And well, the only book aesthetic that really gave me something, is the work of Pierre Schaeffer, a Polytechnic (and not roast!) that consecrated her entire life to trying to give a model, i.e. to propose a scientific theory of music. About ten years ago that he is dead and his book, whose first edition, the threshold is from the year 1966, is entitled Treaty of musical objects. As well, what is needed, it is to speak of a box, for example, on equal terms precise and technical which employ Schaeffer to talk music. Everything, absolutely everything is done! It is necessary to begin by acquiring, or falsify, imagine a new scientifically speaking vocabulary and not only music, but also painting, dance, sculpture, etc.
We are facing a task absolutely colossal, and susceptible to mobilize generations and generations of researchers! I used the expression speak scientifically to designate what? Simply what we call, in the These Sciences of nature, theory. What does the theory? To be more clear, neither more nor less. They know that perhaps that the word theory comes from a Greek verb theamai which means see et which gave origin to the word French Theatre (theatron, in Greek). That means that I get to the third part of my exposure to know that which I am going to propose some tracks of reflection. I’ll begin emphasizing the essentially abstract nature of art. Generally, not discusses abstraction as the subject of cognition (logos). What you must understand is that this is nothing more than a matter of logic: is also a matter of technique.
There would be no art but we had the Faculty of technical abstraction, and therefore that all art is abstract. Concrete art doesn’t exist, although there is no specific music and there is also no specific dance, nor concrete paint, etc. Plato, Kant and Hegel had been repaired in that art is Abstract: they joined to the intelligence, and had every reason.