Can the concept of what is beautiful be separated from what is beautiful?
On the idea of beauty in nature and in art
AUTHOR: JUAN CARLOS URREA
When I started studying for a master's degree in arts, I was a little scared because I thought they were going to destroy my work arguing that beauty no longer matters. So I feared, although I assumed it because it is reasonable. But I was amazed when they received me with classes on classical aesthetic theories and, on the contrary, I felt very identified. But you have to understand the concept of beauty in our time. Know how beauty is understood today and if beauty has a place in contemporary art or is something merely secondary.
I start from this idea that I conceive:
The beauty is nature.
Nature is beauty.
Here the idea and the apparent are the same thing.
And I expand it with the help of Kant:
"Beauty is the form of the purpose of an object insofar as it is perceived without the representation of an end" CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT, KANT, 1977, P. 114. When it comes to knowing if a thing is beautiful, it is not sought if it exists by itself, or if someone is perhaps interested in its existence, but only how it is judged in a simple contemplation (intuition or reflection). It is evident, then, that in order to say that an object is beautiful and to show that I have taste, one is not concerned with the relation that the existence of the object may have to oneself, but with what happens in me, as the subject of the representation that I have of him. All must recognize that a judgment of beauty in which the slightest interest is mixed is partial, and is not a judgment of taste. With respect to the concept of beauty, Kant tells us: "Although our concept of a finality of nature in the forms that it takes according to empirical laws is not a concept of an object, but a principle used by the Judgment to form the concepts in the midst of this natural variety, and being able to orient oneself from them, however, we, by means of this concept, attribute to nature a relationship with our faculty of knowing analogous to that of purpose; so we can consider its beauty as a display of the concept of a formal (purely subjective) purpose, and its ends as displays of the concept of a real (objective) purpose: we appreciate the former for taste (aesthetically, through feeling). of pleasure), and the second by understanding and reason (logically, by means of concepts).” TAKEN FROM CRITIQUE OF JUDGMENT, KANT. For example, contemplate a beautiful sunset. Is there anything more beautiful than nature? Yes. Being able to experience that sensation of being able to reach a sublime state, transcending the ecstasy of contemplating the beautiful and arriving, as the ancients would say, at the divine, in an exercise where aesthetics and logic intermingle. It is perhaps what we call myth, the door to face reality in its entirety, in its integrity, in a worldview where everything is being and being is everything, where nothing is separate.
Now if we look at contemporary art we see that the more humanity advanced, the more it distanced itself from nature and its magic, to rather place itself in a technocracy, a technological civilization that increasingly moves away from beauty. For Pablo López-Raso, “Contemporary art is provocation, so to understand contemporary art you have to abandon prejudices. The classical world is uplifting, but we have to land in our era, live with the art of our times." In this sense, the expert invited “Not to talk about art, but to talk about artists, people who create art. Contemporary art does not put beauty at the center, but it puts man at the center and allows us to explore the different canons of beauty because beauty can be expressed in different ways. What does not change in contemporary art, compared to classical art, is the anthropological value of art”. TAKEN FROM CULTURAMA.ES OCTOBER 5, 2017
We can conceive beautiful ideas because we have nature in front of us, the very source of beauty. But in turn, nature is beautiful because it is a purely human conception, man makes nature beautiful, through his gaze, his intellect. The ability to discern the beautiful is a merely human quality. Even so, without nature it would not be possible to understand the concept of beauty. It is as if beauty is mediated between nature and the perception of nature.
Now, can art be more beautiful than nature? Hegel distinguishes the purely material part of the work of art: “For the work of art has no feeling in it and is not living at all, but, considered as an external object, is dead. But we tend to esteem the living more than the dead. It is easily conceded that the work of art itself is neither moving nor alive. The naturally alive is a teleologically finished organization, internally and externally, down to the smallest details, while the work of art achieves only the appearance of vitality on its surface, but internally it is vulgar pied.wood or canvas, or else as in poetry, representation externalized in speech and letters.) But it is not this aspect of external existence that is Beauty in art and in nature... that makes a work of art a product. of beautiful art; It is only a work of art to the extent that, originating in the spirit, it also belongs to the realm of the spirit, has received the baptism of the spiritual, and only represents what has been formed in harmony with the spirit. INTRODUCTION, CHAP. III, A. HEGEL. LESSONS ON AESTHETICS To approach this idea, let's look at La Gioconda by Leonardo Da Vinci, which is considered the most beautiful and perfect painting ever conceived by human creativity, in all its history. Could we say that a beautiful woman in an enchanting landscape smiling for us with much love is more beautiful? Does the beauty of the painting lie only in the mastery with which it was made? But then why did Da Vinci paint a very beautiful woman? And why did he paint her beautifully dressed? Why is there a beautiful landscape in the background? So you have to analyze not only the pictorial technique but also the theme. Although it is a simple portrait, it is still important, since the objective has always been to make a magnificently beautiful work with all the mastery possible.
Perhaps it is not possible, through art, to overcome the beauty of nature. Perhaps if I can overcome it in another way and that is why art, the more time advances, has stopped that useless fight against nature, painting, for example, idealized landscapes to rather paint purely human ideas as in the case of abstract art, or concepts merely cultural as in the case of pop art.
In the words of Arthur Danto: “At the beginning of the 20th century, beauty was one of the purposes, it was about creating a beautiful object in order to achieve aesthetic delight. At the beginning of the 21st century we find ourselves in a very different situation. What I'm trying to do is explain, from an art historical point of view, why that happened. Why beauty left and never came back. On the other hand, I have also tried to explain why it is an option and not an obligation or a necessity for the artist to make a beautiful object. As a consequence of this, I offer an analysis that suggests that the option of making something beautiful is indicated when its being beautiful contributes to the meaning of the work. I call that inner beauty.” TAKEN FROM INTERVIEW: ARTHUR C. DANTO | PHILOSOPHY OF ART APRIL 2005 EL PAÍS.
So the art of today has a purely cultural domain. But in cultural diversity there are those who are pejoratively seen as romantics because they still want to paint natural beauty. The cultural elite calls them anachronistic.
Seeing nature as beautiful is a merely human possibility, so the beauty of nature, although it is intrinsic, lies in the human possibility of seeing and understanding it, so ultimately it is a merely cultural fact, because everything human is necessarily cultural. And there is a cultural, intellectual beauty that is amazing and allows art to expand in unimaginable ways through human invention and creativity.
The philosophy of art is becoming more and more complex to the extent that art itself goes deeper into intellectual, moral and spiritual fields. In his book on the spiritual in art, Kandinsky makes us understand about that deep commitment that art has and that is also impregnated in his work about exploring his inner knowledge. Located strictly in the world of ideas, human ideas and away from the world of the sensible. It is as if Plato lived among us and dedicated himself to abstract art, painting in a modern way that seeks to dissociate the sensible world from the intelligible world.
In his book Lessons on Aesthetics, Hegel criticized the conceptions that were held towards art, he clarified that art is not learned according to "technical rules" (it has its rules, which should not hurt the moral sense, but should of being to the sense of the beautiful to which they have to address) and that works of art should not be judged as inferior, since they are not an imitation. It must be remembered that Hegel conceives of knowledge as the contradiction between subject and object, this is in itself, for Hegel, reality, dialectics is the opposition of opposites; nature and spirit, opposition that tends to the whole, which can be explained precisely dialectically. In art, the spirit is perceived through sensitivity. Art and morality have the same goal: "harmony of the good and the happiness of acts and the law", unlike morality, which never reaches its goal completely, art reaches it through virtue, "the sensible appearance of the idea.
The beautiful is the harmony realized for Hegel, that is why art comes to an end, since it is in scope, the harmony of the good realized, that is, art is its end in itself, the good is the agreement sought, bythis in the broadest sense, art is in total harmony, its end, a reconciliation of objects, between idea and form. In this sense Hegel exposes three types of relationship between the idea and the form, the Symbolic, where the observer completes the idea that is expressed in the work, this form is not perfect for Hegel; the Classical form, here the total coincidence between the idea and the form is manifested, the classical works of art can serve as an example, because it is in these where, despite the fact that there was a communion between idea and form, the first remains in the work, that is only in matter, finally the Romantic, where the interior triumphs over the exterior, and it is precisely in the exterior where this triumph is manifested, it is here where the opposition between idea and form is found. Art fulfills its purpose and ends there, since the idea dies and I get art. Here Hegel says that the beautiful is the sensible appearance of the idea. But if there is the beautiful, there is the ugly. Just as there is an absolute concept of good, there is an absolute concept of evil. So the ugly is also the sensible appearance of the idea. What makes something more or less beautiful is that idea, as long as it is a beautiful idea or a horrible idea. We know that goodness is something reasonable and that evil is a state of madness without reason. Heaven and hell are only states of consciousness as Pope John Paul II said, demystifying them from any theological concept. So we could say something like beauty is a state of consciousness, a state of the soul. Socrates said that wisdom can only be in a healthy soul. That beauty, goodness and truth are inseparable. Therefore, the ugly, the bad and the false are also inseparable? Only the truth will set you free. Lying causes suffering. Only in the movie, the good, the bad and the ugly, these are inseparable (laughs).
In a kind of pun, I conclude that
Beauty is good because it is true,
Kindness is true because it is beautiful
And the truth is beautiful because it is good.
Living in the contemporary global village does not contradict that we are cultural beings and within culture there are diverse creeds and visions. No wonder the history of art, and the meaning of art, has changed so much. From myth to science. Danto stopped the history of art, it is the opportunity for a new paradigm, for the beginning of a new story told in a different way. It seems that this rupture between art and science is ending.
Myth and techné in the ancients,
Faith and alchemy in the Middle Ages,
Art and science today
they seem to be meeting again after each reached their highest thresholds in enlightenment for science and in the renaissance for art. It is a wonderful meeting of two worlds with maturity in the history of mankind. The fact that in our era there are already methodologies for research in the arts implies the birth of a close relationship between two traditionally opposed knowledges. It is the meeting of two hemispheres that complete a sphere, a symbol of the integral.
But does science only meet art through research? Currently yes, because the approach of now has been rather from technology. But this meeting of art and science, as a work of art, is the great challenge. It is at that moment when a work of art is in itself an advance of science, that it is the product of a profound investigation. And so we understand that beauty becomes important in the sense of a new paradigm where the contemporary worldview has a tendency towards holistic integrity where art and knowledge, aesthetics and logic intermingle more and more.
“I always think about what to paint, I think about surreal things, complex ideas and metaphors, painting strange things, contemporary things, a banana taped to the wall, strange ideas, kitsch ideas, ridiculous ideas, silly ideas, ideas that the world asks for. ... For being famous. But suddenly a bird prostrates itself before me and I am so amazed that so much beauty still provokes me, that I feel challenged to decipher it and try to paint it... And that is when fame ceases to matter to me and only painting matters to me. It's like food." JUANURREA. Digital acrylic painting by JUANURREA 2020.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
· KANT, Immanuel. Critique of the faculty of judging (Kritik der Urteilskraft). Caracas: Monte Ávila, 1992. Translation: Pablo Oyarzún (from Karl Volander's edition).
GADAMER, Hans-Georg. The actuality of the beautiful (Die Aktualität des Schönen - 1977). Barcelona: Paidós, 1991. Translation: Antonio Gómez Ramos.
· DANTO, Arthur C. The abuse of beauty (The Abuse of Beauty - 2003). Barcelona: Paidós, 2005. Translation: Carles Roche.
HEGEL. Lectures on Aesthetics (Vorlensungen über die Ästhetik – according to the edition of Heinrich Gustav Horthos –1842). Madrid: Akal, 1989. Translation: Alfredo Brotóns Munoz.
PLATON. The Republic. Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1988
Comments