On 2 February 2020, "Yatesbury" makes this comment about art on @FutEnFol's blog.

 

These valuable interactions invite us to wonder about the differential psychology of thinking entities and deserve to be investigated.

 

Is not "art" inscribed, in the first place, in a history, in a chronology of civilizations?

 

Is it only a question of pure purpose, essentially responding to the satisfaction of an aspiration?

 

Or does it rather arise from a need, from a commitment, which allows the idea, that is, the spiritual substrate, to become embodied in the matter of a stone or an acoustic wave?

 

Why does a given civilization, at a particular moment of its history, feel the need to incorporate into the perceptible -that is, into what is accessible to the SENSES of the individual- something that could be transmitted by the trivial tool of LANGUAGE?

 

Is it not simply because this tool proves insufficient and deficient for transmitting the unsayable?

 

Whereas Greek art strove to symbolize the infinite harmony and balance of the kósmos in the marble of a perfectly proportioned statue, the religious paintings of the Renaissance set themselves the ambition of representing the absolute of the divine in the image. These concepts are beyond the capacity of the most precise and exhaustive words used to describe them.

 

But if art can make up, for a given time, for the lack of a language, the necessary support of all thought, what happens when the circulation of information, with its associated affective and emotional charge, takes place in an integral and formal way?

 

What is the thought of an ethnic group that is not limited by an imperfect communication tool like?

 

What can this same ethnic group grasp of a work of art that transmits this non-communicable "remainder" resulting from this passage from the spiritual to the material substrate?

 

How is the sibylline character of this "remainder" to be apprehended by an ethnic group whose totally effective information flows in fact exclude any form of ambiguity?

 

Is this typically human "remainder" the residue of an unsymbolizable loss or the product of a genuine added value?

 

Is this "remainder" perceptible only in art?

 

What impact can it have, in turn, on thought?

 

 

What is your opinion on this?