فصلنامه کیمیای هنر
پیاپی 4 (پاییز 1391)

Aristotle’s Poetics is one of the most prominent works for researchers in philosophy of art, literary criticism and poetics studies. In Islamic world there have been numerous translations and summarizations of and commentaries on this book, but it could be said that the most reliable one among them is that of Ibn Sina. In this article, while comparing chapters of Ibn Sina’s writing with those of Aristotle’s and explaining Ibn Sina’s added commentaries to the Poetics, it would be domenstrated that his translation of Aristotle’s book under the title of “Fann-e-Sh’er” is not a literal one. Ibn Sina’s aim of writing “Fann-e-She’r” is, on the one hand, to present a complete knowledgeable explanation of Poetics contents with clarifying examples and, on the other hand, to put forth the book as a model for newer scientific and philosophical discussions about two realms of poetry, namely “poetry in itself” and “contemporary poetry”. This issue can still be of great importance to researchers of philosophy of art and literature.

The climax of this view is represented in Neo-Platonism that if the world is beautiful it is because it reflects the image of Soul. Neo-Platonists don’t regard themselves as establishers of a new philosophy (though they establish one), but they believe themselves as the redeemers of Plato’s philosophy from those aberrations burden over it during the time. Plotinus, as the last major philosopher of ancient epoch, historically stands at a timeline which separates ancient world from middle ages. His contemplations on the realm of philosophy and art, especially those on the concept of beauty, have been among the most influential views. In this article, according to what Plotinus has proposed, the semantic roots of “form” and “content” would be explored next to their relationship and importance. The author tries to find the answers to these questions: what is Plotinus basic world view and what basic principles could be found in it? How does he define beauty, art and artwork and what is their status in his world view? After exploring his idea, it will be found that in Plotinus’s view, being means beauty and beauty means being; form means beauty and beauty means form; God means beauty, good means beauty, love means beauty and beauty means love. According to this definition, Plotinus regarded everything and every concept in this world to be filled with form (beauty/love). Form, as the basic element of being and existence, is an “image of content” and artist, as the creator of the form, produces his work not by imitating secondhand versions of this worldly paradigms, but by copying the original one (ideas). Another conclusion that could be taken from this article is that form has relationship with abstraction and abstraction painting has relationship with the world of ideas.

According to the interpretation which is based on Being and Truth derived from Heidegger’s narration of history of Aesthetics, for the Greek, Art was a way to generate, to disclose, the beings; therefore, it was a way for the establishment of the truth. So the status of art was well-defined and the need to it was inevitable. In Plato’s thought – by his own conception of art and generation [poiesis] on the basis of the theory of Idea – art lost his early relation to truth, and then it was to decide on its status in the human life. This characterizes the beginning of Aesthetics. Moreover, Plato’s thought as the origin of Aesthetics has the elements characterized as the basic elements of Aesthetics; it means the entrance of Beauty to the definition of art and divergence among beauty and truth. During modern age and the emergence of subjectivism the divergence among the beautiful, the true, and the good had been completed and the artwork turned to an object of aisthesis. Therefore, art as the role of creating the beautiful and the aesthetic pleasure couldn’t have essential role in human life. This is the event characterized as the end of art in Hegel’s Aesthetics. However, The last phases of the history of Aesthetics is characterized by Nietzsche and Wagner’s attempts in order to make restitution for art’s necessity, though, Heidegger believes, these attempts couldn’t be successful.

Danto’s philosophical approach determines his methodical and theoretical discipline in philosophy of art and aesthetics. To start understanding his theories and philosophical thoughts, it is better first to ask what his understanding of philosophy is and what method he offers for philosophical investigation. Since Danto has written independent works in the realm, understanding his philosophical concerns about art involves the explanation of his general philosophical ideas. If his philosophy of art bears any innovation and unique treatment of art and representation, then it’s inevitable to fully understand his basic and rudimentary concepts on which his whole philosophy is constructed. Furthermore, and through investigating his basic concepts, one can find Danto’s general approach and conceptions. Contemporary art after the decline of modern art challenges Danto’s thoughts. As Danto puts it, contemporary art is nowadays connected to consciousness more than any other time. Danto puts forward a new approach in philosophy of art and art criticism based on his method of philosophical investigation. His specific methodology and philosophy of art will be discussed here in this article and their differences will be clarified. Meanwhile, it is discussed that, according to Danto, examining the condition of contemporary art and its status in history of art is one of the dominant issues in philosophy of art and art criticism.

Philosophy has been always engaged with the visual; yet, in the twentieth century and by the advent of cinema, some philosophers started to make particular theories about this new technology and the specific picture it offers. One of the most prominent philosophers of this realm is Gilles Deleuze who based his philosophy of cinema on the concept of time-movement relationship and hence challenged key issues of metaphysical tradition like time, movement and subjectivity. Applying Deleuze’s ideas in Picasso’s artworks, this article tries to put forth a better understanding of the concept of time in his works, particularly his still lives. Put in another more Deleuzian and more cinematic term, it would be tried to use a cameralike look, dependant on “camera consciousness”, for exploring a thematic relationship in Picasso’s works. This results in new challenging perspectives on his artworks too.

In this article it would be tried to elaborate Alain Badiou’s novel view to the relationship between art and philosophy and furthermore to illustrate the role that “interpretation” plays in his novel view. Badiou believes his point of view toward this relationship to be the opposite of three visions which, to his eyes, have been the dominant views across western history of philosophy: didacticism, romanticism, and classicism. He thinks that in none of these three views the relationship between art and truth has ever been regarded as “singular” and “immanent”, that is to say, art has never been honored as the producer of a truth of its own. Badiou renders art such a status of having its own truth next to that of science, politics and love. This new relationship between art and truth brings about a new relationship between art and philosophy. In this new relationship, philosophy is neither art’s master nor its servant; it does not impose meaning on art from outside and its task is not to interpret or express the truths that art has reached to. According to Badiou, since artistic truth is restricted to art itself and since the truth is basically something contrary to extant meanings, therefore, philosophy cannot share or express through interpretation and illustration the truth that art produces. What philosophy does in relation to art is to draw a distinction between truths and doxas or “common beliefs”, and hence to declare the artistic truths.

Before 70s, prescriptive, universal, and dogmatic theories were dominant in the world of film theories. These theories were based on Marxist and Liberal grand narratives. Since 1970, the increasing validity crisis has begun in film theories, in other words, both of the previous film theories lost their validity and there began a process of producing and reproducing of small film theories. These theories are limited in their effects and lifetimes. So in current time we cannot rely on a trustworthy theoretical framework or a grand narrative. Concerning the condition, it could be asked whether in this situation a consensus in film theory can be reached and new meta narrative can be produced or not? What could be basically written about cinema without a theoretical framework? In this article old and current conditions of film theory are described by using language game theory and the important moments and turning points of film theory would be analyzed. The main goal is to choose a way and a new goal for film theory in current time.