The article discusses Paweł Polit’s book on the philosophy and painterly oeuvre of S. I. Witkiewicz that relates both areas of Witkiewicz’s work based on his idea of “unity of personality.” Exploring Witkacy’s theory, also contained in his literary works, Polit confronts it with the philosophical sources of his thought, as well as with Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology and Deleuze’s and Derrida’s reflections on painting that bring to the fore its corporeal, haptic dimension. The idea of the “unity of personality” is, according (...) to Polit, a keystone of Witkacy’s thought, giving coherence to his aesthetic reflection, despite of its changes. Subjected to an appropriate interpretation, i.e. connected with the theory of the unconscious background of experiences, inseparable from the psychophysical identity of an individual, the idea of “unity of personality” becomes also the interpretative key to Witkacy’s painting. The author draws attention to the originality of Polit’s approach to Witkiewicz which situates itself within a broader contemporary discussion on the relationships between art and philosophy, painting and writing. She juxtaposes Witkacy’s case discussed by Polit with other examples of artists in whose oeuvre writing and visual work illuminate each other and intertwine. (shrink)

This two‐part article examines the very limited engagement by philosophers with museums, and proposes analysis under six headings: cultural variety, taxonomy, and epistemology in Part I, and teleology, ethics, and therapeutics and aesthetics in Part II. The article establishes that fundamental categories of museums established in the 19th century – of art, of anthropology, of history, of natural history, of science and technology – still persist. Among them, it distinguishes between hegemonic (predominantly Western) and subaltern (minority or Indigenous) museums worldwide. (...) It argues that relations between hegemonic and subaltern museums are often agonistic, and are compromised by claims of universalism on the part of proponents of the former. The article observes that most discussion of museums focuses exclusively and misleadingly on their public exhibition function, and contends that scholarship – not exhibition – is central to all museums. However, that predominantly taxonomic scholarship, while innovative and central to a dominant epistemology based on the observation of tangible things in the 19th century, was compromised by the epistemic shift to abstraction and experimentation in the 20th, which resulted in a loss of initiative and authority. Although epistemological changes currently in progress favor a renewed attention to tangible things as complex matrices to which museums ought to contribute significantly, the fundamental taxonomy of museums by collection type is a clog on the ability of museum scholars to engage with and themselves produce big ideas. In order to function well as sites of scholarship in the future, museums will have to be far more adaptable and attentive to a wider range of things and ideas (including Indigenous ideas incompatible with Western assumptions) than their existing collection divisions permit. (shrink)

I begin with the hypothesis that Jacques Derrida's Memoirs of the Blind: The Self-Portrait and Other Ruins is in a way the illustration of Speech and Phenomena and therefore Derrida's critique of phenomenology, intuition, perception, and seeing. I also want to show in this regard parallels with both Husserl and Kant. I emphasize that what is at issue in Memoirs of the Blind is art, visual arts; and in the great thematic richness of this text, I note the high points (...) as well as the low points concerning the arts of the "visible." The fundamental question is: Does Derrida "see" the drawing, the painting, and indeed listen to the music? (shrink)