Alexandra Mouriki

The relationship between art and time is one of pre-figuration–transfiguration, a continuous exchange between the art of the present and that of the past and it is in this sense that we can understand how the works of art are have almost their entire life before them. It is in this sense also that the real meaning of metamorphosis should be understood: The works of art are not permanent acquisitions. They offer themselves the ways through which they appear in another light, gathering up at the same time a series of antecedent expressions in an eternity ever to be recreated. Hence, art’s time is neither a-historical nor exclusively history embedded (in history’s empirical sense). Art’s time is trans-historical: artworks, initiating themselves the process of their metamorphosis, ‘transcend’ time being into time and, thus, they ‘traverse’ history.

According to philosophers and art critics like Arthur Danto, modern art has reached a point of culmination. Being obliged to redefine itself otherwise than through the concept of representation, modern art has turned to a kind of self-interrogation and undertaken a program of revelation of its real essence. Modernist art became a kind of philosophical questioning, the answer to which brought it to fulfillment by the late 1960’s with Warhol’s duplicates. Since then, there could be nothing new in the history of art; post-modern art in this sense seems to have come to an end and, liberated from the burden of its history, to have entered into an era of omnipossibility. From this point on it is absolutely free to follow as many directions as it likes at once. But is post-modern art really post-historical? Has art come to an end in this postmodern era? And how this concept of omnipossibility is to be understood? These questions rise as an agon between modernism and post-modernism, between objectivity and relativity, or between a claim of universal validity and cultural contingency.

More and more these days it is asked whether aesthetics is still possible. A question that, given the context and phrasing, seems to direct us towards its answer. Conferences and meetings, books and journal specials examine the issue of aesthetics, talk about rediscovery or return of aesthetics. Well known philosophers and aestheticians underscore the need to reconsider the foundations of aesthetics and set new directions for aesthetics today (Berleant, 2004) or attempt to expand aesthetics beyond aesthetics–like Welsch, for example who tries to extend aesthetics beyond art to society and the life-world (Welsch, 1997). Others underline the need to revisit the aesthetic experience (Shusterman, 1999; Iseminger, 2002, Fenner, 1996) and examine the relevance or irrelevance of the aesthetic with art (Carroll, 2001). It seems that it is strongly recommended to turn to aesthetics on the condition however to carefully re-approach the meaning and import of the term in the present situation. The aesthetic that Passmore condemned as “dreary”(Passmore, 1954), the one Sparshott considered a formless conception, vague and loose in application (Sparshott, 1982), the same that Danto emphatically argues that has nothing to do with the definition of art or arts in general (Danto, 1981) returns to claim its rightful place in the fields of philosophy and critical theory (Levine, 1994, Michaud, 1999), as well as artistic creation. And one cannot but wonder: what does this return mean? What was the degree of aesthetics decline that we need to discuss about recovery or for new implementations of aesthetics?

Art education literature has not given great deal of attention to that which constitutes the very content of art education, i.e. art. This reluctance to deal with art seems justified, given that there exists no overall accepted definition or interpretation of what art actually is. In this paper, we argue that, despite the difficulty, it is absolutely necessary to try to understand and reflect on the multidimensional and polyvalent phenomenon of art. We claim that without a deep understanding of the nature, the role and scope of art, the field of art education can not be adequately delineated. Without this understanding, questions about the kind of objects and values which should be studied within art education are held over, its content risks being hetero-defined and its special contribution underestimated. Beginning with an understanding of art as a complex phenomenon, deeply implicated in historical and cultural transformations and changes, this paper argues for the necessity of a critical rethinking of art. We try to show that the question “what is art?” is a key question in order to draw attention to the multiplicity and the open nature of the artistic phenomenon, upon which our educational choices will be found. Our object is not to impose one and only answer as a unique and unwavering option, but to describe an educational condition which recognizes the multiple practices and the many points of view as parts of the organized activity and knowledge about art, while putting them under critical examination

The purpose of this paper is to examine how different aspects of aesthetic theory can be utilized in education so as to contribute to a workable, coherent, and multifaceted arts integration approach in elementary education. The authors begin by presenting specific aspects of aesthetic theory as indicative of the basic theoretical and philosophical approaches to the phenomenon of art. They then refer to examples of activities designed on the basis of these different aesthetic aspects, and finally, they present the findings that came out of these activities’ pilot implementations in preschool and school classrooms. Based on the methodological analysis of these implementations, the authors examine the benefits of the activities deriving from each of the different aspects of aesthetic theory; how they differ depending on the aspect from which they arise; and how the implementation of these types of activities as multi-theoretical sets can reveal a new way to design a coherent and multifaceted arts integration curriculum. What the authors attempt to do is show that the variety of approaches to the definition of art and the analysis of aesthetics can be the touchstones for organizing arts integration in elementary education.

Why does aesthetics matter in aesthetic education? What are the issues that this area of philosophy deals with, and what kind of questions does it raise in relation to art and the experience one has when s/he comes into contact with a work of art? Moreover, how can aesthetic theory provide sufficient justification for establishing aesthetic education as an autonomous and important field in education? In addressing these fundamental questions, the author: A) follows the development of aesthetics as a series of transformations and continual engagement with the core issues related to art and the aesthetic experience. She argues that the task of aesthetic theory is to re-examine the conditions under which both art and the aesthetic experience are approached and, in the process, to challenge unsubstantiated claims and prejudices associated with them. B) The author also attempts to show how, due to its reflective and critical nature, aesthetics could become the foundation of aesthetic education. She argues that, as a result, questions of major importance for shaping the content and aims of aesthetic education can be fruitfully answered from the perspective of aesthetic theory.

Enriching Arts Education through Aesthetics examines the use of aesthetic theory as the foundation to design and implement arts activities suitable for integration in school curricula in pre-school and primary school education. This book suggests teaching practices based on the connection between aesthetics and arts education and shows that this kind of integration promotes enriched learning experiences.　 The book explores how the core ideas of four main aesthetic approaches – the representationalist, the expressionist, the formalist, and the postmodernist – translate into respective ways of designing and implementing experiential aesthetics-based activities. Containing relevant examples of interventions used in classes, it analyzes the ways in which the combination of different aesthetic approaches can support varied, multifaceted, multimodal and balanced teaching situations in school.

Cette thèse essaie de montrer que la pensée phénoménologique de Μ. Merleau-Ponty et de M. Dufrenne suit cette direction de la dernière pensée de Husserl qui descend vers la nature, vers cette élément résistant à la phénoménologie, auquel la phénoménologie tendra à assurer sa place. En essayant de penser l'impense husserlien, M. Merleau-Ponty et M. Dufrenne arriveront à l'idée de la nature en tant qu'originaire, matrice de possibles, champ général de l'être qui est en perpétuel devenir et qui, donc, ne peut pas être survole, ne peut pas être conçu comme un objet dresse devant la conscience. La nature que cette pensée découvre est le non-identique, le non-maitrisable, ce qui résiste à la raison identitaire et propose un autre mode de rapport avec l'être que celui de la domination en démontrant en même temps l'impossibilité d'une conscience constituante. L'art, d'autre part, en tant qu'expression, en tant que logos expressif et créateur (en réalisant, même a titre d'utopie, l'image d'un monde où la séparation sujet - objet est dépassé, où les rapports de l'homme au monde n'obéissent pas au principe de la domination) fait preuve de cette nature originaire et principe de résistance. Logos de l'art et logos philosophique se rencontrent, donc, dans la mesure où tous les deux sont une interrogation continue du réel, dans la mesure où ils ne reflètent aucune vérité donnée, mais, en tant que langages expressifs et créateurs, s'efforcent de la réaliser. En plus, l'art et l'expérience esthétique constituent une voie privilégiée pour une philosophie qui se veut radicale, qui veut se libérer de liens qui l'attachent à la pensée dualiste traditionnelle

The question of whether art is a source of knowledge is a question of epistemic as well as of aesthetic interest which has significant pedagogical implications as well. This issue, both in its epistemic and aesthetic dimensions, is addressed here under the general perspective of the contemporary cognitivist - anti-cognitivist debate. Consequently, it is asked: a) can art be a means of knowledge and if it does, is knowledge obtained through art of the same kind with scientific knowledge? and b) if we accept that art actually offers some kind of knowledge, is this knowledge relevant to its aesthetic value, does it constitute an essential part of its functioning as art? The paper discusses the plausibility and consistency of the answers given to these questions either from the cognitivist or the anti-cognitivist point of view and argues that the importance and role attributed to art within the educational praxis, as well as its educational value per se, significantly depends on the kind of approach we adopt in regard to these questions.