Presently, most aesthetic discourse focusses primarily upon questions of beauty and ugliness. Yet, this rather limited approach to aesthetics overlooks all work that does not belong to either of these two categories. More precisely, most contemporary debate fails to consider the important category of ambivalence. What might it mean to both love and hate a given work of art? The following essay examines the complex emotion of ambivalence as a category of aesthetic experience. Drawing upon the work of British filmmaker Peter Greenaway, it will be argued that ambivalence encourages a new, dynamic approach to the work of art. Ultimately, this new approach will be looked to as a possible means of challenging the hegemony of the Modernist/Postmodernist divide.

No description available.

Habilitationsschrift--Siegen--Universität, 1997. / Bibliogr. p. [265]-275. Index.

An artwork does not obliterate the traces of its making. In the contemporary technological context such "untidiness" is effectively erased through instrumental methods of production. A great divide exists between instrumental and poetic modalities of disclosure which is no more apparent than in the arts of cinema and architecture. The motion picture camera is the emblem par excellence of the voyeuristic sensibility of the disembodied 20th century spectator who inevitably is the very same "body" which inhabits the built world. The British artist-filmmaker Peter Greenaway calls into question numerous aspects of traditional and technological ways of looking and making relevant to architectural creation as similarly constitutive of both functional and poetic realms. Rather than suppress or deny the traces left upon a work, he valorizes and amplifies them to create a self-reflexivity between work and working as an intertwining of the process and work horizons. His ultimate concern is for "content" or poetic meaning as the aesthetic experience of depth which he sees as a matter of the form and style of making.

Zugl.: Weimar, Bauhausuniv., Diss.

No description available.

Comment filmer l’architecture, comment la décrire par une surface ? L’altérité de l’architecture à l’écran, avec ses espaces et ses opérations propres, pose les problèmes esthétiques dans l’ordre de la perceptibilité. En redéfinissant l’architectonique en relation avec les pensées modernes de la tectonique architecturale, je cherche à repérer ces problèmes esthétiques afin de nommer la description filmique de l’architecture élaborée chez Greenaway. La tectonique de Bötticher porte sur la démonstration ornementale des relations structurelles, spatiales et sensibles, alors que l’architectonique révisée de Boullée pense à la structure et à ses relations fortes. Mise en parallèle à une évolution historique du beau architectonique à l’ornement tectonique, la description de l’architecture de Greenaway n’assure pas seulement une persévérance de l’idée d’harmonie, mais donne à voir une surédification dynamique, définie par l’obliquité et la périphéricité dans un travail de la figurabilité. La description archi-tectonique consiste dans la démonstration perceptible et hypothétique, de forces structurelles et de connexions topologiques. Mouvementée par l’épreuve de la désharmonie appartenant au monde de la matière, des forces et des sens, la description de Greenaway se formule par le montage analogique, le cadrage chronotopique, la rotation géométrique et la grille en mouvance. / How to film architecture, how to describe it on surface ? The otherness of the architecture on screen, with its own space and function, raise the aesthetic problems from the perspective of perceptibility. Redefining architectonic in relation to modern thought on architectural tectonic, I attempt to locate these aesthetic problems in order to name the filmic description of the architecture elaborated in Peter Greenaway. Bötticher’s tectonics focuses on the ornamental demonstration of structural, spatial and sensitive relationships, while Boullée’s revised architectonic think the structure and its relationships of forces. Considered with the historical evolution from the architectonic beauty to the tectonic ornament, the description of architecture by Greenaway maintains not only a persistence of the idea of harmony but makes sensible a dynamic suredification characterized by obliquity and periphericity in a work of figurability. The archi-tectonic description is based on the the perceptible and hypothetical demonstration of structural forces and topological connections. Animated by the confrontation with disharmony in a world of matter, forces and senses, the description by Greenaway expresses itself through analogical editing, chronotopical framing, geometrical rotation and grid in movement.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 242-249).

Thesis (Ed.D.)--Teachers College, Columbia University, 1971. / Typescript; issued also on microfilm. Sponsor: Leland B. Jacobs. Dissertation Committee: Maxine Greene. Includes bibliographical references.

Submitted by Glauber Assunção Moreira (glauber.a.moreira@gmail.com) on 2018-09-06T17:56:25Z No. of bitstreams: 1 tese 02.doc: 43544576 bytes, checksum: 6a0884a8c085eef565a5698bf0fb94a5 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ednaide Gondim Magalhães (ednaide@ufba.br) on 2018-09-11T13:20:57Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 tese 02.doc: 43544576 bytes, checksum: 6a0884a8c085eef565a5698bf0fb94a5 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-09-11T13:20:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 tese 02.doc: 43544576 bytes, checksum: 6a0884a8c085eef565a5698bf0fb94a5 (MD5) / Este trabalho investiga o constante diálogo que o artista plástico e cineasta Peter Greenaway estabelece entre os diversos campos da arte, analisando quatro de seus filmes, a partir de sua força poética e natureza híbrida. Greenaway localiza o seu cinema num território ambíguo que se encontra na fronteira do próprio cinema, do teatro e das artes plásticas. Dessa forma, ele cria uma rede de significados que se deslocam em várias direções e níveis, provocando um forte trânsito de imagens. Seus desenhos e pinturas, vistos em exposições, assim como composições visuais concebidas para óperas contemporâneas e instalações artísticas, migram para os seus filmes. A maneira que ele define os planos cinematográficos é, muitas vezes, presidida pela simetria e perspectiva da pintura renascentista ou pelo excesso formal do Barroco. Greenaway volta a essas tradições, cruzando-as com a tecnologia e a arte contemporâneas. Ele fragmenta o plano cinematográfico em quadros simultâneos, referindo-se à pintura cubista. Transferindo a sua narrativa para um espaço antilusionista, Peter Grenaway insiste na artificialidade da linguagem cinematográfica. / This work investigates the constant dialog that the painter and filmmaker Peter Greenaway establishes among the several fields of art, analyzing four of his films, starting from their poetic power and hybrid nature. Greenaway places his cinema in an ambiguous territory, which is embedded among cinema itself, the theatrical and the visual arts. Therefore he creates a web of meanings, which mingle through several directions and many levels, resulting in a dense transit of images. His drawings and paintings, shown in art galleries, as well as his visual compositions to contemporary operas and art installations, often migrate into his films. The way he defines his cinematic framings and compositions is often presided by symmetry and perspective originated in the renascence painting or the excessive formalism from the baroque period. Greenaway returns to those traditions and relates them to technology and contemporary art. He fragments the cinematic composition into simultaneous “framings within frame”, referring to cubist painting. Transferring his narrative to an antillusionist realm, Peter Greenaway insists on the artificiality of the cinematic language.