Arlyne Moi Towards a Justifiable Conception of ‘the Autonomous Artwork’ in Today’s Artworld

Thesis for a Hovedfag * in Philosophy at the University of Bergen - Spring 2005.

* A "Hovedfag" is the old Master's Degree at the universities in Norway,
the degree, and especially the paper/thesis is larger and more
independently written than for the present Master's Degree.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Lars Fr. H. Svendsen, Deirdre C. P. Smith, Kjetil Skjerve, Thomas E. Payne, Vibeke Tellmann, Anders Reiersgaard and Christer Swartz for reading portions of earlier drafts of this paper, and for commenting on aspects of them. Also thanks to Hanne Beate Ueland of Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art, Oslo, for making available to me many of the artworks discussed here.

In the time of writing, the work of writing can never be concluded: the work remains unfinished and unfinishable, as if beginning and beginning again in an eternal return of a present that endures without a future and from which there is no exit.
(Maurice Blanchot, The Step Not Beyond)

Stamp out, and eradicate, superfluous redundancy. (Thomas E. Payne)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

The autonomous artwork is a controversial issue;
The autonomous artwork  is a confused issue;
Problemstilling and thesis statement; overview of chapters

CHAPTER 2. BACKGROUND AND ROOTS OF ‘THE AUTONOMOUS ARTWORK’

Nomos; Auto:
The self Autonomous combined with artwork-self

CHAPTER 3. KANT AND THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF AUTONOMY

The four moments, the artist genius and the aesthetic idea;
What are the building-blocks of autonomy?

CHAPTER 4. TOWARDS A CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION OF ‘THE AUTONOMOUS ARTWORK’

SECTION I: CONCEPTIONS OF THE ‘AUTONOMOUS ARTWORK’ WITH WEAK ONTOLOGICAL COMMITMENTS

A. The work’s autonomous status as being related to the artist

B. ‘The autonomous artwork’ understood in terms of its reception

i. Attitude theories: The aesthetic attitude and the judgment of taste

ii. The artwork is free of moral liability because all moral obligation lies  with the judge

iii. Reception of artworks as non-conceptual, as feeling only

iv. ‘Autonomous artwork’ understood in terms of reception being under-  determined by the symbolic form of language

C. The artwork’s autonomy understood in relation to the artworld’s separation from the rest of society, or the work’s separation from the artworld

 

SECTION II. ONTOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO THE WORK’S AUTONOMY

A. Aesthetic Realism

i. The Aesthetic object;
ii. Significant form;
iii. Pure intentionality

B. Views focusing on the aesthetically perceptible artwork

iv. Formalism and Aestheticism: value is independent of meaning, reference  and utility;
v. A delimited world of forms and symbols, self-sufficient for its correct interpretation;
vi. Essentialism’s autonomy;
vii. No universal definition;
viii. No definition at all;
ix. Intuitive expression;
x. Purposiveness without determinate purpose;
xi. The double character

SUMMARY

A synthesis of provisional moments of autonomy for the artwork

 

CHAPTER 5. HEIDEGGER, BLANCHOT AND DERRIDA on the AUTONOMOUS ARTWORK

A. Heidegger’s artwork: earth and world striving

The workly character of the artwork;
The work subsists in itself;
The earth
withdraws, occludes itself;
The world is unknowable

B. Blanchot’s double character

The dead and the autonomous artwork;
‘The autonomous artwork’ as negator of artist, receiver and meaning;
What is ‘the autonomous artwork’ for?;
The relationship between the two slopes

 

DISCUSSION PART 1: OF HEIDEGGER AND BLANCHOT’S ‘AUTONOMOUS ARTWORK’

Ambiguity with the status of the earth and world, and the dead and autonomous slopes;
Is the autonomous artwork prior, and thus the condition for signification and value?
A problem with Blanchot’s fragmented consciousness vis a vis the zombifying artwork
Is ontological priority at all a relevant issue for contemporary artworks?
Ontological solitude
The artwork’s fragmentary nature

 

C. Derrida: The undecidable artwork

Derrida’s deconstructive practice;
‘The autonomous artwork’ understood as having undecidable form;
‘The autonomous artwork’ understood as non-restorable to a corresponding truth;
‘The autonomous artwork’ understood as non-restorable to a purpose

 

DISCUSSION PART 2: DERRIDA’S NARRATIVE OF THE AUTONOMOUS ARTWORK, WITH COMPARISON TO KANT, HEIDEGGER AND BLANCHOT

1. The work, the artist and the receiver in light of undecidability

Undecidability makes the subject fall apart

2. The undecidable artwork’s separation from truth-as-correspondence

Derrida’s scepticism;
Demonstrating non-restitution: A secret and contradictory trust in truth-as-correspondence?

3. The undecidable purpose

Judgment of purpose: An art-religion?
The undecidable artwork and moral concerns: Is the artwork morally obligated?

4. How successful is Derrida’s failure?

The usefulness of the undecidable artwork

SUMMARY: ‘The HBD autonomous artwork’

 

CHAPTER 6. A THIRD HYBRID

The PH viewed through the tense of the HBD and vice versa

The artist’s authenticity of expression in light of undecidability

Law-likeness without a law: agency and product;
‘Authenticity’ as taking responsibility for one’s artistic expression

The receiver’s responsibility in light of undecidability

A THIRD HYBRID

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSION

BIBLIOGRAPHY