No presenta resumen

No description

“Phantasy and Aesthetic Consciousness: the Phenomenological Status of the Image”. This article aims to establish first a double distinction: on the one hand, between phantasy and image consciousness, on the other hand, between phantasy and aesthetic consciousness, both stemming from the works of Edmund Husserl. Both series of distinctions are connected by the special status that Husserl gave to the image, which is to be subject of explanation too. The article proposes three conclusions: that the so-called “aesthetic consciousness” is not the result of any Epoché; that the image experience intermingles phantasy and perception, and that this aesthetic consciousness (“imagination” in a wide sense) demands as its counter-pole a subject (the phantasy-Ego) who inhabits the irreality of the “as if”.

Despite of his desire for inscribing himself into a Modern (Romantic) poetic tradition, Luis Hernandez’ poetry reveals an inner tension as a result of fragmentation of postmodern subject. This essay studies the use of parody in Luis Hernandez’ poetry as a discursive strategy that plays a double dissemination: on the one hand, parody demystifies the standard conventions of his time about poetry and poetic language as a belle art and about the notion of author as the ultimate redoubt of signification. On the other hand, in Hernandez’ poetry, parody opens the field of meaning ISSN 0254-9239256 Lexis  Vol. XXXIII (2) 2009just for including intertextual and cultural features that dissolve, in poetic praxis, the division between high and mass culture.

Este artículo busca establecer en primer lugar una doble distinción: de un lado, entre fantasía y conciencia de imagen; y, por el otro, entre fantasía y conciencia estética, ambas a partir de los trabajos de Edmund Husserl. Las dos series de distinciones se encuentran ligadas una con otra por el especial estatuto fenomenológico que Husserl concede a la imagen, el cual debe ser también sometido a aclaración. El artículo propone tres conclusiones: que la así llamada “conciencia estética” no es resultado de ninguna epojé; que la experiencia de la imagen entremezcla percepción y fantasía; y que esta conciencia estética (“imaginación” en sentido amplio) exige como contrapolo a un sujeto (un yo-imaginario) que habita en la irrealidad del “como si”.

A pesar de su aspiración por inscribirse dentro de una tradición poética de ascendencia moderna (romántica), la poesía de Luis Hernández revela una tensión interna producto de la fragmentación del sujeto posmoderno. El presente ensayo analiza el empleo de la parodia en la poesía de Luis Hernández como una estrategia discursiva que ejecuta un doble juego diseminador: por un lado, desmitifica las convenciones vigentes en su época acerca de la poesía (y la palabra) como un arte sublime y acerca del autor como reducto último del significado; y, por otro lado, abre el campo de sentido para incorporar referentes culturales e intertextuales que disuelven, en la praxis poética, la división entre alta cultura y cultura de masas.

Despite of his desire for inscribing himself into a Modern (Romantic) poetic tradition, Luis Hernandez’ poetry reveals an inner tension as a result of fragmentation of postmodern subject. This essay studies the use of parody in Luis Hernandez’ poetry as a discursive strategy that plays a double dissemination: on the one hand, parody demystifies the standard conventions of his time about poetry and poetic language as a belle art and about the notion of author as the ultimate redoubt of signification. On the other hand, in Hernandez’ poetry, parody opens the field of meaning ISSN 0254-9239256 Lexis  Vol. XXXIII (2) 2009just for including intertextual and cultural features that dissolve, in poetic praxis, the division between high and mass culture.

No description

“Phantasy and Aesthetic Consciousness: the Phenomenological Status of the Image”. This article aims to establish first a double distinction: on the one hand, between phantasy and image consciousness, on the other hand, between phantasy and aesthetic consciousness, both stemming from the works of Edmund Husserl. Both series of distinctions are connected by the special status that Husserl gave to the image, which is to be subject of explanation too. The article proposes three conclusions: that the so-called “aesthetic consciousness” is not the result of any Epoché; that the image experience intermingles phantasy and perception, and that this aesthetic consciousness (“imagination” in a wide sense) demands as its counter-pole a subject (the phantasy-Ego) who inhabits the irreality of the “as if”.