DOI issue:
Rozprawy
DOI article:Leśniak, Andrzej: Obraz otwarty: współczesna topografia wizualności
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29066#0277
OBRAZ OTWARTY. WSPÓŁCZESNA TOPOGRAFIA WIZUALNOŚCI
275
mają tu zawsze znaczenie lokalne. Tak jest również z kategorią otwarcia,
która, mimo swej wielowarstwowości i niezdeterminowania, funkcjonuje
tylko w sieci odniesień, a więc w ramach relacji z innymi pojęciami, ta-
kimi jak krytyczność czy destabilizacja. Oznacza to, że obraz - obraz
ohnnrfy - jest figurą rozszczepioną, niejednolitą, niemożliwą do osta-
tecznego usytuowania. Jego miejscem jest przestrzeń dyskursów okre-
ślona przez zasady nieciągłości i odwrócenia. Obraz staje się fragmentem
tej przestrzeni; jest tak samo kruchy i nieprzewidywalny jak ona.
THE OPEN PAINTING. CONTEMPORARY TOPOGRAPHY OF THE VISUAL
Summary
In contemporary art history thinking about the painting is open-ended. Its good
examples are Hans Belting's anthropology of the painting and the art history prac-
ticed by Georges Didi-Huberman. Their projects, inspired by different disciplines of
knowledge, refer to alternative ways of speaking about the painting. They function
in a network of discourses, which can be described by means of the instruments
proposed by Michel Foucault, particularly the concepts of discontinuity and reversal.
In such a context, opening seems to be a key figurę of discourse and a basie criterion
of writing texts in art history. Opening influences various methods of research,
which is connected with a specińc understanding of the idea of interdisciplinarity.
It determines the form of knowledge and problematizes certain traditional concepts
of art history.
It is obvious that such a transformation of the discourses of the visual is critical
of the traditional ways of thinking about the painting. Belting's project turns against
the attempts to monopolize that field by particular disciplines of knowledge, while
Didi-Huberman's program is a critiąue of a traditional model of art history based on
the idea of representation, at least sińce the writings of Vasari and the aesthetics of
Kant. Questioning the boundaries of specińc disciplines, particular idioms of theory,
and the very foundation of knowledge challenges the status of the painting as an
object of art history or anthropology. As a result, the painting ceases to be something
obvious and intelligible - it becomes a problem from which different interpretations
can start. In such a context, the painting itself turns into an open object, a network
of relations, a set of fragments. The place of the open painting is not determined
once and for all, and its descriptions cali for interpretive categories which are local,
provisional, and limited in rangę.
275
mają tu zawsze znaczenie lokalne. Tak jest również z kategorią otwarcia,
która, mimo swej wielowarstwowości i niezdeterminowania, funkcjonuje
tylko w sieci odniesień, a więc w ramach relacji z innymi pojęciami, ta-
kimi jak krytyczność czy destabilizacja. Oznacza to, że obraz - obraz
ohnnrfy - jest figurą rozszczepioną, niejednolitą, niemożliwą do osta-
tecznego usytuowania. Jego miejscem jest przestrzeń dyskursów okre-
ślona przez zasady nieciągłości i odwrócenia. Obraz staje się fragmentem
tej przestrzeni; jest tak samo kruchy i nieprzewidywalny jak ona.
THE OPEN PAINTING. CONTEMPORARY TOPOGRAPHY OF THE VISUAL
Summary
In contemporary art history thinking about the painting is open-ended. Its good
examples are Hans Belting's anthropology of the painting and the art history prac-
ticed by Georges Didi-Huberman. Their projects, inspired by different disciplines of
knowledge, refer to alternative ways of speaking about the painting. They function
in a network of discourses, which can be described by means of the instruments
proposed by Michel Foucault, particularly the concepts of discontinuity and reversal.
In such a context, opening seems to be a key figurę of discourse and a basie criterion
of writing texts in art history. Opening influences various methods of research,
which is connected with a specińc understanding of the idea of interdisciplinarity.
It determines the form of knowledge and problematizes certain traditional concepts
of art history.
It is obvious that such a transformation of the discourses of the visual is critical
of the traditional ways of thinking about the painting. Belting's project turns against
the attempts to monopolize that field by particular disciplines of knowledge, while
Didi-Huberman's program is a critiąue of a traditional model of art history based on
the idea of representation, at least sińce the writings of Vasari and the aesthetics of
Kant. Questioning the boundaries of specińc disciplines, particular idioms of theory,
and the very foundation of knowledge challenges the status of the painting as an
object of art history or anthropology. As a result, the painting ceases to be something
obvious and intelligible - it becomes a problem from which different interpretations
can start. In such a context, the painting itself turns into an open object, a network
of relations, a set of fragments. The place of the open painting is not determined
once and for all, and its descriptions cali for interpretive categories which are local,
provisional, and limited in rangę.