Эстетическое бессознательное

by Jacques Rancière, Жак Рансьер

This book is not concerned with the use of Freudian concepts for the interpretation of literary and artistic works. Rather, it is concerned with why this interpretation plays such an important role in demonstrating the contemporary relevance of psychoanalytic concepts. In order for Freud to use the Oedipus complex as a means for the interpretation of texts, it was necessary first of all for a particular notion of Oedipus, belonging to the Romantic reinvention of Greek antiquity, to have produced a certain idea of the power of the thought that does not think, and the power of the speech that remains silent. From this it does not follow that the Freudian unconscious was already prefigured by the aesthetic unconscious. Freud's "aesthetic" analyses reveal instead a tension between the two forms of unconscious. --From publisher's description.

Genres: Philosophy, Art, Psychoanalysis, Psychology, Theory, Literary Criticism, Nonfiction

128 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2001

About the author

Jacques Rancière (born Algiers, 1940) is a French philosopher and Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris (St. Denis) who came to prominence when he co-authored Reading Capital (1968), with the Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser.

Rancière contributed to the influential volume Reading "Capital" (though his contribution is not contained in the partial English translation) before publicly breaking with Althusser over his attitude toward the May 1968 student uprising in Paris.
Since then, Rancière has departed from the path set by his teacher and published a series of works probing the concepts that make up our understanding of political discourse. What is ideology? What is the proletariat? Is there a working class? And how do these masses of workers that thinkers like Althusser referred to continuously enter into a relationship with knowledge? We talk about them but what do we know? An example of this line of thinking is Rancière's book entitled Le philosophe et ses pauvres (The Philosopher and His Poor, 1983), a book about the role of the poor in the intellectual lives of philosophers.

Most recently Rancière has written on the topic of human rights and specifically the role of international human rights organizations in asserting the authority to determine which groups of people — again the problem of masses — justify human rights interventions, and even war.

In 2006, it was reported that Rancière's aesthetic theory had become a point of reference in the visual arts, and Rancière has lectured at such art world events as the Freize Art Fair. Former French presidential candidate Ségolène Royal has cited Rancière as her favourite philosopher.

Reviews

[Hossein Bayat · Rating 5 out of 5]

من این کتاب رو به واسطه کلاس مکاتب نقد دکتر رضا صمیم در دانشکده ادبیات دانشگاه علامه خوندم.
ترجمه فوق‌العاده بد و غیر روانی داره و امتیاز من معطوف به تجربم از حضور در کلاس و استفاده از درس‌گفتار مدرس محترم است و احتمالا کم و کاستی‌های ترجمه و یا قلم غیر مبسوط رانسیر نادیده گرفته شده.
رانسیر توضیح می‌دهد که چه طور ایده فروید فرصت یک گذار تاریخی از نقد هرمنوتیکی به نقد زیباشناختی را فراهم می‌کند...
امیدوارم بتونم با کامل شدن کلاس، ریویوی خوبی بنویسم.

[Emer F]

My rating: não entendi, mas entendi.

[Bradley · Rating 2 out of 5]

What the hell is the point of this book? Why do we need yet ANOTHER picayune description of the Oedipus Complex? Answer - we don't. Stop wasting my time. I read this in an afternoon and I wish I could have that time back again. Ranciere is an artist, not a 'philosopher' but this is just boring. If you want to read an interesting book by Jacques Ranciere try - Disagreement, or On the Shores of Politics. Those are well worth the time and effort. THIS (horseshit) is just dull, academese, interesting for professional psychoanalysts on the University Conference Circuit...bleck. Here's a tip Jacques - stop writing about Freud and stay true to the revolution. Remember, you are a communist first, an academic second, and nobody wants to take the time for these dully-dullerson books. Stay confusing my friend. Making sense is not your thing.

This book, conceptually, has so much potential... initially I though it would be a theorization about How the Unconscious can be conceptualized as a work of art... BOY was I sorely disappointed. Anyway, I'll just stop ranting and get on with life. Don't waste your time. He has interesting books, this is not one of them. 2nd graders would be enamored with this if it had pictures, but it doesn't.

[Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

An important book. It sets apart the de-centering of the subject as discovered by Freud and psychoanalysis, from its ultimate potential, a question of logos vs. pathos. Brilliantly described and more importantly relevant to the ultimate direction of human kind.

[Filipe Siqueira · Rating 3 out of 5]

Praticamente uma palestra que virou livro, mas tem várias fechos que valem

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Sabe aquele livro que você olha a capa, o título, as orelhas e a contracapa e pensa: "Humm, esse pode ser um livro legal, pode me ajudar nas minhas pesquisas" e você compra? Aí quando você lê ele não é nada - mas nada mesmo - daquilo que você imaginava? Bem, esse livro é assim. Li todo ele e ainda não entendi do que trata o livro e nem sequer pra onde o autor queria ir com ele. Ou eu não entendi porque sou muito burro, ou a tradução era ruim. Enfim, alguma coisa se perdeu no meio do caminho entre autor/leitor ou emissor/receptor da viagem. Se no andar da carruagem as abóbora se ajeitam, as desse livro chegaram no fim da viagem como um purê de abóboras. =P

[Bahman Bahman · Rating 2 out of 5]

« کتاب
«ناخودآگاه زیباشناختی» شامل هشت فصل به ترتیب با این عناوین است: «فروید چه ارتباطی با زیباشناسی دارد؟ »، «سوژه ناقص»، «انقلاب زیباشناختی»، «دو شکل از گفتار خاموش»، «از یک ناخودآگاه به ناخودآگاه دیگر»، «تصحیحات فروید»، «درباره گوناگونی استفاده از جزئیات» و «تضاد میان دو نوع پزشکی». رابطه «ناخودآگاه از منظر فروید

[Barış Yıldırım · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kitabın yarısını anlamadım, anlamak için kendimi zorlayıp çok yakın okuduğum yerlerde ise çabama değecek bir içgörü ile karşılaşamadım. Çeviri de oldukça sorunlu sanıyorum (orijinali ile karşılaştırmadığımdan emin değilim).

[Julia Coelho · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Não se trata aqui de psicanalisar Freud. As figuras literárias e artísticas por ele escolhidas (…) interessa-me saber a que servem de prova e o que lhes permite servir de prova (…): existe sentido no que parece não ter, algo de enigmático no que parece evidente, uma carga de pensamento no que parece ser um pensamento anódino. Tais figuras (…) são os testemunhos de uma certa relação do pensamento com o não-pensamento, de certa presença do pensamento na materialidade sensível, do involuntário no pensamento consciente e do sentido no insignificante. (…) A teoria psicanalítica do inconsciente é formulável porque já existe, fora do terreno propriamente clínico, certa identificação de uma modalidade inconsciente do pensamento, e o terreno das obras de arte e da literatura se define como âmbito de efetivação privilegiada desse inconsciente. Meu questionamento será direcionado à ancoragem da teoria freudiana nessa configuração já existente, nessa ideia da relação do pensamento e do não-pensamento que se formou e desenvolveu de modo predominante no terreno do que se chama estética. Tratar-se-á de pensar os estudos “estéticos” de Freud como marcas de uma inscrição do pensamento analítico da interpretação no horizonte do pensamento estético.”

[mañil wenu · Rating 4 out of 5]

El campo de la estética es difícil pero no incomprensible por la irrepresentabilidad de algunas obras. Lo importante es reconocer que el arte es una experiencia sensible que muchas veces piensa sobre lo que no piensa, pero que eso no significa que la obra se desgaste en la “imposibilidad” de representar

[Joanna · Rating 2 out of 5]

?¿?¿

[Tauan Tinti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vale nem que seja só pela definição (e exploração via Freud) da estética como "pensamento daquilo que não pensa".

[Chornobrova · Rating 3 out of 5]

Бувало і лучше

[Thiago Nasi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hum, gostei dos primeiros capítulos. Depois falou muito de Freud e deu muitos exemplos que eu nem sei de entendi.

[Tanaz · Rating 1 out of 5]

برای من پراکنده بود ارتباطی بین فصل ها پیدا نکردم شاید زمان خوبی برای خوندنش نبود اما حتی جذبم نکرد

[Max Oliveira · Rating 3 out of 5]

Da série: livro que precisam de outros livro para serem completamente desempacotados.

[Ana Sol · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Oedipus is proof of a certain existential savagery of thought, a definition of knowing not as the subjective act of grasping an objective ideality but as the affection, passion, or even sickness of a living being. The signification of the Oedipal story according to The Birth of Tragedy is that knowledge in itself is a crime against nature".

[Óscar Alfonso]

Uno de los mejores ejemplos que he visto de un estudio "transdisciplinario".