»CHE COSA E L'ARTE?«

Abstract

The move to make aesthetics philosophically relevant yet independent, similarly to its object (that has been Croce's intention), had to start from the prohibition of positivism, which could push aesthetics into the embrace of science, and of metaphysics which could dissolve aesthetics in the abstract totality of philosophy. Together, both prohibitions disabled aesthetics to reach descriptivity and normativity. With avant-garde art and the later aestheticisation of life, new historical circumstances appeared. But aesthetics did not answer the problems of this historical period since it was entangled in its prior unsolved problems and because it could not describe new phenomena in classic terms and at the same time could not evaluate new phenomena by connecting them with philosophy and metaphysical mission. On the other side, the aesthetics which have something to do with the art of the twentieth century are unsystematic and fragmentary. Why was it not possible for this unsystematic and fragmentary aesthetics to find solutions for the original dichotomy between positivism and metaphysics (that fact which makes Weitz's critique essential)? I dare say that the reason lies in disappointment and disillusionment with humanity which is symbolically connected with the experience od the world wars, and philosophically connected with recrimination against all systematic thinking as ideological and totalitarian. The unimportance of art is due to this disillusionment with the progressive abilities of humanity, not with aestheticisation or anti-art which are both just unsuccessful experiments to go against this disillusionment.