Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney
In this paper I compare how Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney interpret Kandinsky’s heritage. Henry’s phenomenology is based on a distinction between two main modes of manifestation: the ordinary one, that is, the manifestation of the world, and the “manifestation of life.” For him, Kandinsky’s work p...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University
2018-09-01
|
| Series: | Avant |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://avant.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/A_Yampolskaya-Metamorphoses.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797426530730639360 |
|---|---|
| author | Anna Yampolskaya |
| author_facet | Anna Yampolskaya |
| author_sort | Anna Yampolskaya |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In this paper I compare how Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney interpret Kandinsky’s heritage. Henry’s phenomenology is based on a distinction between two main modes of manifestation: the ordinary one, that is, the manifestation of the world, and the “manifestation of life.” For him, Kandinsky’s work provides a paradigmatic example of the second, more original mode of manifestation, which is free from all forms of self-alienation. Henry claims that this living through the work of art is transformative; it is akin to ascetic practice or mystical experience that goes beyond the distinction of the subject and the object. Maldiney acknowledges Kandinsky’s work as an attempt to provide access to an a-cosmic and ahistoric experience of one’s inner self; yet for him this is not a positive characteristic. For Maldiney, the key distinction is not between modes of phenomenalisation, but between the dimensions of meaning (sens). For him there is no radical self-transformation which is not a transformation of one’s being-in-the-world and one’s meaning of the world, and so Kandinsky’s a-cosmic paintings cannot induce a true transformation of the self. I conclude that the disagreement of Henry and Maldiney on Kandinsky does not unfold on the level of phenomenological description of concrete aesthetic experience, but on the level of metaphysics. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:31:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2f8c2b59962d4b02b8e43bf04dee74ee |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2082-7598 2082-6710 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T08:31:34Z |
| publishDate | 2018-09-01 |
| publisher | Maria Curie-Sklodowska University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Avant |
| spelling | doaj.art-2f8c2b59962d4b02b8e43bf04dee74ee2023-12-02T19:32:06ZengMaria Curie-Sklodowska UniversityAvant2082-75982082-67102018-09-019215716710.26913/avant.2018.02.10Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri MaldineyAnna YampolskayaIn this paper I compare how Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney interpret Kandinsky’s heritage. Henry’s phenomenology is based on a distinction between two main modes of manifestation: the ordinary one, that is, the manifestation of the world, and the “manifestation of life.” For him, Kandinsky’s work provides a paradigmatic example of the second, more original mode of manifestation, which is free from all forms of self-alienation. Henry claims that this living through the work of art is transformative; it is akin to ascetic practice or mystical experience that goes beyond the distinction of the subject and the object. Maldiney acknowledges Kandinsky’s work as an attempt to provide access to an a-cosmic and ahistoric experience of one’s inner self; yet for him this is not a positive characteristic. For Maldiney, the key distinction is not between modes of phenomenalisation, but between the dimensions of meaning (sens). For him there is no radical self-transformation which is not a transformation of one’s being-in-the-world and one’s meaning of the world, and so Kandinsky’s a-cosmic paintings cannot induce a true transformation of the self. I conclude that the disagreement of Henry and Maldiney on Kandinsky does not unfold on the level of phenomenological description of concrete aesthetic experience, but on the level of metaphysics.http://avant.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/A_Yampolskaya-Metamorphoses.pdfaesthesisFrench phenomenologyHenri MaldineyMichel Henryphenomenological aestheticsWassily Kandinsky |
| spellingShingle | Anna Yampolskaya Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney Avant aesthesis French phenomenology Henri Maldiney Michel Henry phenomenological aesthetics Wassily Kandinsky |
| title | Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney |
| title_full | Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney |
| title_fullStr | Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney |
| title_full_unstemmed | Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney |
| title_short | Metamorphoses of the Subject: Kandinsky Interpreted by Michel Henry and Henri Maldiney |
| title_sort | metamorphoses of the subject kandinsky interpreted by michel henry and henri maldiney |
| topic | aesthesis French phenomenology Henri Maldiney Michel Henry phenomenological aesthetics Wassily Kandinsky |
| url | http://avant.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/A_Yampolskaya-Metamorphoses.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT annayampolskaya metamorphosesofthesubjectkandinskyinterpretedbymichelhenryandhenrimaldiney |