What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

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

Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby çağla on September 28th, 2011, 7:23 am 

Another note I should add and I think something very similar to this was stated by another member in this or the first thread.

MrMikeludo has an "handicap" as an old fashioned art philosopher would say. (The word has not been used in any negative or bad sense at all, on the contrary.)

He is an artist. His first instinct is to be creative not to be analytical. Actually what he has been doing with his examples is exactly that. Being creative.

And I also think that's why he is not concise in presenting his position. We have been telling him to do that, but may be he shouldn't. Because that contradicts with the facility he has. That's probably why he has a certain aspect of a good/bad art, greatest art and artist. And feels responsible for art being priced, artists being promoted.

While "artistic creativity" is about taking uncompromising stance, academic/scientific research is based on compromise. There is only one way to go and it bends you, not the other way around.

So there is a difficulty for the artist to go back on being active in art, if he was really active in academic grounds.

I am aware that in the recent past, art historical writing is over run by artists, and on rare occassions there are valid-solid contributions made. Though the old joking anology of the "asylum over run by the patients" stands.
çağla
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby owleye on September 28th, 2011, 11:39 am 

I'm not disputing your contention, if it is directed toward my naivety with respect to the history of art and the depth in which a philosopher would have to probe it in order to develop a thesis of the scale I had in mind. I'd been looking at it as an outsider, making use of Danto who I was well aware had this knowledge and 'eye' as you've represented it. I'm only an amateur, philosophically speaking, and am not putting myself up as one who would tackle such a subject for the purpose of advancing my credentials. Moreover, I'm well aware of the amount of work that goes into any research project that attempts to put forward anything even remotely interesting to the academic community. I was on that sort of path myself, late in life (i.e., just prior to retirement) when I was doing my thesis work on one aspect of Immanual Kant's work, which, unfortunately, got cut off due to a number of factors coincident upon it. Moreover, I'd been warned that even attempting something like what I'd been attempting would be a mistake. My advisor wanted me to scale it down, suggesting something rather uninteresting, just to complete the requirement. I'm sure this is all wise counsel for many who wish to enter the academic world. However, it's not advice that I feel is in the spirit of philosophical investigation. Not everyone is going to make a difference in the world and I put myself among those who won't. For one, I'm a very late bloomer, and no longer have the ability, time or energy to perform the research required to gain any sort of acceptance. This is not to say that I don't attempt to keep up. I continue to read on a daily basis. However, my life took a different arc. Finally, I've never pretended on this board that I have anything to say that hasn't already been said by noted philosophers, which is not to say that I'm not trying to respond to the essential questions that philosophy tackles -- I still work on them, and from time to time I offer a bit of it here and there, though when it comes to this particular question, I've lost a fair amount of interest and really have nothing to offer at all on it. (My interest had perked up recently because of a developing friendship with a young artist I'd had the occasion to converse with from time to time. Sadly, the artist just now moved away.)

James
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on September 28th, 2011, 12:24 pm 

I would be curious to see what MrMikeludo thinks of Odd Nerdrum and his kitsch work.
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby NoAngst on September 28th, 2011, 11:09 pm 

What you have written is to me wholly unintelligible. I feel that were I to substitute The Annunciation with Dogs Playing Poker and then reproduce your experiment and type the same post, my result would be epistemically and philosophically equivalent. Sorry.
NoAngst
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 26 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby çağla on September 29th, 2011, 7:51 am 

"However, it's not advice that I feel is in the spirit of philosophical investigation. Not everyone is going to make a difference in the world and I put myself among those who won't."

I agree with you on "the spirit of philosophical investigation", but as you’re aware I was talking about academic research. And for the record I too put myself among those who won't.

I think, again it was Danto, who joked about the emotional relationship between "impossibility" and philosophers in one of his articles, when commenting on the huge messy problem of the definition of art. And how the word “impossible” turned them on wet immediately, when the issue at hand is a concept declared as cannot be defined. It find it funny and right.

You had a good instructor.

I have so many things I want to say on Kant, but they are just emotional tramblings on my encounters with people studying philosophy and art history. I am not an expert, not even close. I was educated in an academic community, with a more or less understanding of “You can make philosophy with Kant or against Kant, but not without Kant.” !?

I witnessed an acclaimed philosopher being frowned upon in International Congress of Aesthetics, (I guess it was 2006) because his speech was on Kant. He was asked “Why Kant?” And he was told that if he did this 30 years ago, he would be thrown at things. ?! These are well known people in the field by the way. I was really surprised, because he was one of the few people who actually spoke on a philosophical aspect of any issue and aesthetic judgement in an aesthetic congress held with hundreds of people around the world from 40 smt countries. I had some similar encounters before, but when it touches Kant, there is this ”Hold on!”. So after that particular one, I decided that there is a fundamental difference in approach to history of philosophy between Europe and US on Kant. I’m sure, many sub divions too.
So may be because of these experiences, I find Kant intimidating and problematic in appeal. I start to study him time to time, stop after some time, feeling paranoid and worrying that I don’t actually understand him. Funny isn’t it.
çağla
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby owleye on September 29th, 2011, 11:40 am 

çağla...

I'm not entirely sure I caught from your last post your characterization of what I think is intended to be academic research. I had thought what you meant was what might be called 'scholarship', something I believe to be a vital source for research by philosophers, some of which could be taken up by philosophers themselves. However, with respect to my 'spirit of philosophical investigation', I had in mind maintaining a respect for what philosophers of note have accomplished and yet attempting to reach an understanding of their work sufficient to be able to criticize it or find out where it might have gone wrong, possibly even discovering something that might have been overlooked by other philosophers. This is of course brazen and may in the end be counter-productive to some end, but I should think this is something that has to be learned from within, not be told. The next paragraph can be skipped over as it may be considered a rant and would in any case be irrelevant.

[Late bloomers are at a distinct disadvantage in our society. One has to show early genius to get recognized, and be given access to resources, including other minds, to make a real contribution. Lacking that, but showing some ability to persevere, many wind up specializing in areas just opening up. They will find themselves among the thousands of researchers who form part of a team that conducts research but otherwise will never rise to the top. In working with the post-docs that came into our laboratory, I found many of them received their credentials from 'computerizing' what had previously been done by their forerunners. For those who don't show an early genius, but whose mind wanders, preventing them from gaining admission because they don't have the discipline required, these folks may wind up someday working side-by-side with those who have gained the credentials but otherwise know less about the research than they do but wind up being assigned a lesser role. Though this is a slightly different case, I think it illustrates something similar to what I have in mind. I suspect you will have a similar experience. When I had an extended stay in the hospital, I had the opportunity of meeting a number of nurses and what are call CNAs (certified nurse's assistants). The difference in title relates to the amount of schooling they had achieved. If I throw in the doctors, the same thing occurs. The title, then, is intended to relate to level of expertise that should be expected from their work. In reality, I came to rely more on what one of the CSAs had to say than with any of the nurses, and, in general, my reliance was directed unequally among the staff, generally.]

My work on Kant went through many different phases, and can be compared to all the projects I've ever worked on (excepting those involved with work), namely that they never get completed as I find that my criticism of it requires me to start all over. As such, I'd restarted that project perhaps a dozen times before figuring out that I wasn't going to be able to finish it in time. As well, of course, I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going to be able to say anything that hadn't already been said. (There are other factors as well.) Despite this, though, I continue to work on it, though not so as to complete some requirement, rather just to move on.

As far as I'm concerned Kant is a genius and deserves his placement in the pantheon of western thought. I believe he is essential reading. This, of course, doesn't mean that I'm now a neo-Kantian. I just give him great respect, unlike, for example, how he is treated by Rorty. Philosophers are no different than other people in that they are a product of their time and place. During Kant's time (and place) it was believed that Newton's laws were true of the world. His task was to discover how this could be. Hume took a different tack, he being a product of his time and place. Both had genius, and both made significant inroads on the course of western thought. But, had their lives extended to cover the 19th century, they would have had to adjust their way of thinking considerably: (the case is more obvious for Kant, but even with Hume, he might have realized that his thoughts on probability were a bit short). In any case, because science (to include logic and mathematics) and art have moved on and overtaken much of the ground philosophers have once trod, giving today's philosophers a much greater burden to keep up with, it may be that philosophy will not long from now be abandoned, except by amateurs who will never make any contribution -- alternatively, scientists and art critics, will have to subsume that role. I find that Quine, for example, seems to throw his weight behind anything science has to say, offering up a pragmatic position, hardly worth mentioning as philosophy, in my view. I confess having a distaste for pragmatism as a philosophy, though, of course, it is of value in almost everything else we do. Danto's 'end of art', philosophically speaking, may have the same impact on philosophical thinking as Quine's pragmatism, though of course, I'm not in a position to say. (Quine and Danto are of course both revered.)

James
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby çağla on September 30th, 2011, 9:04 am 

owleye wrote:çağla...

I'm not entirely sure I caught from your last post your characterization of what I think is intended to be academic research. I had thought what you meant was what might be called 'scholarship', something I believe to be a vital source for research by philosophers, some of which could be taken up by philosophers themselves. However, with respect to my 'spirit of philosophical investigation', I had in mind maintaining a respect for what philosophers of note have accomplished and yet attempting to reach an understanding of their work sufficient to be able to criticize it or find out where it might have gone wrong, possibly even discovering something that might have been overlooked by other philosophers. This is of course brazen and may in the end be counter-productive to some end, but I should think this is something that has to be learned from within, not be told. The next paragraph can be skipped over as it may be considered a rant and would in any case be irrelevant.


James,
In my previous posts, roughly, I tried to explain that there are some rules and conventions to be taken in to account in making a general "plan" for a thesis in history of art. Some are official, written and thaugt, some are not.

Inspiration, spirit, enthusiasm, ambition and need for contribution are beautiful things. But they are just sentiments.

When it comes to "write down" a proposal, an introduction and a conclusion - which are the indispensable parts of an academic research – “the spirit of philosophical investigation” doesn’t cut it. You have to become a citizen of another planet with different general and local laws. And everybody in that planet is already belonged to the species of those sentiments.

“…I had in mind maintaining a respect for what philosophers of note have accomplished. …”
This is the needed first step.
“…and yet attempting to reach an understanding of their work sufficient to be able to criticize it…”
This is a huge undertaking, because now you are talking about “contribution”. The important thing here is, what you mean in the previous sentence is actually the “valid” form of what you mean in this sentence:
“…or find out where it might have gone wrong, possibly even discovering something that might have been overlooked by other philosophers. …”

Making this distinction is crucial for anybody, who will decide to devote their lives for the pursuit of that contribution. It’s a life time project, highly likely to fail allmost at all cases, James. Exceptions don’t break the rules.
Grandness of the scale of the undertaking is not the scale of Kant in history of philosophy, nor the scale of the question of “What’s art? It’s the pursuit of making a contribution to the accumulation in this age of our world. We are not talking about natural sciences. You cannot “detect” a missing ingredient and add it back then expect the conclusion to change. You cannot “correct” or “discover” something "new". There is no moment of “eureka” in this. You can only “review” it and you can “critisize” by producing new aspects and connections between concepts. And this is huge.

[Late bloomers are at a distinct disadvantage in our society. One has to show early genius to get recognized, and be given access to resources, including other minds, to make a real contribution. Lacking that, but showing some ability to persevere, many wind up specializing in areas just opening up. They will find themselves among the thousands of researchers who form part of a team that conducts research but otherwise will never rise to the top. In working with the post-docs that came into our laboratory, I found many of them received their credentials from 'computerizing' what had previously been done by their forerunners. For those who don't show an early genius, but whose mind wanders, preventing them from gaining admission because they don't have the discipline required, these folks may wind up someday working side-by-side with those who have gained the credentials but otherwise know less about the research than they do but wind up being assigned a lesser role. Though this is a slightly different case, I think it illustrates something similar to what I have in mind. I suspect you will have a similar experience. When I had an extended stay in the hospital, I had the opportunity of meeting a number of nurses and what are call CNAs (certified nurse's assistants). The difference in title relates to the amount of schooling they had achieved. If I throw in the doctors, the same thing occurs. The title, then, is intended to relate to level of expertise that should be expected from their work. In reality, I came to rely more on what one of the CSAs had to say than with any of the nurses, and, in general, my reliance was directed unequally among the staff, generally.]


Now, we are in different camps.
“Genius”, “being at the top”, “being special”…etc. From my personal point of view these are –excuse my language- utter bullshit. And doesn’t bear anything more sensible than “the greatest artist or the man/woman ever lived”.

In my humble opinion, what makes a scientist, “scientist” and a philosopher, “philosopher” as a real contributer, is their idealism at the core, the responbility and the sacrifice of a life time unwavering to the end, while being very well aware of the scale of the challenge and the tiny odds of the possibility of success. Because this is how a real contribution is made. Giving everything and expecting nothing in return in principle. (If it sounds old fashioned and romantic, I am not feeling any of those.) Needlesly to say, I don’t deny our urge of competition as an intelligent species, our ambition of becoming an immortal.

It doesn’t happen by “starting a race” to be famous or to be the next ‘Danto’. Yes, some individuals are more talented an intelligent than the others, but there are so many other factors that makes a person labelled “genius” today, it’s like an unofficial degree to be distinguished and it’s just a ridiculous hype.

We look back and call certain individuals “genius”, as a result of a historical promotion grew over –not developed- historical distance. We are prone to create cults to follow.

The fact that they are the first to discover/define/point out something, covered the widest range or making the most brilliant, long standing conclusions are not the factors determining their contributions. It’s just a historical fact (with its own problems), not a scientific or a philosophic one.

As far as I'm concerned Kant is a genius and deserves his placement in the pantheon of western thought. I believe he is essential reading. This, of course, doesn't mean that I'm now a neo-Kantian. I just give him great respect, unlike, for example, how he is treated by Rorty. Philosophers are no different than other people in that they are a product of their time and place. During Kant's time (and place) it was believed that Newton's laws were true of the world. His task was to discover how this could be. Hume took a different tack, he being a product of his time and place. Both had genius, and both made significant inroads on the course of western thought. But, had their lives extended to cover the 19th century, they would have had to adjust their way of thinking considerably: (the case is more obvious for Kant, but even with Hume, he might have realized that his thoughts on probability were a bit short). In any case, because science (to include logic and mathematics) and art have moved on and overtaken much of the ground philosophers have once trod, giving today's philosophers a much greater burden to keep up with, it may be that philosophy will not long from now be abandoned, except by amateurs who will never make any contribution -- alternatively, scientists and art critics, will have to subsume that role. I find that Quine, for example, seems to throw his weight behind anything science has to say, offering up a pragmatic position, hardly worth mentioning as philosophy, in my view. I confess having a distaste for pragmatism as a philosophy, though, of course, it is of value in almost everything else we do. Danto's 'end of art', philosophically speaking, may have the same impact on philosophical thinking as Quine's pragmatism, though of course, I'm not in a position to say. (Quine and Danto are of course both revered.)


“The genius” and “The Pantheon of Western thought”. This is a meaningless hyperbolic language and a distorted way of looking at human development and to certain individuals’ role in it. His philosophy being an essential reading is irrelavant in this context.

Generally on pragmatic approaches in human sciences, I feel there are always some individuals in need of “tidying around”. In my field, some theories are so “tired”, some concepts are changed so fast and so much, there are the occassional “tailors” bent on to discard the nodes. Allhough I agree on that it doesn’t serve to the discipline in theory, it provides a little distance –albeit temporary- and a breath to strike back.

(I personally think the examples you gave in medicine is irrelevant to our subject.)

James, this dark utopic visions of the predicted sad demise of certain branchs of human sciences is comical to me. And nothing more than 19th century physicists thinking “they were done” in their time.
In my humble opinion, it’s again a result of a distorted perception of the previous development of human history. And this doesn’t change even if the current crisis, depression –name it as you will- would last five hundreds years or more.

Actually this “idea” is closely related with the outlook of considering philosophers/scientists as the “genius“ parts of a pre-determined and linear, collective undertaking. An ancient idea of birth-growth-death cycle, applied to arts and sciences; sometimes to nations and civilisations in connection with religions as I mentioned before. Unfortunately it’s unsufficient. From a personal point, I find it very arrogant, impatient and too much of a caricature symptome of the zeit geist.

On late bloomers. There is a clear difference between people who is educated in a certain area, from early on in the discipline and the mature ones coming from another one. The former group is more prone to be successful for number of reasons. But there are exceptions in late bloomers too, they are more experienced to begin with. When started and educated young, the mind starts to “be shaped” earlier and easier I guess. Well, enough babbling.
çağla
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby owleye on September 30th, 2011, 12:17 pm 

çağla wrote:James,
In my previous posts, roughly, I tried to explain that there are some rules and conventions to be taken in to account in making a general "plan" for a thesis in history of art. Some are official, written and thaugt, some are not.

Inspiration, spirit, enthusiasm, ambition and need for contribution are beautiful things. But they are just sentiments.


I'm glad you were successful in weathering the obstacles that have been put before you. I'm told this is an essential quality to becoming successful later on. To me, however, it emphasizes form over content.

çağla wrote:Making this distinction is crucial for anybody, who will decide to devote their lives for the pursuit of that contribution. It’s a life time project, highly likely to fail allmost at all cases, James. Exceptions don’t break the rules.


Well, I should think there is a difference between failing to fit within the parameters of academic life and failing to fit because one's attempt to make a contribution fail in their objective. If in screening candidates for the former eliminate the possibility of the latter, then so much the worse for academia.


çağla wrote:Grandness of the scale of the undertaking is not the scale of Kant in history of philosophy, nor the scale of the question of “What’s art? It’s the pursuit of making a contribution to the accumulation in this age of our world. We are not talking about natural sciences. You cannot “detect” a missing ingredient and add it back then expect the conclusion to change. You cannot “correct” or “discover” something "new". There is no moment of “eureka” in this. You can only “review” it and you can “critisize” by producing new aspects and connections between concepts. And this is huge.


Well, if you're talking about philosophy, the missing ingredients that I had in mind have to do with the way in which concepts are used, which is to say, that certain concepts (say, the notion of continuity, or form) are not clear enough to tell the story being told and are leading the author to go down a path that otherwise they might not have. (I have someone in mind -- namely Michael Friedman, who I mention below in connection with Kant.) Although this may require lots of work to resolve, I would disagree with your claim that "eureka" moments don't come about. The germ of an idea that might resolve something could arise in exactly that way. Indeed, I suspect it was some such moment that Danto had when he determined that his particular account of art, something that might have come to him in the same way, meant an end to it, philosophically. Indeed, even coming to an understanding of what someone else is trying to say is kind of a "eureka" moment, especially if what they are saying requires much research.


çağla wrote:“Genius”, “being at the top”, “being special”…etc. From my personal point of view these are –excuse my language- utter bullshit. And doesn’t bear anything more sensible than “the greatest artist or the man/woman ever lived”.


Ok. While I agree with you about the latter, I don't think it implies that we are all equally capable of achieving great things. Moreover, at least in the realm of science, I believe the qualities that make a scientist are such that only a relatively few qualify, and, in terms of function, there is a need only for a few. It may be the same for art, if I only knew more about what art is and what its function in society is.

çağla wrote:In my humble opinion, what makes a scientist, “scientist” and a philosopher, “philosopher” as a real contributer, is their idealism at the core, the responbility and the sacrifice of a life time unwavering to the end, while being very well aware of the scale of the challenge and the tiny odds of the possibility of success. Because this is how a real contribution is made. Giving everything and expecting nothing in return in principle. (If it sounds old fashioned and romantic, I am not feeling any of those.) Needlesly to say, I don’t deny our urge of competition as an intelligent species, our ambition of becoming an immortal.


I have no problem with this. However, I don't think as a society we should determine who gets to travel down this path and who doesn't, say by the kind of profiling that occurs that lets you through the gate of acceptability. Having one's work reviewed by competent teachers is essential, but only so as to make the work better achieve it's aim. Later on, assuming one doesn't give up, and one is allowed into a circle of 'peers', peer review is also essential, once again, the purpose of which is to help achieve its aim, though indirectly it will create standards by which one is judged, and in turn will create standards by which the field is measured -- something akin to snobbery, without, it would be hoped, it being such.

çağla wrote:It doesn’t happen by “starting a race” to be famous or to be the next ‘Danto’. Yes, some individuals are more talented an intelligent than the others, but there are so many other factors that makes a person labelled “genius” today, it’s like an unofficial degree to be distinguished and it’s just a ridiculous hype.


Well, the motivation of fame is not exactly what I was getting at, though, I suppose even the notion of being recognized is a part of it. One can't make a contribution unless there is someone of at least equal stature who recognizes it as a contribution. Moreover, I'm sure part of one's recognition is about being able to promote (or at least explain) one's work in some way, which in turn requires oral and verbal skills. Philosophers, of course, live by words, so this should be an important aspect of their training. And I suppose there should be some sort of charm school that teaches them how to interact with others. However, if their work is increasingly deemed as important by the standards of peer review, these aspects of their training will be downplayed and taken up by others who are better at it, for example, by journalists.

çağla wrote:We look back and call certain individuals “genius”, as a result of a historical promotion grew over –not developed- historical distance. We are prone to create cults to follow.


Well, the opinion I arrived at about Kant was not based on his placement among the pantheons, which I actually wasn't aware of at the time, but because of actually coming to understand his achievements, especially in his own development within his historical setting, much of which I drew from the work of Michael Friedman (who, I believe in his scholarship, has made the kind of contribution that I'm taking as a model of what I'm getting at. Though I agree that one's work takes a life time, making contributions along the way doesn't require it.). I would agree with Rorty that basing the teaching of the philosophy in the way it has been traditionally taught from Descartes to Kant, that it might (he would claim that it does) mischaracterize the tradition by having it biased toward these philosophers. When i asked him about it, he indicated that instead of emphasizing Descartes, emphasizing Montaigne would have better reflected the starting point. I think I can see what he's getting at, but it doesn't explain his contempt for Kant. Perhaps he thinks we're all a bunch of cult followers, I don't know.

çağla wrote:The fact that they are the first to discover/define/point out something, covered the widest range or making the most brilliant, long standing conclusions are not the factors determining their contributions. It’s just a historical fact (with its own problems), not a scientific or a philosophic one.


I'm afraid I don't understand what your getting at. Isn't this what scholarship is about? (It is an historical fact, of course, and as well it's possible that more than one scholar discovered something independently, but in terms of making a contribution, this occurs as a result of its being one, namely that someone else recognized it and made use of it. It was a first to them.)

çağla wrote:James, this dark utopic visions of the predicted sad demise of certain branchs of human sciences is comical to me. And nothing more than 19th century physicists thinking “they were done” in their time.


Well, I'd been speaking of philosophy here, not science, though I admit that even in science, there's been talk of its end in some "the grand unification theory". Danto, for example, went on to say that since he wrote about his "end" in the 50s/60s, more art has been created in the world (spoken sometime in 2005 or 2006) than in all of recorded history up to that time. Nonetheless, I suspect it won't put an "end" to the philosophy of art. I don't know enough about Danto's idea here, but I think what he had in mind something like a metaphysical account of art.

James
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby çağla on September 30th, 2011, 2:19 pm 

OK. May be I should ask simple questions.

After all the readings you do and philosophical inquiries you make, are you satisfied with your conclusions when you wrote them down? How do you feel/think about the texts you produce in respect to the field.

By "eureka" moments, I don't mean the thoughts and the inquiry process in your mind. I mean a conclusion in written form produced as a text.

You misunderstand what I mean by “Inspiration, spirit, enthusiasm, ambition and need for contribution are beautiful things. But they are just sentiments.” In accordance to make a real contribution these are the required beginning conditions, but never enough to get through for reaching an end. I don’t mean we should stop encouraging people. We should make it sure they understand that the odds of making a real contribution is negligible, but just not impossible.

I really don’t want to say something over my head, offend you or anyone else. But imho, that’s the case lies behind the thought of making an addition or correction to Kant, even just being able to criticize his philosophy or solving the question of “What’s art?”.

This is a delusion. And the possible end of the philosophy is the collective extension of this unrequited anticipation. This is what I mean by “The fact that they are the first to discover/define/point out something, covered the widest range or making the most brilliant, long standing conclusions are not the factors determining their contributions. It’s just a historical fact (with its own problems), not a scientific or a philosophic one.”

We are having a historical problem about historical areas of research in producing knowledge.

Well, I can’t express myself right now.
çağla
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on September 30th, 2011, 6:09 pm 

On another note, but still regarding the notion of symmetry that MrMikeludo has put forth, and especially since he seems to want to base his investigations also on more scientific principles--where would the notion of "spontaneous symmetry breaking" fall on in all this? For reference, I will quote here a short passage from Lee Smolin's book, "The Life of the Cosmos." I am not sure this might apply to MrMikeludo's ideas, but I see no reason why it shouldn't, so...

Lee Smolin: The Life of the Cosmos, Chapter 4; The Dream of Unification. p 55. wrote:There are many situations in which the laws of nature are symmetric in some way, but the only stable configurations are asymmetric. Because the theory is symmetric, it cannot tell which stable configuration is chosen. Instead, the choice must be made by the system itself. When this happens we say that a symmetry of the laws has been spontaneously broken. Imagine a pencil balanced on its point. It cannot stay that way long for it is unstable, a little push to one side or the other and it will fall. If it is perfectly balanced, the law of gravity cannot tell us which way it will fall; any way is as good as another. But any small disturbance will break the symmetry, leading to a choice of a more stable, but less symmetric configuration, in which the pencil is lying on its side.


What this makes obvious however, is that at least other principles should be added to his notions on symmetry and beauty, such as for instance, stability/instability. However, though it might seem that these notions have already been made use of, at least as regards mental stability or instability, in Smolin, the situation is not so intuitive perhaps, for the principles seem to be coupled in exactly the opposite way that, so it seems to me at least, MrMikeludo has implicitly coupled them, i.e., instead of symmetry-stability vs. asymmetry-instability, they should be symmetry-instability vs. asymmetry-stability. I would say then, that if his hypothesis that music (or painting, or whatever other form of art worth the name) as an expression of higher and dynamic symmetry, is still to hold true, then, though it may not be obvious at first, this is also a move away from the stability of life. To some extent this would make more sense to me personally, for art then, becomes also a more dangerous affair, the image I have in mind here is Nietzsche's "rope walker" which would have been an even better example to give than the example of the pencil. But here too, other notions will have to be added to mere "intellect," since intellect alone does not seem to tell the whole story. In fact, if the pushing force behind art were merely intellect, it would have been just dry science. If it were merely feelings or emotions, it would have been simply bad art--I am not even sure if an admixture of the two would be the right or full explanation of what art is, perhaps Nerdrum's definition of Kitsch might fall in it to some extent, though, I can't be certain.
But then, I am also not sure Leonardo's The Annunciation, would necessarily hold the special position he gives it.

Aside from an admixture of intellect with emotion, it would seem that, in art, as opposed to science, instead of the system choosing, it is the artist that chooses, though in some cases, the artists may also decide to let some system of his doing, choose, depending on what he likes to emphasize. In any case, enough rambling...
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on September 30th, 2011, 7:05 pm 

owleye

I think that I can agree with you in regards to what Warhol was capable of doing, while taking the Campbell's soup can label and tweaking it to make it a bit more appealing, and thereby converting it into something which can generate a greater interest than the original. But then, I think, we can begin to enter a confusing realm of legitimacy when you take into consideration what people like Mr. Brainwash are doing, as demonstrated in the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop. Because, I don't know if you are familiar with this movie, but this; Mr. Brainwash, is a person who has now taken Warhol's images and tweaked them again, and while he doesn't even do the tweaking; as he has employees who do the actual work. So, you have to consider, how long can this go on; with people continuously only tweaking other people's pictures, and when do you begin to say: That's enough? That is something about which I think we should be careful.

I don't know whether you know it or not, because most people, even if they may be familiar with Leonardo, may not know that he was different than what people may consider to be a stereotypical academic, and being in that his actual writing was almost impossible to read:

“Leonardos literary labours in various departments both of Art and of Science were those essentially of an enquirer, hence the analytical method is that which he employs in arguing out his investigations and dissertations...His love for detailed research--as it seems to me--was the reason that in almost all the Manuscripts, the different paragraphs appear to us to be in utter confusion...Leonardo made use of an orthography peculiar to himself; he had a fashion of amalgamating several short words into one long one, or, again, he would quite arbitrarily divide a long word into two separate halves; added to this there is no punctuation whatever to regulate the division and construction of the sentences, nor are there any accents--and the reader may imagine that such difficulties were almost sufficient to make the task (of reading his notebooks) seem a desperate one...”

And, of course, citing that reference, in regards to Leonardo's writing – and while also understanding that what I write too can be rather laborious to read, doesn't mean that I am comparing myself to Leonardo da Vinci; as far as his intellect is concerned, but rather I am comparing myself to him in that I understand that the reason Leonardo had trouble writing in a lyrical manner is because his mind functioned in a different manner than most academics, and in that his mind functioned in a “visual,” and too “parallel,” manner. And I know that Einstein famously explained, that he too did think visually:

“When Einstein thought through a problem, he always found it necessary to formulate his subject in as many different ways as possible, including using diagrams. He visualized solutions, and believed that words and numbers as such did not play a significant role in his thinking process...One of the most complete descriptions of Einstein's philosophy of science, was found in a letter to his friend, Maurice Solovine. In the letter, Einstein explained the difficulty of attempting to use words to explain his philosophy of science because, as he said, he thinks about such things schematically...”

And too, I believe that “Mozart,” in the movie Amadeus, explained the difficulty perfectly, when, as he was having a conversation with the Emperor about this most unique function of music, he said this:

“Sire, only opera can do this. In a play if more than one person speaks at the same time, it's just noise, no one can understand a word. But with opera, with music... with music you can have twenty individuals all talking at the same time, and it's not noise, it's a perfect harmony!”

And, he was explaining that music functions in a parallel manner, and the many different voices, heard together, can actually harmonize with one another, and thereby function in parallel. But words, written on and across a page, can never function in that parallel manner. But also, once a person develops their mind to function in a parallel manner, it can be very difficult to communicate that understanding, and not necessarily because the person may not be intelligent enough to communicate “words,” in an abstract manner, but because it is simply impossible to abstractly communicate the function, written in a 2-dimensional and uni-directionally successive manner, which is exactly why no one knows that the structure contained within The Annunciation exists.

Now, of course, if need be I can, and have, written in a poetic manner, while actually writing poetry. But, the purpose of poetry is to function in a poetic manner, while writing words on and across a two-dimensional plane in a poetic and uni-directionally successive manner. But the actual purpose, and defined function, of the visual musical equivalencies, is that they are capable of functioning in a parallel manner and while affecting the function of a space/time continuum.

In addition, I think you should consider the fact that the visual musical equivalencies, themselves, should be the actual “thesis statement,” and I shouldn't have to define them, or even introduce them to the world. As, I believe, the people who have claimed to be the experts on Leonardo da Vinci, and there are some which I have personally met, should have introduced the concept to the world, and then said:”Oh look, this person did also do what only Leonardo was capable of doing, and 500 years after the fact,” while actually doing their job. But, can you imagine if Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, or even The Beatles, had to write a thesis to define their music; before anyone could hear the music, and, much more importantly, before they could produce their music? It would have never happened; it could have never happened. But, in any event, here is the thesis statement:

For centuries, people have been attempting to define what is art. Now, because of advances in scientific research, we can objectively define what art is. More specifically, we can now define exactly what a mathematically verifiable pictorial syntax is, and/or what a mathematically verifiable definition of pictorial intelligence is. This pictorial syntax functions as a representation of humanistic universally applicable emperical self-consciousness - the knowledge that all of mankind gathers through their senses.
My purpose, is to define this pictorial syntax, and/or intelligence, and also to provide demonstrations to illustrate the various definitions, and to demonstrate a literal visual musical equivalency. I also provide a definition for the higher cognitive function of music, and a pictorial equivalent for these functions. While the visual musical equivalents function as pictorial syntax, they also function as a mathematically verifiable representation of the collective consciousness of mankind - again defined as universally applicable emperical self-consciousness, and also as a representation of a cognizable, and effectual, uniquely humanistic quantum mechanical grand unification theory.

MrMikeludo
Last edited by MrMikeludo on September 30th, 2011, 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on September 30th, 2011, 7:08 pm 

rrushius:

If you had wanted to know how I feel about “Odd Nerdrum,” you could have simply asked. Personally, I don't know that I would label his work as particularly kitsch, but rather like a cross between Caravaggio and Rembrandt, which may seem a bit dated but not necessarily kitsch. I think we can safely say that a better representation of kitsch would be Thomas Kinkade, or William Wegman, or even better still Jeff Koon's giant balloon animal sculptures, I mean, can you even believe that such a thing could ever possibly exist, when taking into consideration how much people pay for those ridiculous monstrosities.

As far as this concept is concerned:

"What this makes obvious however, is that at least other principles should be added to his notions on symmetry and beauty, such as for instance, stability/instability. However, though it might seem that these notions have already been made use of, at least as regards mental stability or instability, in Smolin, the situation is not so intuitive perhaps, for the principles seem to be coupled in exactly the opposite way that, so it seems to me at least, MrMikeludo has implicitly coupled them, i.e., instead of symmetry-stability vs. asymmetry-instability, they should be symmetry-instability vs. asymmetry-stability. I would say then, that if his hypothesis that music (or painting, or whatever other form of art worth the name) as an expression of higher and dynamic symmetry, is still to hold true, then, though it may not be obvious at first, this is also a move away from the stability of life..."

I am sorry, but I am not exactly sure what it is you are suggesting. I'm supposing that it has something to do with "chaos theory," and the fact that their does exist chaos all around us, which is a part of generating the life cycle which surrounds us, and too that our understanding of reality, according to Einstein, became relativistic. But remember also, the concept of everything being "relative," was a reaffirming of the "higher order" which governs reality:

"The relativity - relativism connection rests on the belief that Einstein said that 'Every thing is relative,' or something to that effect. But he didn't. To the contrary, Einstein saw his achievement as restoring order to our understanding of the universe after 19th century discoveries - introduced anomalies Newton's laws couldn't account for..."

And so that we can know that a "higher order" does actually reign supreme, in spite of the chaos that can exist within the individual phenomena which we can actually observe.

In addition and remember, I didn't say that everything has to be absolute symmetry to be able to affect us, but rather that symmetry can affect us in a different way than things that are not symmetrical. But, to be well rounded, we can learn to appreciate all things for their intrinsic value. (If my interpretation of what you ment was wrong, I am sorry. And I would appreciate if you would elaborate for me.)

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on September 30th, 2011, 7:10 pm 

NoAngst:

In regards to this:

“What you have written is to me wholly unintelligible. I feel that were I to substitute The Annunciation with Dogs Playing Poker and then reproduce your experiment and type the same post, my result would be epistemically and philosophically equivalent. Sorry”


I'm afraid I can only cite Leonardo yet again, when he said this:

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

And not that I believe that you have a vice, but rather a particular mindset, which is exactly contrary to what it is I am attempting to communicate. While I do believe that there simply are no words, which are contrary to your mindset, that are going to, or that can, have an affect on you. But, your denial, or unwillingness to want to understand it, doesn't simply negate its existence, it just means that the understanding is not for you.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on September 30th, 2011, 7:14 pm 

Cagla:

I must admit I think you are only toying with me again, but, this time, not even in a direct way, which simply adds another layer of confusion, for me, because you did say this about me:

“MrMikeludo has an "handicap" as an old fashioned art philosopher would say. (The word has not been used in any negative or bad sense at all, on the contrary.)
He is an artist. His first instinct is to be creative not to be analytical. Actually what he has been doing with his examples is exactly that. Being creative.”

And which is, another, direct contradiction to what you had previously said to me here:

“...Leonardo cannot be expected to see art as an 'expression' of human imagination, but only trying to make a system perfect which is made by human to serve to reflect nature and its beauty in a 'true' way.”

And then I did go on to ask this:

“Are you saying that what Leonardo did was little more than replicate the function of a camera, while basically 'taking a picture' of a simple scene? While Picasso had to 'create' something from his imagination, and, therefore, Picasso should be recognized for being 'creative' and Leonardo should be defined as having simply 'copied' something, and having not done anything significant?”

And you did reply:

“Yes something close to that – Leonardo cannot be 'creative' as in the sense we understand it today...”

And, of course, I can only suppose, but rightfully so, that you were also implying that I too can not be “creative,” as I too have created the equivalent of what Leonardo created in The Annunciation. And so you were saying that I too can NOT be “creative.” But then you turned around and contradicted your very own self again, and said that I can only be “creative.” Which would be peculiar enough, but then you did also say that I cannot be “analytical,” and, to be perfectly honest with you, that is the very last thing that I would have imagined you would have said about me. As most people usually say that I am too analytical; too concise, and too mathematical, when talking about art, and that those concepts simply do not belong in art. Now, of course, I don't particularly mind, but I do find it rather peculiar, and while remembering of course that I am attempting to define the function of a non-tangible form geometrical equation, and I don't believe that a person could ever get more concise; mathematical, and analytical than that. I mean, remember, it is literally a matter of:

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

Explaining that: 3+ 3 = 6, exactly as Leonardo da Vinci did explain.

And so this concept also is exactly backwards:

“And I also think that's why he is not concise in presenting his position. We have been telling him to do that, but may be he shouldn't. Because that contradicts with the facility he has. That's probably why he has a certain aspect of a good/bad art, greatest art and artist. And feels responsible for art being priced, artists being promoted.”

As it would literally be impossible for a person to be more concise about anything, than to state that it is a matter of: 3 + 3 = 6. And, again, as I have actually answered every single question you have asked me, and explained every single concept which I have introduced, and in the most analytical way possible.

And, again – remember, it is not me who has introduced the concept of 'greatest art and artist,' but those others: the people who promote Picasso – etc., who have introduced those concepts, and as I have simply become capable of proving that their postulations are not correct, and – again, in the most concise, and analytical way possible.

And as I would be more than happy to do it yet again; if you could cite any specific example where I have not fulfilled my obligation, and not defined anything in an analytical manner.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby NoAngst on September 30th, 2011, 8:03 pm 

MrMikeludo wrote:NoAngst:

In regards to this:

“What you have written is to me wholly unintelligible. I feel that were I to substitute The Annunciation with Dogs Playing Poker and then reproduce your experiment and type the same post, my result would be epistemically and philosophically equivalent. Sorry”


I'm afraid I can only cite Leonardo yet again, when he said this:

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

And not that I believe that you have a vice, but rather a particular mindset, which is exactly contrary to what it is I am attempting to communicate. While I do believe that there simply are no words, which are contrary to your mindset, that are going to, or that can, have an affect on you. But, your denial, or unwillingness to want to understand it, doesn't simply negate its existence, it just means that the understanding is not for you.

MrMikeludo

Your remarks are not unlike those of the little weaver in The Emperor's New Clothes. And like the little weaver, you give nothing beyond assurance that the finely knit raiment of your understanding is really there. I suppose your obscurantism is good for a free three-shot caramel mocha breve at Starbucks, but on a philosophy forum with me I'm afraid your intellectual pretense and affected speech will not so easily impress.
NoAngst
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 26 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on September 30th, 2011, 8:47 pm 

MrMikeludo wrote:rrushius:

If you had wanted to know how I feel about “Odd Nerdrum,” you could have simply asked. Personally, I don't know that I would label his work as particularly kitsch, but rather like a cross between Caravaggio and Rembrandt, which may seem a bit dated but not necessarily kitsch. I think we can safely say that a better representation of kitsch would be Thomas Kinkade, or William Wegman, or even better still Jeff Koon's giant balloon animal sculptures, I mean, can you even believe that such a thing could ever possibly exist, when taking into consideration how much people pay for those ridiculous monstrosities.


I did ask, it's a few posts above. I was just curious, Nerdrum's kitsch is not necessarily that important for what you are saying here. By the way, Nerdrum himself regards his work as kitsch, and that is what I meant--he gives a different definition of his kitsch work than the popular and pejorative meaning of it. The discussion might have some bearing on the philosophical basis that you have given as supporting of your hypothesis however, since Odd Nerdrum's kitsch work is supposed to be the opposite of art in the definition that would have arisen from Kant's philosophy and its relation to the intellect.

As regards your interpretation of what I meant, I think you went off on tangents. I did not propose a scientific hypothesis or anything like that for examination, rather, the view that Smolin presents (at least in the short passage I quoted) does not depend on the scientific paradigm assumed--this is particle physics Smolin is talking about. And what I said has not much, if anything, to do with the statement "everything is relative."

I don't know if I can or how to clarify what I said any better though, for it seems you completely missed the point, and in the end did not ask me any specific questions regarding what I said--rather, you asked that I clarify my words better in relation to your perception of what I said, and as far as that is concerned, I can only say, that that is not what I meant. Other than that, unless you show some understanding, I simply cannot literally make these concepts enter your mind.
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby çağla on October 1st, 2011, 4:05 am 

MrMikeludo,

Noone is toying with you. There is no toying involved. And this is not personal. It wasn’t directed to you in expression, because it rised from a suggestion owleye made. If you pay attention to the first posts I wrote on that, it would be clear to you.

Please listen to me. You and Leonardo do not and can not have any common factors affecting the creation process of your works. The only common thing between you and him is that you are both belonged to the same species.

Leonardo cannot be creative -or even cannot be expected to imagine the concept of creativity- as we understand today.

Anything you do with his work is, you being “creative” with his work. You creating the music equivelant of the Annunciation is just that; you creating the music equivelant of the Annunciation. Why and with what method you did this is included in your creativity regarding to that work.

We can have a replica of the Annunciation in front of us, -after your introduction- prepared as the way you want us to see it, while we’re listening the music you composed. It would be a performance and an experience for us to enjoy. As an artist, to you, itcan be a some sort of an “artistic experiment”. But that’s it.

This has nothing to do with Leonardo’s position in respect of the creativity concept we have developed through the extra 500 years, you some how seem to forget every time, you want to defend yourself.

This doesn’t mean you, Picasso or any other artist are not “creative”. Its almost completely irrelevant.

I don’t care, who and where, in which art community, claims/teaches/shouts out in the streets that Leonardo or another “historical character” is the epitome or the equivelant of the some perfect and divine idea of art, it is MEANINGLESS in art historical inquiry concerning "what's art"!

The fact that you didn’t introduce the idea is irrelevant, because that’s the idea you adopted in your inquiries. And while being invalid, it has a history, and your position in that idea, is not original or unique. It's creative.

This is a general conclusion made so often by almost everyone generally interested in art, at some point of their lives, regarding "what's 'real' art".

No, you are not concise or analytical. Making geometrical connections between two works with different mediums, produced 500 years in between, to explain "what's art" in respect of human perception of space and time is not being analytical. It’s not a method. It’s being creative.

You need to build an art historical perspective and a method –not an artistically personal one pulled out from a hat- in connection with the discipline and based on the accumulation alreday made, if you desire to make any reasonable inquiries according to what art is?

And at the risk of getting some another frustrating remark from you, try to think about why you have the need to link, or to be linked to the Leonardo da Vinci. Not to Leonardo, but to "Leonardo da Vinci".

And please don’t jump to a personal defense, including Leonardo’s and your creativity in each of your arts . Try to understand what I am saying. I am not some disappointed idealist throwing random remarks at you. I am one of the good guys.
çağla
Member
 
Posts: 142
Joined: 10 Sep 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby owleye on October 2nd, 2011, 10:25 am 

MrMikeludo wrote:owleye

I think that I can agree with you in regards to what Warhol was capable of doing, while taking the Campbell's soup can label and tweaking it to make it a bit more appealing, and thereby converting it into something which can generate a greater interest than the original. But then, I think, we can begin to enter a confusing realm of legitimacy when you take into consideration what people like Mr. Brainwash are doing, as demonstrated in the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop. Because, I don't know if you are familiar with this movie, but this; Mr. Brainwash, is a person who has now taken Warhol's images and tweaked them again, and while he doesn't even do the tweaking; as he has employees who do the actual work. So, you have to consider, how long can this go on; with people continuously only tweaking other people's pictures, and when do you begin to say: That's enough? That is something about which I think we should be careful.


From what I heard from Danto himself, your characterization of Warhol's work would not be to his satisfaction, where he instead gave Warhol credit for doing something of much greater value than mere making something more pleasing. From your characterization of the movie "Exit Through the Gift Shop", which, unfortunately I haven't seen, it sounds like a parody, which, in this light might be art-worthy as well. Danto, I believe, has in mind the direction a work of art is moving us (speaking as a member of society) in its creative leap, something attributable to the artist herself.


MrMikeludo wrote:For centuries, people have been attempting to define what is art. Now, because of advances in scientific research, we can objectively define what art is. More specifically, we can now define exactly what a mathematically verifiable pictorial syntax is, and/or what a mathematically verifiable definition of pictorial intelligence is. This pictorial syntax functions as a representation of humanistic universally applicable emperical self-consciousness - the knowledge that all of mankind gathers through their senses.
My purpose, is to define this pictorial syntax, and/or intelligence, and also to provide demonstrations to illustrate the various definitions, and to demonstrate a literal visual musical equivalency. I also provide a definition for the higher cognitive function of music, and a pictorial equivalent for these functions. While the visual musical equivalents function as pictorial syntax, they also function as a mathematically verifiable representation of the collective consciousness of mankind - again defined as universally applicable emperical self-consciousness, and also as a representation of a cognizable, and effectual, uniquely humanistic quantum mechanical grand unification theory.


Hmm..

It seems that what you have in mind is making art into a science -- i.e., quantifiable. If this is the case, then, I hope you realize that science works by developing hypotheses that can be tested empirically, notwithstanding that it recognizes that certain things which it identifies and defines, say what a planet is or what organic chemistry involves as compared with inorganic chemistry, is a bit arbitrary. The above sounds a bit like a hypothesis that might be independently testable. (Science makes progress only to the extent that theorists are separable from experimentalists.) However, at first blush on such a proposal for what art is, I would very much hope you are on the wrong track. I say this because I wish to save art as well as the humanities in general from the march of science. I genuinely hope that our humanity isn't entirely quantifiable at least in the near future. This is not to say that I don't appreciate science -- indeed it has only enriched our humanity, when it has successfully encompassed some aspect of it -- when it has developed a mature understanding of it. Nevertheless, I do fear that trial balloons and early hypotheses will lead only to a shallow understanding, that in turn will divide us rather than enrich us.

James
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 2nd, 2011, 9:39 pm 

NoAngst:

I have to admit that is the best laugh that I've had in quite some, because this is the analogy that I have always cited in defining much of 20th century art, and many others have also used this same analogy, such as Marilyn vos Savant:

“I believe Picasso's success is just one small part of the broader modern phenomenon of artists themselves rejecting serious art --- in favor of what I call 'impulse art': artwork that is quick and easy, at least by comparison. In my opinion Picasso was more like one of the weavers for the emperor in Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale 'The Emperor’s New Clothes' than he was an artist...I believe that someday those famous art critics will find themselves in the position of the ministers who finally looked at the emperor honestly and discovered he was wearing nothing at all.”

So, to accuse me of having affected the function of the Emperor's New Clothes reminds me of the scene from the movie Patton, where, after he slaps a soldier for suffering from battle fatigue, a political cartoonist draws a cartoon of general Patton with a swastika on his boot and kicking a soldier, and then general Patton responds by saying:”A swastika on MY boot,” and because there never was anyone who combated that concept more fervently than general Patton. Similiarly, there has never been anyone who has combated this concept; of The Emporer's New Clothes, more fervently than myself, in spite of what you may believe.

Because, let's make a comparison: You claim that I am misguided and simply affecting the concept of The Emperor's New Clothes, but I have always proposed that the people who promote Picasso, and Jackson Pollock and others, do actually affect that concept, and so let's make that comparison; as they do claim that Jackson Pollock had created the pictorial equivalent of Mozart:

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

And I am sure that you are familiar with Jackson Pollock and his paintings, and so you do know that Jackson Pollock did only drip some paint upon a canvas, and did not pictorially represent any identifiable 3-D tangible form things. But yet, we do know and for an irrefutable fact that the very definition of “music”: the nucelus of music, is 4-dimensional fundamental frequency modulations: “notes,” and not “absolutely abstract 2-D color,” which is all that Pollock's pictures are, and too while the actual definition of color, is: “one of the physical attributes of mass” - tangible form mass, and not 4-D fundamental frequency modulations. So, we can know, for a fact, that it is literally impossible for Jackson Pollock's pictures to begin to be a pictorial represention of music even at the elementary level of understanding, and so this understanding does enable us to begin to expose the invisibleness of their Emperor's Clothes. Also – simultaneously, I have explained that a person can develope the ability to “see” 4-D fundamental frequency modulations/notes, and as Leonardo da Vinci did also explain this fact:

“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 each; as a musician does with notes, which, though they can be carried on one into 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 and lowering the voice...”

And I have always explained that a simple demonstration of this function would be for a person to go outside and stand next to a sidewalk and focus upon the horizon line, and then also become capable of seeing that the exact section of sidewalk that you would be standing upon would appear to be a little bit wider than the exact next section of sidewalk, and so on up to the horizon line, and then to imagine taking a picture of this and then extending this same function all the way up to the sky; while seeing the fundamental frequency rise as the simultaneously relative distance increases. And so becoming capable of “seeing” the function of the fundamental frequency modulations/notes is becoming capable of seeing the representation of the absolute function: of the relative width of the crest of the waves varying in accordance to their relative distance to and from your point of observation, and which of course is the literal definition of their function:

“The sine wave or sinusoid is a mathematical function that describes a smooth repetitive oscillation. It occurs often in pure mathematics, as well as physics, signal processing (and) and many other fields. Its most basic form as a function of time (t) is:
where: A, the amplitude, is the peak deviation of the function from its center position.
ω, the angular frequency, specifies how many oscillations occur in a unit time interval...”

And also, beginning to “see” the function of the simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes, is becoming capable of simultaneously “moving” your mind up – or down, and also simultaneously out - diagonally, and within your peripheral mind, to the corresponding point where the simultaneously relative fundamental frequency exists within the scale: represented by the individual sections of the sidewalk, and again while in accordance with the absolute function:

“In music, a scale is a sequence of musical notes in ascending and descending order...”

And of course this function does correlate with Einstein's explaining of gravitational time dilation:

“Gravitational time dilation: Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential – closer to the center of a massive object, the more slowly time passes...Clocks which are far from massive bodies – or at higher potentials, run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies – or at lower gravitational potential, run slower...”

As the slower: lower – heavier – darker, simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes are down near the ground, and the faster: higher – lighter (mass) – lighter (color), simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes are up in the sky: up and out in the simultaneously relative distance, and up near where the light/sun is.

So then, after you have developed the ability to see the function of the individual simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes effectually functioning within the scale; and also simultaneously moving within your peripheral mind to the corresponding point/wave of each individual fundamental frequency modulation/note, you can begin to understand this same affect also – and simultaneously, functioning as the experiencing of a vector/derivative field. With the vectors being magnitudes possessing both direction and quantity, and the derivatives being, both, the points where the individual velocities/fundamental frequency modulations/notes change direction with respect towards time; within a perimetered central keynote theme, and also – and simultaneously, formed harmonic proportionalities of the perimetered central keynote theme.

To understand the function of perceiving, and also experiencing, the function of the vector derivative field, we must first understand a basic neurophysiological function which has remained unexplained, or not yet deemed relevant to anything, and which is the fact that humans can only consciously focus upon one single two degree point while at any one point within simultaneously relative space/time, such as this point here: A. But, while remaining focused upon point A, a person can see a second, and distinct/discrete, point located at a second simultaneously relative point here: B, within simultaneously relative space/time. So, we can understand that while remaining focused upon the first point: A, the entire non-tangible form of the image of second distinct and discrete point, of: B, must be projected from point B to point A, while being reduced to a single point and while also being observed from, and projected to, a third distinct and discrete point, of: C, located inside our minds.

So, we can understand that as each individual simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulation/note functions as a representation of a simultaneously relative individually completed section of the sidewalk. We can also understand that each individual section of the sidewalk is formed by the placement of expansion joints on either side of the individual sections. And so we can consider the expansion joints as two points also; to define the successively diminishing simultaneously relative section of sidewalk/note as an individual line segment: formed by the “line” between the two points of the expansion joints, and functioning as a real representation of the absolute function:

“In geometry, a line segment is a part of a line that is bounded by two end points, and contains every point on the line between its end points. Examples of line segments include the sides of a triangle or square.”

So then we can also understand that as we begin to develop the ability to see the individual simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes/sections of the sidewalk functioning as individual line segments: reduced to a single point/wave OF the individual successively diminishing line segment, we can also understand that these completed individual “units” can also, and exactly simultaneously, function as a vector field: While remembering the concept of point B being projected to point A – while we remain “focused” upon the simultaneously relative point of A, and while also being reduced to a single point, and again while functioning as a real application of the absolute function:

“In elementary mathematics, physics, and engineering, a Euclidean vector (sometimes called a geometric or spatial vector, or – as here – simply a vector) is a geometric object that has both a magnitude (or length) and direction. A Euclidean vector is frequently represented by a line segment with a definite direction, or graphically as an arrow, connecting an initial point A with a terminal point B...A vector is what is needed to 'carry' the point A to the point B; the Latin word vector means 'carrier'. The magnitude of the vector is the distance between the two points and the direction refers to the direction of displacement from A to B...”

And also as was explained by Leonardo da Vinci:

“All the problems of perspective are made clear by the five terms of mathematicians, which are:--the point, the line, the angle, the superficies and the solid. The point is unique of its kind. And the point has neither height, breadth, length, nor depth, whence it is to be regarded as indivisible and as having no dimensions in space. The line is of three kinds, straight, curved and sinuous and it has neither breadth, height, nor depth. Hence it is indivisible, excepting in its length, and its ends are two points. The angle is the junction of two lines in a point.”

And while remembering that as a person begins to become capable of experiencing the various affects of these functions, they must first become capable of “seeing” the individual simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes/sections of the sidewalk: within their peripheral mind, and while also remaining “focused” upon the central keynote theme, or - within the visual musical equivalent which is The Annunciation, the identifiable single vanishing point, of: SVP-A. And so we can understand that as we become capable of seeing the individually completed fundamental frequency modulations/notes/line segments – positioned within the central keynote theme OR affected volume of 3-dimensional space within the visual musical equivalencies, the entire image of the individually completed line segments must be projected “from” their position within the field, and “to” the projected to central keynote theme/SVP-A, and while being simultaneously projected into our minds.

And to simplify this understanding we can imagine printing out this single individually completed line segment, of: B-----------C, on a page, and placing the page five feet in front of us, and then remaining focused upon a single point, of: SVP-A, located upon a wall ten feet beyond the page. Then, after printing out the page, inverting the page so that the line segment runs vertically. And then we can understand that, in order for us to “see” it – as we remain focused upon the projected SVP-A, the exact non-tangible form image of the individually completed line segment – mimicking the function of an individually completed simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulation/note/section of the sidewalk, must be projected “from” its point upon the page: located upon the page five feet in front of us, and “to” the projected to SVP-A, located on the wall ten feet beyond that point upon the page, and while being reduced to a single point: while functioning as a vector. And also while the line segment functions as the side of an individual non-tangible form triangle and/or “pyramid”: of a real and perceivable non-tangible form thing, and as was explained by Leonardo da Vinci:

“Perspective is a rational demonstration, confirmed by experience, that all objects transmit their image to the eye by a pyramid of lines.
By a pyramid of lines I understand those lines which start from the edges of the surface of bodies, and converging from a distance, meet in a single point; and this point, in the present instance, I will show to be situated in the eye which is the universal judge of all objects. By a point I mean that which cannot be divided into parts; therefore this point, which is situated in the eye, being indivisible, no body is seen by the eye, that is not larger than this point. This being the case it is inevitable that the lines which come from the object to the point must form a pyramid.”

And then so we can understand that as we do begin to become capable of experiencing the affect which is purposefully cognizing: “seeing” and “moving” with, the series of individually completed line segments/fundamental frequency modulations/notes, our minds - our peripheral minds, will also simultaneously begin to move up along with the natural inclination of the scale: while moving simultaneously up and out along with the function of the “scale.” And while also remembering that as we become capable experiencing the vector function: as the individual line segments will be projected to the SVP-A, our “movement”: within our peripheral mind, will become “redirected”: as the projected from image of the individual line segment/note/fundamental frequency modulation, will be projected “from” its point within the scale, and “to” the projected to central keynote theme – or identified SVP-A, and while effectually functioning as a minor derivative of the function, and also as a real application of the absolute function:

“In calculus, a branch of mathematics, the derivative is a measure of how a function changes as its input changes. Loosely speaking, a derivative can be thought of as how much one quantity is changing in response to changes in some other quantity; for example, the derivative of the position of a moving object with respect to time is the object's instantaneous velocity.
The derivative of a function at a chosen input value describes the best linear approximation of the function near that input value. For a real-valued function of a single real variable, the derivative at a point equals the slope of the tangent line to the graph of function at that point. In higher dimensions, the derivative of a function at a point is a linear transformation called the linearization. A closely related notion is the differential of a function.”

After recognizing the existence, and purpose: for both the cognitive function of music and visual musical equivalencies, of these various functions, we can also become capable of easily understanding the purposeful affect of directed tension: in becoming capable of harnessing the cognitive function of a scale to purposefully “direct” the mind to the points of the major derivatives. Which is understanding that if we were to take a string of a guitar and stretch it to a length, and pluck that string, we will produce a note/fundamental frequency modulation/section of the sidewalk, and – when accessing the cognitive function of music, become capable of purposefully moving the mind to the corresponding point of the note - etc. And then, if we were to half the length of the string, and push against it – or put tension on that string, we would then affect a note exactly an octave above the first note, and then - as we become capable of harnessing the cognitive function of music, become capable of purposefully moving - and/or purposefully “directing,” the mind exactly “up” - and simultaneously “out,” and to the exact point of the next higher note – etc., and while affecting the function of directed tension, which can function in conjunction with all the other elementary functions.

So then we can understand that harnessing these purposefully affected geometric functions is the definition of an elementary “geometric music theory,” which: geometric music theory, is a quickly growing field:

“Music Has Its Own Geometry, Researchers Find: The connection between music and mathematics has fascinated scholars for centuries. More than 2000 years ago Pythagoras reportedly discovered that pleasing musical intervals could be described using simple ratios...Now, three music professors -- Clifton Callender at Florida State University, Ian Quinn at Yale University and Dmitri Tymoczko at Princeton University -- have devised a new way of analyzing and categorizing music that takes advantage of the deep, complex mathematics they see enmeshed in its very fabric...”

In addition, we can also easily understand that practicing – learning, understanding and harnessing all of these elementary level functions is the literal equivalent of a music student practicing their scales, and, of course, also the exact definition of an actual music student coming to an understanding of the elementary level of the cognitive function of music. And also of course, the more an individual practices, and practices, the more proficient they can become in experiencing all of these elementary functions. And – then after becoming proficient in these elementary functions, begin to move on to learning how to harness these functions, to begin to become capable of accessing all of the higher cognitive geometric functions, which require a rather lengthy explanation, and which I would be happy to provide.

And so, in response to your post, no:

“I suppose your obscurantism is good for a free three-shot caramel mocha breve at Starbucks, but on a philosophy forum with me I'm afraid your intellectual pretense and affected speech will not so easily impress.”

I am not attempting to conceal – hide or prevent, anything from becoming known – explained or understood, and I am always willing to full explain, in complete and absolute detail, any element of this concept that anyone would care to have explained. And, obviously, not a single one of these functions exists within any Jackson Pollock picture, so – also obviously, their Emperor's Clothes have become completely exposed: as being absolutely “invisible,” while – exactly simultaneously, what I am promoting can only be the literally defined pinnacle antithesis of the concept. Also, I have already explained, I believe numerous times, that I have no formal education, and/or bookish learning, and I make no pretenses contrary to the fact; I could not care less about “impressing” anyone with my writing, and I do actually subscribe to the Leonardo da Vinci school of thought in regards to this, as he said:

"Anyone who argues on the basis of authority exploits not his insight but his memory. Good writing is born of good and natural understanding, and since the cause is to be praised rather than the effect, you should praise good and natural understanding without bookish learning, rather than bookish learning without understanding."

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby Positor on October 4th, 2011, 11:14 am 

MrMikeludo wrote:“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 each; as a musician does with notes, which, though they can be carried on one into 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 and lowering the voice...”

Was Leonardo here referring to the degrees of a diatonic scale (e.g. C, D, E, F etc), which lie at irregularly spaced intervals (e.g. whole tone, whole tone, semitone etc)? Or a chromatic scale (C, C sharp, D, D sharp etc), which consists of equal or nearly equal (semitone) intervals? Or was he referring to natural harmonics (C1, C2, G2, C3 etc), which lie at regularly decreasing intervals (octave, perfect fifth, perfect fourth, major third etc) as the pitch ascends?

He seems to have equal intervals in mind for the visual equivalent ("20 bracchia each"). So I was wondering how exact the visual/musical analogy is.
Positor
Active Member
 
Posts: 1089
Joined: 05 Feb 2010


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 4th, 2011, 1:38 pm 

owleye

If you would like to see the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop, I believe that you can access it on the internet; on Youtube. I believe that you should watch it to see an interesting commentary on contemporary art, and because it actually isn't a parody but it is very insightful in regards to how contemporary art has become something, umm, perhaps “different” than anything before.

It is very interesting. It is a movie about a fellow named Thierry Guetta who owns a vintage clothing store in Los Angeles and for some reason, which never becomes clear, he starts to video record everything he does obsessively, even things such as himself going to the bathroom. Eventually he befriends the graffiti artist Shepard Fairey and starts to video record graffiti artists, learning about their culture, and also telling them that he is producing a documentary about graffiti artists. So he does then become obsessed with meeting Banksy, because he has heard about his fame and secretive nature, as no one really knows who Banksy is. So, eventually, he does, just completely by chance, meet Banksy and start filming him, while also telling Banksy that he is producing a documentary about graffiti artists. Then after a few months of Thierry trailing Banksy, and filming him also, Banksy asks to see some of the documentary, but it turns out that Thierry really wasn't producing a documentary but only obsessively recording everything with no actual purpose behind any of the filming, and Banksy realizes this. So then Banksy takes over production of the documentary, or rather does actually turn it into a documentary, and turns the camera on Thierry. Then Banksy tells Thierry that he should do some graffiti art himself, to learn more about the culture.

And this is the part where it really becomes interesting. Because, I don't know whether you know it or not, because I didn't know it, but graffiti art has become something even more bizarre than people going around tagging things with spray paint. Because now people like Shepard Fairey create images which are computer generated, then they go to Kinkos and print out the computer generated images, and then they go around town and plaster the images on walls with adhesive, in much the same way wallpaper is hung upon a wall. And so then, after Bansky tells Thierry that he should produce some graffiti art, he does have a picture of himself, holding a video camera, printed out, and begins to go all around town plastering his image everywhere. After a few months of this he decides that he is ready for his own personal art exhibition, and so he sets about to create his own personal art show. He first sells his vintage clothing business, then he buys all the equipment: computers – printers – etc., required to produce the art, and hires employees to do all the actual work, and sets up a kind of assembly line process to manufacture all the art. He also rents a (if I remember) 10 thousand square foot building in downtown Los Angeles and starts to “promote” his show, as he does go all around town hanging all of the promotional material advertising his show. And which reminds me very much of the process that Adolh Hitler cited in Mein Kamph:

“Anyone who wants to win the broad masses must know the key that opens the door to their hearts: propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people – The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct...But propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving for education...Some idea of genius arises in the brain of a man who feels called upon to transmit his knowledge to the rest of humanity. He preaches his view and gradually wins a certain circle of adherents...”

As Adolf Hitler did actually come to power by, first, heavily promoting himself, or propagandizing himself, and too while emphasizing the fact that he was personally responsible for designing all of the art work for all of the: posters – banners – promotional pamphlets – etc., and because, remember, Adolf Hitler was an artist before he became a politician.

And remember also, I told you that this fellow: Thierry, does actually begin to call himself Mr. Brainwash, as he becomes capable of convincing people that he is a great artist. And, in the movie, there actually is a scene where he does seem to be literally laughing at the people who are patronizing him, and his “artwork,” where they show him sitting in front of the printers, and after he says:”I am the 'artist,' I don't do the actual work,” and then, as he points to the various pictures which his employees are printing, he goes on to say:”This one will sell for 18 thousand, that one for 12 thousand, that one for 20 thousand....It's like printing gold (again, this is from memory and may not be exact),” and he does quite literally laugh as he says it and refer to himself as Mr. Brainwash.

And so I have often told people that everything is “exactly backwards” in my life, and not just in this, but in everything in my life, but especially in regards to what it is I am attempting to convey about these artistic concepts, and about what it is I attempting to convey in relation to the most recent of 21st century art. And so this concept which you have suggested:

“It seems that what you have in mind is making art into a science -- i.e., quantifiable...However, at first blush on such a proposal for what art is, I would very much hope you are on the wrong track. I say this because I wish to save art as well as the humanities in general from the march of science. I genuinely hope that our humanity isn't entirely quantifiable at least in the near future...”

Is backwards also, and, of course, I don't mean that your understanding is backwards, but only the concept is, and because it is, intrinsically, very confusing in of itself, and that is to be exactly expected upon its first introduction when I say that its existence can be “scientifically proven.”

But, I think you should take into consideration your example of Joe Dimaggio, and how he became capable of doing something, seemingly, so effortlessly that people said that he made it look easy, and so too, of course, people did often say the same thing about Bach, and Mozart, and anyone who has become very proficient in their particular endeavor. But too you have to remember, that, as Bach said, these people all worked extraordinarily hard, and the “rule” is supposed to be 10 thousand hours, to become a master in anything:


“Outliers: The Story of Success is a non-fiction book written by Malcolm Gladwell...In Outliers, Gladwell examines the factors that contribute to high levels of success...Throughout the publication, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours...”

And from my own personal experience, I think I put in more like 20 thousand hours, before I became capable of producing my visual musical equivalencies, and which is, of course, quite literally a lifetime's worth of work.

And so I have learned, from my own personal experience, that it doesn't work that way, that: the science – the math – the syntax – the structure – the formulas – the objectivity, are all just ways of providing a “proof” for the function, but it does not – would not, and could not, ever work that way, and which is “top down.”

We could never take a group of students: art students – math students – science students – music students, or any kind of students, and abstractly teach them these concepts, and then have them, any of them, turn around and become capable of producing any visual musical equivalencies, or any acoustic music either: it simply doesn't work that way, and it would actually only make it more confusing. First a student, all students – any students, must “practice their scales” every day and for hours on end, and too for any particular endeavor that they may be involved with, whether they are a baseball player, or a musician, or someone who would like to attempt to produce any visual musical equivalencies.

And too, which is the exact opposite of what this person: Thierry Guetta – Mr. Brainwash, has become capable of doing, as he put in a total of zero hours practicing anything. In addition, I believe that what he did actually do is more in line with the concept of reducing “art” to a “science,” and/or a “math,” or, more appropriately, a kind of mindless – soulless – emotionless, assembly line process system, with only one single goal in mind: to make as much money as possible and as quickly as possible, and while developing a pure “corporate” attitude.

And I don't mean that in a rhetorical way, but in actuality, as this is exactly what he is shown doing in the movie: As he quite literally affects an assembly line process. He simply takes some “art” books, and has someone download the various images into a computer. Then he assigns someone else to “create” the “new” images: by photoshoping them, and while also quite literally doing little more than that which he could do by throwing dice, as he just says:”Put that 'hair' on that 'face,' and put a 'mustache' on that 'face,” and so on. Then he assigns someone else to print out the pictures. And then he assigns someone else to frame the pictures. Now, of course, most endeavors can also be subjected to this scrutiny, as when someone becomes a master carpenter, they do then hire apprentices to do the majority of the simple work, and too it is as Leonardo did explain:

“To conceive is divine, to execute is servile.”

Except, in order to become a master carpenter, an apprentice must – first, put in their 10 thousand hours, and so too to become a composer a musician must put in their 10 thousand hours, and THEN earn the right to assign more trivial processes to their subordinates.

So then the concepts that I am talking about: in the thesis statement, are the exact opposite of what they may first seem to be. And they are more in keeping with what you said here:

“...This is not to say that I don't appreciate science -- indeed it has only enriched our humanity, when it has successfully encompassed some aspect of it -- when it has developed a mature understanding of it...”

As all of these understandings, applied appropriately, can only enrich our existence. And too because, remember, introducing the existence of the “musical structure” which exists within The Annunciation is, quite literally, the same as introducing the existence of Mozart to a society which has never known that he existed, and which, of course, can ONLY enrich any society, no matter how you look at it.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 4th, 2011, 4:24 pm 

Positor:

What Leonardo was refering to here:

"...I will nevertheless found my rule on spaces of 20 braccia each; as a musician does with notes, which, though they can be carried on one into 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 and lowering the voice...”

Was something representing more the natural harmonics which you cited:

"...Or was he referring to natural harmonics (C1, C2, G2, C3 etc), which lie at regularly decreasing intervals (octave, perfect fifth, perfect fourth, major third etc) as the pitch ascends?"

But you also have to remember that, in the visual musical equivalencies, it is more an application of an absolute function than it is an accurate; exact, reproduction of the actual musical scales that can be produced on a piano: while taking into consideration the function of overtones and harmonics. The concern in a visual musical equivalent is more to harness the "function" of the scale: to purposefully "move" the mind "up" - and "out," while harnessing the function of the minor "movements": the notes. And to become capable of purposefully moving the mind up to the points of the major derivatives: represented in The Annunciation, "at" the points where the lectern - and Angel's left hand, projection intersects with the perimeters, and then continue moving up to the points where the top garden wall - and Angel's right hand, projection intersects with the perimeters, and then to continue up to the top.

Let me tell you this analogy: When I was 15-years-old my father sent me to school to learn how to read electromechanical schematics, and I thought:"I'll never understand this." But then the teacher said:"It's simple; because electricity flows like water - while along the path of least resistence." So imagine turning a spigot on to a hose, and having the water flow along the curb of a street, and then - ten feet down the street, placing a board against the curb: to cause the water to be "redirected" in a new direction: at a right angle to the curb, and to form a derivative of the function. Well, the main purpose of the "notes" in a visual musical equivalency is to simply "get the water flowing" in a direction up - and out, to the points of the major derivatives, and then to form the entire structure: of the geometrical equation, which, in of itself, is the "thing" which is of primary concern in the visual musical equivalents, and not the individual notes.

Also, I have come to find that experiencing the function: of seeing and moving with the individual notes - overtones and harmonics, is something which is better appreciated in actual music, and is something which should only be secondary in the visual musical equivalents.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 9th, 2011, 10:18 am 

rrushius:

I know it wasn't your specific intention, but I found some of Odd Nerdrum's thoughts to be very interesting, and felt as if I could certainly relate to his philosophy in regards to art, and also, especially, his early education attitude towards returning art back towards “higher realities,” and a “harmony with the universe”:

“Nerdrum began his formal education in 1951 in Oslo, in a private Rudolf Steiner school...Steiner believed mankind could find its way back to a connection with higher realities and to renewed harmony with the universe. Learning for students was often kinesthetic, for example, through dramatic enactments of history and fantasy, and through musical exercises...”

And also his coming to an understanding of art's purpose through “musical exercises.” And I can certainly relate to this concept also:

“Nerdrum began study at the Art Academy of Oslo, but became dissatisfied with the direction of modern art, and began to teach himself how to paint in a Neo Baroque style, with the guidance of Rembrandt's technique and work as a primary influence...By abandoning the accepted path of modern art, Nerdrum had placed himself in direct opposition to most aspects of the school, including his primary painting instructor, his fellow students, and a curriculum designed to present Norway as a country with an up-to-date artistic culture. He, in his own words was chased from the academy after a two-year period like a 'scroungy mutt'.”

Actually, it is rather peculiar that your guidance has steered me in this direction, because I have often told people a story very similar to this: “like a scroungy mutt,” story, about myself and the way that I was treated by the “art community,” as I first started to introduce these: geometric dynamic symmetry, concepts to them, and that this is how I too felt like I was being treated.

And this too is, almost, exactly what I have always said about myself:

“I saw that I was in the process of making a choice that would end in defeat. By choosing those qualities that were so alien to my own time, I had to give up at the same time the art on which the art of our time rests. I had to paint in defiance of my own era without the protection of the era's superstructure. Briefly put I would paint myself into isolation.”

And I can certainly relate to this:

“His disillusionment with modern art, such as Rauschenberg's Monogram, a stuffed goat with a tire around its middle section standing on a flat, littered surface, that Nerdrum had encountered in Moderna Museet, filled the young artist with disgust...”

And also I know understand better exactly why he did define himself as “kitsch,” even though I, upon first viewing, did not think that it was, and it is because he was making a statement about modern art:

“Odd Nerdrum has declared himself to be a kitsch-painter identifying himself with kitsch rather than with the contemporary art world. Initially, Nerdrum's declaration was thought to be a joke but later, and with the publication of articles and books on the subject, Nerdrum's position can be seen as an implied criticism of contemporary art.”

And even though I know this wasn't exactly what you had in mind when referencing him, and in relation to the exact topic concerning The Annunciation – and dynamic symmetry, again, I can certainly relate with it.

As far as introducing the concept of dynamic symmetry breaking, and my, then, suggesting that I believed that you were trying to make a correlation; in reference to dynamic symmetry, which pertained to chaos theory, or that “everything was relative,” what I was actually trying to say was something more along the lines of this:

“One also often hear the complaint that the term 'spontaneous symmetry breaking' is misleading; the right term should be 'hidden symmetries,' which refers to systems in which some symmetries of the law are not visible -- hence, hidden -- from the lowest energy solution(s) of the law equations(cf. Coleman 1975, 142). This seems to suggest that no symmetry is broken in such systems; rather different symmetries apply to different aspects of them. Still others (cf. Ross 1985, 59-60) regard the results of SSB not so much as broken symmetries than as approximate ones. Should we then regard SSB as an epistemic notion rather then a notion that refers to a physical property?
Second, as mentioned in the introduction, some people argue that SSB is a misnomer; the phenomena it refers to should properly be called 'hidden symmetries.' The laws which govern the behavior of a system has one set of symmetries and the behavior another, usually lesser, set. Since what we measure is behavior, the symmetries of the laws are therefore hidden from us...”


And that the symmetries could be hidden, in much the same way that they are “hidden” in The Annunciation, and only someone with the knowledge of their functions can know of their existence.

Also, I think that instead of using the example of a “pencil” - standing on point, as a reference, to compare dynamic symmetry vs. spontaneous symmetry breaking – as applicable to The Annunciation, I think I would prefer to use an example of a “top.” And how the top “resting” appears to not be symmetrical, but when the function of gyroscopic inertia is “applied,” well then the top appears to be symmetrical. Similarly, if you were to look at The Annunciation it would not look symmetrical, but when you apply the functions, then the structure of The Annunciation becomes dynamically symmetrical, and which: the functions applied, reveal the “hidden” symmetry.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby owleye on October 9th, 2011, 11:33 am 

MrMikeludo wrote:owleye

If you would like to see the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop, I believe that you can access it on the internet; on Youtube. I believe that you should watch it to see an interesting commentary on contemporary art, and because it actually isn't a parody but it is very insightful in regards to how contemporary art has become something, umm, perhaps “different” than anything before.


I read your summary and account of this movie and while I may be interested in seeing it, I'm not really qualified to make comments about it, whether it should be considered art or even be about what art is. My only reason for contributing to this thread was to introduce Danto's interesting idea of what art is, from a philosophical standpoint, which made a lot of sense to me, given that prior to reading about it, I couldn't understand why Warhol's soup cans could be considered art. From your description of the movie and what you claim it says about contemporary art, I can't see anything in it which would be cause me to change my mind. The approach you are taking with respect to what art is, and the stance you seem to be taking, seems too narrow to account for what the human mind and the tools it can make use of is capable of achieving in the name of art.

You may have read "Waves" by Virginia Wolff. I've read it a couple of times and intend to read it again. It is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read, and one which seems to me worthy of the accolade of great art. It appears I'm not alone in thinking this. Although I haven't yet finished reading Ulysses by James Joyce, I can say there is a good reason for counting this novel among the great works of art. Moreover, having read The Sound and the Fury, by William Faulkner, who in writing it, makes use of the narrative style of both of these great writers, I also found worthy of being considered great art, despite the difficulty I had in reading it. None of these works appear to fit within the paradigm you provide of what great art is.

James
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on October 9th, 2011, 2:40 pm 

MrMikeludo, from what I have gathered so far of your philosophy, I would be almost positive that ultimately you would not relate to Nerdrum’s philosophy. The only thing to which you seem to have related, and incidentally, this is precisely what I would be most critical of, is his fondness for being a victim. In short, you do not seem to relate to his art, but rather to his victimization. This leaves us too little room to speak though, since, if I am critical of your hypotheses, theories, philosophy, or what have you, then, implicitly (even explicitly, I might say, for the accusation is not so well concealed) I am being accused of being closed minded, dull, defending the status quo, etc. etc. Very little of the Wikipedia article you chose to share here had to do with his art, rather it was mostly parts having to do with his perception of victimization. And judging by the patterns of your past responses, I feel almost as if I have to defend what I said against a possible objection you might come up with, in which you will respond that what I said is not true, and then, quote once again all the parts of your present post that have something to do with Nerdrum’s art. But, taken in its totality, the parts in which you dwell on his victimization greatly outweigh the parts in which you speak of his art.

In any event, what I am trying to say, is that we’ll get nowhere like this—this topic is already stagnant, and no progress is being made to a better understanding of what you are saying, in fact, now we have branched off into a few swamp areas, where personal experiences seem to have a prominent but as yet undefined place in your theory.

Another aspect of what you have said earlier that I have to mention again is your notion of the genius. Explicitly you admit that you are no genius, but you claim to understand what genius is, which implicitly would amount to being a genius—for you have to be a genius to understand a genius. Personally, I don’t even think that a discussion of “genius” will get you anywhere, not only is genius impossible to define, but it may well be a myth in which the masses must believe in order to justify their own laziness. Ahmad Shamlu was once made very angry when the journalists called him a genius, for he said that calling someone a genius presupposes that he did not have to work to get where he is, it was just given to him, a gift, nothing more, so the genius is at best a lucky person. I am aware that you said something of the kind, too, recently, i.e., in agreement with what I am saying (I will not go back to find where it is exactly, I am sure you know), but in that case, I do not understand why you have to even mention the concept of the genius and confuse things even more.

This is the reason that I told you earlier that your theory is a set of loosely gathered ideas, where in fact, most of them fall in contradiction with each other. The length of your posts makes it difficult to point out all the inconsistencies, for now one has to go into it like a scavenger, which I personally am not inclined to do. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against length, as long as you keep it concise and to the point, instead of branching off into a myriad of unconnected ideas, and even branching off sometimes, is not so bad, if at least it was all connected.

Another, and last piece of criticism that I have to mention, is that by giving such wildly dispersed explanations, making use of a variety of analogies without stating that they are analogies, improper quotations that do not include the names of the articles (there is a very specific reason I have demanded time and again that you be more careful with your references: not all sources carry the same authority, and some of them may even be totally unreliable, Wikipedia is one of those, though it may be good for getting some quick information on the subject. I referred you to Nerdrum’s book, “On Kitsch” not to a Wikipedia article), all these by themselves make your theory unreliable at best. Consider also, that no one here has really taken the pains to criticize your theory thoroughly, rather everyone is focusing on one or other aspect of it—but were one to do that on an academic level, your theory could be dismantled so completely as to never be able to be put together again. But no one will take the pains as it is, for it is obvious that it has no value as a whole. With this I am not saying that some ideas could not be rescued, but those ideas have existed even before, and have nothing to do with your theory, in fact, would stand far better on their own than if connected with it.

To conclude, in order to be somewhat justified in considering yourself victimized like Nerdrum does (even though justified or not the victimization complex is still the same), you would have to prove to some extent that the rejection of your theory is based on personal dislike, rather than because it is untenable. Another reason might be the inability to understand it. I would seriously doubt this. You say that you have spent the necessary "10000 hours" on it, I am not clear if these 10000 hours were spent working the details of your theory, or listening to music and trying to visualize it.
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 10th, 2011, 1:55 pm 

cagla:

Firstly, I would like to explain that I purposefully use the term “toying with” me. Because it does mean that I am not trying to imply that I feel that you are being belligerent, or hostile towards me, which I do appreciate, but I believe that you are dismissing what it is I am attempting to convey as being just a matter of happenstance, or trivial in nature, but not necessarily in a mean spirited way, so I do appreciate that.

But I do believe that there may be some kind of communication problem also, because I don't know why you have come to believe this:

“...Anything you do with his work is, you being 'creative' with his work. You creating the music equivelant of the Annunciation is just that; you creating the music equivelant of the Annunciation...”

That I am a “musician,” which I am not. I am a photographer, so I make “pictures” with a camera. I have made a pictorial equivalent, with a camera, as Leonardo da Vinci made contained within The Annunciation: which he created with a brush and paint, and which has absolutely nothing to do with the theme of The Annunciation. But which exactly contains the same “geometric structure” that is contained within The Annunciation. And the fact that I first created the equivalent myself is exactly how I was able to recognize it when I saw “it” within The Annunciation, and also exactly how I was able to understand, both, its existence, and the higher cognitive function of music which it is a pictorial equivalent of.

Because I did first spend 20 years of my life listening to music 18 hours a day – but NOT producing music. And that is how I first learned how to “see” the functions of music in my mind, and also while beginning with my ability to see fundamental frequency modulations: notes, then expanded into the other functions, such as seeing the notes functioning as a vector derivative field. And these developed understandings, affected through decades of purposefully developing my capabilities to understand the functions, is the “thing” that I have in common with Leonardo da Vinci, and the fact that he produced “art” – functioning as a visual equivalent of these functions, and that is “it” as far as I am concerned.

And the fact that I first developed the ability to see the function of the “notes” functioning as individually completed simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/individually completed simultaneously relative sections of the sidewalk/individually completed simultaneously relative velocities, is also – and exactly simultaneously, “how” I was able to understand music's ability to function as an absolute “mathematical” function: of applied real time calculus – trigonometric, and algebraic functions. And – remember also, I did explain that these understandings are an applied function of a pictorial equivalent of “seeing” the applied fourth dimension of “time” made manifest, and which is literal, not rhetorical:


“Four-dimensional space: Algebraically it is generated by applying the rules of vectors and coordinate geometry to a space with four dimensions...In special relativity we can not talk about absolute velocities, but only relative velocities...in relativity, we take very seriously the notion that a vector is a little arrow sitting at a particular point in space/time. To compare vectors at different points in space/time, we must carry one over to the other...”

And – remember, I did exactly explain that the applied function contained within The Annunciation, is exactly the function of an applied vector derivative field also – and simultaneously, functioning as a purposefully affected coordinate point system, and for which there must be identified “coordinators.” And remember also, I did explain that within The Annunciation these coordinators are the Hands and eyes – functioning as primary coordinators, because we have specific neurons within our minds for identifying these things, and that there are also secondary coordinators, and also because we contain a higher percentage of nerve fibers, in relation to muscle fibers, contained within certain parts of our bodies. So that when Leonardo affected this coordinate point system, he did have to purposefully “orchestrate” these elements, just as a musical composer must orchestrate his musical performance.

And so there is nothing “creative” about my explaining of their: any of these functions, existence, contained within The Annunciation, as they are all created “mathematically,” and I am simply demonstrating the applied function of the “math,” and – again, as Leonardo did explain:

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

And so, no one could:

“You need to build an art historical perspective and a method –not an artistically personal one pulled out from a hat- in connection with the discipline and based on the accumulation alreday made, if you desire to make any reasonable inquiries according to what art is?”

Simply “make up” - or “pull out of a hat,” the defined mathematical structure which exists within The Annunciation, it is a representation of mathematical applied functions: which must be “identified” exactly “prior” to forming the mathematical structure, and/or the explanation of its existence.

And I also believe that the “historical” significance is exactly secondary to the analytical explanation of the structure's existence, as I believe that everything can have an historical significance, regardless of how trivial it may, or may not, be. But the “structure,” contained within The Annunciation, is capable of affecting a very unique truly humanistic emotional response, which comes first, and then comes the historical significance.


And, yes, I know that you are “one of the good guys,” that's why I take no offense to anything you may say to me, but understand that you are communicating your accumilated knowledge on the subject. I just know, from past experience, that these concepts are so novel that they affect strong opinions, which, I believe, is a good thing.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 10th, 2011, 4:38 pm 

owleye:

I know that I have said it, but I also know that unless you personally experienced it, you probably would never believe that there could exist such a thing as what I did experience. Because I did not say to the people who govern the art world:”Look, there exists this – geometric structure, and there should exist no other (art).” But, I did say:”Yes – yes, I know there exists Picasso, and Van Gogh, and Rembrandt, and Pollock, and Warhol, and authors/novels, and movies, and television, and actual music/Mozart, and contemporary music, and etc., but, in order to be well rounded, you should understand that there ALSO exists this: visual musical equivalents/geometric music theory/cognitive function of music.” And then they are the ones who did do this, as you stated:

“The approach you are taking with respect to what art is, and the stance you seem to be taking, seems too narrow to account for what the human mind and the tools it can make use of is capable of achieving in the name of art.”

They were the ones who did become “close minded,” and “narrow minded,” to the concepts that I was introducing to them, and the world in general. And, again, unless you experienced it I don't believe that you would ever believe that there could exist such a thing. Because, you could only wonder, as I did, where exactly is the problem, I mean, why would anyone have a problem with what it is I am attempting to communicate, if you did only have an interest in learning, and learning things anew, and also new, and have a sincere love for knowledge in general, and again as Leonardo da Vinci did explain:

“There is among the number of fools a certain sect, called hypocrites, who constantly strive to deceive themselves and others but more the others than themselves. In truth, they deceive themselves more than the others – these men possess a desire only for material wealth and are entirely devoid of the desire for wisdom, which is the sustenance and truly dependable wealth of the mind...”

And because I did learn, just as the contemporary art critic Ben Lewis did explain:

“Contemporary 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. Long ago we abandoned the idea that art should be beautiful, but it was never meant to be a synonym for obscenity...Cynicism, absurdity and obscenity are the three characteristics of this vastly inflated art bubble, and the underlying causes of it are not hard to find: a lack of regulation and a lack of courage. Unlike other commodity and financial markets, there are no rules (in the contemporary art) market...”

That all of the people who govern the art world have spent their entire lives being the ones who “make up the rules,” and they didn't want anyone – ANY ONE, to come into their world: where they make up the rules, and explain that there exists some rules that they are not solely responsible for implementing.

And, again, I have told you that everything is backwards in my experiencing of this phenomenon; of explaining of the existence of the visual musical equivalents, and so too this concept is exactly backwards: As the people who govern the contemporary art world have spent their entire lives making up their own rules, and so they, mistakenly, believe that this is what I am doing, but I'm not, as these rules exist as a matter of fact, and I have simply communicated their existence. But because they have spent their entire lives only knowing that they are capable of making up the rules, they also, and simultaneously, believe that everything can be interpreted that way, and that they can simply deny the existence of these rules, which they can't, they can only remain ignorant of them.

So I am not the one who has narrowed the definition of art, they are. And I am not the one who has remained close minded to the definition of art, they are. And I am not the one who has perverted the function of art, they are. But this is the point which is made abundantly evident in the movie Exist Through The Gift Shop, as this person: Thierry Guetta – Mr. brainwash, rather shamelessly acknowledges that his only concern is to make as to make as much money as he can, regardless of how he can, or does, do it, and he has no concern for “wisdom,” or the “sustenance and truly dependable wealth of the mind.” And which I find particularly offensive, as – remember, I did put in my 10 thousand hours, before I became capable of creating my art.

In regards to Danto's approach to art, while I haven't read very much of his writings, I have read some, and I was surprised to read this:


"Art, Philosophy, and the Philosophy of Art - by Arthur C. Danto...The Problem of Indiscernible Counterparts follows from the representationalistic character of works of art. Imagine a sentence written down, and then a set of marks which looks just like the written sentence, but is simply a set of marks. The first set has a whole lot of properties the second set lacks: it is in a language, has a syntax and grammar, says something. And its causes will be quite distinct in kind from those which explain mere marks. The structure then of works of art will have to be different from the structure of objects which merely resemble them."

As; remember, this: the existence of pictorial “syntax,” is one of the cornerstones of my theory:

“...My purpose, is to define this pictorial syntax.”

And so, yes I would:

“You may have read "Waves" by Virginia Wolff. I've read it a couple of times and intend to read it again. It is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read, and one which seems to me worthy of the accolade of great art...None of these works appear to fit within the paradigm you provide of what great art is.”

Define other things: besides geometric music theory/visual musical equivalents, as “art,” such as Virgina Wolff's “Waves.” But also I would like to emphasize that in the movie Exit Through The Gift Shop, what this person: Thierry Guetta – Mr. Brainwash, does actually do, is the equivalent to a “writer” downloading hundreds of novels that other people have written, and then simply cutting and pasting different passages from all of the different books; to “write” a new book, which I don't know that I would call art for sure.

But I do know one thing for certain. And that is if they refuse to acknowledge what it is I have done, and also what Leonardo has done in The Annunciation, well, then they certainly can not define what these people have done as art, and continue to proclaim: from atop that highest of all Ivory Towers, that they define ipso facto what art is.

MrMikeludo

(P.S. I have a nephew who has just written his first novel, and I would only encourage him to keep up the good work: in regards to developing his "art," and I am proud of his artistic accomplishment.)
MrMikeludo
Banned User
 
Posts: 225
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby owleye on October 11th, 2011, 2:35 pm 

MrMikeludo wrote:They were the ones who did become “close minded,” and “narrow minded,” to the concepts that I was introducing to them, and the world in general. And, again, unless you experienced it I don't believe that you would ever believe that there could exist such a thing. Because, you could only wonder, as I did, where exactly is the problem, I mean, why would anyone have a problem with what it is I am attempting to communicate, if you did only have an interest in learning, and learning things anew, and also new, and have a sincere love for knowledge in general, and again as Leonardo da Vinci did explain:

“There is among the number of fools a certain sect, called hypocrites, who constantly strive to deceive themselves and others but more the others than themselves. In truth, they deceive themselves more than the others – these men possess a desire only for material wealth and are entirely devoid of the desire for wisdom, which is the sustenance and truly dependable wealth of the mind...”


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

MrMikeludo wrote:And because I did learn, just as the contemporary art critic Ben Lewis did explain:

“Contemporary 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. Long ago we abandoned the idea that art should be beautiful, but it was never meant to be a synonym for obscenity...Cynicism, absurdity and obscenity are the three characteristics of this vastly inflated art bubble, and the underlying causes of it are not hard to find: a lack of regulation and a lack of courage. Unlike other commodity and financial markets, there are no rules (in the contemporary art) market...”

That all of the people who govern the art world have spent their entire lives being the ones who “make up the rules,” and they didn't want anyone – ANY ONE, to come into their world: where they make up the rules, and explain that there exists some rules that they are not solely responsible for implementing.


Well, Lewis may be on to something, and that sort of 'sociology' may explain what the Art World is doing in much the same way the world of Fashion works, but I fear that it isn't really telling us much about something as significant a human endeavor as what art is. As I understand it, Danto would equally dismiss the "art" that Lewis was mocking were it strictly a commentary on how the class of wealthy compete with each other, vying for some sort of attention, like school children might. However, casting aspersions in a wide cloth diminishes what some or another artist may actually have in mind that is significant if only it can be properly understood. Danto would acknowledge the role of the Art World only to the extent that it is in the position of discerning the significance of the work.

James
owleye
Honored Member
 
Posts: 5699
Joined: 19 Sep 2009


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby MrMikeludo on October 11th, 2011, 3:21 pm 

rrushius:

I don't believe that I ever said that anyone on this forum was “close minded,” or “dull,” as you suggested:

“...This leaves us too little room to speak though, since, if I am critical of your hypotheses, theories, philosophy, or what have you, then, implicitly (even explicitly, I might say, for the accusation is not so well concealed) I am being accused of being closed minded, dull, defending the status quo, etc. etc...”

And I would never call anyone on this forum any of those things, as I believe that everyone on this forum, at least that I have communicated with, has, believe it or not, proven themselves to be much more receptive than most of the other people that I have tried to discuss these concepts with; within the art community.

You are correct in stating that I relate, primarily, with Odd Nerdrum's victimization, because, well, that is what I have also experienced, so I can relate with him in that aspect of his life within the art community. But I certainly don't experience a “fondness” for being a victim of the art world's prejudices, or belligerent attitude towards me, or any of the concepts which I am promoting; I would prefer that I did not have to explain the existence of the concepts which I am promoting, that someone else would have done it, and said:”Oh look – this person also, in addition to da Vinci, has produced a visual musical equivalent.” But they didn't, so I have been forced to do it. But too remember, that I did say I can relate to Nerdrum's desire to “connect with the higher realities,” and the “harmony of the universe” also, and not just his victimization.

As far as the topic becoming “stagnant,” well, there are new aspects of the theory that can be discussed, such as other quantum mechanical effects of the functions. Which is, as a person develops the ability to “see” the individual notes, functioning as individually completed simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes/velocities/sections of the sidewalk, they can also begin to become capable of experiencing some of the other quantum mechanical effects of the functions: Such as both the duality and quantized nature of the functions, and in keeping with the applied absolute functions:


“Quantum mechanics, also known as quantum physics or quantum theory, is a branch of physics providing a mathematical description of the wave-particle duality of matter and energy...Quantum mechanics differs significantly from classical mechanics in its predictions when the scale of observations becomes comparable to the atomic and sub-atomic scale, the so-called quantum realm...The term was coined by Max Planck, and derives from the observation that some physical quantities can be changed only by discrete amounts, or quanta...In the context of quantum mechanics, the wave-particle duality of energy and matter and the uncertainty principle provide a unified view of the behavior of photons (and) other atomic-scale objects...Many of the results of quantum mechanics do not have models that are easily visualized in terms of classical mechanics...” Wikipedia

As each simultaneously relative discrete and individually completed note/fundamental frequency modulation/section of the sidewalk/velocity/vector/minor derivative is also capable of simultaneously functioning as an individually completed point and wave, and also as a quantized amount of energy: of the completed fundamental frequency modulation. And too remember, these functions can actually function in conjunction with the other quantum mechanical effects: as the mind becomes capable of moving; or leaping, or jumping, from quantized point/wave/note/etc., to quantized point/wave/note/etc., to quantized point/wave/note/etc., and from quantized point/wave/note/etc., and from quantized point/wave/note/etc., and so on. So, this is significant not just because of the unique intrinsic nature of the function, but also because humans are not supposed to be capable of experiencing any real quantum mechanical effects in our daily existence, and which is, conversely and of course, the polar opposite of stagnant. As most of the world doesn't even believe that we can experience any quantum mechanical effects, let alone many combined simultaneously into one cohesive whole; functioning as a concordant polyphonically structured whole, of non-tangible form geometrical equations, effectually functioning as, while remaining subserviant to, a hierarchically structured whole: symphony. And – again, as Leonardo da Vinci did explain:

“The harmonic proportionality of the whole non-tangible form, is composed simultaneously from the various components, the sweetness of which can be judged both in their particular, and their general effects, (and as it) can generate a proportional harmony in the time equivalent to a single glance...”

And as this: cognitive music theory, is a very quickly growing field:

“To Tug Hearts, Music First Must Tickle the Neuron...now scientists (are) trying to understand and quantify what makes music expressive...The results are contributing to a greater understanding of how the brain works and of the importance of music in human development, communication and cognition, and even as a therapeutic tool...” The New York Times - Pam Belluck

And is far from stagnant.

As far as the concept of genius is concerned, I have said repeatedly that I am not the one who has introduced the concept, they are: the ones who promote Picasso – Pollock – etc., and, surely, if the concept of intelligence; contained within a pictorial representation, is going to be introduced, then it should be addressed, and while also disproving their assertions. And while I have admitted that I certainly don't consider myself to be genius, I also take offense with the fact that some people who are being defined as geniuses, and being credited with creating pictorial intelligence, are far from it, and also – and simultaneously, creating something which is the literally defined pinnacle antithesis of what it is I do, and so they are creating a confusion: amongst patrons, which I then must also combat, in addition to the having to introduce the concepts which I have introduced.

As far as this is concerned:

“This is the reason that I told you earlier that your theory is a set of loosely gathered ideas, where in fact, most of them fall in contradiction with each other...”

I can only ask: what contradictions? As I don't believe that there are any contradictions contained within any of my explanations. And so if you would like to cite any particular concept which you may feel to be a contradiction to anything else that I have said, I would be happy to attempt to clarify my position.

And – again, I can only ask:

“Another, and last piece of criticism that I have to mention, is that by giving such wildly dispersed explanations, making use of a variety of analogies without stating that they are analogies...”

What analogies? If you would cite the particular analogies to which you are referring, I would be happy to clarify.

And again also, as far as this is concerned:

“...all these by themselves make your theory unreliable at best...”

Firstly, it is not simply “my” theory alone, it is also Leonardo da Vinci's explained theory, which I am rather certain you haven't read completely, if at all beyond what I have introduced. Also, it is no longer a simple theory; it is a proven fact. As the existence of the mathematically verifiable visual musical equivalents, do function as the “proofs” of the proposed theory: this is the “function” of the math, and not to considered as the concepts themselves.

And as far as this is concerned:

“...Consider also, that no one here has really taken the pains to criticize your theory thoroughly, rather everyone is focusing on one or other aspect of it—but were one to do that on an academic level, your theory could be dismantled so completely as to never be able to be put together again. But no one will take the pains as it is, for it is obvious that it has no value as a whole...”

I can only respond: have at it. Try to “dismantle” it in any manner you would like, and see if I can defend those aspects: individually and/or collectively, it doesn't matter to me.

Also, as far as this is concerned:

“...I am not saying that some ideas could not be rescued, but those ideas have existed even before, and have nothing to do with your theory, in fact, would stand far better on their own than if connected with it.”

I have to admit that I don't have the faintest idea what it is you are talking about, as this is the first time anyone has said anything to this affect. And I certainly am more than curious as to what, exactly, it is you are implying; that I have no original thoughts associated with these concepts, or that I have plagiarized myself somehow? This I do take rather seriously, and I would appreciate your concise explanation as to what exactly it is you are accusing me of.

And – again, I would like to clarify, that:

“To conclude, in order to be somewhat justified in considering yourself victimized like Nerdrum does (even though justified or not the victimization complex is still the same), you would have to prove to some extent that the rejection of your theory is based on personal dislike, rather than because it is untenable...”

NO, the reason the art community rejected my explanation – NOT “theory,” of the existence of the visual musical equivalents, is not because it is “untenable,” it is because, as I just explained to owleye, but it does warrant repeating, as the contemporary art Critic Ben Lewis did explain:

“Contemporary 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...Unlike other commodity and financial markets, there are no rules (in the contemporary art) market...This is the art world version of the patter of a used car salesman, and it's amazing that anyone believes it. Money, finally, is important. Price-tags can't be ignored – it's the one way our culture measures historical importance...”

As the people who comprise the hierarchy of the contemporary art world, are the exact same people who have come to believe that only they can “make up the rules,” and that no one can explain anything to them; regardless of how matter of factual it may be. And too, because it is all about: MONEY, is all they can: CAN, care about. And they don't want anyone to introduce a concept which might, first, take away some of their money, but, and more importantly, take away some of their power, and then their ability to get even more money.

And so it: their inability to recognize these concepts, has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of credence associated with the concepts, but only their unbridled desire to remain as powerful as they possibly can, and keeping hold of their money. And it is exactly as the art critic Ben lewis did say: as it is amazing that anyone would believe it.

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


Re: What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

Postby rrushius on October 11th, 2011, 6:08 pm 

MrMikeludo, you don’t need to say specifically that anyone on this forum is close minded, dull etc. The victimization complex implies that even when the “victim” does not pronounce oneself openly. The accusation is implicit in the complex. Some say it openly, some others don’t, but if one follows the implications the result is the same. On the other hand, I am only concerned about the possibility of an ongoing discourse, which is why I pointed that out. Call it, “trying to weed out the bad thoughts” so that some progress is actually made. But if you feel that you are making progress, then, I stand corrected. As for myself though, I am more confused than ever. This discussion has covered a multitude of areas (e.g., painting, music, philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, physics, biology etc.), and in my opinion, none of them were covered satisfactorily. In fact, this would be hardly surprising since it is hard for any one person to be erudite in all of them. This apparently little and insignificant fact cannot be emphasized enough, since it already suggests that some of the notions you are trying to convey might in fact be based on wrong information, or rather on a skedaddle synthesis where things are left off as soon as they are picked up. In this case, the best way to go about it is to stop in one field and try to explain away as much of it as possible before jumping onto another. For it may seem to you, or to anyone that comes up with a new way of viewing things, that whatever they see or hear or read, proves their thoughts, as for instance the quantum mechanics example you give here, but had you taken the time to really study quantum mechanics, you’d probably end up with very different thoughts on the matter. Same thing with the school(s) of philosophy you choose to subscribe to—you may say that I subscribe to such and such a school, but this does not do away with the fact that other schools of thought have offered alternatives that will still have to be accounted for. A good theory will usually either provide support for a certain view, and by this also offer some criticism for another, or it will work as a sort of synthesis between the two, where now apparent truths to both paradigms might still be retained, while getting rid of their unnecessary elements. So far, I haven’t seen you do anything of the kind.

You say that yours is not a theory, with which I completely agree, and that you merely offered an explanation, in which you are “explaining the existence of the concepts you are promoting”: i.e. “the existence of the visual musical equivalents.” I might or might not have anything against this statement. In its present form, it is too vague. Can or should the musical equivalents of… whatever, be the same for everyone? Can I be permitted to visualize dots where you visualize lines? If we both visualize lines, should they be of the same length or thickness? Can my line be slightly more curbed than yours? I never denied that there may exist a visualization of music, but are you saying that it should be the same for everyone so then it can be studied as if it were a concrete palpable thing, like the sidewalk example you give? But some people are more visual than others. It would obviously follow that their visualizations should be taken as the standard of what the rules of visualization can or should be. But then, what about the masters of erasure? If this concept sounds strange to you, there are such writers for instance who, right after creating an image in your head (the reader’s) snatch it back at once. Paul Celan for instance. Here are two of his poetries in which you may (hopefully) easily see what he does, and how he snatches back the image:

1.
TO STAND, in the shadow
of a scar in the air.

Stand-for-no-one-and-nothing.
Unrecognized,
for you
alone.

With all that has room within it,
even without
language.


2.
NO MORE SAND ART, no sand book, no masters.

Nothing on the dice. How many
mutes?
Seventeen.

Your question — your answer.
Your song, what does it know?

Deepinsnow.
Eepinnow.
E — i — o.

The first is even hard to visualize, the image does not even exist at all, but right after producing such an imageless “entity” he also snatches back language, i.e., the language with which he created the imageless entity in the first place.
The second, again, shows you the slow disappearance of language, this time as the visualization of its erasure, almost as if you were erasing words on a blackboard. But in the end, nothing remains, not even the visualization. Both poetries are therefore almost chronological reversals of each other—in the first visualization (the image) disappears first, then language, in the second, language is erased leaving also no image behind.

So, now we are well within literature apart from a million other fields we have been treading. But this is my fault. The reason I gave this example though ought to be obvious—if you have spent so much time understanding visualization, shouldn’t you also try to understand how its erasure works? Just a thought. Perhaps, you’ll be able to tell me something interesting about it from your point of view.

As for your invitation to try and dismantle your theory, that is exactly what I meant: no one will take the pains until you have done most of the work, and then, explained it as plainly as possible. I could even do without the plain part, if at least, it was thorough enough. But at the moment it has huge gaps that you have to work on. First, your philosophical basis—that is what I mean as an analogy, since so far, though you have said that you subscribe to Plato’s philosophy, you have not made the connections with it visible enough. There is some ultimate truth, right, but is that it? Is that your whole basis? Second, your scientific examples from the fields of psychology, biology, etc. are too scanty in details, which was the reason that I said that you are committing the classic appeal to authority fallacy. You have already said that most of it does not come from books, and that books, though needful are not all that necessary for the creative mind (or something of that kind, I am not sure about the exact words). OK. But, if you want to be heard, you have to present your ideas somehow, and, if you don’t want your “explanation” or “theory” to fall simply into one of those popular “alternative theories” that really carry no water, while most of their appeal comes merely because people are so drawn to conspiracy theories, then, you will have to present them in a more concise manner. And for that usually books are needed. And, I cannot stress this often enough, proper citations.

As for accusing you of plagiarism, the thought did not occur to me. On this I stand exactly on the same footing as Cagla. I think mostly you are being creative, but I don’t understand why you want to make that into a science. A lot of artists today think that science is more worthy than art because it has the keys to truth. But that is almost like saying that an artist in bygone times should have also been religious because religion had the keys back then. This reminds me of that famous saying in Judaism:

“The Holy Scriptures are like a large house with many, many rooms, and that outside each door lies a key--but it is not the right one. To find the right keys that will open the doors--that is the great and arduous task.” Gershom Scholem, “On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism,” (p. 12)

The scientist may have well taken up that task, but it is not the task of the artist. As an artist, I will let you figure it out yourself what your task should be. However, one thing I will have to point out: if it were true that as I am saying, you are not making things any clearer, that your theory, or explanation really holds no water when it comes to science but merely adds to the general confusion raising still more dust, and if it were true that as Cagla also says, you are more of an artist and that what you are doing here is “being creative,” then, where would the task of the artist lie in relation to those keys and their doors?
User avatar
rrushius
Active Member
 
Posts: 1402
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Location: Chicago


PreviousNext

Return to Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests