Perspectivism of the esthetic method

The author begins his paper with the assertion that there is not even one thing in this world that is so ordinary and simple as to have only one and unique sense, and therefore concluding that the discovery of perspective must have been based on such insights. This discovery was epoch-making, indicating a new way of thinking and man's new relationship with the world: it shows that one cannot view one's own life from a perspective which goes beyond one's immediate life experience and that the opportunity of perspectival interpretation of the matter is all that remains to one. Arguing for this assertion, the author states a series of names - Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche Husserl, Jaspers, Heidegger, Sartre, T. Mann,M. Proust,M. Blanchot,W. Benjamin, A. Einstein and P. Feyerabend - and interprets their attitudes in that light. But if things stand like this considering the being of things which are poor in terms of form and meaning, then what sort of difficulties should human thinking deal with when in contact with cultural formations which are composed of multiple and most diverse elements and tendencies? With this respect, the author also states and interprets the attitudes of a number of theorists - Sapir, Saussure, Louis Althusser,W. Heisenberg, Michel Foucault, Claude Levi-Strauss, Ihab Hassan, E. Benveniste, P. Sloterdijkin order to show that the subject of cultural analysis is not determined in advance but is a product of research work itself. Research on art works is not an exception to this general rule: in their material existence, art works are always open to new interpretations. This tendency of modern opinion is so radicalised by postmodernists that the facts are completely subordinated to the method. Therefore, the author suggests that the pluralistic relationship to art should be preserved and fostered as an advantage inherited from the distant past and not as further experience of thinkers who regard themselves as postmodernists