{"id":8927,"date":"2025-11-27T20:13:19","date_gmt":"2025-11-27T18:13:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/?page_id=8927"},"modified":"2025-12-01T11:17:11","modified_gmt":"2025-12-01T09:17:11","slug":"lucian-blagas-law-of-non-transponibility-henrieta-serban","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/volumul-21-2025\/lucian-blagas-law-of-non-transponibility-henrieta-serban\/","title":{"rendered":"Lucian Blaga\u2019s Law of Non-Transponibility | Henrieta \u0218erban"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

DOI: 10.59277\/SIFR.202521.04<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lucian Blaga\u2019s Law of Non-Transponibility<\/h2><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Henrieta \u0218erban<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Institutul de Filosofie \u0219i Psihologie \u201eC. R\u0103dulescu-Motru\u201d al Academiei Rom\u00e2ne<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Download<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Abstract<\/strong>:<\/strong> <\/strong>Lucian Blaga departs from the aesthetic conceptions of the 19th century. His law of non-transponibility (LNT) emphasizes an original approach to the autonomy of art, providing topical criteria for defining and evaluating \u201ckitsch\u201d, one of the many forms of aesthetic failure. Natural beauty and artistic beauty are not the same. LNT is neither idealism nor aestheticism. It is meant to capture what is most important in the question of the autonomy of art, by clarifying the function of specific artistic criteria, which should not be overly simplified, as aestheticians tend to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his view, art is a direct consequence of the human being\u2019s positioning in the horizon of mystery. Art and knowledge meet in their shared failure to absolutely conquer mystery. In accordance with Blaga and LNT, aesthetic failure is rather a betrayal of human becoming and positioning in the horizon of mystery. In conclusion, the study discusses LNT in contrast to natural beauty \u2013 the first experience of symbolic eloquence, proportion, and the refusal of stridency \u2013 as well as the scientific metaphor, understood as art returning to the expressivity of natural experience (the \u201cimmediate\u201d), with epistemological and non-kitsch benefits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords<\/strong>:<\/strong> Lucian Blaga; aesthetics; law of non-transponibility (LNT); abyssal cat\u00ade\u00adgo\u00adries; stylistic matrix; horizon of mystery; scientific metaphor.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Motto<\/strong><\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cPlagiarising nature: The birds which \u2013 as an ancient anecdote has it \u2013 swooped upon a picture of some cherries made by a painter merely wanted noisily to denounce plagiarism, not at all to clap their wings in applause for a great work of art.\u201d [Lucian Blaga]<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
The law of non-transponibility<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The Romanian philosopher Lucian Blaga (1895\u20131961; metaphysicist[1]<\/sup><\/a> and crea\u00adtor of a philosophical system, philosopher of knowledge, philosopher of culture, poet and playwriter)[2]<\/sup><\/a> defined the \u201claw of non-transponibility\u201d in The Trilogy of Value<\/em> (1946), a part of his philosophical system alongside The Trilogy of Knowledge<\/em>, The Trilogy of Culture<\/em> and the Cosmological Trilogy<\/em>. The Trilogy of Value<\/em> is composed of the studies Science and Creation <\/em>(1942); Magical Thought and Religion<\/em>, with its two parts, On Magical Thought <\/em>(1941) and Religion and Spirit <\/em>(1942); and, Art and Value <\/em>(1939). In Art and Value<\/em>, we encounter the topic of the law of non-transponibility <\/em>occasioned by aphilosophical meditation on consciousness, art and the autonomy of art, aesthetics and values \u2013 culminating in a discussion of the metaphysics of values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The law of non-transponibility (LNT) is a corollary of the artistic aesthetic, distinct and set apart from the natural aesthetic. Although the artistic domain is the realm of intuitions, improvisation, suggestions and surprising visions representing the world, and although it may seem an exaggeration to speak of one or more laws governing the artistic aesthetic, Lucian Blaga, as a metaphysicist, couldn\u2019t resist correlating the description of the specificity of the artistic aesthetic with a law. He thus emphasized its most important trait through a law, namely, LNT.[3]<\/sup><\/a>In Blaga\u2019s conception, the objective structures of the natural aesthetic led to poor art; to a lesser art that is no longer art \u2013 kalia<\/em> (\u03c7\u03b1\u03bb\u03b9\u03ac), para-kalia or kitsch<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blaga aimed to defend \u201cthe total autonomy of \u2018artistic aesthetic\u2019, a matter that has not yet been dealt with adequately, that is, with the implied, necessary and adequate theoretical instruments\u201d.[4]<\/sup><\/a> The philosopher\u2019s interest in knowledge, philosophy, science and creation stands at the core of his philosophical endeavour and here we may also trace the roots of his lawful approach to the autonomy of artistic aesthetic. Art, in all its forms, is the result of a revelatory act. In Art and Value<\/em>, Blaga undertakes an investigation aimed at identifying \u201cthe aesthetic structure of art and the values that intervene, either directly or indirectly, in the creation and appreciation of the work of art\u201d.[5]<\/sup><\/a> Nevertheless, his endeavour is both sustained and hindered by a specific conceptual framework.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, as well as in The Genesis of Metaphor and the Meaning of Culture<\/em> and in Anthropological Aspects<\/em> Blaga underlines the human specificity of existence in relation to mystery and revelation as a prerequisite for the creative destiny of the human being and for a deeper understanding of the work of art as \u201ccreation of culture\u201d. His metaphysical conception and his conception of art are intertwined, reinforcing each other within Blaga\u2019s philosophical system. Here, the ontological dualism, termed by Blaga \u201cthe amphibianism of the human consciousness\u201d \u2013 a con\u00adscious\u00adness that engages with and takes advantage of both the material and spiritual dimensions to a comparable extent \u2013 \u201cproves fruitful in analyzing aesthetic structures and values\u201d.[6]<\/sup><\/a> The human being is a singular ontological mutation in the universe, endowed with special aptitudes for exploring mysteries and engaging both with them and with the material elements of the world. The human being is both a knower and a creator, living not only in the horizon of the concrete world and for self-preservation, but also in the horizon of mystery: two distinct and heterogeneous ontological modes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Man as a conscious being has something of the amphibian, possessing the latitude to breathe, with alternating emphasis, in two entirely different horizons. Man cannot [however] cancel at will one of these two horizons [represented by the realm of the concrete and the realm of mystery].[7]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Living in the \u201chorizon of mystery\u201d, the human being is a naturally born artist, creating and analysing art. In order to further explore these aspects, Blaga proposes a complex conceptual set of instruments: the amphibian quality of human conscious\u00adness (diving into the dual material and mysterious dimensions of ontology), mystery, proto-mystery, horizon of mystery, Luciferian knowledge, ontological mutation, culture, non-transponibility, para-aesthetic, polar values, vicariant values, tertiary values, flotant values, accessory values, transcendent censorship, abyssal categories, transcendent conversion and many more. We shall describe and analyse, as follows, those closest to the aesthetic endeavour. Art and knowledge are constituted by attempts to reveal mysteries and, in this respect, they are similar activities, standing together under the empire of stylistic categories, always metaphorical.[8]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

LNT can be neither defined nor discussed without all of these concepts, which have the greatest utility in analysing art and aesthetic qualities of art. Art is the domain of feeling and introspection, so the role of consciousness in art is especially important. Artistic creations are facts of consciousness. Acknowledging the contri\u00adbution of Descartes to ontological dualism and the problem of conscious\u00adness, Blaga considers that Descartes[9]<\/sup><\/a> did not exhaust the topic and that many more aspects should be taken into consideration He therefore proposes the amphibian mode of the human being. The ego or the self represent implicates of consciousness and thus of any act of creation and knowledge, rendering spiritual realities in abstract terms. The category of mystery is central to Blaga\u2019s philosophy, standing at the intersection of his theories of aesthetics, knowledge, and metaphysics. The \u201chorizon of mystery\u201d emerges within human consciousness and storms and problematizes the ego. This surge of the horizon of mystery in man is the specifically human consequence of the ontological mutation that the human being underwent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To Blaga, mystery pre-exists theory. Theorizing is the result of the fact that for man mystery is not a foreign realm situated at the fringes of existence but a true \u201chome\u201d and inner substance of human consciousness. Man is the creator of culture by the same privilege. Any abstraction is the result of such problematization and, ultimately, so is all human knowledge and creation. The Cartesian ego is an implicate of animalic and paradisiac consciousness that na\u00efvely approaches the materiality of the world in a logical and positivistic manner of knowing. The opposite type of knowledge is most likely to be involved in the creation of superior art: Luciferian knowledge[10]<\/sup><\/a>, an extra-logical mode (characterized by \u201cecstatic\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a>, metalogical rationality) or, at times, a surprising and seemingly illogical mode. Separately from proto-mystery, the human mode of existence unfolds among the numerous manifestations of the idea of mystery, due to knowledgeable actions and endeavours of man and resulting from the theoretical processes of knowledge.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blaga undertook a transdisciplinary move by transposing the concept of mu\u00adtation from biology to philosophy and, more specifically, to metaphysics. He used it to explain his view of the ontological modes and human singularity, consid\u00adered together not through morphological mutations, as in naturalist philosophies and sciences, but through ontological mutations<\/em>. These are \u201cfoundational facts placed at the basis of the world, that knowledge has only to acknowledge as such; they are gushing out, or they are uttered as the words of the Holy Ghost over the waters in the days of Genesis\u201d.[13]<\/sup><\/a> The appeal to seemingly theological vocabulary is a delib\u00aderate metaphysical choice in Blaga, similar to Hegel\u2019s metaphorical evoca\u00adtion of the Spirit above the waters.[14]<\/sup><\/a> Let us not forget that, in Blaga, the human being is also a metaphorizing being. The use of poetic and spiritual vocabulary with a theo\u00adlogical \u201ctinge\u201d has a role in describing a foundational vision of the world and not a true preoccupation with theology, nor with Orthodoxy. At the same time, the phi\u00adlosopher resorts to such vocabulary because it is already available to describe the individuations of mystery and the whole of man\u2019s \u201cwork\u201d with mystery. Blaga\u2019s philosophy approaches the singularity of the human being as a unique ontological mutation, describing man primarily as a cultural and spiritual being.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Blaga\u2019s philosophy, there is a distinction between morphological and onto\u00adlogical modes of existence. The former are individuations, expressed in numerous \u201ccreatural patterns\u201d. The latter are fewer: the crystals, the plants, and animalic ex\u00adist\u00adence, within which Blaga includes the prehistorical anthropoids and the paradisi\u00adac man. This last figure is introduced to illustrate an ontological stage of the human being as a theoretical landmark, opposed to the \u201cwhole\u201d man \u2013 the superior onto\u00adlogical mutation, a creative and knowledgeable consciousness living in the horizon of mystery.[15]<\/sup><\/a> All superior ontological modes \u201cencapsulate\u201d (include and assimilate) the inferior ones. These are fully integrated into the higher mode but nevertheless retain their autonomy.[16]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
LNT in defining and discussing the work of art<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In Blaga, the work of art tends to reveal intuitively and concretely the mys\u00adtery; it is stylistically modelled, and it remains metaphorical in correlation with mystery. Against this complex metaphysical design, culture entirely implies the revealing act<\/em> with defining metaphorical and abyssal stylistic categorial and domi\u00adnant traits. There is no \u201cdistance\u201d between the revelatory ontological human mode in the horizon of mystery and cultural creation. In Blaga, the scope of cultural crea\u00adtion is widely extended: it may be concrete or abstract in nature, it may be an ob\u00adject or a movement, and it may be theoretical, scientific, artistic, or metaphysical.[17]<\/sup><\/a> The human being creates as she\/he lives, so with revelation as the defining and specific ontological mode, human creation is the most specific activity, and the work of art is a dominant ontological outcome, not a rarity or an unwanted occur\u00adrence. Attributing culture to the spiritual activity of a \u201csubject with intellectual attributes\u201d, or as a \u201creceiver of meanings\u201d, or as a \u201cbundle of categorial functions\u201d is still vague and unproductive in Blaga\u2019s perspective, for these are characteristics encountered to some extent in animals, anthropoids, and the paradisiac man as well. Yet, in Blaga\u2019s philosophy, the anthropoids and the paradisiac man are not whole versions of \u201cman\u201d. So, \u201cThe spirit, in its structure and functions, does not lead in any necessary manner to culture\u201d.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Culture is the defining mark of humanity, and man is bound to a destiny of cultural creation. The human being worthy of the name is the result of an irre\u00adversi\u00adble ontological mutation. Existing in the horizon of mystery and for revela\u00adtion, man exists by revealing more than the immediate, concrete world \u2013 a world he transcends culturally, creatively, metaphorically, and through Luciferian knowl\u00adedge. This cultural and creative overcoming of the concrete immediate world is possible only due to the abyssal categories, functions that are part of the cosmo\u00adlogical-genetical privileged access to the universe, unique to man. However, this privileged access is not absolute. The abyssal categories, while granting access, in fact provide only a limited <\/em>kind of access, specific to the complete human being and a consequence of transcendental censorship. It is precisely this human ontolog\u00adical dualism (\u201camphibianism\u201d), a dualism of horizons, that is decisive for the quali\u00adty of human aesthetic creations. Thus,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Depending on each of the two existential modes, with their specific horizons, aesthetic values (both positive and negative) are constituted, which are, quite simply, non-transponible [my emphasis] from one horizon to another. Thus, the \u201cbeautiful\u201d (the positive aesthetic) that is constituted as a value within the horizon of the given world is not transponible into the horizon of mystery and revelation, where the \u201cbeautiful\u201d (the positive aesthetic) implies entirely different criteria. In other words, within each of the two great horizons, aesthetic values, both positive and negative, take shape \u2013 values that are absolutely heterogeneous and irreducible [to one another].[19]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

LNT is predicated upon the definition of art as the creation of culture and as the outcome of the revelatory human ontological mode. Art emerges through confronting and revealing mystery, which is the most characteristic and \u201cnatural\u201d way of existing for man.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The concrete given world is no longer, for man and for his existence, a horizon in the absolute sense, but only a sign or a complex of signifiers of the true horizon, which is \u201cmystery\u201d.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This observation is an axiomatic starting point for the explanation of the origin and function of art. However, even this very important prerequisite is not sufficient. One has to acknowledge that in Blaga the mysteries are not really elucidated, but alleviated, addressed and sometimes even \u201cenhanced\u201d. Only with this corollary can we catch a glimpse of the complex nature of human art: it is varied, rich, surprising, and sometimes paradoxical. As a consequence, \u201cart will therefore appeal to sight, hearing, and touch, but not to smell or taste [\u2026], senses destined to put us in contact with materials that, by their very nature, resist being processed into stylistic patterns\u201d.[21]<\/sup><\/a> In Blaga\u2019s perspective, smell and taste belong more to the realm of the \u201cimmediate\u201d. Nowadays, however, we regard smelling and tasting as functions of artistic gatekeepers in the culinary arts; and smell plays a similar role in the more artistic realm of the perfume industry. We consider both the perfume industry and refined culinary activity to be art, although they are, to a significant degree, indebted to the science of chemistry as well. Moreover, there is today a rather widespread tendency to place \u201cart\u201d \u2013 even more than \u201cscience\u201d \u2013 before the names of other activities, concepts, or phenomena, thereby granting those creations supplementary prestige. In Blaga\u2019s philosophical conception, man is truly a human being when she or he creates \u2013 but there are creators, and then there are creators. In contrast to everyday man, the genius is \u201cgifted to live with special intensity in the horizon of mystery\u201d[22]<\/sup><\/a>, converting mysteries through revelatory metaphors and within abyssal patterns. Talent is defined as the varied \u201cuseful competencies\u201d[23]<\/sup><\/a> in \u201cfighting the material\u201d \u2013 that is, the immediacy \u2013 for metaphorizing revelations. Given the origin and function of art in the \u201contological mode in the horizon of mystery\u201d, Blaga does not accept the idea of a closeness between art and games, between art and the expression of vitality (which lies too close to biology, to material immediacy), or between art and therapeutic practices.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LNT does not aim to construct a type of aestheticism. The autonomy of art upon which LNT is founded does not imply aestheticism. However, in our view there is a tension between the fact that Blaga maintains we should not envision a hierarchy of the cultural \u201cbranches\u201d (domains) and the fact that he gave special consideration to the theme of the \u201cautonomy of art\u201d. In Blaga, in contrast to Kant or Schopenhauer, all<\/em> cultural specialisations (art included) are conceivable as \u201ctranscendentally censured revelations of mystery\u201d. The criteria for a hierarchy of the cultural domains are, in Blaga\u2019s perspective, deemed untrustworthy or precari\u00adous. While he accepts the delimi\u00adtation of art from other cultural creations, he also maintains that external structures (whether moral, political, philosophical, or any other kind of governing structures that are not aesthetic) should not be imposed as regulators of art. Blaga adds that the action of the \u201caesthetic purification of art\u201d led to, or degenerated into, aestheticism<\/em> (positing \u201cart for art\u2019s sake\u201d, the idea that art should be produced to be beautiful \u2013 axioms of the 19th<\/sup>-century movement famous\u00adly sustained by Oscar Wilde and Walter Pater). It is a very weak argument to at\u00adtempt to defend the autonomy of art while criticising aesthet\u00adicism as an exaggera\u00adtion or \u201cdegeneration\u201d by installing the \u201chegemony of art in cul\u00adture\u201d and thereby producing the \u201canaemia of art\u201d. Especially surprising is the idea phrased as fol\u00adlows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Aestheticism favours in art the emergence of rare and artificial forms, stripped of the virile content of a mythical vision. Aestheticism favours the parasitic growth of aesthetic structures as such and, being accompanied by a curious phobia towards any broader or deeper sub\u00adstance or significance, inevitably leads to an anaemia of art. One may also raise against aestheticism the accusation that it seeks to absolutize the aesthetic in the world. [\u2026] Aestheticism, aspiring to install the hegemony of the aesthetic both in culture and in life in general, leads within the whole of culture to a kind of quasi-artistic elephantiasis.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Blaga\u2019s explanation \u2013 that revelatory artistic creation is accomplished through specifically artistic means (sensitivity, concreteness, intuition), by \u201cconverting the mystery at the level of intuition\u201d[25]<\/sup><\/a>, and that \u201cthe autonomous field of art is that of the intuition captured stylistically\u201d[26]<\/sup><\/a> \u2013 does not adequately address the difference between aestheticism and authentic art, nor explain why, in this case, there is no longer a hegemony of art in culture. At the same time, it is not entirely clear what a \u201cvirile content of a mythical vision\u201d implies and why it should be central to high-quality art. For intuition may be present in artistic products without a \u201cvirile mythical vision,\u201d since revelatory metaphorical representations need not be \u201cvirile\u201d by necessity \u2013 especially given that this aspect relates far too closely to the immediacy<\/em> from which Blaga distances revelatory metaphors, revelatory acts, and art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, all creation is revelatory. The autonomy of art amid these varied creations is a matter of the specificity of its definition and its evaluative criteria. Nevertheless, by acknowledging that in the case of science \u201cthe revelatory acts emerge at the level of imaginary concepts and schematism\u201d, and that in the case of metaphysics the revela\u00adtory acts emerge at the level of \u201cabstract visions\u201d, it becomes clear that in Blaga all distinctive areas of culture possess their own forms of autonomy, and all these autonomies run parallel to one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

LNT does not aim to prove that art is absolute or ideal in any sense. Contrary to idealism, which affirms that art renders the idea concretely, in sensible appearance, Blaga maintains that art\u2019s approach is to convert mysteries, not to sustain or impose ideas. While Platonic, Neoplatonic, and German idealism acknowledge Ideas as expres\u00adsions of the absolute, in Blaga they are \u201cparticular metaphysical revelations of mystery, i. e., abstract-visionary revelations impregnated with certain stylistic catego\u00adries, specific to certain times and peoples\u201d.[27]<\/sup><\/a> Human visions cannot be absolute. They are all censured transcendentally and are governed and impregnated stylistically. Thus, they are abyssal, intuitive, and sensible. In his argument, Blaga gives the example of Goethe, who, at the end of his life, confessed to Eckermann that in his works \u2013 includ\u00ading Faust<\/em> \u2013 he did not wish to convey ideas.[28]<\/sup><\/a> The point is that Goethe too, in his art, differentiated between knowledge and art: in Faust<\/em> he created art, not knowledge. Namely,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[T]he revelatory attempts of knowledge are made through imaginary-intellectual means and with the tendency to convert mysteries onto a plane of intelligibility, whereas the revelatory attempts of art are made through intuitive-concrete means and with the aspiration to convert mysteries into terms of sensitivity.[29]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, art and knowledge meet in their failure to fully conquer the mystery. The horizon of the immediate world displays \u201csensible signs\u201d whose role is to signal heterogeneous mysteries which are to be revealed by man through cultural creations (a broader category that also includes scientific creations). This constitutes the most important human task, carried out through our abyssal categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The work of art is constituted by the horizon of mystery, the intention of rev\u00adelation, and the intervention of the abyssal categories.[30]<\/sup><\/a> These are also key mo\u00adments in understanding the autonomy of the artistic aesthetic in relation with the natural aesthetic. LNT was conceived in the effort to bring to the fore a strong de\u00adfence of the absolute autonomy of art. The artistic aesthetic should be distinguished from both the natural aesthetic and the para-aesthetic. LNT states that<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[T]he objective structures of the natural aesthetic cannot be transposed identically into art without the loss of their initial qualities, nor can it happen the other way around: the objective structures of the artistic aesthetic cannot be transposed as such into nature.[31]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The displacement of structures leads to para-kalia, to a sort of aesthetic failure which is also captured by the German term Kitsch<\/em>, defined as a \u201cpretended form of aesthetics that triggers artistic pleasure for certain people\u201d.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The background of 19th<\/sup>-century aesthetics is present in the background of LNT: Kant and Hegel also affirmed the autonomy of art, and the value of great art lies in the independence of its form,<\/em> which also carries soul or spirit<\/em> (in Blaga\u2019s view, the abyssal categories introduce part of man\u2019s inner world into the work of art, alongside the in\u00adstantiation of a human revelation). For Hegel, beauty has its source in the spiritual con\u00adtent (Geist<\/em>), which embodies itself in an appropriate sen\u00adsuous form. However, aspects such as the search for comfort, novelty[33]<\/sup><\/a> or a glimpse of truth are not particularly im\u00adportant in Blaga\u2019s conception of the work of art. In Hegel, truth is synonymous with beauty, although art remains a subjective experience. Helmut Walser Smith, in \u201cMon\u00aduments, kitsch, and the sense of nation in imperial Germany\u201d, analyses the temporal and spatial dimensions of what he called \u201cnation objects\u201d, considered in terms of the role they play in the constitution of everyday national identity. Many monuments, in\u00adcluding those dedicated to Germany\u2019s great intellectuals, are examined as metonyms of a world of objects largely deemed Kitsch<\/em>. Such objects, signifying the nation, point to a national sen\u00adtiment governed less by the sharp logic of ideology than by the harmonis\u00ading tendencies of kitsch.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For Blaga, kitsch is only one instance of the para-aesthetic. We may think of the splendour of a sunset or the astonishing beauty of a remarkable biological specimen, but these are beautiful only for individuals who cannot transcend the aesthetic criteria of nature. Educated taste excludes such seemingly artistic objects as kitsch. And con\u00adversely: \u201can archangel in Byzantine style may be totally satisfying within the artistic order, but transposed into nature it is nothing other than a monster\u201d.[35]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

LNT is meant to capture the most important aspect of the autonomy of art, by clarifying the function of specific artistic criteria, which should not be overly simpli\u00adfied, as aestheticians tend to do. Aestheticians such as Volkelt, Dessoir, Geiger, and Utitz speak of the differentiation of the artistic aesthetic from the natural aesthetic only in terms of variations in intensity and complexity, but Blaga underlines that LNT affirms the \u201cabsolute irreducibility of the artistic aesthetic quality to the natural one\u201d and vice versa, although \u201cit is possible that intuition and artistic taste have always func\u00adtioned in agreement with LNT\u201d.[36]<\/sup><\/a> Rhythm, proportion, harmony, and unity in variety might be similar in certain artistic and natural aesthetic creations. This correspondence probably led some aestheticians to \u201calign\u201d the artistic aesthetic with the natural aes\u00adthetic. Blaga brings to the fore the importance of the different functions<\/em>[37]<\/sup><\/a> played by such characteristics in nature and, respectively, in art, thus opposing mimetic theories about art. Blaga cites Guido Reni and Murillo (French masters of Rococo) as creators of para-aesthetics, as well as traditionalist works in the Romanian current known as \u201cs\u0103m\u0103n\u0103torism\u201d[38]<\/sup><\/a>, along with Klimt[39]<\/sup><\/a> and Max Klinger. Following the difference between the functions of artistic aesthetics and those of natural aesthetics, Blaga takes his critique of mimetic art to a more interesting level. He discusses the mimesis of the interior life of the human being transposed into art, and art as the expression of feelings (the Erlebnis<\/em> in Dilthey). From this starting point, he opens a discussion around \u201cintro\u00adpathia\u201d (a term proposed by Blaga to describe the emphasis on inner feelings, experi\u00adences, and realities transposed into art; a central idea in German aesthetics of the 20th<\/sup> century). He concludes that the sphere of aesthetics is wider than the sphere of such inner realities transposed into art \u2013 what Blaga calls \u201cthe intropathic complex\u201d.[40]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Theodor Adorno wrote \u201cBloch\u2019s \u2018traces\u2019: The philosophy of kitsch\u201d[41]<\/sup><\/a>to capture a philosophical theory of primary experience, construing Indian stories to emphasise that in the immediate aspects of existence \u2013 in traces, or in a broken twig \u2013 there is something hidden, something not yet present, but in the process of becoming. Specula\u00adtive thought follows this path, which is also the path taken by Blaga. Conundrums, the attempt to formulate the unformulable, and the ineffable itself lie at the core of specula\u00adtive thought. Such thought explores not only the world and what lies beyond it, but also the limits of human subjectivity \u2013 as seen, for example, in immoderate fear or in what Adorno calls \u201cgroundless joy\u201d. The idea that \u201cthere is more than meets the eye\u201d is key to the reception of the work of art. The \u201cobvious\u201d and the strident, in general, are the marks of kitsch. Similarly to kitsch in the visual arts, popular or na\u00efve philosophy strikes false notes like a poor pianist, eager to impress and desperate to astonish a can\u00addid, probably uneducated audience.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adorno\u2019s theory of art emphasises art\u2019s role in engaging with human suffering, with repression and repressive systems, thereby promoting the possibility of change for the better and constituting part of our defence against barbarism. His philosophical view includes the subtleties of approaching art\u2019s truth as truth through its \u201csemblance of the illusionless\u201d, highlighting the importance of representation and the fleeting uto\u00adpian vision of what could be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related to this idea, and in contrast to Blaga, Adorno was not entirely opposed to mimesis. He considered that art can resist the cultural totalising logic of capitalism through a form of mimesis that critically captures aspects of reality which are margin\u00adalised, concealed, or discarded by capitalism. Capitalist \u201cnature\u201d, when transposed into representations as art, becomes art not when it merely describes but when it exposes critical aspects.[42]<\/sup><\/a> Mimesis as resistance or resistance through mimesis is a contradic\u00adtion of LNT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Blaga, \u201c\u00abfeeling\u00bb is one of the structures acceptable in art only conditionally<\/em>. Feeling becomes art not simply through expression, but through \u00abartistic\u00bb expres\u00adsion\u201d.[43]<\/sup><\/a> However, the unconscious, with its abyssal categories and \u201ccosmotic nature\u201d (ordered, complex, and self-contained)[44]<\/sup><\/a>, is important for the work of art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The work of art is thus \u201can ample organization of heterogeneous values, hierar\u00adchically correlated and merged into a unitary whole\u201d.[45]<\/sup><\/a> In nature, the aesthetic values \u200b\u200bof sensibility are not inferior, as they are in art. In art, the intuitive, the concrete, is exponen\u00adtially organized, both through the categories of consciousness and through the stylistic-abyssal categories<\/em>.[46]<\/sup><\/a>In this organized conglomerate of various values, we grasp the specificity of the work of art in comparison with other revelatory acts of cul\u00adture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Blaga values are differentiated into polar, vicariant, tertiary, floating and accessory.[47]<\/sup><\/a> The polar type of values is predicated upon the tension that exists between structures of opposite character, and the work of art achieves a balanced dosage between mystery and sensible revelation, unity and multiplicity, the significant and the irrational, the spontaneous and the constructed, the canonical and the original, etc.[48]<\/sup><\/a> Blaga explains that the variability of polar structures is always independent: the dosage of the elements within one polarity does not determine the dosage of the others.[49]<\/sup><\/a> This rapport of the elements composing the polarity \u2013 their dosage \u2013 is determinant for value, and there is no single structure or pure element that leads to accomplished artistic value.[50]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blaga introduces vicarious values as replaceable, non-fixed values, grounded in the existence of abyssal categories. Abyssal categories, \u201cconceptual transpo\u00adsitions of factors that operate in the subconscious\u201d, are extremely important in Blaga\u2019s thought. They are not only manifested as shaping factors in cultural crea\u00adtions but can also appear at the level of consciousness as values.[51]<\/sup><\/a> Artistic will functions in accordance with the abyssal categories. In our view, the impact of the values introduced by Blaga describes not only aesthetic freedom, but also the awareness-raising, ethical, constructive, and political impact of aesthetics. Blaga also states that conscious stylistic values are vicarious, meaning that they can be replaced with others of the same kind.[52]<\/sup><\/a> In his view, this aspect is most apparent in art criticism: \u201cAn immanent criticism, a true judgment on the work of art, can only be given from the perspective of the abyssal categories that make up its uncon\u00adscious backbone\u201d[53]<\/sup><\/a>, categories that also play a structuring role for our conscious thought and our creations. These abyssal categories come together to form a cultur\u00adally specific stylistic matrix with fluctuating composition. In the categorial hetero\u00adgeneity of the abyssal nature of the human unconscious, Blaga discerns \u201chorizon-describing\u201d categories of space (infinite, plane, undulated, spherical; space con\u00adceived as formed by nests; germinative space; multi-curtained space) and of time (geyser-fountain time, oriented toward the future; cascade time, oriented toward the past; and river time, centred on the present); attitudinal categories (affirmative, negative, or neutral); categories of movement and destiny (anabasis, catabasis, holding ground \u2013 Blaga correlates movement with becoming); and formative cate\u00adgories (typicalisation, individualisation, and elementalisation).[54]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cognitive (Kantian) categories, mostly adopted from outside the being, and the abyssal inner categories may stand in a relation of asymmetry, as Blaga states. To illus\u00adtrate, he notes that C\u00e9zanne aspired to become a good Impressionist painter, but was not an Impressionist after all. In Blaga\u2019s view, the conscious artistic will can be embodied in works of art only if it corresponds to the specific matrix of an artist\u2019s abyssal categories. Aspects such as proportion, harmony, \u201cintropathic\u201d complexes, the expression of feel\u00adings, the metaphorical imaginary, the intuitive qualities of plastic form, colour and sound, and the concrete particularities of the word are \u201ctertiary val\u00adues\u201d[55]<\/sup><\/a> that belong exclusively to sensibility. However, they are subordinate to polar and stylistic values, which are more important and ultimately responsible for \u201cgreat\u201d art.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The illustrative has an important role in Blaga\u2019s conception of art and LNT. As R. T. Allen[56]<\/sup><\/a> also noticed, Blaga\u2019s philosophy deserves the attention of Anglophone philosophers, for he also avoids the kind of immediate generalisations that produce impressively sounding dicta<\/em> yet remain untested, as if moving in a world of abstrac\u00adtions without concrete illustrations. Thus, R. T. Allen proposes a list of primary para\u00addigmatic concepts to be approached and investigated in interlocked connection: \u201cMio\u00adritic Space\u201d as an example of Blaga\u2019s search for empirical illustration; \u201cparadisiacal\u201d and \u201cLuciferian\u201d knowledge; \u201cintegration into mystery\u201d; \u201cabyssal categories of the unconscious\u201d; \u201cstylistic matrix\u201d; and so on \u2013 not to mention Blaga\u2019s metaphysical terms: \u201cthe Great Anonym\u201d, \u201cdivine differentials\u201d, and \u201ctranscendental censorship\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we have shown, in Blaga the idea emerges that human expression overlaps with human existence (and historicity), with its manifestations of knowledge through creativ\u00adity; fashioned by the \u201cstylistic matrix\u201d, generated by the \u201cabyssal categories\u201d, with \u201conto\u00adlogical functions\u201d correlated to the structure of the unconscious human spir\u00adit. Although not a personalist, Lucian Blaga emphasises the ontological difference of spiritual and creative nature between human beings and other beings, so that the per\u00adspective described comes close to the field of personalist studies.[57]<\/sup><\/a> In the light of Blaga\u2019s philosophical con\u00adception, art is personal, even though it seeks public display. The inner abyssal categories are personal in the sense that they shape revelation and the very configuration of the indi\u00advidual positioning within the horizon of mystery. In Luci\u00adan Blaga\u2019s philosophy, aesthetic failure is rather a betrayal of human becoming and positioning in the horizon of mystery. The \u201cstyles\u201d that \u201ccolour\u201d and \u201ccontrol\u201d the final form of the work of art express indi\u00advidual ways of living, becoming, and acting within the world. Merleau-Ponty, empha\u00adsising the fact that human beings do not dwell in an abstract geometrical space, even though they can conceive of it, faintly indicated the dual ontological capacity of man. Blaga, as a philosopher of culture, correlated a theory of creation with a theory of knowledge within a broader, unitary human ontology, thus significantly surpassing a philosophy centred on spiritual, vectorised lived experience (as in Merleau-Ponty). For Blaga, lived experience involves cognition, creativity, art, and spirituality, harmoniously inscribed in a unitary and metaphysical, yet less essen\u00adtialist, philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Discussion. LNT vs. natural beauty as experience of symbolic eloquence, good dosage and refusal of stridency. The scientific metaphor<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\u00a0\u00a0Natural beauty educates the artistic sense in two ways: it teaches us about pro\u00adportion and about stridency. The first artistic education comes from the contemplation of nature, its harmony, and its sense of proportion. But for man, one thing always leads to another. Nature is eloquent, and man is a metaphorising and symbolic animal. In the contemplation of nature lies also the beginning of the symbolic dimension; from here, the step toward abstraction is not far. Numbers, as abstractions and as scientific meta\u00adphors, are the first experience of the relationship between the explicit and the implicit. Polar values, as well as vicarious and abyssal values, play a special role here. The artis\u00adtic metaphor works to bring out the unfamiliar, the abstract, gradually moving toward a thought or a revealed mystery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A scientific metaphor works somewhat in reverse: from the abstract to the familiar to explain the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can take the example of the \u201cwormhole\u201d, which has a special role in the theory of relativity. From within the abstraction of the theory, this metaphor draws on experience with nature \u2013 more precisely, the tunnel dug by a worm between two points on the surface of an apple, establishing a \u201cshortcut\u201d that can intuitively sup\u00adport and enhance the scientific explanation. It is a toned-down type of mystery. The electron \u201cfur\u201d of atoms or the \u201ccloud\u201d of electrons are other examples of explana\u00adtory metaphors that alleviate mystery. In other cases, the scientific metaphor inten\u00adsifies mystery \u2013 as in the case of the mathematical metaphor \u201czero\u201d, whose practi\u00adcal intuition, the intuition of lack, does not explain why we can speak of something that is at the same time also \u201cnothing\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As we have emphasised, in Blaga\u2019s view, in nature the aesthetic values of sensibility are not inferior, as they are in art. In art, the intuitive and the concrete are exponentially organised, both through the categories of consciousness and through the stylistic-abyssal categories.<\/em> However, these two sets of categories also come together to influence man\u2019s scientific activity. In science, the aesthetic values of sensibility are likewise not inferior, but rather paradigmatic forces by virtue of their illustrative and explanatory power. As Blaga has shown in Science and Creation<\/em>, science itself is creation, with a double specificity: type I (paradisiacal) and type II (Luciferian), corresponding to human existence situated in two worlds \u2013 the immediate and the horizon of mystery. Blaga writes:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

To illustrate Type II of cognition we shall resort, by repetition, to an image that we have al\u00adready employed. In this type of cognition, one encounters not only the horizon of the sensi\u00adble world and categories of the Kantian sort but, constitutively, also a horizon of mystery and stylistic (abyssal-unconscious) categories shaping the \u201ctheoretical constructs\u201d used in uncov\u00adering mysteries.[58]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Going back to the example of the scientific metaphor of the \u201cwormhole\u201d, it is extremely interesting for our argument because it is artistic, taken from nature, a kind of kitsch \u2013 but not quite so kitschy, since it is not meant to be admired but to be understood, as a cognitive instrument. In Lucian Blaga\u2019s terminology, a scientific metaphor is a specifically human instrument for coping with mystery \u2013 to manage it, to increase it, to expose it, to diminish it; to reveal mystery somehow, by intriguing, creative, and surprising human means. In the case of the scientific metaphor, one might be tempted to deduce that the application of LNT would show scientific metaphors to be kitsch. However, since the scientific metaphor primarily follows an intuitive opening toward explanation, it is more accurate to conclude that LNT does not apply here at all. Scientific metaphors are metaphors in the full sense and can only artificially be considered \u201csomething other\u201d than metaphors in fine art or literature. Yet their function is primarily explanatory and only secondar\u00adily aesthetic. They represent art in the service of explaining theoretical abstraction \u2013 \u201cuseful fictions\u201d with epistemological functionality. To apply LNT to them would be an exaggeration. As Blaga states:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Thus, science places itself, obviously, by its main intentions, by the predominant mass of its corpus of theses, in the sphere of Type II cognition. Biologico-pragmatic positivism, of all shades, understands the constructs of science as if they had emerged in the horizon of the given world as \u201cuseful fiction\u201d.[59]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

With scientific metaphors we reach the outskirts of the law of non-trans\u00adponibility, where the aesthetic (the metaphor) is present for evaluative, sug\u00adgestive, interpretative, and explanatory purposes in theorising nature. The natural, the artistic, and consciousness are part of the same \u201cequation\u201d, revealing reality \u2013 but a reality for and of man. The wormhole is a scientific metaphor, predicated to a certain extent on the aesthetics of ugliness and the aesthetics of decay.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Alfred N. Whitehead also pointed out, man cannot help but push knowledge beyond the limitations of an exclusively materialistic understanding of the universe; he cannot help but look through and among the fragments of matter toward dynamic pro\u00adcesses of becoming, understood as events in relation, and then toward metaphysics, beyond \u201churdling matter\u201d.[60]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Douglas Youvan introduces the notion of \u201cthe metaphysical wormhole\u201d[61]<\/sup><\/a> dis\u00adcussing a vision of the human being as linked to everything[62]<\/sup><\/a> around and beyond the empirical or factually examinable realms \u2013 extending into other realms, traversed and transgressed through the metaphysical wormhole, much like Alice in Wonderland. Are these connections undertaken? Do people dare to make such journeys of connection to everything? Are they enriched, or are they lost in the process? These are among the most important questions haunting the philosophical mind. Blaga, situating man uniquely in the horizon of mystery and for revelation, answers in favour of such con\u00adnections and journeys. In the light of his philosophy, these are journeys for human spiritual enrichment, correlating with a human life destined to be drawn to cognition and creation and to be lived as a work of art. Moreover, the tension within the human ontological amphibian condition strongly orients human creation in accordance with the influence of the abyssal categorial forces and with the law of non-transponibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Notes<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> We prefer the term \u201cmetaphysicist\u201d to \u201cmetaphysician\u201d, making a conscious choice in favour of the former, as it is closer to the formation of the word \u201cmetaphysics\u201d from \u201cmeta\u201d and \u201cphysics\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga left behind an original philosophy structured in interrelated trilogies: The Trilogy of Knowl\u00adedge<\/em>, The Trilogy of Culture<\/em>, The Trilogy of Values<\/em> and The Cosmological Trilogy <\/em>(posthumous, 1980\u201388). The<\/em> Trilogy of Knowledge<\/em> (1943) consists of the following works: On Philosophical Conscious\u00adness<\/em> (1947), The Dogmatic Aeon<\/em> (1931), Luciferian Knowledge<\/em> (1933), Transcendental Censorship <\/em>(1937), and The Experiment and the Mathematical Spirit <\/em>(1969). The Trilogy of Culture <\/em>(1944) gathers the works Horizon and Style <\/em>(1936), The Mioritic Space <\/em>(1936), and The Genesis of Metaphor and the Meaning of Culture <\/em>(1937). Of particular interest for the purpose of our study is The Trilogy of Value <\/em>(1946). Lucian Blaga examined the interrelations of knowledge, creation, and human existence as aspects of a unique universe. More than leaving behind a philosophical work of reference, he built a modern and contemporary philosophical system worthy of investigation. It is notable that, so early on, he envisioned a structure for his philosophical system that he al\u00admost completed, emphasizing it as a \u201cmetaphysical vision of the totality of existence\u201d. This outline was in\u00adclud\u00aded in Schi\u021ba unei autoprezent\u0103ri filosofice<\/em> [The Sketch of a Philosophical Self-Presentation, 1938], where it was associated with the metaphor of \u201cthe church with several domes\u201d, an \u201carchitectural\u201d plan materialized in a disciplinary philosophical system with conceptual content of great value.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga\u2019s philosophy was well received, but has seen limited translation into English. How\u00adever, there is one very good introduction in his philosophical work in English, containing well selected translated fragments. See Angela Botez, Richard T. Allen, and Henrieta Ani\u0219oara \u0218erban (eds.), Lucian Blaga: Selected Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, With a Foreword by Calvin O. Schrag, Wilmington\/Malaga, Vernon Press, 2018. The volume includes a substantial introduction to Lucian Blaga\u2019s life and work, along with excerpts from many of his philosophical writings, each preceded by a concise, explanatory, and con\u00adtextualizing abstract: Philosophical self-presentation (1938)<\/em>, The Dogmatic Aeon <\/em>(1931), The Divine Dif\u00adferentials <\/em>(1940), Transcendental Censorship <\/em>(1934), Luciferian <\/em>Knowledge (1933), Science and Creation <\/em>(1942), The Genesis of Metaphor and the Meaning of Culture <\/em>(1937), Horizon and Style<\/em> (1935), The Mio\u00adritic Space <\/em>(1936) and Aphorisms. At the end of the volume, there is a Glossary that includes an explanation of LNT (p. 153). The volume ends with a complex bibliography comprising a detailed outline of Lucian Blaga\u2019s work and a comprehensive Romanian and international bibliography on him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Angela Botez et al. (eds.), Lucian Blaga: Selected Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, p. 153.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, p. 34.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, pp. 34\u201336.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 33.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 87.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Ren\u00e9 Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy <\/em>[Meditationes de prima philosophia<\/em>], trans. George Heffernan, Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> See \u201cLuciferian Knowledge\u201d in Angela Botez et al. (eds.), Lucian Blaga: Selected Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, p. 154 (\u201cGlossary\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> \u201cEcstatic rationalism\u201d, ibidem<\/em>, p. 152.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, pp. 31\u201332.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> G. W. F. Hegel, Hegel\u2019s Philosophy of Nature<\/em>,3 volumes, translated and with an introduction by Michael John Petry, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970. See also <\/em>G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit, 1827\u201328<\/em>, translated with an Introduction by Robert R. Williams, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, pp. 17\u201319.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 32.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 22.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 26.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 34.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 20. Michael Jones (\u201cReligion as philosophy and art in the Work of Lucian Blaga\u201d, Faculty Publications and Presentations<\/em>, Vol. 28, 2015, https:\/\/digitalcommons.liberty.edu\/phil_fac_pubs\/28<\/a>) introduces the thought of the Romanian philosopher Lucian Blaga on religion as a cultural crea\u00adtion that has value apart<\/em> [our emphasis] from questions regarding the truthfulness of religious doctrines. In this interpretation, religion has considerable aesthetic and philosophical significance in Blaga. Jones anal\u00adyses it within the context of Blaga\u2019s metaphysical and epistemological vision and illustrates this with a new translation of one of his most famous poems.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, p. 38.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 41.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 45.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 71.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 73.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 79.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 75.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 77.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 81.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 87.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 90.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 91. There is no single author conventionally credited with the paternity of the term \u201ckitsch\u201d, but it is generally considered a contribution of German philosophy of aesthetics. In the early 20th<\/sup> century, the Austrian novelist Hermann Broch developed the notion of kitsch as both a moral and aesthetic failure, rooted in sentimentality and emotional effect to the detriment of value. It is not bad art, but a cun\u00adning art \u2013 something that only seems to be art, yet does not rise to genuine aesthetic value. The Czech novelist Milan Kundera built on Broch\u2019s ideas, defining kitsch as the sentimentalism that induces a seem\u00adingly genuine shared emotion, as if experiencing the real thing. This sort of sentimental deception is ulti\u00admately harmful. In Blaga, such sentimental deception \u2013 that is, kitsch \u2013 poses as a revelatory act, which it is not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/sup><\/a> As in Hegel, the Zeitgeist<\/em> always moves forward, and the history of art must likewise advance to\u00adward new forms of expression. There is no eternal return in Hegel. For him, nostalgic or vintage art would run against the Zeitgeist<\/em> \u2013 and would therefore be kitsch. Steven M. Cahn et al., Aesthetics \u2013 A Comprehen\u00adsive Anthology<\/em>, Second Edition, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2020; Jim Vernon, Hip Hop, Hegel, and the Art of Emancipation: Let\u2019s Get Free<\/em>, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018; Allen Speight, \u201ePhilosophy of art\u201d, in G. W. F. Hegel: Key Concepts<\/em>, ed. M. Baur, London, Routledge, 2015, pp. 103\u2013115.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/sup><\/a> Helmut Walser Smith, \u201cMonuments, kitsch, and the sense of nation in imperial Germa\u00adny\u201d, Central European History<\/em>, Vol. 49, Nos. 3\u20134, 2016, pp. 322\u2013340.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, p. 98.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 93.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, pp. 101\u2013104.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/sup><\/a> The 20th<\/sup>-century Romanian cultural current called \u201cs\u0103m\u0103n\u0103torism\u201d, which took shape around the cultural journal S\u0103m\u0103n\u0103torul and whose name is derived from the verb \u201cto sow\u201d, expresses a vision of life that emphasises not only traditionalism and the centrality of agriculture, but also the germinative dimension \u2013 and thus the creative and artistic aspects \u2013 inherent in a traditional agricultural worldview. Within this framework, one can easily perceive the transponibility from the germinative qualities of seeds to an artistic organicism, inscribable within the para-aesthetic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/sup><\/a> On the topic of Klimt and kitsch, more recently, see for instance Stefan A. Ortlieb and Claus-Christian Carbon, \u201eA functional model of kitsch and art: Linking aesthetic appreciation to the dynamics of social motivation\u201d, Frontiers in Psychology<\/em>, Vol. 9, 2018 (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2018.02437). In this article, the authors capture the commercial \u201cquality\u201d and versatility of kitsch, described by Greenberg as para\u00addoxical, both static and dynamic, for \u201c[k]itsch changes according to style, but remains always the same\u201d; C. Greenberg, \u201eAvant-garde and kitsch\u201d, Partisan Review<\/em>, No. 6, 1939, p. 40. Highly controversial or highly praised artistic innovations are subject to adaptation at a cultural level, and may gradually become clich\u00e9s of high art before being completely reframed as objects of commercial exploitation. Museum shops sell coffee mugs, T-shirts, and pillowcases imprinted with reproductions of The Kiss<\/em>\/Lovers<\/em> by Gustav Klimt, whose work has lost its initial innovativeness and has become particularly prone to kitsch classifica\u00adtion, due to its figurative character and emotional subject matter. Greenberg situated kitsch at the \u201crear-guard\u201d of cultural change, even though it has been culturally successful in economic terms. In a manner of speaking, kitsch is an abuse that proves commercially successful. It is art for the sake of immediate accessi\u00adbility, depicting common life experience and the familiar in other guises, implying hedonism and favouring \u201ceffortless identifiability and standard associations\u201d over novelty, surprise, abstraction, or paradox in rela\u00adtion to subject matter. For further discussion of kitsch and postmodernism, see M. C\u01celinescu, Five Faces of Modernity. Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmodernism<\/em>, Durham, Duke University Press, 1987.<\/a> In our view, the legacy of Mozart has also been transformed into kitsch. Yet Mozart\u2019s art, although emotional, serene, and relatively easy to receive as an idealisation of childhood, is not kitsch. A similar argument can be made for Klimt: the perception of kitsch surrounding his work derives largely from its commercial exploitation, which tends to engulf his high art products. In Mozart\u2019s case, compared to Klimt\u2019s, it is simply more difficult to \u201cattach\u201d music to objects (apart from music boxes or barrel organs) than to attach images to objects. The reframing of art as industriously reproducible kitsch by capitalism, through commercial exploitation, should not be taken as proof that the very work of art itself bears the mark of kitsch.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, pp. 111\u2013116.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/sup><\/a> Theodor Adorno, \u201cBloch\u2019s \u2018traces\u2019: The philosophy of kitsch\u201d, New Left Review<\/em>,May\/June 1980 (https:\/\/newleftreview.org\/issues\/i121\/articles\/theodor-adorno-bloch-s-traces-the-philosophy-of-kitsch).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/sup><\/a> According to Blaga\u2019s framework, socialist realism is a form of modernised and triumphalist kitsch, whereas some interpreters, using Adorno\u2019s perspective, might consider it an instance of art as re\u00adsistance to capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>\u00b8 pp. 117\u2013118.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/sup><\/a> Angela Botez et al. (eds.), Lucian Blaga,<\/em> Selected Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, p. 161.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, p. 120.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 146.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 120 sqq. See also Angela Botez et al (eds.), Lucian Blaga: Selected Philosophical Ex\u00adtracts<\/em>, pp. 149, 161, 165.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/sup><\/a> Lucian Blaga, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare<\/em>, 1996, p. 120.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 122.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 123.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, pp. 128\u2013129.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 135.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, pp. 125\u2013126.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, pp. 126\u2013127.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 142.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/sup><\/a> R. T. Allen, \u201cWhy Read Blaga\u2019s Philosophy?\u201d, Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists Online Edition Series on Philosophy, Psychology, Theology and Journalism<\/em>, Vol. 5, No. 1\u20132, 2013 pp. 133\u2013138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/sup><\/a> Henrieta \u0218erban, \u201cLucian Blaga: The Human Being Destined for Mystery, Creativity and Knowledge\u201d, Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists \u2013 Online Edition Series on Philosophy, Psy\u00adchology, Theology and Journalism<\/em>, Vol. 10, Nos. 1\u20132, 2022, pp. 80\u201395.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/sup><\/a> See, for a substantial fragment of Blaga\u2019s work in English, together with several illuminating in\u00adtroductory explanations, Angela Botez, R. T. Allen and Henrieta Ani\u0219oara \u0218erban (eds.), Lucian Blaga: Select\u00aded Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, pp. 83\u201387 (esp. 85) and p. 149 (\u201cGlossary\u201d: \u201cAbyssal or stylistic catego\u00adries\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/sup><\/a> Ibidem<\/em>. Also, \u201cScience comprises a constructional part in which theoretical construction obvious\u00adly influenced by style, occur. Science, therefore, is not superhistorical: it is born in a field of socio-cultural force lines that model it. As a matter of fact, the results of science are established also on the intel\u00adlectual horizon of human existence and they emerge as \u2018values\u2019, alike to those produced in the ethical field and aesthetic plane\u201d. Lucian Blaga, \u201cOn the stylistic field\u201d, in Angela Botez et. al., Lucian Blaga: Selected Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, pp. 87\u201388     .<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/sup><\/a> Alfred N. Whitehead, Process and Reality<\/em>, eds. D. R. Griffin; D. W. Sherburne, New York, Free Press, 1978, p. 54.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/sup><\/a> Douglas C. Youvan, \u201eBeyond space and time: Exploring the metaphysical wormholes of human experience\u201d, preprint, 2024. (https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/377746815_Beyond_Space_and_ Time_Exploring_the_Metaphysical_Wormholes_of_Human_Experience).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/sup><\/a> This idea is explorable via Anaxagoras, monism, TOE and the philosophy of complexity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
References<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Adorno, Theodor, \u201cBloch\u2019s \u2018traces\u2019: The philosophy of kitsch\u201d, trans. Rodney Livingstone, New Left Review<\/em>, Vol. I, No. 121,May\/June 1980, pp. 49\u201362. (https:\/\/newleftreview.org\/issues\/i121\/articles\/ theodor-adorno-bloch-s-traces-the-philosophy-of-kitsch).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Allen, R. T., \u201cWhy read Blaga\u2019s philosophy?\u201d, Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists Online Edition \u2013 Series on Philosophy, Psychology, Theology and Journalism<\/em>, Vol. 5, No. 1\u20132, 2013, pp. 133\u2013138.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Blaga,Lucian, Art\u0103 \u0219i valoare <\/em>[Art and value<\/em>], Bucure\u0219ti, Humanitas, 1996.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Botez, Angela; R. T. Allen; Henrieta Ani\u0219oara \u0218erban (eds.), Lucian Blaga: Selected Philosophical Extracts<\/em>, With a Foreword by Calvin O. Schrag, Wilmington\/Malaga, Vernon Press, 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cahn, Steven M. et al., Aesthetics \u2013 A Comprehensive Anthology<\/em>, Second Edition, Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

C\u01celinescu, M., Five Faces of Modernity. Modernism, Avant-garde, Decadence, Kitsch, Postmod\u00adern\u00adism<\/em>, Durham, Duke University Press, 1987.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Descartes, Ren\u00e9, Meditations on First Philosophy <\/em>[Meditationes de prima philosophia<\/em>], George Heffernan (trans.), Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 1990. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Greenberg, C., \u201eAvant-garde and kitsch\u201d, Partisan Review<\/em>, No. 6, 1939, pp. 34\u201349.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hegel, G. W. F., Hegel\u2019s Philosophy of Nature<\/em>,3 volumes, trans. with an introduction by Michael John Petry, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hegel, G. W. F., Lectures on the Philosophy of Spirit, 1827\u201328<\/em>, trans. with an Introduction by Robert R. Williams, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jones, Michael, \u201cReligion as philosophy and art in the work of Lucian Blaga\u201d, Faculty Publications and Presentations<\/em>, Vol. 28, 2015. (https:\/\/digitalcommons.liberty.edu\/phil_fac_pubs\/28).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ortlieb, Stefan A.; Claus-Christian Carbon, \u201eA functional model of kitsch and art: Linking aesthetic appreciation to the dynamics of social motivation\u201d, Frontiers in Psychology<\/em>, Vol. 9, 2018. (https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fpsyg.2018.02437).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith, Helmut Walser, \u201cMonuments, kitsch, and the sense of nation in imperial Germany\u201d, Central European History<\/em>, Vol. 49, Nos. 3-4, 2016, pp. 322\u2013340.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speight, Allen, \u201cPhilosophy of art\u201d, in M. Baur (ed.), G. W. F. Hegel: Key Concepts<\/em>, London, Routledge, 2015, pp. 103\u2013115.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u0218erban, Henrieta, \u201cLucian Blaga: The human being destined for mystery, creativity and knowledge\u201d, Annals of the Academy of Romanian Scientists \u2013 Online Edition Series on Philosophy, Psychology, Theology and Journalism<\/em>, Vol. 10, Nos. 1\u20132, 2022, pp. 80\u201395.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Vernon, Jim, Hip Hop, Hegel, and the Art of Emancipation: Let\u2019s Get Free<\/em>, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whitehead, Alfred N., Process and Reality<\/em>, eds. D. R. Griffin; D. W. Sherburne, New York, Free Press, 1978.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Youvan, Douglas C., \u201eBeyond space and time: Exploring the metaphysical wormholes of human experi\u00adence\u201d, preprint, 2024. (https:\/\/www.researchgate.net\/publication\/377746815_Beyond_Space_and_ Time_Exploring_the_Metaphysical_Wormholes_of_Human_Experience)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XXI:\u00a0Perspective conceptual-lexicale<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2025, pp.\u00a073\u201389]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
<\/path><\/svg><\/span>
Download<\/div><\/a><\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DOI: 10.59277\/SIFR.202521.04 Lucian Blaga\u2019s Law of Non-Transponibility Henrieta \u0218erban Institutul de Filosofie \u0219i Psihologie \u201eC. R\u0103dulescu-Motru\u201d al Academiei Rom\u00e2ne Abstract: Lucian Blaga departs from the aesthetic conceptions of the 19th century. His law of non-transponibility (LNT) emphasizes an original approach to the autonomy of art, providing topical criteria for defining and evaluating \u201ckitsch\u201d, one of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":8839,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"disabled","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[195,557,543],"tags":[420],"class_list":["post-8927","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","category-articole","category-henrieta-serban","category-sifr21","tag-lucian-blaga"],"featured_image_src":null,"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"SIFR","author_link":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/author\/mm\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"DOI: 10.59277\/SIFR.202521.04 Lucian Blaga\u2019s Law of Non-Transponibility Henrieta \u0218erban Institutul de Filosofie \u0219i Psihologie \u201eC. R\u0103dulescu-Motru\u201d al Academiei Rom\u00e2ne Abstract: Lucian Blaga departs from the aesthetic conceptions of the 19th century. His law of non-transponibility (LNT) emphasizes an original approach to the autonomy of art, providing topical criteria for defining and evaluating \u201ckitsch\u201d, one of…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8927"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8951,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8927\/revisions\/8951"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/8839"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}