The original text uses some Greek quotations, and some Polish letters also appear. In the web edition of this text, wherever possible, we will use the windows "symbol" font for Greek. If you do not have this, the Greek characters will appear as follows:
| alpha | a | pi | p | Epsilon | E | Tau | T |
| beta | b | theta | q | Phi | F | Upsilon | U |
| chi | c | rho | r | Gamma | G | sigma | V |
| delta | d | sigma | s | Eta | H | Omega | W |
| epsilon | e | tau | t | Iota | I | Xi | X |
| phi | f | upsilon | u | theta | J | Psi | Y |
| gamma | g | omega | v | Kappa | K | Zeta | Z |
| eta | h | omega | w | Lambda | L | ||
| iota | i | xi | x | Mu | M | ||
| phi | j | psi | y | Nu | N | ||
| kappa | k | zeta | z | Omicron | O | ||
| lambda | l | Alpha | A | Pi | P | ||
| mu | m | Beta | B | Theta | Q | ||
| nu | n | Chi | C | Rho | R | ||
| omicron | o | Delta | D | Sigma | S |
Plato observed that there has always been a contest between philosophy and art (Rep. 607B). Philosophy and art had rival claims as to which was closest to the truth. The contest goes on to this day. In this work we are taking our part in this controversy. We will attempt to answer a few basic questions. These questions arise not so much from a desire to "devalue" art, as to bring art back to its proper place. Art often aims too high, and furthermore it is not always able to deal with reality or philosophy, from which it could learn much. The questions we seek to answer are as follows.
Does the artist create a new reality, or does he imitate reality? Today we often hear that the artist is a creator, that he creates his work. It is improper even to speak of imitation, since that would belittle art. Does an artist work primary with his "head", or does he create in inspiration due to the power of images? The idea that art is of divine provenance has been dominant since the 19th century: the artist's imagination has creative power, while reason is the domain of science and technology.
Is the task of art the creation of easily identifiable objects, or does art aim at expressing the ineffable and that which is difficult to grasp, that which brings to light the deepest mystery of being? Again, it seem that today artists seek the ineffable, that which is not easy to name or define, while representation is left to photography or early art.
The cult of creativity, image and abstraction -- these are the three most characteristic trends in twentieth century art, by which contemporary art seems to be diametrically opposed to the art of bygone centuries, when art was a making and an imitation, when it relied on a properly cultivated reason and represented the easily recognizable real world.
Terms such as "creativity", "imagination", "abstraction", or "imitation", "form" and "figure" may seem understandable today, and both artists and estheticists use them freely, but they are not simple if taken back to their roots. Over two and a half millenia these terms have been involved in great metaphysical and theological controversies which more than once have rocked western civilization. Only in a secondary sense have these concepts resonated in art and the theory of art. Today, with the collapse of classical humanistic education and the rise of the exact sciences, many things are regarded as new and of prime importance which are not so at all. The ideas at the roots of contemporary art are very little known, but these foundational ideas can be traced back at least a thousand years. On the other hand, the old art, which is called figurative or imitative, is disregarded as unoriginal, as merely copying reality such as the artist finds it. In effect, the theory of art, both the latest art and the earliest, either is subject to distortion, or lacks profundity, while works of art serve either as long term investments or as an instrument in ideological disputes. In all this, the average person trying to understand art is completely disoriented.
Why is there an urgent need to study in depth and detail the key problems of today's esthetics? If we ignore the metaphysical context in which these problems first appeared, we will be caught between superficial analyses and rebellion in artistic programs. We must show the ancient conception of art in a proper light, and elucidate the sources of so-called contemporary art (also called abstract or non-figurative art). These sources pose a serious challenge to western culture. It is not our concern, however, to evaluate any particular works, as that is a matter of personal taste, but we are concerned with the sub-text of the ideas from which particular artistic tendencies have risen.
In this work we will try to straighten out a few perennial and erroneous views, such as that the old art was a copying of reality, that it was romanticism that first ascribed creative abilities to the artist, and finally, that abstract art has a purely artistic genesis, since it depends entirely on drawing forth pure esthetic values. Unfortunately, this is not the case: none of the ancient or medieval authors ever claimed that copying is the purpose of art, while as early as the middle ages, arab philosophers were already speaking of creation in art. Non-figurative art appeared in times of iconoclasm, while more recently the work of Kandinsky was directly inspired by theosophy.
Art has its place beside science, ethics and religion as a basic domain of culture. We can see the profile of a civilization in its art, and art plays an important role in the life of the individual man. On this account, it is immensely important today when there is more confusion in the world of ideas than ever before, indeed in all domains, that we should study and elucidate the ideas which are at the root of art. Metaphysics is the science that can grasp that which is most essential while remaining impartial. Thus, as we try to present the ground of ideas under the old art and today's art, we must not restrict ourselves to esthetics, but we must resort to metaphysics. The metaphysics of art is a more fundamental domain than esthetics, or even the philosophy of art.