Aspects regarding the work of art

• Author: Ratulea, G.
• Position: Department of Social Assistance and Communication, Transilvania University of Brasov
• Pages: 163-168

Bulletin of the Transilvania Universit y of Braşov • Vol. 4 (53) •No. 1 - 2011

Series VII: Social Sciences • Law

ASPECTS REGARDING

THE WORK OF ART

Gabriela RULEA1

Abstract: An important feature of the work of art is the imitation of nature.

It is important to mention that art does not imitate nature by creating a series

of identical phenomena that repeat themselves; art imitates without

repetition, without creating a set of identical copies of the same natural

object. To the extent to which art imitates but does repeat nature, it opposes

it. At the same time the work of art is self-sufficient in the sense of a “world ”,

a whole that needs to be evaluated according to its own criteria.

Key words: work of art, technique, artefact, aesthetics, value.

1 Department of Social Assistance and Communication, Transilvania University of Braşov.

1. Introduction

Tudor Vianu talked about a paradox of

art: on the one hand, it pertains to the set of

forms and processes of nature, as the

product of a creative force and natural

energies and, on the other hand, it opposes

nature for two reasons: it is both a product

of human technique and “the product of

the ultimate activity of the spirit” [7]. To

the extent to which art imitates but does

repeat nature, it opposes it. At the same

time the work of art is self-sufficient in the

sense of a “world”, a whole that needs to

be considered according to its own criteria.

This can be seen in the works of art of the

Antiquity that no longer belong to the

context of their initial creation and

admiration and their aesthetic value is by

no means diminished. At the same time,

the aforementioned lead to the fact that the

opposition of art to nature must be viewed

from the perspective of a new opposition,

namely the one between art and technique.

The phenomenon of art actually presents

us with its three operational fields: nature,

technique and spirit (or value).

2. Art and technique

Art is opposed to nature to the extent to

which it opposes technique (not by

mechanical imitation) and if it shares

something with technique, it also shares it

with nature. Namely, the finality of

technique involves a determined purpose

that may also be regarded as a simple

mean. On the contrary, the finality of art is

purposeless. From this viewpoint art

resembles nature as the finality of nature is

not external to nature. Therefore it is said

that art forms a self-sufficient whole: like

nature, it has no relative purpose (to other

purposes). We could argue that art

resembles a body. This idea was supported

by Plato who spoke about logos as a living

being whose parts were worthless unless

they were considered by means of the

whole and in view of the whole. Only in

this way we can understand better the way

in which art is said to imitate nature: it

tends to become as nature, i.e. self-

sufficient. We cannot agree with Tudor

Vianu who claimed that art had something

from machine and technique because it