What is art? What is it used for ? Who is it
a work of art? What is an artist?
Historically, many intellectuals
attempted to answer these questions. For
the abstract painter Paul Klee, art
not reproduce the visible, it makes visible.
Basquiat had him this insight:
"I do not think about art when I work.
I try to think about life. "Unlike
Plato, the philosopher Henri Bergson considered
natural beauty that none can match
the beauty of a work of art, provided
that it is not an attempt
to imitate nature. François French
Dagognet believed that art should always
be an entry into a new world. For
Alain, the arts are like mirrors
where man recognizes something
he did not know himself. For Scottish
David Hume, any aesthetic judgment must
be based on an ongoing relationship to works
Art. For German Adorno, the beautiful and
the ugly are inseparable from each other,
and the difference between them is that point
historical view. For the controversial Martin
Heidegger, the artwork is rolling
of thought. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
perceived art as a way forward on
the path of pure knowledge, which is
self-knowledge. For Immanuel Kant,
the beautiful is the realization of what our
mind is, and sublime in
differs in that it is beyond our
understanding. To the question "What
is art? "Arthur Schopenhauer claimed
that art itself responds simply:
"What Is Life?" "One day,
necessarily, wrote Friedrich Nietzsche,
no longer will rule the judge but the creator,
whether worker or intellectual. "
The writer Leo Tolstoy defined
art as a means of transmission of feelings
among men, but was absurd
try to do the analysis. Honoré de Balzac
saw art as the search for the absolute.
Paul Valery, for which the character
most obvious of a work of art is its
uselessness, looking through the works
men the meaning and value to be given
thereto. "The deeper purpose of the artist,
he said, is to give more than he has. "
André Malraux said that only the world
Art triumphs over death and destiny.
For Albert Camus, the artist invested a
social mission, and has to put his
Art for no not those who make history,
but of those who suffer it. In his unforgettable
acceptance speech Nobel Prize for Literature
in 1957, he will have these dazzling words:
"The art subjects the artist to the most truth
humble and the most universal. And he who,
often chose his artistic destiny because
he felt different learns quickly
he will feed his art, and its difference,
confessing that his likeness to all. The artist
is forged in this perpetual return
of him to others, midway beauty
he can not do without and the community
to which it can not tear. This is why
true artists do not despise;
they are obliged to understand rather than judge. "
Shortly before his death in 2013, the historian
Art Jean-Louis Pradel has asked the
question: Why are there instead of art
than nothing? and responded thus: "Because
it must always resist the onslaught
of nothing and the extension of this, shoving
indifference, escape the entertainment,
tu insolently space and time,
give rise to discernment and body to collective intelligence.
While the best of worlds
seems to run away faster and faster, ever
further, it is lost in the tumult
a deafening noise and light
blinding lucidity resist saying
no and the irrepressible desire of beings
free. The incurable need to disobey
is combined with unreasonable obstinacy
to give voice to that which does not speak and
give shape to what is not seen. Face
formatting spirits and his narrative order
arise, useless, fierce, seductive,
a multitude of hardware objections
or untimely perfectly immaterial. "
