is true that art has occupied for a long time to disclose, perform and achieve the beauty, or has been justified as a means of learning objectives. But neither the classical concept of "mimesis" or even its meaning nineteenth century that valued both the imitation of reality and the subjective interpretation of nature by the artist, are sufficient to explain this tropism toward beauty. In addition, much of the aesthetic thinking and artistic movements of the twentieth century alternative paths traveled very little or nothing to do with the "imitation" of nature, quite the contrary ... Symbolism, Cubism, Dada and Surrealism, the various concepts and abstract terms, for example, clashed sharply with that conception of art as imitation, and even as a distorted reflection of the real world, his intentions were quite different. Cubism is a good example of this, representing a fragmented world and definitely after the bursting of the "Great Truths" (including the aesthetic) and the ultimate impact of this new state of things and thoughts: the second industrial revolution, the new technology push, the establishment of the new liberal free-market economy, capitalist development, conflict more apparent from the struggle classes, Darwinian evolutionism, Marxism, nihilism "Nietzschean", psychoanalysis, and soon the relativism and quantum mechanics ... And is that ideas can not last forever and serve, but to adapt "imitating" the circumstances ... Why beauty? What is beauty? That which, in addition to good, is nice, "as claimed by Aristotle? Or " only ugly is beautiful", according to the provocation of A. Solin? What is true beauty? If art appears as an unrealistic dream or as an improvement (illusory) of this reality, making it beautiful, are not we also agree that beauty is not just an attribute of truth but also of fiction? Can we continue to hold, as did Hegel and German idealism, the truth is a necessary condition of beauty, that the vocation of art is the discovery of truth? Where beauty dwells, how it manifests, how and why we recognize why we moved yet?
beauty since antiquity has taken refuge in concepts such as "harmony", "symmetry", "proportion." This view quantitative and numerical Beauty recognizable order, and inter-harmonics ratio canonical and / or symmetrical between the parties and was defended by Plato - " conservation measure and the proportion is always something beautiful " - and Aristotle - "Beauty is available in a size and ordered "- and also by Plotinus, that the mere proportion and order of things added significantly the existence of a soul which expresses itself through them and light. The new form of lighting is what Thomas Aquinas was to confirm that "the reason beauty and decorum concurs clarity and due proportion "and to define simple and absolutely that beauty is" the splendor the way. "
But what our teachers spoke classic beauty, what they meant? "A real beauty different from an abstract? What physical beauty than a spiritual beauty, as the Stoics? To the beauty that lies in numbers, in the body, the soul in grace? Already in the seventeenth century, there was talk of essential and natural beauty, beauty, pleasure and beauty useful or desirable, rare or novel. Sulzer apart shortly after the beauty and the varied condition of the elegant the splendid, the passionate ... well, up to Hume and his radical subjectivism " Beauty is no quality in things themselves. Exists in the mind which contemplates them, and each mind perceives a different beauty . " Subjectivism which Baumgarten and Hegel seem to face with their assumptions of beauty, perfection and ideal beauty, "Beauty is absolute idea sensory appearance" (Hegel). In summary, an apparently contradictory historical
should not surprise us consider beauty as a misnomer, on the contrary, it is perhaps its ambiguity, its polysemy, its historical and desemantización feature that identifies it and become a powerful figure of speech. Beauty is like a face of a thousand faces (elusive), a permanent body and unpredictable metamorphosis, a date and transparent soul ... The variety of objects and things, ideas, sensations and feelings, thoughts, attributed the beauty (or that adjective as beautiful) show the varying length and "modulation" of beauty. Next to the beauty and provided geometric shapes, symmetry, harmony, which I mentioned earlier, appear in the classical Roman world, and then later in the medieval world, some new concepts that lurk or go through indeterminate territories of beauty: "the sublime", charm, attraction and grace, the decorative (bonito), ornament, decency and "dignity" of things, subtlety, so careful, and even "fitness" ... a variety of mostly recognizable beauty in architecture, designating either the fitness for purpose, social competence and the practicality of an object. These concepts involving multiple ways of undefined values \u200b\u200bof beauty or, rather, identify it, perhaps they are "the sublime"-the assumption of "sublime" and "enthusiasm and ability elevate the spirit, coupled with the grandeur of thought and depth of emotions (Tatarkiewicz) - and their "fitness" or utility, which represent the imprecise boundaries of beauty almost always opposite limits, antagonistic, traditionally considered the antipodes of the territory of meaning of beauty, and we tried to reconcile modern and closer in, also, undefined "republics" of art and design, how useful and also beautiful, "blurring conventional boundaries ...
Kant is one of the great authors who reflected on the beauty and "sublime" including them in his aesthetic judgments and suggestions and adding new categories, such as "taste", which have been influential in the aesthetic philosophy today. For Kant, the "Judgement of Taste" does not presuppose a representation under a given concept, but asserts a relationship between representation and a special satisfaction "disinterested" aesthetic satisfaction can cause the object does not have any function but has an intention in form, some formal all sorted for your understanding and admiration has "no intention intentionality." Likewise, the trial of taste is different from mere pleasure sensitive because no obligation to accept or require to be supported by reasons ... No argument can be compelled to agree to a trial of taste, but its logic leads to a general acceptance: for example, "this flower is beautiful" it does not mean that when we are struck by one thing we can guarantee that all affected others feel the same way, however we can ensure that the general possibility of sharing knowledge presupposed in every one of us a degree of cooperation in a universal understanding and imagination, which means that every rational being has the capacity to feel, in appropriate conditions of perception, this harmony through its cognitive powers. Therefore, a true "judgments of taste" can legitimately claim to be true for everyone, to consummate their status as "subjective universality."
idealistic better articulated system was undoubtedly that of Hegel. For Hegel, the "Idea"-the concept in its highest stage of dialectical development is embodied in material forms in art, this is "beauty." When the material is spiritualized in the art is given both a cognitive revelation of truth, while a "reinvigoration" of the viewer. For Hegel the very nature was a product of mind or the result of the action of the story, so there would be no objective difference between natural beauty and artistic beauty, " only the spiritual is real. What exists exists only to the extent of their spirituality. Natural beauty is therefore a reflection of the spirit. Should be viewed as an incomplete way of the spirit, as a way to content himself in the spirit, as an independent privately but subject to spirit. "
In many ways the Hegelian thesis came to exceed those of Kant's ideas about beauty and aesthetic reflection. Kant wanted to distinguish between two types of beauty, other artificial or natural and artistic. Kant founded on the "taste" the ability to recognize and appreciate the natural beauty of artistic beauty, however, built essentially from cultural, historical and social values, had the foundation to "genius." While trying to overcome the Hegelian ideas of Kant, they resisted and were the basis for much of the romantic feeling in the art. The doctrine of taste and vitality of the "faculties of the soul" opened the possibility of an aesthetic supported by "doing" and "feel" of genius ... By giving the "genius" ability "to express no knowledge science and harmony soul and thus ignite the spirit and temper the character "was expedited way to a romantic aesthetic, in which genius is the main substance in the production of a work of art and aesthetic judgments about it main reference is the artist's life. In the following post-Kantian romantic feeling, the art object could have had the experience, its meaning was to bring a life experience "strong" and intense able to move the existence and essentially transform our attitudes to life, the artist and the viewer moved. This effectively polluted thinking feeling modern in its origins, born in the inner spread of Romanticism and its aftermath, surviving with great fortune and many special accents to the present day through some of the groups and most significant art movements of the twentieth century. And not only from the side of artists, but especially since the trial that he deserves to society to make and the feelings of the artists and the object of his creation. As in other cases, the eyes of the general social about art and artists has been, is, still, most romantic and irrational than their unbelieving and privileged interpreters and creators ...
Drawing
"Fryzjer ( Great Travel Series ), Izabella Jagiello, 2007
0 comments:
Post a Comment