The first postulate of non-aesthetic future.

A new art arises, perhaps already in the digital world, in a sort of indifference to the old aesthetics, which also makes him a profound contempt in return. And yet it will certainly bring new technical requirements to an expression which had been considerably depleted. Frescoes with their digital three-dimensional increasingly extraordinary graphic artists earn the public emotion, the young audience. Will they also learn one day that the technique is not only sufficient, much like academic figurative art had to do in the late nineteenth century? Meanwhile, they are preparing to teach a lesson rather highly Technician academicism of non-figurative, too depleted by repetition. Without overshoot technology, art is nothing: it is an ancient evidence is rightfully ours. He had been too long forgotten. And there are others that will follow. It should perhaps rethink everything in the field of aesthetics.
The tradition of descriptive art is not innocent or natural, as is often believed. It is not true either. It is perhaps not legitimate. She has a story and missions. It crystallizes on an assumption that must be questioned, one that establishes a link between the truth of aesthetics and art. It is he should be suspended first.

The first postulate of the non-aesthetic, it is the radical break of aesthetics and art. There is a gap essentially between art and the word that the comments (which appear therefore necessarily secondary to him). This is a consequence of the last revolution that has affected the philosophy, the principle of sufficiency was rendered useless by the non-philosophy laruellienne. Issued its first claim, philosophical aesthetics is no longer a descriptive system. This new tag postulate another field of thought. It reveals a new aesthetic, made ​​a new freedom. His approach is asymptotic to the real art, because the descriptive word (philosophical) and art (do creator) are essentially different things.
The first corollary arising from this new area of thought is the essential relativity of art history as a system of truths about art. A descriptive form will no longer necessarily tied to a given art as the oyster to the rock (in the words of Balzac). In fact classicism of Boileau does not describe the most romantic classical past that post (not least as this concept versatile, flexible and ductile sublime he reintroduced in the history of thought). Pollock's art is no more artistic with the theory that accompanies it and support, without it. This theory is superfluous only adds a mirage aesthetic and verbal to a work which should not need it. The art history becomes essentially relative outside his archival work in the world.
The second corollary which derives from the assumption of radical break is that of the opening of "tell" the aesthetics of speech. Indeed as what is said is not directly related to what happens in art, everything can be said, on everything and in any order. There will be no limits on the taste, then, to the chronology. The limitation of this new space of aesthetic speech appear only when that is said, will be poorer than what is done about what is said, and vice versa.

Our first assumption would have to call others that could mark a new approach to aesthetic approach or rather non-aesthetic this time (because it no longer complies with the principle of authority and truth of philosophy and therefore the aesthetics that depends). There should show on the second assumption, that of thought. Since aesthetics is no longer a rule of thought about art, it may be finally awarded to the art a kind of semblance of thought, thought without words perhaps.
Some abstract art had accustomed us to the fact that it shows less, the more he talks. Since then the interference and the support of the aesthetics of speech it becomes increasingly obvious. How has this been possible? Theoretical philosophy had developed tools of rare effectiveness since Kant. He had invented the idea of a great non-conceptual dimension behind an illusion of conceptuality. There was therefore more concept and standards to direct the art. The breach was opened. Art is no concept and no message. It codifies what is not standard and useless. Then there is nothing to distinguish it, but a sort of suspension, the neutralization of two functions: the understanding and imagination, hypnotized by their own reciprocal activity. The idea itself was great. She was able to explain the hypnotic fascination of art made ​​by the paralysis of functions. At the same time it prevented any academic taste, good taste reappear. It noted the final gross interference in the name of the classical standard. It suspended the former academic background without knowing that it opened the way for a new, more powerful that it was based on the denial of academic himself.
Despite a conceptual blurring more or less voluntarily chosen, the modern Kantian continues over the twentieth century as the very soul of non-art. This is the part that is postmodern is its condition, as suggested by Lyotard. And it is the modern Kantian, it is the philosophical system with its sufficiency. The postmodern is the soul of this modernity designed so that it can adapt to all metamorphosis, all academicism. This is the ultimate super-academicism.
Thierry de Duve has made ​​the study about Duchamp and others, those that make us believe that art is a simple name, it rests on the proper name. Just as I take any urinal, I called the work of art, for it one. It is clear that speech thinking the world of aesthetics seeped into art, she has supported him, even an alibi. But she could not do that because art simulated a hierophanic appear as Mircea Eliade called in the Treaty of history of religions. In fact as for hierophanies not report any objective sign of art as art, with sufficient clarity. While the sacred stones are distinguished visually sometimes they may be sanctified in reality simply by collective decision. And it is this process that simulates the art of the proper name. And in doing so, it uses the link of the second assumption (that of thought), the third, that of senefiance
Our contemporary world is always the spirit of the great cathedrals in the basement of reverie. We are the direct heirs. The senefiance calls us. She turn and inspires us. It pushes us to transcend ourselves beyond. It also gives us roads. And these roads we are clean. They vary from one civilization to another. The art is in this living testimony. We speak of archetypes like there in the consciousness or collective unconsciousness finished a directory, a dictionary, in which one draws to speak, much like in the language. This is only half true. Because in reality it is something impersonal that almost takes my words to me when I paint. As an inertia of the oldest dreams and decline gradually through me and through me, in me and beyond me.
Because of its long mission metaphysics, art is also in the service of transcendence of a civilization. It reflects the energy, it transmits the heritage. And it's not so much an art as a formal religious energy that runs through the passing of time and bears a people, a civilization into a future focused and crossed by great reveries. We can obviously talk about the quality, texture of these reveries, their actual presence ... all this is rather difficult to define objectively. But art has meaning in this thing that in him somewhere postulates of transcendence, senefiance, a higher sense of things, without which there would be no civilization.
The third assumption of senefiance, called by the first (the cut) and the second (of thought), refocuses on things essential not rational. So that the work is totally free, if aesthetics related to it or can not say anything about it or not, there is still a limit: that of insignificance and that of senefiance. Below the limit of what is insignificance. Beyond that of what is senefiance. This is not the "anything" that it alone will prevail, if it fails to power heavy musings, it does not transmit the energy of civilization, this great dream that federated men.
Wherever senefiance speaks, the art has meaning. It makes us think no aesthetic beyond words.
And the third assumption, in turn will result in another naturally. We will call the postulate of crystallization. As the principles of writing Kantian aesthetics are foiled, and that art itself can assert a power of thinking without the help of philosophy, as even the simple name will not be enough to call the senefiance will require speaking of art finds some humility. For as for hierophanies does not report any objective sign of art as art with sufficient clarity. According to Mircea Eliade, in fact, the microscopic study and seemingly objective, science is not enough to give an accurate view of hierophanies (and perhaps also of artistic phenomena). This is the scale that makes the phenomenon and to take the proportion of things you have to put in a spirit of sympathy, "Einfühlung". This is exactly what has to find the new non-aesthetic description, this deep complicity with the work, this sympathy anthropological complicity of reverie with the creator, basically that share common sensibility that we may designate, and that civilization has already charged with dreams. Our whole civilization is a kind of crystal that survives, a petrification transparent. The bottom of what is believed (without words perhaps) in the heart of the art, is not so much a matter for the aesthetic of the art itself. It is a kind of crystal that petrifies germinating life of his greatest transparency.

In this context, means that announce the death of art? of the late genius? All these things have only verbal gasoline. The permanence of their presence alongside the creator do deceives us, perhaps on their actual efficiency. There is perhaps in all this that a discourse on art, used a speech which was always regarded as the art itself through aesthetics. The illusions of speech are tenacious in the world description. For the word that supports art and confirms the tool is recognition of the work. Then they wanted us to believe that the work lives only by the word that sustains it. It is an illusion of representation. Because the work is not only the representation of the world, which was commonly believed, but is also representation of herself in words. Which means that it is his own reflection record. This means that the former appear to aesthetics broke into the work itself. All this rests on the illusion reinforced by habit, because that speech may accompany the illusion it must be his support. It is a variant of offendiculae (barriers) of fallacies (distortions) that Bacon led his concept of idolae (illusion), and especially by the idola theatri this illusion that is transported indirectly by the performance itself, So by the reporting framework of thought in words. This affects us in some way about himself who can not speak with philosophical certainties. Should we grieve this loss of certainty and the only truth? Is it not rather the starting point of a new attitude, a new bargaining position that speech-thought can tell? An opening on the edge regions of art is possible outside the system of truth of aesthetic philosophy. Thoughts in this way, things take effect. They multiply in their potential. They will restore us ideas.
Gilbert Kieffer