Search results
dialectical opposite – the ideal, historically understood as the domain of human ‘spiritual’ culture, and in the case of the Armenian avant-garde, of art as an autonomous sphere of activity? To provide a theoretical grounding for this concept, the notion of the ideal is treated not through Hegel and Marx directly, but instead through a fascinating and overlooked debate in Soviet philosophy – between Evald Ilyenkov and Mikhail Lifshitz in the late 1970s and the first part of the 1980s.43 The choice of these particular authors is justified by the fact that they have provided
paint or canvas used – that determines the relationship between everyday life (or reality understood as the empirical field of experience) and the ideal of autonomous art. By drawing from the philosophical debate between Soviet philosophers Evald Ilyenkov and Mikhail Lifshitz, I approach the ideal of autonomous art as a realm of human universality constituted through a material historical process. In this, art becomes an instance of universality. This book traces the transformations and development of autonomous art in Armenia: from the late Soviet unofficial artists
‘inorganic body of man’ and which Evald Ilyenkov refers to as ‘thought in its Otherness’ (‘das Idee in der Form des Anderssein’), the artist triumphs over a temporality where the prehistory and post-history of humankind rejoin in a natural-artificial dystopia. Sweet Repression of Ideology of 2000, performed during the exhibition Collapse of Illusions, extends the theatricality of Kareyan’s aesthetic lan- The reign of the ‘painterly real’ and the politics of crisis David Kareyan, Sweet Repression of Ideology, performance, 2000 guage of this period to encompass the