razprave (pdf) - Društvo za primerjalno književnost - ZRC SAZU

Kosovel’s “Cons” Poems:an Uneasy Balance betweenIndividuum and SocietyAlenka JovanovskiFaculty of Arts, Ljubljana, SloveniaLet me approach the subject of Kosovel’s “cons” poems from the perspectiveof the Aesthetics of Reception by considering a thesis which H. R. Jaußdevelops on the basis of Aristotel’s catharsis, St Augustine’s criticism ofself-enjoyment in his curiositas and Gorgias’ doctrine on the persuasive potentialof affects in speech-making (Jauß 1982: 92). The cathartic pleasureand the very essence of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experienceare thus defined as “the dialectical interplay of self-enjoyment through theenjoyment of what is other and makes the recipient an active participant inthe constitution of the imaginary, something which is denied him as long asaesthetic distance is understood according to traditional theory as one-directional,as a purely contemplative and disinterested relationship to an objectat a certain remove” (Jauß 1982: 92). The dialectical interplay has twopoles: self-enjoyment and the enjoyment of “what is other”. The relationshipbetween them thus ideally encompasses both a turning in on oneselfand out towards the other. Jauß, however, acknowledges the potential ofreduction of either of the two poles whenever “the state of suspension characteristicof the attitude of aesthetic pleasure becomes one-sided and eithera distance-less enjoyment of the object or sentimental self-enjoyment, thatcathartic experience thus runs risk of being used for ideological purposesor of becoming prefabricated consumption, thereby losing its genuinelycommunicative efficacy” (Jauß 1982: 92–93).I would like to add two things: first, the common denominator of thetwo poles of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experience alwaysderives some kind of realization through which one gains an insight as bothan individual and a social being. However, one does not merely understandoneself to a point of closure, but rather finds oneself continually in theprocess of self-understanding. This triggers a set of reactions: affirmation,negation, critical appreciation, to name the more obvious ones.Second: the two poles of the communicative efficacy of aesthetic experienceshould not be thought of as fixtures, synchronic or diachronic. In fact,throughout history they have undergone a number of variations. To give anexample: in the Middle Ages, the pole of ‘the other’ was structured as thedivine Thou, or rather, his representative, Jesus Christ, whereas in modernPrimerjalna književnost (Ljubljana) 28/2005, Special Issue225