I chose to examine the photo series Self-portrait from the artist Teemu Mki for this essay for

several reasons. First of all, in this ork the content is more important than aesthetic aspects, also the series is social-critical, an! thir!, the artist"s aim is to present relativist thou#hts of in!ivi!uals an! communities. $ue to its many !ifferent approaches, it is possi%le to create a !ialo#ue ith the thou#hts &a!amer presente! in his opus Truth an! metho!. Teemu Mki presents many !ifferent vie points a%out the theme of un!erstan!in# oneself, life an! the in!ivi!ual"s mo!e of %ein#, hich is often !etermine! %y the society. 'is ork consists of six photo#raphs, one text an! a mirror, hich are presente! to#ether. The uppermost photo#raph presents sexual act an! the artist as a sexual %ein#. In the mi!!le left piece, the artist is !escri%e! as culturally male, liftin# ei#hts, in the next photo Mki poses as culturally female an! the prototype of Femme fatale. In the most ri#ht photo#raph he is presente! as an artist takin# photo#raphs of his !ea! #ran!mother"s %urial. (t the %ottom ro , a mirror reflects the exhi%ition visitor )in this case the artist himself*. +ext portrait sho s him as a procreator of life, helpin# his ife to #ive %irth to their !au#hter. The last photo#raph presents the artist as a !evourer of life )ima#e of mince! meat* an! the text part as a rational ver%ali,er )text pro!uce! %y Teemu Mki*. )Mki, Teemu* The art ork !escri%es !iverse forms of truth, here one person consists of !ifferent mo!es of %ein#. (lso the art ork chan#es, !epen!in# of the reflection of each visitor, an! this ima#e forms a part of the series. The i!ea, hich Mki-s series conveys, is relativism that is affecte! %y learne! culture, moral values an! the in!ivi!ual"s point of vie . The photos sho !ifferent roles that, tra!itionally, have %een thou#ht to %e antithetical to each others. The use of multiple ima#es pro!uces a schi,ophrenic ima#e. For Teemu Mki, there is no nee! to search for one truth, unlike for &a!amer. For &a!amer, un!erstan!in# the art ork is hat remains after removin# artist"s intention, concept, political or reli#ious vie s an! even )aesthetic* appearance. 'is #oal is to achieve so calle! pure art ork. This claim causes many !ifferent conse.uences.

&a!amer"s notion of aesthetic consciousness is not !epen!ent on the su%/ect %ut rather refers to the mo!e of %ein# of the actual art ork itself. In the su%/ective approach, the vie er"s preconceptions, taste, expectations, an! environmental factors, affect the experience of un!erstan!in#. (ccor!in# to &a!amer, aesthetic !ifferentiation is an aspect of aesthetic consciousness. (esthetic !ifferentiation is a process of a%straction here%y a ork of art is consi!ere! only in terms of its aesthetic .ualities. Such non- aesthetic .ualities as the moral, psycholo#ical, or social context of a ork of art, or its purpose or function, are exclu!e! from consi!eration. 0hen art an! aesthetics receive their autonomous status, the concept an! function of art chan#e. 1reviously, the role of art as to present the surroun!in# real orl! as accurately as possi%le, or improve it ithin a certain frame ork )representation, copy of real*. +o , the appearance of art can %e in!epen!ent from reality, an! thus correspon!s only to itself. 1ara!oxically, even if art oul! %e unattache! from reality, it is al ays !efine! %y its relation to reality )if it is alienate! from the reality or not an! if it is interpretive or not*. &a!amer comprehen!s un!erstan!in# in its historical an! tra!itional context, hich are %ase! on the fact that our un!erstan!in# is foun!e! on somethin# i!entifia%le. 2onse.uently, %y eliminatin# all the aesthetic aspects, the art ork alienates from the surroun!in# orl! an! %ecomes an o%/ect that can not %e interprete!. If a ork of art is not visually un!erstan!a%le )i.e. it has no fi#urative elements, as in some a%stract pieces*, the au!ience can not create a connection ith the art ork. This causes a !ilemma3 on the other han!, it can %e un!erstoo! that tra!itional art is only an imitation of the real orl!, %ut at the same time, tra!ition creates the frame ork in hich it is possi%le to un!erstan! a ork of art. &a!amer-s criticism to ar!s aesthetic a areness is the conse.uence of this convention here art ork is un!erstoo! as an o%/ect, as he ante! to avoi! the !ichotomy of su%/ect

an! o%/ect, hich is typical for mo!ern !ay. )4ra/e ski, 5ruce, 6778* 5ecause there are no t o separate parties, %ut a !ialo#ue %et een them, &a!amer prefers to use terminolo#y experience instea! of aesthetic consciousness. 'e ackno le!#es that the history affects our un!erstan!in#, %ecause ithout it e oul! not have anythin# to compare our experiences ith. 9on# %efore e un!erstan! ourselves throu#h the process of self-examination, e un!erstan! ourselves in a self-evi!ent ay in the family, society an! state in hich e live. The focus of su%/ectivity is a !istortin# mirror. The self-a areness of the in!ivi!ual is only a flickerin# in the close! circuits of historical life. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p. 6:;* 1ostmo!ern art, an! society, !o not !eny their historical influences, on the contrary, they %orro elements from the historical ima#ery or i!eolo#ies. Su%/ectivity an! history are not, in my opinion, elements that exclu!e each others. Thus, history is al ays history of certain #roup of people that are #eo#raphically an! culturally !efine!< hich in itself carries out election of hat %elon#s to the official history. &a!amer"s phrase reveals that he is a are of this matter %ut, at the same time, his i!ea of un!erstan!in# the art ork itself )exclu!in# all the other factors* oul! not %e possi%le in this context. &a!amer has exclu!e! many facts, such as lin#uistic, cultural an! #eo#raphical, in search of ontolo#ical truth. 'o oul! the !ialo#ue %e possi%le if the participant )in this case, a vie er* an! the art ork oul! not have a common lan#ua#e= Mki rites a%out his art as follo s3 The art ork"s context consists of those external matters ithout hich the art ork oul! %e unusa%le for the au!ience. 0ork that refers to the Secon! 0orl! 0ar may %e incomprehensi%le to the pu%lic unless the pu%lic kno s nothin# a%out the Secon! 0orl! 0ar. )Mki, Teemu, 677>, p. ?6:* In Teemu Mki-s self-portrait series, this factor concretes in many ays< his orks are characteri,e! %y com%inin# ima#es an! text. ( vie er ho oul! not un!erstan! the lan#ua#e oul! lose much of the information< for example such fact that the artist himself appears in almost all the ima#es of this series )title Self-portrait* an! any

a!!itional information that ties the art ork to the surroun!in# society. In this case, the text is an inte#ral part of the ork )not a part of external context*, an! its exclusion oul! affect on the experience of the art ork. (nother important aspect is temporality. &a!amer, har!ly, oul! have reco#ni,e! the philosophy of sexual #enres an! their manifestations, hich is one important content of the series of Teemu Mki. If the artist"s intention, messa#e an! aesthetic appearance, hich in this context !oes not mean %eautiful or pleasant %ut in #eneral the appearance of art ork, are remove! from a social critic piece, hat remains. 0hat is the pure art ork that coul! %e foun!= &a!amer talks a%out un!erstan!in# an! experiencin# as one term, %ut in fact, they are not synonym. @n!erstan!in# is conscious an! its purpose is to un!erstan!, as &a!amer expresses, the mo!e of %ein# of the thin#s themselves. Axperience, in turn, is experience of somethin# hich !oes not necessarily have to achieve full un!erstan!in#. 0hen I say full un!erstan!in#, I !o not mean that there shoul! not %e somethin# reco#ni,a%le< %ut the truth claim oul! %e exa##erative. For example, I can experience a ork of art in some ay, even thou#h I oul! not un!erstan! it !ue to its era, its ori#in or any other similar circumstances. 1erhaps, it as this i!ea of art orks that can influence us over the time ) hich seems to have auratic status* that contri%ute! the ori#in of the i!ea of pure art ork. Mki states3 The exhilaration )of the art ork* al ays %e#ins ith the i!entification of familiar elementsB Since e are not excite! a%out all the art orks here e see somethin# familiar - or rather- in hich e rea! somethin# familiar - somethin# else is nee!e!. In or!er that e experience a ork of art interestin#, it has to have, simultaneously, somethin# familiar an! unfamiliar to us. B. Cnly the importance of the reco#ni,e! elements makes us, hun#ry, to seek for ne meanin#s from the art ork"s unfamiliar elements. )Mki, Teemu, 677>, p. ?6D* Mki"s art is almost invaria%ly fi#urative< yet this photo series, !ue to its techni.ue, is

even more realistic than his paintin#s an! !ra in#s from hich he is primarily kno n for. (ccor!in# to Teemu Mki, every art ork represents us or the orl!, re#ar!less of if e a!mit it or not. In this sense, his anti-formalistic perception of art is closer to the previously mentione! &a!amer"s /u!#ement of aesthetic pro%lem. They are unite! %y the i!ea that the vie ers fin! it easier to i!entify ith art orks that )re*present us or the orl! aroun! us. &a!amer"s i!ea of the crisis of ima#e is closely linke! to the crisis of art of his o n era< aspirations of the era of mo!ern art to !enounce pictoriality an! i!eolo#ically focus on the creation of a%stract art. These ima#e-relate! factors are #enerally no lon#er in crisis in contemporary art !ue to the fra#mentation of the society an! !ivision of i!eolo#ies. In the contemporary fiel! of art, visual presentation is more !iverse an! permitte! than ever %efore. Similarly, the artists !o not seek to resi#n from )art* history or turn their %ack on it %ut to %orro it as Teemu Mki expresses3 (rtist"s true interlocutor, au!ience, is art history. (rt history, some orks an! artists out there have spoken to the artist, often also inspire! the artist to create his o n pieces, since the choice of career. (fter creatin# his o n orks, the artist ants to share his ork, thro them to the same pot from here he has slurpe! ea#erly. )Mki, Teemu, 677>, p. ??:* In his self-portrait series, he has %orro e! evi!ently historical an! reli#ious ima#ery. 5irth, !eath an! flesh are commonly use! themes throu#h epochs. Mki has inclu!e!, faithfully to his o n metho!, to!ay"s society-relate! ima#ery, such as #oo!E%a! mem%ers of society, typical #en!er-associate! stereotypes an! human e#oism an! self-importance. 'is photo#raphs are not aesthetic in a %eautiful sense, %ut aesthetic in the sense that &a!amer presente!< throu#h their realistic presentation, it is possi%le to un!erstan!. Thus temporality affects on the content an! appearance of art, .uestions of the autonomy of art an! ima#e crisis offer no lon#er interestin# startin# point. 2ontent-relate! .uestions have #aine! stren#th, not only in the case of Teemu Mki, %ut also in many contemporary orks of art, especially in the Ccci!ent.

$ialo#ue 0hen &a!amer critici,es su%/ectivity an! emphasi,es the art ork"s mo!e of %ein#, he intro!uces the concept of play, hich coul! %e use! as an illustrative example of the experience of art. Aven in this case, the play !oes not mean approach or state of min! of the creator or spectator. $ialo#ue, that takes place %y experiencin# a ork of art, can %e assimilate! ith the concept of play. 1lay is characteri,e! %y the fact that the participants lose themselves in the #ame. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p. ?76-?7F* Thus, the play is not an o%/ect an! the player"s consciousness is not a rulin# element. Axecution of play is more true than aesthetic consciousness, hich !oes not !o /ustice for the real mo!e of %ein#. Cne shoul! surren!er to the play openly, for too strict pre/u!ices ill ensure that the vie er oul! /ust repeat his o n preconceptions an! oul! not focus on the thin# itself. @n!erstan!in# of the ork of art is thus an event, play, first an! foremost, an experience here the play takes over the spectator. This event consists of to an! fro movement that occurs naturally, ithout effort. It is characteristic for a human play that it plays somethin#< this comes visi%le in the fact than even hen a man is playin#, he still %ehaves in his o n, typical ay. In or!er to #ive up his su%/ectivity )play oneself out*, he must convert the aspirations an! #oals of the real orl! to tasks of the play. The follo in# &a!amer"s sentence !escri%es this process3 The self-presentation of the #ame involves the player-s achievin#, as it ere, his o n self-presentation %y playin# - i.e., presentin# somethin#. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p. ?7>-?7;* Therefore, play reaches the presentation throu#h players ho play as if it ere their o n self-presentation. ( person carryin# out this task presents it. 'o ever, to perform a task !oes not mean presentin# any context or politicalEcritical i!eas %ut the play presents itself only in an ontolo#ical ay. 0hen a play is presentation, the human play is al ays representation. Aither that a person represents somethin# or the play takes place in relation to others, as representation for someone. Cn the other han!, play is al ays for someone, even if heEsheEit oul! not %e present %ecause other ise play oul! %e

stoppe!. (rtistic presentation, %y its nature, exists for someone, even if there is no one there ho merely listens or atches. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p.??7*. 1lay causes a transformation in the spectators< at %est, the experience of art ork transforms the vie er !eeply. &a!amer is intereste! in this transformation an! especially to hat the spectator chan#es. In his opinion, to hat the spectator has %ecome is hisEher true %ein# hich has nothin# to !o ith the former %ein#. Thus, transformation is not aesthetic consciousness, a copy that is the chan#e of clothes %ut still %elon#s to the former, %ut experience here the hermeneutic interpretation is the most important thin# as a moment hen somethin# is reveale!. It is !ifficult to use &a!amer"s thou#hts as a %ase of this analysis %ecause his philosophy is characteri,e! %y essentialist features, accor!in# to hich, all the thin#s have a fun!amental essence, an! thus an experience oul! %e the mystical un!erstan!in# of this essence. 'e !oes not provi!e any special tools for hermeneutic rea!in#, other than to concentrate on the actual mo!e of %ein# of the thin#s, to %e careful ith pre/u!ices an! open to ne pro/ections of the process of un!erstan!in#. 'ere%y, his theories remain !etache! from the practical reality. Teemu Mki 0rites3 (fter a%an!onin# essentialism an! %ein# a are of the meanin# of the context, e kno that the ork of art is not an autonomous entity. )Mki, Teemu, 677>, p.?FG* This is sho n concretely in the fact that his self-portraits inclu!e texts an! that there is other a!!itional information availa%le )provi!e! %y the artist in his %ook or in the artist"s home pa#e, alon#si!e the art orks*. Cften contemporary art is more shattere! than %efore an! ne conventions provi!e texts that clarify artists" intentions in or!er to support the actual art orks. To &a!amer, this oul! have meant the failure of the art ork itself, as for him a successful ork of art is somethin# that creates a connection %y the mere means of the piece.

Mki an! &a!amer are unite!, ho ever, %y the i!ea that hen one interprets an art ork, the main focus shoul! %e on the ork itself. Hust as &a!amer fre.uently states in his opus3 to un!erstan! an art ork is to un!erstan! its mo!e of %ein#, Mki in turn, points out, more calmly an! orl!ly, that the relative autonomy of the ork is still possi%le. The autonomy of an art ork oul! %e an i!eal situation, %ut accor!in# to him, it can not %e fully achieve!. 'e states that one is no lon#er a%le to experience art in a vir#inal ay %ut still, in or!er to unfol! a ork of art, the i!eal oul! %e to focus on the ork itself. )Mki, Teemu, 677>, p. ?FG-?F:* Thus, extra information coul! serve as an a!!itional spice %ut not replacin# the piece. I oul! like to make a fe more comments a%out &a!amer"s concept of ima#e. &a!amer presente! the follo in# i!ea of the concept of play ) hen it takes place in the area of performin# arts*3 0e sa that the ontolo#ical si#nificance of the representation lies on the fact that the repro!uction is the ori#inal mo!e of %ein# of the ori#inal art ork itself. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p.?>:* @n!er the ima#e an! visual arts, accor!in# to him, a repro!uction is not the mo!e of %ein# of an art ork. Cn the contrary,here the ima#e has its o n existence. This %ein# as presentation, as precisely that in hich it is not the same as hat is presente!, #ives it the positive !istinction of %ein# a picture as oppose! to a mere reflecte! ima#e. This kin! of picture is not a copy, for it presents somethin#, hich, ithout it, oul! not present itself in this ay. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p. ?F>* If e consi!er this !efinition of ima#e, so calle! increase of %ein#, hich has its

positive value in other purpose than copyin#, e coul! examine the case from the material point of vie . In this case, the chan#e of material oul! %rin# some a!!e! value to the thin# presente!. 'o ever, the materiality usually applies to exterior matters. 0hat really varies here is the artist"s intention, hich is characteri,e! %y su%/ectivity. In a!!ition, &a!amer critici,es hy the ork of art is un!erstoo! as s.uare, !etache! piece from reality )!econtextuali,e!*.

5y !etachin# all art from its connections ith life an! the particular con!itions of our approach to it, e frame it like a picture an! han# it up. )&a!amer, 'ans-&eor#, 6778, p. ?F?* (t the same time, he ackno le!#es that the !ivine ima#e comes visi%le only throu#h or! an! ima#e, %ut if e analy,e this more closely, these are really the only ays to picture anythin# hat e comprehen!. 2onse.uently, this approach here the ima#e is consi!ere! to %e !isconnecte! from the real life, is manifeste! only in those cases hich art has no other purpose than to %e a notation, structure of si#ns, so calle! formalism. (lso in this case, the artist"s intention an! its possi%ilities to touch us )interpreters*, is in the key position. (lthou#h Mki !efen!s the su%/ective point of vie , he !oes not #ive it complete autonomy, nor to a ork of art itself, %ut his i!eas encounter %et een these t o extremes. 'is i!ea is not to create a meanin#less notation, in hich the vie er coul! place any meanin#, %ut also not to emphasi,e the existence of a ork of art itself %y removin# its appearance an! content. &a!amer"s theories are stron#ly essentialist !ue to his 2hristian ties. 'e proposes a num%er of interestin# theories, e.#. that the art orks are a%le to impact !eeply on the spectators )transformation*, that the orks shoul! %e tie! to the real orl! an! that in the terms of un!erstan!in#, the main point is to o%serve the actual orks of art. +or is he for#ettin# the importance of vie ers" openness to the experience, hich can cause confusion, %ut eventually, may transform the spectator in a fun!amental ay. (rt ork also has a fun!amental a%ility to ithstan! time. &a!amer"s i!eas are interestin#, at the level of i!eas, %ut they are !ifficult to use ithout any other tools. The elimination of su%/ectivity, in its entirety, is not possi%le in or!er to un!erstan! the interpretation process. In a!!ition, he has exclu!e! cultural an! temporal influences. This fact is prove! %y his use of examples that have not ithstoo! time an! thus re!uce the cre!i%ility of his ontolo#ical claims.