20.500.12556/RUL-155447 Umetniški jezik The language of art V uvodnem delu članka sta glede na siceršnjo problematičnost klasificiranja umetnosti predstavljena dva modusa gradnje in delovanja umetniškega dela – to sta reprezentacija in performativnost. Performativnost ni toliko predmet obravnave kot bolj negativ določitve polja raziskave. V nadaljevanju je pojem reprezentacije obravnavan predvsem z vidika jezika in komunikacije, kajti besedilo vztraja pri tezi, da vizualna reprezentacija ni nič drugega kot vizualni jezik – jezik je ena od osnovnih oblik reprezentacije in hkrati njeno vstopno polje. Vprašanje je torej, ali se lahko iz jezika nekaj naučimo o vizualni reprezentaciji? Ali obstaja nekaj takega kot »umetniški jezik« in ali je ta vprežen v tok namenske komunikacije? Odgovor, ki ga ponuja razvoj besedila, je sestavljen predvsem iz tega, da čeprav je vsaka umetniška reprezentacija jezikovna – ima strukturo jezika – pa ta reprezentacija nikakor ni v službi komunikacije, nasprotno, umetniški jezik vznika ravno na mestih, kjer komunikacija spodleti. Reprezentacija ni vizualna komunikacija. Za argumentacijo navedene pozicije se avtor sklicuje na različne primere: Jakobsonova poetska funkcija jezika, Lacanov jejezik in problem matema, Kleistovo postopno dovrševanje govora, Freudovo nezavedno in druge jezikovne figure. Če je reprezentacija res jezikovnega značaja, pomeni, da ni sestavljena zgolj iz strogih (lingvističnih, ali v našem primeru likovnih) pravil, temveč vključuje tudi same meje in odstopanja od teh pravil; tako tudi vsaka sistematizacija reprezentacije prej ali slej pokaže lastne omejitve. Jezik je tvorba številnih meja, ki so zanj konstitutivne. Pri jeziku reprezentacije je pogosto omenjena funkcionalnost kot zmožnost komunikacije, a povsem enako težo nosi pojem disfunkcionalnosti. V disfunkcionalnem jezik izraža lastno svojeglavost, a zaradi tega ni nič manj zgovoren, dejaven ali ustvarjalen. Treba se je zavedati dialektičnega obrata smisla – prav to, kar je na prvi pogled hiba govorice, njena nezmožnost, nenatančnost in nenehna spodletelost, jo šele zares odpira in ji daje neznansko moč, tako laži kot spekulacije, smiselnosti in nesmisla, poetičnosti in register resničnosti. Zaključna misel je naslednja: jezik ne opisuje sveta, temveč ga izreka in povsem enako velja za reprezentacijo. Reprezentacija ni sekundarnega značaja, ne podvaja sveta, ga ne zgolj upodablja, temveč ga soustvarja. Če vizualna reprezentacija ni nič drugega kot jezik, potem ne more preprosto biti podvojitev nečesa, imenovanje stvari, podoba sveta, temveč neka razdvojitev – v svet vnaša neki nemir. In the introduction of the article two modalities of the construction and functioning of an artwork—representation and performativity— are presented in relation to the otherwise problematic classification of art. Performativity is not so much the object of the analysis as it is the negative of the field of study. The article continues with a discussion of the notion of representation, which proceeds primarily from the point of view of language and communication, since the thesis advanced in the text is that visual representation is nothing other than visual language—language is one of the basic forms of representation and at the same time its field of entry. The question is therefore whether language can teach us anything about visual representation. Is there something like a “language of art” and is it a part of the intentional flow of communication? The answer put forward in the text as it develops is primarily that any artistic representation, albeit linguistic in nature—in the sense that it has the structure of language—is by no means intended to serve as communication; on the contrary, artistic language emerges precisely in those places where communication fails. Representation is not visual communication. In arguing his position, the author references various concepts: Jakobson’s poetic function of language, Lacan’s lalangue and the problem of the matheme, Kleist’s gradual construction of thoughts during speech, Freud’s unconscious mind and other linguistic figures. If representation is truly linguistic in nature, it follows that it is not only composed of strict (linguistic, or in our case visual) rules, but also includes the very limits and deviations from these rules. Any systematisation of representation thus sooner or later shows its own limitations. Language is a product of numerous boundaries that are themselves constitutive in relation to it. In the context of the language of representation, functionality is often mentioned as the capability for communication, but the notion of disfunctionality carries the same weight. In the dysfunctional, language expresses its own self-will or whimsicality, but is no less meaningful, active or creative for it. It is important to be aware of the dialectical reversal of meaning—the very thing that seems at first sight to be the weakness of language, its lack of capability, imprecision and constant breakdowns, is really what liberates it and gives it a tremendous power: of falsehood and speculation, sense and nonsense, poetics and even to very register of reality. The concluding thought is that language does not describe, but expresses the world— and the same is true of representation. Representation is not secondary, it does not duplicate the world and it does not merely portray, but co-create it. If visual representation is nothing other than language, then it cannot simply be a duplicate of something, or a way of naming things, an image of the world, but a kind of division—bringing into the world a kind of restlesness. reprezentacija jezik komunikacija disfunkcionalnost govorica representation language communication dysfunctionality speech true false true Založba Univerze Slovenski jezik Angleški jezik Drugo 2024-04-02 13:27:45 2024-04-02 13:27:54 2024-04-24 08:45:49 0000-00-00 00:00:00 2024 0 Ljubljana 0 Str. 92-121 0000-00-00 Zaloznikova Objavljeno NiDoloceno 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 0000-00-00 7.01 10.51938/9789612972868 190714371 189062915 Vizualna_pismenost_05-Stanic_spread.pdf Vizualna_pismenost_05-Stanic_spread.pdf 1 56B9D74015BDCD7438C230C6837F6449 6bfe809b09f492ae93dd431338e4dac9d014414b7ba4179ddc86dfc2dd6c6f8a d672befb-f0ef-11ee-87d4-0050569b8976 https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=182344 https://www.aluo.uni-lj.si/zaloznistvo/vizualna-pismenost/ 1 0c18741c-f0e4-11ee-87d4-0050569b8976 https://repozitorij.uni-lj.si/Dokument.php?lang=slv&id=182334 Akademija za likovno umetnost in oblikovanje 0 0 0