نسبت سراسطوره با گفتمان‌های سیاسی در دوسالانه‌های هشتم و دهم پوستر تهران

در این مقاله، بدون آن‌که به شاکله‌ دیداری آفریده‌های گرافیکیِ دوسالانه‌های هشتم و دهم پرداخته‌شود، تنها مناسبات میان‌اسطوره‌ای در دو وضعیت چیره بر دوسالانه‌های هشتم و دهم، تحلیل خواهدشد. چارچوب نظری و روش‌شناسی آن نیز تحلیل گفتمان لاکلائو است که البته از نظریه‌ سراطوره نیز با آن درمی‌آمیزد. بر پایه این چارچوب نظری برای سنجش اثرگذاری گفتمان‌های سیاسی بر حوزه‌ هنری، نیاز به آن است که حوزه‌ هنری از دو جنبه‌ «تخیل‌ورزی زیباشناختی» و «سوژمندیِ هنرمندان» درنظر گرفته‌ شود و دو مدل آنتاگونیستی و آگونیستی برای سنجشِ آن، تدوین شود. یافته‌های این مقاله نشان می‌دهد که دوسالانه دهم، هم‌خوانی بیشتری با مدل آنتاگونیستی دارد تا دوسالانه هشتم با مدل آگونیستی. چرا که وضعیت گفتمانی در زمان برگزاری دوسالانه هشتم آگونیستی نبود و حتی گفتمانی برتر، دیگر گفتمان‌ها را از میدان سیاست کنار زده بود و جایگاهی چیره داشت. حتی این گفتمان در حوزه‌ هنری نیز وارد شده بود و رابطه‌های آنتاگونیستی خود را به این حوزه (البته تنها در ساحت سوژه‌سازی هنرمندان) گسترش داده بود. ولی با وجود گسترش آنتاگونیسم در سطح «سوژه‌شدگی هنرمندان»، زنجیره‌ هم-ارزی گفتمان غالب در تولید معنا، به حوزه هنری گسترش نیافت است.

discourse analysis of the 8th and 10th tehran poster biennial

in this article treid, without attention to optical formation of graphic creation, to analyze inter-mythical relations in discursive situation of eighth and tenth biennial. theoretical and methodological framework of this analysis is laclau and mouffe’s discourse analysis that is combined with theory of archi-myth. we need for assessing the impact of political discourses on art domain of society that divide this domain into two section of aesthetic imagination and subjectivity and codify tow models of antagonism and agonism. findings driven from applying these models show that tenth biennial is more correspondent to antagonistic model and eighth is relatively correspondent to agonist model. because discursive situation in the time of eighth biennial was not agonist and hegemon discourse removed other discourses.in this article, the method of research and theoretical framework, is discourse analysis. this is for discourse analysis is a perfect paradigm that contains both the method of research and theoretical framework simultaneously. discourse analysis is a method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its context. it aims to understand how language is used in real life situations. when you do discourse analysis, you might focus on: the purposes and effects of of language. indeed in this article is tried to analyse the conection between discourses in iran’s political sphere and discursive circumstances of the 8th and 10th tehran international poster biennial.discourse analysis is used in this article, studies language in political context and focuses on the political purposes and effects of spoken communications in tenth and eighth biennial. the presupposition of this political analysis is that the political, determined in “micro-physics” of power. a “micro-physics” of power is a strategy, and we need to decipher it in a system of relations that can be called political anatomy. power is not a property but a strategy evident in the relations between people. power relations operate and exist through people. they go right down into society and in this article these relations analysed in the 8th and 10th tehran international poster biennial.befor considering the finding that conclude from applying of discourse analysis’s heuristic tools to atmosphere of these biennials, should said that atmosphere of 8th biennial was agonistic and atmosphere of 10th biennial was antagonistic. these tow concept deive from michel foucault’s thought and applied in laclau and mouffe’s discourse analysis. agonism emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of conflict. it accepts a permanent place for such conflict in the political sphere, but seeks to show how individuals might accept and channel this conflict positively. agonists are especially concerned with debates about democracy, and the role that conflict plays in different conceptions of it. the agonistic tradition to democracy is often referred to as agonistic pluralism. beyond the realm of the political, agonistic frameworks have similarly been utilized in broader cultural critiques of hegemony and domination, as well as in literary and science fiction. in return, antagonism is hostility that results in active resistance, opposition, or contentiousness. agonism is not simply the undifferentiated celebration of antagonism: agonism implies a deep respect and concern for the other; indeed, the greek agon refers most directly to an athletic contest, but emphasizing the importance of the struggle itself a struggle that cannot exist without the opponent. victory through default, or over an unworthy opponent, comes up short compared to a defeat at the hands of a worthy opponent—a defeat that still brings honor. an agonistic discourse will therefore be one marked not merely by conflict but just as importantly, by mutual admiration.