ARTE, UMA PONTE ENTRE A NATUREZA E O HOMEM - Lúcia Helena Galvão

Good evening everyone! The idea today, on this Art Day, is to talk about art as a bridge between nature and man. Every year we have been talking about this topic and for those who were here last year remember that we relied a lot on modern thinking of a contemporary, living, English philosopher, called Roger Vernon Scruton. From his book Beauty, and a popular video on YouTube called "Why beauty matters." Which has such an interesting work. And we address quite a bit that aspect that he brings, of Beauty as something fundamental in a man's formation, of the

responsibility of a society that does not generate beauty and the misrepresentation of character that this generates, the social consequences that we have for the oblivion of Beauty. That was very interesting, at least to me, it was quite an interesting experience, to meet a contemporary thinker who speaks in that way, which puts it this way. Today we're going in a bit further into this aspect of beauty from another point of view, which I can't say is, sort of, complementary, is practically the same, just a little bit deeper. This lecture that we're doing today, addressing this matter,

I based myself, of course, on everything that speaks about it, from all the philosophers we studied, Plato, because it is impossible to talk about beauty without turning to Plato, without turning a little to Kant, without turning to so many thinkers, Scruton himself, but fundamentally I worked on a thinker, who has a very interesting conception: Nilakanta Sri Ram, Sri Ram has a book, called Human Interest, that is sensational, because within that Human Interest he talks a little bit about all the areas of interest, and he's going to talk very specifically in one chapter on Art and

Beauty. Now, it's curious, guys, because that chapter referring to the subject is only two pages long, two pages. It is very characteristic of authors of that nature to talk a lot on a very small surface. For those who have had the opportunity, for example, to read The Kybalion from Hermes Trismegistus, know that he defines the laws of the universe on the basis of seven little sentences. For those who have had the opportunity to see Plato's definition of Truth, Goodness and Beauty, realizes that he defines Goodness in half a dozen words, and from there you pull

a thread and discovers very deep things. Generally, thinkers like Sri Ram have a very synthetic and very deep thinking, while we, in general, these days are very long and very shallow. So it seems a bit paradoxical that a person, in a line, defines, sometimes, two concepts in a single line, in very few words. So the density of information that he puts in that text is quite impressive, which includes and encompasses a number of other thinkers saying the same thing. So he gives such a comprehensive view, very poetic even, of the need for beauty and the

role of art. Of course, to get to that, we have to do a little context, right? Contextualize so we can get to what he's talking about. So... For those who don't know this is a location which is on a property in New Acropolis, our farm, is a bridge that really exists, that is, we have this bridge, it is ours. Well, some concepts... For those who study a bit of Eastern philosophy, and we can consider that, this author specifically, belongs to the Eastern philosophy's context, he is an Indian. We know it has certain concepts that are

fundamental for us to situate ourselves and start our story, concepts such as Dharman, an Indian concept from the Hindu tradition, dynamic eternity, which is a concept that Helena Blavatsky puts forward, in short, this kind of concept will express the following: the universe has a law, and that law is like a thread, what they call Sutratma, is a thread that runs inside all the beads of the necklace, which are all the manifested things, all things have a meaning, have a destiny. All things, as Pythagoras said, came out of the Zero and went into the One and

there at the end of the circuit they come back to the one and will be reabsorbed at zero. That's the Pythagorean decade. That is, the universe has a route, a path. Which is also called in Indian tradition Sadhana. Helena Blavatsky often speaks, calls it dynamic eternity, that she says that in every corner of the universe echoes the same message. She doesn't know in which language, nor by whom, but she knows what that message says, it's a call message of all the children back home. In other words, the universe is all moving towards unity again, that

would be the very meaning of the word universe, that would be evolution. Within that, there would be a set of evolving beings, within which is humanity. Humanity, then, is a small group, a collection within this multitude of beings, who walk back to unity, from multiplicity to unity. That is the meaning of the law of the universe, at a given moment the law of the universe brings beings into manifestation. It is what the Eastern tradition calls the descending arc, and the next moment it pulls everybody back home, which is the upward arc. And we are now

at the back home phase. Dharman is a rising dharman, of seeking unity, of seeking integration. So the human Dharman is in there as well. And another interesting thing that this tradition, no longer Eastern, but Western, Egyptian. Which is the myth of Isis, Osiris and Horus, which you know, I'm not going to tell it here in detail, of the Osiris' body torn apart, and then put back together forming the sacred family. Isis, Osiris and Horus. This Osiris who is crashed by his brother Seth, marks the beginning of the demonstration, it is as if the God's body

itself is being torn apart and formed multiplicity, according to these traditions. And at one point all these pieces had to come together again. And the end point of evolution would be to put the unity back together. I mean, the identity of all beings ultimately is a cell in Osiris' body. Do you get that? Ultimately that's what we are, a cell in Osiris' body. And when we find that, our true identity, we find our role within that body, we have reached our ideal. We have reached the end point of our evolution. That is the core idea

within Sri Ram's vision relating to beauty and, actually, to everything, everything he places within that framework. And then we can see, complementing... Something that is also quite famous, which is Plato's theory of ideas. That which has influenced so much Western thought and that is also quite heir to Eastern thought. Plato said that on the plane of ideas, much equivalent to what is called in the Eastern tradition the spiritual plane, on that plane of ideas there is a model of all things, that exist, have existed and will exist. As an idea! And that these things are

projected as a reflection down here on the material plane, and that evolution would be nothing more than the shadows running after matching their original's idea. So things when they project down here project as kind of twisted shadows, deformed, and there's a path for them to cross to match their archetype. When they come to be an exact shadow of that idea that originated them, they reach their ideal, they reach their maximum perfection. I mean, all things obey to an evolution towards corresponding to the idea that originated it. When the universe was created, according to this tradition,

within what they call the great cosmic mind, were all the ideas. And these ideas are being projected into the manifested universe. Hence according to this tradition there is no such thing as absolute creation, there is a capture. When these ideas are first grasped and brought into the world, the man is a pontiff he links heaven and earth. The world of ideas and the manifested world, and evolution would be beings running after matching their ideal. That which nature created them for, That is also a very important consideration for us to understand this idea of Beauty. Continuing...

And here come the definitions that are put in that text by Sri Ram, which are very beautiful. He will say this: Life is an impression energy, as if life is that energy that takes those beings on the plane of ideas and imprints them down here, bridges the gap between the two worlds. Life is the impulse that picks up these models and gives them body and form in the manifested world. So life is an imprint energy of these ideas in the world, with body and form. And what would beauty be? Beauty would be the result of

life being able to express itself perfectly down here. When life manages to express itself in a way ideal and perfect in the manifested world, that is beautiful. I mean, beauty is a form that has given freedom to life, we're going to see a lot of that, that freed life from all hindrances and allowed it to manifest in its fullness. The ugly is life blocked. It's when something gets in the way, and it doesn't let life take over that way completely. So it produces a deformation, there is a Taoist tradition, since we are doing a comparative

study and resorting to so much, right, a famous quote from Taoism, which says that shadows were born into the world, because men have become opaque. I find that very beautiful, as if you imagine a bamboo pipe, through which light comes in and light has to come out on the other side, but man has obstructions in the way, moral obstructions, imperfections. So the light hits and, instead of casting light on the other side, it casts shadow. If man were absolutely pure and clean, light would enter and light would be project the other side. Then shadows were

born in the world because man became opaque. It's a Taoist way of saying the same thing, the ugly is the blocked life. The ugly is life that has suffered an interference and has failed to manifest itself fully in the world. I don't know if you have ever realized... I once observed the things around me, I remember, you may have seen that Brasilia has some beautiful storms, that shake the trees violently, right? And I was looking out of my window at a very violent storm, the trees were shaking with a force, it's interesting why nature can

be beautiful even when it destroys. Have you seen it? When the rain ends, that ground covered with leaves, nature can be beautiful even when it destroys. Then you look away and hit an apartment building. Oops! Then you realize that man can do ugly things even when building. Then you realize that behind that there was an obstruction, something that didn't allow life to manifest in its fullness. Probably an obstruction of ambitions, of wanting to make that to give maximum return with the least investment. Of selfishness, of not considering who was going to live there, but the

builders' advantages. Anyway, there were obstructions there, because you realize the result is far from having liberated life. The result is not beautiful. So man even building generates the ugly and nature even destroying generates the beautiful, I mean, nature is in Dharma. And man? It's a whole complex issue that these traditions talk about man. Precisely because he is a rational being and having to learn to deal with reason, he has a freedom to use that reason, and in that freedom he often goes wrong and generates obstructions, often generates the ugly. Which is what the Eastern tradition

calls the law of karma. It generates karma. Then the ugly is born. Then beauty would be life, one of the many definitions he gives, in that text, life in full expression in matter, in form, that would be the Beautiful. His concept of integration is also quite interesting, he will say: "Life seeks to integrate parts for the expression of an idea." Complete integration is Beauty. If you stop and think about it, something I often talk about in class, and I think it makes a lot of sense, whatever attribute we give to the figure of God, it's

a bit partial, it doesn't fit well in God's figure. Because if God is the whole, any attribute you give him limits him, have you ever realized it? If you say he is white, outside of him there's black, there's red and blue. So those things limit him. If you say he is Good, outside of him there is evil. Then this evil limits him, he is no longer the absolute. Eastern traditions often talked about that and said that the one concept that encompasses all that God is, is Oneness. Because Oneness can't have anything outside of it. If

it has anything outside of it it ceases to be one and becomes two. So Oneness is a Divine attribute par excellence, and it says that where there is Oneness, there is a footprint of God. What does this mean in practice? The old example I usually give, when you see something very beautiful, it has to have unity. A sunset, there's absolutely nothing left there, and absolutely nothing missing. Can you get anything out of the sunset? Or put it in? That Creation of Adam by Michelangelo, would you put something there? Is there something missing there that he

forgot or is there something left? You realize that the things that are beautiful, they are One, there is nothing left or missing, they have that aspect of integration of the parts, because a lot of things have been integrated there. A sunset integrates several colors, lights in various shades. Michelangelo integrated many things to make the Creation of Adam, but it integrates in such a perfect way that it generates an inseparable whole, it generates a footprint of Unity in the midst of multiplicity. It's said then... that life seeks to integrate the parts to express the idea, and

it's interesting that when it manages to integrate these parts, it expresses, more and more, not only the ideal of each thing, but also the idea of God. There is a Platonic dialog, quite interesting, that we recently read here at school, which is Hippias Major. Hippias was a great sophist, for those who don't know, and Socrates in this dialog was arguing with Hippias, he could not convince Hippias at all that an attribute that a person does not have and another person does not have as well, when they come together they can have it. Or that an

attribute that one person only has the other does not have, when they come together they both have it. That is, what the individualities do not have, the whole can have. And he doesn't convince Hippias of that, Hippias thinks it's absurd. That is one of the secrets that these traditions speak of Integration. What the parts separately do not have, the whole can have. Hydrogen is not wet, nor is oxygen wet, but water, when you put the two together, is! Any word, a house is something that symbolizes a dwelling for someone. Only the letter C does not

symbolize that. Only the letter A does not. Nor the letter S. When you put it together they generate a symbolism that the parts don't have. And what that tradition says is that humanity together generates a symbolism that we don't have individually. I mean, together we are, in a way, a representation of Unity, a representation of the Divine. Then it's said that life-energy always tries to generate unity to make the manifested universe more and more like God. With that primordial unity from which all things came. So it is always integrating, always seeking to unite. And when

it unites it generates a whole new reality, different from the one before with the separate parts. So these latent ideas that are coming out as life goes on composing its puzzle is evolution, things are getting closer to their ideal, the universe is getting closer to unity. That would be evolution. Virtue Triangle: he will claim that there are these three virtues, which are the basis from which all the other virtues in the universe arise. They are the structure, the main attributes that the human being has from which all other virtues are born. And those virtues would

be Truth, Goodness and Beauty. He will define it in a very interesting way, he will say that Truth is the ideas of Divine thought, the Truth is the plane of ideas. That ideal and perfect, spiritual plane, where things are beyond time, unchanging and eternal. There you have Beauty, which are the forms down here that have perfectly reflected the Truth, the Beauty is the forms when they are clothed with the Truth. That is, an objective manifestation of an ideal form. And Goodness is the channel that balances these two planes. Goodness brings divine ideas into the world

and generates beautiful forms, the footprint of Goodness is Beauty. Kindness generates a bridge that causes divine ideas to be shaped in the world. So it's interesting, because it's a slightly different form, actually, all traditions talk about triads, always adding attributes. It is something more for us to understand the triad, I found this vision very beautiful, I mean, Beauty would be the footprint of Goodness in the world. "By your deeds you shall be known", right? By the path you realize who has passed there. And he will also claim say something quite interesting: Human Consciousness, when mature,

when awaken, it is an individual focus of Universal life, it is a reflection of the Divine. I find this placement he makes of consciousness quite interesting. Consciousness would be the little God. It's Osiris cell awakening within you. I always use an example for my students which is for you to imagine that there is a navigator with a boat on the high seas. He decided to do underwater prospecting, he sends a camera so he can film the ocean floor, that's very common right, it's often done. That camera is his eye projected there at the bottom of

the ocean. It's as if consciousness is the eye of God, projected into the depths of matter, within each being, divided and multiplied. This eye of God is at first closed, and it slowly opens up until it is wide open, and then it becomes a terminal of God in manifestation. So he says it's very common, unfortunately, more common than we would like, that people do not recognize Beauty, don't have that feeling, don't have that perception, do not have that vision of Beauty, because their consciousness is not awake nor is it often stimulated to awaken. Because that

could be induced, it could be invited, could be, within an education system, encouraged, not forced, but encouraged. Because there is an unbreakable dose of individual freedom, which is called free will, but there could be a cultural call for that. For man to open up his spiritual vision, by familiarizing him with things that invite him to do so. Then he will say that that cognitive faculty of man which makes him perceive the Beautiful, which he calls intuition it is not reasoning Do you get that? Remember something you consider beautiful, I don't know, a painting, a song,

a statue, whatever, try to imagine what your first impact was when you saw it, I don't know, the Monalisa, that Lady with the Ermine by Leonardo da Vinci, so astonishing, right? Cecilia Gallerani, or, let's see, Mozart's Requiem. Remember the first time you saw that, how did you find that beautiful? You started examining it, when you looked at it you didn't feel anything, and they started to examine: "Oh, this is good here, that's interesting too, it adds up with that over there". and it adds up more with that other one." Nobody finds something beautiful like that.

Beauty is not a reasoning that adds up, picking up details, it is an impact, you look and there's that impact, that shock, it's a block, as if you've had a contact with something that makes you remember yourself. Plato talks about it, and Roger Scruton as well in his work Beauty, that beauty is like, in a way, a reminiscence, it generates a longing. Plato has a passage where he says that beauty is not an invitation to possess the beautiful object, but rather an invitation to renounce it, you don't want the beautiful object. It reminds you of

something, it generates a longing, it's like you see through it. Something you once had, something you once were. It reminds you of a kind.... it gives you a kind of remembrance, a kind of healthy nostalgia of something that exists within you. So actually what he calls cognitive faculty that perceives beauty is not reason, it is a kind of intuition that touches the beautiful object and recognizes it, as if he were part of himself, as if he came from the same world that consciousness itself came from, as if they were two foreigners who came from a

common homeland. Do you get that? So I look at something beautiful and recognize that there is something there which is from the same place where my soul came from, where my conscience came from, I recognize. It's like I feel, through that, homesickness. It's quite interesting the way he puts it and it's very beautiful. So this cognitive faculty makes man touch and recognize the beautiful and he aligns himself with that beauty and approves from within, it's not something that's forced, it's something within you when you are with that awakened consciousness, something inside you that generates a

satisfaction, a recognition, a reinforcement of your identity, that's aesthetic pleasure in the face of Beauty. It is not a sensual pleasure, It is not a desire for possession, aesthetic pleasure is the reinforcement of your identity, it's a recognition, it's a kind of nostalgia. Now he's going to talk about that's not so universal, that needs to be earned, it needs to be awakened, it needs to be nurtured. The faculty of cognition must evolve to recognize. So it is possible and we know it, we know it even more than I would like, that you can catch the

most beautiful things in the world and today show it to people in general that many will not see anything there. That faculty of cognition needs to be awakened. So it's not something that's innate in all human beings, it has to be earned, it has to be encouraged and it can be learned, it can even be encouraged through culture. Which is not our case, We generally associate the beautiful with the pleasant and pleasing to the senses and instincts, and there is, for the most part, a strangeness in relation to the Beautiful. So not always what is

truly Beautiful is recognized by all men, because the cognitive faculty has to be developed. That perception, that inner eye, that cell of God within us, has to be activated, it has to be opened. Which is the individual merit of each one. Meanwhile this truth remains hidden, it's like a person who can't read, sees all those letters and knows that there is an important message for him, but until he doesn't learn, until he is not literate, he doesn't know what it's trying to tell him. I find this quite interesting and he's very decisive and strong in

it. There is no authority in art, authority in that popular sense that we know, such a thing is good because such a critic said so, such a thing is good because it is by an established author, he even says that much of what is consecrated, is consecrated by whom? The criteria of value within society, to say that something is consecrated or that something is good because someone said so, is highly debatable. Why? Because true art does not tolerate dictatorships only those who are able to recognize it are those who, this is not his concept, but

that of the Western philosopher David Hume, who he calls a reliable observer. What is a reliable observer? I talked a little bit about that in last year's lecture. Imagine I say to you that a song, a melody by Beethoven, a Beethoven Symphony, is beautiful. Then you, after much listening, familiarizing yourselves, come to the conclusion that it really is, but if you go into classical India there, you will see that there was nothing like Beethoven's symphonies there. There was music that was totally appropriate to that culture, to those conditions, the Indian Raga, which is strange to

us. Is there nothing within Indian music that is beautiful? Is it only Beethoven? So Indians have not known beauty? There must be. There must be within that cultural pattern, different from ours, something also Beautiful, and how would I know? How could I assess things far away in time and space, embedded in other cultures, what is beautiful there and what is not? Then Hume comes with this concept of the Trusted Observer, which I quite like. You would have to take a human being who had a moral life, a beautiful soul, an upright attitude towards life. This

man is the Trusted Observer. In any era, in any context where he is, you go there and ask: "What is beautiful?" He says: "This". His testimony is reliable. Do you get it? Take a man who has a beautiful soul and what he considers as Beautiful you can trust. Is it? Because there is no other way to assess. The reliable observer is the one who, in any historical context, raised within that culture with the conditions to recognize, has a moral life Beautiful enough that endorses his vision of Beauty. He is able to recognize, he has his

cognitive faculty awake, Because then you could have a parallel, that's the only way, it's said, to have a parallel and to know what Beautiful is at any historical moment, although cultural patterns vary greatly. That idea of the Trusted Observer is quite ingenious and quite interesting. What appeals to the deepest conscience of Man, where there is perfect synthesis will survive. That's the idea of the classic, that's beautiful. Imagine you that perfect pattern, that archetype on the plane of ideas, the closest thing to that so far will be eternalized. There's no way. That is placed, as the

Romans used to say, "in illo tempore" - out of time. Because it has come so close to the eternal ideal, it is chasing eternity. Maybe one day someone will come along who comes closer to the archetype than Michelangelo, than Mozart, or whoever, this will also become classic. These things put themselves above time, They achieved such a good synthesis, such a good integration of the elements of the earth, they managed to imprint heaven on earth in a very perfect way. The footprint is very clear of the archetype on Earth. And that very clear footprint of the

spirit on earth is the Classic. And anything can be classical, not just art inclusive. There can be a classical way of living together, because there is an archetype of how people live together. There can be a classical way of educating, because there is an archetype of the education of human beings. So the Classic is what came closest to your ideal. It becomes timeless. It is a very perfect synthesis of the things of the material world, in such a way that the spirit imprints itself there. So that will survive, that's the Classic, all the other stuff

will be swept away by time. Of course, as time goes by, even the Classic is destroyed, but he runs after eternity. Because it is the fate of material things to destroy themselves, nothing is eternal on the material plane, but he runs after eternity. You may have heard of that Egyptian quote for example, that everyone fears time, but time fears the pyramids. That which is too perfect runs after eternity, will not get there, because material things, no matter how perfect they are, one day are destroyed, but they are very durable, by their closeness to the Eternal.

What we call art today, is not always synonymous with beauty, but technique or dexterity at best, at best. Get it well! i.e. I handle the matter well and generate something technically admirable, or endowed with a dexterity, at best. As we today live what is called the aesthetics of the ugly, sometimes neither technique nor skill. Simply a manifestation of something taken out of its natural context. He's saying that at best, that which uses technique and skill if it does not manifest the ideal it is not Art. Art fulfills an ideal. This idea we have of art

for art's sake, for that tradition would not make much sense, it's art for man, it fulfills a function, as anything in the universe fulfills a function. Man himself is not manifested for nothing, he fulfills a function. So, the ends define Art. That's very interesting, right? How anything is defined, we were just talking about the Christian quote: "By your deeds you shall be known" The ends define all things. Then there is no beauty, if the psychological effect it generates is not Beautiful. Don't think that the psychological effect is one that is necessarily pleasant, but the one

that is good. That which contributes to the evolution of man in some way. If the psychological effect raises consciousness, leads man towards his ideal, that is Art. If it doesn't lead towards it, it's not necessarily something negative, it can even be a good occupational therapy, but if it doesn't fulfill its objectives it's not art. Because Art is defined by those goals and that purpose. So there is no beauty if the psychological effect is not Beautiful, And that's an endless mess that we make. That's something that creates shock, that generates some kind of complaint. Well, it

may be journalism, but not Art. It can be a social cause, but not Art, it's not necessarily negative. But Art would have a very specific scope. It is to generate a psychological state of man's growth towards his ideal. Dexterity in the upward arc drags consciousness to the ground. I'll tell you about the descending arc and the ascending arc. According to Eastern tradition, speaking of the universe manifestation as a whole, it's spoken about the moment the universe enters matter, that spirit merges with matter, and the moment it starts to make the journey home. We'd be at

this back-home moment. So this dexterity, when it pushes us towards relating to matter, it is counterproductive. He says that, often, dexterity and skill, I mean, a good singer can actually be a good singer, sometimes, can have a good technique, but when he works to immerse man's consciousness in matter, even if technically he is very good, what he does is not Art. Curious, right? Quite a rigorous concept, but interesting to reflect about. I remember and always quote that, that on one occasion that Argentine composer, Astor Piazzolla, he performed, and they asked him at the end if

he thought the performance was good, if he liked it. he said: "Well, today I played well, I often play well, but few times I make music." And that really struck me, I found it quite interesting because he realized that playing well was something different from making music, dexterity is not necessarily art. Sometimes a person sings very well and you realize there's not much soul there and sometimes he doesn't sing so well and he gives you something that lifts you up. Sometimes the dexterity is not so great, but the soul is so present. that it creates

an effect that really is art. And we feel it, stay tuned and you'll realize it. In any artistic discipline. Something that may not hold all that much skill, but it generates a purpose that is really artistic. Then the dexterity in the ascending arc, in the descending arc, sorry, drags the conscience to the ground. Ties it down like an anchor, and that would not be art. This is also very beautiful and interesting. Power is freedom and Beauty too. What is power? It is the ability to enter inside matter and make matter obey you and not condition

you. Do you get it? It obeys you and not you obey it. A man who has no power, a weak man, he puts himself in the middle of a circumstance and the circumstances determine what he will be. Man who has power puts himself in the middle of circumstances and he determines the circumstances. He turns the game around, he makes history. We make such a cult of weakness today, that we have come to build a theory around it. A deterministic theory that man is a product of his environment. What do you think about that? This is

nothing more than an institutionalization of weakness. All men when they fall in the matter, matter shapes them, not the other way around. So man is a product of the environment? No, he is. He let himself be. There's a quote from Kant in the Metaphysics of Morals, that he claims, and we know he had a pietistic Christian religious line, but he is very discreet in his religious placements, he hardly makes them, but after a while he claims: If there is a God who will judge you someday, he will not judge you as a conditioned being, but

as a free being who has chosen to let himself be conditioned. And I think that's wonderful! So Power is Freedom, you can turn the tables, not only can you, but according to these oriental traditions that we are dealing with, you must. He says that not only power is freedom, but Beauty too. Beauty means Life that has managed to impose itself over form. Life that has managed to determine enough space to manifest something spiritual there, in the manifested world. Then Art must lead the form to be as free from material hindrances as possible, to serve (dress)

the Idea. And that's what is quite interesting, because Scruton talks about this a lot in his book. It's so hard for you to imagine that you can imprint so much Life into the matter without the channel being too clean and too pure. And who is the channel? The artist. The Artist there functions almost like a priest, a pontiff, it's not for nothing that Plato put in his laws the role of the artist as one of the pillars of his city, he is a pontiff How will you build Beauty without it being a statement of the

moral Beauty of who acted in that matter? How is it going to be an unobstructed channel? How are you going to imprint beauty, life, into a form without you having the channels clear for that life to pass through you? Ok? So the artist has a status almost that of a pontiff, he bridges the gap between heaven and earth. The most Beautiful Art is the one where form releases Life, and expresses its inner idea. The most beautiful art is that where form obeys life, expressed, in such a way that you look at it and you realize

that there's more there than just a decorative object, there's a message there. Do you realize that real art has that? I find it very interesting a document that for several people I have passed on, I'm sure many of you know, which is a testament that Beethoven writes when he goes completely deaf, it's called the Heiligenstadt Testament. One of the things he talks about is.... Imagine yourselves the agony of a deaf composer! One of the things he talks about is that he would end his life if he didn't felt that he hadn't finished giving a message

yet, that had been intended for him, and his message was his music, a message he had to give to humanity. I mean, there is a message there, a content, his music wants to say something, it is not just entertainment. In other words, all art is endowed with a spiritual message, it is symbolic, it is a bridge, and that necessarily implies that the artist was able to perform himself as a channel for that life to dive into and occupy matter in the most effective way and that is the Beautiful. Only the attainment of perfect beauty of

thought and action completes and realizes itself, the purpose of manifesting the nature of life. I mean, only perfect beauty of thought and action, moral beauty, is capable of functioning as a channel. Sri Ram is going to say something interesting, because the artist, when he really manages to be that bridge, has that moral beauty, it has that beauty of thought and action, he can see beauty even though it is not manifest in a dense body. He sees Beauty on the planes of ideas, is able to embody it as often as necessary, he sees Beauty even though

stripped of material form, he sees Beauty itself. He says that the true artist doesn't believe that Beauty is of things, Beauty is in things, things are destroyed and it will occupy other bodies, but it is immortal, and he is able to realize that. Beauty as an entity that manifests itself, then he's going to talk a little bit further about that. That which allows him that vision of beauty, is that capacity from within himself, to give space for life to expand. That is, he himself has to have a beautiful moral life and a beautiful soul. His

form is the first form that beauty has to occupy. His soul is the first form that beauty has to occupy. Because through it he can attain to beautiful achievements in the world. Then only the attainment of perfect beauty of thought and action completes and fulfills the purpose of manifesting the nature of life. And that's a quite interesting question that Scruton talks about, and I thought it was interesting that he goes quite far ahead, of what Roger Scruton talks about. So beauty and human utility go together and evolve together. It's a very contentious issue, this question

of Beauty versus Utility, which is very much addressed in this work by Roger Scruton. He says that this idea, that was put forward a lot by modern architecture, an architect named Sullivan, that form should follow function. I mean, first comes utility then beauty. That beauty would be disposable and all that. Scruton fights hard against that. He says it's Beauty first, and Utility will arise if Beauty exists. Now what Sri Ram says is that actually beauty is utility. Because what is utility? You can only judge utility from a human point of view. Because otherwise utility becomes

very virtual a concept, you may agree. If a person wants to steal, a gun is useful. If a person wants to lie, let's see, an opportunity to deceive someone, a distracted person is useful. In other words, anything becomes useful. For him you have to judge utility on a single parameter: human evolution. That which leads man to the good, That which leads a man towards his ideal, that is usefulness. True usefulness leads man towards evolution. And Beauty always does that. So the real utility is beautiful. They are inseparable. You just separate beauty from utility when you

take other partial utilities, that have nothing to do with the human condition and which can sometimes be contradictory to it. You have a very big economic interest You want to make a lot of profit with little investment your utility is not going to be beautiful. But if your utility is human utility, that which nature expects of man, which is to lead man towards the ideal, towards evolution, this utility will always be beautiful, for they go hand in hand. Utility cannot be a relative concept, just as beauty cannot. What is it useful for? You always have

to give the end point to where you want to go. Useful for what? It's useful to become more human, it's always beautiful. He said that these two things necessarily evolve together, the more beautiful, the more useful. True beauty and true human utility, there is no disassociation. Unless you put the utility back for a purpose other than for man. Beauty is the result of a perfect relationship and can be seen by the true artist stripped of substance. Form perishes and beauty is reincarnated. Imagine that, realize that there is... there's even a poem by Drummond where he

talks about this, that you penetrate the realm of words and they are there, mute, waiting for you to be molded. The true artist would have the ability to perceive the beauty hovering over things. Looking for an opportunity to demonstrate, he would facilitate that birth, he would facilitate the entrance of beauty into matter, but still, when beauty is not embodied in anything, he believes in that beauty and sees it. He sees the beauty above the bodies and helps beauty to incarnate in bodies. And does not believe that when bodies are destroyed, Beauty ceases to exist. That

is why the artist is a special being, for all those traditions, that Plato talks about so much, why? The common man does not have that vision, he needs beauty to manifest for him to see. So he sees beauty through the artist's eyes. The artist brings beauty to a plane where the common man can see. Then he is a must, because if there is no artist, there is no true beauty. But he is able to see it before it takes a body, he believes in it and lives with it, when it doesn't have a body yet.

and so he is able to give it a body. He familiarizes himself with beauty, when it has not yet taken shape, that's very interesting, right, because it puts the artist in an extremely noble role. Something is beautiful because it embodies a law. This is also quite interesting, the Law of the Universe, that dharma that we were talking about just now. Lawfulness, which is the finger of God, the One's digit, is the essence of beauty. Nothing is Beautiful if within itself it is not aligned with the law of the universe. Nature is like that, things are

beautiful because they are perfectly aligned with the law of the universe. That's interesting, isn't it? By the way, back there I was talking a little bit about that, I skipped it and didn't comment, we'll go back there just to show you. Here, I said the most beautiful Art is when form releases life and expresses its inner idea, nature does. Nature does not put any obstacles for ideals to manifest themselves. that's why we look at it and there's no doubt, there is no discussion. Nobody fails to look at a sunset and say it's beautiful, right? There's

no arguing with that! Nature puts no obstacle towards life coming into form and manifesting itself in its greatest fullness. Man has one function: to do that too. Man still has an ability that is somewhat curious, through art. That he is able to imprint in form life in a much broader and much more complete way. I don't know if you have realized that when a true artist does something, through that work, you don't realize it, for example, a beautiful painting by Leonardo, you look at Monalisa you see not just the physical face of a woman, you

pick up some of her feelings, her attitude towards life, he is able to imprint subtle elements in a work. That only man can do, you look at a landscape and you are not capable, if you are a true artist, to just see a physical landscape as if it were a photograph, you see some of the feeling that landscape evokes. A little bit of the atmosphere there, of the emotions that it evokes, are imprinted there together. And that's an interesting feature, this discussion that was instituted in modern art, that it no longer makes sense to do

realistic painting because there is photography never a painting by a great painter is going to be the same as a photograph. Although photography can also have its artistic side, I'm not saying anything against it, but a real work of art, it takes more than the physical body of what is portrayed. She is able to imprint more things there. I never forget an occasion when I was in Greece, at the Agora Museum, there was a bust of a man, of a warrior. And that warrior was something impressive, it was a sculpture. If you stared at it,

it was such a channeling of will that it made you afraid. It made you want to get out of his way, because he would run over you. He gave you respect and fear, carved into a stone over two thousand years ago. And it was interesting that, because I stared at it and it gave me a terror feeling: "Let me get out of the way." And literally, without me thinking, my body did that: "Get out of the way, let him pass." I mean, impressive that. How that person did that on a piece of marble? The real

artist can do that, he goes beyond the physical body of what is portrayed. He imprints there a feeling, an intention, it's something very, there's something really sacred about it. He will claim then, that the law of the universe is the essence and soul of Beauty. Through Beauty you can deduce the soul of the universe, the laws of the universe. All beautiful beings are rays from a common center, that is, of that One, of that Divinity. Hence they harmonize in manifestation. Hence they run after eternity, which is the idea of the classic. What does that mean?

The things that start from Unity, the things that have a Spirit, the things that obey the law, though they are manifold, they all fit together. They harmonize themselves. Disharmony and conflict are signs that there the essence is not the law. There the essence is not the ideal. If things were manifestations in space and time of aspects of divinity, they would fit together like a great puzzle. If there is rubbing, if there is conflict, if there is friction, it is because they do not perfectly reflect what they should reflect. They are not faithful representatives of the

idea, for which they were conceived. The concord, harmony, composition and integration of the whole universe would be perfectly natural if all things were a reflection of the idea that generated them. I mean, if all things were beautiful, there would be no conflict. Can you imagine that? All things would harmonize perfectly. It's a very abstract and very bold concept, you'll agree that it's beautiful to imagine such a world, right? Human consciousness, as it blossoms in matter, is affected by this same law, for it is a reflection of it. That is, human consciousness is divine, just as

the essence of beautiful things is divine. Then they recognize each other, they are of the same nature. That idea of contact that we talked about earlier. From this comes the perception of the Beautiful, which is the faculty of cognition, that one must conquer, one must be worthy. So human consciousness and the essence of beautiful things are of the same nature and recognize each other. And there's no way you can camouflage it or say, "It's not". Because a person who has the perception of the Beautiful, all the decrees and authorities in the world can say that

is not beautiful, she will realize that it is. Or all the decrees in the world might say that's beautiful, but she will see that it is not. The fact that we get carried away by opinions and find beautiful that which is not means a lack of this awakened cognitive faculty. The man, who has within him the perception of something profound, something true, a deep identity, inner life, is able to recognize things that have the same nature as himself and there is no authority in the world that can convince him otherwise. A mature soul knows what

is beautiful. That's what he means. And finally. Art without beauty is just pretension. I don't want to pick a fight with art, he's saying that, you can argue with Sri Ram. "Art is the sprouting of ideas, from a Heaven, apparently empty, but splendidly illuminated, in forms that manifest and reflect it on earth." Quite poetic, isn't it? Art is that sprouting in the earth of ideas that exist eternally in heaven. So art is service and it is essential. Scruton talks about that, that in the historical moment like ours, should be considered as a humanitarian work, to

familiarize man with beauty, a necessity, to familiarize man with beauty. Because it works on the moral construction of man, it is a therapeutic and extremely necessary element. So Art is a service, and an essential one. And the true artist is a pontiff. And that sentence I think is very beautiful: "To love God consists in being useful to his worlds." Do what is necessary, to make the things that are necessary to exist, exist. "To love God is to be useful in his worlds." and as we have seen usefulness has everything to do with his Beauty. So

that's a slightly different view from what we saw last year, quite present in an eastern tradition, which is a bit more incisive in its placements, you will agree that it is very interesting, a quite interesting point of view. Because it speaks of beauty as one of the laws that act in the universe, in the service of the laws. And with a clear purpose that cannot be disguised. Because just as one medicine cures and another does not, you can't escape it, either you give that medicine or the patient dies, so is beauty. Beauty manifests the laws

of the universe, and something else does not, and if you don't have the beauty, those laws don't manifest. And you will have to bear the consequences of that and there's no getting away from that, that's inevitable. We have to accept the consequences of denying beauty or to look for beauty. And his vision is very clear and it's all contained in just two pages of text. These and many other considerations because this is just a summary. In a very synthetic style which is proper to these Eastern thinkers. Well, that's a little bit of an overview, it's

a little demonstration of what we intend to show as art on this Art Day to generate a reflection. They are not dogmas, they are not axioms, because we are philosophers. It is an object of reflection, as we did last year. And with that we're putting little pieces together of this vision of Beauty, so that at some point we can have our own vision. That's it, I thank you for your presence and then we can open up for questions.