Thèse (M.A.)--Université Laval, 2003. / Bibliogr.: f. [215-223]. Publ. aussi en version électronique.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Comparative Literature Department, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references.

Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss., 2006

Proefschrift Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. / Auteursnaam op omslag: Marijke Laurense. Met lit. opg.: p. 295-314. - Met reg. - Met samenvatting in het Engels.

Habili.-schr.--Philosophische Fakultät--Universität Bonn. / Bibliogr. p. 305-319. Index.

Th.--Lett.--Paris 1, 1982.

Diss.--Fachbereich Sozialwissenschaften an der Philosophischen Fakultät III--Berlin--Humboldt-Universität, 1999. / Bibliogr. p. 159-171. Index.

This thesis starts from the point of departure of asking why Aesthetic Theory is difficult to read. In answering this question it is argued that the difficulty of the work is a function of the unusual claims Adorno makes about the relation between art and philosophy, and that the presentation of these arguments exemplifies these claims. This complimentary relation between form and content has implications for the way Adorno can be understood as engaging the idea of mimesis. Aesthetic Theory should be understood as a theory of mimesis in modern art and as a mimetic work itself. Given this idea, the question of the readability of the work emerges as inseparable from the explicit claims Adorno makes for mimesis. If the work ultimately cannot be understood because Adorno does not define his concepts, or it is unexplainable for any other reason, then mimesis will be shown to be untenable. The issue of the readability of Aesthetic Theory is explored in the Introduction through a discussion of issues arising from the recent history of Adorno's reception. Particular attention is paid to the differences between critics who have emphasised the significance of the particular claims Adorno makes against those who emphasise his method. Chapter I rejects this distinction while it argues that the character of Adorno's writing is uneven, that is to say, Aesthetic Theory cannot usefully be read in a uniform way. Chapter I considers different aspects of this lack of uniformity and argues that the identity of Aesthetic Theory as 'philosophy' is often tenuous as it moves in and out of other modes of argument. Chapters 2 and 3 look at different aspects of the identity of Aesthetic Theory as philosophy. Chapter 2 explains the strategic significance of the work as a continuation of a tradition of philosophy from Hegel onwards. This tradition, it is argued, has explicitly understood the problem of philosophy as recognising itself as experience while it attempts to describe experience. Chapter 3 extends this theme into a consideration of philosophical form. If philosophy is understood as a mode of experience then its form as well as its content is significant. Through a consideration of Heidegger and Derrida, Chapter 3 examines the uniqueness of the philosophical form of Aesthetic Theory. Having made this distinction. Chapter 4 reads Aesthetic Theory as philosophical form, describing aspects of it as mimetic. Chapters 5 and 6 then give detailed readings of parts of Aesthetic Theory which are particularly relevant for an understanding of Adorno's theory of the mimetic potential of modern art. The concluding chapter argues that the internal consistency of Aesthetic Theory in its practice and definition of the crisis of mimesis in modernism has significant implications for the practice of art history and criticism of twentieth-century art.

Autorização concedida ao Repositório Institucional da UFOP pelo autor, 10/10/2014, com as seguintes condições: disponível sob Licença Creative Commons 4.0, que permite copiar, distribuir e transmitir o trabalho, desde que seja citado o autor e licenciante. Não permite o uso para fins comerciais nem a adaptação desta. / Submitted by Oliveira Flávia (flavia@sisbin.ufop.br) on 2015-10-19T15:54:16Z No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22190 bytes, checksum: 19e8a2b57ef43c09f4d7071d2153c97d (MD5) DISSERTAÇÂO_ArteLiberdadeReconciliação.pdf: 1723269 bytes, checksum: 4fc6ea0af56ca79337e50191514b806b (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Gracilene Carvalho (gracilene@sisbin.ufop.br) on 2015-10-26T13:00:28Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22190 bytes, checksum: 19e8a2b57ef43c09f4d7071d2153c97d (MD5) DISSERTAÇÂO_ArteLiberdadeReconciliação.pdf: 1723269 bytes, checksum: 4fc6ea0af56ca79337e50191514b806b (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-10-26T13:00:28Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license_rdf: 22190 bytes, checksum: 19e8a2b57ef43c09f4d7071d2153c97d (MD5) DISSERTAÇÂO_ArteLiberdadeReconciliação.pdf: 1723269 bytes, checksum: 4fc6ea0af56ca79337e50191514b806b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 / Essa dissertação trata do problema que a chamada racionalidade instrumental, tendo em vista o projeto de esclarecimento da humanidade, causa para a liberdade humana, ao reprimir a natureza interna do homem, a partir de Theodor Adorno e Max Horkheimer, em sua Dialética do Esclarecimento. Busca discorrer sobre o tema, analisando possíveis saídas para o problema, visando mostrar que seria necessária a reconciliação entre o homem, a racionalidade e a natureza. Para isso, apresenta elementos da teoria estética de Adorno que demonstram que há na obra de arte e na experiência estética, tal como descrita pelo filósofo, uma resposta à repressão da natureza e a possibilidade da liberdade e da reconciliação. _____________________________________________________________________________________ / ABSTRACT: This dissertation work deals with the problem the so called instrumental rationality causes to the human liberty, taking in consideration the project of the enlightenment of mankind repressing the inner nature of man, as from Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in his Dialectic of Enlightenment . It pursues to discourse on this theme analyzing the possible solutions to the problem, seeking to show the necessity of reconciliation between man, rationality and nature. In order to do so this dissertation presents elements of Adorno’s Theory of Esthetics which demonstrates that in the piece of art and in the esthetic experience, as described by the philosopher, there is an answer to the repression of nature and the possibility of liberty and reconciliation.

Submitted by MARLON APARECIDO MERCALDI null (marlonmercaldi@hotmail.com) on 2016-04-07T13:42:38Z No. of bitstreams: 1 joiacontemporanea.pdf: 3302258 bytes, checksum: 2c1ee8172b9f9a2895d7593b6bfac013 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Ana Paula Grisoto (grisotoana@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2016-04-07T20:20:13Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 mercaldi_ma_me_bauru.pdf: 3302258 bytes, checksum: 2c1ee8172b9f9a2895d7593b6bfac013 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-07T20:20:13Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 mercaldi_ma_me_bauru.pdf: 3302258 bytes, checksum: 2c1ee8172b9f9a2895d7593b6bfac013 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-02-26 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / A proposta desta pesquisa é o estudo da joia contemporânea a partir do recorte estabelecido entre a primeira exposição de joias contemporâneas, em 1961, em Londres, os fatos e eventos importantes até os anos de 2010 que constroem o conceito e a abrangência da joalheria contemporânea. Essa investigação foi constituída por meio de estudos que observaram a joalheria no âmbito internacional, principalmente por meio dos ¬desdobramentos que tiveram curso na Europa e que influenciaram, de certa maneira, sua disseminação e estruturação como um campo consolidado, tanto de pesquisa como de práticas projetuais. Nesse sentido buscamos conceituar e definir a nomenclatura joia contemporânea, mesmo diante de contradições encontradas, porém vimos que ela se configura como uma prática abrangente e que estabelece diálogos e relações com campos como arte, artesanato, design e moda. A abrangência e a pluralidade no enfoque da joalheria contemporânea nos levaram à sua contextualização histórica e às questões do adorno e a relação destes com o corpo no contemporâneo. Por meio dessa delimitação, somada às funções do objeto a partir da teoria do design e da análise do objeto estudadas na cultura material, estabelecemos abordagens de análise de joias estrangeiras e nacionais, explicitando as inter-relações existentes entre elas, bem como os conceitos, critérios e características que apontam a joia contemporânea como elemento construtor de linguagem, passível de ser identificado e analisado. / The intention of this research is the study of contemporary jewelry from it’s first exhibition in 1961 in London, key facts and events to the years 2010 that contributed to build the concept and scope of contemporary jewelry. This research was stated by studies that observed the jewelry at an international level, mainly through the developments that took place in Europe and that influenced in some way, its dissemination and structuring as much as a consolidated research field as a projective practices. In this sense we seek to conceptualize and define the contemporary jewelry nomenclature, even having encountered contradictions, but we saw that it is configured as a comprehensive practice that establish dialogues and relations with fields such as art, craft, design and fashion. The scope and plurality in the contemporary jewelry approach led us to their historical context and the adornment issues and their relationship with the body in the contemporary time. Through this delimitation added to the object functions from the theory of design and object analysis studied in material culture, we established foreign and national jewelry analysis approaches, explaining the interrelationships between them, as well as the concepts, criteria and characteristics that point at contemporary jewelry as construct language element, which can be identified and analyzed.