2007, Vol., No.57

Journal of Humanities, Seoul National University 2023 KCI Impact Factor : 0.89

pISSN : 1598-3021 / eISSN : 2671-7921
https://journal.kci.go.kr/snu-ioh

Der Spiel-Begriff, welcher als eine wichtige Rolle in der Kunstphilosophie und Aesthetik spielt, bekommt bei Heidegger und Gadamer einen neuen Sinn, der nicht mehr als ein erkenntnistheoretischer, sondern als ein ontologischer charakterisiert wird. Sofern der Spiel-Begriff sowohl bei Heidegger als auch bei Gadamer so einen ontologischen Sinn hat, knnen wir vermuten, daß einige Korrelationen zwischen ihren Aufklrungen des Spiels liegen knnen. Von dem Gesichtspunkt dieser Vermutung wird es in dieser Arbeit versucht, mgliche Korelationen zwischen ihren Auflrungen des Spiels herauszustellen. Nach diesem Versuch ist es mglich, folgendes zu sagen: 1) Gadamers Aufklrung, daß der Spiel-Begriff einen medialen Sinn hat, klingt zusammen mit Heideggers Behauptung, daß die Wahrheit in dem ‘Ins-werk-Setzen der Wahrheit’(d.h. in der Kunst) nur nach ‘ungemßen Namen’ sowohl als das Subjekt wie auch als das Objekt des Setzens kennzeichnet werden kann. 2) Gadamers Aufklrung, daß ein Kunstwerk nur in der Darstellung des Kunstwerkes besteht, klingt zusammen mit Heideggers Behauptung, daß das Welt-spiel bzw. das Seinsgeschick nur dann als Spiel geschieht, wenn der Mensch dabei mit-spielt. 3) Gadamers Aufklrung, daß die Zeitlichkeit des Kunstwerkes als ‘Wiederkehr und Werden’ zugleich mit dem eigentlichen Selbsterkennen des Genießers geschieht, klingt zusammen mit Heideggers Behauptung, daß das Geschick des Seins als Ereignis gerade der Urspung aller Geschichte, welche die Geschichte des Selbstverstehens des Menschen einschließt.

This paper aims to reexamine Stalin as a Bolshevik revolutionary and the dictator of the Soviet Union, using recent researches about his biography which revise the general images of his life. As many scholars show on the basis of primary sources including recently declassifying archival materials, Stalin was a contradictory and complicated person, who can not be judged simply as “a great man” or “an incarnation of evil.” Stalin can not abandon Georgian identity, even though he wanted to be a Russian. He had the courage to challenge Lenin if he needed, while he worshiped Lenin as his hero. He was always doubtful of those close to him, even after he obtained autocratic power to condemn them to death if he wanted to. Moreover, he depended on informal “inner circle” consisting of a few people when he had to made a decision, but, on the other hand. he continued to decentralize the structure of government formally. He personally decided on some policies, but he did not even look at many other policies, leaving them in the hands of his subordinates. In this respect, a final version of Stalin’s biography is not completed, although many scholars, Russian and Western, have attempted to reevaluate his entire life in earnest particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, it does not seems to be written even after all the materials concerning him are available. It is because Stalin himself showed ambivalent and unclear attitudes and actions at every crucial moments of his life, which make possible conflicting interpretations at any time. Thus, Stalin will remain “a fascinating man,” attracting the attentions of many biographers in the future as before.

Traditional aestheticians believe that the value of art can be explained solely by aesthetic value that audience can get during going through aesthetic experience which is a peculiar way to perceive an object, since they believe the experience is unique way to perceive artworks. According to them, since the artistic and the aesthetic is synonymous, they don’t need to distinguish the former from the latter. However, after the advent of Avant-garde, artworks have changed so radically that they become to be containers of various values other than aesthetic value such as cognitive, moral, emotional values: they give us abundant information, new points of views, moral lessons, and emotional flexibility. If the change is a right result of observation over our art practices, we, against traditional aestheticians, need to suggest theoretical reasons for necessity of distinguishing artistic value from aesthetic value. For the first reason to distinguish two kinds of values, I argue that the values we get in an interaction with a work of art cannot be fully articulated with the aesthetic value because the experience audience can get from a work of art i.e. art experience cannot be thoroughly explained by aesthetic experience. To avoid a confusion involving in aesthetic experience as an ill-defined concept, I will take Noel Carroll’s definition of aesthetic experience, namely the ‘content-oriented’ approach which explains that an experience is aesthetic only if we appreciate the form or the expressive and aesthetic properties of an object during experiencing it. If we can consider his definition correct, aesthetic experience would not cope with the existence of a non-aesthetic art experience such as audience’s interpretive interaction that recently becomes to play a more important role to appreciate artworks. To interpret a work of art properly, audience does need to observe and infer its meaning and structure on the basis of art tradition and art-historical back ground information where it has its place. Observation and inference are certainly cognitive interactions, which differ from the aesthetic experience of its form and aesthetic properties. And the difference implies that audience can get more various values from art experience which includes non-aesthetic experiences i.e. interpretive interaction, than aesthetic value they do from aesthetic experience. Thus, from the implication, it can be claimed that we need to distinguish the artistic value from the aesthetic value. This paper does not articulate constituents of artistic value, but it opposes to traditional aesthetician’s view and suggests to distinguish artistic value from aesthetic value and to understand it as a wider-ranged value where moral, cognitive or emotional value as well as aesthetic value can be included because of the width of art experience.