that would relate to disconnected claims on taste,rejection, inclusion, gaze, nature, among others, whichwould make us deviate through many paths.What was formally thought on the very problem of forms has been essentially discussed on a political plan. That doesn't make it less interesting, on the contrary, itmakes that categorization to enter in line with theanalysis of implications that I try to bring about, writingthis text. Summing up: the form, the beautiful, therepresentation and the sublime were condemned forserving to a categorization of themselves, to abrutalization of their definitions. Which would be thesame as saying that, for political reasons, it wasforbidden to think about what would be a form andwhat it would represent, having in mind that if someonebehaved like that he/she would be placing him/herself in an authoritarian, autochthonous and, we might say,rigid position in relation to the most varied expressionsof anything.Obviously desiring to flee from that place that hasannoyed so many people, we have been conducted, uptoday, to a wider detachment of the gaze on things inthemselves. If we think that there is a "in itself" of thatthing, of course. To verify that, it is enough to observehow the references of forms' materiality incontemporary art, music and philosophy were graduallydisplaced, for example.