Estetski oblik - Kasirer - Varburg

This article is about nine photographs and what may be seen in them (Figures 1–9). The images are part of a much larger collection conceived of and organized by a group of four friends—Alice Rose George, Gilles Peress, Michael Shulan, and Charles Traub— shortly after 11 September 2001. Their idea was to document what had happened and what was still occurring on the streets of New York City that infamous fall. The group also decided that this makeshift project should be open to ‘‘anybody and everybody’’ and they sent out word as widely as possible that any photograph submitted on this topic would be displayed in an exhibition at Michael Shulan’s SoHo gallery. Figure 1. Unknown photographer (#3029 from here is New York: a democracy of photographs).

This study aims to compare the differences and connections between the concepts, function, manifestation, and value dimensions of “number” in mythology and science from the perspective of Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms. It reveals the symbolic nature of “number” in mythology, analyzes the pure form of “number” in science, and explains how “number” constructs the logical system and cognitive framework of the scientific world as a pure formal symbol in the scientific system. By comparing the concept, manifestation, function, and value of “number” in mythology and science, this study reveals the philosophical and cultural significance behind them. In Ernst Cassirer's symbolic form philosophy, mythology and science, as important forms of human culture, together with other cultural forms such as art, constitute an integral part of "humanity" The primary research methods are literature review, comparative analysis, and case study. By systematically reviewing the discussions on mythology, science, and other fields in Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms, typical mythological stories and scientific theories are selected for a detailed comparative analysis of the use of “number” within them. The study has found that, emanating from the intuitive form of mythological thinking, “numbers” in mythology serve as one of the fundamental structures of the mythical world. In mythology, numbers exist as potent entities, transcending mere symbolic status. On the contrary, in science, "numbers" serve as an abstract symbolic language that follows clear and explicit structural principles, elucidating the essence and relationships between various scientific phenomena.

This paper provides a precis of Ernst Cassirer’s concept of art as a symbolic form. It does so, though, in a specific respect. It points to the fact that Cassirer’s concept of “symbolic form” is two-sided. On the one hand, the concept captures general cultural phenomena that are not only meaningful but also manifest the way man makes sense of the world; thus myth, religion, and art are considered general symbolic forms. On the other hand, it captures the formal structures and semiotic tools thanks to which meaning is constructed within each general symbolic form (Cassirer called these structures “modes of objectivation”); thus, in art, perspective or the golden section are well-known examples of symbolic forms, now in a narrow sense, i.e. they are means to configure parts into an organized, meaningful whole. The paper will comment on art along both these two dimensions, but its main goal is to provide with concrete examples of aesthetic symbolic forms in the narrow sense in order to show how conceptual meaning can be inscribed in the space of aesthetic intuition.

On the “negative utility” of Ernst Cassirer׳s philosophy of physics: An application to the EPR argument

The aim of this paper is to read iconologist Aby Warburg's work in relation to Earth artist Robert Smithson's non-sites, as a means of opening up discussion on the function of art as archive, and archive as art. The work with which we concern ourselves is Warburg's final unfinished work, Mnemosyne Atlas (1927–1929), which survives as folios of photographs and notes stored at the Warburg Institute in London. Warburg has always been regarded as a canonical but maverick figure: he was a founder of iconology and the key figure in the revival of the study of Antique art. Our method is to remove Warburg's last project from the domain of his iconologist guardians, placing it in the context of contemporary art practice, proposing that the work must be seen as a proto-conceptualist demonstration of entropy, not a failed historiographic curiosity.

Fashion is traditionally perceived as a non-art in art philosophy; however, it is now being evaluated as art through the process of recognizing its cultural value and position. This study investigated the expanded concept of contemporary fashion in the same context of the expanded concept of contemporary art to present the possibility of fashion as art. This study enhances the artistic and cultural value, as well as the social function and position, of fashion by granting it the same status as art according to the concept of expanded contemporary art. For the research method, a literature review and a case analysis were conducted through specialty publications related to art history, aesthetics, and fashion in addition to regular publications, websites specializing in fashion, art museums and fashion style websites. The expanded aesthetic concept of contemporary art has embraced challenges to ideal beauty, production methods through interactivity, and expansion of art expression through mass media and industrial products. In the same context, the expanded aesthetic concept of contemporary fashion has established challenges to conventional beauty, the expansion of production methods, and the expansion and transfiguration of materials.

In this article, I argue against Dominic McIver Lopes’s claim that nobody needs a theory of art. On the one hand, I will demonstrate that Lopes’s alternative to theories of art – namely, the buck-passing theory of art – is neither more viable nor more fruitful: it is likewise incapable of resolving disagreement over the status of certain artefacts and of being fruitful for the broader field of the arts. On the other hand, I will defend the view that we are in need of a viable theory of art. The concept of art has a profound impact on our cultural practices. Concepts of art in use now showcase biased and arbitrary features. Correspondingly, certain artefacts and practices are excluded from the domain of art without adequate justification. Therefore, I will argue, it is unwarranted to abandon the search for a viable theory of art.

The confrontation of Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of the symbolic forms and Lévi-Strauss’ structural anthropology makes necessary to clear their definitions of morphology transformation traductibility. We will expose the morphological field where Cassirer’s aesthetics grows by placing him in relation with Goethe, who represents as for Lévi-Strauss himself an important source. Defining the concept of transformation supposes to follow how he modifies the key ideas of the German poet and biologist, by taking account of the new point of view provided by the theory of groups of transformation which the mathematician Felix Klein developed into the “circle of Erlangen”. Then we will give an idea of the manner by which Edgar Wind, a brilliant student of Cassirer, invents a morphological aesthetics to provide art history with a methodology, and we will give some examples of the application of the concept of building series of pictures into the field of art history. We will interrogate the global functioning of the tables of Aby Warburg’s Atlas Mnemosyne, Erwin Panofsky’s well-known iconological interpretation of the Melencolia I of Dürer and then, by contrast, the creation of a virtual and “then” real series of masks through a ruled imaginative variation, which Lévi-Strauss creates to give sense to a particular Amerindian mask which he finds during his investigations. To conclude, we will interrogate the problems appearing by the definition of transformation as traductibility in both Cassirers’ and Lévi-Strauss’ semiologies. We will ask for the use both make of the model of translation in linguistics so as to compare different forms of structural homologies.

The comparison of Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms and Levi-Strauss’ structural anthropology requires a clarification of their definitions of morphology, transformation and translatability. We will expose the morphological field where Cassirer’s aesthetics emerges in relation to Goethe, who represents an important source for Levi-Strauss as well. Defining the concept of transformation is supposed to follow his modifications of the key ideas of the German poet and biologist, by taking account of the new point of view provided by the theory of groups of transformation which the mathematician Felix Klein developed in the ≫circle of Erlangen ≪. Then we will show how Edgar Wind, a brilliant student of Cassirer, invents a kind of morphological aesthetics to provide art history with a methodology, and we will give some examples for the application of the concept of building series of pictures in the field of art history. We will examine the global function of the tables of Aby Warburg’s Atlas Mnemosyne, Erwin Panofsky’s wellknown iconological interpretation of Durer’s Melencolia I and then, by contrast, the creation of a virtual series of masks through an imaginative variation which Levi-Strauss creates to give sense to a particular Ameridian mask found during his investigations. Finally, we will investigate the problems appearing by the definition of transformation as translatability in both Cassirer’s and Levi-Strauss’ semiologies. We will ask for their uses of the model of translation in linguistics to compare different forms of structural homologies

Purpose: This study examined Ernst Cassirer's study of human beings in the present era where human identity has become more confusing than ever before. This was caused by advances in science and technology that penetrated into specific areas of human life, along with the 4th industrial revolution and the COVID-19 pandemic. By re-illuminating this study with an educational focus, the researcher attempted to explore the direction of desirable education practices in the future. Methods: By focusing on 『An Essay on Man』 and 『The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1-3』 among Cassirer’s works, the long-standing definition of man as a rational animal is questioned, and the process of human consciousness development as a symbolic animal is explored in language, mythology, and science. In response to the three symbolic forms, the characteristics of each were examined. In particular, the emphasis was placed on revealing educational implications from the characteristic of human thought called 'symbols'. Results: As a philosopher, Ernst Cassirer explored the uniqueness of humans by defining humans as symbolic animals. In addition, he utilized an indirect way to reveal the essence of human culture, starting from the premise that human existence can be known through culture created by humans. Symbolic form is the form of knowledge that humans acquire toward the world, and the symbolic form conceived by Cassirer appears through cultural forms such as mythology, religion, language, science, art, and history. Through them, human beings can communicate with their internal and external sides and achieve a synthesis between the world and the mind. Conclusion: Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms is in line with constructivist learning theory, which recognizes learning as an active process of constructing meaning on the basis of each learner’s experience. In addition, symbols can promote growth simultaneously through the learning community beyond the individual level by contributing to the cultivating of the spirit.

This study aims at knowing whether there are didactic obstacles in learning fractions of students in Yogyakarta based on the form of the problems. Those problems include visual, narrative, and symbolic forms. Materials of fractions consist of the concepts of fractions, equivalent fractions, the order of fractions, decimals, percents, addition of fractions, subtraction of fractions, multiplication of fractions, and division of fractions. The method of this study is survey with expost facto approach. The populations are students of Junior High School grade VII in Yogyakarta. The samples are 151 students from four schools in Yogyakarta. The choice of sample is done by stratified proportional random sampling technique. The instrument is diagnostic test with 27 questions that divide into 9 visual forms, 9 narrative forms, and 9 symbolic forms. Based on the result, students have didactic obstacles in visual forms and narrative forms. While in symbolic forms, students did not have didactic obstacles.

ABSTRACTErwin Panofsky's essay “Perspective as Symbolic Form” from 1924 is among the most widely commented essays in twentieth-century aesthetics and was discussed with regard to art theory, Renaissance painting, Western codes of depiction, history of optical devices, psychology of perception, or even ophthalmology. Strangely enough, however, almost nothing has been written about the philosophical claim implicit in the title, i.e. that perspective is a symbolic form among others. The article situates the essay within the intellectual constellation at Aby Warburg's Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek in Hamburg, and analyzes the role of Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms for the members of the Warburg circle. Does perspective meet the requirements for becoming a further “symbolic form,” beyond those outlined by Cassirer? The article argues that, ultimately, perspective cannot possibly be a symbolic form; not because it does not meet Cassirer's philosophical requirements, but rather, because that would uproot Cassirer's overall project. While revisiting Panofsky with Cassirer unearths the wide-raging philosophical implication of the essay, revisiting Cassirer with Panofsky means to highlight the fundamentally perspectival nature of all symbolic forms.

Edgar Wind and Modern Art: In Defence of Marginal Anarchy

The ArgumentErnst Cassirer's theory of language as a symbolic form, one of the richest and most insightful philosophies of language of the twentieth century, went virtually unnoticed in the mainstreams of modern linguistics. This was so for what seems to be a good metatheoretical reason: Cassirer insisted on the constitutive role of meaning in the explanation of linguistic phenomena, a position which was explicitly rejected by both American Structuralists and Chomskian Generativists. In the last decade, however, a new and promising linguistic framework has emerged — the framework of lexical semantics — which seems to bear close theoretical resemblance to Cassirer's theory. In this paper, I show how the empirical results accumulated within the framework of lexical semantics serve to validate Cassirer's most fundamental philosophical insights, and suggest that Cassirer's philosophy helps position these empirical results in their appropriate epistemological context. I discuss the following fundamental points, which, for me, constitute the backbone of both Cassirer's philosophy and the theory of lexical semantics: (i) natural language grammars constitute structural reflections of a deeply-rooted, highly structured level of semantic organization; (ii) the representational level of linguistic meaning, which is prior to experience in the Kantian sense, comprises a partial set of semantic notions, which language selects as centers of perceptual attention; (iii) this partial set is potentially different from the sets selected by other symbolic forms, such as myth, science, and art; and (iv) linguistic variability is to be explained in universalistic terms, thus allowing for specific patterns of variability within universally-constrained limits.

In Jung's psychology, archetypes are biologically inherited supra‐individual predispositions of the collective unconscious, and in this paper this controversial theory of archetypes is evaluated in the context of Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms. The main thesis of the author is that with the help of the Cassirerian approach, archetypes can be understood as culturally determined functionary forms organizing and structuring certain aspects of man's cultural activity, namely those predominantly non‐cognitive (for example, emotional, numinous, pathological) mental aspects of human life, which remain more or less unarticulated due to their non‐discursive nature. The revision the author is proposing revolves around the notion that the archetypal theory can be removed from the rather unfruitful discourse on the genetic inheritance of archetypes. When archetypes are seen as symbolic forms, Jung's theory is in a position to make a potentially valuable contribution to hermeneutical and cultural studies, as archetypes function in this new context as active constituents of human experiences, which give these experiences a non‐discursive, symbolic form. Thereby, archetypes can become accessible to historical and cultural analyses, and hermeneutical inquiry into the manifold symbolism of mental (including unconscious) phenomena can be enriched.