Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Přicházeli vhod i nevhod: Vančura a Mukařovský, Vančura a Peroutka

100%

Holý J.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

tom 69

|

nr 5

622-634

EN

This article deals with the aesthetic views that Vladislav Vančura formulated in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Vančura sympathetically followed the emergence of Prague structuralism and its concepts. The dominant role of the aesthetic function in art met his requirement for “poeticity”, while in Vančura’s works the structuralists found suitable material to support their concepts. Jan Mukařovský wrote about Vančura in a positive light not only in the 1930s and 1940s, but also later on, when Vančura’s works found themselves in potential conflict with the demands of “realism” and “the people”. An example of the reverse case, i.e. a fundamental misunderstanding based on different ideas about literature, can be found in the criticism of Vančura’s novel The Last Judgement by Ferdinand Peroutka.

2

Gesto a nezáměrnost „Sester Vaneových“ (1951)

100%

Müller R.

Svět literatury – Časopis pro novodobé literatury (World of Literature – Journal for Modern Literatures)

|

2020

|

nr 61

94-105

EN

This article presents an interpretation of Vladimir Nabokov’s story “The Vane Sisters” in the light of Jan Mukařovský’s concepts of semantic gesture and unintentionality (nezáměrnost). At the same time, medial implications of Nabokov’s text are recognized, forcing a certain modification of the aforementioned concepts, taking into account the phenomenon of medial self-reflectivity.

3

Václav Černý a strukturalismus

100%

Pelán J.

Svět literatury – Časopis pro novodobé literatury (World of Literature – Journal for Modern Literatures)

|

2017

|

tom 55

22-45

EN

The essay mentions Černý’s hostile relationship to Jan Mukařovský, sums up its causes, and recapitulates the texts in which Černý comments on Mukařovský’s works and on structuralism in general. On the basis of these texts, the author concludes that Černý’s contributions on the topic of “structuralism” betray an a-priori polemic bias and show that his reading of structuralist works was slightly superficial. However, these texts should not be interpreted purely as an expression of personal antipathy. Černý’s critique of structuralism points out its resignation on value judgement. According to Černý, this lack leads to the inability of structuralism to turn to criticism or literary history. The author analyzes Černý’s understanding of these two disciplines, and tries to point out the deeper causes of the polemics. The core of the dispute still seems valid today.

4

Aksjologiczny charakter szczęścia w literaturze, czyli o związkach felicytologii i estetyki

100%

Osiński J.

Amor Fati

|

2015

|

nr 1

113-126

EN

The article relates to compounds of happiness with the literature, its purpose is to answer the question: what and why can literature talk about happiness? Different directions in literary studies occupy different positions to the values contained in the literary work. There is also no consensus as to whether it is the bearer of aesthetic func-tion. The author starts from the aesthetic function, which sees the only way to fulfill the value in the literary work to the reflection on the aesthetic value to propose a theoretical model of happiness in the literature. This model is based on the structural aesthetic by Jan Mukařovský, whose works are its theoretical foundations. In this connec-tion the two modes for its practice: evoking and showing, that explains an example of ‘Szczęśliwe drogi’ by K. K. Baczyński. Consideration sends attention to the impact on the valuation of happiness evoking literary work.

5

Ve jménu přátelství: Jan Mukařovský o Vladislavu Vančurovi

100%

Sládek O.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

tom 69

|

nr 5

606-621

EN

This study describes the origin and development of the friendship between the literary scholar Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and the writer Vladislav Vančura (1891–1942). Mukařovský’s interpretations of Vančura’s literary works are the main focus of the study. Both Mukařovský’s published works and texts that were never published (e.g. university lectures) are analysed. On the basis of archival research, the author of the study proves that Mukařovský analysed Vančura’s work much earlier than he published his first-ever work on Vančura in 1934. In the course of the 1940s to 1960s, Mukařovský published many texts on Vančura in which he remembered Vančura as a friend, poet, Communist and anti-fascist activist.

6

Literární historie jako paměť čtenářské zkušenosti. K pojetí konkretizace u Romana Ingardena a Jana Mukařovského

100%

Grigorov D.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2019

|

tom 16

|

nr 32

176-183

EN

The article argues that a rethinking of the idea of concretization, which in Roman Ingarden’s book Das literarische Kunstwerk (1931) changes the identity of literary work, is transformed into a subject of structural literary history in Jan Mukařovský’s interpretations of Karel Hynek Mácha’s work (1936). The author describes the act of transformation with reference to a debate on Ingarden’s phenomenological aesthetics in which René Wellek criticizes the philosopher’s non-historical point of view and his whole concept of literature.

7

Vladislav Vančura mezi Janem Mukařovským a Lubomírem Doleželem

100%

Fořt B.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

tom 69

|

nr 5

635-644

EN

The work of Vladislav Vančura has attracted the attention of literary theorists from the very beginning. Among other attempts to get a theoretical grip, those offered by Jan Mukařovský and Lubomír Doležel provide us with two different but methodologically connected approaches to the author’s work. These represent two phases of Czech structuralist thought about literature. This study critically compares both approaches and highlights their similarities and dissimilarities.

8

Meta-strukturalistyczna pułapka. Periodyzacja a strukturalizm Jana Mukařovskiego

99%

Daszuta A.

Adeptus

|

2018

|

nr 12

EN

A meta-structuralist trap: Periodisation and Jan Mukařovský’s structuralismThe aim of this article is to show some methodological traps connected with the common tendency for periodisation of phenomena or processes in research, basing on the example of secondary literature about Czech structuralism, especially Jan Mukařovský’s theory. The author describes the narratives shaped in these works and shows how their symbolic charge directs the way of thinking about the heritage of the Prague school and Jan Mukařovský, which may influence the interpretation of his literary and aesthetic theory. Meta-strukturalistyczna pułapka. Periodyzacja a strukturalizm Jana MukařovskiegoCelem artykułu jest ukazanie na przykładzie opracowań czeskiego strukturalizmu, zwłaszcza dorobku Jana Mukařovskiego, pułapek metodologicznych związanych z powszechną tendencją badawczą do periodyzacji zjawisk i procesów. Zrekonstruowane zostają kształtowane w tych opracowaniach narracje, których ładunek symboliczny ukierunkowuje – często nadmiernie – sposób myślenia o dziedzictwie szkoły praskiej oraz o Janie Mukařovskim, co może wpływać na interpretacje jego refleksji literaturoznawczej i estetycznej.

9

„Jan Mukařovský dla wszystkich”. O przekładach tekstów czeskiego teoretyka literatury i estetyki

98%

Żygadło-Czopnik D.

Przekłady Literatur Słowiańskich

|

2020

|

tom 10

|

nr 1

259-273

EN

Jan Mukařovský (1891-1975) is a character who does not need to be introduced to Polish humanists. Recognized as a leading representative of structuralism, the so-called Prague School has its place in the history of literary theory, as well as the entire school of thought. Most of Mukařovsky’s texts, as well as those by others from Prague, which we know today as articles in magazines or books, were given at the meetings of the Prague Linguistic Circle as lectures. The presence of Czech structuralism, including the work of Jan Mukařovský, is not a closed issue in Poland. In the article, we will trace the Polish presence of his texts from the 1940s to the latest translations by Aneta Daszuta, which also contain critical studies and those are Zamierzone i niezamierzone w sztuce (Warsaw 2014) and Studia semiologiczne (Warsaw 2017).

CS

Jan Mukařovský (1891-1975) je postava, kterou není třeba polským humanitním vědcům představovat. Uznávaný za předního představitele strukturalismu tzv. pražské školy má své místo v pracích o dějinách literární teorie, stejně jako celý směr. Většina Mukařovského textů, i jiných Pražanů, které dnes známe jako články v časopisech nebo knižní publikace, byla jako referáty přednesena na shromážděních Pražského lingvistického kroužku. Přítomnost českého strukturalismu, včetně prací Jana Mukařovského, v Polsku nepředstavuje uzavřenou otázku. V článku budeme sledovat polskou přítomnost jeho textů od 40. let 20. století po poslední překlady Anety Daszuty, které jsou vlastně kritickou edicí, jde o Zamierzone i niezamierzone w sztuce (Warszawa 2014) a Studia semiologiczne (Warszawa 2017).

PL

The subject of the analysis is the presence of Jan Mukarovsky’s texts in the field of Polish literary theory and aesthetics. The achievements of Czech structuralism, of which he was an outstanding representative, seem to be indisputable, since to this day they are a more or less conscious element of modern knowledge about literature. The Czech structuralism heritage still amazes and intrigues with its scale, and it undoubtedly continues to be a grateful object of research by Polish theoreticians and translators.

10

Věda jako jednání: Pražský lingvistický kroužek, kulturní aktivismus a myšlení o divadle

86%

Bernátek M.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2016

|

tom 19

|

nr 1

9-36

EN

Structural approach to theatre was developed in the late 1930s and during the WW2 in frame of Prague Circle (“PLC”) as a result of an activist approach to scholarship and close collaboration between theatremakers and scholars. Although the connection between avant-garde aesthetic of 1930s and structuralist writing on theatre has been already described, there are more important relations beyond that generally acknowledged frame. Seminal structuralist essays on theatre were often written as polemics that were addressed, besides regular readers, to the opponents of PLC members. They were also written in the already changed cultural context, where the previous avant-garde model was the object of reflection and overcoming. Furthermore, this approach was driven by the need to explain Avant-Garde theatre to general public by terminology of modern scholarship. The so called Prague theatre structuralism could be therefore seen as a paradigm of scholarship that formulates its theories with respect to science popularisation as well as an attack against other “actors” in the field of theatre studies. The author focuses on the practical and organisational aspect of the PLC. Different modes of collective action in the public space as well as material conditions of existence and financial support are described. Attention is also paid to national and political (leftist) affiliation of the members of the Circle. From this perspective the PLC approach to theatre is analyzed as set of action rather than set o text and ideas.

11

Heidegger, Mukařovský a umelecká kritika

85%

Lipták M.

Filosofický časopis (Philosophical Journal)

|

2018

|

tom 66

|

nr 3

361-381

EN

In this article, points of contact between Mukařovský’s and Heidegger’s thinking about art are investigated. These points of contact are identified in the conception of deliberateness and non-deliberateness in Mukařovský and in the contest between the world and the earth in Heidegger. It is argued that these conceptions point to the treatment of a work as continually polarising; polarisation is related to the problematic of the durability of a work of art and of great art, so its character is ultimately normative. These results are finally briefly related to the question of art criticism.

DE

Im vorliegenden Artikel werden die Berührungspunkte des Kunstverständnisses von Mukařovský und Heidegger untersucht. Diese Berührungspunkte werden im Konzept des Absichtsvollen und des Unbeabsichtigten bei Mukařovský und im Streit zwischen Welt und Erde bei Heidegger identifiziert. Der Autor argumentiert in dem Sinne, dass diese Konzepte auf ein Konzept des Werks als ständig polarisierendes Werk verweisen, wobei die Polarisierung auf die Problematik der Lebensdauer des Kunstwerks und der großen Kunst bezogen wird, so dass deren Wesen letztendlich normativ ist. Diese Schlussfolgerungen werden dann in knapper Form auf die Frage der Kunstkritik bezogen.

12

Jan Mukařovský and theatre

85%

Sládek O.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2014

|

tom 17

|

nr 2

122-136

EN

Jan Mukařovský (1891−1975) has played a prominent and unique role in the history of Czech Structuralism. He is the author of numerous theoretical and overview works on theatre and dramatic art, but only a part of it is widely known and commented on. This gives rise to the impression that Mukařovský dealt with theatre in bursts only, in fact producing only the occasional text. However, the opposite is true: published studies are just a fragment of his actual, systematic work developed in the field of study of dramatic art and aesthetics of drama. The entire collection of Mukařovský's texts dealing with theatre and dramatic art can be classified into six main types according to their theme and genre:1) Literary-aesthetic criticism of specialized works on drama and dramatic art, 2) Theatre criticism, 3) Articles on plays and dramatists, 4) Theoretical and overview studies, 5) Lectures, 6) Various – dealing with theatre and dramatic art. The main aim of this study is not to provide a complete and exhaustive account of Mukařovský's studies on theatre and dramatic art, but rather to identify their most important characteristics, mutual relations, the circumstances in which they were produced and the broader context. The author of the study argues that a) Mukařovský's interest in theatre and stage speech was always an integral part of his research into poetics, aesthetics and semiotics of art, and b) despite several internal contradictions, his scientific orientation is in principle continuous.

13

Dvojí pohled Jana Mukařovského na Vančurův román Konec starých časů

80%

Poláček J.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

tom 69

|

nr 5

645-656

EN

The introduction to this study describes the genesis of Vladislav Vančura’s novel The End of the Old Times (1934), which was based on a film script about Baron Munchausen. This is followed by an outline of its critical reception at the time and its historical background. It involves both the phenomenon of emigration from Russia after 1917 and the land reform carried out in Czechoslovakia from 1919 onwards. The core of the study is an analysis of Jan Mukařovský’s study of the novel, published in 1934 in the journal Listy pro umění a kritiku (Art and Criticism) and Mukařovský’s afterword to the fourth edition of The End of the Old Times, published in 1958. The author also considers both analysed texts in the context of the relevant literature.

14

Strukturalisté dělají marxismus

80%

Kanda R.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2019

|

tom 67

|

nr 5

711-736

EN

The author of this study deals with the transition made by Jan Mukařovský (1891–1975) and Felix Vodička (1909–1974) from structuralism to Marxism and the forms of both theorists' postwar and post-1948 thinking. It comes out against those expository stratagems that only perceive this issue to be a result of the post-1948 "ideologization" of literary studies, or that trivialize the entire issue as an expression of "tactic-playing" at that time. The author of this study counters these expositions with the imperative of the historicization of theory, i.e. in this study Marxism is understood to be a scholarly standpoint that did not lose its legitimacy (legitimacy is defined in this study as the outcome of a historically conditioned social process, and not as a normative category), while special attention is also paid to the semantics of the term "Marxism-Leninism". In the case of Jan Mukařovský, the theoretical preconditions for acceptance of Marxism may approximately indicate the mid-1940s (1943–1945 to be precise), when the theorist first begins to deal with the issues surrounding the genesis of the work, the world view and the relationship between the individual and literary development. The assumption that literature is not a prime mover of the "noetic base" and that in this respect a more crucial element is the production process, opens up the way to a basic reevaluation of the structuralist approach and its abandonment. After 1948 Mukařovský follows the role of an individual based on the example of Božena Němcová, but he did not treat the issue systematically on a Marxist basis. After 1948 the literary historian Felix Vodička abandons the structuralist idea of a creative individual as the bearer of literary trends – and in his post-1948 studies he reflects the "will" of the individual and the social conditions for creation. This leads to a transformation in his analysis, which primarily takes account of the topical and thematic sphere to the detriment of the structural ("formal" or stylistic) elements in the work. This also leads to a transformation in the understanding of literature: the originally dominant aesthetic function is superseded by the cognitive and social-critical function. Vodička's Marxist reformulation of literary history culminates in what is known as role theory. However, this suffered from rigid teleologism, which manifested itself inter alia in the evaluation of literature from the standpoint of ex post fabricated "objectives" to be "accomplished". In spite of the theoretical limits of literary-studies Marxism as conceived by Mukařovský and Vodička, this is an example of a new formulation of literary-studies knowledge and literature.

CS

Autor studie se zabývá teoretickými předpoklady přechodu Jana Mukařovského (1891–1975) a Felixe Vodičky (1909–1974) od strukturalismu k marxismu a podobami poválečného – i poúnorového – uvažování obou teoretiků. Vymezuje se vůči těm výkladovým strategiím, které sledovanou problematiku vnímají pouze jako důsledek poúnorové „ideologizace“ literární vědy, případně celou problematiku bagatelizují jako výraz dobového „taktizování“. Proti těmto výkladům staví autor studie imperativ historizace teorie. To znamená, že ve studii je marxismus chápán jako vědecký názor, který nepostrádal svou legitimitu (legitimita je ve studii definována jako výsledek historicky podmíněného společenského procesu, nikoli jako normativní kategorie). Zvláštní pozornost je přitom věnována také sémantice pojmu „marxismus-leninismus“. V případě Jana Mukařovského lze teoretické předpoklady přijetí marxismu zaznamenat zhruba v polovině čtyřicátých let (přesně 1943–1945), kdy se teoretik začíná zabývat otázkami geneze díla, světonázoru a vztahu individua a literárního vývoje. Předpoklad, že literatura není prvotním hybatelem „noetické základny“ a že důsažnější je v tomto ohledu výrobní proces, otevírá dveře zásadnímu přehodnocení strukturalistického přístupu, resp. jeho opuštění. Po roce 1948 Mukařovský sleduje úlohu individua na příkladu Boženy Němcové, nicméně problém na marxistickém základě soustavně nepropracoval. Literární historik Felix Vodička po roce 1948 opouští strukturalistickou představu tvůrčího individua jakožto nositele literárních tendencí – ve svých poúnorových studiích zohledňuje „vůli“ individua i společenské podmínky tvorby. To vede k proměně analýzy, která si všímá především námětové a tematické oblasti na úkor strukturních („formálních“ či stylistických) prvků díla. Vede to i k proměně chápání literatury: původně dominantní estetická funkce je nahrazena funkcí poznávací a sociálněkritickou. Vodičkova marxistická reformulace literární historie vrcholí v tzv. teorii úkolů. Ta ovšem trpěla rigidním teleologismem, projevujícím se mj. tím, že docházelo k hodnocení literatury z hlediska ex post konstruovaných „cílů“, které měla „naplnit“. Navzdory teoretickým limitům literárněvědného marxismu v pojetí Mukařovského a Vodičky, jedná se o příklad nové formulace literárněvědného poznání a literatury.

15

Pojetí významu u Ingardena a Mukařovského: Vliv, inspirace, či autonomní cesty?

80%

Bílek P. A.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2019

|

tom 16

|

nr 32

163-175

EN

Concepts associated with the Structuralism of the Prague School are usually considered to respond to trends in continental philology, philosophy, and aesthetics of the 1920s and 1930s. The phenomenology of Roman Ingarden is thus viewed as a key source of inspiration for the concept of ‘concretization’ coined by Felix Vodička, a concept which would become one of the key terms of literary history. This article focuses on a less explored issue concerning the notion of meaning developed by Ingarden in his Das literarische Kunstwerk and its potential influence on the idea of meaning developed by Jan Mukařovský during the 1930s. The comparison highlights an important difference between the two concepts of meaning. While Ingarden focuses on the heterogeneity of elements involved in the production of meaning, Mukařovský aims rather at developing a universal notion of meaning as a synthetic process that operates the same way on all levels of the literary text. In this case, the author tends to consider the notion of meaning only in vague and general terms, illustrating the production of meaning at the micro level and then claiming that the same processes can be found at all higher levels.

16

Estetyka dzieła literackiego w strukturalistycznej koncepcji Jana MukaŘovskiego

71%

Brzezińska A.

Ogrody Nauk i Sztuk

|

2014

|

nr 4

656-663

PL

Strukturalizm jako kierunek badań literaturoznawczych i lingwistycznych był w latach dwudziestych i trzydziestych XX w. wiodący na uniwersytetach I Republiki Czechosłowackiej. Artykuł skupia się na jednym z najważniejszych członków Praskiego Koła Lingwistycznego, strukturaliście Janie Mukařovskim i jego studiach na temat estetyki w duchu strukturalizmu. Przedefi niował on pojęcia estetycznej wartości, normy i funkcji, a także stworzył wiele innych elementów spójnej teorii naukowej. Przepracował zagadnienia struktury, semantycznego gestu i indywidualności w sztuce. Elementy jego teorii zostały użyte przez neostrukturalistów i dzisiejszych narratologów do analizy dzieł literackich.

EN

Structuralism as an area in literary science researches was a main topic at the universities of the First Czechoslovak Republic in the Þ rst half of twentieth century. The article focuses on one of the most important members of the Prague linguistics circle, structuralist Jan Mukařovský and his studies about esthetics in spirit of structuralism. He has redeÞ ned the concept of esthetic value, norm and function and also made many others elements of coherent science theory. He has worked on the concepts of structure, semantic gesture and individuality in art. Elements of his theory were used by neo- structuralists and nowadays narratologists in the analyses of literary works.

17

Za vědu o vývoji: Jan Mukařovský a Antoine Meillet

70%

Krásová E.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2021

|

tom 69

|

nr 3

285-311

EN

This article examines the possible influence of Antoine Meillet’s thinking on the Prague Linguistic Circle, especially on Jan Mukařovský. Based on a comparison of Jan Mukařovský’s studies from the 1930s and selected works by Antoine Meillet, we find three intersecting topics: the rhetoric of the new science, the sociological conception of linguistics and in particular the concept of general linguistics as a science of the laws of development. We show that Meillet’s and Mukařovský’s sociological conception of language and artwork leads in the final instance to a reference to a certain material basis for the norms under examination.

18

Spojité nádoby: Etnologie, pražský strukturalismus a česká divadelní avantgarda

60%

Šlaisová E.

Theatralia: Revue současného myšlení o divadelní kultuře (Theatralia: The revue of contemporary thought on theatre culture)

|

2016

|

tom 19

|

nr 1

65-85

EN

The study explores the exchange of impulses and ideas between the three fields indicated in the title, presenting Petr Bogatyrev as their mediator. It is concerned, among other things, with Bogatyrev connecting the findings of French sociologically-oriented ethnologists, such as Emil Durkheim and Luciene Lévy-Bruhl, and German ethnologists (Hans Neumann) to the theories of the Prague Linguistic Circle and their influence of Jan Mukařovský’ sociology of art. The author focuses on the way in which Bogatyrev combines the formal and sociological perspectives, and applies them on different cultural phenomena (folk beliefs, folk art, high art) as they move between different cultural strata. Another point of inquiry is the collaboration of Bogatyrev and theatre director E. F. Burian, whose montage of folk poetry is presented in the paper as a theatrical enactment of Bogatyrev’s structural-functional method, i.e. the transformation of function, structure, and meaning in transition between folk and high art.

19

O vědě, ideologii a strukturalismu

57%

Hana Š.

Slovo a smysl - Word & Sense

|

2015

|

tom 12

|

nr 23

105-114

EN

The paper starts from a consideration of two variant critiques of structuralism: in 1935, Marxistoriented historians polemicized with Mukařovský’s concept of the development of literature; in 1951, Mukařovský himself presented a critique based in the ideology of the totalitarian regime. A comparison between the state of the scholarly debate in the 1930s and the latter event allows us to develop some more general characteristics of the ingerence of power ideology into scientific discourse and its paradigm. The focus of our inquiry is the question as to what allowed Mukařovský to perform this radical turn and adopt an ideological doctrine. What we find is that a link between the topics pursued in our argument — i.e. between the structuralist theory, an ideology in the service of power and the deformation of the scholarly paradigm — is provided by the position of the individual in history, in both artistic and social discourse. The gist of the matter is that with the weakening or even elimination of the individual’s role disappears the ethical dimension of the human relating to the world, disappears individual responsibility as an essential, irreducible part of one’s identity.

20

K estetickému myšlení Roberta Kalivody : Kapitola z archeologie českého marxismu

50%

Kanda R.

Česká literatura (Czech Literature)

|

2014

|

tom 62

|

nr 4

527-548

EN

Using the method of archeological description and inspired by the ideas of Michel Foucault, the author of this study presents the aestethics thinking of Marxist theorist Robert Kalivoda (1923-1989). This study focuses particularly on an analysis of Kalivoda´s text „Dialektika strukturalismu a dialektika estetiky“ – „The dialectic of structuralism and the dialectic of aesthetics“, which makes up the first part of his book „Moderní duchovní skutečnost a marxismus“ – „Modern intellectual reality and Marxism“ (1968). Together with Karel Kosík and Ivan Sviták, Robert Kalivoda belonged to a generational group of Marxist philosophers who from the latter half of the 1950s endeavoured to open up Marxism to critical stimuli as well as to other non-Marxist methodologies over the course of time. Kalivoda´s aesthetic thinking developer at the crossroads of two discourses: Marxist and structuralist. Using structuralism Kalivoda criticizes the Hegelian foundation of Marxist aesthetics and the principle of „reflective reading“ – while stressing the semiotic nature of the artistic work. On the other hand Kalivoda also uses Marxism as an instrument for criticizing structuralism wherever he believes that Jan Mukařovský diverges from a radically formalistic standpoint and espouses phenomenological inspiration in an undesirable manner. Kalivoda was not attempting a historical reconstruction of the theoretical development of structuralism, but he was presenting his own interpretation of this scholalry view. Kalivoda´s efforts were motivated by the philosophical aim of destroying metaphysics and creating a post-metaphysical dialectical theory. This study attempts to set Kalivoda´s aesthetic thought in context inter alia by means of short comparisons with 1960s structuralist thinking, particularly with the ideas of Květoslav Chvatík and Milan Jankovič.

CS

Autor studie metodou archeologické deskripce, inspirované koncepcí Michela Foucaulta, přibližuje estetické myšlení marxistického teoretika Roberta Kalivody (1923−1989). Studie se soustředí zvláště na analýzu Kalivodova textu „Dialektika strukturalismu a dialektika estetiky“, který tvoří první část jeho knihy Moderní duchovní skutečnost a marxismus (1968). Kalivoda patřil spolu s Karlem Kosíkem či Ivanem Svitákem ke generační skupině marxistických filozofů, kteří od druhé poloviny 50. let usilovali o otevření marxismu kritickým podnětům a postupně také jiným, nemarxistickým metodologiím. Estetické uvažování R. Kalivody se rozvíjelo na křižovatce dvou diskurzů: marxistického a strukturalistického. Prostřednictvím strukturalismu Kalivoda kritizuje hegelovské založení marxistické estetiky a princip „odrazového čtení“ − zdůrazňuje znakovou povahu uměleckého díla. Z druhé strany marxismus slouží Kalivodovi jako nástroj kritiky strukturalismu tam, kde se podle Kalivody koncepce Jana Mukařovského odklání od radikálně formalistického hlediska a přimyká se – nežádoucím směrem − k inspiracím fenomenologickým. Kalivoda neusiloval o historickou rekonstrukci teoretického vývoje strukturalismu, nýbrž předložil vlastní interpretaci tohoto vědeckého názoru. Kalivodovo úsilí bylo neseno filozofickým záměrem destrukce metafyziky a vytvoření postmetafyzické dialektické teorie. Studie se snaží Kalivodovo estetické myšlení zařadit do kontextu mimo jiné pomocí krátkých komparací s dobovým strukturalistickým myšlením 60. let, konkrétně s pojetími Květoslava Chvatíka a Milana Jankoviče.