Syntax and the definition of Art

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.

Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on June 27th, 2017, 10:26 am 

Hello everyone, my name is Michael, and I was here quite some time ago, and am now back. The topic I would like to discuss, is the definition of art, which, I propose, is capable of being both defined and proven to exist as a fact, a mathematically verifiable fact, as I previously stated.

So, the simplest definition, is: syntax, which is a concept no one would deny defines all human endeavors.

Well the fact is, that there does exist such a thing as 'pictorial syntax,' just as there exists grammatical syntax, and/or rules of syntax that define all things. The simplest explanation, is to imagine a builder hired to build a house, and, if contracted to build a house, all 'builders' would have to follow simple, universal, rules, and, if someone was hired as a carpenter to build a hose, and all they did was to dump some building materials on a lawn, no one would ever define that function as 'carpentry,' or pay the person who dumped the materials on your lawn any money either - until the carpenter produced a 'structure,' from the universal raw materials.

Well, what is 'in' every picture in the history of the world? Universal building blocks, such as: trees - buildings - people, and/or 'nouns,' tangible form things - matter, and, also, non tangible form functions, and or projections between the tangible form things/nouns, and/or non tangible form verbs - motion, and, so, the only thing left is to "Rearrange" the tangible form nouns - and non tangible form verbs, EXACTLY as a musician does - use all of the exact same universally applicable building blocks - and/or notes, to form syntax, and/or structure.

While I was gone, I have begun to make a series to explain the concepts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Qpz_bETjQ

And proving some of the worst 'lies' of the (so-called) art community, as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUoSgxcfx0&t=3s

Plus more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_JWq7nHyf0

Nice to be back..
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby Watson on June 27th, 2017, 10:39 am 

I can not agree more with the rant in the videos. I have always felt the art critic uses art and words to puff up their own self importance, an importance that doesn't actually exist any more than an intrinsic value in art. A particular painting, or artist's work has no great value in and of itself. It is a few $ of paint on a piece of canvas. The value comes from the public's awareness of the artist and, or the work or works. And the awareness is cumulative over the generations.
What is this painting worth?
IMG_0701.JPG

Is the value based on the artist's time and material cost? No, and not even that amount, plus accrued appreciation over a few hundred year. The value is directly proportional to the cumulative public awareness.

And the public awareness comes from the art critic. Who are these people wielding such power to attribute value to art? One would assume they have some education to be given the pen and such power. After that, they are pretty much left to there own opinion. After all, art is in the eye of the beholder, which means art is purely subjective, which means there is no wrong opinion. Which means an art critic can have any opinion they chose and justify that opinion however they subjectively wish.

I don't think it is important what an art critic says, as it is why they are saying it. After all, the art critic is promoting the artist or work equally well to their audience, whether speaking well, or speaking ill of the subject of their critique. So the question becomes why does the artist deserve critical attention? Or, why does the art critic bestow attention on a particular artist. There may be many answers to that question, depending on the critic, but most likely as not, it has nothing to do with the art.

As for the above painting, the value could be that of a priceless original work hanging in a gallery somewhere in Poland. But that is a purely subject valuation. This particular original work hangs in my study. I would consider selling for $250,000 cash FOB, but that to is a subjective valuation.
User avatar
Watson
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4346
Joined: 19 Apr 2009
Location: Earth, middle of the top half, but only briefly each 24 hours.
MrMikeludo liked this post


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on June 28th, 2017, 7:28 pm 

Watson – the 20th century art critics, in actuality, all English majors – Clement Greenberg, et al, with no knowledge or understanding of art, did become capable of effecting the single greatest con, or ponzi scheme, in the history of the world, which they said was the, supposed, 'implied value' that they assigned to art, actually functioning as the ponzi scheme.

What happened was, all through history art served a, primarily, utilitarian function, to 'teach the masses,' or, as one Pope (I believe Gregory IX) did explain: “To inform the ignorant masses,” and so, all through history, there was also no such thing as an 'artist,' as in a 'fine art artist,' and they were, by definition, only artisans, with varying degrees of craftsmanship capabilities.

Also, artists were considered the equivalent of carpenters, this is all historically verified in my series.

Then, in 1480, Leonardo da Vinci did become capable of producing a literal, and both mathematically and scientifically verifiable, visual musical equivalent, and, in so doing, transformed art into a noble art, and/or fine art, also – at this period in time, the recognized fine arts were science, mathematics and music, ergo the acquiring of the title by Leonardo in his transforming of the universally applicable building blocks: tangible form nouns – people, trees, and buildings, and non tangible form verbs – projected tensions between the nouns.

But, in 1480, there still were no mass communicative processes, as we have today. So, while the world (so to speak) was informed that Leonardo had done it, they still didn't know what 'it' was, specifically – but now, because of the transformation, art had a acquired a higher power, and commanded more respect also of course.

But, without the syntax, art reverted back to its secondary function – beyond 'teaching,' and which was the equivalent of our movies, and capable of entertaining the masses.

Also, human beings can experience what I define as a regression back to point time zero, and become only capable of functioning as young children, who are very impressionable, and who are capable of understanding absolutely nothing for themselves, but who are also capable of perceiving – and reacting to, a newly perceived novel stimulus, but who – upon perceiving the newly perceived novel stimulus, will have no choice but to ask their 'worldly authoritative god figures,' and/or their parents, 'what' it is they are looking at – as they react to the novel stimulus.

Also, the particular demographic that usually experiences this degradation, is the aristocracy, and/or the rich, who were a minority (a very small minority) all through most of history, but who were also the primary patrons of the arts.

So, if you look at the history of art, beginning when Leonardo produced his visual picture which contains syntax – and which is also a literal visual musical equivalent, you can 'see' the three dimensional space represented in the picture – which is a prerequisite for cognizing the syntax, and then you can plainly see the three dimensional space being eliminated from art, up until (about) 1880, and which is when Picasso, and cubism was introduced.

This represented a regression back to point time zero for the aristocracy, and who – because of their regression, became only capable of functioning like young children, and who – all young children, remember, are capable of understanding absolutely nothing, but are capable of reacting to any, and all, “newly perceived novel stimulus,” such as a newly perceived novel stimulus Picasso cubist picture.

So, at this point in time, around 1913, along came Pablo Picasso with all of his brand new newly perceived novel stimulus cubist pictures, and he put them in front of the aristocracy, and who all were capable of reacting to the newly perceived novel stimulus – because all new born children can react to novel stimulus (scientific studies have proven it), but who, remember, because they had regressed back to point time zero, were capable of “understanding” absolutely nothing for themselves, such as the perception of a discordant two dimensional Flounder Person – a Picasso cubist picture, so, they – the aristocracy, who had become only capable of functioning like little children, turned to all of their worldly authoritative god figures – the “art critics,” and said “what is it,” and the art critics lied their faces off, for the last 100 years.

I think it's time for the truth to be told.
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Watson liked this post


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on June 30th, 2017, 2:21 pm 

Interesting thoughts! If you wanted to portray these statements with an image on flat board, about art, about dimensionality, about developmental historicity and perception, about differing possible syntactic orderings of differing nouns, relating variously shared referencing, etc., how would you do this?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 02 May 2014
MrMikeludo liked this post


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 2nd, 2017, 12:03 pm 

Dandelion – A step by step explanation of 'how' to pictorially represent visual syntactical structure is a bit involving, and requires an explanation of a new (kind of) type of calculus, trigonometry, algebra and geometry, again, kind of – real time calculus, trigonometry and projective geometry.

The simplest explanation, is this – defining a function which has been either never fully understood, or just simply overlooked. Ok, so we all know how the function of sight works, we apply light to a scene, and the non tangible form images – of ALL of the three dimensional tangible form masses that surround us, are projected – through the function of quantized radiant electromagnetism (light), through three dimensional space and into our three dimensional minds – this perception of the perimetered visual scene is a 'discordant' scene lacking and syntactical structure, and/or chaos, and – as there are no 'images of any things' within our three dimensional minds, the acoustic equivalent of 'noise,' of course, and, also of course, no human being in the history of the world would ever pay some money to be let into a room to hear a 'recording' of those 'discordant sounds,' as they would pay money to be let into a room where they could be exposed to a harmonious recording of sounds, and/or music, or syntactically structured harmonious sounds.

Ok, so the missing explanation, is this: Human beings can only 'focus' upon one single two degree point while at any one point within simultaneously relative (four dimensional) space/time, such as this letter here upon this page: 'A,' but we can 'see' all of the remaining letters located upon this page withing our peripheral vision (three dimensional peripheral minds), such as this letter here: 'B,' WHILE we remain focused upon the FIRST single two degree point, of 'A,' with our eyes.

Ok, so that means that while we remain focused upon the first single two degree point, of 'A,' ALL of the remaining simultaneously relative points/nouns MUST have their simultaneously relative non tangible form images 'projected' - 'from,' their simultaneously relative points/positions, located at identifiable points/positions within simultaneously relative (four dimensional) space/time, and 'to' our (identifiable) simultaneously relative point/position located within simultaneously relative four dimensional space/time.

Ok, so understanding this fact, enables us to understand that this means our (three dimensional) minds are capable of performing a real time quantum mechanical function, of real time quantum mechanical calculus, trigonometry and projective geometry functional capability (equivalent to GPS).

Ok, so then what we have to do is become conscious of this capability, and then purposefully harness it, apply it to reality, abstract it, and then reapply it, to become capable of forming real time “orchestrations” of all of the non tangible form projections – made manifest 'by' all the three dimensional tangible form nouns that surround us in three dimensional reality, to become capable of purposefully forming a four dimensional syntactical structure, and/or a four dimensional space/time continuum, and/or purposefully orchestrated four dimensional patterns in space/time, and/or 'harmony,' as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart did explain:

“...Then my minds seizes it (the syntactical structure) as a glance of my eye a beautiful picture...”

And thereby also, and of course, become capable of “transforming” chaos into harmony, and which, harmony, a person WOULD take some money out of their pocket to hand over to another person, to be allowed inside a room to hear a recording of.
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 2nd, 2017, 6:42 pm 

dandelion - Ps, the 'syntax' demonstration was explained in my original post: "What Is Art - Da Vinci The Annunciation."

That post explains the fact that all through the history of the world art served a pure utilitarian function, as I sated, to "educate the ignorant masses," who could not read or write, so they were illiterate, and worldly political institutions employed 'artisans' to paint the murals employed to teach them. Then, in 1480, Leonardo did produce The Annunciation, a literal visual musical equivalent, and a picture which contains a mathematically verifiable four dimensional syntax. That transformation transformed "visual chaos," and something that no one would pay money to be exposed to, because it only replicated reality - as Plato said "an imitation of an imitation," into "visual four dimensional harmony" - a picture which contains four dimensional syntax AND a four dimensional space/time continuum, and something that someone WOULD pay money to be allowed exposure to.
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on July 4th, 2017, 5:29 am 

Thanks for all the information, MrMikeludo, I didn't realise you had already written so much here, I should have looked before commenting. I'll try to read and watch some more before commenting some more.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 4th, 2017, 11:04 am 

My pleasure, dandelion. Looking for to your input.
Michael
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on July 11th, 2017, 3:42 am 

I’m sorry for the time it took to reply, and I haven’t had a good chance to see or read much more, sorry, but want to say how intriguing this is- thanks!!

You write about a specific work as a singular encapsulation of visual art, apart from your own. You write about Leonardo’s achievement, as if uniquely Leonardo’s, yet Verrocchio may have composed and painted most of the work, leaving a note for Leonardo to finish off the background and paint the angel? The impressions I gain from your words is that the symmetry of shape and line proportionally combined with depth are composed in a harmonious whole that is the pinnacle or even almost sole case of visual artistic value. Your words seem to equate that value with monetary value. You explain the history of art in this way. You criticise critics that may have different views. It seems familiar, like other arguments I’ve come across before, but a bit different, too, and at this level quite rigid but still thought provoking.

A position I’ve tended towards taking in threads here is about considering that such sorts of views aren’t necessarily privileged amongst other views, that there may be more to works than just a singular artist’s view, that although the work is an exquisite example of valuable art there may be more to art than just the painting, or just the painting and other that share quite (exactly?) the same qualities, as I think you suggest in your writing and videos that your own works do. I would tend to argue too that such single value alone is not a sole measure of monetary worth. I’d recently argued for art as artistic response.

From my sort of position, your videos and writing are an artistic response. With arguments that the artist’s view is not necessarily privileged, it may not matter whether such a response is intentionally artistic, just I hope I’m not offending you by saying this, but I like that it is very uncertain whether it is intended or not, sort of “real” and “not art” or “realistic and artistic” and all of these, which is really good. What I’ve seen so far, I find engaging. Included in what I like is that it incorporates an especially singular, European influenced, view of a singular work, but each discussion of it in itself is another work that so different in media from that work, but you had also included music in your more singular view, so that there seems this allowance for crossing media boundaries within that unity. Some of what I see is that it may be art criticising critics criticising art- or response to response to response, etc., making containing and contained statements about these, and to me that is really good too. My initial response was “Interesting thoughts! If you wanted to portray these statements with an image on flat board, about art, about dimensionality, about developmental historicity and perception, about differing possible syntactic orderings of differing nouns, relating variously shared referencing, etc., how would you do this?”, and this is what you have done, adding a new dimension to a flat painting. I really like that you’ve included historic and perceptual notions, and music, I’d forgotten to mention that before. Of course, I’m not sure about some of the interpretations, e.g., about perception, but can understand why you’d want to use stuff like blank slate notions in this context, etc., and your explanation of some historical development is helping me re-think some notions I’d had, thanks. But getting back to a more general over-view, there seems a greater mixing of more and less alterity, microcosmic and cosmic levels containing and being contained by each other, e.g. I like that by responding earlier and so participating without having a notion of extents of participation in art, and saying so may burst some partial bubble. “An imitation of an imitation” of an imitation, - thanks!
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 12th, 2017, 1:44 pm 

dandelion – Sorry for any confusion I may have created, in regards to the “monetary” analogy, it's just the simplest analogy that I use to overly exaggerate the concept.

Meaning this – through all of history art served a pure utilitarian function, the masses could not read and could not write, so worldly political institutions, and especially the Catholic Church, employed (lowly) “artisans” - NOT “artists,” to produce pictures on the walls of the (interior) of their buildings so that they could teach the masses, and – factually, historically, the people who were responsible for producing these pictures were NOT considered fine art artists, as we know it today, this is a historical fact. Also, at the beginning of the Renaissance the recognized fine arts were science, mathematics and music, because they (their functions) exist a priori and are independent of anyone's opinion, again this is all historical fact.

Also, all through history there was no such thing as an art museum and/or art gallery, BUT there were such things as “musical concert halls,” and within which – the music halls, human beings could be exposed to all sorts of harmoniously arranged musical sounds, and/or harmony, and/or music, and/or concord, and – remember, prior to the (late) 20th century, there were no musical recording devices of any kind, BUT – in our daily lives, all human beings could walk around in three dimensional reality, and – AS they walk around in three dimensional reality, be exposed to all sorts of discordant three dimensional sounds, and/or discord, and/or noise, and/or pain – and/or salt, and which – as we know, would cause even an amoeba to move in a direction away from its existence, such as this:

“Do you think even cockroaches feel some sort of emotion,' we asked Neuroscientist Candace Pert – 'They have to, because they have chemicals that put them in a mood to mate, and chemicals that make them run away when they are about to be killed. That's what emotions are all about – pleasure and pain, punishment and reward – sugar and salt...”

Ok, so we know that as we walk around out in three dimensional reality, we will be surrounded by acoustic noise, such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0aYDQlRb08

Ok so we know also, if – IF, we were to begin to employ our uniquely human extreme conscious cognizant capabilities – as we walk around out in three dimensional reality – AS we are exposed to ALL of those various, individual sounds – COLLECTIVELY, it – ALL of the sounds, can only be cognized as: noise – discord – chaos – pain – salt, and – if we employed our extreme cognizant capabilities, would cause us to experience pain - and/or salt, and cause us to move in a direction away from it - any and/or all chaos, and/or pain, and/or salt, AND/OR death, of course, because that is what we are evolved to understand – or we would not be here.

Ok, so beings we know that we – as intelligent beings, are capable of experiencing the EXACT opposite of all of that, ie: chaos – discord – noise – salt – pain – death, and/or: harmony – music – sugar – pleasure – life, and on an intellectual level, and which IS capable of causing the exact OPPOSITE effect of: chaos – discord – etc., and capable of causing us to move in a direction towards it, and which – MUSIC, is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLm07s8fnzM

Ok, so beings we know all of that, and we also know that, prior to the 20th century, there were no recording devices of any kind, WHERE could we go to be exposed to: harmony – music – concord – pleasure – sugar – life, and – again, which is the exact opposite of what surrounds us in our daily existence as we walk around out in three dimensional reality, and the answer is, of course, into a musical hall of some kind, and so – as we enter the music hall, we could also employ our extreme uniquely human conscious cognizant capabilities, and become capable of experiencing this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI&t=33s

Ok, so beings we know – for a fact, that there exists no “images” of any “things” within our three dimensional electrical potential minds, but only the “characteristic digital language of the brain,” and we also know, for a scientific fact, that if we simply walk outside, and look at three dimensional reality, and actually perceive it within our three dimensional minds as a collective whole – and perceive all of the non tangible form projections (verbs - motion) made manifest from ALL of the three dimensional tangible form things (nouns – matter) that surround us in reality, ALL of that “cognized three dimensional scene” will be only made manifest as: chaos – discord – noise – pain – salt – death, and so, obviously, why, then would anyone – EVER, in the history of the world, take some money out of their pocket, to give to another human being, to be allowed into a “building” of some kind, such as an “art museum” building, and/or art gallery, and/or ANY BUILDING OF ANY KIND, to be allowed to a two dimensional pictorial scene of: chaos – discord – noise – pain – salt – death, when they could simple “open their eyes” and SEE a that EXACT same thing out in three dimensional reality, and, of course, while employing, or claiming to be employing, “intelligence,” and/or “genius,” and, because, the contemporary art world based their ENTIRE existence on that EXACT concept, and/or this:

“The romantic concept of genius is the foundation of the modern art movement (post 1900) – Without it, the ability of the 'fine art institution' to sell feces as 'fine art' would collapse – The concept of 'genius' began with Picasso, and cubism...” Graham Coulter Smith

So, what happened was that the “art world” - at the beginning of the twentieth century, simply turned art into the world's biggest ponzi scheme.

Because, what happened was that, at the 1913 armory show, where “modern art” - and/or cubism, was first introduced, the world, literally, laughed at it, and defined it as this: “insanity,” “immorality,” “psychopathy,” “degeneration,” “schizophrenia,” “quackery,” “faked art,” “a circus side show,” etc, etc, etc, and which – by definition, it of course only is.

But then the “art world” began to indoctrinate, and/or brain wash, all of the next 100 succeeding years of, supposed, “intellectuals,” and I know, personally, not because they tried to indoctrinate me – because I got kicked out of school in the 10th grade, but because they did indoctrinate my older brother, who was a philosophy major – art/English minor, at a prestigious liberal art school (Swarthmore), and I've personally witnessed the indoctrination.

So, what happened was the “art world” spent the next 100 years brain washing each succeeding generation of young, impressionable (supposed) intellectuals into LITERALLY being incapable of “thinking” for themselves, and being only capable of “accessing their memory banks” – what they were 'told' by all of their (supposed) teachers, and I've witnessed it in my brother, who I just had dinner with last night.

Ok, so remember I told you I got kicked out of school in the 10th grade, and, in addition, I was a jock (ran and rode bikes), while my brother was an “academic,” so what his teachers told him, was “You are the INTELLIGENTSIA – only you can understand things that the bourgeois masses can not (such as your jock brother), and ONLY you can understand that Pablo Picasso was a 'genius,” now, of course, I was not actually in THAT class – I got kicked out of school, remember – but, I learned how to think, while I was out running and riding.

Ok, so now, the other night when I was having dinner with my brother, I said to him: “Well Jim you know that the definition of schizophrenia is when a person sees hallucinations (things that do NOT exist in reality),” and my brother responded, “Uh of course Mike (as he rolled his eyes at me),” and then I said, “Well Jim, you know that a young childs', new borns', mind can not perceive integral wholes – it perceives only fragments of 'things,' and can only 'see' two dimensionally,” and my brother responded, “Uh of course Mike (as he rolled his eyes at me),” and then, later in the evening, I said to my brother, “Uh Jim, you know Picasso was the biggest con in the history of the world,” and my brother responed, “Uh Mike, what are you talking about, Picasso was a genius (as he rolled his eyes at me).”

So, you see, my brother never learned how to think – which can not be taught, it can only be learned, and he never learned how.

Because, when I defined the function of schizophrenia, my brother “accessed his memory banks,” what he was told in school, and agreed with me, then when I defined the neurophysiological functioning capabilities of a new born child, my brother, again, “accessed his memory banks,” and agreed with me, but when I said that Picasso was a “con," my brother simply proved that he could, literally, “not think for himself,” and could only access his memory banks, and/or what he was brain washed into blindly believing in school, and/or that Picasso was a genius.

Because, all of us people that CAN “think,” can “look” at a two dimensional cubist picture, and then say to ourselves “Hmm, wait a minute – I know that the definition of schizophrenia is seeing hallucinations – and/or things that do NOT exist in reality, such as a two dimensional cubist picture, and I know that a childs' mind can NOT see integral wholes, and can only see fragments, and can also only see two dimensionally, and so, that too, is the definition of cubism,” and, most importantly, all of us people who can “think for ourselves,” could – MOST IMPORTANTLY, simply look at a two dimensional cubist picture, and see THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAFZnvTfFAs

And THEN say: “ I am going to MOVE IN A DIRECTION AWAY FROM THAT, because THAT equals 'death,” you see?

But, it's much more complicated than that.

Because, this is why – You see, my brother never learned how to think, and/or perceive, and/or be affected by, reality, such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaXQQbcgw0

So, my brother can not be affected by reality, in the manner that a person who can think – and perceive, reality, FOUR DIMENSIONAL reality, can – such as myself.

And so, my brother WOULD take some money out of his pocket, and give it to another person, to be allowed inside a building, to be exposed to two dimensional pictorial discord – and/or EVERY picture in the history of the world that does NOT contain “pictorial syntax” (and there are ONLY four in the history of the world), because, in so doing, it enables him to consume this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4GHVUCcW4A

But, because I CAN think for myself, I do have enough intelligence to MOVE IN A DIRECTION AWAY FROM IT, because it is death...
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on July 20th, 2017, 5:57 am 

Hi, sorry for the delay again.
MrMikeludo » July 12th, 2017, 6:44 pm wrote:EVERY picture in the history of the world that does NOT contain “pictorial syntax” (and there are ONLY four in the history of the world),

Just quickly and not concerning anything else much, which four do you suggest, and how they differ? Thanks.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 20th, 2017, 9:48 am 

dandelion:

dandelion » July 20th, 2017, 5:57 am wrote:Hi, sorry for the delay again.
MrMikeludo » July 12th, 2017, 6:44 pm wrote:EVERY picture in the history of the world that does NOT contain “pictorial syntax” (and there are ONLY four in the history of the world),

Just quickly and not concerning anything else much, which four do you suggest, and how they differ? Thanks.


This one:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... roject.jpg

Which – factually, is the SINGLE “one” “two dimensional picture” that enabled art to acquire the title “Fine Art,” again, factually – scientifically, mathematically and historically.

Because, it took THIS:

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-constr ... 15862.html

And “transformed” it into, THIS:

http://interior24.eu/housepictures/Pict ... ramed.html

And these three, @ 11:50:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Qpz_bETjQ&t=840s
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on July 20th, 2017, 1:34 pm 

Ok, so the Annunciation and your works? I thought you might have included a Sacred Conversation or something like that too. So, why not? Here are some links back- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gpH ... ro&f=false
https://plus.maths.org/content/getting-picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSub5-MMDrk
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/82AyhAMOaXw/maxresdefault.jpg
Why aren’t examples like some of these art in your view?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 21st, 2017, 4:13 pm 

dandelion:

dandelion » July 20th, 2017, 1:34 pm wrote:Ok, so the Annunciation and your works? I thought you might have included a Sacred Conversation or something like that too. So, why not? Here are some links back- https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gpH ... ro&f=false
https://plus.maths.org/content/getting-picture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSub5-MMDrk
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/82AyhAMOaXw/maxresdefault.jpg
Why aren’t examples like some of these art in your view?


dandelion:

Do you know how we have “acoustic recording devices today,” as in: cassette players, phonographs, etc, and “visual recording devices,” as in: cameras – video recorders, etc, well 2 hundred years ago – 4 hundred years ago, there were no “recording devices,” of any kind, and, for most of history, the art world, as in “artists,” simply did not know how to “accurately record a three dimensional scene with three dimensional things accurately represented within the scene,” and which is what those links are a representation of.

Well, the fact is, if you “convert” the understanding I am talking about into an acoustic version, the equivalent would be for a person to walk outside with a “acoustic recording device,” such as a “cassette recorder,” and make a recording like THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZbEIxhiJRM

Which is NOT “music,” it's just “noise,” and a “recording of the things that surround us in our daily existence,” an “accurate recording” of the “projected sounds” that surround us in our daily existence.

Well, those links are just “accurate representations of the projections” that would be made manifest in our daily existence - “real” “things” - NON tangible form things, that surround us in our daily existence, and which WOULD literally “exist” if you went outside and “took a picture of a visual scene” - a “visual recording of reality,” but which is just “noise.”

To become capable of producing, literally producing, a literal, mathematically verifiable, “visual musical equivalent,” a person MUST “develop the ability to 'see” those – very real, “projections,” which are the “visual equivalent of projected sounds,” and then “rearrange the projections” - just like the projections of “sounds,” to form a “harmony of projections.”

And/or a literal “orchestration of visual projections,” and or “visual symphony.”

And which is “what” Leonardo's The Annunciation is, and as are the visual musical equivalents that I learned how to produce.
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 17 Aug 2011



Return to Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests