Umetnost in norma. O logični naravi estetiške normativnosti

The basic idea of this discussion may roughly be summarized in the following author's thesis: “The primary task of aesthetics is not to formulate and propose aesthetic norms, but conceptually prepare the conditions for the development of such norms and their acceptance in practice”. The central part of the discussion is dedicated to the logical reasons why absolute normativeness in aesthetics is impossible, and how the only possible normativeness is the relatively “soft” one which has many unwanted side effects for both aesthetics and art. The analysis of these effects leads the author to the conclusion that aesthetics encounters problems whenever it is directly faced with integral and complex artistic reality, when trying to directly standardise the artistic future, and when striving to be directly beneficial to art. More than enough grounds for thought can be found in this ascertainment that the direct involvement of aesthetics in artistic practice will always be optimum for both art and aesthetics. The author derives this consideration from analysing the structure of conditions in which art and aesthetics operate. It turns out that human culture has the nature, structure and characteristics of the auto-poetic environment (Maturana, Luhmann), with a basic assumption to have well organised “traffic” between the sensual evidence and abstractness of concepts. Deriving from this realisation, the author, in the last part of the discussion, shows that aesthetics can – because of the nature of its aims, methods and concepts – play a very significant role in this auto-poetically formatted environment; namely, the role of the maieutic ferment and the catalyser of auto-poetic processes of culture.Osnovno misel razprave najbolje ponazarja avtorjeva izhodiščna (hipo)teza: “Primarna naloga estetike ni formuliranje in predlaganje estetskih norm, ampak konceptualno pripravljanje pogojev, v katerih se take norme lahko razvijejo in praktično uveljavijo”. Osrednji del razprave je posvečen logičnim razlogom, zaradi katerih v estetiki ni možna absolutna, ampak samo relativna, “mehka” normativnost, ki ima tako za estetiko kot za umetnost tudi mnogo neljubih stranskih učinkov. Analiza teh učinkov pripelje avtorja do ugotovitve, da naleti estetika na težave vsakokrat, ko je neposredno soočena s celovito in kompleksno umetnostno realnostjo, ko skuša neposredno normirati umetnostno prihodnost, in ko si prizadeva biti umetnosti neposredno koristna. V tej ugotovitvi pa tiči več kot dovolj razlogov za premislek o tem, ali je neposredno vpletanje estetike v umetniško prakso za umetnost in za estetiko vedno tudi optimalno. Avtor ta premislek izpelje tako, da analizira strukturo pogojev, v katerih delujeta umetnost in estetika. Pri tem se izkaže, da ima človeška kultura naravo, ustroj in lastnosti autopoetskega okolja (Maturana, Luhmann), katerega temeljna predpostavka je dobro urejen “promet” med čutno nazornostjo in pojmovno abstraktnostjo. Izhajajoč iz tega spoznanja avtor v zadnjem delu razprave pokaže, da lahko estetika – in to prav zaradi narave njenih ciljev, metod in konceptov – v tem avtopoetsko formatiranem okolju igra izjemno pomembno vlogo. Namreč vlogo majevtičnega fermenta in katalizatorja avtopoetičnih kulturnih procesov