 |
| p. Erich Pryzwara sj |
The second point concerns the firm to be established metaphysical foundation of beauty.
Any building, both sacred and profane, is subject to aesthetic judgments, whose decision has two preconditions:
1. unit architecture, for all of the buildings is unique and is not divisible on the basis of its sacred nature or profane
2. aesthetic evaluation is possible and necessary on the basis of an objective criterion, identified in the metaphysical notion of the transcendental " Bello "
These two conditions are universal, apply always and everywhere, because they have the foundation in the quality of being universal unity and beauty as we know it not by faith in an explicit religious revelation, but for the confidence you need to put human in human reason, reason being inherently open to knowledge and its good qualities .
The principle that guides contemporary art is so rampant subjectivism vulgarization: is beautiful what is beautiful, but it is beautiful which pleases . So if someone likes the disharmony, the nonsense, falsehood or evil is not afraid to give this the title of beautiful. So that everything can potentially be regarded as beautiful, as all can enjoy, but if everything is beautiful, nothing is, as this review is a lack of opinion, a lack of ability to discriminate between what is good and what is not it is that it can only be based on an objective criterion, a universal Beauty.
Policy aesthetics are the following: is beautiful what is beautiful . Like what can be good or bad, since the subjective taste does not create the objective good, but can adapt to it, loving it and looking for, or may hate him and fled, such as pigs that roll in the mud pleased, to whom the Gospel commands us not to cast pearls (Mt 7.6). In today's cultural climate of certainty must be explained and confirmed: it's nice not what we like, but what is beautiful, the glory of being perceived brightness by the human senses. So it is lawful and right to apply evaluation criteria to judge the universal beauty of the buildings, even sacred.
I do not see, however, because the only limit religious art rejection of arbitrariness. The arbitrariness in itself expresses the solipsistic subjectivism that has nothing to communicate to others, as it closed in self-narcissistic contemplation. The art, by contrast, has much to communicate, rather is no exaggeration to say that it is communication, speech, testimony, revelation, epiphany, a manifestation, all striving to improve the form and forward it to better the splendor of truth and goodness, showing the supreme harmony of being. On the basis of arbitrariness is not real art, I will profane the sacred, but only the gurgling of a mind blank and bored folded upon itself.
The principle that guides contemporary art is so rampant subjectivism vulgarization: is beautiful what is beautiful, but it is beautiful which pleases . So if someone likes the disharmony, the nonsense, falsehood or evil is not afraid to give this the title of beautiful. So that everything can potentially be regarded as beautiful, as all can enjoy, but if everything is beautiful, nothing is, as this review is a lack of opinion, a lack of ability to discriminate between what is good and what is not it is that it can only be based on an objective criterion, a universal Beauty.
 |
| Raphael, particularly the School of Athens |
Policy aesthetics are the following: is beautiful what is beautiful . Like what can be good or bad, since the subjective taste does not create the objective good, but can adapt to it, loving it and looking for, or may hate him and fled, such as pigs that roll in the mud pleased, to whom the Gospel commands us not to cast pearls (Mt 7.6). In today's cultural climate of certainty must be explained and confirmed: it's nice not what we like, but what is beautiful, the glory of being perceived brightness by the human senses. So it is lawful and right to apply evaluation criteria to judge the universal beauty of the buildings, even sacred.
I do not see, however, because the only limit religious art rejection of arbitrariness. The arbitrariness in itself expresses the solipsistic subjectivism that has nothing to communicate to others, as it closed in self-narcissistic contemplation. The art, by contrast, has much to communicate, rather is no exaggeration to say that it is communication, speech, testimony, revelation, epiphany, a manifestation, all striving to improve the form and forward it to better the splendor of truth and goodness, showing the supreme harmony of being. On the basis of arbitrariness is not real art, I will profane the sacred, but only the gurgling of a mind blank and bored folded upon itself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment