logo
year 8, Issue 29 (12-2024)                   Parseh J Archaeol Stud 2024, 8(29): 411-433 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Ghanooni M, Marasy M, Farahmand Borujeni H. (2024). The Idea of Inter Subjectivity: The Solution to the Dispute Over the Interaction of Object and Subject in the Restoration of Paintings. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 8(29), 411-433. doi:10.22034/PJAS.8.29.411
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-890-en.html
1- PhD student in Art Research, Art Research Department, Faculty of Art, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
2- Assistant Professor, Art Research Department, Faculty of Art, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran (Corresponding Author) , marasy@shahed.ac.ir
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Conservation and Restoration, Faculty of Conservation and Restoration, Isfahan University of Art, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract:   (1197 Views)
Abstract
Based on their claim to understand artworks and the change in the nature of restorers and art audiences, the subjective and objective approaches have tried to establish themselves in different periods in history. However, each had defects in its context which affected some aspects of an artwork in the process of restoration. Based on this, this study attempts to examine three different periods of restoration of paintings using theoretical basic research, library data and samples of restored artworks. To achieve this goal, in three different readings, the theory of classical conservation, the theory of scientific conservation in the first half of the 20th century, and finally the contemporary theory of conservation in the late 20th century and early 21th century are discussed. Based on this, an approach to the dispute over the opposition between subjective and objective approaches and a common understanding between the subjects in the idea of inter subjectivity is sought. The main goal of this study is to examine and present the idea of inter subjectivity to solve the problem of the defects of the two aforementioned approaches. In conclusion, using the views of Habermas, this study aims to explain the idea of inter subjectivity and propose the need of the surrounding social world and the shared world of subjects in a given format.
Keywords: Painting Restoration, Subjectivism, Objectivism, Intersubjectivity, Habermas.

Introduction
The intellectual and philosophical foundation of each age guides and determines the updated cultural, social and artistic orientations in human civilizations. One of the most important structural differences in the orientations of the world’s philosophers and thinkers is viewing categories from the two objective and subjective perspectives. The worlds of subject and object are two opposite categories among philosophical thoughts as they have offered ways to understand and discover the surrounding world from the two perspectives of objectivity and subjectivity. Based on this and considering these inherent philosophical differences, readings of related categories can be offered. One of these categories is discussing conservation and restoration of historical artworks, which has always been the subject of serious disputes in this field. The aforementioned dichotomy in the different periods of human’s philosophical understanding of the world since the 18th century is a dispute which has fundamentally affected the technical and historical structures and the aesthetic nature related to the field of restoration of historical artworks especially paintings. In fact, this is the basis of the present study; Readings of the two dimensions of objectivism and subjectivism in the historical context of previous centuries which led to different readings of the process of restoration of paintings. In the first reading, the serious effects of the subjective view of restoration as something beautiful and hedonistic is discussed. In this reading, the basis of interpretation of an artwork and its restoration is an aesthetic view and from a subjective and extreme perspective. This led to vast changes and interventions in paintings which in turn led to the formation of anti-restoration and anti-conservation movements.
In the second reading and from the late 20th century, a new approach in this field was proposed by gaining a new understanding of the surrounding world and a positivist view based on respecting the material forming the artwork. Supporters of science and defenders of the conservation science were seeking a view toward artistic and historical artworks which downgraded the artwork to an object which could be examined and had tangible and objective qualities. This view did not believe in any subjective interpretation based on the restorer’s subject and allowed any interventions in the artwork if it was based on objective inference and scientific data. This very approach i.e. downgrading the artwork to a tangible and objective object led to lack of concentration on issues which were considered inherently subjective and somehow interpretive. Here, aesthetic, conceptual and spiritual issues were always in opposition to the artwork material, time and history and doomed to be ignored. At this point, considering the distinctions of contemporary man and the changes of the world, it seems necessary to deal with an intermediate space which is far from the biases of the two extreme objective and subjective views. In fact, to find an approach and solve the contradictions between the objective and subjective approaches, the third reading of this study seeks a solution which is based on the social world. In this space which is proposed as the idea of inter subjectivity, the inherent duty of historical artworks is to convey and commemorate their meanings. Here, considering the idea of Habermas, an inter subjective approach to solve the problem of the restoration of paintings is proposed.

The first reading: subjectivism and restoration
What is specifically discussed here is the interpretation of subjectivism in the process of restoration and subjective perceptions in the process of restoring paintings. Since, before the 20th century, still there weren’t concepts such as conservation, in the specific sense of the word, and no specific foundations for this concept cannot be imagined, in fact, it was personal and “subjective” perceptions which were used as the basis of restoration. In other words, the process of restoration is less dependent on the object material and more focused on the interpretation and perception of “restorer-artist”. “Aesthetic restoration” or “artistic restoration” have always been redefined in opposition to “scientific restoration” in the 2oth century. The use of adjectives “aesthetic”, “artistic” and other such words for restoration in fact confirms attention to its subjective aspect as in them, perceptual and emotional criteria prevail over the process of objective examinations in which, based on the object, the main nature of the forming materials or the date it was created are considered important. Among the many restorations carried out in the centuries leading to the 20th century, many cases of focus on the subjective view can be found.

Second reading, objectivity, conservation and science
In this view, due to being goal-oriented, the process considered any interventions in the artwork justifiable as the final mission was perfect adornment, beauty and providing pleasure. Also, at the heart of the idealist thoughts of the 19th century, in the views of people such as “viollet-le-Duc”, restoration was defined in a way that it did not even exist in its initial and original state and the restorer as a skilled artist removed the foundation of a historical artwork. In order to better understand the events of the second half of the 19th century which led to the improvement of the relationship between science and conservation, it is necessary to examine its underlying concepts and theories. Since the 19th century, Western society had practically entered a space in which scientific approaches and science development were considered a basis for acceptance and development. In fact, it was “positivism” which was formed based on the views of the French thinker “Auguste Comte” in the 19th century and became prevalent in the 20th century. In fact, it was this continuation of the scientific approach from the middle of the 19th century which spread to the restoration world and totally changed the world in front of it.

Third reading
Habermas emphasizes that the subject-object relationship is definable in an intermediate space and that is the issue of the presence of the other subject. In fact, it is this “other experience” or other subject experience which along with other subjects provides a shared world to understand objects (ibid. 2012: 36). The aggregation of these subjects leads to social experience and provides correct relationships to understand and achieve knowledge.

Conclusion
In three separate readings, this study discusses the examination of the effects of each of these objective and subjective approaches and the extent to which restorers are influenced by their intellectual foundations. In the first reading, the effects of the subjective approach on forming concepts of painting restoration have been discussed. In this section, the claim was examined that the effects of subject in the ages before the 20th century led to the creation of a concept which considered the artwork in the form of a beautiful object and from the perspective of hedonistic and aesthetic thoughts. Here any interventions or changes to achieve the aesthetic integrity of the artwork and putting the artwork in a perfect and ideal situation is acceptable and applicable. In the late 19th century, with the predominance of positivist thoughts based on the application of different sciences in human life, the world faced an approach which was materialistic and based on mere attention to the object. The objectivism used in the scientific conservation has sought to justify any scientific studies and the application of different sciences in the process of recognition and restoration of paintings. The approach based on objectivity and focusing on the inherent qualities of objects focused attention on the artwork material and did not allow any intervention or change in the artwork material. Perhaps the most important defect of the positivist approach in scientific conservation was inattention to the position of subject. In cases where the artwork required subjective analysis such as aesthetic judgment, the theory of scientific conservation either did not have an answer to it or did not pay attention to it. It was this defect which, in the decades leading to the late 20th century, directed the theory of contemporary conservation toward an approach to solve the problem of subject and object in the process of restoring historical artworks and consequently restoring paintings. The idea of inter subjectivity which was referred to in this study is in fact an approach which tries to solve the dispute over the opposition between subject and object and the constructive interaction of subjects in restoration. This idea, by raising the idea of Habermas’ triangle, points to the fact that based on the shared world of subjects, a social world can be found based on the conservation of shared meanings of humans. This idea will cover the defect of ignorance of materialistic thoughts of conservation to a great extent and tries to retrieve the needs of different societies in an interactive context among commonalities and meanings of subjects. 
Full-Text [PDF 2141 kb]   (171 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Interdisciplinary
Received: 2023/07/31 | Accepted: 2023/11/10 | Published: 2024/12/21

References
1. - ادیب‌سلطانی، شمس‌الدین، (1359). رسالۀ وین: بازنمود و سنجش مکتب فلسفی تحصل‌گروی منطقی یا آروین‌گروی منطقی حلقۀ وین. تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و آموزش‌عالی، بنیاد فرهنگ و هنر ایران، مرکز ایرانی مطالعۀ فرهنگ‌ها.
2. - اسمخانی، محمدرضا، (1398). «دیویدسن، هابرماس، و ایدۀ اینترسوبژکتیویته». نشریۀ حکمت و فلسفه، 57: 33-60. https://doi.org/10.22054/wph.2019.34459.1601
3. - اندیشه، علی، (1387)، «از علم برای علم تا دین برای دین. پوزیتیویسم چه می‌گوید». کتاب ماه علوم اجتماعی، 7: 109-114.
4. - ایرانی‌صفت، زهرا، (1388). فلسفه هنر، زیبایی‌شناسی و نقد هنری. تهران: مهر سبحان.
5. - باتامور، تام، (1375). مکتب فرانکفورت. ترجمۀ حسینعلی نوذری، تهران: نشر مرکز.
6. - بشریه، حسین، (1378). تاریخ اندیشه‌های سیاسی در قرن بیستم: اندیشه‌های مارکسیستی. (جلد اول)، تهران: نشر نی.
7. - پاکباز، رویین، (1389). در جستجوی زبان نو. تهران: نشر نگاه.
8. - پیوزی، مایکل، (1384). یورگن هابرماس. ترجمۀ احمد تدین، تهران: نشر هرمس.
9. - حسینی‌شاهرودی، سید مرتضی، (1382). «معرفی و نقد پوزیتیویسم منطقی». الهیات و حقوق، 7: 127-174.
10. - دابلیو، د.، (1384). «کانت در گات». دانشنامۀ زیبایی‌شناسی، تهران: فرهنگستان هنر: 41-49.
11. - زینگویل، نیک، (1395). داوری زیباشناختی، دانشنامه فلسفه استنفورد. ترجمۀ محمدرضا ابوالقاسمی، تهران: نشر ققنوس.
12. - سیف‌زاده، سیدحسین، (1388). مدرنیته و نظریات علم سیاست. تهران: نشر مرکز.
13. - فولیکه، پل، (1394). کتاب فلسفه عمومی یا ما بعد الطبیعه. بخش تمهیدی: مبحث انتقاد شناسایی. ترجمۀ یحیی مهدوی، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
14. - قانونی، محسن؛ حسینی، مهدی؛ و فرهمندبروجنی، حمید، (1391). زیباشناخت مرمت نقاشی. تهران: گلدسته.
15. - نظری، علی‌اشرف؛ عطارزاده، بهزاد، (1391). «شناخت بیناذهنیت و کنش ارتباطی ساخت اجتماعی اندیشۀ هابرماس». دانش سیاسی و بین‌الملل، 1: 33-46.
16. - ویناس، سالوادور مینوس، (1389). نگره نگاه‌داشت معاصر. ترجمۀ فرهنگ مظفر، فاطمه مهدی‌زاده و حمید فرهمند بروجنی، اصفهان: گلدسته و دانشگاه هنر اصفهان.
17. - یوکیلهتو، یوکا، (1387). تاریخ حفاظت معماری. ترجمۀ محمدحسن طالبیان و خشایار بهاری، تهران: روزنه.
18. - پدرام، بهنام؛ و هوشیاری، مهدی، (11396). بیانیه‌ها و منشورهای ایکوموس، شورای بین‌المللی یادمان‌ها و محوطه‌ها. اصفهان: گلدسته.
19. - مهریار، سعید؛ و رازانی، مهدی، (1393). «نقدی بر روش‌های حفاظت و مرمت تزئینات در مسجد مظفریۀ تبریز». برگزیده‌ی مقالات اولین و دومین همایش ملی کاربرد تحلیل‌های علمی در باستان‌سنجی و مرمت میراث فرهنگی، به‌کوشش: مهدی رازانی و بهرام آجورلو، تبریز: دانشگاه هنر اسلامی تبریز، 25 و 26 اردیبهشت 1391-1392: 285-307.
20. - نوری‌نژاد، سمیه، (1393)، «بت گوران: معبد هندوها در بندرعباس». جلوه هنر، 6 (2): 19-32. https://doi.org/10.22051/jjh.2014.52
22. - Adib Soltani, S., (1980). The Vienna Treatise: Representation and critique of the philosophical school of logical positivism or logical empiricism of the Vienna Circle. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, Iranian Center for Cultural Studies. (in Persian)
23. - Andisheh, A., (2008). “From science for science to religion for religion: What does positivism say?”. Ketab-e-Mah-e Oloum-e Ejtemai, 7: 109–114. (in Persian)
24. - Asmakhani, M., (2019). “Davidson, Habermas, and the idea of intersubjectivity”. Hekmat va Falsafeh Journal, 57: 33–60. (in Persian)
25. - Bashirieh, H., (1999). The history of political thought in the 20th century: Marxist thought (Vol. 1). Tehran: Ney Publication. (in Persian)
26. - Bomford, D., (2003). The Conservator as Narrator: Changed Perspectives in the Conservation of Paintings, Personal Viewpoints: Thoughts about Painting Conservation. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute: 1-12.
27. - Bottomore, T., (1996). The Frankfurt School (H. Nozari, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz Publication. (in Persian)
28. - Conti, A., (2007). History of the Restoration and Conservation of Works of Art. H. Glanville, Trans., london: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080488936
29. - Croce, B., (1909). Linguistic Aesthetic as Science of Expression and General. Italy: blackmask online.
30. - Crossley, N., (1996). Intersubjectivity: The Fabric of Social Becoming. United Kingdom: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446250532
31. - Ddabliv, W., (2005). Kant in Goth: Encyclopedia of aesthetics. Tehran: Academy of Arts, 41–49. (in Persian)
32. - Davidson, D., (2001). Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198237537.001.0001
33. - Davidson, D., (2005). Truth, Language and History: Philosophical Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/019823757X.001.0001
34. - Esmkhani, M., (2019). “Davidson, Habermas, and the Idea of Intersubjectivity”. Wisdom and Philosophy, 15(57): 33-60. https://doi.org/10.22054/wph.2019.34459.1601.
35. - Foulke, P., (2015). General philosophy or metaphysics: Introductory section on the critique of recognition. Y. Mahdavi, Trans., Tehran: University of Tehran. (in Persian)
36. - Ghanooni, M., Hosseini, M. & Farahmand Boroujeni, H. (2012). The aesthetics of painting restoration. Tehran: Goldasteh Publication. (in Persian)
37. - Hoeniger, C., (1999). “The Restoration of the Early Italian “Primitives” During the 20th Century: Valuing Art and its Consequences”. Journal of the American institute for conservation, 38 (2): 144-161. https://doi.org/10.1179/019713699806113457
38. - Hosseini Shahroudi, S. M. (2003). “Introduction and critique of logical positivism”. Theology and Law Journal, 7: 127–174. (in Persian)
39. - Irani-Sefat, Z., (2009). Philosophy of art, aesthetics, and art criticism. Tehran: Mehr Sobhan. (in Persian)
40. - Jokilehto, J., (2008). A history of architectural conservation. M. T. Talebian & K. Bahari, Trans., Tehran: Rozaneh Publication. (in Persian)
41. - Mehriyar, S. & Razani, M., (2014). “A critique of preservation and restoration methods for the decorations in Mozaffarieh Mosque, Tabriz”. Selected papers from the first and second national conferences on the application of scientific analyses in archaeology and heritage restoration (M. Razani & B. Ajorloo, Eds.), Tabriz: Islamic Art University of Tabriz (May 15–16, 2012): 285–307. (in Persian)
42. - Muñoz Viñas, S., (2010). Contemporary conservation theory. F. Mozaffar, F. Mahdizadeh, & H. Farahmand Boroujeni, Trans., Isfahan: Goldasteh and Isfahan University of Art. (in Persian)
43. - Nazari, A. A. & Attarzadeh, B., (2012). “Understanding intersubjectivity and communicative action: The social structure of Habermas's thought”. Political and International Studies Journal, 1: 33–46. (in Persian)
44. - Noorinejad, S., (2014). “Bet Gorun: The Hindu temple in Bandar Abbas”. Jelveh Honar Journal, 6(2): 19–32. (in Persian) https://doi.org/10.22051/jjh.2014.52
45. - Orvell, M., (1991). “The Real Thing: Imitation and Authenticity in American Culture, 1880–1940”. The American Historical Review, 96(2): 615-616. https://doi.org/10.2307/2163422
46. - Pakbaz, R., (2010). In search of a new language. Tehran: Negaah Publication. (in Persian)
47. - Pedram, B. & Houshyari, M., (2017). ICOMOS declarations and charters: International Council on Monuments and Sites. Isfahan: Goldasteh Publication. (in Persian)
48. - Peuzzi, M., (2005). Jürgen Habermas. A. Tadayon, Trans., Tehran: Hermes Publication. (in Persian)
49. - Saifzadeh, S. H., (2009). Modernity and political science theories. Tehran: Markaz Publication. (in Persian)
50. - Scott, D. A., (2015). “Conservation and Authenticity: Interactions and Enquiries”. Studies in Conservation, 291-305. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047058414Y.0000000159
51. - Seifzadeh, S. H., (2008). Modernity & Modern Political Theories. Tehran: Markaz Publication.
52. - Soltani, A., (1980). Wiener abhan dlung; Tractatus vindobonesis. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, Iran Culture and Art Foundation, Iranian Center for the Study of Cultures. ‬‬‬
53. - Starn, R., (2002). Three Ages of "Patina" in Painting. (Vol. 78), California: California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/rep.2002.78.1.86
54. - Viñas, S. M., (2020). On the Ethics of Cultural Heritage Conservation. Archetype Publications.
55. - W., D., (2005). Kant In Ghat: Encyclopedia of Aesthetics. Tehran: Art Academy.
56. - Zingwell, N., (2016). Aesthetic judgment: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. M. Aboulghasemi, Trans., Tehran: Qoqnoos Publication. (in Persian)

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.