counter create hit The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture and Literature - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture and Literature

Availability: Ready to download

No work of Spanish philosopher and essayist Jos� Ortega y Gasset has been more frequently cited, admired, or criticized than his defense of modernism, The Dehumanization of Art. In the essay, originally published in Spanish in 1925, Ortega grappled philosophically with the newness of nonrepresentational art and sought to make it more understandable to a public confused by No work of Spanish philosopher and essayist Jos� Ortega y Gasset has been more frequently cited, admired, or criticized than his defense of modernism, The Dehumanization of Art. In the essay, originally published in Spanish in 1925, Ortega grappled philosophically with the newness of nonrepresentational art and sought to make it more understandable to a public confused by it. Many embraced the essay as a manifesto extolling the virtues of vanguard artists and promoting their efforts to abandon the realism and the romanticism of the nineteenth century. The dehumanization of the title, which was meant descriptively rather than pejoratively, referred most literally to the absence of human forms in nonrepresentational art, but also to its insistent unpopularity, its indifference to the past, and its iconoclasm. Ortega championed what he saw as a new cultural politics with the goal of a total transformation of society. Ortega was an immensely gifted writer in the best belletristic tradition. His work has been compared to an iceberg because it hides the critical mass of its erudition beneath the surface, and because it is deceptive, appearing to be more spontaneous and informal than it really is. Princeton published the first English translation of the essay paired with another entitled Notes on the Novel. Three essays were later added to make an expanded edition, published in 1968, under the title The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture and Literature .


Compare

No work of Spanish philosopher and essayist Jos� Ortega y Gasset has been more frequently cited, admired, or criticized than his defense of modernism, The Dehumanization of Art. In the essay, originally published in Spanish in 1925, Ortega grappled philosophically with the newness of nonrepresentational art and sought to make it more understandable to a public confused by No work of Spanish philosopher and essayist Jos� Ortega y Gasset has been more frequently cited, admired, or criticized than his defense of modernism, The Dehumanization of Art. In the essay, originally published in Spanish in 1925, Ortega grappled philosophically with the newness of nonrepresentational art and sought to make it more understandable to a public confused by it. Many embraced the essay as a manifesto extolling the virtues of vanguard artists and promoting their efforts to abandon the realism and the romanticism of the nineteenth century. The dehumanization of the title, which was meant descriptively rather than pejoratively, referred most literally to the absence of human forms in nonrepresentational art, but also to its insistent unpopularity, its indifference to the past, and its iconoclasm. Ortega championed what he saw as a new cultural politics with the goal of a total transformation of society. Ortega was an immensely gifted writer in the best belletristic tradition. His work has been compared to an iceberg because it hides the critical mass of its erudition beneath the surface, and because it is deceptive, appearing to be more spontaneous and informal than it really is. Princeton published the first English translation of the essay paired with another entitled Notes on the Novel. Three essays were later added to make an expanded edition, published in 1968, under the title The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture and Literature .

30 review for The Dehumanization of Art and Other Essays on Art, Culture and Literature

  1. 5 out of 5

    Roy Lotz

    In my judgment, the characteristic feature of new art “from the sociological point of view” is that it divides the public into two categories: those that understand it, and those that don’t. The more I read of José Ortega y Gasset, the more I discover that he was one of the most complete intellectuals of the previous century. During his prolific career he made contributions to political theory, to philosophy, to literary criticism, and now I see to art criticism. In the title essay of this c In my judgment, the characteristic feature of new art “from the sociological point of view” is that it divides the public into two categories: those that understand it, and those that don’t. The more I read of José Ortega y Gasset, the more I discover that he was one of the most complete intellectuals of the previous century. During his prolific career he made contributions to political theory, to philosophy, to literary criticism, and now I see to art criticism. In the title essay of this collection, Ortega sets out to explain and defend the “new art.” He was writing at the high point of modernism, when the artists of the Generation of ’27 in Spain—a cadre that included Dalí, Buñuel, and Lorca—were embarking on new stylistic experiments. Somewhat older and rather conservative by temper, Ortega shows a surprising (to me) affinity for the new art. He sees cubism and surrealism as inevitable products of art history, and thinks it imperative to attempt to understand the young artists. One reason why Ortega is attracted to this art is precisely because of its inaccessibility. An elitist to the bone, he firmly believed that humankind could be neatly divided into two sorts, the masses and the innovatives, and had nothing but scorn for the former. Thus new art’s intentional difficulty is, for Ortega, a way of pushing back against the artistic tyranny of the vulgar crowd. This shift was made, says Ortega, as a reaction against the trend of the preceding century, when art became more and more accessible. The titular “dehumanization” consists of the new art’s content becoming increasingly remote from human life. The art of the nineteenth century was, on the whole, confessional and sympathetic, relying on its audience’s ability to identify with characters or the artist himself. But the new art is not based on fellow-feeling. It is an art for artists, and appeals only to our pure aesthetic sense. As usual, Ortega is bursting with intriguing ideas that are not fully developed. He notes the new art’s use of irony, oneiric symbolism, its rejection of transcendence, its insistence on artistic purity, and its heavy use of metaphor. But he does not delve deeply into any of these topics, and he does not carefully investigate any particular work or movement. Ortega’s mind is like a simmering ember that sheds sparks but never properly ignites. He has a seemingly limitless store of pithy observations and intriguing theories, but never builds these into a complete system. He is like a child on a beach, picking up rocks, examining them, and then moving on. He wasn’t one for sand castles. One reason for this is that he normally wrote in a short format—essays, articles, and speeches—and only later wove these into books. It is a journalistic philosophy, assembled on the fly. Personally I find this manner of philosophizing intriguing and valuable. His books are short, punchy, and rich; and even if I am seldom convinced by his views, I also never put down one of his books without a store of ideas to ponder. He is even worth reading just for his style; like Bertrand Russell in English, Ortega manages to combine clarity, sophistication, and personality. I look forward to the next book.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Silvia Cachia

    The Dehumanization of Art, and Other Essays, Ortega y Gasset When I bought this book, the title sounded to me as something negative that art was, according to Ortega, undergoing, its dehumanization. As I read the essays, (the first one who gives title to the book, and which contains different sections, being the longest), I realized dehumanization is not necessarily a negative process, but it's more just a process going on. Ortega believes the XIX century's art (and literature, and music), was be The Dehumanization of Art, and Other Essays, Ortega y Gasset When I bought this book, the title sounded to me as something negative that art was, according to Ortega, undergoing, its dehumanization. As I read the essays, (the first one who gives title to the book, and which contains different sections, being the longest), I realized dehumanization is not necessarily a negative process, but it's more just a process going on. Ortega believes the XIX century's art (and literature, and music), was bent on trying to be 'realistic', on trying to capture reality (even though that's not possible, -since what's left on canvas is a draft, a schematic selection chosen by the artist, of the infinity integrated in each person. What about, instead of trying to paint the person, aiming to paint our abstraction or our idea of a person?, then, in his words: "el cuadro, renunciando a emular la realidad, se convertiría en lo que auténticamente es: un cuadro, una irrealidad". my translation: "the picture, renouncing to emulate reality, will become what it genuinely is: a picture, a non-reality." And, according to Ortega, art and artistic (and historic) ages, can be understood as we see the relation between the artists and their intentions, -which, in modern art (for him, early XX century), has undergone a switch in focus, and it's now bent over itself, art is the content of art, the goal of art, and thus, it's dehumanized. This quote towards the end, explains the core of the essay: La aspiración al arte puro no es, como suele creerse, una soberbia, sino, por el contrario, gran modestia. Al vaciarse el arte de patetismo humano queda sin trascendencia alguna —como sólo arte, sin más pretensión. Pure art's aspiration is not, as we believe, prideful, much on the contrary, it reveals great modesty. Once art is emptied of all that's pathetically human, it stands without any transcendence, —just art, no pretensions. The last essays also address the change of vision. First, paintings (and philosophy), are looking at the short distance objects, and painters paint those objects, their voluminous nature. Then, the artists look to the distance, and try to depict those objects that are further away, (there's the search for perspective, -trying to find a geometric arrangement, and chiaroscuro, as transitions between painting objects to trying to paint the space we perceive when we stop looking at what we have in front, and when we try to paint the whole of what's perceive as we project our sight into the distance. Painters pay attention to the space, and start painting the space (Velazquez in Las hilanderas, or Las meninas). When they look at a scene or a landscape, they now paint their 'vision' of it (Impressionism), they don't go after 'reality', but they give us their idea of reality, thus painting what's subjective to them. Autumn Effect at Argenteuil, 1873 by Claude Monet. Impressionism. landscape. Courtauld Gallery, London, UK Modern art goes beyond the subjective to the intra-subjective. Art is now painting 'ideas', (cubism). He says art started to bring the outside to the canvas, and continued to bring the inside to the canvas, to end, -in his times-, focused on art itself. (This is why many of us claim we don't like new art, -we say that to mean, a) we got it but it's not our cup of tea, b) we don't understand it, thus we can't enjoy it. And if we don't understand art, it's probably because artists were left with just this one more thing to explore, -art itself. (I don't know about you, but this resonated true to me. With art from the XX century up to now, the moment I know something about the artist, what he was trying to accomplish, what he meant in art's timeline, -the new questions, new dilemmas, new techniques, the artist uncovers-, the more I can understand and thus appreciate. Altamira Paintings Part of the first essay, also, is his explanation of what he calls: primitive man, classic man, oriental man, Mediterranean man, and Gothic man. In his Meditations on Don Quixote, he also talked about Mediterranean man and Gothic man, and here I understood that difference even better. Those type of historic man go hand in hand with their view of reality, and the art they left us. Ortega talks to us a lot about literature too, -in his view, art, literature, philosophy, history, they are all, needless to say, connected. There's lovely stand alone short essays too, like the one devoted and entitled La Gioconda. In all honesty, I'm too ignorant of art history as to know if Ortega is onto something good, of if he is missing the mark. (I'll be reading again the difficult introduction by someone new to me, Valeriano Bozal. In it, Bozal gives us the philosophical background of Ortega, -what he understood by image, or by idea. He also tells us that Ortega had many detractors, as many as defenders. It's true that Ortega starts with very bold assertions, and those may prompt many to not go further, and rebuke him from the start. Here it's where my ignorance was bliss. I also have a bias, -I do like his style, and I do tend to, in my ignorance, take him face value. Bozal says that it's much better to suspend any foundational agreement or disagreement, and let him unravel his thinking, and give us the wealth of his own questions, suggestions, and propositions. I can assure you that reading Ortega is always a rewarding experience. One doesn't have to know anything about philosophy, and have no more than common place knowledge of art, literature, and history, to be fascinated and informed about many interesting theories and explanations of the world around us he gives to us.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Eva

    Recuerdo leer La Deshumanización del Arte durante la carrera, hace ya muchos años, y recuerdo también lo que me gustaron las ideas estéticas de Ortega y Gasset. Muy bueno.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Max R Downey

    "Es posible que el arte actual tenga poco valor estético, pero quien vea en él sino un capricho, puede estar seguro de no haber comprendido ni el arte nuevo ni el viejo" En general, estoy de acuerdo con su descripción de la situación histórica, pero no con su interpretación de las consecuencias. Toda su teoría de la deshumanización viene del supuesto de que lo realista (y por lo tanto, lo popular) es lo humano, pero lo mas personal no siempre es realista. No me parece obvio que lo que humaniza un "Es posible que el arte actual tenga poco valor estético, pero quien vea en él sino un capricho, puede estar seguro de no haber comprendido ni el arte nuevo ni el viejo" En general, estoy de acuerdo con su descripción de la situación histórica, pero no con su interpretación de las consecuencias. Toda su teoría de la deshumanización viene del supuesto de que lo realista (y por lo tanto, lo popular) es lo humano, pero lo mas personal no siempre es realista. No me parece obvio que lo que humaniza una obra de arte es el efecto que tenga en el publico, mas bien me inclinaría a creer que son las condiciones en las que fue creado. La obra en occidente no tiene que transmitir sentimientos, tiene que alcanzar un nivel de universalidad que nos permita proyectar los propios a ella y la autenticidad es la mejor forma de lograrlo. Y aunque en un sentido estricto el arte jamas se puede deshumanizar, incluso si tomamos la humanidad como que tenga un efecto emocional "puro", creo que esta equivocado. Esto porque separar los sentimientos en estéticos o humanos según que tan racionalizados o inmediatos son, viene de un dogma clásico de la filosofía occidental (dualismo cuerpo/alma), pero no muy fundamentado. El proceso en uno puede ser más consciente, pero las emociones por sí solas no son capaces de comprender el arte y la razón por si sola no es capaz de disfrutarlo o tener motivación por él. El "refinamiento estético" puede hacer al arte impopular, pero nunca inhumano (o in-emocional). No porque el arte permita un mayor análisis va a tener un efecto emocional menos intenso y muchas veces no es necesaria la comprensión previa de la obra para él goce emocional, solo tener desarrollada una sensibilidad particular. Me atrevería a decir incluso lo contrario: las vanguardias permitían disfrutar estéticamente una obra sin entenderla, mientras en el arte realista/romántico es imposible de separar la emoción de la racionalización, porque la emoción viene de la comprensión del motivo de la obra (cuando no es simplemente sorprenderse por la técnica). Él mismo lo dice muy bien en otros ensayos posteriores: el arte pasado está menos involucrado con nosotros y requiere una comprensión de sus convenciones, es vital antes que estético. No envejeció muy bien, especialmente su creencia de que las vanguardias eran para artistas, mientras el arte romántico era para las masas. Creo que eso responde mas al estatus social del arte en cada periodo y no a cambios estéticos específicos. Sí, es cierto que ocurrió una elitización de las vanguardias a medida que avanzaba el siglo XX, pero también ocurrió una elitización de todo lo demás, incluyendo al arte romántico. El pasatiempo de las masas dejo de ser el arte (considerado como tal por la academia) y se volvió el consumo, pero el arte de las masas nunca es bien visto por la elite en su época. Mirando hacia atrás siempre va a parecer que el arte actual es de las elites. El titulo te predispone un poco a esperar una critica, un ataque al arte del siglo XX, pero esta lejos de serlo. Es una explicación histórica/sociológica e incluso una defensa del ritmo de la historia. Si bien el autor claramente tiene una sensibilidad por el arte romántico, ve que la desmitificación del arte no significa una banalización de él, sino simplemente un cambio de la percepción de su rol a uno individual y no social. Es una mezcla, a veces impenetrable, de estetica y filosofia. Empieza y termina los ensayos con su tesis estética, pero todo el razonamiento es filosófico. A pesar de mis diferencias, su estilo, lógica y humor son impecables y se aprende mucho leyéndolo.

  5. 5 out of 5

    Pablo

    Un libro que es una tela de araña, si se toma y saca lo substancial de él, es bien poco. Una constante en muchos filósofos. No comparto casi nada de lo que propone el autor. Imagino que para la persona que ha leído más sobre estética o historia del arte le puede ser útil. No creo que vuelva a Ortega y Gasset por mucho tiempo (quizás nunca).

  6. 5 out of 5

    An Idler

    Allen Tate asserted the responsibility of the critic to exercise his moral nature in making judgments. OyG disagrees. The dehumanization of art is not an accusation, but a statement of fact reflecting an inevitable evolutionary process. OyG correctly identifies the elements of repudiation and desecration in modern art, then just...steps aside. Fascinating, and full of bon mots.

  7. 4 out of 5

    Esther Langdon

    Me ha sorprendido, la verdad, pensaba que me iba a gustar menos.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Ben

    If you ask your own self, strictly and peremptorily, Who am I? -- not, What am I? but, Who is that I of whom I perpetually talk in my daily life -- you will become aware of the incredible manner in which philosophy has always gone astray by giving the name of the "I" to the most unlikely things but never to the thing that you call the "I" in your daily life. That I which is you, my dear friend, does not consist in your body, nor yet in your soul, your consciousness, or your character. You found If you ask your own self, strictly and peremptorily, Who am I? -- not, What am I? but, Who is that I of whom I perpetually talk in my daily life -- you will become aware of the incredible manner in which philosophy has always gone astray by giving the name of the "I" to the most unlikely things but never to the thing that you call the "I" in your daily life. That I which is you, my dear friend, does not consist in your body, nor yet in your soul, your consciousness, or your character. You found yourself with a body, a soul, a character, as you found yourself with the capital which your parents left you, with the country in which you were born, and with the human society in which you move. Just as you are not your liver, be it sound or diseased, neither are you your memory, be it good or bad, nor your will, be it strong or weak, nor your intelligence, be it acute or dull. The I which you are, found itself with these physical or psychical things when it found itself alive. You are the person who has to live with them, by means of them, and perhaps you spend your life protesting against the soul with which you were endowed -- of its lack of will, for example -- as you protest against your bad stomach or of the cold climate of your country. The soul, then, remains as much outside the I which you are, as the landscape remains outside your body. Let us say, if you choose, that among the things with which you found yourself, your soul is the closest to you, but it is not you yourself. We must learn to free ourselves from the traditional idea which would have reality always consist in some thing, be it physical or mental. You are no thing, you are simply the person who has to live with things, among things, the person who has to live, not any life but a particular life. There is no abstract living. Life means the inexorable necessity of realizing the design for an existence which each one of us is. This design in which the I consists, is not an idea or plan ideated by the person involved, and freely chosen. It is anterior to (in the sense of independent from) all the ideas which his intellect forms, to all the decisions of his will. Our will is free to realize or not to realize this vital design which we ultimately are, but it cannot correct it, change it, abbreviate it, or substitute anything for it. We are indelibly that single programmatic personage who must be realized. The outside world or our own character makes that realization easier or more difficult. Life is essentially a drama, because it is a desperate struggle -- with things and even with our character -- to succeed in being in fact that which we are in design.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Simon

    José Ortega y Gasset provides quite a good overview of the paradigm shift that happened with the beginning of self-consciously modern art (in different media) in the mid-19th century and onwards. He describes very well how it's very different worldviews or even definitions of art that lie behind "traditional" and "modern" art styles, even in the more subtle cases. It's also a fascinating read in this era when modernist art and literature is generally regarded as rather "old fashioned". (at least José Ortega y Gasset provides quite a good overview of the paradigm shift that happened with the beginning of self-consciously modern art (in different media) in the mid-19th century and onwards. He describes very well how it's very different worldviews or even definitions of art that lie behind "traditional" and "modern" art styles, even in the more subtle cases. It's also a fascinating read in this era when modernist art and literature is generally regarded as rather "old fashioned". (at least among my generation) That's also kind of the title essay's downfall, though, and you can see it in the title: Though the author by his own confession attempts to stay neutral and descriptive rather than prescriptive, the general tone of the writing remains almost ridiculously conservative. He just can't resist letting disapproving remarks about the impersonal and esoteric nature of modern art slip through. It also gets kind of schizophrenic, borderline surreal, when Ortega y Gasset also shows some admiration for how far the avant-garde of his day was willing to go, and he even seems to admire their personal and artistic integrity elsewhere. Near the end he goes on an interesting tangent on how much "modern" art was even then not that modern at all, for example abstract art in a sense being rather regressive in its attempt to "start from scratch". He doesn't spent much time on that, though, and that's kind of the main problem: The whole thing frequently feels like a summary of a much longer text that explains things in more detail, but the author did not have time or patience to write.

  10. 5 out of 5

    dv

    Scritto nel 1925, parla di quella che allora era "arte nuova" e senza dubbio fa considerazioni che possono essere applicate anche all'arte contemporanea d'oggi. La posizione di Ortega è ambigua nella misura in cui da un lato afferma di non voler affermare la superiorità né dell'arte contemporanea né di quella precedente, dall'altro si tradisce quando descrive la separazione tra volgo ed élite intellettuale (l'unica in grado di capire l'arte contemporanea - e non è difficile credere che lui se ne Scritto nel 1925, parla di quella che allora era "arte nuova" e senza dubbio fa considerazioni che possono essere applicate anche all'arte contemporanea d'oggi. La posizione di Ortega è ambigua nella misura in cui da un lato afferma di non voler affermare la superiorità né dell'arte contemporanea né di quella precedente, dall'altro si tradisce quando descrive la separazione tra volgo ed élite intellettuale (l'unica in grado di capire l'arte contemporanea - e non è difficile credere che lui se ne senta parte). Ci sono senz'altro note corrette e del tutto precorritrici di quanto è poi accaduto, in particolare il carattere intrinsecamente ironico dell'arte contemporanea.

  11. 4 out of 5

    Hugo

    Lo que me llevó a este libro fue que Susan Sontag lo citaba en "sobre el estilo", el segundo de los ensayos de "Contra la interpretación". Algunos de los ensayos incluidos son mejores que el titular, y en general forman un conjunto interesante. No pueden aplicarse a todo el arte de vanguardia, pero hay que celebrar la confianza mostrada en la modernidad y en el formalismo. Una idea: me pareció curioso que Bazin, en "La ontología de la imagen fotográfica", llegase con la deshumanización al realismo Lo que me llevó a este libro fue que Susan Sontag lo citaba en "sobre el estilo", el segundo de los ensayos de "Contra la interpretación". Algunos de los ensayos incluidos son mejores que el titular, y en general forman un conjunto interesante. No pueden aplicarse a todo el arte de vanguardia, pero hay que celebrar la confianza mostrada en la modernidad y en el formalismo. Una idea: me pareció curioso que Bazin, en "La ontología de la imagen fotográfica", llegase con la deshumanización al realismo, idea aparentemente opuesta (aunque en realidad es otro tipo de realismo).

  12. 4 out of 5

    Londi

    If you think Ortega y Gasset's notion of humanization more as the episteme of constructing, generating and understanding any form of human sentiment and activity in our "reality", this essay can say something even to the 21th century readers. If you think Ortega y Gasset's notion of humanization more as the episteme of constructing, generating and understanding any form of human sentiment and activity in our "reality", this essay can say something even to the 21th century readers.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Aileen

    I disagree with just about everything he argues in here, but it's still a very thoughtful and engaging set of essays - I disagree with just about everything he argues in here, but it's still a very thoughtful and engaging set of essays -

  14. 4 out of 5

    Frightful_elk

    Some very exciting ideas in this selection. Sadly some rather fanciful ones as well. Promises a lot more than it delivers, but Oh my! What promises!

  15. 4 out of 5

    Gastjäle

    My Finnish edition contains both "The Dehumanization" and "Ideas on the Novel". Ortega is a confused gent with strange wishes. He wants art to be solely about art, and nothing pertaining to the real world should be included in it whatsoever. He effortlessly equates enjoyment with understanding and opines that certain people just have the ability to understand art while some people don't - and this cannot be changed. He insists that plot-driven novels should come to an end, so that the modern nov My Finnish edition contains both "The Dehumanization" and "Ideas on the Novel". Ortega is a confused gent with strange wishes. He wants art to be solely about art, and nothing pertaining to the real world should be included in it whatsoever. He effortlessly equates enjoyment with understanding and opines that certain people just have the ability to understand art while some people don't - and this cannot be changed. He insists that plot-driven novels should come to an end, so that the modern novel would be perfect escapism with as much detail as possible but with little impelling action, so that the reader can immerse themselves perfectly in the work. Plus some muddled thoughts about how great modern art is ironical because it makes a point of laughing at itself instead of being laughed at. It's pretty clear to me that Ortega's yet again one of those polemic thinkers who pose good questions yet provide horrible answers - and hence the best they can do is to provide leftovers for thought, which can lead to your own conclusions. I for one find the idea about autonomous art laughable, because the line drawn between artistic fiction and reality is non-existent - if mere words can launch powerful associations which will transport you "back to reality" in a trice, how can anyone think that art, especially something that deals with words like literature, could escape extraneous existence? Ortega's demand for pure escapism which requires active effort from both the artist and the experiencer simply ignores one of the things that makes art so tremendously significant to me: its ability to influence one's own existence (in "real life", if you insist making the distinction). Ortega demands that familiar forms be avoided, especially in paintings, because they will invoke human passions and thus disrupt the communion between man and art - so in other words, he presupposes some non-human state of mind which takes control when pure art is experienced. Mmmyes. Interestingly, he brings up Proust as an exemplar in modern literature - yet Proust's masterpiece is packed with intertextual and extra-textual references, which perforce drive the reader away from the state of escapism. It's also replete with moral and aesthetic contemplation, and it would be sheer mule-headed ignorance to pretend that it only exists in his novel and nowhere else. But Ortega has his points, though they are dreadfully articulated. I do happen to agree with him that plot is pretty much meaningless when it comes to the Great Novels - it's more about the atmosphere, ideas they incubate, ways which they can give you to look world afresh, emotions that they cause you to feel (mind you, that Ortega wouldn't underwrite these points). Plot-drivenness does hurry you on, cause you to lust for a resolution or a twist, and it all feels so very... wrong at times, in my case. For me, like for Ortega, the plot is an essential structure which keeps everything from falling apart, yet it really isn't much of a thing to focus on, given that the best things novels have had to offer me haven't had anything to do with who wedded whom or who got brutally murdered or who was the long-lost character all were waiting for. Ortega's idea about how characters shouldn't be defined straight is also a lucid one - let the text speak for itself. He elucidates his stance beautifully in the case of Dostoevsky, whose characters he defined as independent from the reader, since they defy definition and seem to live a life of their own even if the reader couldn't pigeonhole them. Additionally, Ortega's aversion for everyday forms does not turn out to be completely useless: he points out that art provides an opportunity for something different, and this should be caressed whole-heartedly by those, who want to feel the great strength of art - and also, artists should keep this in mind when they're producing their works, so that they wouldn't make things too familiar and too easy without any proper reason. For example, the more familiar forms (like pictures or word-concepts) are employed, the more the experiencer has to fall back on themselves, which is not exactly ideal, if the purpose of someone's art indeed is to provide something new and strange. But let us not be too addled by Ortega's call for l'art pour l'art - there's no point in trying to thwart the great creative and interpretative forces which Art brings about, by resorting to such tuppenny-ha'penny dicta. Let us not scorn Art, the great teacher.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Turkish

    Слишком уж из меня плохой художник. То, что кажется в этой книге истинным - сейчас уже впитывается на уровне подсознания, у каждого рядового букачера. Искусство не отражение реальности; оно не должно себя подчинять ей. Изображение человека сегодня, собственно отход от конкретного изображения, и попытка усмотреть все то, что не изображено. Но в то же время он говорит, что искусство модернизма не касается слишком серьезных вещей, не пресыщается слишком личным, старается шутить, а не серьезно филос Слишком уж из меня плохой художник. То, что кажется в этой книге истинным - сейчас уже впитывается на уровне подсознания, у каждого рядового букачера. Искусство не отражение реальности; оно не должно себя подчинять ей. Изображение человека сегодня, собственно отход от конкретного изображения, и попытка усмотреть все то, что не изображено. Но в то же время он говорит, что искусство модернизма не касается слишком серьезных вещей, не пресыщается слишком личным, старается шутить, а не серьезно философствовать. Однако это как-то в моем плебейском сознании не соответствует реальности. Модернизм славится тем, что акцентируя на малом, выворачивая цепочку реальность->сознание наизнанку (уже субъективизация), деформируя реальность погружает именно в мысль. По-моему, это и есть смысл деформации. Отказ от точного изображения человека, как Ортега верно заметил, не должен быть полным отказом. Это всегда попытка искривить изображаемого так, чтобы в нем осталось нечто субстанциональное. Отказываясь от внешней формы, мы путем символических форм усматриваем рафинированный смысл. Игра ради игры, ирония ради иронии - это скорее ближе к постмодернизму. Я совершенно не понимаю каким образом можно отказать Андрею Белому, Марселю Прусту, Альфреду Деблину, Джеймсу Джойсу в глубоком смысле, даже в неком мессианстве от искусства. Едва ли "Петербург" это ироничная игра форм, чуждость "какой либо трансцендентности". Отход от спекулировании на чувствах, отход от изображения живых форм, даже игра с самой идеей искусства, произведения, что подразумевает третью черту (по Ортеге: стремление к тому, чтобы произведение искусства было лишь произведением искусства) это ясно укладывается в моем голове. Остальное - с натяжкой. Я не пылаю любовью реализму, он скуп, он скучен, он неинтересен. Но и формы ради формы, игры ради игры, иронии ради иронии постмодернизма тоже не понимаю. Подобная феерия, "ребячество", интересна ровно первых несколько раз. Затем вся эта клоунада потускнеет, и человек потянется к условному Достоевскому, который всегда выстраивает философский символизм за каждым из своих шизофреников.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Adrián

    El ensayo se centra en las vanguardias y como rompieron el arte en su momento. Más allá de lo que supuso de su momento. Es interesante sus conclusiones que podemos sacar más allá del contexto de su tiempo. Por ejemplo el conflicto entre realismo, el sentimiento y el propio arte. Por eso hablaba de la deshumanización en ir más allá de las formas realistas, superar el realismo y el romanticismo del siglo XIX para crear arte. Podemos ver que en su definición de arte se reserva para unos privilegiad El ensayo se centra en las vanguardias y como rompieron el arte en su momento. Más allá de lo que supuso de su momento. Es interesante sus conclusiones que podemos sacar más allá del contexto de su tiempo. Por ejemplo el conflicto entre realismo, el sentimiento y el propio arte. Por eso hablaba de la deshumanización en ir más allá de las formas realistas, superar el realismo y el romanticismo del siglo XIX para crear arte. Podemos ver que en su definición de arte se reserva para unos privilegiados que sean capaces de disfrutarlo. Ortega anima a ir más allá de la forma "bonita" o del sentimiento que provoca. El texto propone ideas interesantes. Pero también elitistas y que chocan por como veo al arte y su papel en el sociedad. Interesante saber que la pelea entre cultura popular y arte selecto ya existía hace diez años en nuestro país. Hay algunas cosas que no termino de entender, quizá por contexto histórico o cultura artística de ese momento, como cuando llama a Beethoven y a Wagner realistas y los contrapone al nuevo arte de Debussy. Sin embargo, me gusta la idea del arte como ampliación de nuestra realidad. No quedarnos en ella como dice en este párrafo: "Nuestras convicciones más arraigadas, más indubitables, son las más sospechosas. Ellas constituyen nuestro límite, nuestros confines, nuestra prisión. Poca es la vida si no piafa en ella un afán formidable de ampliar fronteras. Se vive en la proporción en que se ansía vivir más. Toda obstinación en mantenernos dentro de nuestro horizonte habitual significa debilidad, decadencia de energías vitales. El horizonte es una línea biológica, un órgano viviente de nuestro ser; mientras gozamos de plenitud el horizonte emigra, se dilata, ondula elástico casi al compás de nuestra respiración. En cambio, cuando el horizonte se fija es que se ha anquilosado y que nosotros ingresamos en la vejez.”

  18. 4 out of 5

    Marco Sán Sán

    Me alegra no haber encontrado este libro cuando escribía sobre estética, seguramente mi estupidez me habría segado de la claridad de Ortega. Su idea estética como bien intuía brota de una sensibilidad subjetiva, la propia. Conforme mente y técnica se van formando el gusto nace, tal gusto se queda estático por el desánimo que la vida misma va cobrando. Aquellos que su avidez se mantiene en el tiempo son capaces de desentrañar cada tendencia que se les presenta, disfrutan de la moda, desdeñan el ra Me alegra no haber encontrado este libro cuando escribía sobre estética, seguramente mi estupidez me habría segado de la claridad de Ortega. Su idea estética como bien intuía brota de una sensibilidad subjetiva, la propia. Conforme mente y técnica se van formando el gusto nace, tal gusto se queda estático por el desánimo que la vida misma va cobrando. Aquellos que su avidez se mantiene en el tiempo son capaces de desentrañar cada tendencia que se les presenta, disfrutan de la moda, desdeñan el rancio gusto, intuyen el mensaje. En esto Ortega detecta una nueva convergencia, la técnica en la antigüedad costaba empeño conforme la capacidad de los artefactos va incrementando el esfuerzo que merece cada obra va decreciendo y el mensaje frivolizándose, repitiéndose. La moda ya no es un derivado de la producción si no es lo que terminará llevando el mando de cualquier tendencia, así la tecnificación ya no es para nosotros sino un para sí, frivolidad. Los ensayos añadidos no son tan potentes, el de Leonardo me estremeció un hombre dedicado a perfeccionar la técnica nunca develará los secretos del espíritu, pero hará progresos. Durísimo Y su aclaración sobre el barroco son muy interesantes, la distinción entre obra y autor no es dada por la intención del artista sino por su representación.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Ermina

    Gasset na jednom mjestu kaže da ne postoji vječna ljepota (umjetnosti). To dovodi u pitanje remek-djela i njihovu trajnost i zastupljenost, ali i na to Gasset ima odgovor - vremena se mijenjaju, a s njima i shvaćanje umjetnosti. Ovo je najupečatljivija teza koju sam zapamtila i koja je duža od ovog mog sažetka. Napomenula bih da vrijedi pročitati ovu zbirku eseja, ali da nije najbolja od ovog autora.

  20. 4 out of 5

    Heyyonicki

    Bien qu'assez court, cet essais écrit à l'époque de la modernité me semble plutôt intéressant, et me nécessitera une relecture quand j'aurai plus de temps. Je ne suis pas encore certains quant à la valeur des idées proposées. Bien qu'assez court, cet essais écrit à l'époque de la modernité me semble plutôt intéressant, et me nécessitera une relecture quand j'aurai plus de temps. Je ne suis pas encore certains quant à la valeur des idées proposées.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Ietrio

    Back in the day, Art was walking on two legs and was well groomed and smelling nice while in public. But those were the good old days. Now Art is nowhere near as human as it used to be, so probably humans need a better dictator to put Art in its place.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Javi

    Lo que mas me ha gustado es la forma en que trasmite la idea que el concibe como arte y la evolución de la poesía del siglo XX.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Mer

    Está bien como libro de reflexión, de cabecera. Me gustaría releerlo con calma en algún momento.

  24. 5 out of 5

    Sara Barquinero

    Un poco cuñao

  25. 5 out of 5

    Alejandra

    A good surprise.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Laura Isabel

    Por un libro de filosofía, es sencillo y muy interesante. Necesito regresar para terminarlo cuando tengo más tiempo de disfrutarlo.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Aitor Brecht Alonso

    Aunque es interesante la noción de revoluciones artísticas y el concepto de deshumanización del arte creo que Ortega tiene ensayos más brillantes.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Raquel Pedro

    Lido ensaio sobre a desumanização da arte.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Jenny Vázquez

    El último ensayo ("La verdad no es sencilla") es maravilloso. El último ensayo ("La verdad no es sencilla") es maravilloso.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Dali

    A veces uno busca ayuda externa para reconocer en uno mismo sentimientos o ideas de otros; puntos comunes, unos que no sabes poner en palabras. Ortega y Gasset es un espejo para todo el que piense similar, aunque de apuro decirlo con todo el mundo, por la lucha de ideas que el ensayo nos pinta. Una lectura agradable y una conclusión alentadora.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.