Recently I asked a few questions about art:
Must be green? Or in other words it must be in harmony with its environment.
the question box
curious question: the last time that anyone has defined art as what should be in harmony with the environment (office), it was Joseph Stalin ...
But Doctor Philo saw others, and he will bravely tackle the question: after all the gulags were closed today.
The idea which has dominated the twentieth th century is that art is to itself its own environment . The world, he ; Nature, it is him the same universe stops at its limit. Think there may be a work of art "bio is strictly incongruous.
Any time, because things are neither all white nor all black, it is true that below harmony with the environment, there may exist some intuition of nature, a sort of connivance with her that can feed the inspiration of an artist. And then I would say that this is not necessarily an artist. Think of the Finnish composer Sibelius: symphonic poem Finlandia (now the national anthem of Finland) gives us the chills to the steppes north of the great lakes and bordered by trees (although I read that Biafra had also adopted as the national anthem: I do not know what determine). Let those who do not know when to think Sibelius and Smetana's Moldau famous (or rather Má Vlast Moldau which forms a part).
Remains to ask the fundamental question: should therefore use art to give expression to this complicity with nature?
Maybe yes, it is true that the language daily, the usual perception of forms, attention to the world that are absorbed by utility functions that cancel these emotions yet so universal. This was at least certain of Bergson.
But someone like Merleau-Ponty believed that this complicity with the world was too fundamental to be totally removed from everyday life, and that language in what was to certify a cruder Such intuition.
