êthos mystéthikos - Chapter 3 (From the work in progress: The Poetized Critique) By M. Santos

 

3. DECLINE OF ALLEGORY AND CONCEPT IN FACE THE BEAUTY

It has become clear to us that in the metaphysics of the beautiful there is a primacy of aesthetic intuition over ordinary rationality, of the Idea over the concept, and also of beautiful art over allegory. 

Therefore, if there is a differentiation between the fleeting freedom of the artist and that probable duration of the sage's clairvoyance in the world, this seriously compromises the notion of nunc stans. However, mystetically speaking, what happens is just the opposite, that is, through the notion of nunc stans both the fleeting of art and the enduring of ethics become something indistinguishable. However, this will be clarified in detail throughout this work.

Now, as there is no beauty in the pleasure of pure thought, mas only pure intuition diverts us from the occupation with our individualistic goals and ejects us definitively from our egocentric personality. So, a work of art is not produced by the artist, with the aim of expressing some concept, as is what happens in works of allegory. These are works of art too, but with a different meaning than what is exposed in them. Thus, if the work has such an intention, it must be characterized as a work of allegory, that is, one that says something, but aims to express precisely something else.

What happens with an idea of ​​the authentic work of art is that it manifests itself directly, in pure intuition, expressing exactly what it is.

However, in the case of the concept, only the role of mediator of subjective knowledge fits, since all of it also ends up assuming a merely allegorical role, always indicating something different from what it says and, thus, it can never account for any idea, something that only the true work of art does.

It is already known that, according to its original etymological meaning, the term allegory derives from the Attic Greek and is formed from állos, ē, on and means 'other, another', adding the root of the verb agoreúō 'to speak in public' and the suffix (-ia) forming an abstract noun. 

In this context, allegory and symbol differ in object and expression. And, both in the visual arts and in poetry, allegory acts as a symbol, because it is merely arbitrary, that is, between what it exposes and what it indicates abstractly, what actually exists is a mere fortuitous convention.

But, at an even greater disadvantage, the symbol carries an evanescent meaning in time, remaining silent soon after, that is, in a future time and culture in which its symbolism is forgotten.

Now, we will better elucidate the subject in scope, for that, let's check three decisive aspects: First, the allegory always demands the indication of a concept to be understood and, with that, the spectator's creative imagination does not lead to the pure intuitive idea. 

Now, if the intuitive happened to be merely abstract, then everything else would remain subjective and closed in the access to genius knowledge.

Second, we must differentiate between the real and the nominal meaning of an image, and in the latter we glue the conceptual allegorical element. But in the case of the former, the real meaning, the exposed immediate occurs, that is, the total expression of the objectivity of an idea.

Third, the real meaning is the very intuitive exposition that the ideas express. For example: the idea of ​​the human being as a young woman, as an old woman, etc. However, the effect of this real meaning will require the viewer not to think about other meanings, that is, neither the nominal nor the allegorical-conceptual.

Therefore, without real meaning, pure intuition does not take hold, and, in this way, the subject will remain on the ground of concepts, that is, always in abstracto and without a relevant epistemic foundation regarding the real meaning of that Idea of ​​Humanity.

The main objective of the allegory is, to lead the spectator's spirit to an abstract concept, depending on who looks at it and how it looks. But a work of art can only be the expression of a brilliant idea.

Thus, the expression of a concept is an aim alien to art and a pleasant diversion, a mere image that, at the same time, serves to accomplish what a hieroglyphic inscription does, that is, to relate what is exposed with what is indicated, proposing some connection based on subsumption to a broader concept or a more objective association of representations.

Now the word symbolon, from the Greek verb symballein and means to allegorize, to make convention and agreement. It is a 'bastard' kind of allegory. Thus, the rose is the symbol of discretion; the laurel, of glory; the palm of victory; the shell, of pilgrimage and femininity; the cross, of the Christian religion.

All immediate allusions to the simple colors also belong to the symbol. Therefore, yellow is the color of falsehood; the blue, of fidelity; the rose, of love, etc. 

Such symbols have their use in everyday life, but for genius art their value is alien and ineffective.

As can be seen, the characteristic of the allegory is to awaken a lively expression in the spectator, however, this can also be accomplished by an inscription. 

Still within the scope of allegory, abstract thinking always stands out, which leaves out the intuitive element.

Therefore, the rationale of allegory, which is an improper way of indicating a concept, will always be qualitatively lowered by the intuitive of the authentic work of art. The same happens with the symbol that, by means of something totally different, indicates the other, sometimes appealing to a predetermined necessary convention, as happens in mathematics and logic, for example.

Every connection between thing and concept is established fortuitously and even through some cultural convention with little or no epistemic justification. 

Therefore, symbols or signs indicate something other than what they are. Because it is conventional, the same symbol can indicate different things in different places, cultures, or even in different religions, and from there, common sense starts to establish an untrue connection between concepts and things that are completely different.

Finally, after those three illuminating observations above, we can now state that whenever an artist transitions from an idea to a concept he will decay, that is, his art will lose that indefectible epistemic element of Beauty, the only one capable of expressing truth without mediation of understanding. It should also be noted that this epistemic superiority occurs to the creative genius, precisely because the barrier of understanding has no power over him (her).