九州大学 研究者情報
論文一覧
東口 豊(ひがしぐち ゆたか) データ更新日:2023.11.22

准教授 /  人文科学研究院 哲学部門 芸術学


原著論文
1. Yutaka Higashiguchi, Can AR Technologies Have an Impact of the Definition of Art?, AM Journal of Art and Media Studies, http://dx.doi.org/10.25038/am.v0i20.331, 20, 97-103, 2019.10, AR seems to be one of the most advanced and near-future technologies that produce new experiences and values that have never been before. However, both AR and art have a common means of engaging the senses. Thus, the problem of where the borderline between AR and art exists should come into question. In order to consider how AR will have an influence on the definition and the significance of art, this study analyses real and fictional elements in AR and art. AR requires the physical field where sensory information mediated by computer is projected. Consequently, viewers perceive the mixed image of real things and those not existing before eyes, that is fiction. Art also needs a real environment where the fictional world is opened. Though art and AR have something in common, there are crucial differences between them. AR technologies include the firm aim of erasing fictional elements that remain as ever in spite of their accurate representation. On the other hand, art attempts to preserve a fictional area within the real world. From the comparison of AR and art, it will come to light that whether there is the frame or not plays an important role in deciding what is art or what is reality. While AR reduces fictionality from a multi-layered scene to enrich a real experience, art cuts fiction from a present scene to idealize the real world. In this way, they constitute a dialectical circle and mediate new reality through fictional images from the reverse direction..
2. Yutaka Higashiguchi, Can AR Technologies Have an Impact of the Definition of Art?, Proceedings of 21st International Congress of Aesthetics, 2019.07, In recent years AR technologies achieve a remarkable development and are spreading in our daily lives, quietly but steadily. They, for instance, make telediagnosis easier and offer new amusement experiances. AR technologies seem to be the most advanced and near-future technology because of these examples, but is it true? AR is to produce new experiences and values that have never been before, by superimposing artificial images on the real world. However, that is true of art as well. In addition, both AR and art have a common means of working on the senses. Thus the problem of where a boder line between AR and art exists should come into question with increasing development and penetration of AR technologies. In order to consider how AR will have an influence on the definition and the significance of art, this study analyse real and fictional elements in AR and art. AR, such as a head-mounted display or 3D Mapping, requires the physical field where sensory information mediated by computer is projected. Consequently, viewers perceive the overlapped image with real things and things not existing before eyes, that is fiction, and take it for the whole reality at the same time. These facts prove that AR is a hybrid experience of reality and fiction. However, AR technologies include the firm aim of erasing fictional elements that remain as ever in spite of their accurate representation, through making fictional images thoroughly similar to reality. Art is also a hybrid experience and needs a real environment where the fictional world is opened. Though art has something in common with AR, art is clearly different from AR in that art attempts to preserve a heterogeneous and fictional area within the real context. For this reason, the audience of the drama intentionally accepts fictional characters while living actors and actresses play in front of him. From the comparison of AR and art, it will come to light that viewer’s intentions as well as technologies and institutions play an important role in deciding what is art or what is reality. While AR reduce fictionality from a multi-layered scene to enrich a real experience, art cuts fiction from a present scene to idealize the real world. In this way, AR and art are human activities to mediate new reality through fictional images from the reverse direction..
3. 東口 豊, 原理なき、目的なき「経過」としての自然と藝術 ーーTh. W. アドルノの美学思想の今日的意義, 哲學年報, 第77輯, 137-154, 2018.03.
4. 東口 豊, 藝術思想における黙示録的性格ーーハイデッガーにおけるヘーゲルの所謂「藝術終焉論」批判をめぐって, 哲學年報, 第75輯、一〜一九頁, 2016.03.
5. 東口 豊, 音楽的・聴覚的思考に基づく虚構的コミュニケーション, 光藤宏行編『コミュニケーションと共同体』九州大学出版会, 79−90, 2012.03.
6. 東口 豊, 都市景観の相対性理論ーー移動手段の多様化によるイメージの変容, 西村清和編『日常性の環境美学』勁草書房, 72−95頁, 2012.03.
7. 東口 豊, Th ・W・アドルノの音楽言語論における「沈黙」, 哲學年報, 第69輯、pp.253-281, 2010.03.
8. 東口 豊, 【テーマ討論II・ドイツ観念論と現代美術】映画とドイツ観念論の幸にして不幸な関係, 『シェリング年報』日本シェリング協会編, 第17号、pp. 94-102, 2009.09.
9. 東口 豊, Th. W. アドルノの音楽論における「不協和音」の意味ーー『新音楽の哲学』を中心に, 哲學年報, 第68輯、pp. 175-194, 2009.03.
10. 東口豊, 藝術・大学・公共性ーー角のないトライアングルの響きーー, 『九州大学P&P 大学とアートーー『公共性』の視点から』(九州大学教育研究プログラム・研究拠点プロジェクト報告書), pp.158-173., 2008.03.
11. 東口 豊, Th.W.アドルノにおける「幸福の約束」, 哲學年報, 第64輯、pp.69-92, 2005.03.
12. Yutaka Higashiguchi, The Aesthetics of Periphery without Center
--A New foundation of the Aesthetics of Nature, International Yearbook of Aesthetics, Vol.5, pp.71-79, 2002.03.
13. 東口 豊, 音楽の社会的性格と自律性ーーTh.W.アドルノの音楽社会学に関する一考察, 国立音楽大学研究紀要, 第35集、91-98ページ, 2001.03.
14. 東口 豊, Th.W.アドルノにおける藝術作品の自然性, 美学藝術学研究, 第19号、131-151ページ, 2001.03.
15. 東口 豊, アドルノにおける否定弁証法とミメーシスの問題, 美學, 第49巻第2号、12-23ページ, 1998.09.
16. 東口 豊, 自然と音楽の類似性ーーアドルノの音楽論に関する一考察, 東京大学文学部美学藝術学研究室紀要 研究, 第12号、121-137ページ, 1994.03.

九大関連コンテンツ

pure2017年10月2日から、「九州大学研究者情報」を補完するデータベースとして、Elsevier社の「Pure」による研究業績の公開を開始しました。