/
Search results


Зверев А. С. В поисках живой середины // Вестник ПСТГУ. Серия V: Вопросы истории и теории христианского искусства. 2022. Вып. 46. С. 90-105. DOI: 10.15382/sturV202246.90-105
The article analyzes the main category of Zedlmayr's theoretical works "the middle" (Mitte). Zedlmayr is a classic of the Vienna School of Art Studies. The relevance of Zedlmayr's scientific views in the era of digitalization is due to his desire to understand the whole. For the first time this category is used in antiquity. The "middle" is an ontological and epistemological category denoting the integrity and relevance of a work of art. Sedelmaier understands a work of art as a living whole, residing here and now. A work of art for Zedlmayr is being, presence (dasein). According to Zedtlmayr, the "middle" is both the beginning, the middle (center), and the end (goal) of the work. The "middle" is exactly what makes the work acquire integrity, self, being, and individuality. The category "middle" describes the principle of the existence of the whole, implying the unity of the whole and the part. The middle expresses the structure and life of a work of art. It is also the main means of learning art. The middle also denotes the person himself and his connection with God.
Work of art, science of art, whole, middle, event, understanding, contemplation, system, Zedlmayr
  1. Bachmann-Medik D. (2017) Kul′turnye povoroty. Novye orientiry v naukakh o kul′ture. [Cultural turns. New reference points in cultural sciences]. Moscow (in Russian).
  2. Binstock B. (2004) Springtime For Sedlmayr? The Future of Nazi Art History, in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte (in English), 53–1, p. 73.
  3. Bibikhin V. (2000) Posleslovie k: Hans Zedl′mayr: iskusstvo i istina [Afterword to: Hans Zedlmayr. Art and Truth]. St. Petersburg (in Russian).
  4. Bibikhin V. (1998) “Hans Zedl′mayr: Iskusstvo videt′. Utrata serediny” [Hans Zedlmayr: the art of seeing. Loss of the middle], in New Renaissance. Moscow, pp. 59–126 (in Russian).
  5. Bohde D. (2012) Kunstgeschichte als physiognomische Wissenschaft. Kritik einer Denkfi gur der 1920er bis 1940er Jahre. Berlin.
  6. Dittmann L. (1967) Stil — Symbol — Struktur. Studien zur Kategorien der Kunstgeschichte. München.
  7. Gaidenko P. (2006) Vremшa. Dlitel′nost′. Vechnost′. Problema vremeni v evropeiskoi fi losofi i i nauke [Time. Duration. Eternity. The problem of time in European philosophy and Science]. Moscow (in Russian).
  8. Hegel G. V. F. (1970) Nauka logiki [The science of logic], vol. 1. Moscow (Russian translation).
  9. Hegel G. V. F. (2000) Fenomenologiшa dukha [Phenomenology of the spirit]. Moscow (Russian translation).
  10. Levy E. (2010) Sedlmayr and Schapiro Correspond. 1930–1935, in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, vol. LIX, pp. 235–263.
  11. Losev A. (1975) Istoriia antichnoi estetiki. Aristotel′ i pozdniaia klassika [History of Classical Ancient aesthetics. Aristotle and the Late Classics]. Moscow (in Russian).
  12. Luca Vargiu (2017) Hermeneutik und Kunstwissenschaft. Ein Dialog auf Distanz — Emilio Betti und Hans Sedlmayr. Berlin: Logos Verlag.
  13. Männig M. (2016) Hans Sedlmayrs Kunstgeschichte. Eine kritische Studie. Böhlau; Wien.
  14. Meulen J. van der (1951) Aristoteles. Die Mitte in seinem Denken. Hain: Meisenheim.
  15. Sedlmayr H. (1958) Kunst und Wahrheit: Zur Theorie und Methode der Kunstgeschichte. Hamburg.
  16. Sedlmayr G. (2000) Iskusstvo videt′. St. Petersburg (Russian translation).
  17. Vaneian S. (2004) Pustuiushchii tron. Kriticheskoe iskusstvoznaie Hansa Zedlmaira [An empty throne. Critical art studies by Hans Zedlmayr]. Moscow (in Russian).
  18. Verstegen I. (2016) “Obscene History. The Two Sedlmayrs”, in Austriaca, 24, pp. 79–93.
Zverev Alexandr
Place of work: Moscow State Linguistic University;
Post: Teacher;
ORCID: 0000-0002-5771-4608;
Email: al-zv@yandex.ru.