ანტი-ესთეტიკა და ახალი ესთეტიზმი, რატომ არ არის პოპ-არტი ნეო-დადაიზმი

Abstract

The 1960s were an era of cultural awakening in America. This period is specified for art world to make a historical turn. It was an American philosopher and art critic Arthur Danto’s famous theory about the end of the long-term art historical narrative and at the same time, the beginning of a new one. The specific event for this beginning was determined by an American Pop artist Andy Warhol’s exhibition in New York Stable gallery in 1964. For Danto, Warhol’s Brillo Boxes is the main, a philosophical subject for art to be theoreticized through self-determination. Despite a new aesthetically stylish movement, criticism has emerged, mostly followed the pronouncement of the chief figure and spokesman of Abstract-Expressionism, Clement Greenberg stating that nothing technically interesting or fundamentally innovative happened in Pop Art, Pop artists were just reconstructing and retreating and it wasn’t the stage of development of art - just another Neo-Dadaism with its expression of artistic language. Following these theories, I had an opportunity to analyze Pop Art phenomenon as a new aesthetic strategy, which uses banality of everyday objects to keep in touch with not only contemporaneity but maintaining clear aesthetic novelty apart from formal resemblance with Marcel Duchamp’s readymades or Dadaism and to show its wittiness or playfulness through metaphorical irony. Despite of its formal resemblance, that I think, was rooted in the 1960s as an obvious American phenomenon and transferred the new aestheticism in Postmodernism. The aim is to set the limits of ideological definition of anti-aesthetic and new aestheticism. To sum up, it is eminent there are fundamental different methods of approaches to aesthetic relations in casual objects, that disprove the ideological similarity between Pop and Neo-Dadaism.