…de van benne rendszer. Tanulmányok az Eötvös Collegium 15 éves Filozófia Műhelyének tiszteletére. Budapest, Eötvös Collegium, Filozófia Műhely, szerk. Takó Ferenc, Tóth Olivér István, 2012, 185-206. , 2012
olvasata mint a művészetfilozófia születésének pillanata "…a valóságbeli szép mármint, hiszen az ... more olvasata mint a művészetfilozófia születésének pillanata "…a valóságbeli szép mármint, hiszen az eszményi szépnek magába kell olvasztania a fenségest is." 1 Sokunk számára az esztétika kifejezés a művészetfilozófia kifejezés szinonimájaként funkcionál. Ha tisztában vagyunk is azzal, hogy az esztétika tárgyaként lényegében minden terület felléphet, melyen megjelenhetnek esztétikai minőségek, gondolataink újra és újra ahhoz a kérdéskörhöz szaladnak előre, hogy egy adott tárgy, melyet műalkotásként észlelünk, miért és milyen feltételek teljesülésével észlelhető, tapasztalható szépként. Tanulmányomban a művészetfilozófia német kultúrkörben való Geburtsstundéjére szándékozom visszatekinteni.
Uploads
Papers by Zsellér Anna
Közel négyszáz oldalon keresztül szól hozzánk Walther von der Vogelweide, a német Minnesang egyik legfontosabb, sokak szerint már saját korában legtöbbet idézett, később másolt dalköltője, dalnoka: magyarul. Ez a könyvmegjelenés költészettörténeti szenzáció, ezért nem kis szorongást okozó felelősség hozzászólni az új Walther-kötethez.
The language of Rilke’s last poems comprises one of the most impenetrable poetic languages around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, because this language absorbs all lyrical achievements of the preceding decades of Rilke’s career. In the 20th century Rilke was seen as the poet of the Duino Elegies and The Sonnets to Orpheus; therefore, research on his work had ignored the fact for a long time that Rilke’s writing during his years in Switzerland was a bilingual lyrical production.
The experimental nature of his lyrical attempts in French has many parallels with an open, poetologic text of his later years, Ur-Geräusch. Rilke – contrary to previous research – never did renounce abstraction in the avant-garde totally. In this article I will argue that his experimental “poetics of the invisible” is related to Paul Klee’s pictorial and graphic forms of expression, and that this poetics determines the apparently naive and mimetic non-cyclical poems both in German and in French.
Talks by Zsellér Anna
Prospects and Shortcomings of Benjamin’s Reception in Hungary before 1989
Károly Tóth; Anna Zsellér
The first Hungarian volume of Benjamin’s selected works, 'Kommentár és prófécia' (Commentary and Prophecy, 1969) was prepared in the midst of tragic circumstances and under the initiation of György Lukács. The Budapest School became known to the international audience a few years later—and after Lukács’ death—, but only after the heyday of collaboration between its closest members (Ágnes Heller, István Hermann, György Márkus et al.) had already subsided under the dictatorial conditions of the early Kádár era. The most important members of Lukács’ inner circle had emigrated and became acquainted with new languages and traditions of philosophy far from their country of origin. However, the half-finished project they left behind, namely the “Renaissance of Marxism” did not remain without continuation.
The two most important works or philosophical projections that engaged in a productive dialogue with Benjamin’s writings on the philosophy of art in Hungary before 1989 are Lukács’ 'Eigenart des Ästhetischen' (The Specificity of the Aesthetic, 1963) and Sándor Radnóti’s editorial work of Benjamin’s writings 'Angelus novus', 1980), (accompanied by his monograph 'Krédó és rezignáció – Esztétikai-politikai tanulmány Walter Benjaminról' (Creed and Resignation – An Aesthetico-Political Study on Walter Benjamin, 1974).
From April to June 2022, we conducted five interviews, one epistolary interview and engaged in correspondence with members of the Budapest School (Mihály Vajda, Sándor Radnóti), Benjamin’s translators (Márton László, Péter Pór), and philosophers (János Weiss, Bálint Somlyó, Ádám Tábor). In preparation for these conversations, we mapped the most important events in the history of ideas, philosophy, politics, and philology of the Hungarian reception of Benjamin between 1956 and 1989.
In this paper we would like to provide a historico-philological contextualization of the results of our interviews, but not without quoting them extensively. Why was Kommentár és prófécia corrupted in a stunning way, even by the standards of the distorted structure of publicity characteristic of the Kádár era? Why could the theoretically impeccable preface by Radnóti not appear in the extensive anthology edited by him? How did this collection contribute to the birth of a new kind of philosophical reading later?
As the thesis of our contextualizing history of reception—formulated as the result of discussions on the various approaches and memories of Benjamin’s first decades in Hungary—, we claim that the distancing of Lukács’ pupils from the authoritative greatness of their master was not only made possible by the reception of Benjamin’s œuvre, but also catalyzed in a multi-layered and effective way.
Közel négyszáz oldalon keresztül szól hozzánk Walther von der Vogelweide, a német Minnesang egyik legfontosabb, sokak szerint már saját korában legtöbbet idézett, később másolt dalköltője, dalnoka: magyarul. Ez a könyvmegjelenés költészettörténeti szenzáció, ezért nem kis szorongást okozó felelősség hozzászólni az új Walther-kötethez.
The language of Rilke’s last poems comprises one of the most impenetrable poetic languages around the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, because this language absorbs all lyrical achievements of the preceding decades of Rilke’s career. In the 20th century Rilke was seen as the poet of the Duino Elegies and The Sonnets to Orpheus; therefore, research on his work had ignored the fact for a long time that Rilke’s writing during his years in Switzerland was a bilingual lyrical production.
The experimental nature of his lyrical attempts in French has many parallels with an open, poetologic text of his later years, Ur-Geräusch. Rilke – contrary to previous research – never did renounce abstraction in the avant-garde totally. In this article I will argue that his experimental “poetics of the invisible” is related to Paul Klee’s pictorial and graphic forms of expression, and that this poetics determines the apparently naive and mimetic non-cyclical poems both in German and in French.
Prospects and Shortcomings of Benjamin’s Reception in Hungary before 1989
Károly Tóth; Anna Zsellér
The first Hungarian volume of Benjamin’s selected works, 'Kommentár és prófécia' (Commentary and Prophecy, 1969) was prepared in the midst of tragic circumstances and under the initiation of György Lukács. The Budapest School became known to the international audience a few years later—and after Lukács’ death—, but only after the heyday of collaboration between its closest members (Ágnes Heller, István Hermann, György Márkus et al.) had already subsided under the dictatorial conditions of the early Kádár era. The most important members of Lukács’ inner circle had emigrated and became acquainted with new languages and traditions of philosophy far from their country of origin. However, the half-finished project they left behind, namely the “Renaissance of Marxism” did not remain without continuation.
The two most important works or philosophical projections that engaged in a productive dialogue with Benjamin’s writings on the philosophy of art in Hungary before 1989 are Lukács’ 'Eigenart des Ästhetischen' (The Specificity of the Aesthetic, 1963) and Sándor Radnóti’s editorial work of Benjamin’s writings 'Angelus novus', 1980), (accompanied by his monograph 'Krédó és rezignáció – Esztétikai-politikai tanulmány Walter Benjaminról' (Creed and Resignation – An Aesthetico-Political Study on Walter Benjamin, 1974).
From April to June 2022, we conducted five interviews, one epistolary interview and engaged in correspondence with members of the Budapest School (Mihály Vajda, Sándor Radnóti), Benjamin’s translators (Márton László, Péter Pór), and philosophers (János Weiss, Bálint Somlyó, Ádám Tábor). In preparation for these conversations, we mapped the most important events in the history of ideas, philosophy, politics, and philology of the Hungarian reception of Benjamin between 1956 and 1989.
In this paper we would like to provide a historico-philological contextualization of the results of our interviews, but not without quoting them extensively. Why was Kommentár és prófécia corrupted in a stunning way, even by the standards of the distorted structure of publicity characteristic of the Kádár era? Why could the theoretically impeccable preface by Radnóti not appear in the extensive anthology edited by him? How did this collection contribute to the birth of a new kind of philosophical reading later?
As the thesis of our contextualizing history of reception—formulated as the result of discussions on the various approaches and memories of Benjamin’s first decades in Hungary—, we claim that the distancing of Lukács’ pupils from the authoritative greatness of their master was not only made possible by the reception of Benjamin’s œuvre, but also catalyzed in a multi-layered and effective way.