Oana Șerban After Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Aesthetic Revolutions Oana Șerban After Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Aesthetic Revolutions ISBN 978-3-11-077461-0 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-077469-6 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-077472-6 Library of Congress Control Number: 2022943713 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Pierell / iStock / Getty Images Plus Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction Progressand Prediction in Science and the Arts: A Puzzling Problem 1 Chapter 1 ATheoretical (Dis)Agreement: Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions as a Tool for Reshaping the Relationship between Aesthetics and the Arts 20 . A Scientific Appeal to Aesthetic Canons: Weakening the Incommensur- ability between Paradigms 23 . Rational Models in Scienceand Arts: Paradigms and Masterpieces 31 . Toward Aesthetic Incomprehensibility and Artistic Incommensurability 35 Chapter 2 A Historical Undertaking: Kubler’s The Shape of Time as a Concurrent Pledo- rary to Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions 43 . Artists and Scientists as Historical Beings 47 . Frontiers of the History of Art 53 . The Normative Structure of a Series 61 . Kubler’s Historical Disjunctions: A Problem for a Kuhnian Structure of Aesthetic Revolutions? 68 . The Historical Recurrence of Forms and Meanings in Generating Prime-Objects 79 Chapter 3 Kuhnian Premises for the Theory of Aesthetic Validity 86 . The Hafner Model: Similarities between Scientific and Artistic Revolutions 91 . Common Revolutionary Patterns in Science and Art: the Kuhnian Model 96 Chapter 4 “Good” and “Progressive” Art 103 . Linear and Cyclical Theories of Progress in Art: A Historical Clash 109 . ATheory on Time Is not Enough: The Insufficiency of Progressin Determining the Structure of Artistic Revolutions 128 VI Contents Chapter 5 Aesthetic Validity and Its Discontents 135 . Conceptual Challenges: On the Rightness and Truthfulness of an Artwork 135 . Hofstadter’s Theory on Aesthetic Validity asa Matter of Transcendence 138 . Artistic and Aesthetic Properties in Conflict 143 . A Kuhnian Inheritance: Clignet’s Structure of Artistic Revolutions 147 . “The Clignet Paradigm” 151 . The Test of Time for Validity Claims 164 . Habermas and the Pragmatist Turn of Validity: The Modern Legacy of the Post-Frankfurt Account of “Artistic Truth” 181 Chapter 6 A Political Theory of Aesthetic Validity: Completing Kuhn’s Puzzle of Revolutions 193 . Experimental Aesthetics and Political Movements: Genealogical and Archaeological Considerations 194 . The Genealogical Recovery of Dada 200 . Engaging Temporality in the Structure of Cultural Revolutions: Pro- grammatic (In)Validations Prescribed by Futurism 203 . How Long does a Paradigm Last? Avant-Gardes: A Political Recurrence of Regimes of Visibility 209 . ATheoretical Model for a General Historical Validity of Avant- Gardes 212 Concluding Future Pasts: Kuhn Looking at Contemporary Art 224 Bibliography 234 List of Figures 245 Index of Names and Terms 246 Introduction Progress and Prediction in Science and the Arts: A Puzzling Problem Forreasonswhichwillappear,theproblemoftheavant-garde,aspresentedbyProfessor AckermanandKubler,hascaughtmyinterestinunexpectedand,Ihope,fruitfulway.Gom- brich’swork,whichtendsinmanyofthesamedirections,hasbeenasourceofgreaten- couragement to me, and so is Hafner’s essay.Under these circumstances,I mustconcur in its major conclusion: “The more carefully we try to distinguish artist from scientist, themoredifficultourtaskbecomes.”Certainly,thatstatementdescribesmyownexperi- ence. ThomasKuhn,“TheNewRealityinArtandScience”(1969) ThisargumentbelongingtoKuhnwasnotjustasimplestatement.Comingfrom the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,the bet on the commensur- abilitybetween art and science,based on the similarityof their mechanisms of paradigmshift,becameaserioustaskofpublicreflection:howmuchcanasci- entistandanartistpretendthattheyarealike?Kuhn’schallengegoesbeyonda reasonable,modest attempt tocommutepatternsofmethodologicalresearch in the historyof scienceand the historyof art.The mere possibilityof commuting the structure of scientific revolutions into the realm of art made history. Unfortunately, Kuhn himself failed in succeeding to reach a final point for theprojectofsynthesizingthestructureofaestheticrevolutions,albeitheunder- stood the similarity and differences between the models of rationalityoperated byeach ofthese two realms. Now, at the 100th anniversaryof Kuhn’sbirth and the60thanniversaryofthepublicationofTheStructureofScientificRevolutions, itistheperfectoccasiontotrackdownthehypothesesthatconvincedtheAmer- ican philosopher thatparadigmshifts in the arts areworthyofmoresystematic consideration. Not because it is a hermeneutical obligation occasioned by the need to reconsider the Kuhnian works and their effects on domains other than the canonical realm of philosophy and history of science, but mainly due to the fact that the ageof contemporaryartconstantly undermined any normative andideologicalconstructsthatusedtoquantifyandqualifyingenuity,creativity, performativity, and social relevance for any artistic paradigm. However,a(post‐)Kuhniantheoryonthenatureofprogressinartsandaes- theticrevolutionsshouldrespectthefivestandardsoftheorychoice,asdesigned by Kuhn. First, it should be accurate—that is, verifiable throughout empirical stancesoftheartworld.Second,itshouldbeconsistent—thusperforminganin- ternal logic that is compatible with an ideological background performed by principles,values, and norms that can also be recognized as externally consis- https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110774696-001 2 ProgressandPredictioninScienceandtheArts:APuzzlingProblem tentwithothertheoriesdevotedtoprogressandchangeinarts.Third,itshould have a broad scope, without restricting its role and applicability solely to the realm of arts. By this,we shall see that it will answer core-problems belonging tothephilosophyofart,inpart,itwillevaluatepoliticalimplicationsofcultural revolutionsandartisticmovements.Lastbutnotleast,itshouldbesimple—con- sequently, easily formalized and fruitful—extending our knowledge on artistic paradigms,aestheticrevolutionsandtheirintimateconnectionwiththemodels ofparadigmshiftsprescribedbythehistoryofscience.ThisismyKuhniancom- mitment in developinga theoryon the structure of aesthetic revolutions,which will relyon a concept thatexplains the paradigmshift in art, namely, aesthetic validity.Letmeexplainwhysuchatheoreticalmodelmightbeofanyhelpforan arthistorianandwhatphilosophycouldpossiblygainfromitincaseaKuhnian theory on the structure of aesthetic revolutions in modernity succeeds in being provided by all means. Haveyoueverwonderedforwhatreason,fromaneraobsessedwithperfec- tion, perspective, symmetry, and mimetic canons, in which any artwork raises from the intimacy of a metaphysical discourse and a mundane representation, such as the Renaissance, we recognize and recall at a glimpse only the titans —suchasdaVinci,Raphael,andMichelangelo—butwehavedifficultiesiniden- tifyingaBronzino,aDelSartro,aLippi,oraMasaccio,althoughtheycreatetheir artfollowingtheexactsamepatterns?WhyisitthatoutofalloftheMadonnas weareabletonameaBellinioraPeruginowithouthesitation,butwithoutafor- mal education in art we are unable to identify a Longhi? Kuhn would say that only some of them managed to perform quite paradigmatic artworks belonging to the paradigms they claimed to represent. Da Vinci might be as mimetic as Lippi, but only the former invented the sfumato. George Kubler would argue that they all lived in the same age, but the onlyones that count are those who entered the historyof an artistic canon at the right time. Here we reach a gam- blingpoint:whatelementsbelongingtoanartisticparadigmsucceedinpuzzling arevolution,aflourishingspot,aboosterofculturalenergythathistorystillre- gardsasastateofexception?KantwouldsayinhisCritiqueofjudgmentthatan artistic genius is not an exception from the normal use of imagination, but the culminationofacreativefaculty.Butnoinferenceshouldbedrawnofanything otherthanrespectforthematterofanartisticrevolution:therefore,wemaywon- derwhatdeterminesthedominanceofaparadigmandwhatleadstoitsexhaus- tion? To get acquainted with the argument, let us go further in order to under- stand why the topic of progress in the arts cannot be detangled from the architecture of aesthetic revolutions and artistic movements. From Ancient times to the Renaissance, the artworld quantified a visible, powerful progress. All the formal ideals of Antiquity have been reinforced by ProgressandPredictioninScienceandtheArts:APuzzlingProblem 3 theRenaissance,adding,asadistinctartistictrademark,thebirthofperspective. Butdidartregisteragreatest,moreconvincingprogressduringthetimeofGiot- to, who ingeniously performed new techniques of perspective, or rather once Brunelleschi demonstrated his principles conciliating the illusion of space with the proper mathematical calculations that made the visual rays possible? For these kinds of dilemmas,the artworld should go back to Kuhn. Whathavehistoriansofsciencetosaytoarthistorians?Thelatterhavemis- understoodthesenseofprogressintheartworld.Thatbeforediscriminatingbe- tweenalinearandadialecticalrepresentationofartprogress,forcingustotake one side, just to dismantle Hegel’s End of Art thesis and to give a cause and a purpose to the philosophy of art, as Danto generously did, we have to see if there is anything revolutionary,prophetic,or messianic to be expected any fur- ther from art. Anthony Julius was right: in times of radical, compulsive transgression, when“all boundaries have been crossed, all taboos broken, all limits violated” (Julius 2003, p. 7), there must be something beyond scandal that makes us scream an aesthetic Wow! Transgression became a cliché, nothing to object against it,but all classics used to be marginal or hopeless detractors at the be- ginning.WenolongerseemtoaffordPlato’sprivilegeofbanishingpoetsfroman ideal society. Paradoxically,we have fewer ideals—after a centuryof vanguards thattaughtushowtobereasonableidealistsandbearablerealists—andnopar- ticulararttoexcludeorsanction.Suchcontextowesitsoriginmainlyduetothe factthatwefacethevulnerabilityofdesignatinganartisticobjectasanartwork. HaroldRosenberg(1983)usedtosaythatmodernity,withitstraditionofthenew, performed anxious artistic entities: if an object with aesthetic pretentions had consciousness and was asked if it recognizes itself as an artwork, it would not know how to answer. Nowadays,when someone accidentally drops his glasses in the cornerof a gallery, fifty visitors suddenly take a sloppygesture as a per- formanceorasaworkofart.Post-andanticolonialreconsiderationsofartworks create unprecedent gestures: Queen Elizabeth II’s portrait was pulled from Ox- ford college whereas a replica of Michelangelo’s David was covered up due to nudity concerns. We can easily observe how the artistic discourse goes back afteraestheticideologies,inordertoresist,indulgeorovercomeformsoftrans- gressions. The major problem is that, recently, art left the realm of aesthetics wheninfact,bothconstitutiveandregulative,suchisolationhasneverbeenpos- sible.Why should Kuhn be restoredto the heart of contemporary aesthetics? 4 ProgressandPredictioninScienceandtheArts:APuzzlingProblem A Historical Task: (Re)Structuring Aesthetic Revolutions after Thomas Kuhn Kuhn’shypothesisthatthestructureofscientificrevolutionsmightbesuccessful- lycommutedtothe structureofartistic revolutions,whoseannouncementcoin- cidedwiththeexhaustionoftherevolutionaryenergiesofavant-gardes,became not only a reliable source to explain modernity as the age of transitory and fu- gitive cultural shifts, in the sense of Baudelaire (1863), but it equally reflected a curious tendency of undermining the ideological potential of aesthetics, pro- gressively subjected to arts. These contingent and divergent alternative pieces that belong to“the puzzle” of the modern world—as Kuhn calls the attempt to assambledifferenttraditions,conceptsandideologiesinordertoprofiletheau- thentic spirit of modernity as awhole—reveal that genealogically, such similar- ities can provide a more inclusive and reflective “world picture” on the edge of modernity(Heidegger1977,p.115),whereasarchaeologically,modernitymustbe trackedthrough the multiple ruptures that indicate, at once,the contradictions ofthecultureasthesourcesofitsbreakthroughs.Thequestionofculturaldevel- opment,raisedintheseterms,can beconceivedeitherlinearly,asitisthecase of the history of science, or cyclically, as the nature of progress in the arts ap- pearstobealike.Therefore,bywhatmeansistheidealofaccuratelyevaluating the structural similarities of scientific, artistic, and aesthetic revolutions saved fromautopianproject,iftheleadingassumptionisthatthehistoriesofeachdis- ciplinaryfieldbyitselfcomportmutuallycontradictorypatternsofprogress?On what historicalgrounds should such ambition be rooted,toraise philosophical speculations combined with empirical observations on the nature of change as paradigm shift, projected on a fertile domain of scientific impulses, aesthetic concerns, and artistic expressions of our modern society? Indeed, are the clea- vages between science, aesthetics, and art irreconcilable drifts, mostly main- tained by the inner disciplinary vanities of each domain and its practitioners, whosemajorhistoricaltendenciesweretoisolatescienceasarationalobjective area, fromarts in their monopole on the sensible subjective realms of our exis- tence?Whatif,onthecontrary,theyareco-dependentinthemoderntermsofa coherentandunitaryprojectofknowledge,shapedbytheKantianIlluministap- petite and its later partisans? These are legitimate questions that converge to- ward a singular and uncomfortable task of explaining modernity as something more than a historical consecution of universalized scientific rationality that openedtowardtheeraof “ephemeral,fleeting,contingent”changes(Baudelaire 2010, p. 13), marked by non-rational, transgressive, avant-gardist trends. It means that,by this critical inquiry,we chose to pass over the conventional de- nominations of modernity as something that it is often “spoken of as an