What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

[çağla]

Positor:

Art represents universal truth by means of geometrical symmetries. In a painting, these exist at a 2-dimensional level on the canvas, while suggesting 3-dimensional symmetries between the depicted objects and also 4-dimensional symmetries in an implied spacetime framework. Only The Annunciation achieves this perfectly.

You nailed it.

Positor:(Thankyou.) mtbturtle: rrushius

That's, almost, exactly it, and to the point where: What is so hard to understand about that?

Because, we all know, that symmetry is the definition of beauty. So, obviously, dynamic symmetry is the definition of intellectual beauty. This is dynamic symmetry, therefore this is intellectual - cognitive, beauty.

MrMikeludo

Come on MrMikeludo, I've been repeatedly trying to point out that

-You've been taking art as if it is some sort of a law of nature/universe -because the only "universal truth" can only be that and any other understanding is fantasy.

-You've been trying to analyze it as if it has some rules in its nature and when applied, "the perfect art" can be accomplished. And that idea's been obsolete, because there is no such merit for the greatest art or artist.

-And the fact that all these conditions reflect an arthistorical theory, an approach belongs to a certain period, which sees the truth as beauty. And that it's been obsolete for a long time, because again the art, or the art work doesn't have to carry the conditions of beauty or being true.

You have been bombarding me with quotes from Leonardo -even though I tried to tell why that wouldn't work even in your way of understanding- and all over from researchers of different areas, you have been asking me if I tried your experiment -with an example tampered on after its first creation- ask scientific explanations and you haven't once said "Yes this is how I see art or no I haven't" and now you say: "That's, almost, exactly it, and to the point where: What is so hard to understand about that?" ?!

Now, I doubt your 'sincerity' or suspect that may be you haven't read my posts at all.

By the way, on discussing something related to art from Kant, why not his definition but his understanding of time and space first? "...Kant defines art as “a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication.” (Kant, Critique of Judgment, Guyer translation, section 44)). ..." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/

PS I just realised I've been spelling your name incorrectly, sorry about that. I guess it reminds me the game mikado which I loved as a child.

[MrMikeludo]

rrushius:

I'm sorry, but I did not mean to imply that you had said that all birth marks were beautiful. But, rather, and I'm sure you'll agree with me, if an attractive person has one, it may not much matter, as it may cause people to first notice that person, but if an unattractive person has one, it may just add to their ugliness: such as a mole on a witch's nose. (Last night I saw a picture of an athlete who had one on his face, and it looked especially akward. I realised it was because of exactly "where" it was on his face, as it pulled my eye to an awkward point on his face: kind of midway between his eyes and mouth, which are our usual points of interest when we look at other people. My niece's is just below her eye, so it draws your attention even more towards her pretty eyes.) What I mean by adding an air of mystery, is that when my niece was younger other children would ask: "What is that," and some would even ask their parent's if they could "get" one too, and it continues to this day.

I'm not sure what you mean by:

"But since you take symmetry as the definition of beauty, then, how do you explain the attraction with mystery, spoil, and ruin?"

Because, firstly I would like to point out that I believe that mystery, may, or may not have anything to do with "spoil" or "ruin," so those concepts are not necessarily intrinsically related. But, surely, you don't mean to imply that spoil and ruin are in some way "attractive" to a normal, and intelligent person, but rather only to people who have begun to experience some type of dysfunction, because, if that weren't so, well, we would't be here. Because remember, I did point out, that:

"Dr. Candace Pert: If you were designing a robot vehicle to walk into the future and survive, you'd wire it up so that the behavior that ensured the survival of the species would be naturally reinforcing...Even bacteria have a little hierarchy of primitive likes and dislikes. They're little robots that go for sugar at all costs and away from salt..."

Human beings have a genitic predisposition to be affected by the two extremes of basic biological functioning capabilities in two polar opposite ways, and we possess irritable receptor cells that are capable of responding to the two basic functioning capabilities which are encoded within the DNA of all living things, and of: pleasure and pain, or: suger and salt, or: harmony and discord, or: life and death. So human beings are not supposed to "like," or be "attracted to," things such as "spoil," and "ruin." But, if you can remember I also said that rather people can begin to experience a dysfunction, and then begin to become capable of being affected by all stimuli in ever decreasing levels of capabilities:

"Heavy users (of dopamine inducing phenomena) are doing more damage to their brains than scientists had thought - Nearly a quarter of a class of molecules that help people feel pleasure and reward were knocked out...Dopamine is a brain chemical that regulates movement pleasure and motivation. When the dopamine system goes awry, people lose their excitment for life..."

So that, when people begin to experience this phenomena, they begin to become capable of being affected by ALL stimuli: both pleasure and pain, in ever decreasing levels of capabilities: as they can begin to need more and more "powerful" stimuli to become capable of causing some kind of affect at all. (This phenomena explains a post by Mossling: Willful ignorance of pain at the root of human problems.) And so, not only can they not be affected by all things beautiful, including intellectual beauty and dynamic symmmetry, and even simple symmetry, they can begin to "like," and too indeed even "need," exposure to things that a normal human being would not like: such as "spoil" and "ruin." (Too, think of Adolf Hitler and what he created: discord - spoil - ruin, and the fact that Hitler had a dysfunction which not only did not let him experience harmony, and beauty, but allowed him to "enjoy" the polar opposite. Also I don't know if you know it or not, but Hitler was addicted to opiate dopamine inducing drugs.)

As to your supermax example:

"...it simply is not beautiful (regardless of its symmetry)..."

Well, of course, not all things symmetrical are intrinsically beautiful, as they may possess other characteristics which can detract from the symmetry, or beauty. But, as a whole, human beings do possess a genetic predisposition to "like" symmetry, and harmonious beauty. And too even to the point where there have been recent studies on young, infant, children, who have shown such a genetic predisposition:

"Facial Diversity and Infant Preferences for Attractive Faces...Three studies examined preferences for attractive faces in four types of faces...young infants (do) visually discriminate among adult faces based on attractiveness...(and) symmetry..."

As to your statement that:

"As, I hope it has become obvious, when the whole symmetry thing is explained so dryly, it loses its appeal. There's no mystery to it..."

Well, actually I believe that the complete opposite is true. Because, first of all, in regards to "mystery," you can't get any more mysterious than what I have been explaining in regards to Leonardo's The Annunciation, as it has remained a mystery for over 5 hundred years. And, too, in the entire history of the world there is only the single one, so, again, you can not get much more mysterious than that. And, also, it: the dynamically symmetrical geometric theory, does define the function of Mozart when he said this:

"In the night when I cannot sleep, thoughts crowd into my head as easily as you could whish. Whence and how do they come? I do not know and I have nothing to do with it. Those which please me I keep in my head and hum them...Once I have my theme, another melody comes, linking itself with the first one, in accordance with the composition as a whole: the counterpoint, the part of each instrument and all the melodic fragments at last produce the complete work. Then my fire is on fire with inspiration...It does not come to me successively, but in its entirety, (so that) my mind siezes it as a glance of my eye..."

And there has never, and still is not, been anyone who has been capable of defining exactly what that means, in the history of the world, so, again, it would be impossible for it to be any more mysterious than that. And, too, this is the definition of intellectual symmetry: dynamic symmetry, and that which is only accessable to the intellect: and NOT simply accessed by anyone who would like to have it, so it must be earned, and, again, there could not be anything more mysterious than that.

In addition, I believe I know exactly what you are referring to, when you say it is not mysterious, but, I think if you consider it, in the context of what we are talking about, you can understand that it is not what you may think it is. Because I believe that what you are saying, is that you would rather look at something that has "pizazz," or lots of "interesting," thus "unexplored" - like the abondened labyrinth in Algiers, things associated with it, and which can surprise you when you see them, and as opposed to a dull square, or some other simple geometric shape. Except, remember, I am not talking about looking at some tangible geometric forms, I am talking about "seeing" dynamic symmetry, and that which is, exactly, not easily accessed, so it exactly can remain a mystery, and exactly because it is not accessable to everyone.

As to your statement that we can not know "how" music affects us:

"And who knows what exactly appeals to us in music and what it is that moves in us when we listen to it..."

Well, we can know exactly "what" it is that "moves" us in music, as it is biochemicals:

"...Soothing musical notes help increase the Serotonin levels of the brain...(Fast pace) music helps to secrete endorphins....(In addition) listening to music causes the brain to release dopamine."

And too, as I think I know that you might be inclined to think that this understanding also removes the mystery from music. Except, no. And because, when you consider the history of music, you can understand that there are an infinite amount of songs, with no two exactly the same, but each capable of affecting people because of these biochemicals. But, mysteriously, only certain people have been able to create what can be called masterpieces, and even though everyone knows the basic formula. It is rather like considering the structure of a house, which is built in accordance to structural rules, but there are many different types of houses, all following the same basic rule, but, yet, some are attractive, and beautiful, and some are not: they - builders, all know the "formula," but only certain builders can really understand it, and create tangible form from those rules. Well, music creates non-tangible form from the same basic rules, and some get it, and some do not, and THAT is the mystery.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

Cagla:

I am sorry, I did NOT mean to imply that Positor "got" something thet neither you, nor anyone else on this forum, was capable of getting. But rather that Positor specifically answered a post challenging someone to put it succintly, and then Positor did exactly that. I was rather caught up in the moment, I let my emotion take over for a moment, and I did NOT mean any disrespect to you, or any other person on this forum. As I do, very sincerely, appreciate everyone's input.

Unfortunately, I have just found out that my internet access is going to down for a while, so I can not now respond to the rest of your post, but I will as soon as my access is restored.

Again: Thankyou for your input, as my attempt is to learn how to communicate it to as many different people as possible, so I appreciate everyone's input.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

owleye:

I have just found out that my internet access is going to be down for a while, so I did not want you to think that I am ignoring you.

I will respond as soon as my access is restored.

Thankyou: MrMikeludo

[rrushius]

MrMikeludo, I think you are completely bypassing the implications of what I meant when I gave the example of the birthmark. If used in the context of symmetry the birthmark breaks it because it usually is either on the left of the face or on the right, and assuming that the person has not two birthmarks at exactly the same coordinates in both sides of the face it then is not symmetrical. Admittedly, a face with two birthmarks in perfect symmetry like that would be awkward. And even if the birthmark was right in the middle of the face, which again, would not break the symmetry, I don’t think it would in any way enhance its beauty. So, though you are speaking of dynamic symmetry, I suggest we get out of the way the simple symmetry first, and then jump on to higher and more complex ideas. If symmetry is what is responsible for our notions of beauty, then it should be beautiful even in its lower forms, not only in the higher and more dynamic levels, because the more dynamic something is, the more factors you have to account for.

In addition, when you speak about dysfunctionality in psychological or biological, or even biochemical and neurological terms, and then couple this with notions of what is normal as if “normal” was ever clearly defined, you make this completely and utterly a discourse of opinion. I found your example of Hitler amusing here, since though as you say, he created discord, spoil, and ruin, he based that on what he thought ought to be normal, better, and higher. What you are saying basically, is that either everyone perceives beauty in the way that you do, or they must not be normal—the easiest way out of difficulties.

Also, when you cite scientific evidence especially, please provide the right references if possible. You have said enough times that these ideas may not really be suitable for discussion in a forum, however, you are yourself treating and expounding on them as if they did not deserve more careful explanation. In addition, you should be able to defend a conclusion even without basing it entirely on other studies—rather those studies should come more as an aid to give a quick example. This is not to deter you from explaining your theory in any way you want, but keep in mind also that you are posting in the philosophy forum: here you are bound to have your theory questioned more in terms of your starting assumptions, rather than the “scientific details.” I suggest you try the details in the science forum, maybe anything science or alternative theories? I am very curious to see how your theory should be met by the scientific community, and you should not suppose before hand that in that community they know nothing about painting or music. I hope you try it, and good luck if you do :)

[MrMikeludo]

owleye: And others too:

Very quickly, before I lose my access, I wanted to propose something funny for you to think about: It is how we can become blinded to something even though we may be exposed to it day, after day, after day. I just realised, even though I have seen it dozens of times, that the "picture" for this forum is "The School of Athens," by Raphael. And this: the non-tangible geometric form of The Annunciation, is exactly what this is all about: how that "structure" can remain blind to us, even though we "see" it day, after day, after day.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

rruhsis:

I must admit, I have no formal education and, truth be told, for most of my life I had never even read a book. I also spent most of my life listening to music pretty much 18 hours a day, and not simply in a passive manner, but trying to understand music's function, and believing that, someday, I might decide to try to replicate that function visually, and so I did. I spent 5 years directly trying to do that, and, after 5 years of working towards that ends on a daily basis, I did become capable of doing it. Then, after believing that I had already experienced the difficult part, I learned that most, but not all, did not understand what it was I was trying to convey. At that point in time I was friends with someone who brought me to a book store with her, where I found a copy of Leonardo's notes, so I began to read it and did then say to myself:"This sounds like the things that I'm trying to explain, but simply can't verbalize." So I bought that book, and then began to buy some more. Prior to this experience, my basic impression of philosophy was, pretty much, that it was something that had nothing to do with me. But then I read about how Raphael had paid homage to Leonardo, by chosing him as a model for Plato, in his School of Athens, and as is a matter of historical fact:

"School of Athens: In the center of the fresco (are) the two undisputed main subjects: Plato and Aristotle - Plato holds the Timaeus, (Raphael chose) Leonardo da Vinci as his model for Plato..."

And I thought to myself: PLato? But Plato was a philospher, how could Plato possibly have anything to do with Leonardo da Vinci, who said this:

"Let no man who is not a mathematician read the elements of my work."

So I did then buy a copy of Plato's Timaeus, and his Laws, and I did then also begin to understand exactly why Raphael did chose Leonardo as his model for Plato. Because I did then also learn that there are two opposing schools of philosophy; the Platonic school of understanding, which does believe in absolutes: truth - beauty - harmony - nature - order, and as is also a matter of fact:

"In the Timeaus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe. Plato is deeply impressed with the order and beauty he observes in the universe, and his project in the dialogue is to explain that order and beauty, (a) mathematical order..."

And the polar opposite school of understanding, which is the sophistic school of understanding, and which believes that there is no such thing, and that everything is "relative," and as is also a matter of historical fact:

"...Some scholars argue that the Sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge. The Sophists believed that the whole truth is relative to the individual (and that) there can be no absolute truth..."

And since I am not familiar with any of these philosophers, from PLato's time, how about if we call this the Nietzshe, or Kierkegard, school of philosophy:

"Kierkegard - existentialism: existential philosophers often focused more on what they believed was subjective - as opposed to analyzing objective knowledge: science..."

So, let us say that I subscribe to the Platonic school of philosophy, and you subscribe to the Kierkegard school of philosophy. And, I don't know if anyone else thought about, but I did. I mean the fact that whoever formated this forum chose to use Raphael's School of Athens, as their picture for the intro to the: Philosophy chat forum. The School of Athens, and wherein their is not just the one, but both exact concepts which I subscribe to: Plato and Leonardo da Vinci in one image, and too actually "as" one also. And then I also thought about how whoever formated this "art" forum chose to use Leonardo da Vinci's The Mona Lisa as the picture for the intro to the: Art chat forum. And so then I thought about that some more also. And then I came to a conclusion, and I realised that not only is this the appropriate place for this dialogue, but, I think, I don't know if there is a more appropriate place for it in the entire world, and if you can think of a better place, I would like to hear of it.

I mean, isn't what this is all supposed to be about, two opposing, and diametrically opposed, viewpionts, discussing their postulations in an intelligent manner, and attempting to prove those viewpoints in one way or another? And also, I don't know if you were being serious, or not, when you suggested that I propose these concepts in a science, or math, or physics, forum, but do you really believe that this would be novel to them? I mean, remember, this is the philosophy/art: "School of Athens/Plato/Leonardo da Vinci/Mona Lisa," forum, and we are talking about Leonardo da Vinci, and have you ever read Leonardo's notes, wherein there is this:

"Here no one hazards guesses as to whether two threes makes more or less than six, or whether the angles of a triangle are less than two right angles. Here all guesswork remains destroyed in eternal silence, and which is not possible with the delusiory sciences of the wholly cerebral kind...True sciences are those which have penetrated through the senses as a result of experience and thus silencing the tongues of disputants, not feeding investigators on dreams but always proceeding successively from primary truths and established principles, in a proper order towards their conclusion. This may be witnessed in the principles of mathematics, that is to say, number and measure, termed arithmetic and geometry, which deal with discontinious and continious quantities with the utmost truth."

And too Leonardo da Vinci, who did also say this:

"And it seems that you have performed miracles when you have spoiled the work of some ingenious mind, and do you 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."

And exactly what he meant by that: As there were, and are, people who look at The Annunciation, and say:"It's shows - it's about, The Angel Gabrial - The Virgin Mary; the garden, the trees - etc.," and who: EXACTLY, leave out: of the definition, the defined non-tangible form structure - the defined dynamic symmetry, that is what it is "about." And this actually enraged Leonardo, when people did this.
And too Leonardo da Vinci, who created pure: mathematically verifiable - there it is right there: PUT A RULER ON IT, dynamic symmetry, do you really believe that the "physics," or "math," people would have a problem with that, these people:

"Symmetry is beautiful - especially to physicists. In physics, space and time are governed by three principles of symmetry..."

"To tell the truth, symmetry is stunning...For whatever reason, people find symmetry beautiful - whether in the mathematically perfect spirals of snail shells, the harmonies in music, the well-ordered arrangement of diamond crystals, or the multifacted reflections in kaleidscopes, or decorative tiles..."

"Mathematical Beauty: Many mathematicians derive aesthetic pleasure from their work, and from mathematics in general. They express this pleasure by describing mathematics as beautiful...Bertrand Russell expressed this sense of mathematical beauty in these words: 'Mathematics, rightly viewed, possesses not only truth, but supreme beauty..."

"Beautiful symmetry provides glimpse into quantum world..."

"Symmetry in Nature: Mathematics is all around us. As we discover more and more about our environment and our surroundings we see that nature can be described mathematically. The beauty of a flower, the majesty of a tree, even the rocks upon which we walk can exhibit nature's sense of symmetry..."

I highly doubt that. But, please, do tell all of the physics, and math, and science people to consider the postulation which I have proposed. I would like to hear their viewpoint on it.

And, again, I would like to emphasize that I did not chose The School of Athens, as the picture for the intro to this forum, someone else did, and I did not chose The Mona Lisa as the picture for the art forum, someone else did, but, please, don't make me feel as if I am imposing my will upon you, or anyone else, as I believe that I DO deserve to be here, as I am championing the concepts which they claimed were the "focal point" of this forum, not me.

And too, and of course, perhaps I would feel differently, if they had chosen a picture of Nietzshe for the intro to the philosophy forum, and a Picasso Cubist picture as the intro for the art forum, as this: "relativity," was the philosophy of "Cubism," remember:

"...They wanted to introduce the concept of 'relativity' (while) a Cubist painting is painted from many different viewpoints simultaneously..."

But they didn't, they chose the pictures, and any intelligent person could only suppose also the concepts associated with those people: Plato and Leonardo da Vinci. Why should I be made to feel as if I have done something wrong; if I was following their lead, I shouldn't.

And, I must admit, that I am having trouble trying to grasp exactly what it is you are trying to convey by the example of the "birthmark." As I thought that you were saying that an attractive person could have a birthmark and still be attractive, in spite of the birthmark, or in addition to the birthmark? I don't understand. But what I mean, is this: The presence of a birthmark on a person's face doesn't "break the symmetry" of the "structure" of that person's face: The symmetrical cheekbones - symmetrical eyes - symmetrical lips - etc., but rather compliments that symmetrical structure. Consider if someone were to buid a house, and build a symmetrical front facade, and then put a light next to the front door. The placement of the lamp doesn't break the symmetry of the facade; it just adds a touch of accessory to it. Or better yet, look again at the "structure" of The Annunciation, and then realise that there exists elements which are in the picture frame that aren't a part of that structure: the book on the lectern - etc., but when you focus upon the symmetry those things "dissappear" into the background: as you "see" only the symmetry of the structure.

But, perhaps more importantly I never said that there shouldn't exist other, non-symmetrical, things around us, which we can also enjoy, but rather we can also enjoy the symmetrical things, just in a different way, as variety is the spice of life. I mean, I think you may have the impression that I think every "thing" has to be absolute symmetry or it can't be legitimate, or have any value. But yet, I actually bought an absolutely abstract, and purely amorphous, work of art from an artist friend of mine, and it is one of my most prized possessions, and I love looking at it.

And so I am not saying that everyone should perceive anything in the exact way that I do, but rather that I do enjoy perceiving things that are: symmetrical - harmonized - mathematical, and The Annunciation is all that, and so if there are others who do also enjoy those things, as I do, I would like to find them and introduce these concepts TO THEM. If you, personally, do not "like" symmetry, or harmony, or dynamic symmetry, I am not suggesting that you should be forced to, but chose some other kind of art, besides this art. But, please don't try to tell me that there aren't others out there who would agree with me, as they would with Plato and da Vinci, and in this philosophy/art forum: which uses these exact two people as their examples, and also as opposed to the other school of thought; of Kierkegard and Picasso, which may, or may not, also be yours.

And so also I am slightly confused by your statement that:

"...when you speak about dysfunctionality in psychological or biological, or even biochemical and neurological terms, and then couple this with notions of what is normal as if 'normal' was ever clearly defined, you make this completely and utterly a discourse of opinion..."

Are you suggesting that from a psychological viewpoint that we can not define certain human behaviors as usually "normal" and others as "abnormal," and also speak of them in a scientific manner? Because from my own personal experience, I have 7 brothers and sisters, and one of my brothers does behave in a psychopathic manner. And he does do things that are simply not "normal," as compared to the other 7 of us, and thus things that are "abnormal" as compared to the rest of mankind also. And I don't know if you are familiar with Dr. Robert Hare, but he is considered to be the world's leading authority on psychopathic behavior, and he has said that perhaps 10 percent of the world's population is psychopathic, and thus not "normal" as the rest of the world is. But again, from my personal experience with my brother, one day he came to my house and saw me using what he believed was his vacuum, and he became instantaneously so enraged that he physically assailed me, spat in my face, ripped the shirt off my body, and did then proceed to break both of my hands, one of which I did have to have surgically repaired. I am sorry, but that is simply not "normal" behavior for an adult human being. And it is not my opinion, as Dr. Robert Hare explained:

"...Psychopaths tend to operate with a grandiose demeanor, an attitude of entitlement. They (are) unconventional people who begin by playing by their own rules early in life. Not only do they covet power, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others, (and) psychopaths are highly reactive to perceived insults or slights. Psychopaths are short-tempered or hot-headed and tend to respond to frustration, failure, discipline, and criticism with sudden violence, threats, and verbal abuse. They take offense easily and become angry and aggressive over trivalities, and often in a context that seems inappropriate to others."

And, actually, this is one of the major arguments that I have about 20th century "art." And which is the fact that many, but not all, of the 20th century art community functions in a psychopathic manner; as in they DO "play by their own rules," or simply "make up" their own rules as they go along, and then say that the people who make up their own rules are "geniuses," and such as Jackson Pollock, and instead of acknowledging that they: the "artists," are behaving in a psychopathic manner, and simply "making up the rules" as they go along. And too, remember, which is, exactly, as in relation to what Leonardo da Vinci did do, and which is to "learn the rules" which are the rules of reality.

And also, I would like to emphasize again, that:

"Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience...Pain motivates us to withdraw from damaging or potentially damaging situations, protect the damaged part while it heals, and avoid those situations in the future - Pain is a part of the body's defense system, producing a reflexive retraction from the painful stimulus."

No, human beings are NOT supposed to "like" pain, and "spoil" and "ruin," and not simply in my opinion, but according to science; because it is part of survival of the species.

As to your request that I provide "right references":

"Also, when you cite scientific evidence especially, please provide the right references if possible..."

I am sorry, but I do not know to what it is you are referring, and I don't mean in an ambiguous way, but rather: which reference? If you would kindly cite any exact reference, which you feel may not be correct, I will try to elaborate, and find a better reference, if you tell me which refrences they are.

In addition, I don't know about you, but I have come to find that I rather enjoy a good heated, and intelligent, debate about things, as I feel that people should be impassioned about their beliefs, or, if they are not, then they probably have no thoughts worth hearing. And, too remember, I did read the "forum rules" before I posted, and where I did read this:

"...However, more rigorous discussions are encouraged."

And I have come to learn that these concepts have always done exactly that: affected very rigorous discussions. So, after I read that, I did THEN think:"This IS the place for me." Don't you agree?

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

owleye:

Please don't say things like this:

"My pea-brain isn't able to translate this so that I can situate it within a context I can relate to..."

As it makes me feel as if you are simply making fun of me. I know that I don't possess the same amount of formal knowledge, and schooling, as does everyone else on this forum, but I don't believe that I ever said that I felt that I was more intelligent then anyone else. Also, I suppose that it may be misleading that I say that dynamic symmetry is intellectual beauty, and I suppose that can be interpreted as me saying that I have experienced it, so others, who have not yet fully explained it, or didn't know of its existence: in The Annunciation, can not experience intellectual beauty. I apologize if it came across that way, but I have often said that, in regards to my "seeing" it, it was kind of like one of those idiot savant things; just something unusual and not really knowledge, where I just happened to chose that one particular endeavor: visual music, as my lifetime's passion. What I mean by intellectual beauty is just that you have to use a cognitive process to produce it, but which is very specialized. Also, I was very fortunate to be able to lead a life where I could spend the necessary amount of time developing the ability to see it, because I was able to spend 18 hours a day listening to music; alone, and there aren't very many people who can live that life.

As far as your saying:

"...However, if I'm right, it would seem to suggest that forgeries have the same artistic value as the original."

Yes, that is actually correct. Except, in the context of what I am talking about, you have to understand that the visual music equivalent, is, quite literally, the same thing as acoustic musical notation. So imagine Mozart writing his musical notation, and then, 200 years later, another orchestra performing that same piece of music, but instead of an orchestra translating the notation into actual music, the individual has to translate the visual musical notation into music; in their own mind. And there have recently been scientific studies that have proven that professional musicians can "look" at musical notation, and "hear" the music in their minds:

"Neuroscients, using brain-scanning MRI machines to peer inside the minds of professional violinists, found they could hear the music simply by thinking about it, a skill amateurs in the study were unable to match..."

And this is the exact same thing, as a person, with very much practice, can look at The Annunciation, and actually hear music in their mind. So, if you are looking at a forgerie, then it does have the same intrinsic cognitive value, but perhaps not historical value.

So, if you were to hand a violin to a 10-year-old child, who has never played before, and showed them how to play scales, and then chords, and then that child did begin to practice on a daily basis, they would simultaneously develop two functions. They would develop a motor-control capability, which is the physical playing of the violin, but also they would form the neurophysiological capability; the neural pathways within their mind:

"...Repeated experiences determine how the brain is wired. Those synapses that have been activated by virtue of repeated early experience tend to become permanent..."

So, because I did spend decades listening to music 18 hours a day, I did develop the necessary precursorary neural pathways to enable me to "hear" the visual music, and produce it also. But, I have also learned that there are varying degrees of appreciation, as some people can look at them and fully see it; some not as much, and some not at all.

As far as the reference to Kant:

"...the conceptions of space and time - we have explained and determined their objective validity a priori. Geometry - advances (the concept) of pure a priori cognitions...space and time are pure intuitions which contain a priori the condition of the possibility of objects as phenomena, and a priori synthesis in these intuitions possesses objective validity."

You have to consider it in conjunction with this:

"...Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams; theirs was the absolute grid, within which space became manifest..."

And in conjunction with what Leonardo actually created within the defined perimeters of The Annunciation, which is a literal space/time continuum, and as Leonardo had actually replicated the existing, and capable of being learned, universally applicable a priori non-tangible form structure of reality: of harnessed 3-D space and 4-D time, to form a space/time continuum, and of non-tangible form geometrical equations, effectually functioning as, while remaining subserviant to, a hierarchically structured whole: a priori 4-D reality. So Leonardo did learn to understand that 3-D space exists a priori, and humans can learn to see 3-D space, functioning as a pure cognition and intuition, as did Kant, and then Leonardo did learn how to understand that 4-D time exists a priori, and humans can learn how to see 4-D time, functioning as a pure cognition and intuition, as did Kant.

So Kant suggests that there can exist individual pure cognitions, and, as I remember, beginning with individual pure cognitions of individual 3-D tangible form "nouns," such as:"I - Myself," and such as what a child is capable of beginning to form, as they begin to form the ability to "think." And, then the child can begin to learn how to form a second individual cognition, of a second, and distinct, 3-D tangible form noun, such as:"Ball." And then, after a child does learn how to form a second, and distinct, individual cognition; of a second 3-D tangible form noun, the child can begin to form individual cognitions of non-tangible form "verbs," such as:"Have." And which is the "action" between the two simultaneously relative 3-D tangible form nouns, and such as the child saying:"I have ball," and which is the child's infantile communication of their wish to have the ball, but which is still absolutely devoid of the higher synthesis of cognitions capability. And then, after a child does learn how to form the individual cognitions: of the two simultaneously relative 3-D nouns and the 3-D action/verbs between those two nouns, a child can begin to learn how to form a defined: "synthesis of cognitions," while in accordance to Kant's explaination, and such as the child saying:"May I have the ball, please?"

And which, of course, defines, all "things" in 4-D reality, and as Thomas Jefferson did explain in the letter which I cited:

"...we ride serene and sublime - contemplating truth and nature, matter and motion, the laws which bind up their existence..."

We are surrounded, in the entire world and universe we live in, by 3-D tangible form nouns, and the verbs/action between those 3-D tangible form nouns, as this formula defines the entire world we live in: Look at reality, and that is what we will see in our daily existence, and which is, all around us, 3-D tangible form nouns: people - buildings - trees -automobiles, and the verbs/action between those nouns. And also such as the existence of the 3-D tangible form nouns/planets and the 4-D verbs/motion between those planets. Now, think about EVERY single 2-D picture that has ever been produced in the entire history of the world, and remember while there are, quite literally, almost an infinite amount made on any given day, and exactly "what" is contained within every one of those pictures, and which is, exactly, only 3-D tangible form nouns: 3-D people - 3-D trees - 3-D buildings - 3-D animals - 3-D every thing. Well, this picture: The Annunciation, is the only picture: in the entire world, where there actually exists a defined: "synthesis of cognitions," and a very delibertly affected 4-D action/motion/verbs between the visual 3-D nouns: the Angel - Mary - the building - the lectern.

And, because remember, Einstein did explain that:

"Space Mach argued, is not a thing, but an expression of interrelationships among events. 'All masses and all velocities, and consequently all forces, are relative,' he wrote. Einstein agreed, and was encouraged to attempt to write a theory that built space and time out of events alone...Einstein had replaced Newton's (3-D) space with a (4-D) network of light beams; theirs was the absolute (4-D) grid within which space became manifest...moreover, those (light) beams are not merely illusionary, they are real..."

And this: 4-D "grid" - "matrix," of "light beams" is the actual 4-D structure which exists within The Annunciation, and which is the defined: synthesis of cognitions, which exists ONLY within The Annunciation. And, because remember also, the demonstration of the actual projection, of the "light beam image" of point: B, being projected from point B to point: A. Well, that is the very real phenomena which defines the 4-D geometrical space/time grid/matrix which defines the structure/synthesis of cognitions/intelligence of The Annunciation. (And I don't know if you are familiar with Youtube, but there is a video on Youtube, entitled, I believe:"How gravity really works," and it demonstrates that exact same grid/structure which is contained within The Annunciation. And, also, I don't know about others, but when I even hear the word "space," that grid/matrix is exactly what I immediately see in my mind.) And so, we can know, and for a scientific fact, that The Annunciation is the only picture, in the entire world, which contains intelligence, and/or a defined synthesis of cognitions, and that's basically it.

But that is exactly where all the other references come in. Because, to most others, if you say that:"This is the ONLY picture which has intelligence," they will then say:"Who are you to say that?" So, I made a postulation, others questioned it, I did research, and I began to find many ways to substantiate what I had learned, and that explains all the other references.

And so too, I suppose I was being misleading when I said, as you cited:

"...It's possible that you are not finding the right audience because of the method of your presentation, not because what you wish to say would be foreign to them."

That I can't find an audience for it. Because I have, exactly, found that here is, and that is the whole point of my attempt to find someone to introduce the concept to the entire world. Because, I have found people who do have an interest in the intrinsic value of them, and some who do have an interest in the musical aspect of them, and some who do have an interest in the neurophysiological function of them, and so on, but I have yet to find anyone who is in a position to introduce the concepts to the entire world; so that all of the people who may be interested in these concepts, can know it exists. (And remember, Leonardo was incapable of defining it in a way that was "simple," and Leonardo was a recognized genius, which I certainly am not.)

And so, I would like to clarify one more aspect of the visual music, and which is, as you questioned:

"...The work of art doesn't have value in so far as it is moving (having emotional content)..."

As, and as a matter of fact, yes this: The Annunciation - the actual visual musical equivalent, is the only picture which can affect a "real" - real time, truly humanistic emotion in another human being. Because, remember, when you listen to the oppening stanza; the largo tempoed movement, of Beethoven's 9th, it is the intrinsic dynamics of the music: the projected 4-D propagated sound waves of the relative: low - dark - heavy - slow, 4-D sound waves, which causes the affect of the serotonin biochemical induction within our minds, and too the simultaneously relative: low - dark - heavy - slow: sad - melancholy, emotion, and then the opposite with the closing stanza of Beethoven's 9th. And remember also:

"Neuroscientists (pearing) into the minds of professional violinists, found they could hear the music simply by thinking about it..."

When you spend decades practicing, and practicing, and practicing, and such as I did, you can become capable of looking at the literal visual musical notation, which is the structure of The Annunciation, and hear the music in your mind; and experience the emotional affect of the "music." And, again, this: The Annunciation - and besides the ones I created, is the only one which contains this structure; so this is the only picture which enables another human being to experience a "real" emotional response. (As opposed to an "associated cognition" emotional response: You know, such as looking at a picture of a happy, or sad, scene, and then experiencing a similiar emotional response to the one portrayed in the scene. Or even, and perhaps more importantly, a developed Pavlovian: conditioned, response, and exactly analogous to Pavlov's dogs, and as this function is applied often: To show someone a 2-D picture and simultaneously play music of some kind; to condition people to associate the emotion they feel when listening to music - WITH the 2-D picture they are being shown.)

But remember also, when I say that, there are going to be people who will say:"Says who," and then it starts all over again, with me, both, explaining the defined cognitive function of music, in conjunction with all the other references. But, you can just know, because of your familiarity with Kant:

"Well, though I can't say I'm well-versed in Kant, I have made a study of him, and especially his writings dealing with space and time."

And; while I do not have my copy of his Critique of Pure Reason near by, his explaining of a synthesis of cognitions, so you can know, for a fact, that The Annunciation is the only picture which contains THAT defined: "synthesis of cognitions," and, therefore, a definition of intelligence; in accordance to Kant's explanation. And also, which: the beautiful 4-D dynamically symmetrical structure of The Annunciation, Kant, surely, did not know even existed, but if he did, and too remember; possessed the ability to both see and experience it, then he, most probably, would have had a different opinion of art.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

Cagla:

I can only wish that I did know you personally, because, then, I could demonstrate, for you, that no:

"...Leonardo can not be 'creative' as in the sense we understand it today."

What Leonardo did do is, exactly, not create a picture as if he was simply; accurately, recreating a 3-D scene in which there was some 3-D things rather haphazardly positioned within the scene. But, rather, he did, exactly, have to create something, both, imaginative and significantly different that what most others were, and most importantly are, capable of doing, and while not being devoid of any "creative" capabilities.

I believe I understand what you mean when you say that you believe that I have a viewpoint, on art, that is a product of a certain: "logical," period in art history, and not a modern viewpoint on art, and as I have been told, by others, that I am an anachronism, and too an anomoly. But, again, to me that is rather like saying that I have the same viewpoint on music as Mozart, and, in my mind, that is the only viewpoint that I should have: IF I were actually attempting to create a literal visual musical equivalent, and which I was. So, to me, it makes perfect logical sense that you would say that of me; as I would hope that is exactly the approach, to art, that I should have.

When I talk about Paleolithic art as being completely abstract, what I mean is that there is no representation of 3-D space contained within it, so there also can not exist any visual music within these pictures: as there is no 3-D space within a Jacksn Pollock picture, so there can also not exist any "music" in a Pollock picture; so there analogy is wrong, and so they simply should not make it. And; remember, my concern is creating literal visual musical equivalents, so I do have an issue with that, which I am sure you can understand, as the visual music is my concern, and if people are being taught that the polar opposite of what I do is "visual music," and it is exactly not, well, then they are, in my mind, "cheating," and too, in effect, "stealing" my patrons: anyone who would like to see actual visual music.

I think it can become confusing to say that:

"This (artist's not selling their works immediately) goes for every movement..."

Because; remember, for most of history artists worked by commission, so they were, usually, paid to create something for a specific client, and, very rarely, did anyone simply paint a picture and then try to find a client to purchase said picture. So we can't really know if anyone whould have bought them: after the fact, or not. And, remember also, I believe that even the great musical composers worked this way primarily, as classical music was, almost always, a very important part of many Monarch's socio-political importance, as was 2-D pictures: murals depicting their agenda. So, I believe that it would be rather curious to know if Leonardo's work would have had the same impact, as it does today, if he had painted something and then relied on someone to patronize it, but I believe that we could never know that for certain.

(I do intend to purchase a copy of "Critical Historians Of Art.")

I do absolutely agree with you about the fact art has a variety of "values," such as "historical," "artistic" and "economic":

"...I think you take self and media promotion of genius too seriously...(Art) has a historical, artistic and economic value."

But, I also think it is rather as Leonardo said, (to quote Leonardo yet again):

"...Music can be corrupted by those who can not understand it."

And too, remember, as the art critic Ben Lewis said:

"...Today many of the 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...Contempory art has become a poker game for the richest men and women in the world; they are daring each other to raise the stakes and call their bluff..."

As the uber-rich have simply made "art" a game they play, while they actually possess no real interest in art, and so they actually are corrupting the art community themselves from within. And, remember also, this was written by a defined "contempory art critic," who, certainly, would have nothing to gain by writing such things; he was just expressing his true beliefs, and to say such things can only hurt him in the long run. And too, so that they have put the price of art:

"...Rise in prices for contempory art from 2003 to 2008: 800%."

Out of the price range of people who do sincerely appreciate art. In addition; remember, that these people, the actual patrons who buy contempory art, are the same people who control all of the world's economic institutions, so imagine if they begin to affect those same unbridled inflationary processes on the rest of the world's economic processes. And as they usually do:

"At Enron, Lavish Excesses Often Came Before Success: For years, the Enron Corporation thrived on spending big, and, with warnings ringly loudly about its rickety finances, no one at Enron saw any reason to change. Everything Enron did had to be better and flashier, and no gesture seemed too lavish - the company's spending reflected a go-go corporate culture, in which top executives cast traditional business controls by the wayside. And that figured heavily in Enron's collapse...Andrew S. Fastow (Enron's chief) was (primarily) responsible for Enron's collapse - What Mr. Fastow presented as an arrangement intended to benefit Enron became, over time, a means of enriching himself personally, and facilitating manipulation of Enron's financial statements...The Fastows maintain an art collection, some of which has been displayed at the Contempory Arts Museum..."

And; remember, this isn't the first time that this has happened:

"Causes for the fall of the Roman Empire - Failing Economy and High Inflation: One of the main causes for the fall of the Roman empire was the failing economy and high inflation - The majority of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire failed to share in the incredible prosperity of Rome..."

And as it IS happening today:

"Grounded by an Incom Gap: For 30 years the gap between the richest Americans and everyone else has been growing so much that the level of inequality is higher than in any other industrialized nation..." "Inflation Alert: The U.S. Path to Collapse...There are now countless warning signs all around us on a daily basis that the U.S. is headed for a complete societal collapse..."

And no I personally don't believe that:

"And the fact that all these conditions reflect an arthistorical theory, an approach belongs to a certain period, which sees the truth as beauty. And that it's been obsolete, for a long time.."

The concept of absolute truth, and beauty, can ever be restricted to only a certain period, as far as their understanding, and appreciation, is concerned. But, certainly, I do believe that the majority of people, today, don't want to be bothered to experience those things, but that is part of the problem, as we are creating a generation of people who can only understand instantaneous gratification, and NOT: universal beauty - truths - etc., and which require a much bigger commitment to produce, and also understand. But, also I believe that there are some who do want to experience those things, as I have actually met these people. And even more of these are the exact people that I hope to find, and be able to affect.

Again, I would like to apoligize if you felt as if I was implying that you didn't appreciate the points I was trying to make, as I do realize that you certainly do understand it, but just believe that I feel as if the concepts are more important than they should be. Also, I do read ALL the posts that everyone has made, and appreciate everyone's input.

MrMikeludo

[Positor]

MrMikeludo – Just a few further questions:

1. Do you have any thoughts as to why Leonardo failed to match the symmetric perfection of The Annunciation in any of his other paintings?

2. Another painter who was very interested in symmetry was Vermeer. How would you rate him as an artist, in the light of the aesthetic principles you have set out?

3. Do you have any specific examples of works by Mozart that illustrate the principles of symmetry to the highest degree?

Incidentally, as an amateur pianist I can definitely hear a written melodic line "in my head" without the need to play it, provided that it is based on traditional harmony.

[rrushius]

MrMikeludo: Discussion of personal examples will get us nowhere. The problem is not whether your brother is a psychopath or not, but rather what is psychopathic. And although you proceed to give an account of Dr. Hare, this by no means resolves the issue in any philosophical fashion. Let’s take the statement you have provided by him, which, since you ask what references specifically I am referring to, is one of them, where you have not provided the book or article out of which you have extracted it, or a page number if possible. I am not saying that these are necessarily demanded, but it would be good to have them—something or other that you have said, some might feel inclined to read further about. It would be especially helpful if some of these references could be found online. It might facilitate communication.

Dr. Hare’s example: "...Psychopaths tend to operate with a grandiose demeanor, an attitude of entitlement. They (are) unconventional people who begin by playing by their own rules early in life. Not only do they covet power, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others, (and) psychopaths are highly reactive to perceived insults or slights. Psychopaths are short-tempered or hot-headed and tend to respond to frustration, failure, discipline, and criticism with sudden violence, threats, and verbal abuse. They take offense easily and become angry and aggressive over trivalities, and often in a context that seems inappropriate to others."

First of all, the passage does not establish in any way what is normal explicitly. Implicitly, it suggests that “normal” is what is “conventional,” “following rules,” etc. Especially the last sentence, “They take offense easily and become angry and aggressive over trivalities, and often in a context that seems inappropriate to others," in which “the others” are supposed to be normal merely by sheer numbers. If these others are the majority, then, we also have psychopaths (the minority). Apart from the majority-minority opposition, we do not yet have a definition of what is psychopathic and what is normal. And this brings us back to the discourse of opinion that I mentioned above. There is nothing absolute in Dr. Hare’s statement, and though it may have some pragmatic value strictly from the standpoint of psychology, philosophically it is worthless. So, yes, from a psychological viewpoint we may indeed define what is normal and what is abnormal, but only after we have taken certain things to be true which we cannot in any case prove. We take them to be true by agreement. And this brings us to politics—but I am not about to embark on that ship just yet, unless, of course you would like to pursue it further.

However, here is where you fail to follow your own prescription: You say, “Dr. Robert Hare, is considered to be the world's leading authority on psychopathic behavior, and he has said that perhaps 10 percent of the world's population is psychopathic, and thus not “normal” as the rest of the world is.”

But just a few passages below, you say, “And, actually, this is one of the major arguments that I have about 20th century “art.” And which is the fact that many, but not all, of the 20th century art community functions in a psychopathic manner; as in they DO "play by their own rules," or simply "make up" their own rules as they go along, and then say that the people who make up their own rules are "geniuses," and such as Jackson Pollock, and instead of acknowledging that they: the "artists," are behaving in a psychopathic manner, and simply "making up the rules" as they go along. And too, remember, which is, exactly, as in relation to what Leonardo da Vinci did do, and which is to "learn the rules" which are the rules of reality.”

From this we can deduce precisely the opposite of what you have concluded, i.e., that being the majority these modern or contemporary artists are quite normal, and it is Leonardo that now will have to be defined as a psychopath, since “his” rules, are no longer recognized to be necessarily valid and universally followed. In addition, it was never a universal and established rule that the artists must follow the rules of reality. Leonardo, as you say, might have felt that way, but from feeling a certain way to making it a rule for all there is a great difference.

As for Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, they were not sophists, and no, there are not only two schools of philosophy. And Nietzsche does in fact speak more highly of the sophists than Plato, but this does not make him a sophist, and sophistry, though today it has acquired that connotation did not mean “cheating” back then, though, of course, that was the meaning that Plato and others that could not have their way with the sophists gave it. As for your pain/pleasure binary oppositions… well, it’s a tired old debate—Nietzsche’s philosophy goes beyond it, and Middle Eastern philosophy, is even more radical in this departure.

And lastly, regarding your “survival of the species,” even Freud’s reasoning would easily counter what you have said, since you have laid the foundations yourself for it: the pain/pleasure binary opposition culminates precisely in the death instinct, for death is the lack of all pain. But, take it as you may, you can’t escape death, not in philosophy, not in science, not anywhere—so maybe the only way is to affirm it. It may then, become more creative, instead of the barrenness produced by simple oppositions (i.e., life-death, being-nonbeing etc).

[owleye]

"My pea-brain isn't able to translate this so that I can situate it within a context I can relate to..."

As it makes me feel as if you are simply making fun of me.

I really do have a problem with reading material that others provide. I'm rather dense at times. It takes a lot of work on my part and I'm often wrong. Philosophy is for me a difficult subject because the questions it attempts to solve are difficult questions. I seek clarity and concision even though I confess it is difficult to achieve and on looking back over my own posts I find myself failing.

Yes, that is actually correct. Except, in the context of what I am talking about, you have to understand that the visual music equivalent, is, quite literally, the same thing as acoustic musical notation. So imagine Mozart writing his musical notation, and then, 200 years later, another orchestra performing that same piece of music, but instead of an orchestra translating the notation into actual music, the individual has to translate the visual musical notation into music; in their own mind. And there have recently been scientific studies that have proven that professional musicians can "look" at musical notation, and "hear" the music in their minds: ...

Hmm. First, I would say there is a distinction between the art of the creator of performance art and the art of the performance itself. Moreover, in consideration of the interpretative aspect of performance art, there is also an art associated with a given arrangement. You do have a point with respect to the first two forms of art, namely that forgery isn't directly an issue. However, with respect to stylistic distinctions, forgeries of style might occur. What musicians tend to do, I think, is to create art under the influence of others, but not such as to consider them to be duplicates. If someone is writing and or performing written music that turns out to sound exactly like someone else's music, even if it isn't identical, note for note, then I should imagine it would have the same effect as a forgery of a Leonardo piece. Thinking more on this there may even be an art in satire.

In any case, I find that if, according to your theory, forgeries have the same artistic value as the original then something must be wrong somewhere. How would you account for the forgery being downgraded in artistic value, once it has been discovered? Is it just an economic effect? Artistic creations are usually thought of as being 'one of a kind'. There is a sense in which they have authorship. You seem to want to deny what the author is trying to achieve in his/her creation.

You have to consider it [the Kant citation] in conjunction with this:

"...Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams; theirs was the absolute grid, within which space became manifest..."

I'm afraid I dont' see how this helps. Are you making some sort of case about space and time that is integral to art? I confess not ever reading anything of Einstein where he says anything about art, though I suppose he knew a few famous artists. But then, again, I'm not well read when it comes to art.

And in conjunction with what Leonardo actually created within the defined perimeters of The Annunciation, which is a literal space/time continuum, and as Leonardo had actually replicated the existing, and capable of being learned, universally applicable a priori non-tangible form structure of reality: of harnessed 3-D space and 4-D time, to form a space/time continuum, and of non-tangible form geometrical equations, effectually functioning as, while remaining subserviant to, a hierarchically structured whole: a priori 4-D reality. So Leonardo did learn to understand that 3-D space exists a priori, and humans can learn to see 3-D space, functioning as a pure cognition and intuition, as did Kant, and then Leonardo did learn how to understand that 4-D time exists a priori, and humans can learn how to see 4-D time, functioning as a pure cognition and intuition, as did Kant.

Well, the a priori nature of space and time have since been demolished, leaving Kant's theory without support for his attempt to find a way of proving Newton's laws of motion true in accordance with it. Despite this, however, Kant's ideas have significance for cognitive psychologists and perhaps some intuitionists. As far as Leonardo goes, it seems he was strongly influenced by the geometry of the Greeks, with their emphasis on the harmonious relationships therein developed: I'm thinking here of the proportions inherent in certain golden ratios. Though geometry right up to Kant's days was thought of as the geometry of the universe -- i.e., Euclid's geometry is the geometry of space (though there were attempts of course during this long period to try to prove the parallel axiom using the remaining axioms, all of which failed) no one thinks that these days.

So Kant suggests that there can exist individual pure cognitions, and, as I remember, beginning with individual pure cognitions of individual 3-D tangible form "nouns," such as:"I - Myself," and such as what a child is capable of beginning to form, as they begin to form the ability to "think." And, then the child can begin to learn how to form a second individual cognition, of a second, and distinct, 3-D tangible form noun, such as:"Ball." And then, after a child does learn how to form a second, and distinct, individual cognition; of a second 3-D tangible form noun, the child can begin to form individual cognitions of non-tangible form "verbs," such as:"Have." And which is the "action" between the two simultaneously relative 3-D tangible form nouns, and such as the child saying:"I have ball," and which is the child's infantile communication of their wish to have the ball, but which is still absolutely devoid of the higher synthesis of cognitions capability. And then, after a child does learn how to form the individual cognitions: of the two simultaneously relative 3-D nouns and the 3-D action/verbs between those two nouns, a child can begin to learn how to form a defined: "synthesis of cognitions," while in accordance to Kant's explaination, and such as the child saying:"May I have the ball, please?"

Well, I think you are speculating here. If you wish to discuss the way humans relate to space and time in general, then by and large this is a topic within psychology, not philosophy, though philosophers might retain some sort of interest in clarifying concepts used therein. In any case, in order to say something significant these days, you had best rely on what psychologists, or even neuro-scientists have to say about it. Whatever you seem to want to opine on now seems to fall within the domain of science.

And, because remember, Einstein did explain that:

"Space Mach argued, is not a thing, but an expression of interrelationships among events. 'All masses and all velocities, and consequently all forces, are relative,' he wrote. Einstein agreed, and was encouraged to attempt to write a theory that built space and time out of events alone...Einstein had replaced Newton's (3-D) space with a (4-D) network of light beams; theirs was the absolute (4-D) grid within which space became manifest...moreover, those (light) beams are not merely illusionary, they are real..."

Einstein did, in his autobiography thank Mach for his insights. However, the above idea about space and time being properties (relationships) and not entities was not new. Leibniz had this same view well before Mach. Indeed, all this was well known by these thinkers. Mach is important because of his analysis of Newton's rotating water bucket used to legitimize the coordinates for motion of the universe.

In any case, with respect to Leonardo, I sense all this talk about space and time is beginning to sound like there's really something special about Leonardo that is timeless and the more you argue it makes it sound like something right out of Dan Brown's fascination with codes.

(And remember, Leonardo was incapable of defining it in a way that was "simple," and Leonardo was a recognized genius, which I certainly am not.)

Well, yes, but having read the Da Vinci Code, it's possible that someone with great imagination can invent all sorts of things about great geniuses that sound convincing. As for me, I leave history and its interpretation to the scholars. (Though I suppose I have an interest in the philosophy of history, as well as hermeneutics.)

As, and as a matter of fact, yes this: The Annunciation - the actual visual musical equivalent, is the only picture which can affect a "real" - real time, truly humanistic emotion in another human being. Because, remember, when you listen to the oppening stanza; the largo tempoed movement, of Beethoven's 9th, it is the intrinsic dynamics of the music: the projected 4-D propagated sound waves of the relative: low - dark - heavy - slow, 4-D sound waves, which causes the affect of the serotonin biochemical induction within our minds, and too the simultaneously relative: low - dark - heavy - slow: sad - melancholy, emotion, and then the opposite with the closing stanza of Beethoven's 9th. And remember also:

"Neuroscientists (pearing) into the minds of professional violinists, found they could hear the music simply by thinking about it..."

What is a humanistic emotion? Is it any different than human emotion? It sounds like you want to make it different.

But remember also, when I say that, there are going to be people who will say:"Says who," and then it starts all over again, with me, both, explaining the defined cognitive function of music, in conjunction with all the other references. But, you can just know, because of your familiarity with Kant:

And; while I do not have my copy of his Critique of Pure Reason near by, his explaining of a synthesis of cognitions, so you can know, for a fact, that The Annunciation is the only picture which contains THAT defined: "synthesis of cognitions," and, therefore, a definition of intelligence; in accordance to Kant's explanation. And also, which: the beautiful 4-D dynamically symmetrical structure of The Annunciation, Kant, surely, did not know even existed, but if he did, and too remember; possessed the ability to both see and experience it, then he, most probably, would have had a different opinion of art.

Well, in so far as Kant has something to say about drawing in his CPR, what he says about it is that the mind, from concepts as rules, goes through a process involving a schema in which by following the rules over time as they pass from the understanding into the imagination (which contains intuition) under its supervision, the result amounts to a synthesis of that which is drawn. His example was that of drawing a dog. The CPR says nothing about art. In so far as art is concerned, and it is not given in his CPR, what he is interested in is not how artists create art, but in aesthetic judgments of beauty, genius and the sublime. If The Annunciation involves any of these, according to Kant we can make aesthetic judgments about it by having a kind of disinterestedness associated with it. I.e., its interest derives from it, not from what the person puts into it.

If you have some interest in what philosophers have to say about art, you might want to read other philosophers -- say Schopenhauer.

James

[MrMikeludo]

Positor:

Actually, this is a very good question:

"Do you have any thoughts as to why Leonardo failed to match the symmetric perfection of The Annunciation in any other of his paintings?"

And a question which I am surprised others have not also asked. And, actually and believe it or not, Leonardo did explain exactly "why":

"Of The Misreable Pretences Made By Those Who Falsely And Unworthily Acquire The Name Of Painters: Now there is a certain race of painters who, having studied but little, must need take as their standard of beauty mere gold and azure, with supreme conceit, declare that they will not give good work for misreable payment, and that they could do as well as any other if they were well paid. But, ye foolish folks! Cannot such artists keep some good work, and then say: this is costly work and this more moderate and this is average work and show that they can work at all prices."

And which is because it is an extraordinarily difficult thing to do, and it requires a much greater effort to produce; than any other picture in which the structure does not exist. And so, he did produce an entire range of pictures; with some being considerably easier to produce.

I do personally like Vermeer, and especially his use of light, and I also believe that he had a very analytical approach to art, which, as a general rule, I rather admire.

Some of Mozart's music where I find the concept; of his absolute dynamic symmetry, to be especially obvious, is, of course: Requiem Mass, also Mass in C minor, and Concerto for two pianos. But, I find that all of Mozart's music does function in this manner, and so too, of course, does all of Bach's music employ these very basic, and absolutely "mathematical," sound structures. And which are the structures that I am sure you can see in your mind; as you are becoming capable of hearing, and seeing the harmonies in your mind.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

rrufus

I am sorry, the reference to Dr. Robert Hare is abstracted from his book entitled: Without Conscious, but I do not remember the exact page number, or numbers, as I had written it down quite some time ago. But he is very easily accessed on the internet, and does even have a web page dedicated towards helping people to deal with psychopathic behavior, here:

“Robert Hare's Page for the Study of Psychopaths, 'Sociopaths.”

I suppose it can become confusing in regards to this statement:

“First of all the passage (from Dr. Hare) does not establish in any way what is normal explicitly. Implicitly, it suggests that 'normal' is what is 'conventional,' 'following rules,' etc. Especially the last sentence – in which 'the others' are supposed to be normal merely by shear numbers. If these others are the majority, then, we also have psychopaths (the minority). Apart from the majority-minority opposition, we do not have a definition of what is psychopathic and what is normal. And this brings us back to the discourse of opinion...”

And I suppose I was following Dr. Hare's lead when he wrote this about psychopaths:

“In some respect psychopaths are like the emotionless androids depicted in science fiction, unable to imagine what real humans experience...The psychopath is completely egocentric, valuing others only for their enhancement of their own pleasure or status. Many psychopaths love to be admired and bask in the adulation of others. Not only do they covet power, but they gain special pleasure in usurping and taking from others...Psychopaths have a narcissistic and grossly inflated view of their self-worth and importance, a truly astounding egocentricity and sense of entitlement, and see themselves as the center of the universe, as superior beings who are justified in living according to their own rules – This is how psychopaths operate. They will deny reality until their victims have a nervous breakdown...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscious

And being that psychopaths are like some kind of science fiction creature, who have been transported here; to planet Earth, from some kind of foreign planet, and where the rules of Earth's reality simply don't apply to them, and too who will simply deny “reality,” and interpret everything to suit them, and to better them also. And, I am supposing that you, personally, do not know any true psychopaths, or, at least, not in your daily existence. Because, I can guarantee you, if you ever did have to deal with someone who behaves as my brother behaves, you would say to yourself:”I don't want ANY thing to do with THAT person; because they are not 'normal.”

And, actually, this is a very good point:

“From (the previous passage) we can deduce precisely the opposite of what you have concluded, I. e., that being the majority these modern or contemporary artists are quite normal, and it is Leonardo that will now be defined as psychopathic, since 'his' rules, are no longer recognized to be necessarily valid and universally followed...”

And it is a point which did, exactly, befuddle me when I first encountered it. Because, remember, as I explained, I became involved in art kind of in an opposite way that most others do; as first I produced the visual musical equivalents, and, then, I did begin to learn about “art history.” And so I did become confused when I did read things such as this:

“Cubism – A revolution of spatial presentation in artistic expression...This style was a revolt to the traditional artistic expressions. These traditions followed many rules or elements that artists were strictly tied to. These included the scientific rules of perspective. To break away from these traditions, the cubists fragmented the subject...” “Cezanne tried to make the ultimate journey back through time...Cezanne claimed to believe in his own sensations, moreover, he said himself, and quite categorically; 'What counts is only mass.' Cezanne created a kind of space where one technique to create depth is canceled out by the other, in other words, Cezanne is the painter of distance that seems near...Cezanne was a lion in Nietzsche's sense, and rules mattered little to him ...” Cezanne – Yvon Taillainder

And because I was, first – before an artist, a carpenter, and I had built houses. And I knew that there existed certain universal rules which all carpenters must follow, or the structure will, exactly, collapse, or, rather, if you do not follow those universal rules, there simply can be no structure. And such as the fact when you build a room, you do first build a wall made of 2 by 4's standing on end, and then, depending on the span of the room, place 2 by 8's, or 2 by 10's, or 2 by 12's, on top of the 2 by 4's, to form the upper floor, and if you used 2 by 4's as floor joists, well, then the structure would exactly collapse. And so there could be no structure. So this concept: of “breaking the rules,” simply confused me, and too so I could not understand why anyone would, first of all, attempt to make a picture that way, but, more importantly, why anyone would brag about someone “breaking the rules,” or try to imply that it was a good thing. But, it got even more confusing, because they did also say things such as this:

“Picasso and Einstein cross paths, and offer a mirthful night' – In the program for Picasso at the Lapin Agile – the cast and staff pose 20 questions you might ponder after viewing the play. 'What is genius?' They ask. 'How does genius get recognized...” Clifford A. Ridley – The Philadelphia Inquirer

Then I really became even more confused. And then, I began to understand what it was they were trying to say. And then, quite some time later, I saw the movie “Mona Lisa Smile,” and realized exactly what it was they were trying to say, and exactly why they would say it, but, also, exactly why the analogy is backwards.

Because, I don't know if you are familiar with this movie, but it is the story of a woman who goes to an all girl college to teach art. And when she gets there she becomes frustrated, for a number of reasons. First of all, she realizes that the class has “memorized the syllabus,” and the girls are just reciting rote memorization, and, therefore, seem to be incapable of thinking for themselves. But also, she learns that there are certain “rules,” exactly “man made rules,” which, both, the school seems to be imposing upon the girls, and, in the teacher's mind, restricting the girl's talents, which she feels the girls are wasting, but also, she feels as if the corporate world seems to use some kind of mind control; and thus also impose their man made rules on people, and which the teacher also despises. And then so she begins to become frustrated, because she doesn't like the man made rules, which she feels are confining the talents of the girls. And then, at one point in the movie, she brings the girls to see a Jackson Pollock painting, and while telling the girls that they should aspire to:”Break the rules,” just like Jackson Pollock did, and too while defining Jackson Pollock, and Pablo Picasso too, as “revolutionaries,” and, supposedly, just like Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, and Thomas Paine too were revolutionaries. As all of these men too had “broken the rules”: the man made rules imposed upon them by the King, and created a brand new, theoretically, “truly idealistic democratic society,” and which most people, at that point in time, did think was impossible: as most people thought that the common man masses were incapable of governing themselves; because the aristocracy believed that the masses weren't intelligent enough to govern themselves. Except, the analogy: applied in Mona Lisa Smile, is exactly backwards. And here is why:

Because it is important to understand that what Leonardo Da Vinci had done, was this:

“There are three branches of perspective; the first deals with the reasons of the apparent diminution of objects as they recede from the eye, and is known as Diminishing Perspective – The second contains the way in which colours vary as they recede from the eye. The third and last is concerned with the explanation of how the objects (in the picture) ought to be less finished in proportion as they are remote, and the names are as follows: Linear Perspective – The Perspective of Colour – The Perspective of Disappearance...The eye contracts, in proportion to the increase of light which is reflected in it...”

Leonardo Da Vinci did not “make up” any rules, he went out: into reality, and “learned” the rules, of universally applicable reality, and too he learned the rules about the basic physiological functioning capabilities which human beings can experience. And I don't know whether you considered this concept before, because most wouldn't, and because, I mean, why would you, unless the concept affected you personally. And which is the concept that human beings do not consciously “focus” with our eyes, we simply point our eyes to a point located on an object in front of us, and then our eyes will continue to contract, and refract, until the eyes find a point of rest: a clearly defined line which are the tangible form things in front of us. And so, if you are looking at something which is “blurry,” or “fuzzy,” your eyes will continue to contract, and refract, until they find a point of rest, and, so also, if you are looking at a “picture” where there is no clearly defined “image” your eyes will actually continue to contract, and refract, and contract, and refract; while constantly “looking” for that point of rest. And so, when Paul Cezanne did what he did; when he created a picture wherein:”One technique to create depth is canceled out by the other,” he did NOT simply break the rules of Leonardo Da Vinci, he had broken the rules of reality; which you can not do, and create something significant.

And because, I do not know if you have ever seen Paul Cezanne's The Large Bathers, and which is a picture wherein he did do this: create a picture where “one technique to create depth is canceled out by the other.” But in it he painted the picture as if the viewer was positioned about 15 feet in front of the 2-D picture plane, and wherein the “size” of the various figures: represented in the picture, correspond with this viewpoint, but when you look at the picture you can see that you can not distinguish from figure, to figure, to figure, to figure, and as the “people” represented in the picture all look exactly the same: as their individual features are all “blurred out.” And they are; exactly, individually incapable of being distinguished, and exactly as contrary to Leonardo's explanation of reality:

“...the objects (in the picture) ought to be less finished in proportion as they are remote...”

And you could find out this fact easily for yourself: by simply taking a picture of a group of people standing 15 feet away from you, and you could then see that you can distinguish everyone clearly. But, remember, this is exactly why Paul Cezanne did not sell a single picture in his lifetime, and because people simply could not look at these pictures; as they would literally get a headache, for any length of time. And because remember also, Paul Cezanne created his pictures in 1880, and before 1880 there were no movies, or “moving pictures,” and so people would actually look at 2-D pictures for more than a couple of minutes, and no one could look at a picture painted this way: where “one technique to create depth is canceled out by the other,” because it literally causes the viewer to experience a “disturbance.”

And too remember, as Thomas Jefferson did explain:

“...We hold these truths to be self-evident...”

There exists “universal truths” which people can become capable of learning, and then become capable of living in accordance to, or not. And which is exactly what Leonardo did do: he learned the rules of reality; he did not “invent” any rules. And too so their analogy: that these people are “geniuses” for simply breaking the rules, is backwards, and too when they define these people: the “artists” who break the rules of reality, as “revolutionaries”:

“Cubism – A revolution of spatial presentation in artistic expression...”

Well, again, they are simply defining their psychopathic behavior:

“The psychopath is a rebel, a religious disobeyer of prevailing codes and standards: a rebel without a cause, an agitator without a slogan, a revolutionary without a program; in other words, his rebelliousness is aimed to achieve goals that are satisfactory to him alone...” Dr. Robert Hare – Without Conscious

And I can fully understand that most people are not familiar with what it is these people have done, because I did make it a part of my lifetime's worth of work; so I became aware of all these particulars because I had no choice but to become aware of them.

And too, because we are talking about “perceiving” art, and one of the most misunderstood aspects of this concept, is the fact that:

“Intelligence: intelligence is the ability to learn about, learn from, understand, and interact with one's environment...Genius: More than just originality, (or) creativity, the adjective 'genius' is associated with the achieving of unprecedented insight. This is called 'spark of genius'...The assessing of intelligence was initiated by Francis Galton and James McKeen Cattell. They had advocated the analyzing of reaction time and sensory acuity as measures of 'neurophysilogical efficiency' and the analyzing of sensory acuity as a measure of intelligence.” The Internet – What is Intelligence – What is Genius

The definition of “intelligence,” or rather even “genius,” in relation to perceiving art, is a person's ability to “react” accordingly to the perceived stimulus which is in front of them, and as quickly as possible. And so, by the very definition of intelligence, or even genius, what Paul Cezanne, and too Pablo Picasso, did do, is exactly NOT the definition of intelligence, and especially not genius either, as there simply is, exactly, no such thing as a 2-D Cubist thing anywhere in all of 4-D reality. But; remember, there is a “place” in 4-D reality where there does exist a pictorial equivalent of Paul Cezanne's pictures:

“Cezanne (tried) to make the ultimate journey back through time (as he) created a kind of space where the distance seems near (and) one technique to create depth is canceled out by the other...Cezanne (said) himself, and quite categorically; 'What counts is only mass.”

And which is here:

“Black Hole: At the center of a black hole lies a singularity, where matter is crushed to infinite density, the pull of gravity is infinitely strong – Here it is no longer meaningful to talk about space and time, much less space/time...” Roger Penrose – Black Holes

And too so that we can know that these people are functioning in a defined psychopathic manner, as they do:

“Psychopaths see themselves as the center of the universe, as superior beings who are justified in living according to their own rules – This is how they operate. They will deny reality until their victims have a nervous breakdown...”

Believe that the world should revolve around them, or that their own personal viewpoint is more important than every human being's viewpoint, and I don't mean opinion, but literally viewpoint. As what Leonardo da Vinci did do: in The Annunciation, was to learn how to “see” the function of universally applicable reality that every human being experiences in our daily existence; as if he was in the mind of the collective consciousness of mankind, and then harnessed that understanding, after abstracting it, and then learned how to reapply that understanding. And as directly opposed to Picasso and Cezanne, who did never bother to learn how to understand reality, or see anything from any other human beings viewpoint, and just simply produced an abstraction of their own personal imagination, and as directly opposed to intelligence.

Also, I am sorry but I did not mean to say that Nietzsche and Kierkegard were actually Sophists, as I am not very familiar with them, or that there exists only two schools of philosophy, but rather there does exist, at least, another philosophical viewpoint; opposed to Sophistry, and which is the Platonic viewpoint, or a belief in absolute truths. And which is the philosophical viewpoint to which I subscribe.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

oweyle

I find it rather intriguing that you acknowledge the fact that you seek "clarity and concision," and the, ironic, fact is that you simply can't get more clear and concise that the concepts which I am attempting to define. And because they are, again, as Leonardo did explain:

"Here no one hazards guesses as to whether two threes makes more or less than six."

As clear and concise as: 3 + 3 = 6.

But, admitttedly, it is one of those concepts which is both simple, yet complicated, much like gravity. I mean, how much more simple can you get than an apple falling to the ground, but yet, of course, also which is the same concept that enabled man to land on the moon: not so simple, but yet they are both the exact same concept. But I believe that it is one of those things that will, eventually, enable someone to say:"Oh yea, that is rather simple, and concise, isn't it?"

When I said that a forgery had the "same value" as the original, I suppose I wasn't being perfectly clear. What I meant was, consider these words here:

"Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the power of the Earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel to seperation...We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Those "words" have a certain, intrinsic, cognitive value, when read abstractly on this page, which everyone recognizes. But an original, and "one of a kind" - authored by the hand of Thomas Jefferson, copy of the actual Declaration of Independence is, quite literally, and unquestionably, priceless. And that is all I meant: That an accurate "copy" of a picture has the same, purely, cognitive value, but surely not historical, or cultural value.

I know this:

"...Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams; theirs was the absolut grid, within which space became manifest..."

In conjunction with citing Kant's explained: "synthesis of cognitions," is the, primary, source of contention which most people have with this theory. And because, I am saying, as you asked:

"...Are you making some sort of case about space and time that is integral to art?"

Yes: exactly, that is what I am saying. But, only exactly in this one particular picture, does the defined space/time structure exist. And which: the space/time structure, is the literally defined pictorial equivalent of Kant's defined "synthesis of cognitions," and/or the definition of "pictorial syntax," and/or "structure," and/or "intelligence."

Now, remember, this is where, and how, it begins to become confusing, and rather like when I said (to Cagla), imagine if someone said:"Did you know Einstein explained E=mc2," (and not that I am "like" Einstein, but rather Leonardo was, and I simply understand the language he introduced). Because, when I provide the simple demonstration: of the non-tangible form geometrical shapes contained within The Annunciation, people say:"That's meaningless," and so then I have to go through the process of explaining it, and then they, may, say:"That is making it confusing," but it's not, it's really simple: in theory.

Consider what I explained as the elementary, very beginning, cognitive function of music, and which is EXACTLY the same function for experiencing a visual musical equivalent, and which is a precursor function which must be harnessed to become capable of forming the structure of The Annunciation. Which, if you remember, or if you have not yet read it, is quite simply the equivalent to imagine standing outside next to a sidewalk, and then seeing that the section you are standing upon appears to be just a little bit wider than the exact next section of sidewalk, and so on up to the horizon line, and then imagine extending that function up to the sky. While each fundamental frequency modulation/note is an individual simultaneously relative section of the sidewalk. And so then, as a person begins to experience the cognitive function of music, their mind: their peripheral mind, will actually begin to "move" up along with the natural inclination of the scale, and out: diagonally, in a direction towards the sky and top perimeter of the picture: in The Annunciation. And so, in considering the purposeful structure; of a geometrical equation, you can understand that there must exist some "thing" to purposefully affect the redirected movement: to "force" the redirection to occur and to purposefully affect the point of the derivative, and which is a "primary coordinator." And, which, for us as human beings, are "hands," and because we possess neurons in our minds designed for recognizing hands, so we are, sometimes subconsciously, and sometimes consciously, aware of the positioning of other people's hands, and so we can use the positioning of hands to redirect the movement. So imagine that your mind has begun to move up, and out, and while imagining this conforming to the series of line segments below:

(At this point I did try to provide a demonstration which showed some line segments arranged in a vertical manner on the left edge of this page, but am finding that it just isn't working - because of the formating. So, imagine such a series of line segments - arranged along the left perimeter, and with the series representing the function of scales - replicated by a sidewalk, and "moving" up in conjunction with the perimeter of The Annunciation. And with the series of line segments becoming "smaller" as they do move up along the perimeter, and in conjunction with the demonstration I did provde of The Annunciation.)

So, you can imagine that your mind did begin to move up, and you can see that when your mind gets to point: C, your mind must be purposefully redirected by the positioning of the Angel's hand: his left hand - while along with the purposeful positioning of the bottom edge of the lectern, and which forces the projection to the right hand perimeter. Then, as your movement continues up, your movement must be redirected again, and which it is, because of the positioning of the Angel's right hand along with the top edge of the garden wall, and at point: D, and also in conjunction with Mary's left hand. And then you can understand that in order for this function to be a representation of a geometrical equation, it must be projective geometry, which it is, and it must be: an expression of equality between two quantities, and which it is: As the 3-D "volume of space" - "quantity," formed by the bottom projection is exactly equal to the 3-D volume of space - quantity, formed by the top projection: you see simple.

But yet, not so simple. And here's why: Because remember, there are also the "diagonal" projections, which must intersect with the horizontal purposefully affected projections, and which must also simultaneously be an "equal" quantity of 3-D space: equal to the top and bottom purposefully affected 3-D volumes of space, and which it is: As the purposefully affected distance from the diagonal projection down past the window - edge of the garden wall, and Angel's right hand; functioning in conjunction with the projection up past the Angel's clothes - through the diagonal of the lectern, and just past Mary's elbow, is exactly the same as both the distance down to the top of the garden wall, and up to the edge of the lectern: functioning in conjunction with the purposefull positioning of the hands of both the Angel and Mary.

And this is where it begins to become rather improbable, if not supposedely impossible, because this: non-tangible form structure, is the definition of seeing the fourth dimension:
"Fourth dimension...is generated by applying the rules of vectors and coordinate geometry to a space with four dimensions."

And because the forming of the structure does not occur in the usual manner that human beings do all other "things," and all other non-things also. As, usually, when we do something the function occurs in a uni-directionally successive manner: form point A to point B. Such as writing a sentence, and such as:"May I have the ball?" Which is written in a uni-directional manner: from point A - "May," to point B - "ball." And because, if you begin to think about it, suppose you: an artist, were to begin to sketch out the layout of the structure, and you draw the lectern with the edge of the lectern being equal spaced up - from the bottom, as is also the top of the garden wall down from the top of the perimeter. But then you realise that the diagonal projection is NOT simultaneously equal distanced from the diagonal edge of the garden wall, and so: what could you do? I mean, you can not move the lectern, because if you move the lectern then it will NOT both align with the Angel's hand, and be an equal distance up - from the bottom; as the top of the garden wall is down from the top of the picture perimeter. And considering all of these simultaneously relative "coordinates," and purposefully affected "projections, " just begins to become more and more complicated. And because, everything is simultaneously affected; as if you move one thing it simultaneously affects everything else.

And that is exactly "why" the fourth dimension is supposed to be impossible to see. But, also, this is exactly why the more you investigate this, the more real it does continue to become, and; remember, in direct relation to the subject of "art," and in an art forum, is in direct relation to this claim:

"...Some artists, such as (Wolfgang Amadeus) Mozart, find their voices indecently early, but (Jackson) Pollock was one of art's late great bloomers."

As if you are making that, exact, comparision: compairing a 2-D picture, to Mozart, and of course his "music," you are implying that there is more there, and that anyone who does have an intertest in actually understanding the coorilation can do that by understanding THESE exact concepts. And, understandably, if these things do not interest you, you will not want to hear them.

For me, as far as this concept is concerned:

"Well, the a priori nature of space and time have since been demolished, leaving Kant's theory without support..."

I must admit, that I always consider that term: a priori, in this literal sense:

"a priori: logic known to be true independently of experience - requiring no evidence for its valadation"

And as directly opposed to this:

"a priori: logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning"

So, for me, the term: a priori, means something which just exists independently of us human beings, and which are the things which we can learn, and sometimes with our understanding "changing," but the concept; itself, never changes. Perhaps there is a better term I should use to convey this thought. (A suggestion would be appreciated.)

So, in this context, space and time have always existed, as they do now exist, and our understanding of the concepts has changed, but the concepts, themeselves, have never changed.

I think you are correct, in this:

"...in order to say something significant these days, you had best rely on what psychologists, or even neuro-scientists have to say about it. Whatever you seem to want to opine on now seems to fall within the domain of science."

But, as I explained to rrushius, firstly, Leonardo did introduce these concepts, and this forum does use "Leonardo": him as Plato - carrying a copy of the Timaeus, and his The Mona Lisa, as the focal point of this forum, so I am championing these concepts here. But I do agree with you that, usually, these concepts would be of more interest to scientists, but, again, they ARE the concepts of Leonardo, and his art, and I have come to learn that there are people who do feel, in relation to art, as I do.

I think you are correct in that this is like something from a Dan Brown story, except this is not a purely abstract, and/or "wholly cerebral," theory, and as Leonardso did explain:

"...Here all guesswork remains destroyed in eternal silence, and which is not possible with the dellusionary sciences of the wholly cebral kind."

And which was what Dan Brown's story was: it was pure spectulation, and not: "3 + 3 = 6."

As far as this concept is concerned:

"What is a humanistic emotion? Is it any different than human emotion?"

I always forget to clarify that. I'm sorry. What I am talking about is something, exactly, "different" than that which an animal can experience, and which is the extremes of reactionary capablilities, and because of the "baisic" - animalistic, biochemical inductions, such as dopamine; which is "sex," and which an animal can experience, and not unique to humans. But also, I am talking about the emotions which a psychopath can NOT experience, and as Dr. Robert Hare did explain:

"Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty which limits the range and depth of their emotions. Careful observers are left with the impression that they are play-acting and that little is going on below the surface...Sometimes they claim to experience strong emotions but are unable to describe the subtleties of various affective states. For example, they equate love with sexual arousal, sadness with frustration and anger with irritability. Powerful cravings also seem to characterize them, as in drug addiction..."

And so I am talking about those subtleties which only truly: uniquely humanistic - and not animalistic or physchopathic, intelligent human beings can experience. And which can be affected, and exactly recreated, because of a person's exposure to music. Because only music: the 4-D propagated sound waves of music, can recreate the phenomena which is responsible for causing a "subtle" emotional response: through the articulation of the phenomena which is responsible for causing the various "higher" biochemical inductions, and of serotonin and endorphins.

And remember, as recent scientific research has proven:

"...Regular exercise - walking, about 30 minutes per day, facilitates serotonin levels...Endorphins, in contrast, release with high levels of sustained aerobic activity, such as distance running..."

And while in conjunction with this:

"...Soothing musical notes help increase the Serotonin levels of the brain...(While) listening to (fast paced) musical notes, helps secrete endorphins..."

Our exposure to, and our purposeful cognizance of, the various articulated cadences, is the exact "thing" which causes the various: "subtle" - and exactly uniquely "humanistic," emotional responses which we are capable of experiencing because of our exposure to music, and a literal visual equivalent also: and ONLY.
And because, look at the series of line segments above again. And you can see that from "B" to "C" there is only one individual "unit" - and/or note and/or fundamental frequency modulation, which is a representation of the: low - heavy - slow - dark, fundamental frequency modulations. And so when a person becomes capable of cognizing this volume of space - and literally "moving" their mind up through it, they can then experience a real, and unique, serotonin biochemical induction; which causes the uniquely humanistic, and subtle, sadness, or melancholy, emotion. And now, look at the series of line segments above again, and you can see that from "D" to "F" there are two individual units, but in the same exact amount of 3-D space: as the distance from B-C is exactly the same as the distance from D-F, but now your mind has "moved" up to where the simultaneously relative "higher" fundamental frequency modulations/notes are. And so your cognizance/experiencing of those "higher": light (color) - light (mass) - fast, fundamental frequency modulations, does, then, cause the person experiencing the cognitive affect of The Annunciation, to experience a real, and unique, endorphin biochemical induction, and which causes the uniquely humanistic, and subtle, emotion of extreme happiness, or euphoria.
And only music, or a literal visual musical equivalent, can do this. And thus create a uniquely "humanistic" emotional response, and something which an animal, or a psychopath, can not experience.

And so, in regards to this statement, about Kant:

"...The CPR says nothing about art. In so far as art is concerned, and it is not given in his CPR, what he is interested in is not how artists create art, but in the aesthetic judgements of beauty, genius and the sublime. If The Annunciation involves any of these, according to Kant we can make aesthetic judgements about it by having a kind of disinterestedness associated with it. I. e., its interest derives from it, not what the person puts into it."

I am afraid that I didn't make my reference to Kant, and exactly how anything he may have, or have not, said about art, very clear, because that is; exactly, not what I was attempting to communicate. But, rather, all I meant was that in his CPR, he defines the concept of "higher thought" as being defined as a "synthesis of cognitions," and which does define everything around us, and in the universe. As there does exist 3-D tangible form nouns: the planets, and the movement, or motion between those 3-D nouns, but which we now know is 4-D space/time. So in reference to Kant, I am just trying to explain that the "4-D structure" contained within The Annunciation fulfills his requirement for a defined "higher" synthesis of cognitions. But remember also, in order to understand The Annunciation's implications, you must be capable of fully understanding its structure, and I can only believe that Kant did not know of its existence.

So, it would be rather interesting to know what he did think of its function, if he did know that it existed, and while in addition to others such as Einstein, or people such as Einstein, and which is the whole point of introducing the concepts: So that the peole who are in this world today who are like Kant, or Newton - or who are interested in these concepts, can know this function exists.

MrMikeludo

[owleye]

[quotation said to be from Leonardo]"Here no one hazards guesses as to whether two threes makes more or less than six."

As clear and concise as: 3 + 3 = 6.

But, admitttedly, it is one of those concepts which is both simple, yet complicated, much like gravity.

In the citation from Leonardo, what is the context in which he expresses this sentiment? He seems to be complaining about something. What is it? Concepts are of all sorts. Some clear, others vague. What's the point that Leonardo is making? Be that as it may, it doesn't convey what you say it conveys if your point is that the concept you are after is like gravity coupled with the idea that it is both simple and complicated. I'm afraid I don't see the relevance.

When I said that a forgery had the "same value" as the original, I suppose I wasn't being perfectly clear. What I meant was, consider these words here:

"Declaration of Independence: When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the power of the Earth, the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel to seperation...We hold these truths to be self-evident..."

Those "words" have a certain, intrinsic, cognitive value, when read abstractly on this page, which everyone recognizes. But an original, and "one of a kind" - authored by the hand of Thomas Jefferson, copy of the actual Declaration of Independence is, quite literally, and unquestionably, priceless. And that is all I meant: That an accurate "copy" of a picture has the same, purely, cognitive value, but surely not historical, or cultural value.

I don't have a problem with this (making certain assumptions about what you mean by 'picture'), much as I expressed it in discussing the example of composed music. However, when it comes to forgery, it is usually in the context of a painting. But there is much more to this issue than just the forgery. What should be said about art restoration, or lip synching? Besides, why do historians (and, by extension, we) care whether the artwork (say of the sort you believe the Declaration of Independence) is authored by Thomas Jefferson. According to your theory, it has the same artistic value were it created by monkeys with pen and ink in hand, or perhaps by some computer?

"...Are you making some sort of case about space and time that is integral to art?"

Yes: exactly, that is what I am saying. But, only exactly in this one particular picture, does the defined space/time structure exist. And which: the space/time structure, is the literally defined pictorial equivalent of Kant's defined "synthesis of cognitions," and/or the definition of "pictorial syntax," and/or "structure," and/or "intelligence."

So, what is the significance of this to art? If this is what you say Leonardo had an interest in and he brought it into his painting, what makes this so important that it defines art, generally. More importantly, why is it necessary to bring in Einstein and Kant here? They are not making your point about art. Why not make your own point about the painting indicating Leonardo's intentions about the painting?

Now, remember, this is where, and how, it begins to become confusing, and rather like when I said (to Cagla), imagine if someone said:"Did you know Einstein explained E=mc2," (and not that I am "like" Einstein, but rather Leonardo was, and I simply understand the language he introduced). Because, when I provide the simple demonstration: of the non-tangible form geometrical shapes contained within The Annunciation, people say:"That's meaningless," and so then I have to go through the process of explaining it, and then they, may, say:"That is making it confusing," but it's not, it's really simple: in theory.

Ok. Assume you convinced me that Leonardo is pointing out something significant in his painting equa to that of Einstein's E=Mc2. Other than pointing out your own acumen, how does it relate to what art is, generally?

"Well, the a priori nature of space and time have since been demolished, leaving Kant's theory without support..."

I must admit, that I always consider that term: a priori, in this literal sense:

"a priori: logic known to be true independently of experience - requiring no evidence for its valadation"

And as directly opposed to this:

"a priori: logic relating to or involving deductive reasoning"

So, for me, the term: a priori, means something which just exists independently of us human beings, and which are the things which we can learn, and sometimes with our understanding "changing," but the concept; itself, never changes. Perhaps there is a better term I should use to convey this thought. (A suggestion would be appreciated.)

Well, if you were interested in what a priori means in the context of Kant, you should read Kant. He provides that definition for you. The point here is Kant's epistemology says our knowledge of space and time is a priori (logically prior to experience). This means that what we take to be the real space and time of our experience is none other than forms of intuition in our mind. Such a priori knowledge is also associated with his categories of understanding, among which include such categories as quantity, quality, cause-effect and reality itself.

"What is a humanistic emotion? Is it any different than human emotion?"

I always forget to clarify that. I'm sorry. What I am talking about is something, exactly, "different" than that which an animal can experience, and which is the extremes of reactionary capablilities, and because of the "baisic" - animalistic, biochemical inductions, such as dopamine; which is "sex," and which an animal can experience, and not unique to humans. But also, I am talking about the emotions which a psychopath can NOT experience, and as Dr. Robert Hare did explain:

"Psychopaths seem to suffer a kind of emotional poverty which limits the range and depth of their emotions. Careful observers are left with the impression that they are play-acting and that little is going on below the surface...Sometimes they claim to experience strong emotions but are unable to describe the subtleties of various affective states. For example, they equate love with sexual arousal, sadness with frustration and anger with irritability. Powerful cravings also seem to characterize them, as in drug addiction..."

And so I am talking about those subtleties which only truly: uniquely humanistic - and not animalistic or physchopathic, intelligent human beings can experience. ..... And thus create a uniquely "humanistic" emotional response, and something which an animal, or a psychopath, can not experience.

Ok, I guess. However, I don't see why art should exclude what you seem to be excluding? Does art have to be about the beautiful?

James

[Positor]

I think there is a basic semantic problem with such questions as "What is art?", "Does art have to be about the beautiful?" etc.

Normally when we ask "What is X?", we have at least a vague idea of the meaning of "X". For example, if we ask "What is water?", we mean something like "What is the chemical composition of that liquid found in lakes, rivers, rain etc?" If we ask "What is consciousness?", we mean "What is the precise physical or metaphysical nature of that mysterious property that makes us aware of things?"

But when we ask "What is art?", the word "art" seems to have no prior fixed meaning corresponding to the italicised phrases above. One can define it in a wide range of ways that will make the answer true by definition. If one defines "art" as that which is beautiful, then the answer "Art is that which is beautiful" follows tautologously. Ditto for any other definition, e.g. "that which illuminates the human condition", "that which reflects universal truth", "that which ennobles mankind" etc.

Before we can ask "What is art?" (i.e. ask for a philosophical analysis of art, or a list of items that count as art) we need to agree what the word "art" basically means. We need a rough working definition in the first place, and I don't think we have one. So the question can have no agreed answer.

[rrushius]

Also, I am sorry but I did not mean to say that Nietzsche and Kierkegard were actually Sophists, as I am not very familiar with them, or that there exists only two schools of philosophy, but rather there does exist, at least, another philosophical viewpoint; opposed to Sophistry, and which is the Platonic viewpoint, or a belief in absolute truths. And which is the philosophical viewpoint to which I subscribe.
MrMikeludo

This is pretty obvious. In fact, your entire theory of art can be questioned on the basis of your philosophical belief. Not only that, but your case is an amazing example of the relation between totalitarianism and the belief in absolute truths. In addition, your theory strikes me as a superficial set of loosely gathered ideas, in which consciously or unconsciously, you make a great mish-mash of terms, for example confusing symmetry (visual) with harmony (auditory, music). It wouldn't be nearly as bad if at least you clarified that you are using them as analogies, but you go on treating them as exactly the same--and though they may have similar and even identical elements, depending on what you might be focusing on, in their entirety harmony and symmetry are not the same (For example, symmetry might be harmonious, but harmony need not be symmetrical). However, I will provide here a youtube video to see whether it fits with what you are saying or not, and how exactly you could make it fit.

http://youtu.be/JMkeyIsLdW4

I am not against the idea that music can produce visual effects in the listener, but I don't see how this makes a case for The Annunciation being the greatest painting of all time. I could very well say that rhythm creates a sort of exhilarating vibration in the body, and therefore Antonin Artaud is the greatest writer of all time because he makes use of rhythm in his writing. I could also add that Glossolalia is a higher form of speech because it seems to be rhythmical, and that ululation is more intelligent than a well thought-out sentence. But, as I hope you will understand, all these statements have nothing to do with truth, and they don't even have to be completely untruthful either, they might depend a lot on context. For example ululation may indeed be a more intelligent and intimidating response to an approaching enemy than a well thought-out sentence, which will not make a difference at all in the outcome of the battle. The statement about Antonin Artaud might just be a result of the speaker's subjective belief, while the glossolalia example might have something to do with a particular set of beliefs, cults, esoteric knowledge and so on. So far, your theory about Leonardo's Annunciation, which is very akin to the above statement about Antonin Artaud, seems to be more a subjective case, concealed behind apparently scholarly reflections than anything else.

In any case, though I cannot counter all your misconceptions and erroneous assumptions here, for it would require great labour to do that, and as I have learned only too well, it would in the end, be a worthless enterprise, at least I can advice you to make this a bit more readable and enjoyable. As it is, I cannot go through your entire posts, not because you are making use of any complex information that I am unable to process, but because you jump from one notion to the next without really elucidating any of them, which betrays the fact that you take them as self-evident truths that need no careful explanation--I never thought I'd say this to anyone, but probably you should try to focus on one notion at a time, so rather than going for width go for depth.

Furthermore, if I were you, I'd refrain from making use of authors and philosophers with which you are not well acquainted. It does not seem to me that you are justified in mentioning either Nietzsche or Kant as regards your theory for you do not seem to have studied them firsthand. I would suspect that the reason you are throwing a number of famous names into the discussion, is to make appeal to their authority. None of them, by the way, not even Nietzsche, who tried to explain what genius is, could do so in any satisfactory manner--read for instance his "On the Future of Our Educational Institutions," to create an idea of the difficulty of the question.

As for your example of Dr. Hare, he is a criminal psychologist, and as such, I would assume he uses mostly a legal framework to inform his psychological one--hence his preoccupation with rules which you have taken so much to heart. In any case, who would really trust a criminal psychologist? Not even an insane person, or a felon!

[MrMikeludo]

owlye

In response to this:

“In the citation from Leonardo ('Here no one hazards guesses as to whether two threes makes more or less than six.'), what is the context in which he expresses this sentiment? He seems to be complaining about something. What is it? Concepts are of all sorts. Some clear, others vague. What's the point that Leonardo is making? Be that as it may, it doesn't convey what you say it conveys if your point is that the concept you are after is like gravity coupled with the idea that it is both simple and complicated. I'm afraid I don't see the relevance.”

Well, Leonardo was complaining about something, and if you were to read Leonardo's notes you would probably be surprised at how often he does complain about this same concept. Because, he very often does say things such as that, and this (which I think I had already cited) also:

“...Of what use, pray, is he who in order to abridge the part of the things which he professes to give complete information leaves out the greater part of the matters of which the whole is composed...And it seems to you that you have performed miracles when you have spoiled the work of some ingenious mind.”

The reason Leonardo said these things, is because some people would “abridge” his representation of dynamic symmetry in The Annunciation, and reduce it to:”It is a painting of two people, some trees and a building.” That is not what the picture is about, it is about the formation of the dynamic symmetry.

The point I was trying to make, in saying that it is like gravity and both simple and complicated, is that if you look at the demonstration I provided; of drawing the lines on top of the picture, that demonstration appears to be simple, but to produce that affect, from nothing, is complicated.

In response to this:

“...What should be said about art restoration, or lip synching? Besides, why do historians (and, by extension, we) care whether the artwork (say of the sort you believe the Declaration of Independence) is authored by Thomas Jefferson. According to your theory, it has the same artistic value were it created by monkeys with pen and ink in hand, or perhaps by some computer?”

If a picture gets damaged, I suppose it can be repaired, or not. I would prefer not to see people “lip synch.” According to this theory, a monkey would be incapable of producing the affect of dynamic symmetry, but would be capable of producing much of 20th century art, thus the lack of credence I attribute to those paintings. (I think we should be careful not to confuse what I believe is an inherently good function, with an inherently bad function: Which is recognizing the achievements of people such as Mozart, as opposed to idol worship.)

In response to this:

"...Are you making some sort of case about space and time that is integral to art?'
So, what is the significance of this to art? If this is what you say Leonardo had an interest in and he brought it into his painting, what makes this so important that it defines art, generally. More importantly, why is it necessary to bring in Einstein and Kant here? They are not making your point about art. Why not make your own point about the painting indicating Leonardo's intentions about the painting?”

Again; yes, that is exactly what I am saying: That in The Annunciation there exists an affect which is unique to that picture, and to all literally defined visual musical equivalents, which is the function of affecting; purposefully affecting, the formation of a space/time continuum.

Beings I am having trouble defining it in an abstract language, how about if I define it in a way, as Leonardo did define:

“...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.”

From my own personal experience. Because I did hand build my own house, and I am personally familiar with the process of constructing the formation of a 3-D tangible form house. So I know that in order to build that structure, which is the “house,” you must follow a certain process. It begins with taking individual studs; 2 by 4's, and laying them out; 16 inches on center, along the perimeter of what is going to be a wall, lets say the left wall as you stand in front of the house. And you nail those individual studs to a bottom plate and a top plate, then you stand up that structure, and form a wall, again with this first wall being the left wall. Then you repeat this process for the back wall, the right side wall, and the front wall. And then, after you build the walls, you place floor joists, which will also function as ceiling rafters, on top of the individual wall studs, and you will then have built an individual “room” of the 3-D tangible formation house. Within which: the structure of the four walls and ceiling rafters/floor joists, you will have simultaneously formed a 3-D cubic volume of space. Well, this is the same “structure”: non-tangible form structure, which exists within The Annunciation, and which is the structure I explained by the demonstration at the very beginning of this post.

If anyone has an interest in this, the more you investigate it, the more real it will become, while if you do not have an interest in it, you can, and will simply remain blind to it.

Again, I didn't “bring Einstein into this,” they did:

“Picasso and Einstein cross paths and offer a mirthful night. In the program for Picasso at the Lapin Agile – the director, cast and staff pose 20 questions you might ponder after viewing the play. 'What is genius,' they ask. 'How does genius get recognized....The Cubists wanted to introduce the concept of 'relativity'...”

As they are, and were, the ones who made the analogy to Einstein, and relativity also. They were the ones who said that a 2-D Cubist picture is a representation of the fourth dimension, and that is beyond ridiculous. While, simultaneously, what Leonardo did actually – factually, scientifically, and mathematically too, produce in The Annunciation is.

So, if they: the art community (remember I am explaining this concept for you because you said that you are not very familiar with the art community), made the analogy to Picasso, and Cubist pictures, shouldn't someone who has actually done what they say is significant get the exact credit for doing what they say is important? And which answers this question:

“Ok. Assume you convinced me that Leonardo is pointing out something significant in his painting equal to that of Einstein's E=Mc2. Other than pointing out your own acumen, how does it relate to what art is, generally?”

And again, because you have already told me that you are not very familiar with the art community, while I am, I will tell you exactly what the significance is.

Firstly, it: the mathematical structure, is the literal definition of pictorial intelligence, as if I were to write these words:”Ball have I the may,” every intelligent person would only say:”That sentence is 'wrong,' it should read; 'May I have the ball?” So, if a picture does not contain this structure, it can not be defined as intelligence. The second aspect is much more relevant. Which is the fact that most of what passes as “20th century art” has little, if any at all, intrinsic value, such as this:

“In the 20th century, artist Kasmir Malevict painted a series of wholly abstract white-on-white compositions...”

Which is literally a blank canvas. And which isn't the definition of intelligence, it is the definition of imagination:

“Imagination: the formation of a mental image of something that is not perceived as real and as not present to the senses.”

And not imagination on the artist's part, but the viewer, as the viewer must employ their imagination to see anything beyond that blank canvas. So, the concept they promote: that the artist is a genius for their “work” - of a “blank canvas,” is exactly backwards. And also, and of course, a blank canvas has no more intrinsic value than a blank wall, so what would be the point in looking at that canvas, when a person could look at a wall?

In response to this:

“Well, if you were interested in what a priori means in the context of Kant, you should read Kant. He provides that definition for you. The point here is Kant's epistemology says our knowledge of space and time is a priori (logically prior to experience)...”

Well, I did read Kant. I was simply making an analogy to help communicate the concept. Again, my use of the phrase: a priori, in the context, means what you said: “...prior to (our) experience,” I don't see why the semantics: the literal letter of the law, should confuse the concept: the spirit of the law. I simply mean that 3-D space, and also 4-D time, exist independent of human beings, and we can only learn of their existence. (If a priori is not the exact proper phrase to communicate that concept, pick another phrase, such as: “independently of,” human beings.)

In response to this:

“Ok, I guess. However, I don't see why art should exclude what you seem to be excluding? Does art have to be about the beautiful?”

Beings you have already told me that you are not very familiar with the art community, and as I am very familiar with it, I will tell you exactly what I mean. It is the fact that they: they people responsible for advertising the pictures, say this:

“...In a similar vein, Brice M- eyeballed the proportions of Cezanne's monumental 'The Large Bathers' and interpreted them as a symphony...”

And also this:

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

And, again, also this:

“...The Cubists wanted to introduce the concept or 'relativity'...”

And this concept applies not just to “art,” but quite literally everything:

“Wood's Saga Is Just Beginning – Probably we should have had enough of him for a while. Shouldn't we? But just about the time you think you would be Tigered out, he conjures up some new feat of daring and daring-do. Get enough? How can you get enough when every time out – every time, he's apt to do something we have never seen before...It looked like a concert. And, of course, in a way it was. Maestro Tiger Woods, using his 8-iron like a baton..."

And which is the fact that not only the art community uses that analogy: that the phenomena they are promoting is the equivalent to a “symphony,” but everyone uses it. But, again, especially the art community uses that analogy, and as I have personally experienced it countless times. So, if they are making the analogy, shouldn't they then be interested in something which is literally the pictorial equivalent of a symphony? But, and much more importantly, shouldn't the patrons who do have an interest in seeing the literal equivalent of “Mozart” have the opportunity to see it? This I have learned from personal experience, as I have met people who are capable of fully understanding the equivalent, and who are capable of experiencing the phenomena. And they are the ones who have said that everyone should know about this. And then so; if you are promoting something as the equivalent of Mozart, then shouldn't it be, or then, what would be the point?

And too, and of course, they are the ones who also made the comparison to Einstein, and his theory of Relativity, so, in essence, shouldn't the people who have become interested in “art” because they do have an interest in seeing a literal equivalent to Relativity, be afforded the opportunity to see the literal pictorial equivalent of Einstein's theory of Relativity, and which is Leonardos' The Annunciation. And, again, if not, then what would be the point: in making the analogy?

This is what I am saying: If you advertise something as some “thing” then it simply should be that thing, and not something else. Advertise Cubist pictures as “childishly imaginative art,” but NOT as a pictorial representation of Einstein's theory of Relativity, or a representation of genius. Advertise Pollock's pictures as more “childishly simplistic art,” but NOT as the pictorial equivalent of Mozart, or as the representation of genius. Advertise Cezanne's pictures as some kind of weird hybrid of stylistic approaches to painting a picture, but also NOT as a “symphony” or another representation of genius, or a revolution - as they are the exact same kinds of pictures that were made prior to the Renaissance, and they were not something brand new. This is what I am saying. And only because I do know that there are people who are looking for those things, and they should be afforded the opportunity to find them, shouldn't they?

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

rrushius:

I am sorry, but in regards to this:

“...your theory strikes me as a superficial set of loosely gathered ideas, in which consciously or unconsciously, you make a great mish-mash of terms, for example confusing symmetry (visual) with harmony (auditory, music). It wouldn't be nearly as bad if at least you clarified that you are using them as analogies, but you go on treating them as exactly the same--and though they may have similar and even identical elements, depending on what you might be focusing on, in their entirety harmony and symmetry are not the same (For example, symmetry might be harmonious, but harmony need not be symmetrical).”

I checked, and yes:

“Symmetry: beauty as a result of balance or harmonious arrangement”

The definition, according to the people who have defined it, of “symmetry,” is synonymous to “harmony.” I don't know what more I can say about that, except, perhaps, I believe that you simply do not want to understand the concepts which I am attempting to explain, as, perhaps, you are a fan of Picasso, and Cubism. And, if you are: I do not know because you have yet to tell me, you probably would not like the concepts which I am attempting to convey. And so just my attempt to prove them will, seem, to contradict what you enjoy. Again, I do not know what kind of art you enjoy because you have yet to tell me. But I do feel as if a person can enjoy this also, if you can accept it for its intrinsic value.

Because, this concept too:

“This is pretty obvious. In fact, your entire theory of art can be questioned on the basis of your philosophical belief. Not only that, but your case is an amazing example of the relation between totalitarianism and the belief in absolute truths...”

Is exactly backwards: in relation to comparing Cubism to what is a literal visual musical equivalent, and simple for you to prove for yourself. Because, the definition of “totalitarianism,” is:

“Totalitarianism: dictatorship – a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator”

And the definition of a dictator, is:

“A person who tells people what to do in an autocratic way or who determines behavior in a particular sphere.”

And the definition of autocratic, is:

“Taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering.”

And so, you can prove for yourself the fact that this is not what I believe, but what they believe. Because, go outside: into reality, and see if you find any 2-D “flounder people,” or people that look like a Cubist picture, out in reality. And too see if there is anything that looks like a Cezanne scene, wherein the distance seems near: out in reality. And too see if there is anything that looks like an “Impressionist” seen: wherein everything is all blurry, and not clearly defined, out in reality. You will not find any of those things out in reality, as they are all the abstraction of all those individual's minds, and, therefore, a part of an autocratic function, and absolutely devoid of other people's viewpoints, or opinions. Now, go back out into reality, and see if the section of sidewalk you are standing upon appears to be a little wider than the next section, which it will. And then see if this function repeats itself all the way up to the horizon line, which it will. And then see that the mass of Earth is greater than that of light, which it is. And then see that the Earth is down below your feet and that light is up in the sky, which it is. And then see that when you begin to walk down the street you will experience a serotonin biochemical induction, which you will. And then see that if you were to begin to move more quickly, you would experience an endorphin biochemical induction, which you will. While these latter elements are the functions which exist in a visual musical equivalent, and which are the functions which every human being, who has ever lived, will have exactly in common. So we can know, for a fact, that the visual musical equivalents access the collective consciousness of mankind, while the other artist's pictures: any non-visual musical equivalent, is an abstraction only of their personal opinion, and individual, or autocratic, viewpoint.

And, I did view the Youtube video which you suggested I view, thankyou for that. But, I believe that might be part of the problem, as the concept I am trying to explain is really not so much like that, but rather “seeing” the absolute function of fundamental frequency modulations, or notes, and they don't just float out there in space, as seeing there relative function is an important part of experiencing the affect. Because, let me explain this most basic function, and how it literally functions, and see if you can see how it is different than the video (which I did enjoy regardless). Which is the affect of seeing the chord, of: “Do-Re-Mi,” and seeing the literal both cognitive and visual function. And which is, as you experience the function: of seeing and experiencing the affect, what will literally happen is, your mind will move from the literal position which is just below your feet: at “Do,” and then move to the exact next position: at “Re,” and which would be the equivalent of “moving” to the next section of sidewalk: as you stand upon a sidewalk out in reality. And then, with the affecting of the note: “Mi,” your mind will literally move “up” - and “out,” simultaneously, and to the point of “Mi,” and which would be the literal “third” section of sidewalk: up – out and away, from you: exactly positioned there: at that exact “third – Mi,” simultaneously relative “point,” and not just floating in space.

Do you see how that is different than the video. Because in the video, there are many different notes that are being played, but, in the video, every note has the same affect: as if you were viewing a drip in a pond, and which creates a “ripple” affect. But they all originate at the same point: in space, and propagate “out” in all directions, and there is no simultaneously relative purposefully affected articulation of the individual notes, and as opposed to the function which I have just explained. And this function does exactly define “directed tension,” and which, you could check, no one else in the world can define. Which is, if you were to take a string of a guitar and pluck it, you would affect a note, which would then move the listener's mind to the corresponding point of the note. Then, if you were to push against the string at the midpoint, and put tension on the string: exactly at the midpoint, you would then affect a note an octave “above” the first, and which would, then, move the mind up – out, and away, from the first note, on purpose, and while harnessing the function of directed tension.

And this is the purposeful function which Leonardo has harnessed in The Annunciation, and so which answers this question:

“I am not against the idea that music can produce visual effects in the listener, but I don't see how this makes a case for The Annunciation being the greatest painting of all time...”

Because this is the exact function which Leonardo has harnessed in The Annunciation. And which is the ability to purposefully “direct” the viewers mind through the representation of space/time, and while simultaneously enabling the viewer to experience the affects which music is capable of causing, and only music.

But, again, you have to remember, that I did literally spend my entire life “practicing” how to be able to experience it, so others shouldn't be expected to be able to fully experience it immediately. But also, the more receptive you become of it, the more you can begin to experience it, you simply have to be willing to give it a chance. And, I guarantee you, the more receptive you become of it, the more you will enjoy it, and it does just keep growing, and growing.

MrMikeludo (p.s. I am sorry I misspelled your name.)

[MrMikeludo]

Positor:

As I wrote to owleye, I believe that the problem with the art community is not so much how to simply define art, but rather the fact that they seem not to know how to define certain aspects of art. I don't know how familiar you are with the art community, but I did become very involved, with the community, in my attempt to find someone to promote the concepts relating to existence of the visual musical equivalents. And I did personally learn that the community, itself, creates many confusions. Such as this fact, that they define a Jackson Pollock picture as the pictorial equivalent of Mozart:

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

And, so we can, exactly, address this issue:

“Normally when we ask "What is X?", we have at least a vague idea of the meaning of "X". For example, if we ask "What is water?", we mean something like "What is the chemical composition of that liquid found in lakes, rivers, rain etc?" If we ask "What is consciousness?", we mean "What is the precise physical or metaphysical nature of that mysterious property that makes us aware of things?"

But when we ask "What is art?", the word "art" seems to have no prior fixed meaning corresponding to the italicised phrases above...”

Because the understanding, which I am promoting, does enable us to factually define “what is music,” and also “what is the pictorial equivalent of Mozart,” and also, what is:

“...In a similar vein, Brice M- eyeballed the proportions of Cezanne's monumental 'The Large Bathers' and interpreted them as a symphony...”

The definition of, both, an actual symphony, and a pictorial equivalent of a symphony. And also, what is the actual pictorial equivalent of:

“...the Cubists wanted to introduce the concept of 'relativity'...”

Experiencing Einstein's explained theory of relativity, and the fourth dimension of time, and as much as it is capable of being experienced in a pictorial equivalent.

And so we can:

“Before we can ask "What is art?" (i.e. ask for a philosophical analysis of art, or a list of items that count as art) we need to agree what the word "art" basically means. We need a rough working definition in the first place, and I don't think we have one....”

At least begin to answer some of these questions, and begin to eliminate some of the confusions. We can begin by explaining exactly what is the literal definition of music, and then what is the definition of a literal visual musical equivalent. And then what is the definition of beginning to experience the fourth dimension of time, and then what is a pictorial equivalent of the fourth dimension of time, and also what is the pictorial equivalent of Einstein's explained theory of Relativity. And then we can also begin to say:”This is a childishly simplistic concept, this is more complicated, and this is something which requires even more effort still.” And too, because if the people who are supposed to be responsible for teaching the art students don't know the difference, how could we ever expect the succeeding generations to know what is what.

So this would be a good place to start: exactly where the people who are controlling the art have begun to apply specific definitions, and exactly such as: “This is the pictorial equivalent of Mozart,” and then, simply by the process of elimination, we can work towards saying:”Yes, this is 'X,' and this is not 'X.” And then we will have a rough working of the definition, which we can, then, begin to refine even further.

MrMikeludo

[owleye]

The reason Leonardo said these things, is because some people would “abridge” his representation of dynamic symmetry in The Annunciation, and reduce it to:”It is a painting of two people, some trees and a building.” That is not what the picture is about, it is about the formation of the dynamic symmetry.

The point I was trying to make, in saying that it is like gravity and both simple and complicated, is that if you look at the demonstration I provided; of drawing the lines on top of the picture, that demonstration appears to be simple, but to produce that affect, from nothing, is complicated.

So this is your whole point? It's artistic value (its appearance of simplicity) is that it is difficult to produce? In other words, dynamic symmetries are difficult to produce because they are complicated from a production standpoint. It takes genius to accomplish this. Something similar to how Joe Dimaggio made it look easy -- reference to a famous baseball player in the U.S. of the past.

I don't have an objection to the direction this takes me as it now completely reorients the art work back to the artist. It is the genius of the artist that makes art what it is. It's what's behind the work that's significant. Danto would agree with you.

However, unlike you, Danto would recognize so-called modern art as art because, unlike you, he would acknowledge the difficulty of presenting what it is that is being presented as art by the moderns. Guthrie is the artist behind his work and like Leonardo would object to those, like you, who claim their work is a simpleton. Danto would express this by indicating that those who are the naysayers don't really understand what it took to produce the work. They don't get it. To get it requires that we, in effect, get inside the artist, determine what it is that was intended by it. This is why you went to the source, Leonardo himself, to gauge its significance, and is how Danto would respond to your claims.

[I'm afraid I wasn't able to follow the rest of the post, even though I asked for a clarification. Though I used to think quite a bit about what makes good art, good, I no longer do this. I do appreciate that you have a much greater understanding of the art world than I do.]

James

[MrMikeludo]

owelye:

I am sorry, I was having a particularly trying couple of days, and I always feel as if I should respond to any post as quickly as possible purely out of respect for others, so some of my replies may have been a bit short, but I feel as if I should clarify some things.

Because, well no:

“So this is your whole point? It's artistic value (its appearance of simplicity) is that it is difficult to produce? In other words, dynamic symmetries are difficult to produce because they are complicated from a production standpoint. It takes genius to accomplish this. Something similar to how Joe Dimaggio made it look easy -- reference to a famous baseball player in the U.S. of the past.”

That is not the whole point, but it is part of the point. Because, also, I don't mean to imply that producing the affect of dynamic symmetry is necessarily a proof of genius, or even intellect, but rather it is, as this person noted about Bach:

“It requires more than token humility for one who is good to become better through the self-criticism that attends the study of other artists' works; this was clearly Bach's attitude. 'I have worked hard' he said, 'anyone who works just as hard will go just as far'...The greatness of Bach's reputation has less to do, then, with genius--his innate talent--than with the self-discipline that nurtured that talent to its full potential...”

Just a matter of practicing diligently every day. And as Leonardo da Vinci did explain:

“...Therefore you must know, Oh Painter! that you cannot be a good one if you are not the universal master of representing by your art every kind of form produced by nature...And remember to acquire diligence rather than rapidity.”

But that is too part of the point. And just as you said, that when someone, such as Joe Dimaggio, became proficient he did make it look easy, just as Bach, or Mozart, made it look easy because of their proficiency.

But also I would like to point out that it is not so much a matter of the patron, or viewer, becoming capable of getting into the mind of the artist, as this suggests:

“I don't have an objection to the direction this takes me as it now completely reorients the art work back to the artist...Danto would express this by indicating that those who are the naysayers don't really understand what it took to produce the work. They don't get it. To get it requires that we, in effect, get inside the artist, determine what it is that was intended by it.”

Or being able to see things from the artist's viewpoint, but rather, when an artist learns to do this, it is a matter of the artist getting inside your mind, and the mind of the person next to you, and also the mind of “everyman,” or the collective consciousness of mankind. This doesn't mean that I have an objection to someone creating an abstraction of their own mind, and inviting us: the patron's, to try to get inside their minds also, but rather that there can exist this also.

Also, I would like to point out that I never said that all of 20th century art was the work of simple minded people, such as this implies:

“However, unlike you, Danto would recognize so-called modern art as art because, unlike you, he would acknowledge the difficulty of presenting what it is that is being presented as art by the moderns. Guthrie is the artist behind his work and like Leonardo would object to those, like you, who claim their work is a simpleton...”

Or that even Leonardo da Vinci would say that all of 20th century art is worthless. But rather, and as Leonardo did explain:

"...Cannot such artists keep some good work, and then say: this is costly work and this more moderate and this is average work and show that they can work at all prices."

That there does exist an entire range of art, from the good to the bad, the simple to the more complex, the kind of art that appeals to a wide audience and the kind that appeals to a very small audience. But just as I do feel this way about all things, and not just art. But, also, I thought that this was a sentiment shared by everyone, and that is the reason I promote, primarily, the concept of the visual musical equivalents, because everyone already knows about all the other art, and no one knows about these. So I believe that this doesn't make me closed minded, but rather more open minded than most.

Because, I did first go to all of the people who promote all the other art, and I did say to them:”Yes, yes I know there exists that, and that, and that, but there also exists this – these visual musical equivalents,” and they were the ones who were close minded to me, not the other way around. And remember also, I did say that had I known Cezanne personally I would have bought some of his paintings, and Cezanne never sold a single painting in his lifetime. Also, had I known Van Gogh I would have bought some of his paintings, and Van Gogh also never sold a single painting in his lifetime. So that doesn't make me close minded, but factually more open minded than the entire art community. And also, you may say:”Well, you say that now after the fact,” because now everyone wants them. But the fact of the matter is, I have bought art from my friends who are completely unknown, and who have made art that is even more absolutely abstract than either Cezanne or Van Gogh, and I buy the art not simply because I do like it, but because I feel that artists are an important part of our society, so sometimes I patronize them even when I really can't afford to. And actually also, I have personally befriended people who are artists, and brought them into my house, and given them a place to live, sometimes for free, and so that they can be afforded the opportunity to produce their art, so this too proves my love for all art, and not that I am an elitist, as I have literally taken people off the street so that they can make any kind of art, regardless of absolute capabilities. And actually, one of these people, that I literally found sleeping in my car one morning, moved in with me, went to art school: modern art school, and, in school, made an absolutely abstract “sculpture” which he gave to me; to thank me for helping him, and which I do love, and how many people, in the art community: who own 100 million dollar paintings, do you think would do that?

And so I would suppose that Danto, or any other patron of the arts, would very much approve of just how much I do patronize the arts; all the arts, and while also proving my love for the arts. And so my intention was not to make you not like any art, or to not think about what makes good art, but to actually become capable of appreciating all art: including the visual musical equivalents, while in addition to the other types of art also.

I am afraid there does exist no simple way of defining the visual musical equivalents, except to say, as Leonardo did explain:

“I give the degrees of the objects seen by the eye as the musician does the notes heard by the ear: Although the objects seen by the eye do, in fact, touch each other as they recede, I will nevertheless found my rule on spaces of 20 braccia; as a musician does with notes, which, though they can be carried on one into the next, he divides into degrees from note to note calling them 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th; and has affixed a name to each degree in raising or lowering the voice...”

When a person practices, and practices, and practices; diligently, they can become capable of looking at the visual musical equivalents, and literally hear music in their minds. Nothing else really matters, as far as the viewer is concerned, this is the complete concept: “You can look at them and hear music.”

MrMikeludo
(p.s. I am sorry that I misspelled your name in a previous post.)

[owleye]

That is not the whole point, but it is part of the point. Because, also, I don't mean to imply that producing the affect of dynamic symmetry is necessarily a proof of genius, or even intellect,

I've been taking the purpose of your postings to be a response to the quesiton: "What is art?" Implicit in this, I suppose, is the question: "What is good art and how is it distinguished from art that not's so good.". This is to say that I'd be happy to limit the discussion to good art. As such, when I wrote: "only point", I meant first that this point deals with the topic question. My reason for the use of 'only' was due to the emphasis on Leonardo, and in particular "The Annunciation". That you seemed to go to great lengths to bring in a discussion of space and time, it seemed as if this was your main point about art in general. However, if it only relates to this work of art, then I'm happy to back off with the use of 'only'. The 'dynamic symmetry issue, however, I took to reflect your interpretation of Leonardo's achievement. Unfortunately my wording made it seem as if I was emphasizing this feature. My apologies.

... [The following appears to be something you had earlier written here.]“It requires more than token humility for one who is good to become better through the self-criticism that attends the study of other artists' works; this was clearly Bach's attitude. 'I have worked hard' he said, 'anyone who works just as hard will go just as far'...The greatness of Bach's reputation has less to do, then, with genius--his innate talent--than with the self-discipline that nurtured that talent to its full potential...”

Hmm... This ('genius') would make a good topic all by itself. Philosophically, the usual example given is Mozart because it is supposed that his 'genius' came about at such an early stage. However, I'm told that he was under the influence at an early age by some taskmaster who made him practice a goodly number of hours every day. (It's been a while and i'm afraid I can't recall any details here. It's just something that stuck in my mind.)

Or being able to see things from the artist's viewpoint, but rather, when an artist learns to do this, it is a matter of the artist getting inside your mind, and the mind of the person next to you, and also the mind of “everyman,” or the collective consciousness of mankind. This doesn't mean that I have an objection to someone creating an abstraction of their own mind, and inviting us: the patron's, to try to get inside their minds also, but rather that there can exist this also.

I'm not sure this makes a lot of sense. From what you cite in a prior post, Leonardo objected to how his art was interpreted by what i've taken to be simpletons who didn't understand what was going on. I recognize how something might be difficult to achieve yet be seen as something easily achieved. This is why I brought out the Joe Dimaggio example. Whenever a ballplayer as color man who is making a comment about the grace of Joe Dimaggio after one of his routine catches in the outfield, said ballplayer always adds that "he makes it look easy", supplemented by a comment that "It's not that easy folks." It takes someone on the inside to realize it. Otherwise it might not even be noticed.

Also, I would like to point out that I never said that all of 20th century art was the work of simple minded people,

My apologies. You'd made some comment about what monkeys might be able to do, and I leaped to the conclusion that this said something about modern art. I'm not familiar enough with 'modern art' to know all its sub-categories. Let me make use of a work by Andy Warhol, namely his "Campbell Soup Cans". It seems as if you would object to this being considered art. (I can of course be wrong here and I welcome correction, especially if you can provide an example of a work that doesn't meet your standards but is apparently thought otherwise by the so-called "art world".)

And so I would suppose that Danto, or any other patron of the arts, would very much approve of just how much I do patronize the arts; all the arts, and while also proving my love for the arts. And so my intention was not to make you not like any art, or to not think about what makes good art, but to actually become capable of appreciating all art: including the visual musical equivalents, while in addition to the other types of art also.

First, it doesn't seem as if you've said much about art, from a philosophic perspective, which would be my interest, and second, I confess I remain in agreement with Danto on what in a general sense is the essence of good art. You haven't given me any good reason to change my mind.

I take it you are an authority on great art. However, what appears from the posts you've written, is that you may be able to say something significant about the works of art you have studied, but you appear not to have the skills to say something general enough about all of them in a relatively few words. Now, where this skill is usually demonstrated is when one develops a thesis or dissertation. Such a thesis statement is usually a very short topic statement. What follows then, would be a defense of that thesis.

Now, the topic you've introduced reads like the thesis would be: "On the question: what is art? Does the Da Vinci work: "The Annunciation" reveal it?" Though this may have been my impression early on, even right up to this last post, I'm no longer sure what you are defending. Perhaps you can think about this and make an attempt at a thesis statement. As far as getting me to appreciate great art, have no fear, I do.

James

[MrMikeludo]

owleye:

Yes, I think I would like to agree with you that:

“I've been taking the purpose of your postings to be a response to the quesiton: "What is art?" Implicit in this, I suppose, is the question: "What is good art and how is it distinguished from art that not's so good.". This is to say that I'd be happy to limit the discussion to good art...”

The topic of discussion I would like to address, is what is good art, as opposed to bad art. Or, not even that we can't discuss what is bad art, as I would be rather curious to hear your opinion as to what you do actually consider to be bad, or good, art, or if you believe that there can even exist such a thing.

In regards to this:

“...when I wrote: "only point", I meant first that this point deals with the topic question. My reason for the use of 'only' was due to the emphasis on Leonardo, and in particular "The Annunciation". That you seemed to go to great lengths to bring in a discussion of space and time, it seemed as if this was your main point about art in general.”

And in regards to the function of space and time which exists within The Annunciation, don't forget that Leonardo da Vinci did also produce: The Mona Lisa, and which is not only the single most recognized piece of art in the world, but it is the single most recognized “image,” in general, in the history of the world. And there is no function of space/time in Leonardo's Mona Lisa, but it is, arguably, the single “best” work of art in the history of the world. So, applying the function of space/time is not necessarily the ultimate definition of art, or the only thing I, or Leonardo, recognize, as the criteria for art.

And so, yes:

“...However, if it only relates to this work of art, then I'm happy to back off with the use of 'only'.”

It does only apply to this work of art, or any literal visual musical equivalents. But, remember also, the basic function, which is responsible for experiencing the visual musical equivalents, is a capability which has varying degrees of ability, and the basic capability can be employed on an elementary level.

As far as this is concerned:

“...From what you cite in a prior post, Leonardo objected to how his art was interpreted by what i've taken to be simpletons who didn't understand what was going on. I recognize how something might be difficult to achieve yet be seen as something easily achieved. This is why I brought out the Joe Dimaggio example.”

You have to also remember, that this is a sentiment shared by many, while including Mozart, and as he emphasized when he said this:

“Give me the best instruments in Europe, but listeners who understand nothing or who do not wish to understand and who do not feel with me in what I am playing, and all my pleasure is spoilt.”

And which I am sure everyone can both understand and empathsize with. Because, I mean suppose you were a musician, and you were playing a show, at a small venue, and there were people talking while you were playing music, wouldn't you be upset?

Also, as far as something being “like a monkey can produce,” in modern art, you have to remember that there actually are modern works of art produced by animals:

“Welcome to the Elephant Art Gallery: This website is a showcase for paintings by elephant artists at the National Elephant Institute, Thailand. They make great gifts for animal lovers and for anyone who appreciates beautiful and unique works of art....”

And while I believe that these works of art can be treated as a novelty, some people actually do go on to define them as substantial, which I do not believe they are. So I do not believe that a work of art created by an animal can be equal to that which can, possibly, be created by humans, and that there are some works of art, created by humans, that look very similar to those produced by the animals.

As far as the question of Warhol, is concerned:

“...'modern art' to know all its sub-categories. Let me make use of a work by Andy Warhol, namely his "Campbell Soup Cans". It seems as if you would object to this being considered art.”

I am sorry, but I am not sure as to whether you mean that the actual art which is the label for the Campbell Soup Can itself should be considered art, which I do, or the reproduction of the label by Warhol itself should be considered art, simply because Warhol chose that image to recreate, of which I am not certain. Perhaps you could explain for me the context of what you may mean by this.

Also, I am sorry but I never meant to imply that I was an authority on great art:

“...I take it you are an authority on great art.”

Or an authority on anything. But, rather, that I do know of the existence of the visual musical equivalents, and I have learned how to define their existence. But I do not consider myself an authority on anything.

Also, I would like to explain that I wish that I did not have to explain their existence to the world, but I would have preferred that someone else would have, because attempting to do so is something which I simply do not enjoy.

As far as me developing a thesis statement to define art, how about if it is this:

Art is the paradigm which enables man to come in contact with his state of being, constantly in flux, the paradigm can exist in the today, yesterday or tomorrow. It is an artist's awareness of his being, semi-being, and non-being which enables that artist to access the algorithm which defines the very essence of the parameters that define the paradigm. Some artists can come into awareness of those parameters, subjectively or objectively, through their own personal experience, some through their understanding of the awareness of others, and some because of the fortuitous circumstance we call life, and too death. It is an artist's obligation to learn the formula for decoding the information; to define the algorithm, harness that understanding; abstract that information, and then reapply that same information, to become capable of producing the arrangement of elements we can define as the system's pointing – spreading, and encompassing of the theme. Thus, the artist enables us to gain access to the inner truth of the mind's eye; its being and non-being, its wanting and having; its giving and taking, and the fleeting glimpse of its eternal essence.

Also, even though you have told me that you do subscribe to the Danto philosophical approach to art, and I have begun to read a bit of Danto, I would be interested in hearing your specific definition of what you do also consider to be art's obligation, definition and purpose.

MrMikeludo

[owleye]

As far as the question of Warhol, is concerned:

“...'modern art' to know all its sub-categories. Let me make use of a work by Andy Warhol, namely his "Campbell Soup Cans". It seems as if you would object to this being considered art.”

I am sorry, but I am not sure as to whether you mean that the actual art which is the label for the Campbell Soup Can itself should be considered art, which I do, or the reproduction of the label by Warhol itself should be considered art, simply because Warhol chose that image to recreate, of which I am not certain. Perhaps you could explain for me the context of what you may mean by this.

I understand that the original work from which Warhol took his own was created by someone who himself was an artist (can't recall his name, however, nor how famous he is, and I'm not sure whether Warhol was familiar with him), but the particular version of the work from which Warhol took his was undoubtedly a work designed to advertise the product, which is to say the original artist was being paid to create something that would advertise Campbell's soup. Moreover, it is my understanding that this version of the work is not what is hanging at the MoMA in the guise of a Warhol creation. Rather, the reason why the Warhol creation is considered art worthy of hanging in the MoMa is because Warhol created it with some art-worthy purpose in mind. That it is essentially identical to a part of the original work it is created from is quite intentional, as I understand it. I'm not an insider to what Warhol has in mind for his work, but apparently the MoMA's production team is and found his works meaningful, where the original from which it is drawn is considered mundane. This being the sole difference between the two works is the reason why Danto believes he has captured the essence of art.

As far as me developing a thesis statement to define art, how about if it is this:

Art is the paradigm which enables man to come in contact with his state of being, constantly in flux, the paradigm can exist in the today, yesterday or tomorrow. It is an artist's awareness of his being, semi-being, and non-being which enables that artist to access the algorithm which defines the very essence of the parameters that define the paradigm. Some artists can come into awareness of those parameters, subjectively or objectively, through their own personal experience, some through their understanding of the awareness of others, and some because of the fortuitous circumstance we call life, and too death. It is an artist's obligation to learn the formula for decoding the information; to define the algorithm, harness that understanding; abstract that information, and then reapply that same information, to become capable of producing the arrangement of elements we can define as the system's pointing – spreading, and encompassing of the theme. Thus, the artist enables us to gain access to the inner truth of the mind's eye; its being and non-being, its wanting and having; its giving and taking, and the fleeting glimpse of its eternal essence.

Also, even though you have told me that you do subscribe to the Danto philosophical approach to art, and I have begun to read a bit of Danto, I would be interested in hearing your specific definition of what you do also consider to be art's obligation, definition and purpose.

MrMikeludo

With respect to the latter request, all I can add is that once upon time I used to muse about what (good) art is, thinking it had something to do with capturing the depth and breadth of reality in an intuitive, direct way, distinct from the indirect way that the cognitive side of our mind with its explicative use of language deals with. (In this sense literature and poetry make use of language in a implicative way. While this might seem to be opposed to the direct/indirect opposition previously emphasized, I regard it as in line with it because it makes use of intuition -- which for me is essentially one's experience -- in a direct way.) However, I've lost quite a bit of interest in the subject, pursuing other issues in philosophy. It is only recently that I came upon Danto and hearing him speak about Warhol and Duchamp shed new light on what art is. I confess he makes a lot of sense. With respect to the elephant paintings, however, I, too, might be a bit perplexed, seeing as how I couldn't see how those who would show such paintings would be able to determine what the elephant had in mind. Because of this, I would deem that the producers that show such "art" had been corrupted and at least part of what they were doing is based on commercial motives. How much of this carries over to what the MoMA production of Warhol and Duchamp are telling us, I can't say, but I do understand that their respective messages have been subjected to critical analysis that apparently have convinced the art world of their significance.

With respect to the former passage intended as a thesis statement, I take it you are not used to providing a concise statement of a position that you are prepared to defend. It reads more like a story in which the reader will eventually figure out what's being said if they are patient enough to read through it all.

Let me try to clarify what I was after. The thesis statement doesn't explain anything. Rather it defines the territory in such a way that you get an idea of what needs explaining. It can be and often is provocative. It makes you want to read more about it. Moreover, from a philosophical perspective, at least, such a statement should inform the reader of a particular position or positions you are interested in and how they might differ from alternative positions. For example, one might write this as a thesis statement: "What is art? Could it all be in the artist's mind?" In making a statement like this, the thesis almost writes itself. First you would set out to provide some background on a variety of positions taken by various thinkers, informing the reader of how the position applies to works of art, perhaps taking examples from the history of art works in which each might make sense, and possibly giving counter examples where such a position might be misleading. Next you would focus on your particular position, pointing out its unique attributes, and see whether it satisfies the worthiness of the same examples and also does a better job of satisfying those in which they are troublesome. You might then take your own position to task by taking on 'conventional wisdom' about certain art works that might not fit your position and see whether there is valid criticism of it or not. Finally you would wrap things up and draw your conclusion about the position, under the assumption that it will be heavily critiqued.

If you can do this, I daresay you could submit it to the philosophy department of any academic institution and have it count as acceptable (assuming you can adequately defend it), meeting the thesis (or dissertation) requirement of that institution, thereby gaining the credentials it hands out. You might even be able to do this in the fine arts department of said institution, though I think there would be different sorts of criticism than in the philosophy department.

James

[MrMikeludo]

owleye

My computer is broke down. I will respond to your post as soon as it is repaired.

MrMikeludo

[çağla]

Moreover, from a philosophical perspective, at least, such a statement should inform the reader of a particular position or positions you are interested in and how they might differ from alternative positions. For example, one might write this as a thesis statement: "What is art? Could it all be in the artist's mind?" In making a statement like this, the thesis almost writes itself. First you would set out to provide some background on a variety of positions taken by various thinkers, informing the reader of how the position applies to works of art, perhaps taking examples from the history of art works in which each might make sense, and possibly giving counter examples where such a position might be misleading. Next you would focus on your particular position, pointing out its unique attributes, and see whether it satisfies the worthiness of the same examples and also does a better job of satisfying those in which they are troublesome. You might then take your own position to task by taking on 'conventional wisdom' about certain art works that might not fit your position and see whether there is valid criticism of it or not. Finally you would wrap things up and draw your conclusion about the position, under the assumption that it will be heavily critiqued.

owleye,
I haven't followed the thread lately, so I don't know what's changed. But after your post:

"What's art? Could it all be in the artist's mind?" is a very bad reccomendation as a thesis title.

1. It's too wide for one research. Cannot be done by one person, shouldn't be done by one person.

2. The title implies a presence of a defacto definition with an abstract component only considered as a guess work; "artist's mind". It's a myth in academic grounds, not a scientific factor. Other than personal journals, manifestos, interviews and self written works, there is no concept as the "artist's mind" as evidence in academic art historical research.

Even if you are writing an monograph on an artist, alive and in touch, the question of "artist's mind" is considered in respect to "where he fits in". Not on what he actually might be thinking when he created a particular work of art or what he thinks about the entire body of art hsitory.

Besides, why the title is in question form. This is not a news paper article, it's a thesis.

3. The first question he is going to recieve will be on what grounds he assumes the art and the problems of art history can be solved by philosophical inquiry alone, and a historical one no less.
Art historians around the world are mainly divided into two different camps on fundamental issues like "What's art?". Philosophically-minded art historians and anthroplogically-minded art historians. In some serious academic communities, there is certain rejection to other side.

And the second one will be if he is aware that very similar opinions have been presented countless times in the last century with classical examples to prove what really art is.

4. While it's fairly a philosophical question, -everything related to human is- it has many set of sub questions, which requires classical kind of art historical research. What's good, bad or art are the result questions.

5. He needs to defend his position in choosing examples. What's he going to write in the proposal? "Because, I think he is the greatest man and artist ever lived?"

Not one academic in the right track would give a pass to a proposal in this nature, because most importantly, a scientific proposal under the sole standing question of "What's Art? can not be written. It's impossible to include all the required aspects, that's why it is not already done. That's why there isn't a definition of art. It doesn't mean it can't be done. It means it cannot be done in one research by one person with a one example from one discipline's point. Fool's errand.

He has to put his hypothesis' in an art historical perspective. He cannot avoid a whole discipline and its methods, because he doesn't agree with the mainstream idea.

He can write a book though and I would be happy to read it.

[owleye]

çağla...

Well, I wasn't really trying to get the OP to use that thesis statement. I didn't actually reference it in my exposition of how I would defend it. The statement itself was merely something off the top of my head, in an attempt to demonstrate how a thesis statement could provoke interest yet capture in some simple way just what is going to be defended. Moreover, if I understand it correctly, his latest remarks about the topic he is addressing suggests that he does have a particular position on the question 'what is art?' which, unfortunately, in my view, he has yet to make clear. I had suggested he come up with a thesis statement, but he instead went about trying to explaining his position in as few words as he could muster. As this wasn't what I was looking for, I tried to give him an example of something to work from.

Now, with respect to the use of a question within my example of a thesis statement, I'm not sure I should apologize for that. It seems reasonable to me. It's possible that the particular question might not be anything worth defending, but the form didn't seem all that bad to me.

Finally, on the issue of "What is art?" being too big of a question for a philosopher to tackle, I can't say as I would agree with you. I just don't see why philosophy would be restricted in this way. I would tend to agree that a philosopher would rely on whatever disciplines there are that bear on whatever subject matter the philosopher wishes to tackle, but the philosopher's task is a different one than that on which the discipline undertakes. In my view philosophers are not in the business of being right about the subject matter, rather they are there to clarify concepts and often do this by thought experiments and coming up with (usually over the top) generalizations about the subject matter in order to see how just how far they can stretch them and still make sense. They are in the business of proposing and critiquing. The best ones may actually be able to make a difference. For the rest of us, though, it's influence is only on our own outlook. For me, this is sufficient reward.

With respect to the use of examples, I think philosophers should make use of only those which everyone would understand to be relevant. I might suspect that Da Vinci's The Annunciation would be a good example, but, as I've indicated, I'm not all that familiar with this particular art form. (My preferred art form is music, though literature and the cinema rank right up there. Even with these I'm undoubtedly deficient.)

James

[çağla]

James,
There is exchanging opinions in an online scientific community, and there is academic research. These are two very different things in practical terms.

Writing a proposal, -in this scale, a proposal for a doctoral thesis- is not something like reading about philosophers' systems and nipping their definitions of concepts -like art,nature- and then to apply them to random examples, to refute or prove which ones are really compatible with those concepts.

Apart from this, putting a fundamental problem of a discipline as a thesis title in question form, without any reduction is not scientific in any terms of philosophy or art history or in their common grounds.

You read Danto and watch him pulling Brillo in a sentence and the pyramids in the following, then jumping to renaissance to IT in relation to abstract art, making a partial conclusion on pluralism by essentialism...etc.

Well, that's Danto. He has spent all his life studying art history and philosophy, he is -80 something now- and part of a philosophical tradition, not just included in it. And a philosopher who managed to ask new questions on a specific subject. I am sure, you are aware how crucially important is this.

He has an art hsitorian "eye" to go with his philosopher brain. He had the luck to witness to some movements and special events in art history while they are happening, and also watched the reactions and the period long after that in his life time.

As long as you are not Danto, -who also would find a thesis of the sort problematic in nature as an academic research- to attempt a thesis of this scale without the required experience and education -as in traditional education, as well as in building the eye- wouldn't give any results.