Vincent Matijasevic:
This comment exclusively studies to the original bi-dimensional plastic arts
I (the theme.)
that which receives the tread the direct trace print generated by the muscular movement of an author so that this footprint results lasting (beyond the same movement that caused it) will then be called “the original” but, the terrain that separates (in art bi-dimensional) the original copy is if you use the criterion of the linguist C. F Hoockett a terrain drastically bad defined, and it is not by any neglect of this territory of the culture, but, by an essential inability to define it well but, where does this inability emerge from? It arises from a double assignment to the original placed, which he calls in the first place (and without anyone saying that as a work likes to the own-author (resulting that such criterion of strange appearance , Will indicate that when such work starts any movement in the social sphere, its same author will deemed terminated ,being that it is customary to certify that “be finalized” with the singing of this author, or a least with the formal and conceptual evidence of belonging to any current recognizable inquisitive in it; is to say that (such work) does not appear as a drooped wheel into his work, because to do so, it would seem a possible attempt to something that for it resulted in no finding any plastic or worse, seem something difficult to certify as certainly built by the author in question) while at the same time it is requested, a second completion to such original, to be unique (which means demand therefore that the author has performed directly or being with the obvious intervention of its own muscular movement, which transforms and adjusts the substances in which such original is built) and always seemed
natural that the two commissions, could be made to the thing about that art exists or where the art is but a contradiction hidden and critical, beats between the two commissions, and on that I will refer. So much is this difficulty that in the end the bi-dimensional artistic thing must necessarily split into touched thing and seen thing, although this division is not clear when the work is recently built, because only the passing of the time.
Will eventually completed per separate the seen from the touched. And such separation will be greater the many as impacts and affronts generate the time on the initial work , causing damage, for example and foremost (in the case because of the paint and generalization of bi-dimensional plastic arts) its initial chromatic strength: darkening, reducing colour saturation quartering etc. Some restaurateurs assure for example that artwork should be taken as a sort of living subject to which assists the right to grow old and never a restaurateur should try to it is guise this aging but, say that the work has the right to get old is just an elegant way of consoling the collector of art. How he sees the object of his collection is clearing deteriorating at a given moment, it is true that ageing should not be disguised but, is not unless it would be preferable to be closest to reality of what created. Close to see what the author saw. There beats the fork named among the seen and touched as: What is touched almost imperturbable before time while what is seen remarkably fragile but.. It would not be credible that in some old great work (E.g. “the last super” by Leonardo) as deteriorated it be, something of its original magic is still there in it? Should be proposed here the stability of two dimensional Works from a grey criterion somewhat inherent in any pigment no from the aspect of the some colour values, the proposal is therefore here the following: all picture will tend to defend with some tenacity, their initial level of grey (Light and darks). For example if “the last supper” by Leonardo, we could have him take a photograph in black and white five centuries ago and we take another one today , levels of stability that we find, from those criterions of light and dark grey still Would be high. Since the grey appointed in fact tacit emerge from the colour. For example some violet, can when photographing white and black, give a grey equal to that a certain blue gives. So. I suppose that since this grey aspect , both are equally stable, although they are not actually from those same colours; as a violet can perhaps turn brown over time, and a blue may perhaps turn green before or after this transformation of violet, as the material that is, but every where (purple and brown on one side and blue alive and other greenish blue) will give four grey however clearly similar to one another when they were photographed in black and white this leads us to the certainty that “the last super by Leonardo despites the five centuries that have already elapsed and the technical disasters that have accompanied, since it preserves aspect of light and dark grey, some real stability to respect what Leonardo built so much so that no reply from any admirer of that work, get the solemnity structural Leonardo Manager to impart to this work, not only in terms of its formal Basic construction, but also presenting details that outstands of Titanic mystical effort of Jesus of Nazareth. At that point all the replicas are in a sense unbelievable, that is not credible, that is distant from the truth, false, while the work of Leonardo is huge, thanks to the contrary because it results credible. It seems any incident similar to a strange cognitive dimension of truth in a Heideggeriana sense, not so much because it is realistic (though it is) but because it is flooded with unprecedented capacity of Leonardo to relieve in what he was doing. He impregnated his work with his own ability to relieve and we find that same credible. As if despite being unreal, (because after all is nothing but a painting) perceive it as an is sue in some sense strangely true. And it seemed as this, that since no chromatic aspect, the original two-dimensional proves something by partially defensible. But, can be dispensed to paint what chromatic? Of course not. Remember here and in any event (before proceeding), the primary condition that each author enjoys and loves of his own work, and also insists besides in the following: The what said I like from the author toward it ,being difficult and even sometimes unlikely to achieve, do us not indicate that this is unnecessary or despicable that essence. Is it a common needing in any art and if (as such) was denied or violated art were dabbled in anything, that is anything , human, animal, inert, done or not done, chosen or not chosen committed or not determined. The seriousness of this is that if true )as some analysts hurried of modernity assure that any thing is art, then it would arise an absurdity: If anything is art, then everything Would be art and by derivation of that nonsense, so nothing would dissolve even the entire analysis and commentary throughout. Perhaps we can say that anything would be art, but, only on condition that someone who officiates as an artist, believes from deep in its very core what it does and suggest what will be (and still would miss that society contemporary or future society will hear that suggestion). At least, the art will differ because “something of what is not art. How do they differ? I suppose that only art specializes in trying to stimulate some sort of initial coexistence and why not even collaboration among the various aware and no aware mentally rhythms? that swarm and sometimes (when the art is missing or mal functioning disinterest. or misinformation of the viewer, or inability of authors to that surrounding spectator) is de-structured converted into rhythms that oppose one another, hampered throughout the vast territory of the psychic. Man is thus a terrible psychic animal and his mare magnum of logic and aware mental fluids on one hand and illogical and not aware of another, require some rhythmic articulation to make something of that excessiveness capable psychic of at least attempt to survive. and that, is , I suppose, the role of art, its essence and its definition, which many efforts have been made.
That is why I find that Heideggeriana idea of art as an “putting into operation the truth” Would be acceptable only if to the truth is recognized no one needing of logic strut ration, but just a needing of rhythmic articulation between logia and illogical that pulses in the interaction conscious and not conscious of each human subject. Clarify what is a rhythmic articulation when what is logic and illogical to levels not conscious and aware, shapes the intention of this small text and hopes to submit a greater text, must leaving here only clear the radical opposition between what a rhythmic and the cyclical side of another: What is radically cyclical repetitive and therefore is mathematical, as an absolute derivation that is the human abstraction (even though apparently the same universe is subject to cycles, and which actually, the most minuscule imprecision of their lapses, which are not displayed such)quite the contrary rhythmic what is the reality radically implicit of the living and is not repetitive in any way nor mathematically in any way. the art is not for it mathematically or how to do, what is its essence at any given time and place, it is not predictable, but, once done it is possible to use the numbers for the mere mechanical act to engrave the structure that already took it must then emphasize that “it likes me” of the author toward his own work strange and sometimes annoying that reaches apparently ,guides to the art, because the “it likes me” is itself a derivation” I relieve in what I do”. Although be clarified here that “it likes me” it is essential only for its same author whenever the viewer sometimes it does not determinates an “It likes me” towards artwork of art because in many cases it is even capable of over throwing prejudices therein, for a warring process to Start or disturbing if you like, but at the end liberating in some sense, if any that despites this concern and to this disturbance, “I do not know what” but maintains the contact between the viewer and the work. And it is clear that other “it likes me” the author to his work is separated from the connecting on the pleasure or other be cause “it likes me” an author is based on the free core of the individual (from the psychical flooded by the same author’s story about social issues) rather than a social nucleus (which impels and individual).
It seems appropriate that a two-dimensional work then meets those two orders appointed at the beginning but the matter, soon, shows its volatility: The first commission, referred to “it likes me” of author, can not occur without the author see what he likes, for being the two-dimensional art plastic a visual art. And it must be emphasized that what the author sees when completes his creation is what I have called the original seen and in the second assignment, meaning that the author has worked with his hand his own work. It requires that the muscular movement of its perpetrator had transformed to his desire the substances that make up the work itself. That is to say that has somehow touched it with the resulting that there is, in fact the original touched. However, as noted, both original starting to happen over an only and a same work, but only retain their coexistence, as it is said, when such a work is done recently. So, when a work done today, tomorrow has some seniority, and we can take from it an excellent digital photography, which have been registered throughout the precise detailed original colour, when it was still newly, then that will happen in binary file that digital photography will be that original seen and that aged work will be the original touched , and which never again return to coexist (it is necessary to clarify that digital photography does not act as an original seen for being there subject, as are not in principle of binary numbers file at the same deterioration that time imposes to the original touched) and all this, as it is said, will show an articulation problem since the two following ways:
Way One
Not only in art, but, in any act of touching anything, remains, once occurred, a ghostly substratum as strong or weak ,as strong or weak it be, in memory of a group or even an isolated individual, the presence of who touched such a thing, turning this ghostly substratum into a past stable and fixed in the same thing that becomes itself in amulet in a fetish looking invincible so long as that duration of the touched same thing. And all this will seem so much, according to insist , when such a thing touched be, as the case under consideration, a two dimensional artistic thing because, so, when touching (in first term) as a fetish in fact transforms it cognitively while the touching as two dimensional work, transforms it (in second term) gesture as well. why? because the original touched is turned by the work of the gesture act of the hand also in the seen. So although that it seems that the tactful does not take part of the two-dimensional plastic arts however it ends entering in it through the gestures that the hand imposes on the seen. T The hand which touches puts gesture expression on the thing, the one transforms with this tactful act itself.
It should be clarified that in this commentary which I have called the original touched, it will be radically different from the touched itself because while strictly speaking that is merely tactful, the touched gets by the gestured action of the hand four dimensions: a gestured tactful- a visible-a cognitive and a fetish. In the original touched. The touched lets transforms itself by the muscular movement that affects it. Even putting in an affection that you see a tactful character and a no tactful character but, cognitive that you also see. That will jump to action when they ask for example two equally skilled printers, who copied the same issue from one angle: The results will be cognitive equal, but, will not be gutturally equivalents, because for example, the hand that touches permits textures and tremors that are gestures and as it , does not make the cognitive intention as you can see, the hand that touches obeys due to the cognition but at once charges a muscular, boned , cartilage and nervous apparatus(and even linked to the neuronal nervous) all of which is himself and only of him and will end by leaving a gesture mark only himself too, that cognition does not dominate his control. All this concern the touched. But if we say something of the touched should remain in the original thing that is touched, and what remains can not be visible as the visible belongs only to the original seen, then, ask :that which remains is the gesture?, the cognitive or simple the fetishist? Herein lies the main drama to the traditional original: The cognitive-touched is also touched-seen is therefore affected by the same passing of the time, in the same way how it will be affected by that time the gesture touched that is also touched-seen the hand makes the touched without sight or cognition conscious order it , but, that what the hand makes by itself will also be attracted by the vision and conscious cognition and will also be affected by the pass of the time : for example some gestuality in the use of some colours, will cease to exist when the colours are processed by the darkening and de-saturation that the pass of the time force in them, so, what of the touched in all the four facets (cognitive touched, touched seen, touched gesture and fetish). the only thing that remains in the original touched is the fetish. Believing therefore pursue the aesthetic and artistic, the original touched only guarantees the fetish. Therefore a touched thing today by an author, will inalterable charge the real event that such author touched it, while such thing subsists as an entity collectible: so that, for being it touched will only disappear because the same thing but if it is the case with everything touched, another issue occurs to the two-dimensional seen; the two dimensional is a volatile event, which exists and persists only as long as the author captures and says I like. So that, and once the author take the sight out from that object he likes is possible that he by any instability of their materials change till the author does not like it after. Against this technique has struggled all two-dimensional plastic arts.
For trying finding stable substances, in which the seen by and author, remains the most that can be unalterable. And while some progress had been made on it such fight, especially in the World of colour is lost, however: Any material that brings colour in the bi-dimensional arts, moves, changes, transforms and sometimes to increase the pleasure of seeing, violates the durability of the seen in the touched, making it into something even more changing from the what it already was. Why? because they tend to add to the techniques, beautiful materials that often pay the price for its beauty with the misery of further instability. The ageing because of the ingredients of which is made two-dimensional work, it points such work, two guidelines that will make it increasingly difficult to analyst :In first term, the original seen will less and less be on the original touched and secondly such an original seen will start trying to appear, for various technical efforts, on the not touched, seeking thereby multiply as the seen and both safeguarding, which it is built hence the double intention of engraving and derivations from it, appear other essential developments to the concept.
Way Two.
This way is in some sense the other side of the above one: if we say that an author of two-dimensional plastic arts likes one of his Works, we have said necessarily that he saw it. But if we say that an author worked with his hands a work, we do not necessarily say that he touched it (because of that dual intent that make the engraving rises) it seems absurd to say, so, and it is clear that we have reached the seemingly impossible: To see an author recognize in his work in the “I like it” without having touched it as a thing itself, but why can this happen? simple because before this author touched and saw other thing else has been called matrix. However obviously any matrix (except in the numerical computer) remains always some defence less character against the same pass of the time, with a identical helplessness to that of the thing, that forms to the original seen-touched itself, being it that the materials will age or that the exercise of the same impression from each matrix, will eventually collapse from all of which arise reversible some features that this matrix shares with the original seen-touched and in that such essence are follows:
A: All original seen-touched is capable of being matrix of a serial system.
B: Any matrix (except as noted above, only the numerical computational matrix it is necessarily be seeing and touched to be built. Despite this double correspondence, not every matrix will be able to be original seen-touched. Because of dismemberment that have reached the matrix in polychromes : In them plate to plate and colour to colour the work is unhindered by a logic that allows only to see it as a complete work, in the Copy or reproducing itself, being that such a copy will show whether the same matrix is properly completed and built. Result that everyone here (the original seen-touched) and copies of both matrixes) will be at the end, as for durability of the seen overtaken by the digital engraving process which once archived as numerical computational it will result capable of an indefinitely stability (as long as it is properly constituted), which is multiplied in any future with remarkable precision without that affecting helplessness before the time in principle to these numbers, in which case and because of that digitalisation, the original, matrix and a copy was found and ghostly changed each other without differentiation possible.
As you can see, we have taken here to copy as an absolute synonym of the term reproduction , despite the Fact. that very few scholars of engraving ensure that the originals can be copied, when an author is kept in a same technical way and that their copies, despite being, however will be validated, as originals if in that process, this author will not be leaving from this media and that at the same time will turn in mere reproductions not validated as originals when from a technical means is copied in fact that other technical means.
But the rigorous development of all this Idea ,will generate insoluble paradoxes, which will only be avoided by taking entire the original seen-touched as matrix of possible copies or reproductions and taking at the same time any copies as reproduction and any reproduction as copy; being both (and here lies the core of this whole argument) will overcome in original seen, if they carry the approval of the author or a least the technical certification of having emerged from a full reproductive process of a procedural rigour which flooded them with copies of such fidelity we should not go forward without living an example of those named paradoxes: If someone draws on a piece of paper and then multiply this drawing using a scanner, a computer and a digital printer be change from medium and there fore supposedly copies will not be validated as originals but as mere reproduction . But if instead (and here comes the paradox) if someone draws with a grassed pencil on a paper resistant to moisture then apply shellac, and then water and grassed ink with a roller, which obtained copies being taken directly from the initial drawing grassed, it is assumed that there. Was no change in the medium and therefore such copy will be validated itself as originals. The paradox here is this: Fidelity scanner in the first case, do not envy anything to the fidelity of the grassed ink and the roller of the second case and may even overpass it. Being it here necessary to remember that it should be revalidated and valued only the fidelity to the original seen to the detriment of the original, touched. On pain of being entangled in a fetishism that confuses all values. Here are deepen all these difficulties: So in a very strange way, the fact that an author signs was not touched by him, be come, however surprisingly and for the mere act of signing it, in original seen and touched (when is just signed) since it will do so subject to deterioration future as a thing, by the action of time, this compels us from this new aspect of such difficulties, which arise as two ways to the original touched.
A) The original touched primary which occurs when the muscular movement of the author, accommodates all substances at his pleasure the composes this original, until building the work itself.
B) The original touched secondary which is submitted without the author accommodates all substances that composes his work occurring one of the three possible ways.
B1) Because other hands than those of the author aimed to build any mechanical semiautomatic the original touched secondary (e.g. an impression made by technical personnel at a workshop engraving)
B2) Because an author takes what has been done by other hands than his and then potting a tiny action on what those other hands constructed, powerfully transforms it, to the point that warrant intervention on this initial work, carried only the signature of final interjector (e.g. Mona Lisa with moustache” Marcel Duchamp).
B3) Because mechanization is the realization of a work is not semi automatic but, fully automatic and does not require the intervention of the hands of any one. (for example a printing by computer) in those three variables the author see and signs what was not touched by him (in his construction process), but, despite this and by signing it, thereby become surprisingly in original seen touched while it be recent signed leaving it subject (for that signature) to the process of deterioration by the passing of the time. Since that time elapses when (until causing the deterioration in the materials that make ups the work) then, that object becomes signed, only in original touched, although this feature, reaches to emerge from the mere ad of touching to sing it.
And the case B2 go back to divide as follows:
B2(1) The artist does not touch the built by others, but, he sees it, deciding what and how the work will be transformed by him.
B2 (2) The artist does not touch or see but, just he think it. Indicating by linguistic means (verbal or written) to others, what matters will be the work, being that this author in the end neglects in absolute in the aspect of the final work .
I suppose that, with this last step has been completed, at the artistic thing all possible variables between two extreme levels, marked primarily by the act of adore the thing that (newly built) was the original seen and touched (and with its ageing becomes only in original touched) to reach on secondary term to the final extreme to depreciate the artistic thing, when trying to prioritise just the thought of the author that refuses to see or to touch any artistic thing and therefore asks others to implement their involvement in it, such variability of possible strategies between these two extremes, has greatly confuses the whole nucleus of cultural activity. How to aboard this confusion?
II (The attitude of conceptual art.)
I suppose that for this enormous psychic animal, that is the human being, the beauty is the most chameleon matter that curls and trespasses all fissures in his own psychic. So much, so that the beauty serves collaborate and helps not only on those who strongly believed in it, but who do not think at all and even to whom ensures to depreciate it, attacks with any vehemence, because of this or that reason. I guess the beauty starts from a primary aesthetics empowered by all the factors of aesthetics instinctive,. then to jump to a secondary aesthetic in which accepting the claim of human being around this gigantic propensity visual aesthetic absorbs the Basic action not intuitive since the incident representational of the Drawing as the first human act. from which jumps to an aesthetic tertiary which deals not only respect others than the visual (again from aspects non instinctive)but will gradually seized by factors increasingly signet and symbolic until interfere with any linguistic problems, which will return to try to recede and review everything that relates to humans the conceptual art arises because, quite lately, on that scenery of aesthetic tertiary to see that sings and symbols whose development accompanies and leads the entired factor the linguistic are not necessary trapped in the artistic thing but can wander erratically on various thing with a degree and relative independence of the same things, because they are fixed, must in the substrate of psychic humans, that the things that human coexisted, all in regard to common eating the same purpose may arise from radically different co sic facets, without that unbreakable link that the traditional work requires at an aesthetic structure, that fixes and out of which all that traditional work crumbles down. But with this break with the traditional aesthetics which was fixed as soon as it was trapped itself (in the case of painting and drawing) in the rimes of lines colours, has been passed, even though the conceptual art try to recant any relationship with the beauty; to a mere aesthetic structure in the nucleus of its own mystery, not because the rhythms of lines colour or shapes, but, of symbolic or significant contents, then they do, in the end ,that an overall global concept appears as mentally attractive and for it as culturally valuable. Then, the conceptual art ,is t wrong by nothing ,except in three things :first trying to abjure quickly in all aesthetics, with out having clear what chameleon matter is such aesthetics; second in wanting to attack the painting and traditional arts in general and indiscriminately and third in always believing reliable structuring thoughts prior to the execution of the works, as neglecting of essential liberation character of thinking, that he does not really get trapped in cage of words, un less they are mounted in rhythmic phenomena return (of course when they are) to be aesthetics again. The utility and stability of many acts of conceptual arte communications only, remains, despite its pertinent disregard for the beauty because the aesthetic continues despite despised. Nevertheless interwoven in the same conceptual artist. Without he was even aware of it. As for now it is interwoven, the impact will depend of such conceptual autor. The conceptual art can and should take distances with the confused criterion of good desire, is not only acceptable but advisable. But. Who said that beauty was necessarily something to do with good desire, such good desire is base don open or hidden conventions of society. While the beauty, as is said, was base don the individual human subject. Flooded of the sole social discretion of the social what the subject entails.
III (The attitude of the art buyer.)
Let us Insist that passed some time after the conclusion of the artist creation and when that time is ageing the material in which this work was built, may we well wonder: where is the work? in what the author saw or what the author touched? the question arises here; as is said, because work will endure throughout the certainty that his author touched it although it gradually disappeared the certainty that he saw it then, the see enclosures structures precise shapes and colours that do not stand for themselves, nor were inalterable in the thing while touching it holds some circumstances diffuse amorphous and fetishists argue that these hold the thing that touched today, to repeat, while there is as a charged thing, with the weight that he touched. But, what we now see it as something tomorrow when it moves in the minimum, will become (by this move) into something that strictly speaking and according to the new structure that imposes such move every time I know less, for being increasingly distant from what I saw.
There is thus, simplifying a bit. Original seen-touched only in the new work; original touched in the old work original seen in reproduction or copying legitimated that reproduce with exquisite fidelity what the author saw, whether it is taken from the analogue or much better than digital, and will finally infringing copies or reproductions that multiply too imprecise created what one writer misrepresentation by technical lightness, to turn it in something so far from what the author saw, as in many cases Come to be the original touched when it is aged.
The art collector therefore wanted posses a simultaneous the seen and touched, no repairing in three aspects:
1- that sometimes both aspects (the seen and touched can be separated into several things if you want to posse the touched thing will not posse necessarily all the aspects of the seen thing (guarantying at best in the original touched, some of the structure of the work since criterions of grey, white and blacks commented at the beginning) and if the seen thing is wanted to posse(that apart of such structure of black, white and grey, it posses and integrates also the whole chromatic structure) will escapes then the touched thing.
2- Faced with this circumstance and about the old difficulty of copying the seen rigorously, the art collector had conformed whit the touched thing, but, suspect that seen what it lodged, was deteriorating. However the criteria of the old and only thing came to revalue what devalued by this exteriority.
3- To copy the seen, is and will be apparently increasingly credible because of multiplex technical advances and therefore rely all value of the artistic only in the touched, it will be increasingly inappropriate.
Obviously that everything said, despite being fully applicable to the recent two-dimensional Works, it will be only partially applicable to Works of the past which strictly speaking we have already lost the seen originals differently an we have only the touched originals , but, for a general social convention most digitally engrave what remains of the seen (although it be ignore how much is it?) to compare it in the future with the touched ,that will continue disordering. it is under stable but not admissible however, that the original seen when auto multiply from an analogue matrix or from a binary matrix similar, is wrongly devolved because it takes it as second in important as if it were an illegal copy or Illegitimate reproduction (when they are indeed disrupted in many ways what the author built); being that however, such original seen will finish, when a newly taken from a reliable digital matrix, reaching perhaps to appear recovered as the same original touched, because the materials of this last, affected by the weather, will then be in a process that fading, confuses cracking, stain, obscure them and so on. Thus becoming a two-dimensional construing increasingly transforming and disrupting in relation with what the author saw when created it ,although of such construing endure perhaps once more the documental value of the structures of black ,white and grey noted at the beginning.
IV (The Mental Machine.)
I am going to show what the traditional art makes in its attempt to exist. It travels in pursuit of the beauty, with strange particularity: That two-dimensional object that is called beautiful, no overcome of beauty, as if it were an intrinsic property itself , but, that gift is (not in it) but in same act of call beauty so beauty is not exclusively on the subject, but, in some hidden correspondence (not dissection able or replaceable by any mathematical formula or linguistic) between the rhythms of lines, colours, textures and meanings of two dimensional construct that appointing as beautiful and other rhythm (and then psychic) belonging to the human subject that so and so considers and name it.
I suppose that some scholars are wrong in believing that the aesthetic beauty should be a condition of the body itself that is called beauty, and not proper (as indeed is) the interaction and correspondence between the rhythmic bodies and the human subject that so and so considers and name it when are dimensional art accomplishes what is beauty as understood as I just name it, creates what I have called a mental machinery, is to say creates a dynamic rhythmic organization on the thing.
Whose correspondence with the psychic does not follow fixed patterns, but, adjustable, as the emphasis mental of the human subject itself that achieves to enjoy that same mental machinery (the author at the beginning and viewers later) which to be seen, will generate and put in action a dense Plata formed of reasons and without reasons, of logia and emotions of preconceptions and improvisation, certainties and absurd and it will refuse to be an absolute warp before which all should drink water in the same manner , understanding that the rhythmic does not involve a benchmark of natural beauty or patterns or royalties or the supposed beauty of numbers, or any other predetermination.
It is clear that the test machine (criterion machine) is not assumed here formed like that what has a mechanical predictable, as predictable are the physical machines. Well painting and drawing have nothing of mechanical physical may be machines of course, but, as this is said, strictly mental and they have such the astonished fact of their work, when structure as mentally machines tend to influence and effect all sites in the psyche that is the trust of the visual intercommunicated (structured well) that is why suggest that having God in the universe the amazing Don of ubiquity then which is at once every where ,just the drawing and the painting have some sort of mental ubiquity: They are not in a mental site restricted, but overlapping incessantly all his cognitive influence at all levels aware and not aware. The criterion of the mental machine is taken here as what it achieves a vast develop psychic work: Well, just painting and drawing machines are indeed mentally and as such, do what theirs why are the only mentally machines? Because the visual claimed his psychic dominate in humans and painting and drawings, as the only art that balance the presence of a interactive figure and background is to say its representational or in other sense the signification and not signification or even of the abstract, of the mere planes or levels that advance and retreat, without which nothing even result secondary and everything happening in one instant that encompasses the full physic state of the subject that notes without the animist avatars that time (when is extensive) brings appears, for all this, (painting and drawing) demanding and obtaining the only place that exists in the criteria of the mental machine. What do painting and drawing do ? What are their job? Both feature a decimations of defilation visual mental that is not describable, buy for who feel it and for feeling it, knows it and believe in it, with the characteristic of instant power that covers in a minimum time and as it is said the enormous mental scenery in which all its affectation is projected.
But the beauty of mental machine as is said, no predetermines because it exhausts itself and fatigue each one of the ways it uses, and to make it more even impossible to predetermine, it turns out that its own ways are endless. Each channel appears as finite but, the variety of ways (traces) is inexhaustible-involving all essential philosophy of art, woven on the same criterion of freedom. For it beauty results as not capture able: Because when someone relieve it submitted it becomes nothing. You can not even dream of at least capturing it and that mental machine began to be born above the rhythms of lines, colours and meaning of the pictorial thing or dibujistica, rhythms that were the reflection of other rhythms (the vitals) of the author will end (as mental machine) because of born, then who enjoys such construction being situated in tune with it) which indicates that reinvents it indeed. Because, as is said such shackle of rhythms does not imply a sole correspondence with whom it is perceived, but dynamic, in other words, every spectator reinvents the personal tangles which each work will move inside his mind although it will be clear that does not realize such reinvention, so consent or voluntary manner, but, following the essential dark silence of the pictorial and dibujistica.
V (Conclusion.)
It seems so ironic that, against the Benjaminiana Idea ,about it the art would result disrupted by technical reproductively, we can jump to the opposite shore: That the art will be protected by this technique reproductively , as it effectively act as surrogate valid (reliable) of the original seen, while that Benjaminiana Aura, that in the end is not clear to whom it want to belong. If to the touched fetish by the author or the same owner of that same fetish; being that in any case, such original as fetish, does not result as Benjamin believed, upset for that reproductive technique, but, by the self-satisfies and unstoppable pass of the time
Against which only the digital engraving and digital copy rather than oppose the most they may oppose. Fidelity to the seen by an author.
with so the cards are drawn.
