Art and creation at the origins of the world

Art, an imitation of nature?

Some people think that art is an imitation of nature. This idea seems weak, because why bother to imitate what is already perfect and before our eyes?

For Friedrich Nietzsche , art is certainly not an imitation, but a metaphysical necessity that makes possible the transcendence of nature itself.

The creation of art would therefore be a fundamental activity of man at the origin of the emancipation of his thought. This would be the supreme form for living in harmony with the natural elements.

It is not totally irrational to think that in its own way, all living things also aim for the same harmony. Art would then be the representation of a primordial force of life.

Nietzsche wrote , “The world is a work of art which gives birth to itself.”

Beauty as we see it in nature is the perfect model of the harmonious relationship between beings. Life on earth has only followed the paths traced by universal principles.

The astonishing spectacle of the cosmos proves that what we call art is undoubtedly a natural law with which we have always been imbued.

For unknown reasons, natural evolution most often goes from simple to complex. There are mysteries, such as the extremely sophisticated song of certain birds, or the “decorations” displayed by certain animals, which cannot be explained by a purely utilitarian approach.

Certainly, natural evolution undoubtedly created these signals for a specific purpose, in particular to ensure the reproduction of the species. But we cannot help but think that once its goal was achieved, creative nature had “offered itself the luxury” of creating a work of art. It has been shown by scientific experiments using decoys that cruder and exaggerated signals work just as well, or even much better, than the original.

The question that immediately comes to mind is: why did nature go to all this trouble to achieve a result, certainly magnificently harmonious, but of dubious usefulness?

For George Bataille,  “art is the sensitive sign of our presence in the universe”

Should we not reverse this egocentric logic, to argue that art is the sign of the presence of the universe within ourselves? And by pushing the reasoning further, we can say that each being has its essence, which is only realized with imperative necessity.

The artist would thus have a vital requirement, provoked by a presence in the world more exacerbated than most of us.

It would thus seem established that a work of art is much more than a simple object and that it carries, beyond its nature, a universal function.