جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "هنر سنتی" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

Traditionalism is one of the currents that is directly opposed to modernist beliefs. Throughout the history of thought, the view of traditionalists has become a coherent system of thought. One of the fields that has a special place in this idea is the theory of art and beauty. One of the concepts that are very important in understanding the traditionalist theory of the perception of art and beauty is the understanding of the place of "intellect" in the creating and understanding traditional art by the artist and the audience. Explaining and examining the traditionalists' definition of intellect and how it works in creating and understanding traditional art is essential for understanding how transmitting tradition. In this study, using the method of document collection and qualitative analysis, after examining the main concepts such as tradition, traditional art, and intellect as a theoretical framework, the place of intellect in creating and understanding traditional art in traditionalists' view is examined and criticized. This study shows that the traditionalists' views are problematic on issues such as the insufficient definition of intellect, uncertainty of the function and perceived matter of intellect, unacceptable assumptions for all, getting into esoteric pluralism, explanation of exaggerated mystical personality for artist and audience, Improper generalization and bias in some cases. It also has the advantage of presenting a theory of art with other cultural contexts and paving the way for a different mystical interpretation of art.

Nasr’s philosophy of Art contains several affirmative components such as connecting with tradition, the sacredness, the truth of being, utility of art in ordinary life and etc. First we have explained those components. on the other hand, his theory contains several negative components such as the critic of the modern art, the critic of utilitarianism, the critic of the artist’s central role and etc. These aspects, too, have been explained in this paper. Following description, we have deal with this question: What the contemporary artist or audience of artwork would gain if he looks to art from Nasr’s view point.

Creativity is one of the most common notions in art studies. In modern world, being an artist and being creative are identical and often creativity is considered to be akin to novelty. Moreover, it seems to be common belief that traditional art shows a high occurrence of borrowing, repetition, use of conventional themes and disregard for novelty and originality. Although in modern point of view creativity and even authenticity are identical with newness and considered that traditional art lacks it, there are some philosophers such as Ananda Coomaraswamy, Titus Burckhardt, Rene Guenon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Anne marie Schimmel, who believe that not only traditional art is creative but also it is the sole kind of art which is really creative. But the question which arises here is whether one can speak of creativity in traditional art in a strict sense? In fact an artistic school transfers the framework of education, the production of works and creativity. By doing so, it can guarantee the identity of artistic works. The derived conclusions in this paper show traditional art has got some principles which according to them, it would be possible to speak of creativity in a strict sense.

Senå’at has a meaning more general than ''art'' as it is currently used، for senå’at means ‘art’ in the traditional sense، being free from the limitations of modern paradigms which are now imposed on the latter term. In the translations of Greek texts، senå’at is used as the equivalent of Τεχνη (techne). Avicenna، who pays particular attention to Aristotle in most of his philosophical works، gives a relatively exhaustive commentary on the book περὶ ποιητικῆς (Poetics) of the ''first teacher'' (Primo Magister، Aristotle) in the ninth branch of the first section of his magnum opus، the Shifå’، in the last part the Logic section. However، the Poetics does not encompass all of Aristotle''s opinions about art، and to emphasize it too much would be misleading، for there he mainly considers art in its external aspect. Indeed، to understand Aristotle''s doctrines about art one must study his other works، taking into account the explanations of his disciples and commentators. In this respect Plotinus plays an important role، for he examined and critiqued the works of Plato and Aristotle and has interpreted and clarified some of their more abstruse discourses. It is also significant that Plotinus had a particularly strong influence on Muslim Sages. According to our inferences from the commentators’ interpretations، the Greek sages consider τεχνη (techne) in three aspects: 1) the essential aspect or Spirit of τεχνη (techne)، that is، μιμησις (mimesis); 2) the substantial aspect or soul of τεχνη (techne)، that is، ποιησις (poesis); 3) the accidental aspect or body of τεχνη (techne)، that is، πραζις (praxis). On basis of a consideration of: firstly، the stages of understanding and acquisition of knowledge in the philosophy of Aristotle; secondly، his theory that the ''becoming'' of everything is according to ''nature'' (φοση، phuse) and ''art'' (τεχνη، techne); thirdly، his belief that ''form'' (ιδος، idos) is immanent – as opposed to the transcendent forms of Plato; and finally، his manner of placing forms within ''nature'' and within the artist''s soul before creation، we can clearly understand the nature of the stages of inspiration، innovation and making. The movement of a form from the level of the intellect to imagination and from imagination to sensation is of great importance for our discussion of art as senå’at. Plato gives a great deal of emphasis to μιμησις (mimesis) and believes that αρχη (arche، principles) and ιδεη (idea، Platonic ideas) or intellectual forms are its corollaries. Aristotle also believes that the corollary of μιμησις (mimesis) is a form، which in this case exists with nature، and hence is here in agreement with his teacher to a certain extent. In any case، attaining the stage of ποιησις (poesis) is not possible without the stage before it، just as without innovation nothing can be made. A discussion similar to this is to be seen in chapter two of the second essay of sixth section of the Shifå’ dealing with psychology and the types of human perception، as also in the forth essay of this book. There Avicenna points to the stages of abstraction (tajrìd) of ‘forms’ on the different levels of perception، from sensation to intellect. Similar discussions are to be seen in the Risåleye Nafs (Treatise on the Soul) and al-Ishåråt wa at-Tanbìhåt (Remarks and Admonitions)، emphasizing the capacity of the intellect to derive benefit from the Sacred Intellect (intellectus sanctus). According to Avicenna، the soul is a substance with two aspects، the first of which looks towards the active intellect (Madonna Intelligenza) from which the theoretical intellect takes its knowledge، and the second of which looks towards to body، and this is the practical intellect. The perfection of the intellect is when into the intellect are impressed the intellectual forms of all beings as they exist in the Divine Essence. In this respect al-Shaykh al-Ra’ìs (the authoritative master، Avicenna) seems to be in agreement with the Greek sages. All of these considerations suggest a theoretical diagram of senå’at or τεχνη (techne) based on the stages of intellect، imagination and sensation، through each of which form (ģĩrat) descends، and all of which are necessary for the realization of senå’at.