There was a widespread tendency to regard beauty and arts as autonomous in the modern aesthetics and art theories. However ; today we understand that it is necessary to deliberate the functions of art in the relationships with society. Taking the current condition into account, we set the subject "Art and the Public Sphere (the "Publicness" in Art)" and have been engaged in researches on this subject. In this third and the last year of our research, we published a comprehensive report of the essays written by all the investigators.
In our research, we approached the subject from two sides : first, theoretically clarifying the concept of "Publicness," second, practically investigating and analyzing the actual conditions of the Public Sphere in various fields of art. The researches have been actually made from both sides at the same time with some mutual correspondence. In the theoretical approaches, while the historical transition of "Publicness" as a concept has been discussed, the recognitions of this concept in the current aesthetics as well as art theories have been illuminated. In the practical approaches, we have made quite a few of case studies, for instance, the analysis of the phases of "Publicness" in the modem and contemporary arts like "Public Art," the methods of exhibitions in and out of museums, the contributions of art projects to the "Publicness," the meanings of films in the early days in the Art and Public Sphere, and the positioning of "Publicness" in Japanese art education. Through those studies, we find that the concept of "Publicness" itself is now in the transitional stage, and that all sorts of mediation functions belonging to the arts are arousing more and more our interests in every phase of art and culture. The theme of "Publicness" in Art ranges over so many fields, and includes so many phases that we couldn't reach clear answers. However, with putting all our accounts together or comparing them one another from every point of view, we could shed some light en the theme and contribute to future studies.

There was a widespread tendency to regard beauty and arts as autonomous in the modern aesthetics and art theories. However ; today we understand that it is necessary to deliberate the functions of art in the relationships with society. Taking the current condition into account, we set the subject "Art and the Public Sphere (the "Publicness" in Art)" and have been engaged in researches on this subject. In this third and the last year of our research, we published a comprehensive report of the essays written by all the investigators.In our research, we approached the subject from two sides : first, theoretically clarifying the concept of "Publicness," second, practically investigating and analyzing the actual conditions of the Public Sphere in various fields of art. The researches have been actually made from both sides at the same time with some mutual correspondence. In the theoretical approaches, while the historical transition of "Publicness" as a concept has been discussed, the recognitions of this concept in the current aesthetics as well as art theories have been illuminated. In the practical approaches, we have made quite a few of case studies, for instance, the analysis of the phases of "Publicness" in the modem and contemporary arts like "Public Art," the methods of exhibitions in and out of museums, the contributions of art projects to the "Publicness," the meanings of films in the early days in the Art and Public Sphere, and the positioning of "Publicness" in Japanese art education. Through those studies, we find that the concept of "Publicness" itself is now in the transitional stage, and that all sorts of mediation functions belonging to the arts are arousing more and more our interests in every phase of art and culture. The theme of "Publicness" in Art ranges over so many fields, and includes so many phases that we couldn't reach clear answers. However, with putting all our accounts together or comparing them one another from every point of view, we could shed some light en the theme and contribute to future studies

　本研究は明治～大正期の日本において、ヨーロッパ映画がいかに受容されたかを明らかにするために、当該の時代の日本及びヨーロッパ（特にフランス、ドイツ、イギリス、イタリア）の映画雑誌における言説を比較調査し、さらに具体的な作品の評価においていかなる差異が認められるかを検討するものである。すでに明治期の雑誌『活動寫眞界』及び大正期の雑誌『キネマ・レコード』の中で、ヨーロッパ映画がどのようなコンテクストで語られていったのかを見てきた。この調査においてはフランスの『フォノ＝シネ＝ガゼット』ドイツの『ビルト・ウント・フィルム』イギリスの『バイオスコープ』等の同時代の雑誌の言説を比較として用いた。これによって日本のインテリがヨーロッパ（旧世界）の文化・芸術に親しみ、映画が実物教育のような役割を果していたこと、さらにかなり早くからヨーロッパにおける映画にまつわる言説が日本でも理解されていたことが明らかとなった。　こうした準備研究に基づいて、具体的な映画作品を取り挙げ、それが日本とヨーロッパでどのような受け取めをされたのかを比較した。対象となったのは１９０７年と１９１３年に二度映画化されたフランス映画「人生のための戦い」である。この作品は初め１９０９年に日本で公開された際に、非常に好評を博し、新聞『萬朝報』は異例の映画評を掲載し、雑誌『実業之日本』はこの作品を推奨作品とした。それはヨーロッパでのこの作品の受容とはかなり趣を異にしたものであった。１９１３年版は日本では１９１５年に公開され、これも話題となったが、ヨーロッパ（フランス、ドイツ、イギリス）とは違い、それほどの熱狂をもって迎えられたわけではなかった。そこにはヨーロッパ映画の受容が１９０９年から１９１５年までに明らかに変化していることが読み取れる。それはまた映画の形式上の変化とも大きく関連していた。本研究の結論は映画の言説が結局は映画の形式の変化と対応していることが明治～大正期の特徴であったことを明らかにしている。