Macieira and Pope's connection

Dear All,

I have something to underline in Macieira and Pope’s movement.

The Aesthetics as defined by Aleksanders Baumgarten and followed by Kant, and Hegel, is very complicate to understand when, for example, we meet the line made by modernism and post-modernism in comparison with the Plato’s system. It’s true that, the Art need some discipline if we do need to establish only one definition of Art (aim of Aesthetics).

Some philosophers of the art such as Morris Wieitz desisted with the idea that «art can be defined». George Dickie analysed art with extrinsic influences using the existentialist theories, but remarked that his hypotheses were insufficient for conclusion. Nelson Goodman suggested replacing the question What is Art by When Art will exist. I confess that all of them were fields to aesthetical canons, each one with his particularity of chooses in method and principles. Their syntheses are more interesting and inspired me. Aesthetically, it seems that it is not easy to define art.

I choose Logical way because it’s the convergence of all sciences. In Logic, we find 1) experimental sciences: physics, chemistry, etc. because of experimental and inductive method, 2) biological sciences because of the alive matter or organ; 3) moral and normative sciences etc. That’s why I think that some logical definition, based on the description on «arts united», may «resolve» this impasse. If painting, sculpture, architecture, music, dance, theatre, etc. are all art, I think that, essentially, we need only one definition of the term art which includes all of modalities. As we know, all of these types of art have 1) title, 2) contain and 3) form. This is the whole reality of art, historically or anthropologically; philosophically or sociologically.

Now let’s talk about the TECHNIKÊ. I think that Macieira and Pope’s «movement» is important for historiographers in management of the History of Art in Angola (or yet Africa). Two reasons permit us to underline it: 1) In our knowledge, both of them made collective exhibition more than two times in Angola and out-of-Angola. Hope they published catalogue for testimony. The History need the long duration and for this reason Macieira and Pope seem to obey this principle exploring their «movement». That’s important. Why? 2) Logically (and etymologically) art signifies «creation». So we can define simply as «artworkswhich form and message in congruence with the title constitute a creation»..

The logic formula is: α= [{ς↔φ} ≡θ] ≠a

This formula seems function in theory and practice. Macieira and Pope seem to nearer this formula technically. We’re proud because: 1) the whole of production and exhibition of both of them answer some of the philosophers... 2) in spite of no-originality, the pictograms painted respond to «catharses» as defined by Aristotels in theatre (Tragaoidia = tragedy). Nietze, also, develops the «imitation» and establish the comparison with «contemporary art» (of his Epoch, of course) and once the production of both of them are analysed, their artworks can normally be classified.

I defend that Macieira and Pope are producing neo-pictograms, maybe they don’t know it maybe they do. Several of pictograms remember us the Ancient Writings of Cokwe and Kôngo. In these pictures they sent to me, I can read some of phrases: in Kikôngo: «Lulêndo’a mbuta» (the dignity of Ancients»; «Bukaka songa» (egoism is a serious ill); in Côkwe: «Cirung ngolo-ci Ruej cikame-na» (While woman-Ruej is sleeping, her husband-Cibind Irung awakes), etc. How they (Macieira and Pope) do that? Is it possible they know that?

This is very interesting thing that I have to underline in the painting sent to me. Maybe Macieira and Pope know it, maybe not. But the fact they produce it in «no-verbal language» aesthetically expressed seems the only way of ART defined by Philosopher since Plato in Ancient Greece... as we up-indicated.

Unfortunately Angola doesn’t have Faculty of History (of Art) or Faculty of Philosophy. What we up-mentioned is serious and need 3 different specialists: Historian of Art, (iconographer), Philosopher (of Art= Aesthetes) and Anthropologist. First of all, they have to separate their viewpoints consonant their specialities. After that, might some 4^th specialist (critic) compare their viewpoints in unilateral notional camp?

I visited their exhibition… in Instituto Camões. And I think that their need to be translated in «verbal language» not by only one person, but different specialists in Aesthetics, Anthropology, History… Hope Angola builds the Faculties of History (of Art), Philosophy, etc. and resolves this problem in scientific ways.

What I said here is my own lecture on the «no-verbal language» expressed by Macieira and pope. It’s a diagonal speech…

Sincerely Yours.

Patrício Batsîkama.