SFB 1391: Different Aesthetics

近年来，美学问题变得令人惊讶地突出。关于艺术和审美影响的公开的、有时是激烈的辩论引起了我们的注意。在当前的危机时期，我们已经敏锐地意识到艺术是社会动态的代理人和象征。然而，审美争议不仅与公共辩论文化有关，而且与学术研究有关。有时，甚至出现了一种“审美转向”。然而，似乎自相矛盾的是，这种转变主要发生在人文学科以外的领域，例如社会科学、神经科学和生物学。这些方法，就像公众辩论一样，显然是对审美的迫切需求和兴趣的反应。但是，他们的答案往往是建立在18世纪和19世纪早期经常被命名的美学自主概念的前提之上的，这意味着在社会和人类学的角度上再次忽视艺术的功能的风险。在这种背景下，发现和反映不以审美自主地位为基础的另类美学实践、表现形式和概念似乎更加迫切。正如CRC所说，在前现代时期，即哲学美学时代之前，这种不同的美学可以显著地找到。这一主张推动了CRC真正以人文为导向的项目。它进行了(1)关于美学的社会和人类学基础的辩论，但将其与(2)对美学过程理解的基本讨论联系起来，这一讨论将系统地从(3)艺术过程和技术的内在逻辑（自论维度）与社会实践（异质维度）之间的动态相互作用中衍生出来。为了能够分析这种相互作用，CRC开发了以“美学反思形象”概念为中心的行动美学模型。通过这种方式，它提供了一种启发式工具，可以对两个维度之间的动态纠缠进行复杂而全面的描述。因此，我们的首要目标是通过遵循一种合理的方法来建立美学的社会相关性。其次，通过促进跨学科联系的研究项目，CRC旨在为当前美学研究中的前现代美学行为和人工制品赋予新的角色。第三，CRC的长期目标是通过提供深刻的文化历史视角，将当前关于美学相关性的争论置于一个新的基础上。这也将有助于我们富有成效地发展当前的艺术和社会问题。

In recent years, questions of the aesthetic have become surprisingly prominent. Public, and at times heated, debates on art and aesthetic impact catch our attention. In the current time of crisis, we have become acutely aware of art as an agent and symbol of social dynamics. Aesthetic disputes, however, are not only pertinent to the culture of public debate but also to academic research. At times, even an 'aesthetic turn' has been proclaimed. It seems paradoxical, however, that this turn has mainly taken place in fields outside the humanities, e. g. in the social sciences, the neurosciences, and biology. These approaches, like the public debates, obviously react to a pressing need for and interest in the aesthetic. But often their answers draw on premises that go back to frequently unnamed concepts of aesthetic autonomy from the 18th and early 19th centuries, which entails the risk of losing sight again of the functions of art in a social as well as an anthropological perspective. Against this background, it appears to be even more urgent to discover and reflect alternative aesthetic practices, manifestations, and concepts that are not predicated on positions of aesthetic autonomy. Such a Different Aesthetics can prominently be found, as CRC claims, in the pre-modern period, i.e. before the age of philosophical aesthetics. This claim is what motivates the genuinely humanities-oriented program of the CRC. It takes up (1) debates on the social and anthropological foundation of the aesthetic, but correlates it (2) with a fundamental discussion on the understanding of aesthetic processes that is to be derived systematically from (3) the dynamic interaction between the inner logic of artistic processes and techniques (autological dimension) and social practice (heterological dimension). To be able to analyze this interaction, the CRC has developed the model of a praxeological aesthetics that is centered on the concept of ‘figures of aesthetic reflection.’ In this way, it offers a heuristic tool that allows for a sophisticated, as well as comprehensive, description of the dynamic entanglement between the two dimensions. It is thus our first aim to establish the social relevance of the aesthetic by following a plausible method. Secondly, by means of a research program that fosters interdisciplinary connections, the CRC aims at giving a new role to pre-modern aesthetic acts and artefacts in current aesthetic research. Thirdly, it is the long-term objective of the CRC to put current debates on the relevance of the aesthetic on a new basis by offering a deep cultural historical perspective. This will also help us fruitfully develop current questions of art and society.