dincolo de evaluare criticM. !raditii poate dupM cum susPine -annenberg a verifica ipoteLele lor normative Nmpotriva lor de auto-proiecPii. AlPi critici sugereaLa ca abordarea lui #adamer la tradiPie Oi estetica este deschis clasice in pre-sale de ocupaPie cu forme care sM menPinM o continuitate Nn timp mai degrabM decQt sM modifice radical ei NnOiOi. +a nu permite aceste intruLiuni radicale sau interjecPii revoluPionare care modificM paradigma perceptuale de o vQrstM. *ontra-obiecPie nu este numai cM ta"a omite NmbrMPiOarea lui #adamer de a lui Heidegger fenomenologicM radicalM re-de lucru al tradiPiei clasice dar de asemenea faptul cM pentru o paradigmM sM NnlocuiascM un alt trebuie sM e"iste anumit raport Nntre ele. Fnul trebuie sM abordeLe o absenPM sM NndeplineascM o posibilitate nevMLut sau a unei lipse Nn altM parte. *ubism de e"emplu presupune o orientare viLualM destul de diferite de la realism dar ambele e"presii aparPin unei tradiPii comune Nn sensul cM acestea se strMduiesc sM ne arate ceva din real. /MrM un anumit grad de continuitate cu traditie orice apariPia radicale nu ar avea nicio influenPM asupra primite Oi lipsa prin urmare capacitatea de a repune Nn discuPie a primit noPiuni Oi NnPelegere. +ste cu toate acestea tocmai provocarea de a diferite Oi celelalte care este conducMtorul dialogatM concepPia lui #adamer de tradiPie. +ste o concepPie care este Nn parte moderniste: tradiPia este preLentat ca fiind Nn deLbatere constantM cu sine. 'ale de reNnnoire schimbare cere Oi de transformare. Rn plus o virtute a acestei concepPii dialogatM de traditie nu este specific cultural. Geoarece accentul este pus pe obiectul care diferite aspecte adresa practicilor culturale ofera un model de angajament cognitive care poate funcPiona Nntre tradiPii distincte mai degrabM decQt Nn orice fel de unul. $$. -arado" al In-Nntre +"istM o tensiune creativM Nn joc Nn cadrul teoriei estetice lui #adamer. -e de o parte #adamer apMrM stalwartly autonomiei operei de artM Oi pe de altM parte Nn ciuda reListenPei sale la orice subsumption de artM Nn filoLofie el insistM totuOi cM estetica trebuie sM fie absorbitM Nn hermeneuticM care este cea mai mare parte NnPeleasM ca teoreticM Nntreprindere. AceastM tensiune reproduce aspecte ale cercului hermeneutic aOa-numitele. 'chleiermacher de e"emplu susPine cM este posibilM numai sM NnPeleagM afirmaPiile unui individ cu caracter personal Nn caLul Nn care o poate intelege structura generalM a limbM pe care funcPioneaLM Nn cadrul individuale. Rn schimb structurile generale sunt doar inteligibil Nn ceea ce priveOte special e"emplificarea enunPuri. ?ilhelm Gilthey opereaLM Nn cadrul unei structuri similare parte-Nntreg Oi anume e"perienPele unui individ cu caracter personal va Nnsemna puPin pentru cititor e"cepPia caLului Nn care acestea pot fi conte"tualiLate Nntr-un conte"t istoric. 9 miOcare Nntre o parte Oi Nntregi de asemenea are loc Nn gQndirea lui #adamer. 9perei de artM este iniPial preLentat Nn singularitatea sa. Gar apoi special este iluminatM de a fi adus Nn

cadrul unui obiect. -entru a se angaja cu discursuri lucrari este de a face generaliLMri despre un lucru sM le suporte plasQnd-o Nntr-un conte"t mai larg al asociaPiilor. *irculaPie la nivelul mai larg al generaliLare revine de asemenea spectatorul sM special din moment generaliLare permite o NnPelegere a ceea ce este singular despre o lucrare prin localiLarea acesta Nntr-un fond mai larg. AceastM miOcare dublM hermeneuticM este e"trem de caracteristicM a lui #adamer estetice. Acesta recunoaOte cM dimensiunea cognitivM a e"perienPei estetice este ca orice e"perienPM lingvisticM atQt centrifuge Oi centripete Nn naturM. Atunci cQnd un lucru ne adrese de impactul sMu este centrifuge: se supMrM Oi se transformM ceea ce am obiOnuit sM recunoascM. +a ne treLeOte la sublim hermeneuticM la ceea ce se aflM dincolo de forme dar cu toate acestea gama noastrM de NnPelegere normalM. Astfel #adamer poate susPine cM Tceva este o structura poeticM cQnd totul de pre-structurate este preluat Nntr-o formM nouM unicM ... ca Nn caLul Nn care au fost spus pentru prima datM la noi Nn special <#? 3 0%>. !otuOi acest moment estranging iniPiaLM o revenire centripetM un Homecoming. T-oeLia Oi arta de a limbii Nn general ca un te"t scris sau auLit este Nntotdeauna ceva de genul ... o recunoaOtere Nn fiecare singur cuvQntT <#? 3 0%>. !otuOi Nntrebarea rMmQne: este trecerea de la iminenPa operei de artM dat contemplations teoretice nu despre obiectul sMu o instanPM a trece de la givenness special de o lucrare la un nivel mai abstract de reflecPie cu privire la obiectul sMuY Hu libera contemplativM departe de locul de muncM trMdeaLM particularitatea sa Oi sugereaLM cM sensul unei opere se aflM dincolo de ea Nn conceptul sMuY Au fost #adamer au cMLut Nn acest impas un idealist Oi contul representationalist de artM s-ar fi obligat pe el. KehemenPM a reListenPei sale la aceste poLiPii sugereaLM cM altceva decQt o simplM schimbare de la iminenPa special de o lucrare la o contemplare teoreticM a conPinutului sMu trebuie sM fie la joc. AcuLaPia de inconsecvenPM necesitM presupunerea cM e"perienPa esteticM a unei lucrMri pe de o parte Oi contemplarea ei pe de altM parte separabile. *u toate acestea este Nn parte mintea lui #adamer de o e"perienta intensa cM ne Nmpinge spre NncearcM sM-l pun Nn cuvinte. +"perienPa eforturile pentru a se aduce cuvinte. Aceste cuvinte vor virtutea asociaPiilor lor semantic loc e"perienPa Nntr-un conte"t mai larg <centrifuge> Oi Nn acelaOi timp aceste cuvinte vor datoritM capacitMPii lor poetic de singularitate a face e"perienta mai clare Oi mai distincte. +"perienPa nu este fMrM cuvinte pentru a Nncepe cu devenind ulterior un obiect de reflecPie fiind numit fiind subsumate universalitatea al cuvQntului. =ai degrabM ea NnsMOi e"perienPa cautM Oi gMseOte cuvintele care le e"prima. Hoi cautam dreptul de cuvQnt-de e"emplu cuvQntul care aparPine Nntr-adevMr lucru <sau e"perienPM> astfel NncQt Nn ea vine de lucru Nn limba <!= ,$1>. Acest lucru sugereaLM cM #adamer nu aplicM o metodM hermeneuticM a e"perienPei estetice dar NncearcM sM e"punePi libera hermeneuticM dintr-o parte la Nntreg Nn cadrul e"perienPei estetice. *u alte cuvinte afirmaPia potrivit cMreia estetica ar trebui sM fie luate Nn termen de hermeneutica nu este o Nncercare de a reduce estetica la un alt idiom. 'e anunPM un efort de a articula dinamic hermeneuticM a e"perienPei estetice Nn sine. 'M recapitulMm pe scurt argumentul. !ensiunea Nn poLiPia lui #adamer decurge din <$> afirmarea autonomiei artei Oi <%> cere ca estetica sM fie NncadratM hermeneutica. /MrM NndoialM greutatea argument este pe urmM. +l criticM sistematic esteticii kantiene pentru concentratia Nngust pe subiectivitatea placeri momentane Oi oferM Nn locul ei o reconstrucPie substanPialM a conPinutului cognitiv adresa artei. *u alte cuvinte #adamer NntrerupMtoare statutul de autonomie din irreducibility sensibilM a unei opere de a autonomiei sale hermeneuticM. Acest lucru implicM argumentul cM un lucru care provocMrile concepPia noastrM face acest lucru pentru cM este prin natura enigmaticM: ea dM naOtere unor dificultMPi de

semnificaPie Oi interpretare care nu pot fi e"plicate departe de un nivel mai fundamental de NnPelegere. =uncM autonomM care iese Nn sine este o lucrare care preLintM atQt un sens Oi Nn acelaOi timp dePine ceva Nnapoi. +ste cu alte cuvinte Nntotdeauna Nndreptat dincolo de sine ci Nn ea NnsMOi. Acest lucru dovedeOte cM afirmaPia lui #adamer constituPia hermeneuticM a unei opere autonome reListM reducere teoretice. Rn eseul T*uvQnt Oi imagineT el NOi e"primM simpatia cu remarca lui 'chleiermacher THu-mi place toate teorie care nu cresc din practicMT <#? 3 )1,>. *u toate acestea astfel cum a fost susPinut dimensiunile transcendente de sensul pe care o invocM speculativ de lucru nu sunt Nn afara de lucru dar acesta Nn imanentM. *u alte cuvinte nu avem nevoie de o metodM specialM hermeneuticM pentru a accesa rePinute ci doar o mai profundM mai atent cunoOtinPM contemplativM. *Qnd vorbeOte despre #adamer de a fi atent la ceea ce o lucrare de artM spune de cerinPe de calitate sale enigmatice Oi de a deveni conOtienPi de reLonanPe speculativ al acesteia el este Nntr-adevMr vorbind Nntr-un idiom hermeneuticM dar acest lucru nu este cel mai clar un caL de #adamer preLentarea e"perienPei estetice la un derivat e"tern teorie. GimpotrivM #adamer NncearcM sM desprindM dinamica hermeneutice ale e"perienPei estetice Nn sine. Astfel tensiunea dintre immediacy de e"perienPM Oi de reflecPie asupra conPinutului cM e"perienPa nu este o tensiune Nntre e"perienPM pe de o parte Oi teoria pe de altM parte. +ste o tensiune Nn interiorul e"perienPei estetice Nntre ceea ce invocM o opera de arta de obiectul sMu Oi modul Nn care ceea ce este invocatM schimbM caracterul pe care Nl invocM. *e deLvMluie reflecPie hermeneuticM a e"perienPei estetice nu este nimic strMine la aceastM e"perienPM ci o divulgarea Nn continuare a ceea ce este dePinut Nn cadrul acesteia. -entru a Nncheia Nn caLul Nn care e"perienPa esteticM este hermeneuticM Nn lucrMri de artM care lumineaLa speculativ sensuri dincolo de ceea ce este imediat deLvMluitM e"perienPa hermeneuticM ar trebui sM fie Nn egalM mMsurM luatM de cMtre esteticii Nn care obiectul materie manifesta doar preLenPa lor la singular Oi special. 8ibliografie #adamer 8ibliografii GouM bibliografii #adamer sunt demn de rePinut. 6ewis +dwin Hahn /iloLofia lui Hans-#eorg #adamer *hicago *urtea 9pen $55) are un Tselectata #adamer 8ibliografieT cu cinci secPiuni.

Fn moment important in istoria apropierii artei de ideea de cunoastere dar si in cea a subiectivarii e"perientei artistice <prin conceptul de geniu> este teoria estetica a lui Aant formulata in W*ritica facultatii de judecare(. Aici Aant e"pune teoria sa despre idealul de frumusete ca simbol al moralitatii nu numai repreLentarile umane ci orice alta forma apartinand naturii putand capata in arta valente morale prin oglindirea in constiinta umana. Astfel sarcina artei Wnu mai este intruchiparea idealurilor naturale ci intalnirea omului cu sine insusi in natura si universul uman-istoric($.

H.-#. #adamer 9p.cit. p.,3