Dialectics of freedom and responsibility in the 20th century art

Freedom is one of the most difficult and multi-aspect conceptions in history of philosophy. It includes a lot of different external elements, for example responsibility. Freedom per se is utopia, which has subject (human being, God or other powers) in its centre. Freedom is always realized as any condition of subject of this freedom (who can have it or not, which depends on his (or her) life's frameworks). Also freedom includes two dimensions: negative (from) and positive (of) which are interrelated. It is necessary to research the opposition between psychological and moral freedom (of Vindelband) to better understand these two conceptions. First of them is connected with the sense of realization of absolutely all projects (for example, in artwork); second of them is better represented in philosophy of I. Kant, where it is defined as self-restriction. Only moral freedom has real responsibility, where subject is similar to the subject of freedom. Sometimes it can be observed that the responsibility has another subject than freedom. This was clearly shown in art of the 20 century. Artists tried to realize freedom as independent beginning in Renaissance (although the ideal of autonomy was adopted from an ancient ideal of autarchy). But at the end of 20 century an artist declared himself independent not only from external compulsion, coming from society with its tests and needs, but also from those boundaries which were inside of art, in its tradition (i.e., the rules and methods of creation). This tendency came up to absurd in Dadaism, which tried to destroy tradition by all possible ways. But tradition for Dadaism was avant-garde, which was the soil of Dadaism. In this case responsibility gradually escaped from the viewpoint of an artist and his task became the achievement of psychological freedom. That is why the reader was getting more and more responsibility. This process was completed with postmodernism, in which the basis of all cultural phenomena (sign) transformed into simulacra, hiding the absence of the reality. This further led to the division of the subject of freedom from subject of responsibility (reader who can assign simulacra any meanings, because it does not have its own). Thereby classical idea about direct relation responsibility from freedom did not find confirmation in the 20 century art material. It shows their divergence on the level of subject

Keywords

Authors

References