Perfection

Perfection is not commonly considered as an aesthetic category, which may be partly due to its exclusive role as a "representative" of art on the other levels of reflexion. Perfection is an indicator of integrity and universality in any human activity; however, its syncretism and apparent subjectivity make it cognate to the other aesthetic categories.

Perfection is necessary to distinguish a work of art from mere artifact, or artistic activity from routine production process. However, it is not sufficient: there may be perfect products that have nothing to do with art. For instance, one can master a skill and make people wonder at something they cannot reproduce --- it will remain merely an amusing trick, if it does not animate the souls, incite them to conquer the summits that seemed unreachable before. That is, perfection is a means of art, rather than its goal.

In the simplest case, perfection may serve as a beacon, showing how something can be done, and how it will be normally done in the future. Obviously, to perform such a function, perfection must manifest itself in the directions of imminent development of culture, that is, in a progressive way. It is useless to strive for perfection in something that has no future, and does not assist cultural development.

However, formal perfection is not the only possibility. There are other, less superficial types of perfection, and, quite often, an amateur work, despite its formal imperfection can be called art with no less reason than a professional product, and it is as difficult for a professional artist to produce art as for an amateur.

In the arts, as well as in science, perfection is closely related to formal scarcity: there must everything that is needed to convey the idea, but no more than that. True art is necessarily abstract, thought it may use realistic forms; moreover, abstract art demands more spiritual effort of the artist, since it is much more sensitive to excess of detail.

Perfection is the first stage of abstraction, when the universal content of a real thing or action completely dominates over its sensory form. There may be art of imitation, but its cultural role can hardly become any significant. Because of inherent syncretism, art can only employ primary abstractions, expressible in an intentional modification of a natural form. The simplest way to do obtain such an abstract product is to reproduce some features of reality using a material that can never be natural for that kind of things. Thus, a painter transforms three-dimensional shapes into their likes on the plane, often intentionally distorting the natural proportions and colors. For another example, take a sculptor replacing flesh with stone. Immaterial things can be substituted as well --- thus, in drama, the well known Stanislavsky's method is entirely based on such a substitution.

Different arts employ their specific ways of abstraction, associated with the specific material used in the respective "models" of the world. This leads to a hierarchy of arts, which develops with the development of the humanity.

Perfection is a syncretic manifestation of universality. Of course, the universal can never be fully represented in a finite object; in particular, this means that no artist can make art "from within", without the assistance (and influence) of the society. Perfection can only exist and be recognized as such within a definite cultural framework, and that is why artists degrade in isolation. However, even the whole humanity is not enough to grasp perfection completely --- and any work of art is bound to live for ever, so that new generations would discover new aspects of perfection in it.

As a consequence, it is impossible for a single person, or a social group, to decide what will stay for ever and what is to dissolve in time. Nobody can judge an artist, and nobody cannot avoid judgement. As economy and culture develop, some things that were thought of as artistic become mere craftsmanship, and some kinds of craft may attain the level of perfection enough to make them art. The criteria of art are historically mutable, and nothing can pretend to be included in the treasury of art once and for all times.