Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation
by MrMikeludo on September 22nd, 2011, 8:11 am
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