The classic design of the principle of the art The general principle of the Beautiful is also that of the s. The reason for which humans do not simply of the useful, but are still seeking the beautiful, is that they are experiencing great pleasure and very pure to play freely all their faculties in the perception of things. Only the natural beauties their seem too rare and often also too imperfect: they therefore serve as models for imagine and achieve an infinity of other more completely appropriate to the aesthetic game of his faculties. But this principle is too general and therefore too indeterminate to explain in detail the various forms that art has paved. It must therefore be supplemented by a number of secondary principles that most of the theorists of the Aesthetic have had the wrong to oppose them, owing to lack of knowledge of the higher principle where they combine. These secondary principles are the imitation, the expression and the ideal. 1° after a school, often called realistic or naturalist, the faithful imitation of the nature is the purpose of the s. Not only the beauty, but any real thing like when she is well imitated. The true artist is prohibited to choose and change. The UFR 03 History of Art and Archeology of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne is today one of the most important departments in the world by the number of his students (nearly 3 000 of the license in the doctorate) and its teachers (more than 70 licensees), the recognized quality of its research teams, but especially by the variety of thematic covered, from prehistory to the contemporary era, in almost all areas of the globe, on the five continents. The training proposed, of the license to the PHD, offer professional opportunities varied in the trades of the culture, art, heritage and research, as well as in the administration, journalism and the world of business, in France as in the international. It is true that the imitation is a source of aesthetic pleasure and that this pleasure is exclusively the effect of s. An object which in reality would leave us indifferent suits us, will become an opportunity for us to play our faculties when the art we will represent the form or the mock. It is true, on the other hand, that the fault of imitation is often an obstacle to the aesthetic pleasure: a work of art that deviates too much from the nature may by this alone we displeasing. But it is false that the pleasure produced by the imitation is the most lively and the most complete of the aesthetic pleasures and therefore that the art should the search to the exclusion of all others; it is false especially that this pleasure can be more or less completely canceled by other effects of the imitation, for example, when the object imitated is too insignificant or too dreadful or too immoral for that the image is not indifferent or repulsive. As well the imitation is not the sufficient condition nor even the necessary condition of the aesthetic pleasure in s. As such, it is almost completely absent from some of the Arts (architecture, music, lyric poetry). Even in the arts of imitation or who are long time defined as such (painting, sculpture, theater, Roman) it is never a means and not an end. The art, in effect, even while it mimics, do proposes never as end the exact reproduction and bonded labor of the real, and this for two reasons: this reproduction is not desirable; it is impossible. It is not desirable, because, too exactly imitated, the object appears to be real: therefore, it no longer plays with him, it takes seriously and any aesthetic feeling faints, as for example in the theater, when the illusion is too strong. It is impossible, first because the reality is too complex and too changing to that the work of art can embrace a whole: willy-nilly, art simplifies and immobilizes; his works are always superficial and died in comparison to those of the nature: it must therefore compensate by some other side this inferiority inevitable; then and especially, because the reality, whatever it is, do we appears ever that through our spirit: what we call the world is the product of our senses and our intelligence, the product of the Spirit at least as much as things. Therefore, any work of art is necessarily the expression of a soul, even when it does not seems to be that a copy of an object. More an artist has the engineering, the more It transfigures the world in the reflecting. From there the word of deep Bacon: Ars homo additus Naturae. 2° C is the truth which is especially highlighted in the Doctrine of the expression. The art is a language and it is an act of communication: it is a translation, an interpretation of the nature; and it is also a direct manifestation of the human sensitivity in common. We can, indeed, consider the expression either as supplementary principle of imitation in all the arts, either as independent principle and original some arts. At the first point of view, the art is not for the purpose only of reproduce the external forms of things, but still to release, to do enter the meaning. The things of the nature awaken, indeed, among those who look at the emotions indefinable often that the imagination projecting in they and objective; and the artist is experiencing more than person of such emotions. From which it follows that the art can and must choose among the things those who are really expressive, and modify the forms of those same things to make them more expressive yet. The nature often stutters: art the fact speak. The second point of view, the expression appears to be the principle of all the arts which, as the music and the lyric poetry, have for the end of the direct manifestation of human feelings. Here the human is no longer speak the nature: he speaks in his own name. 3° but the expression itself led to the creation. In effect the feelings of the artist who tend to express themselves in an object are not always in the reality of object that suits them. Hence the need to create one. The classic design of the principle of the art The general principle of the Beautiful is also that of the s. The reason for which humans do not simply of the useful, but are still seeking the beautiful, is that they are experiencing great pleasure and very pure to play freely all their faculties in the perception of things. Only the natural beauties their seem too rare and often also too imperfect: they therefore serve as models for imagine and achieve an infinity of other more completely appropriate to the aesthetic game of his faculties. But this principle is too general and therefore too indeterminate to explain in detail the various forms that art has paved. It must therefore be supplemented by a number of secondary principles that most of the theorists of the Aesthetic have had the wrong to oppose them, owing to lack of knowledge of the higher principle where they combine. These secondary principles are the imitation, the expression and the ideal. 1° after a school, often called realistic or naturalist, the faithful imitation of the nature is the purpose of the s. Not only the beauty, but any real thing like when she is well imitated. The true artist is prohibited to choose and change. The UFR 03 History of Art and Archeology of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne is today one of the most important departments in the world by the number of his students (nearly 3 000 of the license in the doctorate) and its teachers (more than 70 licensees), the recognized quality of its research teams, but especially by the variety of thematic covered, from prehistory to the contemporary era, in almost all areas of the globe, on the five continents. The training proposed, of the license to the PHD, offer professional opportunities varied in the trades of the culture, art, heritage and research, as well as in the administration, journalism and the world of business, in France as in the international. It is true that the imitation is a source of aesthetic pleasure and that this pleasure is exclusively the effect of s. An object which in reality would leave us indifferent suits us, will become an opportunity for us to play our faculties when the art we will represent the form or the mock. It is true, on the other hand, that the fault of imitation is often an obstacle to the aesthetic pleasure: a work of art that deviates too much from the nature may by this alone we displeasing. But it is false that the pleasure produced by the imitation is the most lively and the most complete of the aesthetic pleasures and therefore that the art should the search to the exclusion of all others; it is false especially that this pleasure can be more or less completely canceled by other effects of the imitation, for example, when the object imitated is too insignificant or too dreadful or too immoral for that the image is not indifferent or repulsive. As well the imitation is not the sufficient condition nor even the necessary condition of the aesthetic pleasure in s. As such, it is almost completely absent from some of the Arts (architecture, music, lyric poetry). Even in the arts of imitation or who are long time defined as such (painting, sculpture, theater, Roman) it is never a means and not an end. The art, in effect, even while it mimics, do proposes never as end the exact reproduction and bonded labor of the real, and this for two reasons: this reproduction is not desirable; it is impossible. It is not desirable, because, too exactly imitated, the object appears to be real: therefore, it no longer plays with him, it takes seriously and any aesthetic feeling faints, as for example in the theater, when the illusion is too strong. It is impossible, first because the reality is too complex and too changing to that the work of art can embrace a whole: willy-nilly, art simplifies and immobilizes; his works are always superficial and died in comparison to those of the nature: it must therefore compensate by some other side this inferiority inevitable; then and especially, because the reality, whatever it is, do we appears ever that through our spirit: what we call the world is the product of our senses and our intelligence, the product of the Spirit at least as much as things. Therefore, any work of art is necessarily the expression of a soul, even when it does not seems to be that a copy of an object. More an artist has the engineering, the more It transfigures the world in the reflecting. From there the word of deep Bacon: Ars homo additus Naturae. 2° C is the truth which is especially highlighted in the Doctrine of the expression. The art is a language and it is an act of communication: it is a translation, an interpretation of the nature; and it is also a direct manifestation of the human sensitivity in common. We can, indeed, consider the expression either as supplementary principle of imitation in all the arts, either as independent principle and original some arts. At the first point of view, the art is not for the purpose only of reproduce the external forms of things, but still to release, to do enter the meaning. The things of the nature awaken, indeed, among those who look at the emotions indefinable often that the imagination projecting in they and objective; and the artist is experiencing more than person of such emotions. From which it follows that the art can and must choose among the things those who are really expressive, and modify the forms of those same things to make them more expressive yet. The nature often stutters: art the fact speak. The second point of view, the expression appears to be the principle of all the arts which, as the music and the lyric poetry, have for the end of the direct manifestation of human feelings. Here the human is no longer speak the nature: he speaks in his own name. 3° but the expression itself led to the creation. In effect the feelings of the artist who tend to express themselves in an object are not always in the reality of object that suits them. Hence the need to create one. The classic design of the principle of the art The general principle of the Beautiful is also that of the s. The reason for which humans do not simply of the useful, but are still seeking the beautiful, is that they are experiencing great pleasure and very pure to play freely all their faculties in the perception of things. Only the natural beauties their seem too rare and often also too imperfect: they therefore serve as models for imagine and achieve an infinity of other more completely appropriate to the aesthetic game of his faculties. But this principle is too general and therefore too indeterminate to explain in detail the various forms that art has paved. It must therefore be supplemented by a number of secondary principles that most of the theorists of the Aesthetic have had the wrong to oppose them, owing to lack of knowledge of the higher principle where they combine. These secondary principles are the imitation, the expression and the ideal. 1° after a school, often called realistic or naturalist, the faithful imitation of the nature is the purpose of the s. Not only the beauty, but any real thing like when she is well imitated. The true artist is prohibited to choose and change. The UFR 03 History of Art and Archeology of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne is today one of the most important departments in the world by the number of his students (nearly 3 000 of the license in the doctorate) and its teachers (more than 70 licensees), the recognized quality of its research teams, but especially by the variety of thematic covered, from prehistory to the contemporary era, in almost all areas of the globe, on the five continents. The training proposed, of the license to the PHD, offer professional opportunities varied in the trades of the culture, art, heritage and research, as well as in the administration, journalism and the world of business, in France as in the international. It is true that the imitation is a source of aesthetic pleasure and that this pleasure is exclusively the effect of s. An object which in reality would leave us indifferent suits us, will become an opportunity for us to play our faculties when the art we will represent the form or the mock. It is true, on the other hand, that the fault of imitation is often an obstacle to the aesthetic pleasure: a work of art that deviates too much from the nature may by this alone we displeasing. But it is false that the pleasure produced by the imitation is the most lively and the most complete of the aesthetic pleasures and therefore that the art should the search to the exclusion of all others; it is false especially that this pleasure can be more or less completely canceled by other effects of the imitation, for example, when the object imitated is too insignificant or too dreadful or too immoral for that the image is not indifferent or repulsive. As well the imitation is not the sufficient condition nor even the necessary condition of the aesthetic pleasure in s. As such, it is almost completely absent from some of the Arts (architecture, music, lyric poetry). Even in the arts of imitation or who are long time defined as such (painting, sculpture, theater, Roman) it is never a means and not an end. The art, in effect, even while it mimics, do proposes never as end the exact reproduction and bonded labor of the real, and this for two reasons: this reproduction is not desirable; it is impossible. It is not desirable, because, too exactly imitated, the object appears to be real: therefore, it no longer plays with him, it takes seriously and any aesthetic feeling faints, as for example in the theater, when the illusion is too strong. It is impossible, first because the reality is too complex and too changing to that the work of art can embrace a whole: willy-nilly, art simplifies and immobilizes; his works are always superficial and died in comparison to those of the nature: it must therefore compensate by some other side this inferiority inevitable; then and especially, because the reality, whatever it is, do we appears ever that through our spirit: what we call the world is the product of our senses and our intelligence, the product of the Spirit at least as much as things. Therefore, any work of art is necessarily the expression of a soul, even when it does not seems to be that a copy of an object. More an artist has the engineering, the more It transfigures the world in the reflecting. From there the word of deep Bacon: Ars homo additus Naturae. 2° C is the truth which is especially highlighted in the Doctrine of the expression. The art is a language and it is an act of communication: it is a translation, an interpretation of the nature; and it is also a direct manifestation of the human sensitivity in common. We can, indeed, consider the expression either as supplementary principle of imitation in all the arts, either as independent principle and original some arts. At the first point of view, the art is not for the purpose only of reproduce the external forms of things, but still to release, to do enter the meaning. The things of the nature awaken, indeed, among those who look at the emotions indefinable often that the imagination projecting in they and objective; and the artist is experiencing more than person of such emotions. From which it follows that the art can and must choose among the things those who are really expressive, and modify the forms of those same things to make them more expressive yet. The nature often stutters: art the fact speak. The second point of view, the expression appears to be the principle of all the arts which, as the music and the lyric poetry, have for the end of the direct manifestation of human feelings. Here the human is no longer speak the nature: he speaks in his own name. 3° but the expression itself led to the creation. In effect the feelings of the artist who tend to express themselves in an object are not always in the reality of object that suits them. Hence the need to create one. The classic design of the principle of the art The general principle of the Beautiful is also that of the s. The reason for which humans do not simply of the useful, but are still seeking the beautiful, is that they are experiencing great pleasure and very pure to play freely all their faculties in the perception of things. Only the natural beauties their seem too rare and often also too imperfect: they therefore serve as models for imagine and achieve an infinity of other more completely appropriate to the aesthetic game of his faculties. But this principle is too general and therefore too indeterminate to explain in detail the various forms that art has paved. It must therefore be supplemented by a number of secondary principles that most of the theorists of the Aesthetic have had the wrong to oppose them, owing to lack of knowledge of the higher principle where they combine. These secondary principles are the imitation, the expression and the ideal. 1° after a school, often called realistic or naturalist, the faithful imitation of the nature is the purpose of the s. Not only the beauty, but any real thing like when she is well imitated. The true artist is prohibited to choose and change. The UFR 03 History of Art and Archeology of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne is today one of the most important departments in the world by the number of his students (nearly 3 000 of the license in the doctorate) and its teachers (more than 70 licensees), the recognized quality of its research teams, but especially by the variety of thematic covered, from prehistory to the contemporary era, in almost all areas of the globe, on the five continents. The training proposed, of the license to the PHD, offer professional opportunities varied in the trades of the culture, art, heritage and research, as well as in the administration, journalism and the world of business, in France as in the international. It is true that the imitation is a source of aesthetic pleasure and that this pleasure is exclusively the effect of s. An object which in reality would leave us indifferent suits us, will become an opportunity for us to play our faculties when the art we will represent the form or the mock. It is true, on the other hand, that the fault of imitation is often an obstacle to the aesthetic pleasure: a work of art that deviates too much from the nature may by this alone we displeasing. But it is false that the pleasure produced by the imitation is the most lively and the most complete of the aesthetic pleasures and therefore that the art should the search to the exclusion of all others; it is false especially that this pleasure can be more or less completely canceled by other effects of the imitation, for example, when the object imitated is too insignificant or too dreadful or too immoral for that the image is not indifferent or repulsive. As well the imitation is not the sufficient condition nor even the necessary condition of the aesthetic pleasure in s. As such, it is almost completely absent from some of the Arts (architecture, music, lyric poetry). Even in the arts of imitation or who are long time defined as such (painting, sculpture, theater, Roman) it is never a means and not an end. The art, in effect, even while it mimics, do proposes never as end the exact reproduction and bonded labor of the real, and this for two reasons: this reproduction is not desirable; it is impossible. It is not desirable, because, too exactly imitated, the object appears to be real: therefore, it no longer plays with him, it takes seriously and any aesthetic feeling faints, as for example in the theater, when the illusion is too strong. It is impossible, first because the reality is too complex and too changing to that the work of art can embrace a whole: willy-nilly, art simplifies and immobilizes; his works are always superficial and died in comparison to those of the nature: it must therefore compensate by some other side this inferiority inevitable; then and especially, because the reality, whatever it is, do we appears ever that through our spirit: what we call the world is the product of our senses and our intelligence, the product of the Spirit at least as much as things. Therefore, any work of art is necessarily the expression of a soul, even when it does not seems to be that a copy of an object. More an artist has the engineering, the more It transfigures the world in the reflecting. From there the word of deep Bacon: Ars homo additus Naturae. 2° C is the truth which is especially highlighted in the Doctrine of the expression. The art is a language and it is an act of communication: it is a translation, an interpretation of the nature; and it is also a direct manifestation of the human sensitivity in common. We can, indeed, consider the expression either as supplementary principle of imitation in all the arts, either as independent principle and original some arts. At the first point of view, the art is not for the purpose only of reproduce the external forms of things, but still to release, to do enter the meaning. The things of the nature awaken, indeed, among those who look at the emotions indefinable often that the imagination projecting in they and objective; and the artist is experiencing more than person of such emotions. From which it follows that the art can and must choose among the things those who are really expressive, and modify the forms of those same things to make them more expressive yet. The nature often stutters: art the fact speak. The second point of view, the expression appears to be the principle of all the arts which, as the music and the lyric poetry, have for the end of the direct manifestation of human feelings. Here the human is no longer speak the nature: he speaks in his own name. 3° but the expression itself led to the creation. In effect the feelings of the artist who tend to express themselves in an object are not always in the reality of object that suits them. Hence the need to create one. The classic design of the principle of the art The general principle of the Beautiful is also that of the s. The reason for which humans do not simply of the useful, but are still seeking the beautiful, is that they are experiencing great pleasure and very pure to play freely all their faculties in the perception of things. Only the natural beauties their seem too rare and often also too imperfect: they therefore serve as models for imagine and achieve an infinity of other more completely appropriate to the aesthetic game of his faculties. But this principle is too general and therefore too indeterminate to explain in detail the various forms that art has paved. It must therefore be supplemented by a number of secondary principles that most of the theorists of the Aesthetic have had the wrong to oppose them, owing to lack of knowledge of the higher principle where they combine. These secondary principles are the imitation, the expression and the ideal. 
1° after a school, often called realistic or naturalist, the faithful imitation of the nature is the purpose of the s. Not only the beauty, but any real thing like when she is well imitated. The true artist is prohibited to choose and change. The UFR 03 History of Art and Archeology of the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne is today one of the most important departments in the world by the number of his students (nearly 3 000 of the license in the doctorate) and its teachers (more than 70 licensees), the recognized quality of its research teams, but especially by the variety of thematic covered, from prehistory to the contemporary era, in almost all areas of the globe, on the five continents. The training proposed, of the license to the PHD, offer professional opportunities varied in the trades of the culture, art, heritage and research, as well as in the administration, journalism and the world of business, in France as in the international. It is true that the imitation is a source of aesthetic pleasure and that this pleasure is exclusively the effect of s. An object which in reality would leave us indifferent suits us, will become an opportunity for us to play our faculties when the art we will represent the form or the mock. It is true, on the other hand, that the fault of imitation is often an obstacle to the aesthetic pleasure: a work of art that deviates too much from the nature may by this alone we displeasing. But it is false that the pleasure produced by the imitation is the most lively and the most complete of the aesthetic pleasures and therefore that the art should the search to the exclusion of all others; it is false especially that this pleasure can be more or less completely canceled by other effects of the imitation, for example, when the object imitated is too insignificant or too dreadful or too immoral for that the image is not indifferent or repulsive. As well the imitation is not the sufficient condition nor even the necessary condition of the aesthetic pleasure in s. As such, it is almost completely absent from some of the Arts (architecture, music, lyric poetry). Even in the arts of imitation or who are long time defined as such (painting, sculpture, theater, Roman) it is never a means and not an end. The art, in effect, even while it mimics, do proposes never as end the exact reproduction and bonded labor of the real, and this for two reasons: this reproduction is not desirable; it is impossible. It is not desirable, because, too exactly imitated, the object appears to be real: therefore, it no longer plays with him, it takes seriously and any aesthetic feeling faints, as for example in the theater, when the illusion is too strong. It is impossible, first because the reality is too complex and too changing to that the work of art can embrace a whole: willy-nilly, art simplifies and immobilizes; his works are always superficial and died in comparison to those of the nature: it must therefore compensate by some other side this inferiority inevitable; then and especially, because the reality, whatever it is, do we appears ever that through our spirit: what we call the world is the product of our senses and our intelligence, the product of the Spirit at least as much as things. Therefore, any work of art is necessarily the expression of a soul, even when it does not seems to be that a copy of an object. More an artist has the engineering, the more It transfigures the world in the reflecting. From there the word of deep Bacon: Ars homo additus Naturae. 2° C is the truth which is especially highlighted in the Doctrine of the expression. The art is a language and it is an act of communication: it is a translation, an interpretation of the nature; and it is also a direct manifestation of the human sensitivity in common. We can, indeed, consider the expression either as supplementary principle of imitation in all the arts, either as independent principle and original some arts. At the first point of view, the art is not for the purpose only of reproduce the external forms of things, but still to release, to do enter the meaning. The things of the nature awaken, indeed, among those who look at the emotions indefinable often that the imagination projecting in they and objective; and the artist is experiencing more than person of such emotions. From which it follows that the art can and must choose among the things those who are really expressive, and modify the forms of those same things to make them more expressive yet. The nature often stutters: art the fact speak. The second point of view, the expression appears to be the principle of all the arts which, as the music and the lyric poetry, have for the end of the direct manifestation of human feelings. Here the human is no longer speak the nature: he speaks in his own name. 3° but the expression itself led to the creation. In effect the feelings of the artist who tend to express themselves in an object are not always in the reality of object that suits them. Hence the need to create one.