|
Abstract Abstract: In the 1960s, Pop art and “ready-made” brought theoretical confusion to aestheticians. That is, what is the difference between commonplace and artworks. Arthur Danto and others continue the thinking of art mimetic theory, identifying that art contains something beyond the object itself, that is, there is meaning in it, but it is not clear what exactly it is. At the same time, Agamben and Žižek, as radical left-wing Aestheticians, also thinks about the involvement of industrial objects in the field of art and the ontology of art. Žižek argues that commonplace becomes work of art because there is a sacred artistic ontology behind it, that is, the Thing. The Thing of art does not exist, but different objects occupy the place of the sacred object and take on different artistic forms. Agamben, on the other hand, identifies the ontological difference between industrial objects and artworks in terms of poetry(ποίησις) and forms of production. He argues that artworks are forms that retain existence and make things reveal truth. The radical left aesthetics’ alternative reflection on the ontological question of art provides a new inspiration which has provided new inspiration for thinking about what art is today.
Key words: commonplace; sacred things; art ontology; Giorgio Agamben; Slavoj Žižek
|
|
|
|
|
|
