Violeta Parra ask banner
   Art sense 

   Polymorphism in Art
   Rasas and Islamic Aesthetics
   Play and Symbolism
   Abstraction and Surreaslism


Helen Keller
The symbol Che
Four Signs for All Times


Instructions On How To Put On A Shirt


   A rare and strage being
   El poder es más fuerte


The Diabolical Tritone
The sky


A harsh economy

          Abstraction and Surrealism 


                           Let us suppose one is looking at a work of art. And let us imagine it is an oil painting; 
                    in it you can see a child with a limp and dying bird in its hands. When we look at this, 
                    we see two aspects: Firstly,  the descriptive or physical aspect of the child, the bird, 
                    and other 	anecdotal details and secondly, their arrangement within the painting, 
                    which is that, which makes it a work of art as a unity of different elements, the  
                    significant immanence.

As he or she perceives this arrangement, the viewer receives an impulse in the brain, in the part where the mind 
processes emotions: and the person gets emotional. This is the aesthetic emotion, which is different to other 
emotions such as anger and sadness.

On the other hand, quite independently, even when an event has generated the second aspect, the significant 
immanence, we can notice that the mental analysis of the descriptive aspect, in other words what would happen 
in a hypothetical situation, as in this example with the child, generates in humans the need to make a judgement.

The description of an event such as a child with a limp and dying bird can induce, in some people, other emotions 
completely unrelated to the aesthetic one, for example, sadness.
So clearly we can conclude that a work of art can generate two or more types of emotions that are not related, 
not just because it is a work of art, but because the arrangement invokes or correlates with a hypothetical 

This phenomenon was discovered intuitively by artists of the 19th century (especially Vassily Kandinsky) who 
came from schools that had conceived of art as "representative" or "realist" and who reoriented themselves 
towards an abstract one, in which they tried to prove that the realistic representation of the existence of an 
event was absolutely superfluous.

Plato, in earlier times, believed that art was a mathematical transformation from reality, from the physical 
domain to another domain, which was painting or sculpture.

Kandinsky demonstrated that the reality was not necessary, and in turn showed that the coherence of the 
well-designed arrangement is that which produces the aesthetic pleasure. And this is, in other words, my 
concept of immanence significant.

Something similar happened with the Surrealists. They argued that the parts of a work of art are not 
connected according to Aristotelian logic by which real things are connected to each other in the real 
world. A watch must be on the wrist, in order to easily see the time. 
But in an oil painting, is there a reason to assume this premise that works so well in the real world? 
So in a work of art, a watch hung on the branch of a tree is also valid. But what can we ask of an object 
within a work of art? We ask that it belongs within an arrangement so that we can perceive a significant 
immanence for all the parts of the work within the composition.

In the domain of the work of art, things have their own way of making a logical connection: its parts have 
to be arranged as living beings within their environment, that is, they have to be adapted, dare I say, 
they must have a common becoming, as Deleuze and Gattari conceived this idea in their book "A Thousand 

This coherence is a world in itself. It has its own laws of being and it is created as it is.

It is a domain different from the physical things that we know, which is why that within any given 
arrangement, we can get an "inverse transformation" and represent what happens there, from an assumption 
about something that happens here. By acting in this way, what has been intuited here can lead, by a 
simple cognitive impulse, to make a judgement about a hypothetical physical fact, but the emotion that 
will emerge this time will be different to that which arises from intuiting the synthetic unification.

It is also logical to assume that an abstract work of art cannot generate a different emotion within the 
real world, because the work of abstract art does not have a correlated reality that can be transformed 
into the physical world.


© Jaime A. Maldonado
All right reserved
blank about articles books glossary references creators WEB contact blank Previous page


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional

All right reserved - 2015




Español English