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: 202
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: 4369
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: 202
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: 287
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: 202
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: 202
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: 287
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: 202
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: 287
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: 202
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: 287
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: 202
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: 287
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: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on July 23rd, 2017, 6:25 am 

Hi, Michael. If what you say is the case was agreed on, then would looking at this thread and experiencing visual art as restricted to four instances in your videos give access to this value?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 23rd, 2017, 12:00 pm 

dandelion

dandelion » July 23rd, 2017, 6:25 am wrote:Hi, Michael. If what you say is the case was agreed on, then would looking at this thread and experiencing visual art as restricted to four instances in your videos give access to this value?



dandelion:

What I provided in my videos, was a “photograph” - a “visual recording” of something that I developed that ability to experience – BUT, which is, most importantly, a “proof” for this:

“One thing has become clear to scientists, memory is absolutely crucial to our (human) consciousness...”

Which is a mathematically verifiable proof for the fact that the “thing” that defines us as human beings, is our ability to “experience reality” - simultaneously relative four dimensional reality, actually effectually functioning as the “cosmic symphony,” and “universally applicable empirical self consciousness,” and/or a human being's “soul,” which is exactly why Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart said this:

“...It (the symphony) does not come to me successively, as it will later be heard, but in its entirety, so that my mind seizes as a glance of my eye a beautiful picture or a handsome youth – then my soul is on fire with inspiration...”

Or, as Leonardo da Vinci did explain, as well:

“...Do you not know that the soul is composed of harmony – And harmony can not be generated other than when the proportions (and syntactical whole – symphony) are perceived in a single glance...”

So, I'm sure many people might be surprised to learn that there exists such a thing as developing the cognitive – neurophysiological, ability to experience reality to a “greater degree” - than a child, and/or animal – and/or, even – and actually most importantly, than someone who has NOT “earned the right to experience it” – and/or a “soul,” but, again, there does, and it begins with this:

“If humans are less robotlike than salamanders or ducks, it's not because we have no wired in behaviors. In fact, we have quite a few. What makes the difference is the ratio of 'un-wired' to wired-in grey matter, because neurons that are not committed at birth to a set function – are available for learning, for modification. Virtually all the cells in an amphibian brain directly process sensory information – or control movement, but in humans a great grey area – about three fourths of the cortex – lies between sensory input and motor output, called the association areas. These include the frontal lobe...”

It begins with a developed cognitive capability – a developed simultaneously relative cognitive capability, functioning in conjunction with a developed “simultaneously relative physiological” capability.

So, let me give you a good example. I began running track as a freshman in high school, and in my first mile race I ran a 6:00 mile, then, I began to train every day, 2 times a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, as I was ALSO listening to music 16 hours a day, when I wasn't in school (this was before walkmen were invented), and then, at the end of my freshman year, I had improved my developed capability to the point where I could run a mile in 5:30. I continued into my sophomore year, and, at the end of my sophomore year, I could run a mile in 5:00. And then continued into my junior year, and, at the end of my junior year, could run a mile in 4:30. I continued into my senior year, and, at the end of my senior year, ran a mile in 4:11.

But what else I was doing, was teaching myself how to “see” the music I was listening to – while “correlating” it to what I experienced as I was out running (and riding – I also trained as a cyclist), and while also teaching myself how to understand all of the simultaneously relative functions.

Ok, so let me give you another example. When I trained, I maintained a hard/easy schedule, which means, on my “easy” days (eventually, when I reached my peak), I would run about 12 miles in 6 minutes a mile, and my “hard” days consisted of running 10 miles in 5 minutes a mile (for my main, afternoon, workout).

And I realized that on my “relative easy” days I would begin to experience a very powerful, physiological, effect as I was running – a kind of “deep serene” phenomenon. Then I also realized that on my “relative hard” days, I would experience a very powerful, physiological, effect as I was running, BUT the “opposite” of what I experienced on my easy days, and a kind of euphoric, sublime phenomenon.

Ok, so I “knew” that, and this is what else I knew: I knew that when I listened to very melodic, relatively: slow – low – dark – melancholic, music, and such as this (what I grew up listening to):

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

I could experience a very powerful phenomenon as well, a kind of “deep serene” phenomenon, and a kind of: slow – dark – heavy – low – melancholic, phenomenon.

Ok, so then I also learned that when I listened to very energetic, relatively: fast – high – light – euphoric, music, and such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3t9SfrfDZM

I could experience a very powerful phenomenon as well, a kind of “high sublime” phenomenon, and a kind of: fast – light (in color) – light (in weight) – high – euphoric, phenomenon.

Ok, so here's why:

It turns out that when I was out running on my easy days, I was running “relatively slow,” and that relative slow, repetitive movement causes a serotonin biochemical induction, and that serotonin, then, causes us to experience a kind of “serene” feeling, and a relatively: slow – dark – heavy – low – melancholic, phenomenon as well.

Which – AS I listen to Jackson Browne's “Before the Deluge,” which is a “relatively slow/melancholy based progression of primary notes/fundamental frequency modulations,” my listening to the music, does then – in real time, enable me to become capable of “accessing my universally applicable empirical self conscious experiencing/understanding/memory,” of my Time I spent out in simultaneously relative four dimensional reality – as I was outside developing my universally applicable empirical self consciousness – and/or a human being “soul,” and/or the “thing” that defines us as human beings, and, as I access those things, that “ability,” does then enable me to experience a relatively: slow – dark – heavy – low – melancholic, “uniquely human emotion.”

But, as I actually “accessed/access my uniquely human universally applicable empirical self consciousness,” and/or “accessed/access my uniquely human simultaneously relative four dimensional understanding/experiencing of reality,” and/or my “soul,” I do then – simultaneously, as I listen to Jackson Browne's “Before The Deluge,” “experience” the relatively: slow – fundamental frequency modulations (moving slowly), dark mass (in color, of planet Earth – below our feet), heavy (weight of Earth – ground), low (down on planet Earth, below our feet), universally applicable four dimensional simultaneously relative existence of reality, and/or the “thing” that defines us as human beings.

And it turns out that when I was out running on my hard days, I was running “relatively fast,” and that relative fast, repetitive movement causes an endorphins biochemical induction, and that endorphins induction, then, causes us to experience a kind of “sublime” feeling, and a relatively: fast – light (in mass) – light (in color/tone) – high – euphoric, phenomenon as well.

So then, as I listen to Bruce Springsteen's “Born to Run,” which is a relatively fast/euphoric based progression of primary notes/fundamental frequency modulations, it – the listening to the music, does then enable me to become capable of accessing my universally applicable empirical self conscious experiencing/understanding/memory, of my Time I spent out in simultaneously relative four dimensional reality – as I was outside developing my universally applicable empirical self consciousness – and/or a human being soul, and/or the thing that defines us as human beings, and, as I accessed those things, that ability, does then enable me to experience a relatively: fast – light – light – high – euphoric, uniquely human emotion.

Then, as I actually “accessed/access my uniquely human universally applicable empirical self consciousness,” etc, as I listen to Bruce Springsteen's “Born to Run,” I do then – simultaneously, as I listen to music, and – as I access my universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or universally applicable experiencing of all of simultaneously relative four dimensional reality, I do then, and simultaneously, become capable of experiencing the relatively: fast – fundamental frequency modulations (moving quickly), light mass (in color, of planet Earth – up in the sky), light (weight of the sky – air), high (up away from planet Earth, up in the sky, where the light comes from), universally applicable four dimensional simultaneously relative existence of reality, and, again, the things that defines us as human beings.

The funny thing is, that I was actually kicked out of school in the 10th grade, because I used to sit and stare out the window, and say to myself: “The things I want to learn, they can't teach in this room,” and so, eventually, one day my teacher did say “Get out, Ludovici,” and so I did.

And that's how I learned – first hand, all those things, because there is no one else, in the world, that can explain them, even though, they will “confirm the particulars,” because, you see, they – the “school,” do not know these exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7Qpz_bETjQ&t=772s

But also, because I did leave the confines of that class room, I did, eventually, further develop the ability and understanding, even though, of course, I never knew the words to define all the functions, because I had got kicked out of school, you see, but, again, I did further develop the ability, as I began to listen to classical music, such as this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3217H8JppI&t=1018s

And now, because of what I just explained, we – all the world who “Loves mankind,” can know why, exactly why, Beethoven's opening movement of his Ninth, is capable of effecting us so powerfully, as it can – to ANYONE who has become a HUMAN BEING, in addition to THIS:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQgqW8fueOQ

The crescendo of Beethoven's Ninth, being capable of effecting us – the HUMAN BEINGS, the way it can ONLY effect us.

In addition to understanding – FULLY understanding, exactly why – EXACTLY “WHY,” the words to Beethoven's Ninth are THIS:

"Oh friends, not these sounds!
Let us instead strike up more pleasing
and more joyful ones!

Joy!
Joy!

Joy, beautiful spark of divinity,
Daughter from Elysium,
We enter, burning with fervour,
heavenly being, your sanctuary!
Your magic brings together
what custom has sternly divided.
All men shall become brothers,
wherever your gentle wings hover

Whoever has been lucky enough
to become a friend to a friend,
Whoever has found a beloved wife,
let him join our songs of praise!
Yes, and anyone who can call one soul
his own on this earth!
Any who cannot, let them slink away
from this gathering in tears!

Every creature drinks in joy
at nature's breast;
Good and Evil alike
follow her trail of roses.
She gives us kisses and wine,
a true friend, even in death;
Even the worm was given desire,
and the cherub stands before God

Gladly, just as His suns hurtle
through the glorious universe,
So you, brothers, should run your course,
joyfully, like a conquering hero

Be embraced, you millions!
This kiss is for the whole world!
Brothers, above the canopy of stars
must dwell a loving father.

Do you bow down before Him, you millions?
Do you sense your Creator, O world?
Seek Him above the canopy of stars!
He must dwell beyond the stars."
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby BadgerJelly on July 24th, 2017, 2:34 am 

Syntax?

The most vaguest of definitions.

Art is about emotional content. It has a vast spread of intent and meaning relating to all human endeavors.

Just because we can measure stuff doesn't mean we can define Art by this same means. I do not describe people merely by their weight and hair colour. The meaning that matters to people is the emotional meaning.

I can define something in many ways. Defining is not the same as experiencing, or rather it is experiencing but an indirect experience much like phantasmagoria.

When we talk about "art" we are referring to a specific area of human interaction. Within art we are expressing and exchanging emotional content more than mere items of empirical measure. "Value" is yet another subjective item and is not anything to do with art in a positive/negative light. The better you connect to the art the better it is for you. Often technical appreciation is attached to value as a kind of envy.

I have been having discussions about how we call one poem "good" and another "bad". It is quite simple for me. There are two assessments. One made by the artist and the other by others. The intent of the artist is only known to the artist and they can only judge this with feedback. The observer of the art work may lay false intent at the door of the artist and proclaim what they meant to do, when it is they who are being the "artist" in some sense.

I am not going to type out Oscar Wilde's prologue from The Picture of Dorian Grey" again, but I still think it is the most thorough and direct framing of what "art" is.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4207
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 24th, 2017, 2:26 pm 

BadgerJelly:

“Syntax?
The most vaguest of definitions.”

Actually, in my series of videos, I have explained, that, beginning at the beginning of the twentieth century, the (so-called) Fine Art world became capable of effecting the single biggest, and effectual, collective mass “con” in the history of the word, and what you just “said,” does, in fact, remember:

“Proofs are not abstract, there is no such thing as proving something abstractly...”

“PROVE,” the EXACT point of my postulation.

Because, what you just said, is EXACTLY, literally, exactly infinitely backwards, and which is, exactly, why the name of my Book, and series of videos, is: “The Theft Of Art and The End Of Time,” because it was the greatest collective “theft” in the history of the entire world, as a matter of fact – and I can “prove” it for a “scientific fact.”

Ok, so let's start with some simple, irrefutable, historical facts, such as this:

“At the beginning of the Renaissance, painters and sculptors were still regarded as members of the artisan class, and occupied a low rung on the social ladder...” Global History – Renaissance Art

This is “HISTORICAL FACT,” and absolutely “irrefutable,” and exactly “why” Big Brother, the VERY real Big Brother, had – ABSOLUTLY, had, to “omit” it from “historical fact,” and/or literally, yes, LITERALLY, “rewrite history,” just like this:

“In a dystopian 1984, Winston Smith endures a squalid existence in the totalitarian superstate of Oceania under the constant surveillance of the Thought Police - Winston works in a small office cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting history in accordance with the dictates of the Party and its supreme figurehead, Big Brother....” Wikipedia

And, do you know the EXACT – yes, “factually” - “historically,” reason why art was not considered a “noble art,” all through ALL of history, and all the way up to the Renaissance, well, because, and yes FACTUALLY, there was NO “SYNTAX,” yet produced in ANY “two dimensional visual art,” THIS too is a “historical fact,” see:

“ART - The original classical definition - derived from the Latin word 'ars' (meaning 'skill' or 'craft') - is a useful starting point. This broad approach leads to art being defined as: 'the product of a body of knowledge, most often using a set of skills.' Thus Renaissance painters and sculptors were viewed merely as skilled artisans - interior-decorators. No wonder Leonardo Da Vinci went to such efforts to elevate the status of artists (and by implication art itself) onto a more intellectual plane...” Encyclopedia Of Art

And the exact reason – why art was NOT considered a “noble art,” all through history, is simple to understand, exactly because – and, yes, this too is a part of “historical factual reality” that our very real Big Brother has rewritten, there does exist such a thing as “Pictorial Cognition,” and which is EXACTLY what it sounds like, which is EXACTLY why Big Brother has “omitted” and “rewritten” it, as well.

And this is the EXACT way “pictorial cognition” works: A person draws a picture of a “ball,” and they have “communicated:” “Ball,” they draw a picture of a “person,” and they have “communicated:” “Person,” and that is EXACTLY the way, universal, elementary “pictorial cognition” functions, in regards to “pictorially communicating” all “three dimensional things” - and/or, “mass” - “NOUNS,” but only of course.

Ok, so how, then, can a person “pictorially communicate” all “simple verbs,” well, simple – Draw a picture of a person “smiling,” and you will “pictorially communicate:” “Happiness,” draw a picture of a person “frowning,” and you will effectually communicate: “Sadness,” which are the simple verbs, only.

But there's a problem, in that, well, you see “science” has “proven” this scientific “fact:”

"The equivalent of the machine language of the brain, in (Alan) Gavin's view, is very complex electromagnetic field con figurations...(And) after several years of painstaking mapping of these physic never-never lands, (Gavin) discovered an extraordinary thing: The mind of man contains only so many visions; four recurrent geometrical forms..." Judith Hooper -The3-pound Universe.

And this “scientific fact” as well:

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

And this “scientific fact” as well:

"Space Mach argued, is not a thing, but an expression of interrelationships among events. 'All masses and all velocities, and consequently all forces, are relative,' he wrote. Einstein agreed, and was encouraged to write a theory that built space and time out of events alone...Einstein had replaced Newton's space with a network of light beams; their's was the absolute grid, within which space itself became (manifest)..." Timothy Ferris - Coming Of Age In The Milky Way

And this “scientific fact” as well:

“There are two essential yet complementary aspects of this new vision of time that are as striking in contrast as heaven and hell. Heaven is ruled by dynamical equations that are reversible and timeless, their simplicity ensures stability for eternity. Hell is more akin to the real world, where fluctuations, uncertainty and chaos reign.” The Arrow of Time – Peter Coveney

Ok, so here is some more history which Big Bother has factually rewritten: All through history there was no such thing as “Art” as we know it today – because there is no such thing as “proving something abstractly,” and ALL truly intelligent people know that, so, even though SOME people said:

“Hey – we want visual art, two dimensional pictorial representations, to be a 'fine art'...” Me

They – the “intellectuals,” all said: “Sorry, BUT:

“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 the mood to mate and chemicals that make them run away when they're about to be killed. That's what emotions are all about – pain and pleasure, punishment and reward. If you were wiring a little robot to walk into the future and survive, as God was when he designed human beings, you'd wire it up so that behavior that ensured the survival of the species would be naturally reinforcing. Behavior is controlled by the anticipation of pain and pleasure, punishment and reward. And that has to be coded in the brain...” The 3-Pound Universe

There is no such thing as proving something abstractly.

And/or, all through history art served a purely utilitarian function, the ignorant masses could not read, and they could not write, of course – the printing press was not invented until 1460, and, even after it was invented, books were expensive, in addition, try spending ONE single day living the way the average human being lived in 1480, and you will quickly realize exactly how unimportant learning how to read (extensively) is – when you are struggling to put food into your mouth on a daily basis.

Ok, so even though the masses could not yet read, and could not yet write, WHAT was extraordinarily important, well, worldly power of course, and so, the worldly political institutions, and especially the Catholic Church, employed lowly artisans to produce graphic, and colorful, two dimensional pictorial representations – of three dimensional scenes, on the two dimensional walls of their three dimensional buildings, and which were all “pictures” of what? Do you remember?

Well they were all two dimensional pictorial representations of simple three dimensional tangible form masses – simple nouns, and with all of the three dimensional tangible form nouns displaying pictorial representations of simple verbs – and/or “emotions,” and while also – and simultaneously, usually being pictorially represented in a LARGE visual scene that was also a LARGE display of “simple verbs,” and/or a scene such as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_ ... ccello.jpg

Which is a “Hunting Scene,” with many different simple nouns, and many different simple verbs, all being simultaneously pictorially represented within the perimetered scene, and which is – remember, because we know this for a scientific fact:

"The equivalent of the machine language of the brain, in (Alan) Gavin's view, is very complex electromagnetic field con figurations...(And) after several years of painstaking mapping of these physic never-never lands, (Gavin) discovered an extraordinary thing: The mind of man contains only so many visions; four recurrent geometrical forms..." Judith Hooper -The3-pound Universe.

Only “noise,” by its literal definition – because there is NO “pictorial syntax,” and which, upon its perception – by all of the “intelligent” beings that saw it, caused them to do 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 the mood to mate and chemicals that make them run away when they're about to be killed. That's what emotions are all about – pain and pleasure, punishment and reward...” The 3-Pound Universe

Or move in a direction away from it – because they were NOT “brain dead,” as a matter of scientific fact, and because – there is NO such thing as proving something abstractly.

And so, instead, they – all intelligent people, would move in a direction towards, THIS:

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

But of course, ONLY if they were “intelligent,” and employing their “intelligence,” such as this:

“The assessment of intelligence was initiated by Francis Galton and James McKeen Cattell. They had advocated the analysis of reaction time and sensory acuity as measures of 'neurophysiological efficiency' and the analysis of sensory acuity as a measure of intelligence.” Wikipedia

Because, as a matter of fact, that: Being able to understand – perceive, and react to, EVERYTHING, and/or understanding reality, as in: Perceiving it, understanding it, abstracting it, and then reapplying the understanding, OF universally applicable a priori reality, is the definition of “intelligence,” as a matter of fact.

Also because, at that point in time, at the point in time of the Renaissance, the noble, or High Arts, were: science, mathematics, and music, because they exist a priori, and are NOT subject to anyone's opinion, again as a matter of historical fact – which Big Brother has, factually, “rewritten.”

And do you know what else Big Brother did, well they told they world that THIS was the definition of, not only Art – high Art with a capital 'A,' but also “intelligence,” THIS:

“Most of the Sophists are known today by the writings of their opponents, Plato, Aristotle – In Plato's view, the sophist is not concerned with the truth, but seeks only power – Some scholar's held that he Sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge, where there can be no absolute truth - To the Sophist, what is true today will be false tomorrow – and there can be no 'reality'...” History of Western Civilization

And/or, that a lack of intelligence, and/or understanding of reality, IS the “definition” of “intelligence,” and which is, of course, the literal definition of “uniquely human brain death,” no - LITERALLY, as in THIS:

“Psychopaths (can know) the dictionary meanings of words, but not (experience) their emotional content, as recent scientific research has confirmed – The test confirms, that for normal people, a word such as PAPER has a dictionary meaning, whereas a word such as DEATH has a dictionary meaning PLUS emotional content. The test showed, that (when electrodes were placed on) a normal person's head, the (reading) of the word DEATH caused a spike, while the word PAPER did not – the non psychopaths showed the normal pattern of response, but the psychopaths did not – their minds 'flat lined' while reading the 'emotional' words – To a psychopath, a word is just a word...” Dr. Robert Hare

And so, AFTER Leonardo “rearranged” the primary components, and “transformed”chaos into harmony, by producing a picture which contains “mathematically verifiable pictorial syntax,” or this:

“Syntax can be defined as a set of principles governing the combination of discrete structural elements: Such as words or musical tones, into sequences. Syntax can not be created by a haphazard juxtaposition of elements – Without rules of syntax, there could be no foundation with which to try to discern meaning from a bunch of words, whereas with syntax, an infinite number of sentences are possible using a fairly small number of rules...” Wikipedia

Then, and only then, did visual art become a Fine Art, again as a matter of historical fact, because – of course, that is the definition of “intelligence:” understanding reality, and – remember, there is no such thing as proving something abstractly, but, of course, without the “syntax,” two dimensional visual art CAN be an “escape from reality,” and/or, this:

“First of all when you're watching television the higher brain functions – such as the cerebral cortex, are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions – which can not be called 'cognitive'...”

You see, but the master manipulating psychopathic con artists, that took over “Art” at the beginning of the twentieth century, and who are the people who laid the foundation for the greatest collective con in the history of the world, didn't know ANY of that, just like The Annunciation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkrjtr ... PX95jBGzIP
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 24th, 2017, 2:47 pm 

BadgerJelly:

Ps, THIS is Time, THIS is The Annunciation:

“My soul doth magnify the Lord.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For he hath regarded the low estate of His handmaided:
For, behold, from henceforth (all generations) shall call me blessed.
All Generations.
For He that is mighty hath done to me great things;
and holy is His Name.
And His mercy is on them that fear Him from generation unto generation.
He hath shown strength with His arm;
He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats,
and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He hath sent empty away.
He hath holpen His servant Israel,
in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spake to our fathers,
to Abraham, and to his seed forever.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son,
and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end.
Amen.”

They are about to be “scattered in the imagination of their hearts,” as a matter of fact...
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby BadgerJelly on July 24th, 2017, 11:44 pm 

Okay, so you're a nutter incapable of a rational discussion and prefer to reply to every question in the same way. Good for you!

I was simply questioning your definition of "art". I didn't ask for some historical amalgam. Yeah, the Mona Lisa is a piece of shit, I've seen it. Degas is not, Monet is not either. As for rich bitches exchanging items to look "cultured" so what? They do the same with bottles of wine and items of clothing.

Art is essentially about emotional expression. We can view anything in an artistic way, but art is generally that which is produced to intentionally reach us on an emotional level.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4207
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 25th, 2017, 12:57 pm 

BadgerJelly:

BadgerJelly » July 24th, 2017, 11:44 pm wrote:Okay, so you're a nutter incapable of a rational discussion and prefer to reply to every question in the same way. Good for you!

I was simply questioning your definition of "art". I didn't ask for some historical amalgam. Yeah, the Mona Lisa is a piece of shit, I've seen it. Degas is not, Monet is not either. As for rich bitches exchanging items to look "cultured" so what? They do the same with bottles of wine and items of clothing.

Art is essentially about emotional expression. We can view anything in an artistic way, but art is generally that which is produced to intentionally reach us on an emotional level.


You are making it WAYYYY more difficult than it needs to be.

Ok, you may have heard me say that I did, indeed, get kicked out of school, and, well, the exact class that I got kicked out of was “English,” in addition to “Spanish,” but I also failed: Algebra, Scripture, History, Geography, Science, and even Gym class as well.

Ok, so you may have also heard me say that I have an older brother that was the literal polar opposite, has an IQ of 160, scored 1600 on his college boards, was his class valedictorian, was also a member of the National Honor Society, chess team, debating team, Year Book Committee – year book staff, band, etc, etc, and , then received a scholastic scholarship to Swarthmore College, where he was a Philosophy major, English/Art minor, and, then earned degrees, in: Communications, Psychology, etc., and, now he has a son that has attended U.O. P., and has just had his first novel published.

So, anyways, as I said, I did get kicked out of school because I used to sit and stare out the window, and say to myself: “The things I want to learn, they can not teach in this room,” and so they did, and then, so I did.

So, anyways again, when they kicked me out I did go to work for my father, in his pinball machine and jukebox business (my father had sent me to “Pinball School” when I was 15, where I learned how to read electromechanical schematics) – where I got to learn all of my “urban” lessons on a daily basis, and I did also train (for the Olympics) as a long distance runner and bicyclist on a daily basis – where I learned all of my “rural” lessons on daily basis, and I also taught myself carpentry (after working with a carpenter for 2 weeks on my parents house) and photography at night, in addition to listening to music 16 hours a day (before Walkmen, 18 hours after), and, of course, worked (including training) 18 hours a day/7 days a week/365 days a year (yes, it's relevant).

Ok, so I had told myself, when I was about 15: “Maybe after I'm done training for the Olympics, I'll dedicate some time to trying to learn how to produce visual musical equivalents,” which I had began to understand when I was young, and even came home from cross country camp, when I was 15, and said to my mother: “I've begun to experience the Eternal Harmony, mom...”

So, when I graduated, because I was poor, I lived in the tool shed in my parent's back yard (tore the roof off when I was 16, and built a second floor – after teaching myself carpentry), then lived there until I was 28 – while working on my parent's house at night, then spent the next 5 years hand building my own 4 thousand sq. foot house, including drawing the blueprints, after teaching myself how, and (some of the) kitchen cabinets, and bathroom vanities, and furniture, and, then, realized that I was not going to be in the Olympics, and spent the next 5 years teaching myself how to produce the visual musical equivalents, in addition to doing every other kind of photography, including: nature – landscape – portrait – abstract still life -etc, and, then hand built my own photography studio, and woodworking shop, in addition to allowing all sorts of people to live with me, including: musicians – blacksmiths – metalsmiths - etc.

Ok, so after 5 years, and spending in excess of $100,000, I did finally produce the “3” visual musical equivalents that I show in my videos.

Ok, so then – after I produced them, I went and sought out the “audience” for them, such as THIS:

“Movingly, Pollock once compared the necessary precision of his painting to the execution of compositions by two of history's most beloved composers – Brahms and Mozart...Pollock's analogy was recounted by Ben Heller, who has written, 'He was like Mozart and knew that...”

And that's EXACTLY when I began to learn everything else, only through direct experience.

So, after about a year of learning about the biggest liars in the history of the world, the “Fine Art” art world, a friend said to me one day: “Why don't you write a book, yourself,” and I said: “Because I can't write,” and she said: “You don't write it yourself (dumbass), you hire someone to (do the actual) writing, you just provide the concepts.”

And my father, being the paradox that he was, agreed to finance the writing of the book.

Six months later, my father died suddenly, and, then, I spent the next 4 years writing the book myself.

Eventually I showed it to my “English Major” brother, and he said: “Mike, NO ONE – NOT A SINGLE PERSON, is going to (try to) read this book - it is 'unreadable',” and so I said: “I think I just need a good editor,” and my brother replied: “LISTEN – NO – no editor would touch that book with a 10 foot pole – (YOU DO NOT EVEN BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF GRAMATTICAL SYNTAX).”

Of course I don't – I was “kicked out of English class” - remember?

But, eventually, I did write this:

“My 10th grade English teacher used to ask of me,
'Why is it that you can't be like the rest – sitting here in our complacency,'
to the point where he got rid of me,
opened the door, and set me free.”

OK, so – IF I was to write THESE words: “ball – have – I – the – may,” and then tried to get a job as an “author,” as my nephew did – presented “THAT” exact “thing,” that I just “wrote,” as a “book,” would you hire me, IF you were a “publisher?” OF COURSE NOT.

Ok, too, if I took you to my “house” that I built, and you “hired” me to “build you a house,” as a “carpenter,” and I pulled up on your lawn, and dumped some 2 by 4's, and plywood, and bags of cement, on your lawn, would you “pay” me for “building you a house” - as a “carpenter?” OF COURSE NOT.

Ok, so too I had a friend that lived with me, who was in a band with this guy (who also lived with me):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIC29lH_648

And last week I stopped by his house to see him, and picked up a guitar, and said:”Hey Billy, I've been taking lessons – whadya think,” as I (tried) to play some notes – VERY poorly, and then I said:”How much would you pay to hear me play,” and Billy replied:”I'd pay you to STOP.”

Ok, so too if I tried to get a job as a musician, and all I did was walk into a room, and play a couple of random notes – POORLY, would ANYONE ever “hire me as a musician,” OF COURSE NOT.

Ok, so WHAT is the literal, SIMPLE definition of all those “THINGS:” S – Y – N – T – A – X, as a matter of ACKNOWLEDGED fact, which no human being would ever deny.

It is IMPOSSIBLE, by its: “Human” being, literal definition.
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 25th, 2017, 3:43 pm 

BadgerJelly:

So, when I was 10 my (Italian) mother, Viola, taught me how to cook, and I can make a Baked Rigatoni, with home made 'gravy,' and braciole, meatballs and pork chops, that is to die for, and, when I was 11 my (Italian) grandmother, Rose, taught me how to sew, and how to make my own clothes, and when I was 12 I rode my first century (100 miles, on a bike), and when I was 13 I began running on a daily basis, and when I was 14 I converted the attic of the tool shed, behind my parent's house, into a kind of 'lounge,' with speakers built into the ceiling, and built my first built-in stereo cabinet, and when I was 15 my father sent me to 'pinball school,' where I learned how to read electromechanical schematics, and when I was 16 I took the family car apart – a '70 Chevelle,' and hand sewed a custom interior into the entire car (because Rose taught me how to sew), which my teachers called “Ludo's Pimp Mobile,” and when I was 17 I began to work on my parent's house...

So, what's the point, well, THIS:

“The Parable of the Talents - 'For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted to them his property. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 25: 14-30

Yeah, you see, my parent's were Catholic, so I “payed attention,” to THAT particular lesson, about “using our God given talents,” just like the Son of God explained, so – HERE is the “science” to begin to “prove” that FACT:

“At birth a baby's brain contains about 100 million neurons – Each one can produce about 15,000 synapses, or connections to other cells. The experiences (that a child is exposed to) cause the brain to create connections, essentially 'wiring' the brain – The synapses that have activated by virtue of repeated experience tend to become permanent; the synapses that have not be used at all, or often enough, tend to become eliminated...” Catherine Long

And again:

“...For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have more than enough; but to him that has not, even what he has will be taken away...” Matthew 13: 12-13

So, it looks like Jesus of Nazareth was the very first neuroscientist, and we're increasing the probabilities.

So, how does THAT apply to the lying, scum sucking 20th century “Fine Art” art world?

Simple.

Because, if you've NEVER actually developed ANY “talents,” any real talents, what's left to do?

Well, LIE YOUR SCUM SUCKING PIG FACE OFF, just like THIS:

“Movingly, Pollock once compared the necessary precision of his painting to the execution of compositions by two of history's most beloved composers – Brahms and Mozart...Pollock's analogy was recounted by Ben Heller, who has written, 'He was like Mozart and knew that...”

Oh, and by the way, guess EXACTLY “where” that particular reference is from, well, here:

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... ale-n08791

Ain't that a kick in the pants?
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on July 25th, 2017, 5:21 pm 

BadgerJelly:

Oh and by the way, guess "who" "Ben Heller" is, well, this is "Ben Heller:"

"William Pitt Sotheby’s International Realty today announced that the Litchfield County, Conn., property of respected New York art dealer, adviser and collector Ben Heller is now for sale. Kent agent Ira Goldspiel has the Sharon, Conn. listing, which is offered at $9,450,000. The New York City-based art patron and dealer has a reputation for being an early supporter of several major artists, including Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko, both of whom were close friends with Heller at the beginning of their careers. He also owns or has owned many of the most famous works created by these artists..."

How appropriate, don't you think - "Ben 'Hell'er"

As, in (Beings you're so impatient, just fast forward to 27:15):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=2609s
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby BadgerJelly on July 29th, 2017, 6:47 am 

I would like to move this into a cross-over area. Poetry.

What is poetry? What makes "good" poetry?

I have my own views on this and would like to hear yours.

First of all let me share something I wrote a few months ago and leave you to decide how "good" it is and what it means :


DOUBLE SPEAK

Screens of glass, like yard-ales.
Through portholes words are spoken.
Sheets of paper, like sullied sails,
news is breaking and broken.
The anchor sits stout and shouting
filling minds with doubt and louting,
harbinger of untruths cast broad
harbouring a twisted discord.
Exporting the wordily absurd
making the faking last
from metal mast they broadcast.
A news bullet pierces into my head, fractures my skull
making me dead,
dead to reason and with deadened thought no fight left in me
To be fought.
Mind unarmed
once left behind opens to all
readied to fall.
Uncorked fort pours into port
port to port for portly men,
unabashed, likely smashed
in their liquor den intoxicated,
ready to lie,
although they know not the knots they tie.
Bamboozled and drunk
hypnotised by spotlights shone
all viewing minds sunk
the end has just begun.
They whine on and wine on,
we whine on and wine on.
Portcullis no longer bars the way.
Port open
red ichor fills the bay.
No distinction ‘twixt friend or foe
we’re all sinking low, hands to pumps!
It’s too late.
Our fate is sealed.
Our ship is keeled.
I cannot hold you by the hand, held at bay in the sand
from which they fashion a glassy beaker
from which they drink and toast to speaker
in the throne above who has thrown down, a clowning “truth”
aloof forever, drinking another measure
screaming an uncouth "whatever!"
And the signals cast
they last.
And the words they speak
they leak …
meaning …
is lost at sea
we are all at sea,
the media’s median
stretching our mind upon poles far apart
hidden in the meridian
at leviathan depths
a modal average is savaged
drowned below kith, keel and kin
ribbing received and stove in.
The mean made mean
language bare-boned now less than lean.
We harp on, not sharpened, or keen
harpoon in head, barely felt or seen.
They whale on …
we wail on …
eyes and ears bound,
bound to hear and see only
what is familiar or similar
only the absurd is deafly heard
only the feud is seeingly viewed
only the lurid is vividly lucid.
More, more, more mooring!
Fill the ports, blocks the gates.
More, more, more mawing!
Mouths work ears to rags
lights pull eyes apart,
the illusion a fake mould,
the red ichor fills the hold.
More, more, more … no more!
No more gates for protection.
We are all filled in
ideas filed out
minds filed down
unfilled and breached, wholly unfulfilled
propped up on a goosey, goosey gander
slaking sensationalist slander
having a good old proper gander!
Doubled over drunk
unable to speak
anything but, buttressed
Double speak.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4207
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on July 30th, 2017, 2:46 pm 

Hi,
I think you may be suggesting that like mediaeval anonymous artisans employed by the Church to provide information prior to widespread literacy, art may not involve novelty or inspire novelty, but still serves a function of providing such dogma? I think with the renaissance economy more patronage and extension to secular patronage gave increased competition and more innovation to some extent was rewarded and the Annunciation may reflect this. But I wonder if, according to you, given an instance of visual art occurred, and novelty wasn’t important, would there be little reason for further recreation? I imagine you could answer something like, according to your view, perhaps like aims in different Churches and different teams of artisans, or Monks copying and illuminating Bibles, etc., repetition of explanation of much the same may assist in greater reach and in learning to gain and preserve information? I also think such artisans of the middle ages were engaged in interesting interpretations, things like juxtaposition of NT with OT scenes invoking notions of antecedence, although I'm not sure if this example occurred with this Annunciation. If interested in this sort of situation, I think wiki says it may have been for the Church of San Bartolomeo? https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di ... te_Oliveto

I wonder if you see any parallels with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood rebellion against Reynolds. Also, in your view how do you view content or subject matter, symbolism, etc. ?

Also, I really like an idea of incorporating some other various fields like perception studies more recent than the renaissance, etc., and various media etc., even if I’m not sure about a lot of the claims, maybe in some places you mean something like some sort of diagramming, nor how well all these are progressing to work together here, but think it is a very intriguing way of entwining these. But also, for some examples, what of visual art other than, prior to mediaeval teams written of and around the world?
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on August 1st, 2017, 9:43 am 

dandelion:

dandelion » July 30th, 2017, 2:46 pm wrote:Hi,
I think you may be suggesting that like mediaeval anonymous artisans employed by the Church to provide information prior to widespread literacy, art may not involve novelty or inspire novelty, but still serves a function of providing such dogma? I think with the renaissance economy more patronage and extension to secular patronage gave increased competition and more innovation to some extent was rewarded and the Annunciation may reflect this. But I wonder if, according to you, given an instance of visual art occurred, and novelty wasn’t important, would there be little reason for further recreation? I imagine you could answer something like, according to your view, perhaps like aims in different Churches and different teams of artisans, or Monks copying and illuminating Bibles, etc., repetition of explanation of much the same may assist in greater reach and in learning to gain and preserve information? I also think such artisans of the middle ages were engaged in interesting interpretations, things like juxtaposition of NT with OT scenes invoking notions of antecedence, although I'm not sure if this example occurred with this Annunciation. If interested in this sort of situation, I think wiki says it may have been for the Church of San Bartolomeo? https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di ... te_Oliveto

I wonder if you see any parallels with the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood rebellion against Reynolds. Also, in your view how do you view content or subject matter, symbolism, etc. ?

Also, I really like an idea of incorporating some other various fields like perception studies more recent than the renaissance, etc., and various media etc., even if I’m not sure about a lot of the claims, maybe in some places you mean something like some sort of diagramming, nor how well all these are progressing to work together here, but think it is a very intriguing way of entwining these. But also, for some examples, what of visual art other than, prior to mediaeval teams written of and around the world?



Ok, sorry – what I am saying, is that all through history there was no such thing as “Art” as we know it today, or, in other words, THIS:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesig ... ric-a-brac

Ok, so you see how in that “Art article,” the author: Jonathan Jones of The Guardian, actually uses the word “genius” to “define” Matisse, but – first off, unfortunately, Mr. Jonathan Jones is a “Liar,” as I explained, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUoSgxcfx0&t=4s

Ok, so we can ask ourselves, how did “that” EVER happen, how did “two dimensional pictorial representation” go from “lowly artisan,” to “genius?”

Well, it WASN'T because of “worldly political persuasion,” because that is the literal polar opposite of “intelligence,” let alone “genius.”

Well, THIS is how that happened:

Ok, so let's look at a “liar,” such as this:

https://www.wikiart.org/en/paul-cezanne ... ow-chair-1

Ok, so when we “look” at this ”picture” what can we know immediately?

Well, we can know – as we access our uniquely human universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the “knowledge” - of the applied universally applicable simultaneously relative functions of simultaneously relative four dimensional reality, that the only “thing” that Cezanne “communicated” by “producing” that “picture,” is the exact same thing my dog, Sky, communicated, here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EZ2WIAX0QE

And/or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ucvf6Es3ik

And/or, ABSOLUTELY “nothing,” except, of course: “Waaaaahhhh – I WANT: someone to pay attention to me – to be famous – to 'do' absolutely nothing, and have someone hand me money for doing it, a LOT of money – as I 'CON' the world into becoming brain dead, and capable of understanding absolutely nothing for themselves,” and as a matter of fact.

Because, remember, I CAN actually access my universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and I CAN actually experience empathy as well, and I CAN “prove” it, as well.

Ok, so let's prove it – so, in so proving it, we can ask ourselves:”How can we 'fix' what Cezanne did, in that 'picture,' and – in so doing, become capable of actually accessing our universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the knowledge all of mankind can have in common gathered through our sense, and then “rearrange” the “building blocks,” in that “picture,” and – then, become capable of “proving” our uniquely human empathetic capabilities, while creating a simply “harmony' for our fellow human beings to be exposed to?

Ok, so let's begin: Ok, so, to begin with we do know this – and I DID learn this for myself through my exposure to all of simultaneously relative reality, and and which is the fact that human beings possess a three dimensional electrical potential mind, and parallel functioning central nervous system, and that human beings have a genetic predisposition for “perceiving three dimensional space” while beginning in the left, lowest – nearest, foreground, and then moving up – and out, diagonally, through the simultaneously relative depths of three dimensional space, and so – as we actually begin to do this, we can understand – immediately, that there is a problem, and being in that – as we begin our “movement,” within our minds – and through the depths of space, we can plainly see – as we do this, our “movement” will immediately begin to be “channeled” in a direction “AWAY” “from” the protagonist's eyes, and which is – of course, an ABSOLUTE contradiction to the function of “empathy,” as – OF COURSE, the “purpose” of empathy, is to allow ALL human beings to “share common harmonious experiences,” and/or to “be inside” another human being's mind/eyes, because – of course, as everyone knows, “the eyes are the windows to the soul.”

And so, we can know – as we try to “get inside the mind of the protagonist,” our movement will be redirected, because of the “heavy line” of the chair rail, and our understanding of this ”universal function:”

“All lines parallel with the viewer's line of sight recede to the horizon towards this vanishing point. This is the standard 'receding railroad tracks' phenomenon.”

And which is the fact that if you are standing in front of a rail road track and looking into the distance, the lines: of the rail road tracks, will appear to “rise up” and intersect at the horizon line: the “lines” move “up” as they “move” “away” in the far away “distance.”

Ok, so that means – as we begin to move into the space represented within the three dimensional pictorial scene, our “movement” will immediately be “redirected” by the positioning of the very heavy, and “powerful,” positioning of “chair rail,” behind Madame Cezanne, and then, instead of being led in a direction “towards” Madame Cezanne's eyes – and/or her soul, we will be led in a direction “away” from them, and in a direction towards her background

So, then – AS we become “redirected” in a direction away from Madame Cezanne's eyes, because of the heavy mass, and presence, of the chair rail, we will become immediately conflicted YET AGAIN, as we begin to “directed” in a direction towards that HUGE mass of a chair, and – again, while leading our “MINDS” in a direction AWAY from the protagonist's eyes, and in the exact wrong direction, yet again.

Then, as we actually do “move” in a direction towards that HUGE mass of a chair, because we will have been purposefully (actually unintentionally, of course) redirected in a direction towards that HUGE mass of a chair, we will be LITERALLY “stuck” at that point – BEHIND the chair, and AWAY from the protagonist's eyes, and the windows of the soul, of course.

So, then, as we TRY to “get around” that HUGE mass of a chair, and move in a direction towards the protagonist's eyes/windows to the soul, we will encounter EVEN more “contradictions.”

Because ALL of the cues - “collectively,” actually ALL literally “contradict” one another, and they simply do not add up, and they contradict what ANYONE would have seen in reality. Because, in addition, the tops of the chair rails do NOT “add up,” and that “reading” too causes ONLY “contradictions,” such as this, the tops of the chair rail moldings don't “intersect,” and, in addition, at the point where the chair rail intersects with the right hand perimeter, the top edge is higher up than where the chair rail intersects with the chair, and the opposite occurs in the left field. Which causes our mind to perceive this “composition” as if she was positioned at the point where two walls meet, at an exterior corner. Except, there's no vertical line above her head to substantiate that “read.”

And when you look at the Cezanne picture, that is exactly what the lines do in the right hand field: the lines move up at the perimeter, and which is indicating that she is sitting in front of a wall “going away.” But, in the left hand field the opposite happens: the line is higher up at the left hand perimeter, and which would indicate that that wall is “moving” in the opposite direction: or that Madame Cezanne is sitting at the exterior corner where 2 walls intersect, such as here:

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/how-to- ... ons-180769

And for added understanding, you can see this picture where 2 walls meet at an interior corner:

http://www.aaronshomeinspections.com/si ... ction.html

And where the lines go “up” towards the center of the picture: where 2walls meet at an interior corner.

Except, there is no “vertical line” in the Cezanne picture, behind Madame Cezanne's head, as there is in those pictures, so that is an additional contradiction.

But, more importantly, the mere fact that he would put that chair rail there at all is an indication that Cezanne did not even begin to understand the concept of

Because, the primary purpose of composition is to “purposefully direct” all the “movement” towards, and around, the “human” protagonist, which is Madame Cezanne, and too it is supposed to be towards the protagonist's face. And when Cezanne put that chair rail where he did, it created the exact opposite effect, it directs all the movement “away” from Madame Cezanne's face. And worse than that, Cezanne painted that huge chair that Madamme Cezanne is sitting on. And when he painted all that mass of the chair rails, it leads our “minds:” NOT our “eyes,” in a direction towards the back of that huge chair. Then, because he has the chair pivoted in the wrong direction: because our minds have a natural inclination to perceive 3-D space beginning in the lower left foreground: and move up and out into the distance, as our minds do begin to “move,” they get redirected towards the back of that huge chair, because of latching onto the chair rails, and – then, after we get to the back of the chair, we have to try to redirect our minds: come back out into the foreground field, and then try to get back up to Madame Cezanne's face. But, because of the huge mass of the chair, the struggle starts all over again

So, if someone did understand the concepts of composition, what would they do? The polar opposite:

Pivot the protagonist in the opposite direction: with shoulders going away towards the left. Eliminate that huge mass of that chair. Take away the chair molding, and replace that chair molding with some compositional elements in the distance: maybe a road or a river. Then, purposefully use those elements to “direct” the mind towards the protagonist's eyes: in the far away distance. Then, use those same compositional elements to bring the mind back down through the midground, and into the foreground again. And then allow that whole process, of purposefully “directing” the viewer's mind from foreground, to midground, and then background, and through the protagonist's eyes, all over again - to "purposefully orchestrate an elementary Eternal Harmony," for all of MANKIND to access - "COLLECTIVELY."

Which would look like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa

So, “that” is “proof" that someone, anyone – such as myself, is capable of experiencing “empathy,” and/or capable of proving that they are capable of accessing universally applicable empirical self consciousness, and/or the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through our senses, and – then, abstracting that understanding, and – then, reapplying that understanding as well, to become capable of literally effecting the collective consciousness of mankind, at an “elementary” level, of course.

And THAT is how "artisan" was "transformed" into "Artist," by employing "universally applicable empirical self consciousness" - to "transform" the primary building blocks of ALL "pictures," of: people - trees - buildings, to form "pictorial syntax," and "intelligence" - and/or "genius," as a matter of historical fact.

Oh, and by the way, here is the “acoustic version” of that, as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOCclpD-_lw&t=9s

But, then – at the beginning of the twentieth century, well, THIS happened:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1GS1lgwdwU&t=1719s
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on August 4th, 2017, 6:46 am 

I wasn’t sure about your stance on novelty, still not sure, sorry, and had thought maybe you didn’t think visual art requires some sort of involvement of novelty and I thought that was interesting, because it is very different to the way I tend to view visual art. I thought maybe you might find some support or notions that might lend to your stance in Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelites he championed. The Matisse and Cezanne works you’ve linked (Cezanne in another thread) I think are from an RA site, and Reynolds founded the RA which the brotherhood rebelled against during Victoria’s reign.
“Ruskin believed that true originality came not from mere novelty but from better apprehension of truth: "That virtue of originality that men so strain after is not newness, as they vainly think (there is nothing new), it is only genuineness" (4.253).”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hap ... othing+new),+it+is+only+genuineness&source=bl&ots=DEudWlToXn&sig=JU9E5O5GKzYVpMUoGK6xnbhxTDs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp2ZqMibzVAhUeOsAKHelzDWYQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=That%20virtue%20of%20originality%20that%20men%20so%20strain%20after%20is%20not%20newness%2C%20as%20they%20vainly%20think%20(there%20is%20nothing%20new)%2C%20it%20is%20only%20genuineness&f=false
I think J. Jones may have indicated a poor opinion about the Brotherhood around 2003 but seemed to have some change of heart around 2013. Ruskin, who felt art degenerated with Raphael’s move to Rome around 1508, may be self-contradictory to some extent, unfashionable at times, but highly respected for research and knowledge, e.g. the eponymous art school of Oxford University. It may be that the Annunciation reflected the early renaissance as I tried to suggest, or it could be, along Ruskin lines, more a late example of visual art before degeneration. “Ruskin accepts Leonardo's greatness: his studies have led him 'reverently' to the feet of Leonardo ( MP I:5); Leonardo's works are 'incapable, in their way, of any improvement conceivable by human mind' (MP I:133);…” . http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/ruskin/ ... nard02.htm. And I wonder how visual art and lack of novelty in this way might be reconciled well with novelty in other media and fields. Ruskin held photography as an art highly.

I think in one of these threads somewhere you mentioned importance of hands, and given that I still wonder if your views are something like just formalist given the syntactic title, or also involve subject matter or semantics to some extent.

These are just some thoughts that may or may not help you with your notions, they also could just be confusing, sorry. I could be away for quite a while, btw.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: 02 May 2014


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on August 4th, 2017, 8:05 am 

dandelion » August 4th, 2017, 6:46 am wrote:I wasn’t sure about your stance on novelty, still not sure, sorry, and had thought maybe you didn’t think visual art requires some sort of involvement of novelty and I thought that was interesting, because it is very different to the way I tend to view visual art. I thought maybe you might find some support or notions that might lend to your stance in Ruskin and the Pre-Raphaelites he championed. The Matisse and Cezanne works you’ve linked (Cezanne in another thread) I think are from an RA site, and Reynolds founded the RA which the brotherhood rebelled against during Victoria’s reign.
“Ruskin believed that true originality came not from mere novelty but from better apprehension of truth: "That virtue of originality that men so strain after is not newness, as they vainly think (there is nothing new), it is only genuineness" (4.253).”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Hap ... othing+new),+it+is+only+genuineness&source=bl&ots=DEudWlToXn&sig=JU9E5O5GKzYVpMUoGK6xnbhxTDs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp2ZqMibzVAhUeOsAKHelzDWYQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=That%20virtue%20of%20originality%20that%20men%20so%20strain%20after%20is%20not%20newness%2C%20as%20they%20vainly%20think%20(there%20is%20nothing%20new)%2C%20it%20is%20only%20genuineness&f=false
I think J. Jones may have indicated a poor opinion about the Brotherhood around 2003 but seemed to have some change of heart around 2013. Ruskin, who felt art degenerated with Raphael’s move to Rome around 1508, may be self-contradictory to some extent, unfashionable at times, but highly respected for research and knowledge, e.g. the eponymous art school of Oxford University. It may be that the Annunciation reflected the early renaissance as I tried to suggest, or it could be, along Ruskin lines, more a late example of visual art before degeneration. “Ruskin accepts Leonardo's greatness: his studies have led him 'reverently' to the feet of Leonardo ( MP I:5); Leonardo's works are 'incapable, in their way, of any improvement conceivable by human mind' (MP I:133);…” . http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/ruskin/ ... nard02.htm. And I wonder how visual art and lack of novelty in this way might be reconciled well with novelty in other media and fields. Ruskin held photography as an art highly.

I think in one of these threads somewhere you mentioned importance of hands, and given that I still wonder if your views are something like just formalist given the syntactic title, or also involve subject matter or semantics to some extent.

These are just some thoughts that may or may not help you with your notions, they also could just be confusing, sorry. I could be away for quite a while, btw.


dandelion:

For a beginning explanation, see here:

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=33251

PLUS, I am going to making a new post - including a SPECIFIC video (that I am going to make), that I will be making later today to COMPLETLY explain - and "demonstrate," the COMPLETE, simplified, concept.
MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby dandelion on August 4th, 2017, 9:03 am 

Ok, thanks for the response, I'll look when I can.
dandelion
Member
 
Posts: 287
Joined: 02 May 2014
MrMikeludo liked this post


Re: Syntax and the definition of Art

Postby MrMikeludo on August 9th, 2017, 1:51 pm 

MrMikeludo
Member
 
Posts: 202
Joined: 17 Aug 2011



Return to Art

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests