Chapter 43 Part III The World as Representation Revisited §43

Matter as materialism cannot be the expression of an idea.For matter, as we have seen in the first book, is entirely causal.Its existence is also all about functions.But causality is the form of the law of sufficient reason, while the understanding of ideas is the opposite, basically excluding the content of this law.In the second part we see that matter is the common substrate of all individual phenomena owned by the Idea, and thus is the connection between the Idea and phenomena or individual things.Matter itself, therefore, cannot, for one reason or another, express an Idea.But the a posteriori confirmation of this is always to say that [we have] no intuitive representation of such matter, but only an abstract concept; only in representations can there be shapes and display of properties.It is matter that bears shape attributes, and only in all shape attributes can ideas appear.This is consistent with the fact that causality (the entire nature of matter) itself cannot be described intuitively, but only a certain causal connection. — On the other hand, on the contrary, every appearance of an Idea must manifest itself materially as a material property, since it has entered into the form or principle of individuation of the principle of sufficient reason.So at this point, as has been said, matter is the link connecting the idea with the principle of individuation, and the principle of individuation is the form of the individual's "knowledge", or the law of reason. —Therefore, according to Palatu, besides the Idea and its appearance, that is, the individual thing, which could include everything in the world, there is only matter as a third person different from these two. , ("Timaeus" p. 345) is absolutely correct.The individual as the manifestation of an idea is always matter.Every property of matter is also always the appearance of an Idea, and as such it can be appreciated aesthetically, and appreciation is the knowledge of the Idea expressed in the phenomenon.This holds true even for the most general properties of matter; without which it would never be matter, and whose ideas are the weakest objectivity of the will.Such properties are: gravity, cohesive force, solidity, liquidity, response to light, etc.

If we now consider architectural art only as fine art, apart from its determination of applied ends, [because] in these ends it serves the will and not pure thought, it is, in our terms, It is no longer art—we cannot, then, designate architectural art any other purpose than to make certain ideas—which are the lowest degree of objectivity of the will— more clearly intuited.This lowest level of objectivity is gravity, cohesion, solidity, hardness; these are the most universal properties of masonry, these most primitive, simplest, and most obstinate Some basic continuo bass.Besides these there is light, [but] light is in several respects the opposite of these properties.Even at this low level of will's objectivity, we have seen the essence of will manifested in contradiction; for the only aesthetic subject matter of architecture is in fact the struggle between gravity and solidity, in the form of The way in which this struggle can be brought out fully and clearly is the problem of architecture.Its [method] to solve such problems is to cut off the shortest path from which these indestructible forces derive their satisfaction, and to sustain them by a roundabout way; [Each] trend can be seen in a variety of ways. —The whole mass of the building, if left to its original tendency, would be but one mass, clinging to the ground as closely as possible; The Big Thing] would keep pushing toward the ground; then solidity, [which] is also the objectivity of the will, resists.But it is precisely this tendency, this impetus, that the art of architecture does not allow it to have direct satisfaction, but only indirect satisfaction, through detours.The beam, for example, falls [indirectly] to the ground only by means of uprights, the dome must support itself, and its impulse towards the earth can be satisfied only by means of stakes; and so on.Yet it is precisely in this forced indirect way, precisely because of this obstruction, that the forces of [nature] hidden in the stubborn stone are most clearly and diversely revealed, [among other things,] architecture There can no longer be any purely artistic purpose.Thus, the beauty of a building is, at any rate, integral in the apparent purpose of each of its parts, [however] not for an external, human-willed purpose (this kind of engineering belongs to applied architecture) , but directly for the stability of the whole structure, for the whole structure, the position, size and shape of each part must have such an inevitable relationship, that is, if possible, remove Any part, the whole is bound to collapse.This is because only each part carries exactly what it is capable of carrying, and each part is supported exactly where and to what extent it is necessary, and then it is the solidity that constitutes the life of the stubborn stone or the expression of its will. It is only through that opposition between sex and gravity that the struggle develops to its fullest visibility, and the lowest level of the objectivity of the will emerges clearly.Likewise, the form of each part must be determined by its purpose and its relation to the whole, and not arbitrarily determined by the will of man.The column is the simplest, just a form of support dictated by purpose.Twists and turns are vulgar and tasteless.Although the square pile is sometimes easier to make, in fact it is not as simple as the round one.In the same way the forms of cornices, joists, vaults, and domes are entirely determined by their immediate purpose, which naturally explains them.The carvings on the column ends and other places belong to the scope of sculpture and not architecture. This is not only an additional decoration, but also dispensable. —According to what has been said here, a direct intuitive knowledge of [architectural] materials in terms of weight, solidity, cohesion[s] is inevitable for a building to be understood and aesthetically enjoyed, if [ The revelation that the building material is pumice would at once diminish our appreciation of the building; for it would then appear as a sort of false house.It would have almost the same effect if we had originally assumed a building of stone, and the news that it was only of wood, would have almost the same effect, for in wooden houses the manifestations of the forces of nature are much weaker, which confuses solidity and gravity. Therefore, the meaning and inevitability of all parts [of a building] are changed, so that although wood can be used as a material in various forms, it cannot become an architectural art, and this is entirely possible. explained by our theory.But if it should go so far as to tell us that there is a building, which seems to please us, but which is entirely made of different materials, of very different weights and resistances, which cannot be distinguished by the naked eye; , the whole building would thus be unappreciable, like a poem written in a language we do not understand.All this just proves that the role of architectural art is not only mathematical, but also dynamic; it also proves that what we appreciate through this art is not only form and uniformity, but rather the fundamental forces of nature. , those primitive ideas, those lowest levels of the objectivity of the will. —The regularity of buildings and their parts is brought about on the one hand by the immediate purposiveness of each part to the whole structure, and on the other hand by the function of facilitating a general overview and comprehension; They reveal the regularity of space as space and contribute to aesthetics.But all this is of secondary value and necessity, and never the main thing, since even uniformity is not an absolute requirement, and even ruins are beautiful.

Works of architectural art also have a very special relationship to light; in full sunlight, with a blue sky as the background, these works can obtain a double beauty; under the moon, they show an entirely different effect.Therefore, when creating a work of architectural art, special consideration should be given to the effect of light and the direction of location.The basis of all this is, of course, largely to be found in the fact that only clear, strong lighting can make all the parts [of a building] and their relations fully visible, but I also think that the nature which architecture is destined to reveal is gravity and solidity. sex, and at the same time the nature of light which is the opposite of both.That is to say, when the light is absorbed, blocked, and reflected by the huge, impenetrable, clear-cut and complex-shaped behemoth, the light can display its nature and some attributes in the purest and most clear way. The connoisseur is greatly blessed by it, for light, as the condition and objective correlate of the most perfect intuitive mode of cognition, is the most lovable of things.

Because the ideas which architecture has brought to clear intuition are the lowest grades of the objectivity of the will, the objective significance of what architecture exhibits before us is comparatively small; therefore [one] sees a In the case of beautiful, properly illuminated buildings, the enjoyment of appreciation consists not so much in the apprehension of the Idea, but rather in its subjective counterpart that follows from the apprehension of the Idea, that is, in the main When the reader sees the building, he gets rid of the cognition mode of the individual who serves the will and obeys the law of sufficient reason, and rises to a pure one without will. the subject of 'knowing'; that is, in pure contemplation itself, freed from all the pains of desire and individuality.—In this regard, then at the extreme opposite to architecture, the various arts are arranged in series At the other extreme is the theater; theater [can] bring the most important ideas into the field of knowledge, so that in the appreciation of the theater the objective side has an overwhelming predominance.

The difference between architectural art and plastic art, and literature and art is that what architecture provides is not a mimicry of the real thing, but the real thing itself.Unlike plastic arts and literature and art, architectural art does not reproduce the known ideas.In reproduction, the artist lends his eyes to the audience. In architecture, the artist just puts the object well in front of the audience. When he makes the actual individual object clearly and completely express its essence, he can make the audience more aware. Easy to grasp concepts. Works of architectural art, like other works of art, are rarely done for purely aesthetic purposes.On the contrary, the aesthetic purpose is subordinate to other practical purposes that have nothing to do with art; therefore, the great achievement of the architectural artist lies in the fact that the aesthetic purpose can be carried out and achieved even though it is subordinate to an irrelevant purpose, and this It is because he can deftly and in many ways match the aesthetic purpose with each practical purpose, and can correctly judge which kind of architectural beauty is suitable for use in temples, which is suitable for palaces, and which One suitable for arms galleries and the like.The more a harsh climate intensifies the demands of satisfying [special] needs, the demands of utility, the more rigidly it defines them, the more irrevocably they are specified, the less beauty has an activity in the art of architecture. room.In the temperate climates of India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, where life had fewer demands and less regulated rules, architecture was freest to pursue aesthetic ends.Under the sky of northern Europe, the aesthetic purpose of architectural art will be greatly aggrieved; the requirements here are pigeon-cooped houses and pointed towers. Since architectural art can only display its unique beauty in a narrow range , it is even more important to cherish the carved decoration as a substitute, which is what we see on Gothic art buildings.

Although the art of architecture in this case has to be greatly restricted by the requirements of necessity and utility, on the other hand these requirements and restrictions have greatly helped it; At the same time, it is a practical and necessary craft that has a solid and honorable place in human endeavors. Then, given the vastness of its engineering and its huge cost and the narrow range of its artistic utility, it is simply It is impossible to preserve it as pure art to this day.There is another art which can be regarded as the same as the architectural art from the aesthetic point of view, but because of the lack of the above-mentioned practical aspects, we cannot rank this art and the architectural art as sister arts; I mean the beautiful water conservancy engineering. .It turns out that in architectural art, the idea of ​​gravity is associated with solidity; while in water conservancy projects with beautiful scenery, the idea of ​​gravity is associated with liquidity, that is, with shape uncertainty, fluidity, and transparency; Both arts serve the same idea, there are giant torrents pouring from hanging rocks, roaring and raging, splashing waterfalls, serenity and leisure, towering fountains like water columns and lakes like mirrors [etc.] The idea of ​​showing heavy liquid matter is exactly the same idea that buildings reveal solid matter.But landscape hydraulics cannot be supported by practical hydraulics; for the purposes of the two hydraulics are generally incompatible and can only be combined in exceptional cases, as in the artificial waterfall of Trevi in ​​Rome. One example.