Pure Art Negates Beauty.

Plato wants to cut off Art from Beauty because he regards Beauty as too serious a matter to be commanded by Art. Kant, on the other hand, wants to cut off Beauty from Moral because he restricts Beauty for the same reason for which Plato restricts Art – to get it cleanly out of the way of something more important. Plato is a great moralist and he reasonably suspect that Art has no moral message and therefore should not be regarded as a serious matter. Kant, in his turn, sees Art as an instrument which is capable of carrying morals and admits pure Beauty in nature only at levels of satisfaction in simples forms, such as levels and flowers.

In my turn, I want to cut off both Beauty and Morality from Art because pure Art is not subjected to judgements unlike Beauty and Morality.

When we make judgement we first resort to our memories in order to recollect something similar in the past. If the object excels all previous memories in quality, we label it beautiful. So the principle of our judgement is based on recognition, comparison and appreciation. On the other hand, we do not appreciate Beauty unless we can see its purpose or function. For example, a red stain on a nose does not rouse thoughts about beauty (unless there is a special purpose) but painted red lips certainly can adorn a woman’s face. So far,- as long as Beauty serves the Idea, we love it.

Here is another example, a flower in a filed is beautiful and is perfectly embellishes the scenery. The same flower crushed and besmeared by excrements of passing cow does not excite such highly aesthetical emotion. It has lost its purpose and therefore its image of beautiful.

Now we approach the second point of our judgement – EVERYTHING IS BEAUTIFUL IF IT GOES IN HAND WITH OUR MORAL PRINCIPLES. Morality appears to be a very relative notion, and so does Beauty. For instance, in Latin American Indian tribes a woman with her nose pierced with bamboo sticks and dreadfully deformed ears (and other things) is regarded as highly beautiful, whereas an European does not admit this barbaric conception. In some African tribes to offer one’s own wife’s sexual services to a respectable guest is to hit the standards of hospitality. So far, Moral and Beauty are such close sisters that it would be wrong to mix them up with a purpose of pure Art.

We experience Art without understanding it. Art work its secret claim to supreme power blurs the distinction between the presence and the absence of reality, and it tries to cover up a new imagery of the distance between the Known and the Unknown. Beauty has a tendency of becoming a standard and to reorganise Chaos in accordance with one’s moral, whereas Are desires to develops magical structures to reveal the presence of God or his real, whereas Art dwells  in the unconscious. A human’s soul longs for the unconscious, it is no longer trusts visual reality.

Pure Art is free of Morality and our imageries of Beauty because it is based on Novelty and therefore it is not subjected to recollection from the past experience. Art as the great general universal informat is an obvious rival, not necessarily a hostile one, to philosophy and indeed to science. It is born of our refusal to explain the Concrete and highlights and glorifies Human’s rebellion against inevitability  of our downfall.


One thought on “Pure Art Negates Beauty.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s