I have never felt warmly towards polítical men, as if I feared entrusting my feelings to them. I acknowledge, however, that because of their clear teachings and the attention I have paid them, Marx's study of historic materialism, as with Lenin's study on the theory of reflection (1870-1924), have largely prevented me from falling into the errors of its aesthetics.
Although our work is founded on the work of these men and we have taken their unavoidable feeling of evolution into account, ít is nevertheless easy to understand why we thoroughly disagree with their aesthetic theories: in our view, they lack that other feeling of the immutable mathematical geometries, the essence of the work of art. Their studies «On Art»24, therefore, appear disabled from birth.
Aragon (1897-1982) could not have explained his lacks in a better way: «Do not think that I am a communist wíth no sensibility to see abstract art but I do not see how to approach the terms of militant communist policy to abstract art»25.
Why cannot Aragon see any possible approach? Because abstract art is precisely that intuítive morphometry, that unique essence which through íts immutable laws evades not only Marxism but all philosophy founded on natural evolution today.
If this evolutionary concept, the incentive of a proliferation of successful avant-garde performances, of (political or esoteric) «artistic» messages and their unmitigated nonsense is allowed, this is due to the fact that the presence of the laws of nature and of art has always been felt and preserved by the so-called «obsessed geometricians».
© Nadir Afonso, in The Arts, Erroneous beliefs and false criticisms. Chaves Ferreira Publicações, October 2005.