The interest in aesthetics in philosophy, literary and cultural studies is growing rapidly. This book contains exemplary essays by key practitioners in these fields which demonstrate the importance of this area of enquiry. New aestheticism remains a troubled term and in current parlance it already comes loaded with the baggage of the 'philistine controversy' which first emerged in an exchange that originally that took place in the New Left Review during the mid-1990s. A serious aesthetic education is necessary for resisting the advance of 'philistinism'. Contemporary aesthetic production may be decentred and belonging to the past, but that is not a reason to underestimate what great works do that nothing else can. Despite well-established feminist work in literary criticism, film theory and art history, feminist aesthetics 'is a relatively young discipline, dating from the early 1990s'. The book focuses on the critical interrogation of the historical status of mimesis in the context of a gendered and racial politics of modernity. Throughout the history of literary and art criticism the focus has fallen on the creation or reception of works and texts. The book also identifies a fragmentary Romantic residue in contemporary aesthetics. The Alexandrian aesthetic underlies the experience of the 'allegorical'. 'Cultural poetics' makes clear the expansion of 'poetics' into a domain that is no longer strictly associated with 'poetry'. The book also presents an account of a Kantian aesthetic criticism, discussing Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Aesthetic Judgement and Critique of Judgement.
’s professors were undergraduates and
graduate students, classrooms were very different places. Wooden desks
screwed to the floor were the norm rather than light and mobile desks on
wheels. Professors lectured in poorly lit and poorly ventilated great halls,
and students wrote notes by hand and could only fact check later by taking
laborious trips to the library. People smoked in classrooms, for God’s sake!
Visual imagery in the arthistory classroom depended upon carousels of
slides, and film courses depended upon after-hours screenings of mostly
canonical films. And now
In brief, a largely short-term and ‘political’ tactic has grown into
an endemic attitude whereby there is always some kind of discrepancy between the visible work and its meaning. Further, as
Maclagan makes clear,40 this gap has been widened by Freudian
theory, which postulates an apparently novel but in fact relatively
restricted symbolism that has a degree of overlap with the figurative and emblematic interpretative traditions within arthistory.
Both writers agree that the ‘form’ of images has been ignored in
examinations of ‘content’, and offer similar
similarly in the past, resonating across cultural, chemical
and arthistories to create an aesthetic effect. Vision and olfaction have been
linked in the past and remain linked in the present, a point brought home when
one adds to this discussion the numerous pre-modern art objects associated
with the history of perfume, many of which are on ‘display’ in museums because
of their ornate materiality. Objects like gold censers, elaborately embroidered
leather gloves, ceramic potpourri vases, ivory snuff boxes, silver vinaigrettes
and the more familiar crystal and glass
Cochrane and Jo Robinson (eds), Theatre History and Historiography: Ethics,
Evidence and Truth (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 147–62; Heike
Roms, ‘Mind the Gaps: Evidencing Performance and Performing Evidence in
Performance ArtHistory,’ in Claire Cochrane and Jo Robinson (eds), Theatre
History and Historiography: Ethics, Evidence and Truth (Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2016), 163–81; and Rebecca Schneider, Performing Remains: Art
and War in Times of Theatrical Reenactment (New York: Routledge, 2011).
7 See Jean Fourastié, Les trente glorieuses
Ewa Plonowska Ziarek
Mimesis in black and white:
feminist aesthetics, negativity and semblance
As Sarah Worth suggests, despite well-established feminist work in literary criticism,
film theory and arthistory, feminist aesthetics ‘is a relatively young discipline, dating
from the early 1990s’, and thus still open to contestation and new formulations.1 In
this context it might seem paradoxical that one of the founding texts of feminist aesthetics, Rita Felski’s Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change,
proclaims its impossibility
Romanticism , Bettie Allison Rand Lectures in ArtHistory
(Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 2005 ), pp. 1–35, p. 19.
See Hamling, Decorating the
‘Godly’ Household , p. in 192.
For the dating of this panel see Hamling