Nataliya Tatarenko

Nataliya Tatarenko, Research Fellow at the Department of Western Philosophy

Year and Place of Birth

Born April 29, 1985 in Grozny, Russian Soviet Federative Republic (RSFSR)

Education

• Graduated from  State Academic University for the Humaniities, Faculty of Philosophy, 2003–2008. 
• Doctorate Study at the Institute of Philosopy, Russian Academy of Sciences, 2008–2011.

Academic Degrees

• Candidate of Sciences (PhD equivalent degree), 2013. Doctorate Thesis: «Hegel’s "End of Art" Thesis and Its Interpretation in Contemporary Philosophy» (Institute of Philosopy, Russian Academy of Sciences).

Field of Studies

• German Idealism;
• Hegel's Philosophy of Art; 
• Aesthetics.

Publications

PAPERS

• Concepts of Art and the Ideal in Hegel’s Aesthetics in Light of New Sources // History of Philosophy. Vol. 22. No 1. Pages 27-37. (in Russian) – DOI: 10.21146/2074-5869-2017-22-1-27-3
  

This paper analyzes two key concepts of Hegel’s aesthetics: the concept of art and the concept of the ideal, or the idea of beauty. A distinctive feature of this text is the primary sources chosen for the analysis. This is one of the first attempts in the Russian history of philosophy to examine Hegel’s idea about art and its purpose, as well as his concept of the ideal in the art, based on Hegel’s lectures on aesthetics recently published in Germany. The student notes of the lectures he read in 1823 and 1826 in Berlin expand our understanding of his philosophy of art. In addition, the author gives a brief history of publication of Hegel’s lectures on aesthetics and describes the challenges faced by contemporary researchers of Hegel’s philosophy.

• End of Art in Philosophy of Hegel: Meaning and Interpretation // Philosophical anthropology. Vol. 3. No 2. 2017. Pages 265–282. (in Russian) – DOI: 10.21146/2414-3715-2017-3-2-265-28

Did Hegel really say in his lectures in Berlin that art has completed its development, that it was a matter of the past and would not be the object of our interest in the future anymore? Or are we dealing with a kind of misreading of Hegel’s aesthetics? Hegel’s aesthetics and so-called the “end-of-art” thesis are of great interest among the researchers of Hegel’s works, as well as among contemporary artists. The fact that nowadays art sometimes pushes the viewer to the questions about the role of art in the contemporary world and distinction art from non-art, drives up this interest. The ambiguous development of artistic forms and the appearance of new types of artistic activity lead us to look for new criteria to determine what exactly may be called a work of art now. Nevertheless, the question of whether Hegel spoke about the “end” of art or he was misunderstood by the researchers, remains open. Taking into account the development of contemporary art, this issue is now of key importance. Along with many interpretations of the basic concepts and problems of Hegel’s aesthetics, there are two opposed opinions on how to interpret the Hegelian idea of the “end” of art. The first is that Hegel did not fully understand the development of art and made the erroneous conclusion that art came to its “end”. Another position, for example, by the American philosopher and critic Arthur Danto, proclaims Hegel a kind of predictor of the development of art in the twentieth century. After all, the classical art that was familiar to Hegel belongs rather to the history of art, than is an ideal for contemporary artists. This is undoubtedly a necessary part of art history, but it doesn’t hold a real place in the artistic process. Such a point of view deserves an interest of some researchers. Hegel, in fact, was one of the first philosophers who drew attention to the problem of the correlation of contemporary art and art of past days. This is his undeniable advantage and the relevance of his aesthetic views for researchers today. Of course, it sounds strange to assume that Hegel could predict the line of the art’s development, but he has caught the following general trend: the number and variety of subjects touched on by artists, writers, musicians are gradually expanding and diversifying. Step by step, sensual form of the work of art changes next to the transformation of the content. Technical progress and social development also make their contribution into the history of the art’s development. Hegel was ahead of his contemporaries, turning his attention not only to the classical art of the Ancient Greece and regretting the loss of the ideal, but also looking to the future, appreciating contemporary art. To analyze this problem, the author relies on such Hegelian texts as “Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences”, “Phenomenology of Spirit”, “Lectures on Aesthetics”, published under the editorship of H.G. Hotho, as well as auditor’s transcripts of the 1823 and the 1826 lecture series. In the course of historical and philosophical reconstruction, the author comes to the conclusion that the meaning of the “end-of-art” thesis, considered within the Hegelian philosophical system is to change the social and cultural role of art. The art does not come to its end at any particular stage of development, but just acquires new features and functions in accordance with the development of society.

• Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics: Source Study // Europa: International Almanac. Tyumen, Tyumen State University, 2014. P. 72–82. (in Russian)

• Hegel's Lectures on Aesthetics: the Problem of Primary Sources and the Sense of "End-of-Art" Thesis // History of Philosophy Yearbook 2012. Moscow: Kanon Plus Publ., 2012. P. 150–168. (in Russian)

Summary: The article analyses two important problems of Hegel's aesthetics, namely, the problem of primary sources and the sense of Hegel's "end of art thesis". The author shows in detail the situation with primary and secondary sources of Hegel's lectures on aesthetics, gives up to date information about contemporary western investigations in the area of textological issues. Additionally, the article rises the problem of the sence of Hegel's "end of art" thesis and represents the position of German philosopher Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert that suggests, according to the author, one of the most crucial and influential understanding of Hegel’s thesis.

• Tuschling, Burkhard. Encyclopedic Phenomenology of Spirit of 1817, 1827 and 1830 – Deficient Versions of Great Phenomenology of Spirit 1807 or Integral Part of New conception of Philosophy of Spirit? // Phenomenology of Spirit in Context of Modern Hegelian Studies. Moscow, Kanon Plus Publ., 2010.

Participation at conferences

• «Mikhail Lifschitz and Mikhail Ovsyannikov: Reception of Hegel's Aesthetics in Russia», – 32nd International Hegel Congress of the International Hegel-Society "Encyclopaedic System and Its Legacy", University of Tampere, Finland, 05.06–08.06.2018, https://www.uta.fi/yky/en/hegelcongress2018/home.html
  
• «Problem of Ideal in Hegel's Aesthetics, – Days of Science of Faculty of Philosophy at Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine, 2008.

• Web of Science Researcher ID:  J-3337-2018

• e-mail: nataliya.koreneva@gmail.com