In this text, it should be necessary to continue the theme of unification of the future art with the philosophy of conceptual symbolism. It is clear that, speaking of philosophy, one cannot fail to mention Plato and Kant, since it was these two who clearly separated the world of ideas from the world of things and used the concept of aesthetics - but with different conclusions. Of course, this line of thinkers can be continued indefinitely, digging up more and more new names, which is what the hosts of gravediggers are busy with. It is also clear that this text is nothing more than a hypothesis, however.

    It seems strange that such thoughts - for example, about the creative impulse in the Cro-Magnon man and the lack of such in the Neanderthal, which may indicate the direction of movement from the Beast to the Creator, have not yet been announced. As before, the hypotheses are based on simple logic and the principle of Occam's razor. There is a hypothesis, or rather the illusion of a hypothesis, that there is no smell of any god in both philosophical systems, because if there are indestructible laws of the universe, then there is no almighty God - and vice versa. As one Frenchman (a theist, by the way) said to Napoleon - in our reasoning - God is superfluous.

   But Kant's theses also give a deep crack on a different principle: Kant's use of the concept of "categorical imperative" looks not only unnecessary, but simply far-fetched. And without this concept, the whole philosophy of Kant collapses, turning into empty and ridiculous demagoguery. The following passage from the Critique of Pure Reason only makes the thinking individual shrug his shoulders in bewilderment. “Space is not discursive, or, as they say, general, and if one speaks of many spaces, then by them they mean only parts of one and the same single space.”

   In the field of progress, Immanuel Kant turned out to be frankly weak. And his thoughts - three centuries ago - cause nothing but a smile. A person seems primitive and weak only in comparison with a more powerful entity, but it is also lost against the background of the next one, since there is no limit to perfection. The current human hybrid today contains elements of creativity, but these traits may disappear and give way to some other tomorrow.

  At the same time, Plato’s philosophy, despite its much more significant age (about 25 centuries) and a certain old-fashioned look is more productive today, and it is Plato’s “dialogues” that open the reader to the terrible world of the future - with shadows and caves. Those who call him an idealist are fundamentally wrong. For it is not so much his images that are terrible, but his whole philosophy. It is based not on speculative postulates, but on evidence, and visible errors are the weaknesses of a person, not a system.

  Here are Plato's reasoning about space: "There is another kind, namely space: it is eternal, does not accept destruction, gives a abode to everything that is born, and that which is neither on earth nor in heaven, as if it does not exist." People live in the past, and the dynamics of change cannot be built, just as it is impossible to predict the pattern of Brownian motion. And even a thinking person (how many of them are left?) Kant's analysis is closer than Plato's synthesis.

   As for the actual painting of conceptual symbolism, for all its exclusivity, it is just another attempt to look into tomorrow. But it is hardly possible to do this on the basis of an analysis of today's trends. Or you can use the facts of tomorrow, the prediction of which is the lot of the few. «Brevity is the sister of talent» said the Russian writer, and only color and form are the matter in painting, and just with these details the conceptual symbolist experiments. However, in the end, it must be remembered that it is impossible today to judge the realities of tomorrow - including in painting.