Ethics as an Aesthetic Filter

Not only biological needs and economic conditions lead with human being, respectively, with its vital political decisions. What embodys man on earth is the desire, the inclination that in him starts even with freedom. In fact, desire is often so unsavory that it also weighs intolerance, for in countless cases we see how man will not emerge from the shell of his intolerance. The eagle has put love and desire into almost the same mold of meaning, even legitimately reinvented sites: don, love, love, as the active form of desire and love. And if we were to approve Andre Gideon when he says ethics is a philosophy of aesthetics, a little bit more of his definition, we could say that desire is a philosophy of pleasure.

Man likes beautiful nature, beautiful waterfalls, beautiful slopes, beautiful daughter/wife/wife, beautiful cat, beautiful dog, the game that got them dynamics, joy, pleasure, etc., from even their match to their lives, respectively. (Bucharity here I took as an abstractation of the underconsequences and other subdependences that are actually different from innitiv to individual.) This level of sensitivity, fuelled by pleasure or dissatisfaction with life, no matter how blunt the person may be with the oppressive position of intolerance, resurfaces into his belly, with all the energy that pulses the designer.

In the line of this prosperity, and we always feed on Gide's idea, we ask: What is it that some people reject the public and political morality that is heavy on their heads, respectively, on the youth they find on their world-life space? Why do individuals tend to be silent or isolated, which is more than the power of protest for the purpose of failure to approve results in even worse situations, including their fellow members of society? It's an aesthetic offense that makes them pull into their vault. Up to a new roar sworn by the complaining cry, to a plea of deaf beings.

Just a bunch of people don't like the lift raised by mountain ranges of people who can hold political power. So far, I'm not talking about any distinction on scale of tasteful images shared in cultures, styles or centuries, but about the persistent feeling of insulting to- that the world's pregnant man because of his dislike to a certain trend. And it's not some innovation in man, it's a distorted trend in his being since the beginnings of existence. Why does one guarantee that the primitive tribes of the first bison in the caves have not fought each other to do so?

The argument brought so far that more could be read as a confirmation of the per-aesthetic presence in man we can now roll towards culture, respectively, our fence reality. What kind of essay is ours? What kind of sympathies did we create (the Marxist Benjamini would interfere here through the term "producing") in the last 50 years? Since the biggest event of the last 50-year-old in us happened to be mostly modernizing through industry and technology, and since prior to the vision of millions that today enables YouTube to enter our camera and camera, the question is, of what door were we in these profound sounds that are rooted in the eye, in other words, in what they are so popular? Did we get the girl on tape? And if so, how? Or was this dictated by political tentacles, by what EIvis Hoxha calls the “transmitting of a regime through film and a film system?

Heidegger's not the right question about what was last said. That's because Heidegger not only as a chiritic of technology but as an aesthetic overlap as a science-gender of entitlement (the belief that began with Baumgarmen and Cant) would almost not reconcile with it the filmed content (it says Heidegger had no television either), since art to make up for the very self-beefableness of the coming of the Being<1x> So, so it's something that has been passed on, and that's all three-way in the work of art and art and art. And yet today without technology and digital, one thing as pleasant as it is is is is extremely difficult to transmit.

But the comparison is the mother of meaning. Being based on the preservation of Heidegger's maxim over “art as the self-responsible belief in the truth of the Being <xx1> (but without completely decoupling his criticism of technology), and directly linking it to the message Gideja conveys, for “Like Eastern Europe, we were like geography that shared more of the fate of Georgia and Armenia than with France, we are wondering if we compare with the Kosovo/Yugoslav and Georgian/Armenian cinema (for Soviet time). It is more critical and marked for art that the excise of Albanian descent of an actor involved in co-operation with Brigid Bardone to be taken for developmental booms in art, or altogether on the other side: an example like that of Parianov with the “The Tour of Pomergrandes<5> where a very different dimensional power is visited: life, and the death of an Armenian poet of the X century V III ] to be taken for more origial trick in the blasting of creationists?

Parajanov's film bust in question, which should be written specifically, which in time coincided with the climate of Soviet power (1968), alerts the being's boom, the coming of the truth of the being, the coming of originality into art, saw a piercing tour into the wall of the world's soc-realytist and cadanovist explanation, through a uniquely aesthetic revolt to the avenging morality that had generated sovation, perm “One we missed, since Kosovo cinema was not only controlled by the tentacles of official ideology, but also made voluntary and fortunate marriages with state authoritarianism.

The attractions of this naiveness and the fate of members of society are already known, because we are also living them: the brutal revenge of the example of the Enisukians, the wombs of the meat - borne Labinottahirs, and you say so about power. And as a result, living between one side of the dams representing the first school, that is, the Yugoslav one today who has found its new comfort in posmodera, always in the greatest sense of escape, isolation and snobism, and the other side of the derre that includes the birth of Labinottahir, is known what sensitivity and decline has led to.

Power always involves rationalization. There's actually one. Of course, even the current power has brought its spirit - the courage of yesterday's warrior (every poor mental but still a rebel against further oppression and intellectualism LDK-st) turned into the power of arrogance and ignorance with the apparent involvement of politician, businessman, bureaucratic, the tendency always to rationalise even society in its district, and according to its box. The revolution to plague the privacy, respectively, of its maintenance and prosperity by the cultural elites Yugoslavia today has turned into the Pugacovian revenge of the expropriation of commanders and their candidate alternative muscles. Of course, this is already in another regimen context: Fortunately marriage to capitalism, although not bihevioral, since the behavioral operating model has remained almost the same.

But the light at the end of the tunnel is always expected, since a country can never be that level of hope. The latest event “Art and Confidence Retrospecive Andrej Tarkovskit” called by a cultural family of young Peanas and supported by a mile around the “Journal. Pristina's Sophia” marks one of these shoots. Not for the theme discussed for the very act of calling for us to be discussed, art, faith, magnificent, elevated, the meaningful ether of which was never laid down in us, and not being easily misunderstood and overstressed. Tarkovsky is the major storm of cultural schizophrenicia that his country experienced, which, as Jerico, “drove by before it was taught by hex5>. Tarkovsky asks the Russian's trust, which from the music jumped to Stanislavki's modernisation.

In the language of the Public Administration, the interdependence of the young men of Prishtina would be called a fatheric development, unproportionate advancement in a country almost mutated by the powder of ignorance, anti-value and self-exploitation in cultural swamps. Yet, it is the entrepreneur to entertain hope from the fact that to still recall the presence of the dertlines, the questionnaires these seemingly protruding wanderers appear strongly. The new arrival of Dog's truth will question the legitimacy of the ethics of living in scum. Through a new aesthetic. Why didn't Tarkovsky find the beauty in the simple? A horse's run. At the gurgling of a source...