Admiration (admiratio) as a Criterion for the Autopoiesis of art (on the Example of the Distinctions of Ancient Thinkers)
( Pp. 157-163)

More about authors
Liutaeva Maria S. Cand. Sci. (Philos.); lecturer at the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Vladimir State University
Vladimdir, Russian Federation
For read the full article, please, register or log in
Abstract:
The research is devoted to the phenomenon of admiratio (admiration, wonder, marvelous) as a criterion of art. The methodological basis of the study is the system theory of Niklas Luhmann. Admiration is presented as a factor in the activation of social autopoiesis, the media of successful communication. The German sociologist refers it to the “traditional” theories of art, the origins of which are found in philosophical and literary reflection starting from ancient Greece. In the sphere of describing art, admiration (wonder) appears in Homer’s poems, marking the sphere of skillful activity (techne) and its works, which are considered as one of the ways of achieving fame for the author. In the philosophical thought of the classical period of Ancient Greece (in the works of Plato, Aristotle), further in the treatises of Cicero and the letters of Horace, admiration is revealed in many ways: the key aspect of the epistemological program; a source of pleasure, in connection with which it receives a controversial assessment; a phenomenon that has a strong and unpredictable effect on the audience. The initial orientation of this concept to observation and the figure of the observer is noted, allowing art to be conceptualized in terms of communicative theory, taking into account the expectations of the audience, directing attention to the reflection of what is perceived.
How to Cite:
Liutaeva M.S., (2022), ADMIRATION (ADMIRATIO) AS A CRITERION FOR THE AUTOPOIESIS OF ART (ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE DISTINCTIONS OF ANCIENT THINKERS). Sociopolitical Sciences, 2: 157-163. DOI: 10.33693/2223-0092-2022-12-2-157-163
Reference list:
Garadja A. Praestigiae Platonis: The cavernous puppetshow / . 2019. Vol. 13. No. 1. Rp. 78-82.
Hathaway B. Marvels and commonplaces. Renaissance literary criticism. New York: Random House, 1968.
Irwin T.H. Nil Admirari Uses and abuses of admiration // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 2015. Supplementary vols. Vol. 89. Rp. 223-248.
Jorn A. Wonder, admiration, enthusiasm. 2012. Vol. 141. Rp. 59-69.
Luhmann N. Art as a social system. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2000. 422 r.
Zagzebski L. Admiration and the admirable // Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 2015. Supplementary vols. Vol. 89. Rp. 205-221.
Averintsev S.S. Rhetoric and origins of the European literary tradition. Moscow: School “Languages of Russian culture”, 1996. 448 p.
Bronnikov A. Platonov’s ideality of the text. Platonic studies. 2014. Issue 1. URL: http://pinvestigations.ru/content/Archive/issue.aspx?isid=14
Bystrova S.P. The origins of the philosophy of culture: Cicero. St. Petersburg: Aletheia. 2010. 133 p.
Veidle V. Embryology of poetry: Articles on poetics and theory of art. Moscow: Languages of Slavic culture, 2002. 456 p.
Glukhov A.A. Philosophy about the power of art. Art Culture. 2014. No. 1 (10). (In Rus.) URL: http://artculturestudies.sias.ru/2014-1/teoriya-hudozhestvennoy-kultury/831.html
Zaitsev A.I. Cultural upheaval in ancient Greece VIII-V centuries BC. Leningrad: Leningrad University Press, 1985. 208 p.
Knabe G.S. Materials for lectures on the general theory of culture and the culture of ancient Rome. Moscow: Publishing House “Indrik”, 1993. 528 p.
Collingwood R. Principles of art: Theory of aesthetics. Theory of imagination. Theory of art. Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture, 1999. 328 p.
Lozinskaya E.V. Astonishment. Admiratio as an aesthetic category in the poetics of the Cinquecento. In: European poetics from Antiquity to the age of enlightenment: Encyclopedic guide. Moscow: Kulagina-INTRADA Publishing House, 2010. C. 429-437.
Luhmann N. Social systems. Essay on the general theory. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2007. 640 p.
Lyutaeva M.S. Essence or convention. The place of N. Luhmann’s theory in the context of the problem of defining art. In: Religions in Russia and the world: Dialogue, tolerance and identity construction. Vladimir: Arkaim, 2020. Vol. 36. (Series “Candle - 2020”). Pp. 267-274.
Maturana H., Varela F. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Moscow: URSS: LENAND, 2019. 320 p.
Pozdnev M.M. Psychology of art. Aristotle’s teaching. Moscow, St. Petersburg: Russian Foundation for the Promotion of Education and Science, 2010. 816 p.
Polents M. Stoicism. History of spiritual movement. St. Petersburg: Publishing project “Quadrivium”, 2015. 1040 p.
Sidorov A.M. Aesthetic turn: From Kant and romanticism to modern philosophy. Kant’s Collection. 2011. No. 2. Pp. 52-59.
Keywords:
admiratio, admiratio, wonder, art, N. Luhmann, autopoietic systems, philosophy of antiquity.