Lesson of Darkness

Phenomenology and Lyotard’s Late Aesthetics

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship of Jean-François Lyotard’s aesthetics to phenomenology, especially the works of Mikel Dufrenne and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It argues that this comparison allows a greater understanding of Lyotard’s late aesthetic writings, which can appear gnomic and which have received relatively little critical attention. Lyotard credits Merleau-Ponty with opening the theme of difference in the aesthetic field, yet believes that the phenomenological approach can never adequately account for it. After outlining Lyotard’s early critiques of Dufrenne and Merleau-Ponty, the paper will demonstrate how his late aesthetics can be understood as returning to phenomenological themes but in the form of a reversal. Lyotard’s “lesson of darkness” is that the secret power of art can never be brought into the light of phenomenal appearance, and that artworks do not testify to the birth of perception, but to its death and resurrection.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of the British Society for Phenomenology
Early online date9 Sep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 9 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Darkness
Phenomenology
Aesthetics
Artwork
Resurrection
Power of Art
Maurice Merleau-Ponty
Mikel Dufrenne
Credit

Keywords

  • Jean-François Lyotard
  • Maurice Merleau-Ponty
  • Mikel Dufrenne
  • Phenomenology
  • aesthetics
  • philosophy of art

Cite this

@article{a99dbd1a56b644ddb134865f00cd0441,
title = "Lesson of Darkness: Phenomenology and Lyotard’s Late Aesthetics",
abstract = "This paper examines the relationship of Jean-Fran{\cc}ois Lyotard’s aesthetics to phenomenology, especially the works of Mikel Dufrenne and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It argues that this comparison allows a greater understanding of Lyotard’s late aesthetic writings, which can appear gnomic and which have received relatively little critical attention. Lyotard credits Merleau-Ponty with opening the theme of difference in the aesthetic field, yet believes that the phenomenological approach can never adequately account for it. After outlining Lyotard’s early critiques of Dufrenne and Merleau-Ponty, the paper will demonstrate how his late aesthetics can be understood as returning to phenomenological themes but in the form of a reversal. Lyotard’s “lesson of darkness” is that the secret power of art can never be brought into the light of phenomenal appearance, and that artworks do not testify to the birth of perception, but to its death and resurrection.",
keywords = "Jean-Fran{\cc}ois Lyotard, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Mikel Dufrenne, Phenomenology, aesthetics, philosophy of art",
author = "Ashley Woodward",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1080/00071773.2018.1518659",
language = "English",
journal = "Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology",
issn = "0007-1773",
publisher = "Jackson Publishing and Distribution",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lesson of Darkness

T2 - Phenomenology and Lyotard’s Late Aesthetics

AU - Woodward, Ashley

PY - 2018/9/9

Y1 - 2018/9/9

N2 - This paper examines the relationship of Jean-François Lyotard’s aesthetics to phenomenology, especially the works of Mikel Dufrenne and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It argues that this comparison allows a greater understanding of Lyotard’s late aesthetic writings, which can appear gnomic and which have received relatively little critical attention. Lyotard credits Merleau-Ponty with opening the theme of difference in the aesthetic field, yet believes that the phenomenological approach can never adequately account for it. After outlining Lyotard’s early critiques of Dufrenne and Merleau-Ponty, the paper will demonstrate how his late aesthetics can be understood as returning to phenomenological themes but in the form of a reversal. Lyotard’s “lesson of darkness” is that the secret power of art can never be brought into the light of phenomenal appearance, and that artworks do not testify to the birth of perception, but to its death and resurrection.

AB - This paper examines the relationship of Jean-François Lyotard’s aesthetics to phenomenology, especially the works of Mikel Dufrenne and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. It argues that this comparison allows a greater understanding of Lyotard’s late aesthetic writings, which can appear gnomic and which have received relatively little critical attention. Lyotard credits Merleau-Ponty with opening the theme of difference in the aesthetic field, yet believes that the phenomenological approach can never adequately account for it. After outlining Lyotard’s early critiques of Dufrenne and Merleau-Ponty, the paper will demonstrate how his late aesthetics can be understood as returning to phenomenological themes but in the form of a reversal. Lyotard’s “lesson of darkness” is that the secret power of art can never be brought into the light of phenomenal appearance, and that artworks do not testify to the birth of perception, but to its death and resurrection.

KW - Jean-François Lyotard

KW - Maurice Merleau-Ponty

KW - Mikel Dufrenne

KW - Phenomenology

KW - aesthetics

KW - philosophy of art

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053318227&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00071773.2018.1518659

DO - 10.1080/00071773.2018.1518659

M3 - Article

JO - Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology

JF - Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology

SN - 0007-1773

ER -