(in English): My goal in this diploma thesis is to verify the claim that "dandy is a work of art". The figure of Dandy is often defined by the claim that it truly is a work of art. Dandy is after all defined like that by the founders of the debate on dandysm (Barbey d`Aurevilly, Charles Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde) and also by contemporary theoreticians of dandysm (such as Francois Coblence, Daniel S. Schiffer and Karin Becker). However, despite the numerous occurrences of the definition, the claim was never extended into general theory of dandy as work of art. I am here trying to do that. First, I am looking for a definition that best suits the concept of dandy according to the founders. I confront the concept of dandysm with several definitions of art (mimetic, expressive, formalistic, institutional or functionalist). With the definition that the comparison shows as the most appropriate - the functionalist theory of art - I continue to operate. With a structuralist definition of Jan Mukařovský. From the structuralistic point of view I answer the basic questions connected within the discourse of aesthetics with the concept of the work of art. I am looking for a basic material (material norm) that would create the identity of dandy as a specific kind of artwork. Based on that, I distinguish artistic...
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:357870 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Csicsely, Lukáš |
| Contributors | Zuska, Vlastimil, Jarošová, Helena |
| Source Sets | Czech ETDs |
| Language | Czech |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0067 seconds