In progressive aestheticization that our societies are experiencing in recent years, which may be the meaning of a philosophical reflection of an author who is not a philosopher, but a painter, like Magritte?
can be very, very useful. And first of all to ensure that we continue to confuse art with the ornament, with the 'nice' with something just 'beautiful' in the sense of considerably pleasant. On the other hand a well-defined strand Western aesthetics (from Aristotle) \u200b\u200bwould end up reducing art and aesthetics on the taste of something. Understanding it as a mere experience of feeling. To this aim, moreover, the widespread aestheticism, that is, to make our life pleasant, to ensure that the environment in which we find to exist is somehow exciting and gratifying to the sense (you want to view, either of ' hearing ....). Hence a number of images technically well crafted, and often very sophisticated and well-made. In contrast to this prevailing trend, Magritte claims therefore another way of making art. So that has nothing to do with the aisthesis, ie the "sensitivity". Or even, with good workmanship, with harmony, pleasantness. A sense by which is assigned to art in a very complex role: allowing us to finally deal with the real existence of what exists. An art, that is specifically committed to illuminate the mystery of pure existence. The mystery of an absolute being, ie, devoid of any specific determination. Yet always present in certain things we encounter every day. Art truly metaphysical in short, is specific ontological. And all this Magritte says with the utmost explicitness, in copious pages of reflections that we should all read! That "art" is for him only what he can to clear the images (of which, even though you should be using) from the way they have for each one of us (regardless of the level more or less refined conceptual recognition of their significance), and return to look innocent in a position to meet their meaningless existence. That is, the miracle of their free and 'solitary' there.
Magritte's reflection seems to have clearly spelled out from his paintings: what does your opinion also pay attention to 's theoretical?
Certainly, Magritte is a great painter, but if her pictures showed anything, it is rarely what common sense can recognize for what it really is. And in any case, that something, if it is really shown by the paintings of Magritte (as I believe), is still shown for a reason
purely philosophical. It is on the other hand, the same Magritte to tell us, explaining some of its fundamental obsessions. And writing page after page with no less intensity than he had done and continues to do with canvas, paints and brushes. Magritte himself is no longer consider art as a pure exercise in style: the art is
him a chance, can provoke us to being all that exists and its paradoxes. Then come back to a destination metaphysical-ontological - that, indeed, that the daily attitude seems intended to remove. Therefore, it is a useful philosophical approach to the experience Magritte. While his artistic gesture is a gesture of philosophy, then who better than the philosophy can help to arrange themselves in front of their incantatory power (not that we abandon a well that is most convenient, low alloy psychology ... maybe)? Moreover, his works show what really shows. That is, indeed exhibit the meanings that actually perform (And could not help it). But what in all living things (including those posters) the artistry shows - at least, according to Magritte - is just the simple "be denied" what in it and it still shows.
Magritte is not the only painter in the twentieth century who wanted to propose in his work and his thinking and his conception of the world of things (think of Kandinsky or Chagall), indeed we can say that almost all the art of the period is both a reflection on art. How do you see the originality of his contribution to Magritte?
The originality of Magritte, in a context that would have led to the radicalization kosuthiana (where the art is precisely resolved in its definition) consists primarily in being able to do a double. We have already said that his intention is strictly philosophical, but the object he had artistic product is not a treatise on philosophy, nor is a definition of art. On the contrary, his art objects are, in his eyes, being able to put in brackets the concepts which may not matter anyway. They must show, must show the mystery of 'likeness'. Must be in keeping with the real-mindedness. Of course, in the twentieth century would spread a specific approach conceptual. But this is not what was being attempted by Chagall and Kandinsky, Klee and Duchamp by
. Although Duchamp it would still have been more ambiguous. In fact, all these artists (as in Magritte) the intention is to give shape to what is still seen as a work of art. Of course, all these extraordinary pages were written to explain on what moved their obsessions do, that is, what was the intention underlying the philosophical background to their material. Great is the knowledge gained in the twentieth century by the great protagonists of the art world. But all this has nothing to do with the claim that would grow until the second half of the twentieth century, on the intake just by art, to become philosophy. Of course, before Kosuth, Malevich had already foreshadowed this situation, and even Beuys wanted to transform the art into a real possibility for the revaluation of human existence - which could also have lead to a simple verbal expression. Or perhaps lead to a real treaty of social philosophy.
We know that eminent contemporary philosophers (Foucault, for example) have acknowledged a debt against Magritte important theoretical: how does this penetration in the philosophical thinking of Magritte?
purely instrumental or a fruitful line of thought?
Magritte would stimulate a lot of European intellectuals of the time. Its comparison with Merleau-Ponty is known. The philosophy of the twentieth century (second half of the twentieth century) that is found in Magritte would have a revolutionary power that few other artists have been able to reveal. Foucault wrote a beautiful on the 'pipe' Magritte, in short, the real thinkers could not remain indifferent in the face of a radical aesthetic like Magritte - that would have appeared more radical than less confused with a simple stylistic or formal challenge. Indeed, Magritte choose to be perfectly classic use of color and pattern, not you grant that is easy to extemporaneously ... .. that does not rely on the anger of an informal gesture abstractly. But just so it can appear with greater clarity and power with concrete figurative his radical aesthetic assumption: that the unprecedented power of intent, which is always an aesthetic and metaphysical 'in a'.
0 comments:
Post a Comment