Columbia Art District

In the Romantismo or romantic period what it was distinguished was accurately the individualism becoming it opposing the Classicismo, being this transistion exactly context ' ' influenciador' ' in the artistic intellect of Schopenhauer. One becomes necessary to also detach a genius who marked the called Romantismo Ludwig Van Beethoven. The romantic music of this genius is dense and also emotiva, where its compositions are total on to the facts that had marked its life. From Beethoven music is not more the same one, therefore it started to acquire a character of absolute egocentrismo, therefore for it personal drama only is that he counts at this moment. Those that hears the music of Beethoven start to identify themselves personally with music, arriving to recognize even though that you distress in them, misfortunes and also in the misfortunes of the life can through the enchantment of the art occur a deep feeling that will alliviate pains that reach the man. In the Romantismo pains acquire a basic paper, rank what! pains of the proper romantic artist are what it will promote its creation artistic. This is explicit in Beethoven as, for example: In its 5 symphony the feeling of superiority and largeness if detaches. In 6 symphony that is pastoral nostalgia is explicit.

In 9 Beethoven symphony leaves to be transparent the passion that took its being at that moment. Thus, the feeling and the individuality are eminently on the romantic genius. With romantic a music the art systematically becomes to state the feelings by means of sons5. What it occurred in the transistion between the Classicismo and the Romantismo they had been the culture of pain and also the express sincerity for the people with the existence or presence of the suffering. Through the life of the romantic composers it is allowed to notice that as much the fancy how much the anguish walks together and in certain direction if completes this would be as if we desired to possess something that is forbidden in them.

The problem of science is presented as an origin problem, is what in Rousseau in &#039 speaks to them; ' first discurso' ': ' ' sciences and the arts must, therefore, its birth our vices: we would have lesser doubt how much to its advantages, if they had our virtues. The sin of its origin satiated marked in its objetos' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 147). But as to determine this origin and the one that Rousseau vices is if relating? The second part of the Rousseau question answers with clarity, how much to the first part we can point a reply from Rousseau. Let us start for the second part. Citing the first speech: ' ' Astronomy was born of the superstition; the eloquence of the ambition, the hatred, the adulao, the lie; geometry, of the avarice; the physics, of an infantile curiosity; all they and the proper moral, of the pride humano' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 147).

More ahead, still in the same page it continues: ' ' if our sciences are useless in the object where if they consider, they are still more dangerous for the effect that produce. Been born of the idleness, for its turn they nourish, it, and the irreparable loss of time is the first damage that determines sociedade&#039 forcibly; '. They are many vices that Rousseau enumerates: avarice, adulao, idleness amongst others. The society deepens e, (for more paradoxical than it seems) perfects such vices. in this direction that sciences are efficient instruments of the social inaqualities. Sciences, when promoting the civilization degrade the idle, adulador, desirous man becoming it of applauses, proud, loving of useless things.

Now, as to determine the origin? We will risk a hypothesis as reply, the example of the proper Rousseau. At a first moment, the man when pledging itself in surpassing definitive difficulties produced devices, but soon they leave of being produced by this reason and pass to be made to satisfy desires and futilidades, despertando the vanity. A man starts to judge itself better or superior of what others, are compared with the others, are proud for its anteriority and its presumable superiority. Leaving of this conjectura, we understand that the civilization (civilizatrio progress) originates not when the man produces something, but yes when it passes ' ' produzir' ' vices. science would be an efficient producer, not only of ' ' objetos' ' , but over all of ' ' people-objeto' ' , and this is absolutely contrary to the nature. Therefore, when reading the first speech almost we listen to the shout of Rousseau: ' ' peoples you know, therefore of a time for all, that wanted you to the nature to preserve of science as a mother pulls out a dangerous weapon of the hands of the son; that all secrets that it hides of you are as much others males of defends that you and that your work to be instructed is not lesser of its benefcios' ' (ROUSSEAU, 1988, P. 146). Therefore, science is a weapon that the man chore of form to take it the damage: inaquality of its humanity, the degeneration of its nature, its denaturalization. Ahead of everything what until we reflect here, it seems us that according to Rousseau, the man enters in a vicious cycle: the man produced the civilization; this produces a man disnaturalized to continue fomenting civilization The cited cycle previously if of the one in the scope of a historical construction. To follow we will develop brief consideraes concerning history while science and while sociabilizao process.