Hranice mimolidského v umění
| Title in English | The boundaries of the non-human in art |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2025 |
| Type | Conference abstract |
| Citation | |
| Description | The article cautiously touches upon the possibility of the existence of a boundary between the inhuman and the human in art and the meaningfulness of establishing such a boundary. It begins with examples and continues with the formulation and testing of a hypothesis that distinguishes between two classes of artistic works: human and non-human, with the inhuman being considered a subclass of the non-human. (...) The hypothesis is: for the value system, the content representing the depth of humanity is decisive: one can consider a boundary – vague – establishing the presence of humanity. According to Gaut, we refuse to perceive a work if it crosses the moral (human) boundary. Sedlmayr thinks similarly, speaking of artistic infernalism, the art of horror, hell, chaos. If some works plunge into Sedlmayr's abyss of non-humanity, then the other side of the coin is probably works that are human in one way or another, as Kivy writes. Since Sedlmayr sees the cause of decline in the loss of the center, Aristotle's ????? and catharsis will be considered. Augustine's interpretive boundary of humanity is ultimately considered the final interpretive criterion of the human. |
| Related projects: |