Michal Šedík

Cognitive overlap between art and science can be found in the processes of learning through experience. What necessarily needs to be present in these processes are not good reasons in favor of what is known or learnt, but the following features: The first feature art and science have in common is the negativity of learning processes: What a cognizer C learns through experience is that her theories, expectations, attitudes, trials, etc. are wrong and should be abandoned in order to advance. This leads us to the second common feature of art and science: if C is to err, and thus to learn through experience, she must create something in advance. It is further argued that C learns through experience due to causal relations between the environment and her sensations and beliefs. This cannot be accomplished, however, if C is not aware of the notion of objective truth. Empirical knowledge is social and public, yet its truth is not reducible to social agreement. More could be learnt about the learning through experience in art and science, if anyone showed that some of the features or relations proposed in this paper are not necessary for learning

The paper focuses on the problem of authorship in the domain of visual arts. It’s aim is to see the author not as a person, who produces the work of art, but to exa-mine the creative process, which builds up this relationship. It attempts to show the problems concerning the common idea of authorship and to grasp their main points in order to describe the creative process of authorship. Chapter 2 starts with the common idea of an author in western countries, which can be find in his acts, and then shows the inappropriateness of this concept on some examples taken from contemporary art. It then outlines the above mentioned concepts from the philosophical perspective and from the perspective of art history. Chapter 3 offers a new conception, which aims at grasping the process of becoming an author. This pro-cess runs in space within at least three partly autonomous but, interconnected realms: the realm of material world , the realm of mind and the realm of language . It means that there are three irreducible realms of authorship, which have to be taken into consideration. Chapter 4 tests the suggested conception on real instances taken from contemporary art, in which the existing conception has failed

This paper examines some of the philosophical positions explaining the interpretation of artwork as related to its ontology and the concept of creativity. A theory of interpretation necessarily involves a certain ontological position answering questions such as: What is the object of interpretation?; What is a work of art? The same close relation one can find between a theory of interpretation and the creativity, i.e. the questions such as In what sense (if at all) is a work of art created?; What is created by an artist and what by the observer/reader/listener of a work of art?. Our interpretation and its results depend on answers to these questions. In conclusion the author gives an outline of his own position on the interpretation of a work of art in the context of the creativity and the ontology of the former.

The essay outlines a non-substantialist ontological conception of the work of art, which should grasp the process-like nature of the works of visual art. This process-like ontological model of the work of art draws on following conceptions: the conception of the work of art as an experience in J. Dewey; the conception of the virtual and actual existences as developed in informatics; the conception of a semantic gesture of Jan Muka?ovský. In this conception the work of art is seen as a product created by the author/authors together with the viewer/viewers, as an experience, which could be shared inter-subjectively. The whole process is controlled by the semantic gesture, which is unique in each work of art, and which is our guide in actual experience