What do you think?
Rate this book
La deshumanización del arte y otros ensayos de estética
Book by Jose Ortega y Gasset, Ortega y Gasset, Jose
222 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1925
106 people are currently reading
3074 people want to read
About the author
José Ortega y Gasset
604 books761 followersJosé Ortega y Gasset was a Spanish liberal philosopher and essayist working during the first half of the 20th century while Spain oscillated between monarchy, republicanism and dictatorship. He was, along with Kant, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, a proponent of the idea of perspectivism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews
January 20, 2018
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.
Read
May 30, 2018The 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:
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:
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.
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, UKModern 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 PaintingsPart 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.
December 31, 2020
"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.
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.
Read
July 13, 2021pues un elitista de puta madre
June 26, 2019
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.
October 4, 2017
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).
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).
February 13, 2016
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.
March 4, 2022
"Kunsten bort fra det menneskelige" - Cappelens Upopulære Skrifter. 1949. Utgitt første gang i Spania i 1925.
Interessant men unødig arrogant og tidvis svært usubstansiert og rotete argumentert. Spennende tanker men oppleves som et mer eller mindre ufullendt essay. Forfatteren trekker også en del drøye slutninger etter mitt syn. Uansett, alt i alt ålreit lesning.
2,75. Stjerner rundet opp.
Interessant men unødig arrogant og tidvis svært usubstansiert og rotete argumentert. Spennende tanker men oppleves som et mer eller mindre ufullendt essay. Forfatteren trekker også en del drøye slutninger etter mitt syn. Uansett, alt i alt ålreit lesning.
2,75. Stjerner rundet opp.
February 22, 2025
Sigo opinando lo mismo al volver a leerlo tiempo después, la deshumanización del arte sigue siendo algo que aplica a día de hoy aplicará siempre que se creen nuevas ramificaciones de cualquier arte (pinturas, literatura, música...) y la división de los 2 grupos seguirá fluyendo hasta que haya gente que sea capaz de dar el paso de comprender que la evolución siempre sigue su curso
April 6, 2023
Ser artista es no tomar en serio al ser humano tan serio que somos cuando no somos artistas.
January 13, 2025
Ortega podría haber tomado más en cuenta la experiencia que vive el ser al contemplar una obra, incluso si es una obra moderna y la comprende; para mí, la experiencia que vive el ser en aquellos momentos donde contempla una obra, es casi mágica, es un ensimismamiento que te lleva a múltiples rincones de tu vida, de tus recuerdos, de tus reflexiones... y terminas abriéndote a todo el mundo artístico que te ofrece la obra. Es este sentido trascendental que también se encuentra en la intrascendencia del arte nuevo lo que considero que ha faltado por tratar en el ensayo, pues incluso el arte más deshumanizado puede marcar un antes y un después en la vida del espectador al poseer aquello que se escapa al propio entendimiento y que solo se puede vivir al contemplar la obra.
En cualquier caso, es un ensayo muy recomendable si te interesa comprender el arte nuevo y todas aquellas reflexiones que envuelven al artista contemporáneo.
En cualquier caso, es un ensayo muy recomendable si te interesa comprender el arte nuevo y todas aquellas reflexiones que envuelven al artista contemporáneo.
June 7, 2017
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.
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.
June 6, 2025
Después de 3 meses de lectura por fin lo he terminado... A pesar de algunos de los ensayos que son tan machistas que ni siquiera lo he podido intentar olvidar justificándolo con "la época", ha sido una lectura muy disfrutable por lo lírico que es su lenguaje y por la seguridad y humildad con la que expone sus argumentos.
Por supuesto han pasado 100 años desde que se escribió esto asi que muchas ideas esteticas están ya más que superadas, pero hay algunas que siguen siendo pertinentes y el ensayo que da titulo a la compilación es muy buena base sobre la que entender las primeras vanguardias.
La gran sorpresa de este libro para mi y el motivo por el que mas me ha gustado ha sido por las ideas que tiene sobre la literatura... son BUENISIMAS. Quizas es porque no se tanto de critica literaria contemporánea y por eso me ha volado la cabeza, pero "Ideas para la novela" y "Ensayo de estética a manera de prólogo" han sido probablemente mis dos lecturas favoritas del libro. La forma en la que desgrana la metáfora es algo que me va a acompañar durante el resto de mi vida yo no tengo dudas. Me niego a leer ningun otro ensayo que tenga menos pasion que la que este hombre le pone a los suyos
Por supuesto han pasado 100 años desde que se escribió esto asi que muchas ideas esteticas están ya más que superadas, pero hay algunas que siguen siendo pertinentes y el ensayo que da titulo a la compilación es muy buena base sobre la que entender las primeras vanguardias.
La gran sorpresa de este libro para mi y el motivo por el que mas me ha gustado ha sido por las ideas que tiene sobre la literatura... son BUENISIMAS. Quizas es porque no se tanto de critica literaria contemporánea y por eso me ha volado la cabeza, pero "Ideas para la novela" y "Ensayo de estética a manera de prólogo" han sido probablemente mis dos lecturas favoritas del libro. La forma en la que desgrana la metáfora es algo que me va a acompañar durante el resto de mi vida yo no tengo dudas. Me niego a leer ningun otro ensayo que tenga menos pasion que la que este hombre le pone a los suyos
June 13, 2017
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).
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).
April 23, 2009
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!
July 1, 2023
"¿Pues qué quieren? ¿Qué el poeta sea un pájaro, un ictiosaurio, un dodecaedro?"
March 14, 2024
«Ya en la evolución del arte prehistórico vemos que la sensibilidad comienza por buscar la forma viva y acaba por eludirla, como aterrorizada o asqueada, recogiéndose en signos abstractos, último residuo de figuras animadas o cósmicas.»
Lo que me gustaría a mí vivir en un mundo esquemático…
Lo que me gustaría a mí vivir en un mundo esquemático…
April 6, 2024
Basadísimo
December 20, 2018
Me ha sorprendido, la verdad, pensaba que me iba a gustar menos.
December 26, 2012
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.
July 3, 2018
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.
July 26, 2020
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.
February 24, 2012
I disagree with just about everything he argues in here, but it's still a very thoughtful and engaging set of essays -
February 25, 2024
tampoco m acuerdo mucho pero diria q m gusto aunque ya sabia lo q decia. no estaba muy d acuerdo (como d costumbre) en el final pero si en el analisis
April 14, 2025
Ortega no sabe escribir mal
November 17, 2025
Contents read were The Dehumanization of Art, Notes on the Novel, In Search of Goethe from Within, and The Self and the Other. Each essay is individual enough that I will break this brief review into sections accordingly. There was a fifth essay on perspective in art, but it was too in-depth for me and outside of my own interests, so I skipped it.
I had previously not heard of Ortega y Gasset, only having picked up this book by chance, but am now impressed by him and his work. An important note is that many of the topics he addresses are very time-sensitive to the particular point in history which he resides in, something I found only made his writing more interesting as I compared his critiques, conclusions, and commentaries to the subsequent development of such themes in the following decades up until now. He himself was conscious of this, humbling himself where necessary, but the grasp he seems to have had on the state of culture in Europe at the time of his writing (first half of the 20th century) is evident. I appreciated him being assertive yet fair throughout his work. Notes on the Novel was especially relevant to me, and I might have enjoyed it the most, but his essay on Goethe was surprisingly not just insightful but impactful to me. As usual, I simply figure I will highlight the pieces which I thought were especially relevant and provide some brief thoughts.
The Dehumanization of Art
An interesting essay on the development of European art and how it reflects upon the continent and its people as a whole. He discusses stages of development for artistic forms and analyzes their progression.
Notes on the Novel
Contents are as described. I found it insightful and relevant to my own pursuit of writing a novel. His description of the novel as a "dying" genre is especially interesting in the context of the 70 years since the publication of this essay. Especially since said context doesn't quite compromise the weight of his analysis.
The funniest instances of his work being directly linked to the early 20th century comes about in this essay, my favorite one being where he describes the nature of "certain American films" that consist of "a long series of episodes."
Describing the absurdity, he sees in the medium, he notes the occurrences of each 'episode' being consistently "stupid" yet entertainment still consistently being found in the characters themselves.
In Search of Goethe from Within
Writing upon request from a friend on the centenary of Goethe, Ortega y Gasset reflects on Goethe's legacy and relevance to the current cultural context. Goethe wrote possibly my favorite quote of all time, "a man sees in the world what he carries in his heart," so I was excited to start reading. I can happily say that Ortega y Gasset exceeded my expectations! Below are some of my favorite pieces, some which especially inspired me.
The Self and the Other
An essay delivered as a lecture in Argentina in 1939. A very interesting piece about what it means to be human and its relation to the construction and development of society. An additional note is the attention brought to the uniquely Spanish word ensimismarse, as well as his claim that such 'demagogues' "cry down service to truth, and in its stead offer us: myths."
I had previously not heard of Ortega y Gasset, only having picked up this book by chance, but am now impressed by him and his work. An important note is that many of the topics he addresses are very time-sensitive to the particular point in history which he resides in, something I found only made his writing more interesting as I compared his critiques, conclusions, and commentaries to the subsequent development of such themes in the following decades up until now. He himself was conscious of this, humbling himself where necessary, but the grasp he seems to have had on the state of culture in Europe at the time of his writing (first half of the 20th century) is evident. I appreciated him being assertive yet fair throughout his work. Notes on the Novel was especially relevant to me, and I might have enjoyed it the most, but his essay on Goethe was surprisingly not just insightful but impactful to me. As usual, I simply figure I will highlight the pieces which I thought were especially relevant and provide some brief thoughts.
The Dehumanization of Art
An interesting essay on the development of European art and how it reflects upon the continent and its people as a whole. He discusses stages of development for artistic forms and analyzes their progression.
"If nobody had ever "lived" in pure and frantic abandonment a man's death, the doctor would not bother, the readers would not understand the reporter's pathos, and the canvas on which the painter limned a person on a bed surrounded by mourning figures would be meaningless."
"Poetry has become the higher algebra of metaphors."
"The metaphor is perhaps one of man's most fruitful potentialities. Its efficacy verges on magic, and it seems a tool which God forgot inside one of HIs creatures when He made him."
"The weapon of poetry turns against natural things and wounds or murders them."
"...letting the outskirts of attention, that which ordinarily escapes notice, perform the main part in life's drama."
"Each new idea ... is like a newly developed organ."
"From painting things, the painter has turned to painting ideas."
"...it is in art and pure science, precisely because they are the freest activities and least dependent on social conditions, that the first signs of any changes of collective sensibility become noticeable."
"As in the country, opening the window of a morning, we examine the smoke rising from the chimney stacks in order to determine the wind that will rule the day, thus we can, with a similar meteorologic purpose, study the art and science of the young generation."
"At times ... [art] ... aspired to nothing less than to save mankind."
"To look for fiction as fiction--which, we have said, modern art does--is a proposition that cannot be executed except with one's tongue in one's cheek. Art is appreciated precisely because it is recognized as a farce."
"I much doubt that any young person of our time can be impressed by a poem, a painting or a piece of music that is not flavored with a dash of irony."
"Art has no right to exist if, content to reproduce reality, it uselessly duplicates it. Its mission is to conjure up imaginary worlds."
"Poetry and music then were activities of an enormous caliber. In view of the downfall of religion and the inevitable relativism of science, art was expected to take upon itself nothing less than the salvation of mankind. Art was important for two reasons: on account of its subjects which dealt with the profoundest problems of humanity, and on account of its own significance as a human pursuit from which the species derived its justification and dignity."
"A present-day artist would be thunderstruck, I suspect, if he were trusted with so enormous a mission and, in consequence, compelled to deal in his work with matters of such scope."
"...for the mind reaches plenitude only when the body begins to decline."
"So anxious were boys to cease being boys that they imitated the stoop of their elders. Today children want to prolong their childhood, and boys and girls their youth."
"...ten thousand names all reality is..."
"It is easy to protest that it is always possible to produce art within the bounds of a given tradition. But this comforting phrase is of no use to the artist who, pen or chisel in hand, sits waiting for a concrete inspiration."
Notes on the Novel
Contents are as described. I found it insightful and relevant to my own pursuit of writing a novel. His description of the novel as a "dying" genre is especially interesting in the context of the 70 years since the publication of this essay. Especially since said context doesn't quite compromise the weight of his analysis.
The funniest instances of his work being directly linked to the early 20th century comes about in this essay, my favorite one being where he describes the nature of "certain American films" that consist of "a long series of episodes."
"But the word "episode" is absurd; a work made of episodes would be like a meal composed of side dishes."
Describing the absurdity, he sees in the medium, he notes the occurrences of each 'episode' being consistently "stupid" yet entertainment still consistently being found in the characters themselves.
"The workmen of the primal hour had no trouble finding new blocks--new characters, new themes. But present-day writers face the fact that only narrow and concealed veins are left them."
"In short, I believe that the genre of the novel, if it is not yet irretrievably exhausted, has certainly entered its last phase, the scarcity of possible subjects being such that writers must make up for it by the exquisite quality of the other elements that compose the body of a novel."
"We want to see the life of the figures in a novel, not be told it."
"Hence one of the major errors a novelist can commit consists in attempting to define his personages."
"When I read in a novel "John was peevish." it is as though the writer invited me to visualize, on the strength of his definition, John's peevishness in my own imagination. That is to say, he expects me to be the novelist. What is requires, I should think, is exactly the opposite: that he furnish the visible facts so that I obligingly discover and define John to be peevish."
"In the career of everything there are two moments of supreme drama: birth and death."
"A summary narration is not to our taste; we want the novelist to linger and to grant us good long looks at his personages, their being, and their environment till we have had our fill and feel that they are close friends whom we know thoroughly in all the wealth of their lives."
"Just as life cannot be reduced to chemistry but begins to be life only when it has imposed upon the chemical laws other original processes of a new and more complex order, so the work of art is what it is thanks to the form it imposes upon the material or subject."
"... [the reader] gets busy to find a definition himself. Now this is what we are doing in our living intercourse with people."
"And the reader, proceeding by trial and error, apprehensive all the time of making a mistake, must work out as best he can the actual character of those fickle creatures."
"...it is the task of the modern novel to describe an atmosphere..."
"Whereas I believe that action, as it is a merely mechanical element and aesthetically dead weight, ought to be reduced to a minimum. But at the same time ... I should consider this minimum indispensable."
"Peasants, on the other hand,whose relation to the land is one of pure interest, are apt to betray, as anyone who has traveled in rural districts will know, an amazing ignorance of their own country. Of all that surrounds them they know only such things as bear directly on their agricultural concerns."
"... the action or plot is not the substance of a novel but its scaffolding, its mechanical prop."
"The essence of the novel [lies] ... in the personages' pure living, in their being, and being thus, above all, in the ensuing milieu."
"It is in reporting the wonders of the simple, unhaloed hour, not in expatiating on the extraordinary, that the novel displays its specific graces."
"... the reader's horizon must be narrowed."
"In my judgement, no writer can be called a novelist unless he possesses the gift of forgetting, and thereby making us forget, the reality beyond the walls of his novel."
"There are people who want to be everything. Not content with being artists they want to be politicians and lead the multitude, or to be prophets entrusted with administering the will of God and guiding the consciences of men."
"...the novel cannot propagate philosophical, political, sociological, or moral ideas; it can be nothing beyond a novel."
"...a novelist while he writes his novel must care more about his imaginary world than about any other possible world."
"What is our life but an immense agglomeration of trifles?"
In Search of Goethe from Within
Writing upon request from a friend on the centenary of Goethe, Ortega y Gasset reflects on Goethe's legacy and relevance to the current cultural context. Goethe wrote possibly my favorite quote of all time, "a man sees in the world what he carries in his heart," so I was excited to start reading. I can happily say that Ortega y Gasset exceeded my expectations! Below are some of my favorite pieces, some which especially inspired me.
"But life is not only beginning. Beginning is already now. And life is continuation, is survival into the moment which will arrive after now."
"The man who has not lost faith in the past is not frightened by the future."
"Consider, my dear friend, the terrible situation of the man to whom the past, the stable, suddenly becomes problematical, suddenly becomes an abyss. Previously, danger appeared to lie only before him in the hazardous future; now he finds it also behind his back and under his feet."
"The easiest thing to do about anything is to write a book about it. The hard thing is to live on it."
"All men of good breeding feel, as their culture increases, that they are called upon to play a twofold role in the world, one real and the other ideal, and in this feeling is to be sought the foundation of everything noble. What the real role that has been given to us is, and in what it consists, we clearly discern." (Goethe)
"Right is what accords with" the individual" (Goethe)
"... whether he is poet, painter or scientist ..."
"... energetic, pure, generous, and jovial--but... perpetually untrue to his destiny. Hence his depressions, his stiffness, his distance from his surroundings, his bitterness."
"A consciousness of security kills life."
"The youth, because he is not yet anything determinate and irrevocable, is everything potentially."
"This first attack either forever annihilates our heroic resolve to be what we secretly are and gives birth to the Philistine in us; or, on the other hand, in the collusion with the counter-I which the universe is, our I is revealed to itself, resolves to be, to impose itself, to stamp its image on external destiny."
"Goethe came to feel a mixture of terror and hatred for anything that meant an irrevocable decision."
"Free yourself from what is superfluous to yourself."
The Self and the Other
An essay delivered as a lecture in Argentina in 1939. A very interesting piece about what it means to be human and its relation to the construction and development of society. An additional note is the attention brought to the uniquely Spanish word ensimismarse, as well as his claim that such 'demagogues' "cry down service to truth, and in its stead offer us: myths."
"...[man's] most essential attribute: the possibility of meditating, or withdrawing into himself to come to terms with himself and define what it is that he believes and what it is that he does not believe; what he truly esteems and what he truly detests.
"To say then, that the animal lives not from itself but from what is other than itself, pulled and pushed and tyrannized over by the other, is equivalent to saying that the animal always lives in estrangement, is beside itself, that its life is essential alteracion."
"... does man perchance not find himself in the same situation as the animal--a prisoner of the world, surrounded by things that terrify him, by things that enchant him, and obliged all his life, inexorably, whether he will or no, to concern himself with them?"
"... [the animal] is governed by them, by the outward, by what is other than itself; because it cannot go within itself, since it has no self, no chez soi, where it can withdraw and rest."
"While the tiger cannot cease being a tiger, cannot be detigered, man lives in perpetual risk of being dehumanized."
"The progressivist idea consists in affirming not only that humanity--an abstract, irresponsible, nonexistent entity invented for the occasion--that humanity progresses, which is certain, but furthermore that is progresses necessarily. This idea anaesthetized the European and the American to that basic feeling of risk which is the substance of man. Because if humanity inevitably progresses, that is almost saying that we can abandon all watchfulness, stop worrying, throw of all responsibility, or, as we say in Spain, "snore away" and let humanity bear us inevitably to perfection and pleasure."
"In a period which has no strong experience of insecurity, like the fin de siecle period, they play at the dangerous life."
"There has been production for production's sake, instead of production in view of consumption, in view of the necessary ideas which the man of today needs and can absorb."
"The demagogues, impresarios of alteracion, who have already caused the death of several civilizations, harass men so that they will not reflect; manage to keep them herded together in crowds so that they cannot reconstruct their individuality in the one place where it can be reconstructed, which is in solitude."
"It is no chance that all the great founders preceded their apostolates by famous retreats."
"To excel the past we must not allow ourselves to lose contact with it; on the contrary, we must feel it under our feet because we have raised ourselves upon it."
July 3, 2020
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.
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.
August 14, 2017
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.
January 13, 2021
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.”
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.”
November 10, 2022
Тезисна витяжка з книги:
1. Нове мистецтво подобається меншості, маси відчувають себе ураженими вищістю нових витворів.
2. Становлення нового стилю: причини. Старе віджило своє, вичерпалося і породило нове покоління, яке закономірно потребує нового мистецтва.
3. Феменологія: гуманна/гуманізована точка зору та навпаки (проживання дійсності або відчужене спостерігання).
4. Дегуманізація: навмисне зображення, яке тікає від реальності або зображає їх геть інакшою.
5. Запрошення до розуміння: реалізм то збочення естетичної еволюції, нове ж мистецтво повертається на справжній шлях мистецтва, займаючись стилізацією (деформацією реальності).
6. Ще про дегуманізацію: отримання задоволення та прагнення чітких меж, де спостерігання далекого є самоціллю.
7. «Табу» й метафора: відірватися від реальності, позбутися їх, маскувати (звідси і пішли евфемізми).
8. Ультра- та інфрареалізм: зображення життя через збільшуване скло (Пруст, Джойс).
9. Різкий поворот у естетичному процесі: перехід від зображеня предметів до зображення ідей.
10. Іконоборництво: відраза до живих форм та перехід до символізму.
11. Негативний вплив минулого: нагромадження минулих досвідів подавлює митця та змушує звертатися до первісності, як до звільнення від самовичерпання (смерті мистецтва=цивілізації).
12. Мистецтво приречене на іронію: патетика та перенавантаженість гуманністю викликали фарс та вивищення над реальністю шляхом застосування іронії.
13. Безрезультатність мистецтва: циклічність обнулює цінність.
14. Підсумок: крутий дід сів подумати, аби зрозуміти молодь, і таки зрозумів!
1. Нове мистецтво подобається меншості, маси відчувають себе ураженими вищістю нових витворів.
2. Становлення нового стилю: причини. Старе віджило своє, вичерпалося і породило нове покоління, яке закономірно потребує нового мистецтва.
3. Феменологія: гуманна/гуманізована точка зору та навпаки (проживання дійсності або відчужене спостерігання).
4. Дегуманізація: навмисне зображення, яке тікає від реальності або зображає їх геть інакшою.
5. Запрошення до розуміння: реалізм то збочення естетичної еволюції, нове ж мистецтво повертається на справжній шлях мистецтва, займаючись стилізацією (деформацією реальності).
6. Ще про дегуманізацію: отримання задоволення та прагнення чітких меж, де спостерігання далекого є самоціллю.
7. «Табу» й метафора: відірватися від реальності, позбутися їх, маскувати (звідси і пішли евфемізми).
8. Ультра- та інфрареалізм: зображення життя через збільшуване скло (Пруст, Джойс).
9. Різкий поворот у естетичному процесі: перехід від зображеня предметів до зображення ідей.
10. Іконоборництво: відраза до живих форм та перехід до символізму.
11. Негативний вплив минулого: нагромадження минулих досвідів подавлює митця та змушує звертатися до первісності, як до звільнення від самовичерпання (смерті мистецтва=цивілізації).
12. Мистецтво приречене на іронію: патетика та перенавантаженість гуманністю викликали фарс та вивищення над реальністю шляхом застосування іронії.
13. Безрезультатність мистецтва: циклічність обнулює цінність.
14. Підсумок: крутий дід сів подумати, аби зрозуміти молодь, і таки зрозумів!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 113 reviews