What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

All things related to Art! Poetry, painting, literature, visual, theater, movies, tv, music, media, culture, etc. Share your creativity or others', reviews, aesthetic theories, etc.

Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby Positor on October 12th, 2011, 5:49 pm 

The following link is interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/leonardo/gallery/annunciation.shtml

Note that there are two versions of the painting, one in the Uffizi Gallery and the other in the Louvre. The Uffizi version is the one to which this thread refers. Unlike the Louvre version, which is of doubtful authenticity, the Uffizi one is now generally considered to be partly, or almost wholly, by Leonardo.

With regard to the Uffizi version, note the references to (a) technical flaws, and (b) the fact that the angel's wings were subsequently lengthened by another artist.

The webpage embedded in the link (click on "Leonardo: The Man, His Machines") states the following:
With its prominent lectern, and awkward composition and perspective, this artwork has sometimes been termed almost amateurish. Indeed, it does appear to have been painted by an artist still trying to understand the tricks of perspective. Horizontally the vanishing point is precisely in the centre of the picture, vertically it is two-thirds of the way up. Another obvious mistake is the Virgin's right hand placed on a lectern which is closer to the viewer than she is.

It does, however, acknowledge:
It must be remembered that he was only in the region of 20-21 years old when this was painted, and it then becomes a quite miraculous work from such a young artist.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 13th, 2011, 9:59 am 

owleye

I certainly would have no problem with this approach towards the subject:

“If the title and objective of the topic were "What can Da Vinci's: The Annunciation tell us about art?" I wouldn't have the problem I'm having with it. If your only objective is to inform us of the value that Da Vinci's insights have on his art and what's behind what is revealed in his work, then I'm fine with that...”

And I know that you probably would never believe it, but that is, basically, the approach that I did first adopt towards introducing these concepts. But then after years of being dismissed, ridiculed, belittled, and even sometimes assailed, I suppose I did become a bit jaded, and did then adopt a more emphatic attitude towards introducing the concepts. Also, because the most common response I did experience was someone saying to me:”YOU are not going to explain anything to ME (because I have a masters degree and you do not),” I did then become apprehensive about introducing the concepts to anyone, and only did then become more aggressive in my approach. But also you have to remember, that one of the other key elements in regards to this concept is the fact that, as Professor Christopher L. C. E. Witcombe did explain:

“At the beginning of the Renaissance, painters (were) still regarded as members of the artisan class, and occupied a low rung on the social ladder...During the Renaissance the revival of Plato and Platonism helped spread the notion of the divine inspiration of the poet, which Plato compared with that of the religious prophet. According to Plato, poets and musicians, prophets, were divinely inspired...”

If it wasn't for Leonardo's introducing these concepts into art, art would have never become art as we know it. And this is another, primary, concern of mine. As, even after I did become capable of finding some people who were receptive to the concepts; of the visual musical equivalents, they did still then say:”So what,” instead of understanding there significance, and did then continue to dismiss the concepts. And – remember, while continuing to say things such as this:

“...Some artists, like (Wolfgang Amadeus) Mozart, find their voices indecently early, but (Jackson) Pollock was the opposite of a child prodigy, he was one of art's late great bloomers...”

And, so then I did do this:

“...It's your particular generalization as to what art is, in all its aspects, that I have trouble...”

Or at least seemingly so. As I did, then, begin to emphasize the function of the visual musical equivalents, as they were the ones who did put the emphasis on attempting to define 2-D visual art as being capable of functioning as a pictorial equivalent of music, so I followed their lead. Also of course and again, well, if you are making a public proclamation that you are interested in experiencing the visual equivalent of music in general, and Mozart in particular, so then where is the problem; in my introducing the literal equivalent? There should be no problem, but there was.

And it was because, exactly as you said:

“...As I understand it, Danto would equally dismiss the 'art' that Lewis was mocking were it strictly a commentary on how the class of wealthy compete with each other, vying for some sort of attention, like school children might...”

The people to which he was referring have become capable of behaving like school children, engaging in some sort of popularity contest, or simply some sort of game which exists only to supplement their egos. And, of course and which is my concern, they have no real interest in “art,” or any of the virtuous, and ennobling concepts that may be associated with a person's patronizing of the arts; any and all art. So, how can anyone, who does have a sincere interest in these things, even begin to communicate with these people, while maintaining their integrity?

Also, I believe that what Ben Lewis has done is not to simply cast aspersions randomly, as you may believe. As he does actually explain that one of his concerns, is that “brilliant” artists are being overlooked by the exact same people who are creating the confusion:

“...Today many totally inconsequential artists are being hailed as geniuses because of the prices their work commands, and scores of really brilliant ones are being ignored because they don't appeal to the tastes of the property developers, hedge-funders and wives of millionaires who buy art.”

So I would imagine that Lewis' philosophy is probably rather similar to the philosophy of Danto, as he actually acknowledges that he does have a fondness, particularly, for contemporary art, and he certainly didn't make any friends in writing his articles. And, also, he did produce a documentary about contemporary art, entitled: The Great Contemporary Art Bubble, which is also worth watching to see an honest viewpoint on the market. It is also rather interesting to consider some of the comments many people have made in response to Lewis' articles, such as this:

“At one time aspiring artist went to art school to learn their craft with the dream of expressing something within themselves in the language of their time. How passé. Contemporary art is best taught in business school with the goal of parlaying novelty into riches. Poor Bernie Madoff, today in jail, when with his skill he could have opened an art gallery and ripped-off millions while at the same time being lionized in the art fashion magazines.” rshifrin Commenting on: The dustbin of art history – Ben Lewis

And I don't know if you read my original post, but I did first read many similar comments to this in regards to contemporary art, before I did adopt my more emphatic attitude. And I do still believe that there are many people who do believe that there is something “wrong” in the world in general, and the art world in particular.

Also, you should understand that, as I pointed out to Cagla, these exact same people: the people who are responsible for the extraordinary inflationary processes in the art world – and Lewis did say that from 2003 to 2008 it was 800 percent, are the exact same people who are responsible for governing our financial institutions, which should concern everyone, not just the patrons of the art world. And, actually, there are some other people who have also pointed out this same concern:

“The Great Contemporary Art Bubble is not only a film about the art market , it may be read as a parable for the delusion and greed which drove the world economy over the edge in 2008. In future years the contemporary art bubble may come to be seen as the epitome of the boom-times we have been living through.” Art Knowledge News

MrMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 13th, 2011, 1:09 pm 

Positor

Actually, I did also read this several times:

“With its prominent lectern, and awkward composition and perspective, this artwork has sometimes been termed almost amateurish. Indeed, it does appear to have been painted by an artist still trying to understand the tricks of perspective. Horizontally the vanishing point is precisely in the centre of the picture, vertically it is two-thirds of the way up. Another obvious mistake is the Virgin's right hand placed on a lectern which is closer to the viewer than she is.”

I also did personally meet people, and some supposed “experts” on Leonardo – and “perspective” also, who said the same thing, and my response was always:”What the hell are you talking about?” And remember, Leonardo had also met these same people, and which is why he said this:

“The abbreviators of works do injury to knowledge and to love, for love of anything is the offspring of knowledge, love being more fervent in proportion as knowledge is more certain; and this certainty springs from a thorough knowledge of all those parts which united compose the whole of that which ought to be loved...Of what use, pray, is he who in order to abridge the part of the things of which he professes to give complete information leaves out the greater part of the matters of which the whole is composed – And it seems you have performed miracles when you have spoiled the work of some ingenious mind, and you do not perceive that you are falling into the same error as does he who strips a tree of its adornment of branches laden with leaves intermingled with fragrant flowers or fruits, in order to demonstrate the suitability of the tree for making planks.”

Because, we can understand that when these people do this it is quite literally the equivalent of someone looking at Mozart's musical notation, someone who can not read musical notation, and then calling it “gibberish,” or saying that Mozart made a “mistake” by putting a note where they feel it doesn't belong, while – simultaneously, calling someone who puts their hand under their armpit; and makes farting noises, a “genius,” because of their “musical” capabilities. And remember again, this is not a simple rhetorical analogy, but the literal function:

“...Some artists, like (Wolfgang Amadeus) Mozart, find their voice indecently early, but (Jackson) Pollock was the opposite of a child prodigy, he was one of art's late great bloomers...”

But the most astonishing thing, is the fact that these exact same people in one breadth claim to be experts on Leonardo – and perspective, and in the very next breadth claim that Pollock is the pictorial equivalent of Mozart, while only “proving,” in both statements, that they know absolutely nothing about anything: pertinent to these topics. But even more astonishing is the fact that these exact same people do also – and simultaneously, continue to tell me that I don't know what it is I am talking about: as they are proving that they don't know anything about any of these concepts, except the trivial, and rote, knowledge that they have been taught, and learned from their books. And again as Leonardo did explain:

“Though I may not know, like them, how to quote the authors, I will cite something far more worthy, quoting experience mistress of their Masters. These people go about pompous and inflated, clothed and adorned not with their own labours, but with the labours of others.”

But perhaps most astonishing of all, is the fact that if they could begin to understand exactly what it is Leonardo did do; within the structure contained within The Annunciation, they would understand that he did do something which is supposed to be practically impossible to do, and which does reduce everything else: all the other concepts which they may be capable of understanding, to a ridiculously trivial level, and – again, as Leonardo did explain:

“And you think to comprehend the mind of God which embraces the whole universe, weighing and dissecting it as though you were making an anatomy. O human stupidity! Do you not perceive that you have spent your whole life with yourself and yet are not aware of that which you have in most evidence, and that is your own foolishness?”

MrMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 16th, 2011, 5:21 pm 

rrushius

Leonardo wrote:

“Seeing that I can find no subject specially useful or pleasing--since the men who have come before me have taken for their own every useful or necessary theme--I must do like one who, being poor, comes last to the fair, and can find no other way of providing himself than by taking all the things already seen by other buyers, and not taken but refused by reason of their lesser value. I, then, will load my humble pack with this despised and rejected merchandise, the refuse of so many buyers; and will go about to distribute it, not indeed in great cities, but in the poorer towns, taking such a price as the wares I offer may be worth.” Leonardo Da Vinci – The Notebooks Of Leonardo

And while I can understand that, at times, it can seem as if some of the topics, which I reference, may seem to complicate the primary concept of the visual musical equivalents, they do, nonetheless, enable me to become capable of providing the best proofs possible, as I do realize that whenever someone introduces a new concept there must be a period of transition; from novelty to accepted norm.

I don't believe that I have ever claimed to be an expert on any of these specific topics, except of course the primary concept of the visual musical equivalents, and especially I would never claim to be an expert on quantum mechanics, because as Richard Feynman said:

"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.”

But the fact of the matter is one of the key unique characteristics of quantum mechanics is the duality nature of the phenomenon, and, also, when you consider the function of the visual musical equivalents, as well as the higher cognitive function of music, you can understand that this phenomenon does indeed meet that criteria. As a fundamental frequency modulation is a “wave,” and when you become capable of experiencing the function of the visual musical equivalents, as well as the higher cognitive function of music, you must also – and simultaneously, become capable of “seeing” its: the fundamental frequency modulation, function as a “point.” As you must also see the point of its position within, both, the scale, and the perimetered central keynote theme, and also the perimetered 3-D volume of space: such as within The Annunciation, and/or any literal visual musical equivalents.

I also understand that one of the problems, in attempting to fully communicate the concept of the visual musical equivalents, is that it is a matter of differentiating between the map: the 2-D abstraction, and the actual 4-D function of the “music,” as Alfred Korzybski did explain:

“Map-territory relation: The map-territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relationship between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that 'the map is not the territory,' encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself...a specific abstraction or reaction does not capture all facets of its source, and this may limit an individual's understanding and cognitive abilities unless the two are distinguished – For example, a person who has never tasted an apple will never fully understand through language what the taste of an apple is. Only through direct experience: eating an apple, can that experience be fully understood.” Various Sources (including Wikipedia)

And because I am someone who has “tasted the apple,” or actually experienced the affect of the visual musical equivalents, I can know, firsthand, exactly what they are, and the affect that they are capable of causing. But yet, how does a person begin to define “seeing” a non-thing, of the “music,” when there is no tangible form thing there to “show” to other people? Well, that is where all the other references come in.

For instance, we can not take a photograph of a fundamental frequency modulation: a “note,” but we can subject that fundamental frequency modulation to testing on an oscilloscope. And we can then see that there is a relatively wide distance between the peaks of the crests of the waves for the “low” fundamental frequency modulations, and a relatively narrow distance between the peaks of the crest of the waves for the relatively “high” fundamental frequency modulations. We can also know, for a fact, that if you – me, or anyone, were to go outside and stand nest to a sidewalk; comprised of many individual sections, the individual section that you would be standing exactly upon would appear, and ONLY appear, to be a little bit wider than the exact next section of the sidewalk. And so, while the analogy of the sidewalk may not be perfect, it is the best one that I can think of. Now, if someone else could think of a better analogy, I would be open to suggestions, but I don't think that there is a better one. But again, the subjectivity of the analogy, does not negate the objectivity of the function.

Also, here is another explanation which I have yet to mention that can prevent the topic from becoming stagnant. Which is the fact that if you were to measure the distance between each individual section of the sidewalk, in a typical application, they would not be varied, but they would exactly appear varied, while in accordance to your position within the perimetered field. And – remember, I explained that becoming capable of experiencing the function: of the visual musical equivalents, is when a person does develop the ability to “see” the fundamental frequency modulations, functioning as the equivalent to the individual simultaneously relative sections of the sidewalk. And does also become capable of moving: within their peripheral mind, to the corresponding individual sections of the sidewalk. And also does become capable of seeing the individual fundamental frequency modulations/sections of the sidewalk/notes/velocities/points/waves also functioning as individually completed vectors and minor derivatives. Well, there is also something else that a person must become capable of “doing,” as they become capable of fully experiencing the affect of the visual musical equivalents. And which is, a person must also become capable of “maintaining” not just a single “point:” within their mind, but they must become capable of purposefully maintaining two simultaneously relative points, of: SVP-A/B, within their minds, before they can become capable of experiencing any of the higher cognitive functions.

Now, of course, this is another affect, and function; of the visual musical equivalents and also higher cognitive function of music, that, unless you have experienced it, will remain impossible to easily communicate. But, if you have experienced it, you will fully understand the function, and also understand the communication of the understanding, as experiencing it is a part of “tasting the apple.” But also, if you have experienced it you can understand that when you experience it you don't actually “visualize” the concept, or visualize any “thing,” such as: lines – dots – etc., but you do actually “see” it, and understand that an accurate analogy is to use the sidewalk/line segment analogy. But, again, unless you have experienced it, there is no more accurate way of defining it. But also again, to say that you should “visualize” any of the functions is misleading, because you don't actually visualize anything; you must become capable of “seeing” the functions, and then you can fully understand the affect of the functions. And saying that you are attempting to visualize any of these functions, is like saying that you are simply seeing the apple instead of actually “tasting” it, which is two different things.

But also you have to take into consideration exactly why I am capable of seeing it, and why others should not be expected to see it exactly as I can, until they have developed the ability. And which answers your question as to how I did develop the capability, and not by simply listening to music on a daily basis. Because, in my previous life I did spend 15 years training as a long distance runner and bicyclist, and I did spend those 15 years running – and riding, a minimal of 100 miles a week, 52 weeks a year, for 15 consecutive years. So, I did spend a minimal of 2-3 hours daily: 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year and for 15 consecutive years, going out and “practicing my scales,” and most importantly “alone,” as Leonardo did explain:

“To the end that well-being of the body may not injure that of the mind, the painter or draughtsman must remain solitary, and particularly when intent on those studies and reflections which will constantly rise up before his eye, giving materials to be well stored in the memory. While you are alone you are entirely your own [master] and if you have one companion you are but half your own, and the less so in proportion to the indiscretion of his behaviour.” Leonardo da Vinci – The Notebooks Of Leonardo

Also, I was fortunate enough to have spent the other 16 hours a day of my entire life working, and being, alone, so I could work on developing the precursory understandings for experiencing the various phenomena associated with these concepts. And, unless you are someone who has also spent 15 years of your life running and riding 100 miles a week, or actually practicing playing an instrument for hours daily, you can not be expected to be capable of experiencing it as I can. But, also, I have come to learn that there are varying degrees of understanding, and experiencing, of these concepts, as there are people who have spent their lives engaging in behaviors that will have enabled them to develop the abilities in varying degrees. But also, you don't have to be capable of fully understanding it, you only have to appreciate the fact that I can, and that I can supply the definitions, and analogies, of the functions to prove their existence. Also, if you do begin to accept their existence, and understand the functions, the more you perceive the visual musical equivalents, the more powerful they will become, and the even more you do again perceive them, the even more powerful they will become. This is part of the inherent nature of developing the precursory neural synaptic capabilities which are required to experience anything, as neuroscience has proven:

“...After birth, when the number of (synaptic) connections explodes, each of the brain's billions of neurons will forge links to thousands of others – the developing nervous system has strung the equivalent of telephone trunk lines between the right neighborhoods in the right cities. Now it has to sort out which wires belong to which house, a problem that cannot be solved by genes alone for reasons that boil down to simple arithmetic. These axons start out as a scrambled bowl of spaghetti. What sorts out the mess, scientists have established, is neural activity.” Fertile Minds – J. Madeline Nash – Time February 1997

Which is easily understood if you take into consideration the concept of a young child beginning to practice playing an instrument such as the violin. So we can know that if we were to hand a violin to a 10-year-old child, and show that child how to play scales, we can understand that if that child did practice every day for a month that child would develop both their motor-control capabilities, as well as effected neural pathways within their mind. And if they continued to practice daily their developed capability would continue to grow, and grow, and grow. And, similarly, if a person did begin to develop the basic abilities to experience the visual musical equivalents, their perceived affect would only continue to grow, and grow, and grow.

And this is also exactly why I did say that, ironically, the definition of this “intelligence” is something that previous generations would have experienced more frequently than people do today. Because previous generations would have had no choice but to do things like walk considerable distances, and as Thomas Jefferson did suggest:

“Walking is the best possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind...Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks. A strong body makes a strong mind...” Thomas Jefferson – August 19, 1785

And when the previous generations did do things like walk on a daily basis, they would have also developed the neural pathways within their minds, and central nervous systems, that are required to experience these phenomena, if not only in spite of their own selves; as they would have had no choice but to walk. Also, I believe most people know that Einstein did introduce the concept of the function of the fourth dimension, and a space/time continuum, but I don't know if many people fully realize that he did also “practice his scales”:

“Einstein's mother, Pauline, was an accomplished pianist and wanted her son to love music too, so she started him on violin lessons when he was six years old. Unfortunately, at first, Einstein hated playing the violin...When Einstein was 13-years old, he suddenly changed his mind about the violin when he heard the music of Mozart. With a new passion for playing, Einstein continued to play the violin until the last few years of his life...” 10 Things You Didn't Know About Einstein – Jennifer Rosenberg

And that his practicing playing of the violin did help him to develop the abilities to develop his theory of Relativity. Also, because of advances in scientific research, we can now also know that the mind of man “contains” four basic geometric figures:

“The equivalent of the machine language of the brain (is) very complex electromagnetic field configurations...The mind of man contains only so many visions; four basic, recurrent geometrical forms...” Judith Hooper – The 3-Pound Universe

And because of those same scientific advances, we can now also know that the definition of “life” is “patterns in space/time:”

“One way to think about this view is to imagine spatial relations as a kind of universal language that the brain uses no matter what specific language (we) are using at the moment...(George) Lakoff believes that he can tie this mental language to the physical structure of the brain and its maps: 'When you think about dynamic structure, you begin to think that there are a lot of things analogous with life, (but) life is more patterns in space/time than it is a set of particular physical things.” Jim Jubak – In The Image Of The Brain

And so we can understand that what Einstein did do was, first, develop the precursory neural pathways, within his mind and while being aided by “practicing his scales,” which enabled him to become capable of “seeing,” and/or understanding, reality, and he did then explain, while using analogies, what he did become capable of seeing within his mind.

So we can understand that the function of the analogies is to become capable of simplifying the communication of the developed capability to “see” reality, and, sometimes, some of the analogies can be difficult to accept at first. But, of course, if there is someone else who has also experienced the function of the visual musical equivalents, I suppose we could also look towards those analogies to help to communicate the understandings. The problem is, I believe that if all you ever did was read Leonard's notes, you would realize that my analogies explain it much more clearly.

For instance, in the demonstration which begins this post I explained that “points” are formed at the perimeters where the projections intersect with the perimeters, and which completes the function of the projections functioning as “lines,” which in the demonstration is rather evident. And remember also, I did explain that this function exists because we do now know that we contain specific neurons within our minds for identifying these elements; of “faces” and “hands,” so this scientific understanding does enable us to “prove” the function. But in Leonardo's notes, this is how he defined this function:

“Nothing can be found in nature that is not a part of science, like continuous quantity, that is to say geometry, which, commencing with the surface of bodies is found to have its origins in lines...The point is the first principle of geometry, and no other thing can be found either in nature or in the human mind that can give rise to the point. Point is said to be that which cannot be divided into any part. Line is said to be made by moving the point along.” Leonardo da Vinci – The Notebooks Of Leonardo

But which doesn't really tell us much does it?

So, instead of concentrating on what it is I seem to be doing wrong, perhaps we can concentrate on what I have done right, in attempting to communicate the understanding while employing present day analogies, and while advancing it beyond that which even Leonardo couldn't easily do.

MrMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on October 17th, 2011, 12:33 pm 

MrMikeludo wrote:
So, instead of concentrating on what it is I seem to be doing wrong, perhaps we can concentrate on what I have done right, in attempting to communicate the understanding while employing present day analogies, and while advancing it beyond that which even Leonardo couldn't easily do.


MrMikeludo, at the cost of appearing mean-spirited: it is difficult to understand what someone has done right without first sorting out what they have done wrong. The problem is that sometimes things might be counter-intuitive, and so, if based on even small portions of the wrong information, the conclusions too might be wrong--not only that, but sometimes, depending on the nature of the object or system under investigation, one small and apparently insignificant but cumulative value might cause the whole system to collapse. In addition, it seems that you are attempting to prove your findings scientifically, however science does not progress that way--either you fix what is shown to be wrong, or you don't progress at all--even in your system there seem to be too many free values and variables, which would prevent your "experiments" from being reproduced.

In any case, I have no intention to jump here in defense of science, for first of all, it needs no defending, and second, though it seems that I am the best informed of the two as regards its method, it is you who seem to worship it. One last comment then, would be permitted: if you want to understand its method better, you must also master its language, its jargon. I could give many examples of what in your posts hurts the ear of one familiar with its language, but I'll start with a simple one first:

MrMikeludo wrote:This is part of the inherent nature of developing the precursory neural synaptic capabilities which are required to experience anything, as neuroscience has proven


It would be better to say "as neuroscience shows, or indicates, or suggests," or any other such expression, for it has proven nothing. The word proof can be used either in math, or on radio talk shows where they say, that science has proved that sexual fantasies are good for the individual's well being etc. etc. A stupid talk show I happened to catch the other day. Now it seems, we can fantasize more freely with the permission of science. A certain psychologist had found irrefutable evidence that it would be good to fantasize. An unexpected help from unexpected quarters. How nice, one need not be ashamed of one's fantasies any more, it's normal, Dr. X says. However, wait and see, within a week another prominent psychologist (who knows, maybe Dr. Hare will get his hands on this too) will find out that shame too is good for you, therefore, a fine balance between fantasizing and shame is needed. With which we're back to where we started, if you fantasize too much you're a pervert, if you have too much shame you're a prude... It's just that now we know that there is a scientific basis to being a pervert or a prude we didn't know before. Now we are this much more enlightened. In any event, what I want to point out is that the word proof, can only be confused for the word "shows" "indicates" or "suggests" by the masses who take them as synonymous. There then, is one first problem that we know you have to fix: stop throwing around the findings of some particular field in science as ultimate and unquestionable proof. I am not saying don't make use of them, but don't use them like they are used in mass media. In addition, the philosophical implications of what science finds do not themselves depend on the individual scientist. As Ray Brassier says:

Ray Brassier, "Alien Theory: The Decline of Materialism in the Name of Matter" (2001) (footnote 9, page 11) wrote:Assenting to the irrecusable philosophical consequences of scientific research does not mean assenting to the individual scientist’s philosophical interpretation of his or her own work.
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 20th, 2011, 5:49 pm 

rrushius:

I can understand how reading something that is not written in a lyrical manner may be taxing at times, and seem to be almost even counterintuitive to the intrinsic nature of a forum. But I think that you have to take into consideration, as I have already pointed out, that if you were to read the original notebooks of Leonardo you would indeed find that they are actually unreadable, as all of the translators of his writings have explained:

“Leonardo tended to use many ands, whichs, hences, becauses, so forths, and etceteras...The handwriting is so peculiar that it requires considerable practice to read even a few detached phrases, much more to solve with any certainty the numerous difficulties of alternative readings, and to master the sense as a connected whole...Leonardo made use of an orthography peculiar to himself; he had a fashion of amalgamating several short words into one long one, or, again, he would quite arbitrarily divide a long word into two separate halves; added to this there is no punctuation whatever to regulate the division and construction of the sentences, nor are there any accents--and the reader may imagine that such difficulties were almost sufficient to make the task seem a desperate one to a beginner.”

Also again and of course, I am not saying that I am as intelligent as Leonardo da Vinci, or anything to that effect, but I have come to understand that it is actually a matter of, well, choosing between being capable of producing the visual musical equivalents, or not. Because, personally, I have come to learn that the only reason I did become capable of producing the visual musical equivalents is because I did get kicked out of school in the 10th grade, and was, therefore, afforded the opportunity to live what I define as an unfettered existence, but what most might call a typical academic existence. In addition, I was offered college scholarships, for track, but instead chose to pursue a more direct approach towards learning, and, again as Leonardo did explain:

“Though I may not know, like them, how to cite the authors, I will cite something far more worthy quoting experience mistress of their masters.”

Which, of course, doesn't mean that I have a problem with academia, or people who are the product of academia, but just that if I had stayed in school, and learned how to write properly; as I was actually kicked out of English class, I know that I would have never been able to produce the visual musical equivalents. So for me it is simply a matter of choosing between having produced the visual musical equivalents, or not. I am happy with my choice.

I also have no problem with you pointing out my grammatical faux pas, or idiosyncrasies, and I am sure that I will try to remember to take into consideration your advice in the future.

I do still believe, however, that if you treat my posts as regular posts, and while expecting them to be more in keeping with what you, or anyone else on a forum, are accustomed to reading, well, I think you will then, more or less, miss the forest for the trees, and not appreciate the unique nature of what it is I am proposing in general.

But this I have also learned purely through experience. Because I have learned, by seeing things such as this:

“Art; A Scientist in His Attic Ponders, What Does Music Look Like: FOR centuries, composers have been trying to find a visual equivalent to music, to find a way to paint sound or to play colors. The list of those who have tried includes Scriabin, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky, Messiaen and Robert Emmett Mueller of Roosevelt...Artist, electrical engineer, inventor, author, violinist, puppet maker, retired Bell Labs scientist, husband, father and wizard, Mr. Mueller, 75, has been creating art and dreaming up inventions in the Oz-like precincts of his attic in Roosevelt for decades. His creations are wildly varied...His patents include one he co-developed in 1948 to create video art by brushing a television screen, and he has designs for hundreds of inventions that now repose in his filing cabinet...And there is that idea for playing art like music -- with no sound heard -- that Mr. Mueller calls Visic. It would be played on a digital piano, which would be hooked up to a video screen. He wrote about Visic recently in Leonardo, the Journal of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology. 'I am not aware of anyone who has come up with a system quite like this,' said Pamela Grant-Ryan, the managing editor...'I was hunting for a visual equivalent to a single tone,' Mr. Mueller said. 'When you hit a tone, it sounds and then it disappears, and if you hit a second tone at the same time they come together and create a new quality. So I was trying to figure out what is the equivalent in visual terms on a television screen? I thought, what if one hit something and started a band of color moving and then it disappeared and trailed off as a tone does in the ear? O.K., and what if when you hit two tones and they both move across, and if you hit a chord, a whole bunch of them will come -- and what if you make them pointillist so that the colors can interact, blend like in a chord?'...” The New York Times – Margo Nash – February 13, 2000

There is actually no one, in the entire world, who has proposed anything like what it is I am proposing, or even begun to communicate the understanding which I have communicated, and experienced, either. Even to the point where no one even knows what the visual equivalent of a “single tone,” and/or note, is, as I have experienced and explained the function of seeing a single note/fundamental frequency modulation just to begin with. And this is not some obscure, and isolated reference, this is universally applicable, as there is no one who has proposed any theory, or understanding and except of course for the geometric music theory, which is even remotely similar to mine.

And, again, the only reason I have developed that understanding is because I do not have a formal education. But and again, I would rather have the understanding, gained through my personal experiencing of the phenomena, than have a formal education and not have the understanding. I just believe that people should appreciate the understandings which I have introduced, and also appreciate the fact that the only reason they exist is because I approached the subject from a different viewpoint, and did learn how to “think outside the box,” but only because I did actually exist outside of that same box.

Nevertheless, the theory is correct, and the formulas are all mathematically verifiable. So the “proofs” that I am talking about are indeed mathematical proofs, not mere “suggestions,” or “indications,” as you may propose. Such as the fact that the demonstration of the structure contained within The Annunciation is a demonstration of a concordant polyphonically structured whole; of a non-tangible form geometrical equation, effectually functioning as, while remaining subservient to, a hierarchically structured whole. This is not subjective, it is a provable fact: the demonstration is the “mathematical proof.” As the word concord does mean harmony, the word polyphony does mean consisting of two, or more, independent yet harmonizing voices or movements, and the word equation does mean an expression of equality between quantities or movements, all of which is mathematically proven by the demonstration and the explanation of the purposefully formed structure.

Even though I know it wasn't your primary intention, the latter part of your post seems like it should be in the Pornography post by Eighty. But I do believe that it is exactly as Leonardo did explain when he said this:

“One's vices only offend a few people, those who feel an instinctive repugnance. Many men hate their fathers and loose their friends when the latter upbraid them for their faults, contrary examples can have no affect on them.”

As I believe that a person who is capable of feeling shame, for engaging in shameful behavior, will experience shame, but a person who is incapable of feeling shame will not, for the same behavior. And even though I know that you probably weren't being completely serious, in regards to relating a lack of shame with psychopathic behavior, this is one of the primary behaviors of psychopaths, as Dr. hare did explain:

“When caught in a lie or challenged with the truth, they are seldom perplexed or embarrassed, they simply change their stories or attempt to rework the facts so that they appear to be consistent with the lie...The psychopath is like an infant, absorbed in his own needs, vehemently demanding satiation...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

But do you know what else psychopaths can't do, they can't experience any of the affects that I have been defining, or any of the affects that can be experienced by perceiving The Annunciation. And it is because, as Dr. Hare does explain, psychopaths can only “see” a single point while at any one point within simultaneously relative space/time:

“Psychopaths are very good at giving their undivided attention to things that interest them most and ignoring other things. Some clinicians have likened this process to a narrow-beam search-light that focuses on only one thing at (a single point in) time...And their Mental Packages are not only small but two-dimensional, devoid of emotional meaning.” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

And the scientific research seems to suggest exactly why. Because psychopaths seem to have developed a cognitive disability, one which has left them only capable of functioning as young children; who are incapable of experiencing empathy, or who are also incapable of experiencing any of the functions which I have been defining. And as the neuroscience seems to confirm:

“There are similarities between EEG's – recorded brain waves, of adult psychopaths and those of young children, (while displaying symptoms) including egocentricity, impulsivity, selfishness, and unwillingness to delay gratification. To some investigators this suggests little more than an developmental delay. Harvard psychologist Robert Kegan, for example, has argued that behind (the psychopath's) 'Mask of Sanity' lies not insanity but a young child of nine or ten...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

Also, I believe that this information is important because it is in reference to a scientific study, one involving a quantifiable method; of the “recorded brain waves,” and is not simply the opinion, even if it may be an educated opinion, of anyone. And this same quantifiable method also confirms the fact that these people; the defined psychopaths – or anyone who has experienced a “developmental delay,” cannot experience any of the functions which I have been defining, because their minds have experienced a dysfunction, or have simply never fully developed:

“Psychopaths seem to know the dictionary meanings of words but fail to comprehend or appreciate their emotional value or significance (while functioning as if) 'He knows the words but not the music' – Recent laboratory research provides convincing support for these clinical observations. This research is based on evidence that, for normal people, neutral words generally convey less information than do neutral words: A word such as PAPER has a dictionary meaning, whereas a word such as DEATH has a dictionary meaning plus emotional meaning and unpleasant connotations. The emotional content of a word seems to give a sort of 'turbo-boost' to the decision making process. At the same time, the emotional words evoke larger brain responses than do neutral words. When we used this laboratory test (with people) the non-psychopaths showed the normal pattern of response, but the psychopaths did not: They responded to emotional words as if they were neutral words – to a psychopath, a word is just is a word.” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscience

Except of course the application is exactly backwards, in regards to the perception of the visual musical equivalents, as the visual musical equivalents are capable of causing a “pleasant” affect, or a melancholy – etc., affect. But this same scientific evidence suggests that there is an objective reason why a large percentage of the world's population cannot experience the affects of the visual musical equivalents. Because the visual musical equivalents represent the pinnacle of this same basic cognitive capability. And if a person cannot experience even the elementary level of this associative cognitive capability, they certainly will be never be able to experience the pinnacle of the capability.

But this is why I appreciate the scientific approach towards this topic. Because we could speculate, in a philosophical manner, all day long, about whether any particular work of art in any medium should actually be considered art or not. But because of scientific studies such as these we can understand that some people will never be capable of experiencing the affect of the visual musical equivalents, or be capable of experiencing any uniquely humanistic emotions period. But this same scientific approach does enable us to prove, by the applied function of the math, that it doesn't matter that certain people cannot be affected by the visual musical equivalents, their existence is not subject to the dysfunction of the world. But which is why I do now not simply show the visual musical equivalents randomly, and
do continue to look for audiences that are more receptive towards their existence, because I do know that a large percentage of the masses has been affected.

MrMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby Positor on October 21st, 2011, 9:19 am 

MrMikeludo wrote:There is actually no one, in the entire world, who has proposed anything like what it is I am proposing, or even begun to communicate the understanding which I have communicated, and experienced, either. Even to the point where no one even knows what the visual equivalent of a “single tone,” and/or note, is, as I have experienced and explained the function of seeing a single note/fundamental frequency modulation just to begin with. And this is not some obscure, and isolated reference, this is universally applicable, as there is no one who has proposed any theory, or understanding and except of course for the geometric music theory, which is even remotely similar to mine.

Can you develop your theory in more detail? I would be interested to see, for example, graphs which relate musical pitch, loudness etc to visual shape, size, colour etc. Or mathematical formulae from which a two- or three-dimensional shape can be derived from a particular musical note, and vice versa. Artists could then use these to produce geometrical/musical art of the kind you value. If this is done scientifically, it ought to be possible to produce new paintings based on similar principles to those you discern in The Annunciation.

Would a suitably programmed computer be better able to produce such art than a human alone, since computers can process much larger amounts of detailed information?
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on October 21st, 2011, 11:46 am 

MrMikeludo wrote:Nevertheless, the theory is correct, and the formulas are all mathematically verifiable. So the “proofs” that I am talking about are indeed mathematical proofs, not mere “suggestions,” or “indications,” as you may propose. Such as the fact that the demonstration of the structure contained within The Annunciation is a demonstration of a concordant polyphonically structured whole; of a non-tangible form geometrical equation, effectually functioning as, while remaining subservient to, a hierarchically structured whole. This is not subjective, it is a provable fact: the demonstration is the “mathematical proof.” As the word concord does mean harmony, the word polyphony does mean consisting of two, or more, independent yet harmonizing voices or movements, and the word equation does mean an expression of equality between quantities or movements, all of which is mathematically proven by the demonstration and the explanation of the purposefully formed structure.


Yes. What Positor said. Time to move on to the mathematical formulas and proofs you have produced. Graphs would be great, too.
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 24th, 2011, 1:53 pm 

Positor
rrushius

I actually have some diagrams, illustrations, etc. I will have to try to figure out how to get them from there to here.

MrMikeludo
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on July 2nd, 2017, 6:54 pm 

dandelion - The 'demonstration' is at the beginning.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Previous

Return to Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests