What is art - Da Vinci The Annunciation

[MrMikeludo]

Da Vinci The Annunciation

[MrMikeludo]

The picture: The Annunciation, was posted, without text, by accident, as I had asked someone to demonstrate for me how to post the picture, because I was unfamiliar with the application. I was supposed to use it in conjunction with an explanation. Beings it is there, I thought I may as well try to clarify some things. Hopefully, it will clear up some confusion I realize I have created by not first providing the explanation.

It is the, simplified, explanation; and demonstration, of the syntax, or structure, which is contained within this picture, and the definition of the music.

Firstly, if you look at it, you will, hopefully, realize that there is something very deliberate about the positioning of the elements: the Angel - Mary - the building - the garden - the lectern, within the context of the composition, and something different than other pictures.

Here is the explanation:

Print out a copy of the picture, and overlay a piece of plastic on top. Take a marker and a ruler, and then:

At the top perimeter measure over to the middle of the picture, and draw a line straight up and down from here to the middle of the bottom perimeter, and you will have formed a visual fulcrum. Now, with this projection, you will have formed two equally sized "squares," on both sides of the visual field.

Then, along the left perimeter measure down to the top of the garden wall, and draw a line from the left hand perimeter to the right hand perimeter. Then, along the left hand perimeter measure up to the edge of the lectern: this distance will be equal to the distance down to the top of the garden wall, and draw another projection over to the right hand perimeter.

With the completion of these two projections you will have formed six "rectangles" within the two squares, with the top two being equal sized to the bottom two, and the middle two being equal sized to each other.

Then, draw a line from the right top corner diagonally down to the point where the lectern projection intersects with the left perimeter. With this projection you will have formed a "triangle" in the top of the framed perimeter. Then, draw another diagonal projection from the lower left corner up to where the top garden wall projection intersects with the right perimeter of the picture. And you will have now formed another equal sized triangle; in the bottom field, to the one formed within the top field.

There also exists an amplitude function, which is the formation of "circles," but which is only easily demonstrated in person.

Now, what you will have formed, is the purposeful formation of equally sized non-tangible form: "squares" - "rectangles" - "triangles" - "circles." And which is a simplified demonstration of the syntax, and "music," which exists only in this single picture.

The complete explanation of which is something that I have come to realize exceeds the limits of a forum.

But, which is the undeniable purposefully affected formation of a field of non-tangible form squares, rectangles, triangles, and circles. And, which has become recognized as the universal language of the mind:

"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.

But, more importantly, is also the formation of geometrical patterns in space/time, and which has also become recently recognized as the definition of life:

"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 which makes perfect sense, because this: geometrical patterns in space/time, is also the definition of 4-dimensional reality:

"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

Hopefully, this explanation will clear up some confusion, as the demonstration is, in addition to being I believe kind of fun, a simple explanation of the syntax, and the "music," which exists only within this single picture.

And, therefore, any picture which does not contain this structure, CAN be, and should be, defined as "art," and serve any utilitarian; and too of course a decorative, function, but which can not be defined as genius, or music - and/or a symphony, unless it does contain this structure, and there is only the one.

Also, this demonstration is a simplified communication of the function. But, when a person does become capable of experiencing the function, it is capable of causing an affect which is unique to the function: the structure - and music, and which is why it is different than all other pictures.

In addition, if anyone would be inclined to read Leonardo's notes, you could understand that this is the exact function to which he is referring; in so many of his enigmatic writings.

[çağla]

Combined with the other thread titled the same question, I have difficulty to understand some points you are making and I'll try to make it clear if I got anything wrong, so please bear with me.

Your main and first question is "What is art?"
And you choose the example of one painting (only one and a common scene painted countless of times) from Early Renaissance which in itself has the concern of producing imitations of nature with mathematical perspective, -as much as they can provide- and also with a very keen approach to compose a picture from frontal center view. (Linear,Wölfflin)
(I couldn't understand some terms you have been using, as "structure", "music" in this context.)

And human brain can percieve only certain kind of compositions. As a result, you claim because of the very qualities only this work includes, E: this example and any other piece having the same cannot be defined as a work of art?

There is a high chance I got it all wrong, because it's an interesting but a very peculiar way of trying to solve the problem of "What is art?". I have questions to understand the OP.

First of all I couldn't understand why you started with a work we call an "art historical work"? Why Leonardo? Let's not forget it's always too risky to work with "old masters’" works on this fundamental issues. Some of my personal questions and opinions:
1. They are too old to match our concept of art in any case; to compare, to evaluate, to make an example of concerning the main issue..
2. They are produced in a period of history where “artists’” works are commisions. As you mentioned in the other thread there is no ‘art’ or ‘artists’ in that period as we know today. (But, Leonardo uses the word “painters”,because in that period there is a common debate on hierarchy of “arts”: architecture includes both nature and imitation, so it’s at the top and then comes the sculpture and the last, painting. (Panofsky on Vasari; who is the first ‘writer’ tried to fix this. And Leonardo thinks painting is “superior”-any work on Leonardo.)
3. No matter they are attributed to a one master, mostly they are work of a whole studio full of apprentices. Or they have been "tampered on" later. Including the one you are giving as an example.
4. Why Leonardo? There are countless research on the historical works of the period in every common library, concentrating on the mechanics of Renaissance painting. Again it’s always risky to use masters as a sole resource, –not to mention it’s simply unsufficient to use only one- because again no matter that we have tons of documentation on them, they have collective qualities attributed to their identity;work;genius which make us myopic to their work and what did they really ‘mean’ in/for their own time.

5. And how is it possible to make an inquiry on “what’s art”, without considering countless set of dynamics at work in every period? In these circumstances, wouldn’t an attempt to do that with one painting, in one certain period be meaningless?

And there are some statements you made about “art community” in other thread. I think it’s important because it gives a clue how you regard personally to the subject. I guess by “art community”, you meant curators, institutions, museums and especially the sponsors (companies…) who pays for pieces to have some sort of a “fashion” to them. While it’s quite correct that the ‘industry of art’ manipulates many things related to art, the “art world” is perfectly aware of this and this is also an issue discussed heavily related to the “what’s art” problem.
And I am so confused, because after stating that anything including qualities of a renaissance work cannot be defined as art, you wrote this:
“...[Art community]. What they do actually do, is purposefully sow the seeds of confusion, to become capable of empowering themselves: so the can 'sell' a Jackson Pollock - a picture which any child can create, for 160 million.”

No, a child cannot create a Jackson Pollock. I do understand what you may be trying to tell, but as a claim or as a statement it doesn’t mean anything related to art, art world, or any concepts related to it. A child has grown up, started to paint to express himself and became an artist and then in time evolved in to what we call “Jackson Pollock”.
Again I am curious about the example, why you chose Jackson Pollock as an exmaple to that statement? Because of the “action” he uses while painting is so 'simple'? Why not Mondrian? People mostly ask this question by his works as they think they look like “bathroom tiles” –infact they are 'trees'- and say “anyone can do this!”.

As I said at the begining, I probably didn’t exactly understand what you are trying to tell. But I would appreciate if you eleborate.

[MrMikeludo]

Cagla:

So, let me ask of you: Did you perform the function? Did you print out the: squares - rectangles - triangles - circles? If you had, and you did see those projections form those basic geometric non-tangible form shapes, what you would have seen is the defined higher cognitive function of music. But, I have come to realize that trying to explain what those shapes represent, and what the function means, is something which exceeds the limits of a forum. But it is, kind of, analogous to someone saying:"Did you know Einstein explained E=Mc2." And meaning, if you are someone who is familiar with calculus, those simple letters (and number) mean something more. Similarly, the demonstration of the formed squares, rectangles, triangles and circles, means something more than their simple shapes.

Again, I am attempting to keep it as simple as possible, while simultaneously explaining its factual existence, and difference to all other pictures. So, you may also remember that I said that there exists no images of things within our minds, but only the digital language of the brain. And too, we know that the definition of reality: science - nature, is symmetry:

"All laws and forces of nature originate from mathematical symmetries of space and time, so modern physics currently focuses on studying these symmetries."

So, if you do perform the function; of forming the image of the non-tangible form squares, rectangles, triangles and circles, you can then see: within your mind and wherein there are no images of any things, the function of dynamic symmetry, and/or defined music. So this enables us to understand that in this single picture: The Annunciation, the 3-D tangible form things: the Angel - Mary - the lectern, are simply secondary compositional elements, which are purposefully arranged to orchestrate the 4-D non-tangible formation; of the structure of the non-tangible form squares - etc.

Again, this is the function of patterns in space/time, so the thing that must exist is the applied function of both 3-D space and 4-D time; to form the "music," and this is the only picture in which this 4-D function exists. Also, remember, I said that music is a unique endeavor. Because only music, and this single picture, is capable of inducing the variety of biochemicals that are unique to music. And which enable us to experience the complete range of emotions: from sadness to happiness, that are unique to human beings.

But there is another more simple biochemical, called dopamine. But dopamine is a mindless, and base animalistic, biochemical, which is also the definition of sex, or watching television, or any simple physiological indulgence. Dopamine can also be induced because of exposure to any abstracted musical sounds, and because of the grandiose environment in which music would have been usually heard for hundreds of years, such as the: marble - granite - plush carpeting - etc., but which are all completely mindless. So, what can happen, and what will happen, is that people can become capable of confusing the map with the territory:

"Map-territory relation: The map-territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of an object, as in the relationship between a (3-D) geographical territory and a (2-D) map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that 'the map is not the territory,' encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or reaction to it, is not the thing itself..."

Dopamine can also be induced within our minds every time we see something we have never seen before, and which is, idealistically, the impetus to cause people, and especially young children, to learn things new, and anew also. Dopamine can also be induced within our minds, whenever we experience a surprise, or something unexpected, as the scientists explain:

"...As Dr. (P. Read) Montague explained, much of the world is predictable: buildings usually stay in one place, gravity makes objects fall...But if there is a surprise - a car suddenly runs a red light, the mismatch between what is expected and what is happening instantly (induces) a dose of dopamine."

So, scroll back up and look at The Annunciation again, and remember that this picture was produced in 1480. Then imagine that you are looking at the picture from an inverted view; as if you were up above the picture. And then what you could see is the volume of 3-D space represented: from the point of the 2-D plane to the relative distance in the background. Now look at the history of art, from 1480 - the point in time of The Annunciation, to 1880, with the introduction of Cezanne, and you will see this:

"Cezanne tried to make the ultimate journey back through time (as he) created a kind of space where the distance seems near, (and) one technique to create depth is canceled out by another..."

And then, of course, immediately after Cezanne came Picasso, and the elimination of any 3-D space from 2-D art. So what became capable of happening, was that people became capable confusing the "territory": 3-D space and 4-D time, with the "map": the 2-D plane of the picture, and in any picture where there is no 3-D space represented, such as Picasso, or Jackson Pollock.

Because; remember, the affect which is unique to The Annunciation - and music, is caused by the various biochemicals, which enable us to experience the complete range of emotions. But there also exists dopamine, and which requires no cognitive capability to experience. Also, a fundamental prerequisite to experiencing the affect of music, and The Annunciation, is a person's developed capability to process simultaneously relative sensory input information, or "see" space, and which is a universal cognitive capability explained here:

"When inexperienced chess players (play) against experts, they probably wonder what makes the experts (better). New research suggests that experts use more of their brains...The researchers found (that) the novices looked directly at the pieces (while) the experts took everything within their peripheral vision."

And; remember, the people who were the primary, but not all, patrons of the fine arts, were the people who had become capable of confusing the map with the territory, and they simultaneusly became incapable of experiencing this basic cognitive function: of seeing relative information within their peripheral mind. So they became incapable of experiencing the cognitive function of music, and cognizing 3-D space or 4-D time. And they also became incapable of experiencing the unique affect of music, and The Annunciation, because of the various biochemicals. And; remember also, dopamine can be induced whenever we see something we have never seen before, or when we experience something unexpected. So, for 4 hundred years: from 1480 to 1880, this one particular demographic: the patrons of the fine arts, were going into the buildings: the museums - the galleries - etc., and actually seeing the exact same "things": some humanistic 3-D people - some humanistic 3-D trees - some humanistic 3-D buildings, and some 3-D space: which they became incapable of seeing. So then, along came Pablo Picasso, with all of his brand new, and completely unexpected, and exactly never before seen, 2-D Cubist things. And all of the people: who were the people who had become capable of confusing the map with the territory and became incapable of seeing 3-D space or 4-D time, did see these never before seen, and completely unexpected, 2-D "things" for the first time. So they did then experience a dopamine biochemical induction: because of their seeing these never before seen and unexpected 2-D Cubist things.

And then, this: showing a 2-D picture of some never before seen "thing," and then experiencing a dopamine biochemical induction: because of seeing the brand new and never before seen and too unexpected, thing, became the definition of early 20th century art. And even to the point where people like Duchamp put a "urinal" in a gallery, and it was something that no one had ever seen in a gallery before. So: in the context of the grandiose environment of the gallery, even a urinal was capable of inducing a dopamine biochemical induction within the minds of these patrons.

Except, this dopamine affect is fleeting, and is instantaniously diminished. Because, once a person sees a pictorial 2-D Cubist thing, it is no longer a surprise, or the pictorial equivalent of a car running a red light. Because, now - after you see it, it becomes expected, and seen before, so the dopamine affect becomes immediately diminished.

So then, the dopamine affect became replaced, and supplemented, by the "hype." Because, as the scientists explain, dopamine can be induced by hype:

"...Dopamine can be elevated by a hug; a kiss, a word of praise."

So, some people began to tell the world that all of these people: all of the people who had painted pictures of any never before seen things and such as a 2-D Cubist thing, were defined geniuses. This same concept defines Jackson Pollock. As Pollock had put into a gallery a never before seen: in the galleries, 2-D "thing," of purely abstract, and non-representational, 2-D color.

Except, Jackson Pollock was not a genius, and neither was Pablo Picasso, and so too were none of the other people who had simply painted pictures of some never before seen things. And - remember, there are no images of any things within our minds, and if you are looking at a picture, which is NOT a representation of a visual musical equivalent, it can only be translated into: "noise," and it would cause you to experience a disturbance within your mind: if you were employing a higher cognitive function.

In addition, there does exist a function of intelligence which some people may be surprised actually exists. It is the fact that a human being mind is a receiver:

"Candace Pert: 'The more advanced an animal, the more the sensory input is processed, and the more receptors it has - the brain is just a receiver, an amplifier, a little wet mini-receiver for collective reality..."

And that receiver can become more powerful, and more powerful - and more sensative, and more sensative. Or, that receiver can become less powerful - and less sensative, and less sensative, and because of exposure to any, and all, dopamine inducing stimuli:

"Heavy users of dopamine inducing (phenomena) are doing more damage to their brains than scientists had thought - At least a quarter of the class of molecules that help people feel pleasure and reward were knocked out - But the study's biggest surprise was that (their) parietal lobes, the part of the brain used for feeling sensation and for recognizing where the body is in space, (were) damaged..."

So; remember, the primary patrons of the fine arts, had become completely, and utterly, reliant upon the abstracted dopamine affect of art: to be a picture of some never before seen thing in conjunction with the hype, and also in conjunction with the grandiose environment of the galleries/museums. But all of these affects are fleeting, and they can become diminished, while simultaneously the patron's minds/receivers were becoming less sensative, and less sensative, and less sensative: to the same amount of dopamine inducing stimuli.

And it is literally just like a drug. In that when you begin to use a drug, it causes a big affect. But then, over time, you need to keep consuming larger amounts, and larger amounts of the drug, to cause any affect whatsoever. And; remember, these same people were actually causing damage to their minds, and especially within the area of their minds responsible for experiencing music, and while they simultaneously needed a bigger drug to cause some kind of affect. And so then, beginning in the late 20th century, the "artists" simply began to become worldly provocateurs, and such as Andres Serrano when he did this:

"Piss Christ: A photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine placed the artist Andres Serrano at the forefront of the ongoing debate on free speach and freedom of artistic expression..."

And too when he did this:

"Andres Serrano: 'Shit' at Yvon Lambert."

And which, if you were not familiar with it, was a fine art show where Serrano had produced 5-foot-tall photographs of "shit." And, as scientists explain, this enables these "artists" to affect a big emotion, but it is an emotion of disgust:

"...what kinds of emotions trigger negative emotions - There are bodily effluvia: shit, piss...It's not surprising that people have an emotional reaction to bodily effluvia because epidemiologists tell us they are major vectors of disease."

And too while the "artists" have become provocateurs - narcissists and psychopaths, and because, in so doing, it enables them to generate publicity, and receive attention for themselves. And, of course, a larger dose of dopamine:

"Normal people avoid destructive and negative criticism - not so with the narcissist...The narcissist desires this criticism - Publicity - IN ANY FORM, is the trigger of narcissistic supply. Why? Because it provokes people to pay attention to the narcissist..."

So, what once began as the most beautiful thing known to mankind: Mozart - dynamic symmetry - Da Vinci's The Annunciation, and the cognitive capability which is required to experience those most beautiful things, has now become the most vulger, and single most disgusting, thing known to mankind: piles of "shit."

So, how can we, as a supposedly intelligent, and also supposedly exceedingly advanced, society, claim that we consider photographs of "piles of shit," by Andres Serrano, to be the definition of fine art, just as we consider the works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Leonardo Da Vinci's The Annunciation, and the beauty of the dynamic symmetry of both of these functions, to be fine art? We can not.

In addition, think of the affect that this concept has on a society. We, as an intelligent society, should place people like Mozart, and Bach, and Vivaldi, on a pedestal, and teach our children to aspire towards that ends: to become capable of emulating their achievements. And because we now know that, in so doing, the children will derive tremendous benefits from the endeavor:

"Neuroscientists often study how we hear and play music because it is one of the few activities that use many of the functions of the brain simultaneously. Including memory, learning, motor control, emotion and creavity - 'It offers a window into the highest levels of cognition (Dr. Robert) Zatorre said'..."

But what could possibly be gained by teaching entire generations that they should aspire to become capable of producing photographs of "piles of shit." Nothing, nothing, Except for us producing entire generations of narcissists, and psychopaths, who also possess a tremendous sense of entitlement. And who believe that they should be given hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of dollars, for producing photographs of "piles of shit," or something equally ridiculous.

This is what I believe it all boils down to: Personally, I am an artist, and I do consider myself to be an artist. And I have actually produced what could be defined as Pollockish pictures, just pictures of pure abstract color. And I have sold these pictures at fine art shows. But, do you know what I have never done? I have never tried to define them as genius, or as visual music, or as something that I feel I deserve hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of dollars, for having created. I sell them for a couple of hundred dollars. And I tell people that they have a purely decorative, and rather mindless, function, and that is it. And I would never try to convince anyone that they are anything different from that.

But, I have also produced mathematically verifiable visual musical equivalents, just like Leonardo Da Vinci's The Annunciation, and which is how I know that it exists, and how I know how to define the function: because I have experienced it. I also do not feel as if I am entitled to millions of dollars for them. But, what I have earned is the right for the art community, the hierarchy of the art community, to admit that they have made a mistake. And that Jackson Pollock is not the pictorial equivalent of Mozart, but that these are, and because it is the literal definition of the function. And that they should just say: "Listen, these people: Picasso - Rothko - Mondrian - Pollock - Kandinsky, all produced very pretty, and purely decorative, pictures, and if you would like to buy one to decorate your house with, that is fine. But don't be deluded into believing that you are buying a representation of genius, or visual music, because they are not."

But that is something which they will never do. And because they: the hierarchy of the art community, have become too corrupt. And even to the point where someone such as Ben Lewis, a contempory art critic, has spoken vehemently about it:

"...The art world is dirty, corrupt and immoral, and, if there was a name for such a crime, these people would be charged with perverting the course of art history - This is the art world version of the patter of a used car salesman, and it's amazing that anyone believes it - The art bubble is like the dot com bubble: hundreds of millions have been invested in ideas whose long-term value is totally unproven."

You see, it: the fine art world, has absolutely nothing to do with art anymore, it's all about money. And it is literally like a pyramid scheme: all built upon the lie that all of those pictures are the pictorial equivalent of genius, or music. So "art" has become almost exactly like sports memorabilia. In that a baseball has an intrinsic value of about 5 dollars. But if you put the name of Babe Ruth on it, it now becomes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Except, first of all, art was never supposed to be like that, as art is supposed to have its own intrinsic value. But, most importantly, they are selling a lie. Because they are selling the concept that all of these people are geniuses, which they are not, and that they are producing the equivalent of Mozart, which they are also not. But none of that even matters, because all they care about is the lie, and the money the lie generates, and they are, almost, all playing the exact same game.

I am simply interested in finding the remaining people who do also have a sincere interest in art. And a love for it, and for its intrinsic value, just as one might have a sincere love for the intrinsic value of Mozart.

[owleye]

Leaving aside the political angle, what do you think the role of philosophy ought to be with respect to art? Arthur Danto argued that philosophy's interest ought to have concluded based on how aesthetic judgements are actually made. I.e., in so far as there is an art world having some inside information relative to what makes some particular work of art, art -- what Danto says is that it is what's "behind" it -- there is little else to say about it. (Think: Warhol's soup cans.) If you're looking to how an artist might think of what she is doing you might consider Shelley's version: Art is an expression of the imagination. Within this framework, it encompasses both communicative and imaginative elements accounting for both its creative and social frameworks.

James

[MrMikeludo]

owleye:

Ah: Thankyou. I didn't know if I would ever be afforded the opportunity to, eventually, get here, or not. Because, the philosophical interpretation was supposed to be the point of this entire dialogue.

After Leonardo produced The Annunciation, there was a rather small group of individuals who had fully comprehended its historical, and cultural, significance. Some of those people were the artist Raphael, and Pope Julius ll, who commisioned Raphael to paint the mural: The School of Athens, in the Vatican; to commemorate the achievements of the Renaissance, and especially of Leonardo Da Vinci. In The School Of Athens, Raphael represents the school consisting of some of the people who were considered to be the greatest thinkers of all time, and while including: Pythagoras, Euclid, Ptolemy, Aristotle and Plato, with Plato being the focus of the composition, and while Plato is pictured carrying a copy of The Timaeus, and too while Raphael had paid homage to Leonardo by choosing Leonardo as his model for Plato.

Because, in Leonardo's producing of The Annunciation, he had made manifest a representation of Platonic philosophy of understanding, which Plato did communicate, specifically, in his The Timaeus. Within which: The Timaeus, is communicated the exact concept which I have been struggling to convey, and which is:

"That the supreme god of Plato's cosmos should wear the mask of a manual worker is a triumph of the philosophical imagination over ingrained social prejudice - But the devine mechanic is not a drudge. He is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would be in Plato's conception of art: not an inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless material."

That the definition of this "art" is, exactly, not to simply create some brand new never before seen "form," such as: Cubism, or Pointilism, or Minimalism, or some other never before seen tangible form. But to use the pre-existing 3-D tangible forms which are accessable to everyone, and of: some people - some trees, and some buildings, and to become capable of purposefully rearranging these existing 3-D tangible forms, to become capable of producing a, previously, non-existing 4-D non-tangible form: of the non-tangible form structure. And then to harness this exact capability to become capable of transforming "chaos" into "order," and also to become capable of producing: EXACTLY, the function of dynamic symmetry:

"In The Timaeus Plato presents an elaborately wrought account of the formation of the universe. Plato is deeply impressed with the order and beauty he observes in the universe, and his project in the dialogue is to explain that order and beauty. The universe, he proposes, is the product of rational, purposive, and beneficent agency. It is the handiwork of a devine Craftsman - who, imitating an unchanging and eternal model, imposes mathematical order on a preexistent chaos to generate the ordered universe."

But, which is an "order" - and too "beauty," which is accessable only to the intellect:

"It strikes Plato strongly that this arrangement is not fortuitous, but the outcome of the deliberate intent of Intellect...(in) The Timaeus (Plato proposes) that order is not inherent in the spatio-material universe; it is imposed by Intellect, as represented by the Craftsman..."

And too, while Plato had introduced the concept of applied 4-D "time" to form this harmonious order and beauty:

"The heavenly bodies are devine and move in their various orbits to serve as markers of time...Time itself came into being with the celestial movements as an 'image of eternity."

And to become capable of forming the function of space/time also:

"The deeper foundations of the Platonic philosophy - the distinction of the sensible and intellectual, the great original conceptions of time and space - appear in The Timaeus..."

And while the entire concept which I have been trying to explain from the very beginning, not just in these posts, but for years, was explained by Plato in The Timaeus:

"The power of enquiry, and philosophy, which is the great blessing of human life; not to speak of the lesser benefits which even the vulger can appreciate. God gave us the faculty of sight that we might behold the order of the heavens and create a cooresponding order in our erring minds. To the like end the gifts of speech and hearing were bestowed upon us; not for the sake of irrational pleasure, but in order that we might harmonize the courses of the soul by sympathy with the harmony of sound, and cure ourselves of our irregular and graceless ways..."

Being in that this "beauty," this "harmony," this "dynamic symmetry," is accessable only to the intellect, and can only become accessed through a deliberate undertaking: While having labored extensively, and diligently, to become capable of earning the right to experience this beauty, and harmony. While, simultaneously, the people who have not earned the right to experience it, will remain only capable of accessing "lesser," and "vulger," things.

And though I am not familiar with Shelly, perhaps this concept is in keeping with the the spirit of it being the product of the "imagination," or intellect, and not simply accessed by anyone.

What better, and more perfect, example of this exact function could anyone possibly cite, than the function which I have defined in the above aforementioned post?

There is a group of human beings who proclaim that they comprise the literally defined pinnacle of the fine art community. These same exact human beings got together and stood in front of 5-foot-tall photographs of "piles of shit," while they were simultaneously making a proclamation that they believe that they are the most sophisticated people in the world. But yet, in reality, it would be impossible for them to be more "vulger," and only capable of accessing the "lesser," and "graceless," benefits which the vulger are capable of experiencing, exactly as Plato had explained.

So, imagine my dismay, in expecting, and relying on, these people to understand, and too be affected by, the concept of the intellectual dynamic symmetry which is contained within The Annunciation, and while functioning as Platonic philosophy of understanding also. And which is exactly why I came to a philosophy forum, because this is where I beleived I could find some who were capable of experiencing these things, and who were familiar with these exact concepts. And too, who may also be a bit enraged by the fact that the vulger have hijacked, and too perverted, the concept of fine art, and supposed intellectual beauty, and harmony, and dynamic symmetry also.

So, for me, finding even one other human being who is capable sharing these sentiments, gives me hope that there does not exist nothing but vulgarity, and too the vulger, in this entire world.

Sincerely: MrMikeludo

[çağla]

You handle “art” as if it’s ‘something’ deliberately started at some point in human history, -imagine a race start- which has a pre-determined target and a supposed development with a homogenic nature.

You take art works –in this case art historical works- as products of some groups of people’s taste, -which has a very roughly little truth to it, though the urge to imitate nature has many other causes and reasons behind it- who you think has indefinite power over artists and art in general.

You take art as ‘something’ that should work in same wavelengths within its different branches in a snychronous way to reach the same target.
By the word “humanistic”, I guess you mean “naturalistic” and with all the attempts to reach the perfect example it includes roughly the whole Reniassance studies in Western History of Painting. Which states a very common well known idea as “Only true imitation of nature can be art as it’s the ultimate truth and beauty".

And choosing only one example, and claiming this one is the only perfect one –I am sure you realise that just to make that claim requires “to see” ten thousands of art historical works in principle- at least as the perfect example by your own merits –I say “your own”, because as far as I know there isn’t a method of “evaluating” any art work according to what human mind can really “percieve and enjoy”.
But all these fell into place when I saw the quote you made: “…perverting the course of art history … “ and then your own words: “…You see, it: the fine art world, has absolutely nothing to do with art anymore, it's all about money. ...”

Course of Art History. When you say this, you simply claim that -the art is what - a discipline roughly started and based mainly on a 16th century painter/writer’s “taste” of “the good, better and the best” in architecture, sculpture of his time in his country. Based on the well known ancient Western notion of beauty & nature: Vasari. (Le Vite, 2nd ed., 1568) And added on from there here on. Because traditional art history simply revolves around this. And thankfully collapsed long before it’s realised after (roughly) artistic expression and finally artists wasn’t ruled over by certain norms after that not now. Course of art history is not a sacred notion and as an artist you should be grateful that it’s just a study course now.

About money and art. You have been claiming a constant corruption on selling art and how money gets to everything in art communities. You should remember that art, first and most is a “surplus”. If there is an active art community in a country with its every part, it simply means, it’s already developed and there is still a development there. By the way, selling art works, buying art works; as art or historical artficats, or as antiques is SO old, probably close to the age of art which again probably old as human.

Today’s ‘corruption’ going on between museums and artists, companies and artists ending up in exhibitions everywhere is a result of deliberate and conscious acts. Generally what we call the “shock” value. Because if you consider the amount of people who is genuinly interested in art –in a continous and contemporary way- it’s a very little group .

You have been telling of how important what we feel and how we feel when we see what. Now, the best way of getting a reaction in this age of strong , heavy stimulants digging to our brain from every angle since we were born is to “shock people”. Because we are not easily surprised, cry or laugh anymore. But there are certain things we would react openly with disgust or rage –like raping of an animal or a baby- they’ve become some sort of a medium more than a subject or material. And companies, museums; any sponsors have been taking advantage of this. More than that, they encourage artists to do these kind of works, sometimes they even demand certain works, so they could advertise.

Is it art? Is it moral? The thing is, we cannot exclude them. Because first they bear the condition of being intentional to be represented as an expression of human imagination. They have an artistic intention declared. (I am not using this term as Reigl’s “kunstwollen”, but rather as a general one.) They are also institutional. And no we cannot erease any means of institutions, nor control them because we need absolute independent vendors for means of exhibition.

Is it art? Yes it is. Is it good art? Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t, but that doesn’t change the fact they are human expressions and convey a certain kind of knowledge. Because “bad art” is important. I know it’s very cliché, but I will quote Cage. “Some people take bad art too seriously, and some doesn’t take it seriously enough.” I guess you fall into the former group, though as an artist I would get why you would be a side. (But that’s another common discussion that if artists really should be critics or researchers on the field, if they are active.)

Using human excrement to portray a “Madonna and Child” -or any bodily fluids- is simply using a hyperbolic language to express feelings towards a specific religion. Using a raw material, something so naturally undeniable in human nature –“human nature” is the most fundamental thing constantly denied and tried to be controlled/oppressed by monotheist religions- instead of a medium like paint, any kind of…etc. which has been used to spread and -still is used- to promoto and teach that religion for more than a thousands of years a different way of saying “it’s bullshit”. Well in this case, as it concerns us humans, “It’s humanshit”: “Because this shit is ‘created’ by humans, and suffered by humans”. These ‘reading’ is completly my personal way of looking it.

I have to add that in current perspective we are trying to communicate –in my humble opinion- we are far away from discussing Danto, -at least I don’t see it- because I think it’s impossible to make any inquiry to the question of “What is art?” without its sub questions.

You have an example of a certain period and an enormous problem reduced to one short sentence and by quoting scientists/artists/thinkers on how human mind works on perception and enjoying art works, without putting this in to any anthropological/historical/cultural/social aspects, but only dissecting the work into geometrical forms –in a way it wasn’t even designed to- and you claim that is the reason why countless of art works are not actually art works.

1. What’s the set of art historical questions led you to choose a religious scene; an that certain period; and that certain example of an “Annunciation”?
2. What’s the set of conditions that makes this certain example above all human creation accepted as art? (What makes you think such level exists?) Except your own merits of geometrical forms extends it to a music form? (If that’s strictly the case, why doesn’t Kandinsky-Schönberg mean anything to you?)
3. How many other examples of any kind you have applied your “hypothesis”?
4. Put in to a scientific paper, on what planes of interdisciplinary study your ideas would range? What would be the premise of the discursive thought to connect those fields?

I ask these questions, because to me, your example is floating in the air in a personally defined U of “What’s Art?” uncontrollably, surrounded by some sort of cluster ideas with raw definitions at their cores, not being able to connect to each other though may be exclusively correct and momentarily banging at their random sides but expands ‘indefintely’ as you keep saying “This is art, this isn’t”.

PS I would appreciate –this is just a kind request- if we could please refrain from statements like “I can’t explain all my ideas here, it’s the same thing to ask Einstein if he could explain E=mc2”. Yes, you can explain your ideas to a certain enough level here to discuss. If you can’t give a certain crucial summary, that means you are already on the wrong road. The only relevant thing to that statement is, to ask Einstein to explain E=mc2, which is meaningless. We don’t need some sort of anachronistic or impossible analogies, though it gives the imaginary boundries of one’s way of regarding their position as a whole. Forgive me for reminding it, none of us is Einstein trying to explain E=mc2.

[çağla]

Leaving aside the political angle, what do you think the role of philosophy ought to be with respect to art? Arthur Danto argued that philosophy's interest ought to have concluded based on how aesthetic judgements are actually made. I.e., in so far as there is an art world having some inside information relative to what makes some particular work of art, art -- what Danto says is that it is what's "behind" it -- there is little else to say about it. (Think: Warhol's soup cans.) If you're looking to how an artist might think of what she is doing you might consider Shelley's version: Art is an expression of the imagination. Within this framework, it encompasses both communicative and imaginative elements accounting for both its creative and social frameworks.

James

owleye, I'd really love to get into Dato as much as my capasity helps, -I liked your thread- but I'm in a summer house far away from my little library at home and my memory doesn't serve me photographically enough to refer or quote.

I remember a part of his inquiry on relation of the definition of art with definition of knowledge. Generally it was about the reason, we don't have a reliable satisfying academic definition of art, because we don't have a real completed definition of knowledge in its conditions. Something along the lines of "...There isn't a 3rd condition to knowledge offered since Plato..." Or 2nd? May be in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art?

[owleye]

I remember a part of his inquiry on relation of the definition of art with definition of knowledge. Generally it was about the reason, we don't have a reliable satisfying academic definition of art, because we don't have a real completed definition of knowledge in its conditions. Something along the lines of "...There isn't a 3rd condition to knowledge offered since Plato..." Or 2nd? May be in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art?

I don't know about Danto's reliance on Plato's theory of knowledge (i.e., justified true belief), but Danto's insight about art could be yours if you gave the same thought to why Warhol's painting of soup cans hung in the MMA is considered art while the same painting on the side of a truck isn't. Note that it isn't because the art world deemed it to be art, which of course it did, rather it's because of the reason why the art world deemed it to be art. Indeed the very reason why there is an art world is that such a world has inside information about the art that those who look at a display of a urinal attached to the wall in a museum without that information and is going to think: "Are you kidding me?"

I think you can gain the same insight by wondering why an original work of art is more valuable (from an artistic standpoint) than a forgery.

James

[MrMikeludo]

Cagla:

Firstly, I would like to emphasize that I did NOT say:

"I can't explain all my ideas here, it's the same thing to ask Einstein if he could explain E=mc2."

What I did, very purposefully, say, was:

"Did you know Einstein explained E=Mc2."

Do you see the, very deliberate, difference? I simply said I understand the language, which defines the function. I would never compare myself to Einstein, as Albert Einstein was a recognized genius. But do you know who actually would compare themselves to Einstein? Well, Pablo Picasso, and Jackson Pollock, and almost all other 20th century artists. Or, at least, if not the artists themselves, the people who are selling the concept of the artists.

Go ahead and Google"Pablo Picasso Genius," and you will find tens of millions of hits attempting to define him as a genius. So too the same with Jackson Pollock, and Paul Cezanne, and Vincent Van Gogh, and Marcel Duchamp, and Wassily Kandinsky, and Salvador Dali, and Andy Warhol, and Andres Serrano too.

Andres Serrano? The man who reached into his toilet, pulled out a literal "pile of shit," photographed that "pile of shit," placed those photographs in a gallery, and made tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars, by selling photographs of literal "piles of shit."

So, let me ask you: Do you actually believe that people are buying, or even looking at, photographs of "piles of shit," because of the intrinsic value of those photographs of the "piles of shit?" No, they are doing it because they have become convinced that, in so doing, they are proving that they also are capable of "seeing," and/or experiencing, what can be defined as "genius."

This is one of the most common, ugh, ploys, tactics, functions, behaviors, whatever you want to call it, employed by the people trying to sell the concept. And which is to do this:

"In the program for Picasso at the Lapin Agile, (the) director, cast and staff pose 20 questions you might ponder after viewing the play. 'What is genius?' They ask. How does genius get recognized..."

And while these people do this exact same thing over, and over again:

"The limitations of perspective were seen as an obstacle by the Cubists. The fact that a picture could only work from one viewpoint restricted their options. They wanted to introduce the concept of 'relativity' (while) a Cubist painting is painted from many (different) viewpoints simultaneously..."

You see, they are the ones who say, right there, that Pablo Picasso, and Cubism, was, and is, the pictorial equivalent of Albert Einstein, and too pictorial "relativity."

Because, in so doing, what they are telling people is that if you can "see" the representation of genius here: in a Cubist picture, you too must be a genius. Except, that is ridiculus; that they would ever believe that a Cubist picture is a representation of "relativity." Because everyone here, on purpose in this forum, knows that the function of the 4th dimension is the function of a space/time continuum, and a non-tangible formation. But analogous to the tangible structure of a 3-D house, with the floors, walls, and ceilings, actually forming the 4-D non-tangible form structure of the matrix, and with the manifold: of 3-D space, being analogous to the rooms contained within the perimeters of the 3-D "house." And which has absolutely nothing to do with Cubism. As there simply is not even a representation of 3-D space contained within any Cubist picture, and as they even actually admit it:

"The limitations of perspective were seen as an obstacle by the Cubists."

And: remember, Brunelleschi did introduce the concept of the 3rd dimension into 2-D art, with the introduction of 3-D: perspective; linear - aerial, atmospheric thickening, countouring, sfumato, chiaroscuro, and, by their own admission, the Cubists elimanated ALL of those things. So it is impossible for a 2-D Cubist picture to be a pictorial representation of the 4th dimension, of: "time."

In addition, what they are saying, in trying to explain a 2-D Cubist picture as a representation of "relativity," is that a 2-D Cubist picture is a representation of a quantum mechanical effect, you know: "leaping" - "jumping" - "moving," from point A to point B, and without moving through the 3-D space between those points, and/or being at both points A and B simultaneously:

"...a Cubist painting is painted from many (different) viewpoints simultaneously."

This too is absolutely ridiculous. As everyone knows that a 3-D tangible form mass, and such as a 3-D human being, can not experience a quantum leap. Also, and again, there is exactly, and supposedly on purpose, no representation of any 3-D space in any 2-D Cubist picture, and so anyone who can simply count: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4, can understand that you can not get to the 4th dimension, of: "time," until you do, FIRST, represent the 3rd dimesion, of: "space."

In addition, one dosen't even need a complete, or even any, understanding of physics to understand that they: the people who are selling the concept that Picasso and Cubism was, and is, genius, are bald face lying, all you need to be able to do is acknowledge historical reality. Because, the other most common reason they use for attempting to define Cubism as genius, is to say that when Picasso painted in this Cubist manner:"...painted from many different viewpoints simultaneously," that he had: "invented" - "pioneered" - "developed" - "introduced," a "brand new" - NEVER BEFORE SEEN, way of painting: from many different viewpoints simultaneously. But he actually did not "invent" - etc., any brand new anything.

Because, in 1480 Leonardo Da Vinci did explain this EXACT FUNCTION:

"The universal practice which painters adopt on the walls of chapels is greatly and reasonably to be condemned. Inasmuch as they represent one historical subject on one level (and) then go up a step and paint another, varying the point of sight and then a third, and then a fourth, in such a way that on one wall there are 4 points of sight, which is the supreme folly in such painters."

So, we can know, for an historical fact, that Pablo Picasso did not invent anything, he had simply made a "mistake": in "varying" the "points of sight," that almost everyone had made at one point in time, and so too it is literally impossible for him, or Cubism, to be defined as genius. And because he had simply made a mistake, and produced pictorial noise, and/or "discord," and as was explained by Leonardo:

"If you were to paint several points of sight you would make it look discordant and wrong.."

And while you may, presumably, argue as to what can be defined as right or wrong, you can not possibly argue the fact that a 2-D Cubist picture is the pinnacle of "discord," as it is the very definition of asymmetry:

"asymmetry: dissymmetry - imbalance - geometrical irregularity - radial asymmetry..."

And, remember, there are no images of things within our minds, so it: 2-D Cubism, can only function as "noise," and so, again, it is literally impossible for Cubism to be defined as genius.

And also, this is what I mean by "humanistic," or "non-humanistic." In that a 2-D Cubist picture, of a 2-D person with 2 eyes on one side of a face, does not look at all like a regular 3-D human being. They were simply something exactly different than anyone had ever seen in 2-D pictures before, and non-humanistic "flounder people": 3-D people that look like flounders.

And; remember, I did, very delibertly, also say that we can define all of these people, and such as: Picasso - Rothko - Mondrian - Pollock - Kandinsky, as artists, and because, I mean, what other word would we use to define them? And too, that I said that if a gallery, or some person, would like to sell one of these pictures to someone else, so that person could decorate their house, or whatever, with them, that is fine. But: BUT, we can exactly not define them as geniuses, because they were not geniuses, as they simply created imaginative pictures, and as the word imagination means:

"imagination: that which is not accessable to the senses."

And because when you look at a Jackson Pollock picture, there is nothing: no people- trees - buildings -etc., there, it is simply color, so if the viewer sees anything more, it is simply the viewer using THEIR imagination to see more, and not the artist creating anything more. And too, a 2-D Cubist picture: with a person who has 2 eyes on one side of their face, is also a purely imaginative thing, and something that no one would ever see in reality: a 2-D flounder person, walking around in 4-D reality.

And, again, nobody spends 160 million dollars for some pretty 2-D color, they spend that money because someone convinced them that they are buying an association to greatness, or genius also. But again, they: anyone who attempts to define these pictures as genius, are simply lying. And also again, the other most common analogy they use over, and over, and over again, is to define these pictures as pictorial music, and that the artists are the equivalent of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart:

"...In a similar vein, Brice M- eyeballed the proportions of Cezanne's 'The Large Bathers' and interpreted them as a symphony..."
"...Some artists, like (Wolfgang Amadeus) Mozart, find their voice indecently early, but (Jackson) Pollock was the opposite of a child prodigy, he was one of art's late great bloomers..."

And THIS is my primary source of contention. No they are exactly not. And it's not even a little bit, not even a tiny bit, debatable, not even one iota of the concept is debatable. It is simply ridiculous, and absolutely absurd.

Because, first of all, the primary unit; the primary nucleus, of music, is 4-dimensional fundamental frequency modulations: notes, 4-D overtones, and 4-D harmonics, and NOT simple 2-D color. Also, in order for there to exist sound, let alone music or a symphony, there must exist 3-D air through which the 4-D sound waves can be propagated, and if a person is looking at a 2-D picture in which there is no representation of 3-D air: a 3-D environement in which there is air, it is literally impossible for it to be pictorial music.

And you said:

"Yes, you can explain your ideas to a certain enough level here to discuss. If you can't give a certain crucial summery, that means you are already on the wrong road...We don't need some sort of anachronistic or impossible analogies, though it gives the imaginary boundries of one's way regarding their position as a whole..."

And, admittedly, when I posted my very first post here it was the first time I had ever done such a thing, and I tried to keep it as brief, and succinct, as possible, while trying to introduce the concepts. But the very first two replies I received were criticizing both how succinct, and how long, it was.

But, yes I can fully explain the concept: of a literal visual musical equivalent. But, also admittedly, my experience, and situation, is rather unique. As I had, first, spent my entire life listening to music 18 hours a day, and teaching myself how to understand - experience, and "see" music. And I did then teach myself how to replicate what I saw in my mind, into a visual musical equivalent, but while remaining self taught, but also while I really didn't know how to verbalize it. And then I saw that Leonardo Da Vinci had produced one also, and read his notes defining it, and then I did learn how to define it in words, and which is exactly why I can now do it.

So, let me propose that music, and more specifically a symphony, is an orchestration, or a purposeful arrangement, of many various, and individually completed - and simultaneously relative, fundamental frequency modulations: notes. With the individual notes being purposefully harnesed to form individually completed cadences, or movements, capable of functioning as directed tension, and while the individually completed fundamental frequency modulations/notes, and cadences, are also capable of simultaneously functioning as a vector derivative field. While the individual vectors can be defined as magnitudes possessing both direction and quantity. And the derivatives capable of being defined as, both, the points where the individual velocities/fundamental frequency modulations/notes change direction with respect towards time, within a perimetered central keynote theme/field, and also a harmonic proportionality of the perimetered central keynote theme/field. And then to expand upon these same concepts to become capable of producing a concordant, polyphonically structured whole, of non-tangible form geometrical equations, effectually functioning as, while remaining subservient to, a hierarchically structured whole: symphony.

Or, as Leonardo did define it:

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

And which is exactly why I provided the simple demonstration first, and because I know explaining all of these concepts in detail would be rather involving. But it is not as you say:

"...but only dissecting the work into geometrical forms - in a way it wasn't even designed to - and you claim that this is the reason why countless of art works are not actually art works."

The representation of the non-tangible geometrical forms are not just random projections, or coincidental, or happenstance, or circumstantial. They are exactly deliberate, and very purposeful: "orchestrated" exactly on purpose, and while affecting a mathematically verifiable coordinate point system, and for which there must be primary, and also secondary, coordinators. Which: the coordinators, are primary: eyes- hands, secondary: elbows - feet, and some others. And because humans possess: within our minds and within which there are no images of things, specific neurons designated for recognizing these elements, and these neurons highten our awareness of their purposeful positioning within the composition.

And, of course, I can fully explain what each of those functions does actually mean, in complete detail. For instance, let's start at the very beginning: "Seeing" the individual simultaneously relative fundamental frequency modulations/notes, functioning within a perimetered central keynote theme/field. This is what this function actually is: If you were to go outside and take a photograph of a sidewalk, and then print that photograph, what you would see is that the section of sidewalk you were standing upon would appear to be just a little bit wider than the next succeeding section of sidewalk, and so on up to the horizon line. Now imagine replicating that function all the way up to the sky. Each individual fundamental frequency modulation is simply one individual section - and/or note/point/wave, of that function, and when a person learns, or simply does develop the ability, to "see" the notes/fundamental frequency modulations, what they become capable of doing, is both seeing the simultaneously relative point where the note exists upon the scale: within the perimetered field, and also simultaneously moving their mind: within their peripheral mind, to the corresponding point where the note exists within the scale, and also within the perimetered central keynote theme/field.

And this doesn't even completely explain this one simple function, but I would be more than happy to explain every single detail of every single function, for anyone who would care to listen.

But here is the main point: Someone makes a postulation, and such as:"This is the literal definition of visual music," and then they begin to substantiate that point with facts and emperical evidence, such as what I am capable of doing. And also as exactly opposed to them saying:"Jackson Pollock is the equivalet to Mozart," correct?

Because the more you investagate it, the more their postulation begins to fall apart, and while simultaneously the more my postulation becomes proven to be true. Am I wrong?

And, again, I can explain every single detail of my entire visual music, and too higher cognitive function of music, theories. And this is the function, the mathematically verifiable function, which also exists within The Annunciation.

So then, if we call a photograph of a "pile of shit" art, what then do we call these pictures? Are these pictures in the same catagory as photographs of piles of shit? And again, these are literally visual music, so if a picture does not contain this structure, it can not be defined as visual music, and it must be defined as noise.

And you said:

"What's the set of conditions that makes certain example above all human creation accepted as art? (What makes you think such level exists?) Except your own merits of geometrical forms extends it to music form?"

Well it isn't simply my personal opinion, it is an historical fact. Historically, factually, 2-D art was never considered to be a defined fine art, it was simply considered a manual labor, and until Leonardo Da Vinci did produce The Annunciation. It is an historical fact, as artists were considered "low class," and "artisans," and "manual laborers," as:

"At the beginning of the Renaissance, painters were still regarded as members of the artisan class, and occupied a low rung on the social ladder..."

And because the fact of the matter is that when you become capable of experiencing the cognitive function of music, and a literal visual equivalent, you must engage your mind in a completly different capacity, and a completely different manner, than any picture which is not a literal visual musical equivalent. And too remember this is also the definition of pictorial syntax, and again you must engage your mind in a completely different manner than when you look at a picture which does not contain this syntax. And which; perceiving any picture which is not a visual musical equivalent, is more like this:

"First of all, when you are watching television the higher brain regions are shut down, and most activity shifts to the lower brain regions...The neurological processes that take place in these regions cannot accurately be called 'cognitive'...Moreover, these lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images - For a brain to comprehend and communicate complex meaning (there) must be dynamic flow of communication between all the regions of the brain, which facilitates the comprehension of higher levels of order..."

And so, we can ask what makes more sense: That someone did actually do something which transformed the same universal components: some people - some trees - a building, into something uniquely different, and which is the function of the visual musical equivalet of The Annunciation, or that at one point in time people just started saying:"You know what, we're going to start calling this 'fine art' just because we say so." That dosen't even make any sense. And too especially when considering that today, on any given day, there are, quite literally, almost an infinite amount of pictures made in just one day, when considering: computers - cell phones - television - etc. So why wouldn't every one of those pictures be defined as 'fine art'?

Well, again it's not just "because," it is because that single picture is different than all the other pictures. And it engages the mind in a different capacity than the immediately above aforementioned mindless capacity, and which is: television - computers - movies - cell phones - etc., and any picture which is not a literal mathematically verifiable visual musical equivalent.

And, again, I can continue to define every single function of the visual musical theory which I have proposed to you above, and so it is not as you say:

"I ask these questions, because to me, your example is floating in the air in a personally defined U of 'What's Art' uncontrollably, surrounded by some sort of cluster ideas with raw definitions at their cores, not being able to connect to each other though may be exclusively correct and momentarily banging at their random sides but expands 'indefintely' as you keep saying 'This is art, this isn't."

And too you said:

"And choosing only one example, and claiming this one is the only perfect one - I am sure you realise that just to make that claim 'to see' ten thousands of art historical works in principle - at least as the perfect example by your own merits - I say 'your own,' because as far as I know there isn't a method of 'evaluating' any art work according to what human mind can really 'percieve and enjoy."

Except, firstly, as I just explained the function of the visual musical equivalents is a mathematically verifiable fuction, which I can expand to completion: every single element, and so I can "connect" all of the previously mentioned elements: all of them, to the complete theory. And, it's not just my theory, it is Leonardo Da Vinci's, which I can also define to completion, and as Leonardo Da Vinci did explain:

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

And, because, most importantly, I did not invent the function of the visual musical theory, and Leonardo Da Vinci did not invent the function of the visual music theory, I learned it, and Leonardo Da Vinci learned it, but it exists a priori. And for anyone to, either, acknowledge its existence, or simply remain ignorant of it.

But - again, you can NOT have it both ways. You can not make a proclamation:"This is the pictorial equivalent of Mozart," in one breadth, and then assail me for explaining the actual function. Surely, you can understand that anyone: ANY ONE, who does this has some sort of ulterior motive. Because, what would be the point?

You see, this is how I did personally learn of the "lie," by personally experiencing it. I DID go to see the pictures that were advertised as:"The equivalent of Mozart," and then I saw some 2-D color splashed upon a canvas, and not just once but dozens, and dozens, and dozens of times. And then I said:"Wait a minute; if you really want to see visual music, look here - AT Leonardo Da Vinci's literal visual musical equivalent (not mine)." And I was literally - yes literally, physically, assailed by some of these people.

And do you know why? Because they do NOT have a love for visual music, or even acoustic music, or Mozart, or Bach, or Da Vinci, or anything except for their own selves, and because it is impossible for it to be any other way.

Think about it. Suppose you said to me:"I have a sincere love for Mozart's music." And then I said:"Have you heard this - Mozart's Requim Mass?" And then you replied:"No." And so then I said:"Here - you can have this." You would not become angry: if you did have a sincere love of Mozart's music. You would say:"Thank you."

And then suppose I said to you:"Well here is some more of Mozart's music you may not have heard, and some more, and some more." Would you become more angry, and more angry, and more angry? Of course not: IF you have a sincere love for Mozart, and all music also. But they exactly did: become more angry, and more angry, and more angry with me: as I tried to show them the visual music, and tried to, politely, explain it to them: ALL of them.

And you said:

"Today's 'corruption' going on between museums and artists, companies and artists ending up in exhibitions everywhere is a result of deliberate and conscious acts...Because if you consider the amount of people who is genuinly interested in art - in a continious way - it's a very little group."

And exactly as it should be: a "very little group," who is capable of having a sincere love; a true passion, for the concepts about which I am trying to convey: for true intelligence; for Mozart, and Bach, and for these literal visual musical equivalents. I am not saying it is for the masses, I am not saying it is for everyone. But I am saying if you make the proclamation:"I love Mozart, and I can't hear enough of it," where is the problem?

This is all I am saying: This Is "visual music," this is the pictorial equivalent of Mozart; this is something different than all other pictures. And, yes, I can define every single element of my proposed visual musical theory, and also, as of yet, undefined higher cognitive function of music. All I am looking for is others who do also have a sincere love for "Mozart" - in any form, and who can not get enough of it.

And yes, some of my proposed theories are being proven even without the scientists knowing that I proposed this theory; that music is non-tangible form geometrical equations, years before they came up with this:

"Music Has Its Own Geometry, Researchers Find...Writing in the April 18 issue of Science, the trio: Clifton Callender - Ian Quinn - Dmitri Tymoczko, has outlined a method called 'geometric music theory' that translates the language of musical theory into that of contemporary geometry..."

You see, because I told you, I am self-taught, so I am not familiar with the formalities associated with submitting these concepts to a journal. So imagine my chagrin at seeing other people being credited for discovering something which I came to an understanding of years before them. But, that still doesn't diminish my enthusiasm for finding others who do also share my passion, and love for the "music."

If you would like me to elaborate on any of the concepts which I did begin to define in the theory, simply let me know, as I would be more than happy to explain every single detail to completion.

Respectfully: MrMikeludo

[çağla]

There is no need to be offended. What I am trying to say is stating personal opinions simply doesn't fall into the kind of analogy you give. But it gives something else about your opinions to me.

As a layman the only thing I know about E=mc2 is that it's an equation (probably the most famous one) belongs to Einstein, a definition he reached according to his theories in physics. I try to read and understand it as something popularised, listening and reading physicists and that's it. Shortly I have no idea what it is.

But I know that and that's the important point, Einstein or any other scientists dealing with natural sciences are dealing with "things" that doesn't change and become something else in time, according to our understanding of that nature and expression of it. Very roughly, their general object of research is to discover the laws of nature and express them in a certain language. Even this little civilisation of ours on this planet hadn’t existed, these "things" they deal would have existed. Forget the specific scientist names, gravity was at work before someone came, put it in perspective and formulised it. And it will not change and become another thing, may be only it's defnition will develop, but that future fantasy element of my example already exists in principle.

And you are handling art exactly like a “natural thing” hanging above human mind&imagination which could be measured mathematically, taken from all its historical context; the social and cultural circumstances it was produced in. You are talking like you purposefully exclude any historical perspective.
You are a musician and while explaining your opinions with a title of “What’s Art?”, you only talk of paintings and see your art –music- as something they should extend into to become one and in accordance to become art. What happened to sculpture, architecture, installations, video… countless other mediums? Are they just ‘canceled’ because they can’t be formulised into music geometrically?

What Leonardo da Vinci has said on art is concern of an art history course. It doesn't provide a sole resource for the question of "What's Art?" discussed in 21st century. You keep quoting Leonardo over and over again and with those you are trying to refute modern art, -meaningless task- which is again already included in art history course. Do you realise this means that you just thow away hundreds of years of art historical and philosophical inquiry and countless art works?

And I will not get in to the definition of “genius” problem, its promotion and so on. Obviously you understand it as a Renaissance term, a promotion of cults served by Vasari&19th century which funnily also produced collective identities like Leonardo whom you base most of your opinions.

Besides avoding everything social or historical related to art you also claim there exists a "lie", -which I guess you mean some sort of a hoax or conspiracy if we consider the scale of your claim- against all people and media designed by the people art community (they sound like a dangerous cult) so they could mantain power on the “industry” about what’s art and what’s not.

And what’s more, after being very concerned by this “lie” forced upon people suddenly you claim that art should be limited with a very little group of people who “sincerely” loves it.
Is this concept of sincerity can also be measured geometrically? Because in your supposedly artistcally true –and from my personal angle rather fascistic and elitist- utopia you need to measure people’s sincerity to be sure of to let them into that group.

In short as a conclusion, I personally don’t see any point to agree with you on any of your opinions, because they are not standing on anywhere. As I see it, you have experienced something that made you think on some questions and in your process you reached a personal definition of art and declared the rest perversity. Besides being personal opinions –rather inspirations and aspirations- they do not answer or even get close to the question asked. To put it bluntly, you don’t seem to actually care to put anything in perspective, but rather claim that as an artist you discovered what’s art and that’s it.

[owleye]

Mr. Mikeludo....

My apologies for not noticing this post earlier.

...Within which: The Timaeus, is communicated the exact concept which I have been struggling to convey, and which is:

"That the supreme god of Plato's cosmos should wear the mask of a manual worker is a triumph of the philosophical imagination over ingrained social prejudice - But the devine mechanic is not a drudge. He is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would be in Plato's conception of art: not an inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless material."

...

What better, and more perfect, example of this exact function could anyone possibly cite, than the function which I have defined in the above aforementioned post?

I think it could have been made more perfect and more exact had you been more concise. I snipped your elaboration, in the hopes that much of it wasn't necessary. I may have lost the thread of your point while you seemed to emphasize first one thing then another, weaving a particular story in a way that suggests it is more like a rant than an exposition. Nevertheless, it seems much of what you're getting at relies on an understanding of Plato. Clearly he is one of the giants of western philosophic tradition and a study of his works, as they are passed down to us, is probably a good idea, if not a pre-requisite for students of philosophy in that tradition.

The question I'd asked is about the role that philosophy plays within the discipline of art. Your response seems to have many facets to it. I'll focus on one where I get the impression from it that one of the tasks of philosophy is to seek definitions, especially of a discipline in which there is a history of conflicting claims of what it is, or what it means, art being the topic under discussion. I would tend to agree with this. Indeed, it is consistent with Socratic/Platonic education. We may know art when we see it, so to speak, but it needs examination by our intellect for it to be brought to fruition. I won't be discussing what seems to be another emphasis, that of the function of art, which seems more attuned these days to what a social scientist might engage in, despite that it may be revealed.

In making use of Plato to get at this, however, we are confronted with a problem. On the one hand, Plato has a rather dim view of art, thinking of it as imitation, a rather third world understanding of things, behind direct experience itself. Instead, he favors the intellect, one which is able to grasp the forms of reality, one that discovers the true reality by turning away from experience, it being mere shadows cast by Truth, Beauty and Goodness.

On the other hand, Plato is not really able to make use of his 'intellectual side' in carrying out the arguments he wishes to make that formulate his position about certain ideas he has. So he is reduced to making use of art, of which he is very capable. In his earlier Socratic dialogs, all his arguments came to naught. In the later more Platonic dialogues, as his ideas begin to come through, they come through in one or another poetic form, making use of analogues, allegories, stories that tell a tale that appeal to a different aspect of who we are.

So we see the Timmaeus as a work of poetic art, one in which he is conveying his position through soaring language that appeals to us as works of art do, and which, to be sure, speaks to its ultimate Truth, Beauty and Goodness in its own way, toward the all-encompassing ultimate Form. His intellect could reach only to a geometry. His art went further.

It's not clear to me, however, that Plato would be satisfied by this state of affairs. Then again, I don't think we will ever get the full story on this, though, of course, I'm far from being a Plato scholar. In any case, later on he seems to have devoted more of his time to the current political state of affairs.

There is a group of human beings who proclaim that they comprise the literally defined pinnacle of the fine art community. These same exact human beings got together and stood in front of 5-foot-tall photographs of "piles of shit," while they were simultaneously making a proclamation that they believe that they are the most sophisticated people in the world. But yet, in reality, it would be impossible for them to be more "vulger," and only capable of accessing the "lesser," and "graceless," benefits which the vulger are capable of experiencing, exactly as Plato had explained.

Well, be that as it may, you, like Plato, will be up against it, I daresay. Plato was railing at the rise of sophistry in all its forms. But Plato had the advantage of being an aristocrat, having resources to start his own academy. He had a platform in which to stand up and fight against it. Such a legacy might yet exist in the development of higher learning centers that have persisted even to this day. Perhaps this is where you, too, can find your voice. Plato's orientation was rearwards, or skywards, towards the gods in all of us. Perhaps you, as his disciple will be able to carry the torch to a new enlightenment in art.

James

[çağla]

I remember a part of his inquiry on relation of the definition of art with definition of knowledge. Generally it was about the reason, we don't have a reliable satisfying academic definition of art, because we don't have a real completed definition of knowledge in its conditions. Something along the lines of "...There isn't a 3rd condition to knowledge offered since Plato..." Or 2nd? May be in The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art?

I don't know about Danto's reliance on Plato's theory of knowledge (i.e., justified true belief), but Danto's insight about art could be yours if you gave the same thought to why Warhol's painting of soup cans hung in the MMA is considered art while the same painting on the side of a truck isn't. Note that it isn't because the art world deemed it to be art, which of course it did, rather it's because of the reason why the art world deemed it to be art. Indeed the very reason why there is an art world is that such a world has inside information about the art that those who look at a display of a urinal attached to the wall in a museum without that information and is going to think: "Are you kidding me?"

I think you can gain the same insight by wondering why an original work of art is more valuable (from an artistic standpoint) than a forgery.

James

Found it. I remembered it completely wrong.

The End of Art: A Philosophical Defense
History and Theory, Vol. 37, No. 4, Theme Issue 37: Danto and His Critics: Art
History, Historiography and After the End of Art (Dec., 1998), pp. 127-143

"...In attempting to define knowledge in Theatetus,
Socrates got as far as saying that knowledge was
true opinion-but he was aware that something more was required, and though a
third condition was added later-knowledge is justified true opinion-every
epistemologist knows that a fourth condition is required, and no one is entirely
certain what this would be. Still, my two conditions solved the problem I set out
to solve, and I had a pleasant shock of recognition when, later, I found in Hegel's
famous statement about the end of art precisely the same two conditions cited
when he attempted to explain artistic judgment: "(i) the content of art, and (ii) the
work of art's means of presentation. ..."

[owleye]

çağla...

I appreciate your research into the matter. It was helpful. Thanks.

James

[MrMikeludo]

Cagla:

No, I am not offended, but I must admit that I am a bit dumbfounded, and I can't help believing that, perhaps, you are simply toying with me on purpose, and you are, even though I don't know why, purposefully antagonizing me, and, again, even though I can't imagine why anyone would do this.

Because, this entire dialogue can be summerized by your exact misquoting of me, and when you said that you perceived me as having said this:

"I can't explain all my ideas here, it's the same thing to ask Einstein if he could explain E=mc2."

But when, factually, I did not say that at all, as what I did say was this:

"Did you know that Einstein explained E=Mc2."

You see, you perceived it exactly backwards, and, of course, this isn't even open to interpretation, or a personal opinion, as the fact of the matter is right there on the page. You accused me of having said that I consider myself to be the equivalent of Einstein, but that is not what I said at all.

Similiarly, you have done this exact same thing over, and over, and over again, and while simultaneously you are accusing me of having done this. No I have not, but you exactly have. I haven't stated a single personal "opinion" anywhere in this entire dialogue, as I have cited fact, after fact, after fact, and while simultaneously you haven't stated a single fact, but you just keep stating your personal opinion over, and over again. And which is, that everyting I have stated is wrong; but just because you personally say so, and not because of any facts that you cite.

And perhaps, I don't know, you may not even fully understand the difference, or are aware that you are doing it. As a personal opinion would be me stating:"I prefer Bach over Mozart," but a fact would be me stating something such as:"This 'sound' put on an oscilloscope is proven to be 'music,' because the periodicity of displacement versus time repeats itself in a harmonic manner, as opposed to this sound which is proven to be 'noise,' and because the second sound is discordant." You see, these are two diametrically opposed concepts, as one is a fact, and the other opinion.

And, right from the very beginning, you accused me of compairing myself to Einstein, and so you, rightly so, proclaimed your indignation for the concept that somone, who was not at all like Einstein in your opinion, would have the audacity to claim to be like Einstein. But then, when I cite a fact, such as the fact that other people are saying that Picasso is the equivalent to Einstein; and the concept couldn't be more exactly backwards, where is your indignation now: for these people, and as you yourself said:

"Forgive me for reminding it, none of us is Einstein trying to explain E=mc2."

So too Pablo Picasso was no Einstein, while they have made a public; factual, proclamation that they consider him to be, and while I never made such a proclamation, but yet you continue to condemn me and simultaneously embrace them. That's just weird.

And too even this concept is even more exactly backwards. As you stated that you, admittedlly, don't fully understand Einstein's Realitivity, and as I too do not fully understand it. But I know enough about it to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with Cubism. And as this concept too continues to be infinitely backwards.

As you state that you don't fully understand the letter of the law of Relativity, but that you understand the spirit of the law and as it pertains to art, as you stated:

"...But I know that and that's the only important point, Einstein or any other scientists dealing with natural sciences are dealing with 'things' that doesn't change and become something else in time, according to our understanding of that nature and expressing of it...And you are handling art exactly like a 'natural thing'..."

Except, REMEMBER:

"The limitations of perspective were seen as obstacles by the Cubists...They wanted to introduce the concept of 'relativity'..."

It is not me who keeps making the anology: to Einstein and Relativity, it is them. And you could simply look for yourself; as they have done it TENS OF MILLIONS of times. So, again, where is your indignation for them; do you also despise Picasso, and all Cubist pictures, because they keep compairing it to Einstein, and keep bringing "science" into "art," and as you claim to despise? And so then, unless you do despise Picasso and condemn them also, how can you possibly critisize me for citing that same exact science to substantiate what it is I am proposing?

And it continues, as you said:

"You are a musician and while explaining your opinions with a title 'What's Art,' you only talk of paintings and see your art - music - as something they should extend into to become one in accordance to become art."

And again this concept too is exactly backwards, as: REMEMBER, it is not me who is making the analogy; IT IS THEM, remember:

"...In a similar vein, Brice M- eyeballed the proportions of Cezanne's 'The Large Bathers' and interpreted them as a symphony..." "...Some artists, like (Wolfgang Amadeus) Mozart, find their voice indecently early, but (Jackson) Pollock was one of art's late great bloomers..."

And too, they use this analogy: claiming that visual art is the equivalent to "music," or a "symphony," literally tens of millions of times. Actually, I dn't know that there has ever been any artist that people don't try to define as music, in one way or another. And, actually, people do it with, quite literally, almost everything, such as this:

"...It looked like a concert. And, of course, in a way it was. Maestro Tiger Woods, using his 8-iron like a baton. The maestro walked the darkening 18th fair-way (as) the gallery flicked on cigarette lighters..."

The anology: to music, is used, quite literally, for everything, and again, for every kind of art, as I just cited. So why are you accusing me of solely doing it? Or even first citing them claiming that what they do is music: in their personal opinion, but which factually isn't, and that what I do factually is, but then I shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to receive the recognition for actually doing it, while - simultaneously, they should continue to say that what they do is? How can you possibly justify that, in any way?

In addition, I had said that I tried to demonstrate the literal visual musical function in a simplified manner, and because I felt as if the complete explaination exceeded the limits of this forum, and you said:

"Yes you can explain your ideas to a certain enough level here to discuss. If you can't give a certain crucial summery, that means you are already on the wrong road...It gives the imaginary boundries of one's way regarding their position as a whole."

I don't know exactly what it was you were attempting to do. Did you think you were "calling my bluff," or something to that affect? First you say:'You most probably can't really explain it in full, and that's why you are being vague. And if you can we will listen.' So then I did fully explain the introduction to the complete theory, and then you simply ignored it. But that's not even the point; as if you didn't want to hear it, why did you say:"Yes you can explain it (if you really can - which I believe you can not)?" This too simply doesn't make any sense, as you first said you wanted to hear it; if I really could explain it, and then didn't even acknowledge it.

And you said:

"What happened to sculpture, architecture, installations, video...countless other mediums? Are they just 'canceled' because they can't be formulized into music geometrically?

And, I thought I plainly explained that I am an actual artist, and I have personally created every kind of picture imaginable, from Jackson Pollockish pure abstract color, to the visual musical equivalents, and everything in between: portrait - landscape - fashion - still life. In addition, I hand built my own house, over the course of 4 years, and I taught myself how to draw the architecture blueprints for that house, and received an "architecture seal" on those same blueprints, so I love both architecture: the function, and architecture: the form, of the actual buildings. And I hand build custom built one of a kind pieces of furniture, and which I have sold while working as a carpenter, so I also love the function and form of carpentry. In addition, most of my friends are: musicians - artists - metalsmiths - blacksmiths - glass blowers - cinematographers - actors - carpenters - photographers, and I love everything that they do, and I also patronize all of it. But, I also explained that "Mozart," and "Bach," and the literal visual musical equivalents, simply engage the mind in a "higher" capacity.

Surely this concept is not so difficult to understand, and accept, even if we were to use this simple analogy; of compairing different kinds of actual music. Surely, anyone can understand that there is, and there should be, a difference between "Mozart," and say "The Beatles," who were perhaps the greatest contempory rock and roll band of all time, but they are still not "Mozart," and as well they should not be.

So even if we were to say that contempory art is like The Beatles, that still doesn't make them equal to Mozart, and they exactly shouldn't be, and that is the only point which I am trying to make. So let's say that contempory art is equal to The Beatles, should there not also exist the pictorial equivalent of Mozart somewhere; if you are a true music enthusiast, and if you are not why would you care?

And you said:

"You keep quoting Leonardo over and over again and with those you are trying to refute modern art - meaningless task - which is again already included in art history course. Do you realise this means that you just throw away hundreds of years of art historical and philosophical inquiry and countless art works."

This is really confusing. Because, I mean, we are talking about art aren't we, and Leonardo is considered to be the greatest artist, and one of the greatest human beings, of all time isn't he? So if not Leonardo, then who? And, no all of what Leonardo did, and wrote, is exactly not taught in art class today. As I know, for a fact, that the concepts that I am talking about are not even understood by the people who have "written the books" about Leonardo, and I defy you to find anyone else who can explain it, and in the entire world. As I did, of course, first contact all of the people who have written the books on Leonardo in the world, and they did not have even the faintest idea what it was I was talking about. And, again, you are confusing opinion with fact, as when I cite Leonardo I am citing facts which can exactly refute some of the concepts proposed by "modern art," and it is not a "meaningless task."

And, because; remember, there are people who claim that the Cubists "invented" a brand new way of painting the: "multi-dimensional viewpoint," and, of course, because we can cite Leonardo: historically - factually, and I must admit rather amazingly, we can know, for a fact, that NO they did not invent anything. And if you were to say:"So what," I can only say, again, it is not me who said it, it is them. And again tens of millions of times, and if it isn't supposed to be relevant, then why would THEY continiously: over and over again, keep saying it, it simply doesn't make any sense.

And the confusion just keeps growing, as you said this:

"And I will not get in to the definition of genius problem, its promotion and so on. Obviously you understand it as a Renaissance term, a promotion of cults..."

Firstly, I said that I recognize that Einstein was a genius, and Einstein wasn't a product of the Renaissance. So too, I recognize that Newton was a genius, and Newton wasn't a product of the Renaissance. And so too was Mozart, and Mozart wasn't a product of the Renaissance. But do you know who, factually, wasn't? The person who painted the pictures of the 2-D "flounder people": Pablo Picasso. And, do you know what the definition of a cult is? Well, it is:

"Cult: The word cult prejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre...The word (also) refers to groups (seen) as using mind control."

So, let me ask you a question: have you ever seen a 2-D flounder person walking around in reality? You can't get much more "bizarre" than a 2-D flounder person, and yet there are people who believe that Picasso was a genius. Unfortunately, that is the literal definition of a "cult," and simple mind control also. So, your interpretation of that concept too is exactly backwards.

And actually this is one of the most bizarre things I have ever personally experienced, as you also said this:

"...you claim that art should be limited with a very little group of people of people who 'sincerely' loves it. Is this concept of sincerity can also be measured geometrically? Because in your supposedly artistically true - and from my personal angle rather fascistic and elitist - utopia you need to measure people's sincerity to be of to let them into that group."

I mean, I had literally quoted what you had said:

"...Because if you consider the amount of people who is genuinely interested in art - in a continious and contempory way - it's a very little group."

You actually said it first, and I actually quoted you, and then I exactly agreed with what you said. And I mean, I actually don't mean this in a sarcastic, or condenscending, way, and I am being "sincere," but do you own a dictionary? Because the actual, literal, definition of "genuine" is:

"genuine: free from hypocrisy or dishonesty; sincere"

"Sincere." This is beyond bizarre. I quoted you, and I then exactly agreed with you, and now you are critisizing me: FOR AGREEING WITH YOU? That's just plain weird. And too do you know what the definition of "fascist" and "elitest" is? Well:

"fascist: a totalitarian - single party state" "elite: a group of people considered to be the best in a particular society - esp. of their power - wealth"

And so while I say that Leonardo da Vinci, and Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, learned how to replicate universally applicable a priori reality: actually capable of functioning as defined universally applicable emperical self-consciousness; the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through their senses, and that anyone who bothers to learn that knowledge can also share in what they experienced, regardless of their: race - age - sex - wealth - etc., you call that "fascistic" and "elitist." While simultaneously, you believe that the "art" community should consist only of the people who can afford to spend 100 million dollars for a picture of a 2-D "flonder person": which is the manifestation of one single person's childish imagination, and that's NOT "fascistic" and "elitist," and too that these exact same people should/not/should be "genuine," or "sincere," depending on whether I do, or do not, agree exactly with what you are saying, or not? And you critisize ME for:

"I ask these questions because to me, your example is floating in the air...banging at their random sides but expands 'indefinitely' as you keep saying 'This is art, this isn't."

Not being able to commit to a single substantive viewpoint. And too, you have constantly critisized me for being unable to appreciate the social, historical, and cultural context of art, and as if I am incapable of acknowledging there existence:

"...taken from all its historical context; the social and culture circumstances it was produced in. You are talking like you purposefully exclude any historical perspective."

While: simultaneously, you want to completely eliminate all, and any, scientific; factual, evidence to substantiate anything which I am saying. But the fact is, I have read countless books about art theory, and so I know that there already exists countless books, and articles, which all discuss only those things which you seem to think I won't acknowledge exists. But, I said from the very beginning:

"The primary purpose of this post is to address an isue which many believe to be subjective, but which can, now, be proven to be fact..."

That this was supposed to be different than all of those other books, and articles, and countless papers, which have, already, discussed "art theory" ad nuseum. I mean I actually can't count how many books, and articles, and papers I have read, and while they all say, basically, the same thing over, and over again. This was supposed to be different than those others, and you certainly can't tell me it isn't, can you?

Of course I recognize the historical and cultural perspective associated with not just art, but all human endeavors. But you are, again, doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing. You want to purposefully exclude all behavior science, and cognitive science, and historical facts, and only talk, exclusively, about art theory. But again, I did not mislead you, you just tried to impose your will upon me, and while simultaneously calling me ignorant of you, and art theory.

And yet again you said:

"In short as a conclusion, I personally don't see any point to agree with you or any of your opinions, because they are not standing on anywhere...To put it bluntly, you don't seem to care to put anything into perspective, but rather claim that as an artist you discovered what's art and that's that."

What opinion? I haven't stated a single opinion, not one. Not even one time did I say: I like this, I don't like that. I simply communicated cited scientific, and historical, facts, over, and over again, and while actually proving what I said to a degree that no other human being on the face of this earth can; in regards to my claim about both visual music, and the cognitive function of music. You could check for yourself. I mean, it actually couldn't be any more bizarre, as you have yet again accused me of not being able to substantiate my claim about visual music, and the cognitive function of music also. But yet, I exactly explained it for you, in a way that, factually, no other human being on the face of this Earth can, and you continue to simply ignore it. Which is weird enough as it is, but while you simultaneously continue to accuse me of being incapable "proving" it, and while simultaneously you haven't offered one single scientific fact in an attempt to refute a single word that I have said, and while you also simultaneously continue to accuse me of being only capable of stating my opinions, and that just makes it beyond bizarre.

And if that wasn't bizarre enough, you keep ignoring the fact that it isn't simply my theory, it was what Leonardo da Vinci had done, and I am simply, first, communicating that irrefutiable historical fact, which you are remaining completely ignorant of, and while simultaneously calling me ignorant. And while all along, I had simply tried to introduce you to something unique which I know very few people actually have knowledge of, and with no ulterior motive whatsoever. And so I can only quote Leonardo yet again:

"If you love knowledge for the returns you expect of it, and not for its great virtue, you are like the dog who wags its tail and makes a fuss and jumps up on whoever might give it a bone. But if it could understand the man's goodness it would love him even more. If the concept of such goodness were within his understanding."

[çağla]

MrMikedo,

I am not "pruposefully antagonising" (this made me chuckle) you or anything. (Note that English is my second language.) I am trying to use a simple language and when I feel tired after repeating the same thing over and over again, or don't get any actual reponse to what I have to say, I guess I use a short cut to express myself.

You say you haven't stated any opinions, but you have and isn't that the first reason we are here. And I personally don't agree with the points you make, because as far as I understand, I don't agree with the train of thought you follow. I counted my reasons for this. (And I used your Einstein analogy to explain something different related to your approach, I didn't compare anyone with Einstein.)

There is no such thing as "the greatest human being" or "the greatest artist" ever lived. There is no such merit.

Concepts like "the best", "the most beautiful", "the greatest work of art", "the genius of all time" are a result of primitive and ancient understanding of art.

In accepted traditional art history -which is 'Western', based and developed from Vasari's "Le Vite" (1568) as I told you before a couple of times- there are some "masters" attributed to this "greatest levels", because of this man's work, because again the understanding of that age, more than that because it’s characteristics of that period.

“…It’s characteristic of Vasari’s conception of history, shared by his contemporaries and “fellow travelers”, that it was dominated by two essentially heterogeneous principles which were to be seperated only in the course of a long laborious development (a process, incidentally, which can be observed in all spheres of intellectual endeavor). On the one hand, a need was felt for an exposition of the phenomena as to their tangible connection in time and place; on the other, a need was felt for an interpretation of the phenomena as to their value and significance. Today we have gone beyond the seperation of these two principles (a separation accomplished only in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries) and fondly believe that the “art-historical” and the “art-theoretical” approach represent two points of view dissimilar as to method but necessarily interrelated and interdependent as to their ultimate goal. We distingusih an “art history” limited to the understanding of the relations which connect the individual creations, from an “art theory” concerning itself, in critical or phenomenological manner, with the general problems posed and solved by them. And just because we are conscious of this distinction we are able to envisage a synthesis which may ultimately succeed in interpreting the historical process with due regard to “artistic problems” and, conversely, to appraise the “artistic problems” from a historical point of view.
The Vasarian conception, on the other hand, amounts –considered from our point of view- to a conflation of two antithetical principles not as yet recognised as antithetical: it combines a pragmatism that tries to explain every individual phenomenon as the effect of a cause and to view the whole process of history as a succession of phenonomena, each of them “motivated” by a preceding one, with a dogmatism that believes in an absolute or perfect “rule of art” (perfetta regola dell’arte) and considers every individual phenomenon as a more or less successful attempt to comply with this rule. As a result of this conflation, Vasari’s historical construction was bound to be a teleology. He was forced to interpret the whole succession of inividual performances as a succession of attempts to approach , more and more closely, that perfetta regola dell’arte, which means that he was forced to bestow praise and blame on each individual performance according to the degree of perfezione achieved by it. …”
Erwin Panofsky, “The First Page of Vasari’s “Libro”: A Study on the Gothic Style in the Judgement of the Italian Renaissance With an Excursus on Two Façade Designs by Domenico Beccafumi, Meaning in the Visual Arts, 1982, Chicago, pp. 206-07.

This is your way of looking to art. Note that Panofsky is a ‘traditional’ art historian and what he marks as “today” is the year 1930, which the article was first published as “Das erste Blatt aus dem ‘Libro’ Giorgio Vasaris; eine Studie über der Beurteilung der Gotik in der italienischen Renaissance mit einem Exkurs über zwei Fassadenprojekte Domenico Beccafumis” in Städel-Jahrbuch, VI, 1930, pp. 25-72.
And in the preface of this 1982 volume I am quoting from, which includes some of his selective works, he defines them as; “… now largely obsolete …” as a research field.

You keep saying Picasso is refered to be a genius compared to Einstein by some critics and art historians in this work or that. As an artist or as someone who has an insight of history of science and art you should have dismissed these ‘statements’, -which cannot be found in serious academic works, because they exclude any kind of promotion as they don’t need them- as it lacks any kind of validity. How can a scientist and an artist could be compared in any plane!? It’s ridiculous. And it can’t have anything to do with our problems of art.

Like there is good art and bad art, there is good and bad criticism, wrong or incorrect evaluation, insufficient approach, over analyzing… This doesn’t provide us a legal base to dismiss all works from modern art to contemporary examples by taking them out of their historical context.

When you are ‘evaluating’ an art work, even while giving an example, you are dissecting it in to some counterparts in itself which it’s not designed to in the first place. You are “printing” it out and by using some tools you are “measuring it” to reach another art merit measured by a machine. That’s why your example and your opinions based on this example is floating in the air and doesn’t convey anything according to the problem “what’s art”.

What’s the most important thing Picasso said about his own works? That he expressed the world around him from a different angle. "The goal I proposed myself in making cubism? To paint and nothing more. And to paint seeking a new expression, divested of useless realism, with a method linked only to my thought - without enslaving myself with objective reality. Neither the good nor the true; neither the useful or the useless."

So Picasso tried a different way of expression and he ‘succeeded’, because people first rejeting this look, in time enjoyed his own way of looking at reality.

The most important difference between Leonardo and Picasso is that after drawing and painting like Renaissance painters for years, Picasso chose to paint; evolved into express himself in a “different way”. Beyond living in a time lacks freedom of expression, Leonardo cannot even be expected to see art as an “expression” of human imagination, but only trying make a system perfect which is made by human to serve to reflect the nature and its beauty in a “true” way.

And what he said on art is a historical and an art historical inquiry as Panofsky made on Vasari. Even Panofsky defined as one of the few Olympians of art history is belonged to historical study. These are people and ideas we learn and teach to introduce some important elements of the art history as an irreplacable part of the common curriculum.

Leonardo or the question that any other artist, scientist, writer, philosopher being “the greatest human” or “the greatest artist…etc.” is a foolish inquiry. Because that’s to claim one human being can have the ultimate understanding of all aspects of the accumulation of human history and that is simply ridiculous.

From your posts, I see you as an admirer of what roughly is called as ‘classic arts’. You see art as something sacred and anything too individual; uncompromising, protesting, condemning, extreme, not certain, painful, screaming or ugly (as feeling not as the opposite of beauty) shortly, naked human struggle disturbs you when put in some different expression and labeled as art. These are my impressions, they may not be correct.

But think about how these qualities of art, esp. being protest and ultimately free; including the disgusting, the meaningless, the ugly, the extreme, the broken, the pathology, the sickness of mind and body… freed human understanding and helped and pushed us to reach a development in individualism, criticism, diversity, cultural history…

I am not accusing you with anything or “playing with you” (I am not familiar with this expression).
I tried to express simply and shortly how I look at the subject.

[MrMikeludo]

Cagla:

I don't know what your first language is, and I don't know if it is a communication problem, but when you are attempting to discuss something in a Platonic, hence philosophical, manner, and as directly opposed to a sophistic manner, you can't keep saying: "Because - I say you did this," and then not cite a specific reference, because then I can not know to what it is you are referring.

Because, you said yet again:

"You say you haven't stated any opinions, but you have and isn't that the reason we are here. And personally I don't agree with the points you make..."

What opinion? And I mean that in the most sincere way possible. As I can not know what it is you are talking about, unless you say:"This - this thing you said right here is an opinion," and then you cite the words I said. Otherwise I simply remain confused. And, again, no the reason we are here is the literal polar opposite of an opinion, as I did exactly say:

"The primary purpose of this post is to address an issue which many believe to be subjective, but which can, now, be proven to be fact..."

You see, again, I don't know if it is simply a communication problem, but I plainly said that this was the polar opposite of subjective, which is objective, and which: objective, is the polar opposite of opinion.

And you accused me of not responding to anything that you said, but, yet again, I did respond to everything that you said, and, again, I don't know if that too is a communication problem, but now I will respond to something you said, and which is this:

"There is no such thing as 'the greatest human being' or 'the greatest artist' ever lived. There is no such merit."

You state that there is no such thing as the greatest human being, or artist, or genius, that has ever lived. But yet, if you were to simply Google "who was the greatest artist of all time," you would find over 508 MILLION hits attempting to do exactly that. And if you were to Google "who was the greatest genius" of all time, you would receive over 146 MILLION hits attempting to define the greatest genius of all time (The 1st 2nd and 3rd of which lists Leonardo Da Vinci as the greatest). But yet, I am not the one who is responsible for that fact, as I can not manipulate the function of Google.

And then again, you continue to not attempt to refute anything which I have said, but I believe only contradict your own sentiment, as you said:

"Concepts like 'the best,' 'the most beautiful,' 'the greatest work of art,' 'the genius of all time' are a result of primative and ancient understanding of art."

And again, I believe that this is another example of a sophistic approach to this argument:

"Most of the Sophists are known today by the writings of their opponets - Plato, Aristotle...In (Plato's) view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice, but instead seeks power - Plato challanged the philosophical foundations of sophism...Some scholars argue that the Sophists held a relativistic view on cognition and knowledge...The Sophists believed that the whole truth is relative to the individual (and that) there can be no absolute truth...What is true today, will be false tommorow - These techniques are based on the belief that truth is relative to the individual...Truth is what it appears to be to the individual - If the action is advantageous to the individual, then it is good..."

Because, remember I did say this:

"Historically, 2-dimensional art began with paleolithic man drawing 2-D images of 3-D tangible form things on their walls..."

And I also cited this:

"Cezanne tried to make the ultimate journey back through time (as he created a picture where) one technique to create depth is canceled out by another..."

And I also cited this:

"Neuroscientists often study how we hear and play music because it is one of the few activities that uses many of the functions of the brain simultaneously - it offers a window into the highest levels of cognition..."

And I also cited this:

"When inexperienced chess players sit down to play against experts, they probably wonder what it is that makes the experts so good - New research suggests that one difference is that the experts use more of their brains - the experts (process) information in two places at once...the experts took everything in their peripheral vision."

And I also cited this:

"One way to think about this new viewpoint 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..."

So, you are accusing me of having a "primitive" and "ancient" understanding of art because you believe that my mind is stuck in the Renaissance period, and because I am explaining the function which exists within Leonardo's The Annunication. Except, if you consider the references I just cited again, with my explaining that art began 15 thousand years ago, with cavemen drawing abstracted 2-D images; of 3-D things devoid of 3-D space, then you can understand that this accusation also is backwards. Because, you see, historically - factually, 2-D art began 15 thousand years ago: in a primitive and ancient time, and when man possessed a primitive and ancient mind also, of course: correct? And those primitive, and ancient, men produced defined "primitive" and "ancient" 2-D "art," and which was simple, absolutely abstracted, 2-D images of 3-D tangible form things, and completely devoid of any 3-D space or 4-D time, and also any of the higher cognitive functions which I just cited. And then the function of 2-D art progressed for 15 thousand years, while along with the human mind, and it reached a climax, of understanding and mirrored function, with Leonardo's The Annunciation, as Leonardo did learn how to incorporate the 4th dimension, of time, into art.

And, again, I know that the concept, of the function of the 4th dimension of time which is contained within The Annunciation, is foreign to you, and also most others, but that is the definition of the above aforementioned cognitive functions. And again such as being able to cognize patterns in space/time, and being able to process multi-dimensional sensory input information, and being able to employ the use of the peripheral mind; and central nervous system, and being able to cognize 3-D space, and being able to cognize, and experience, nothingness. And all of these simultaneously relative functions are functions which can become degraded in human beings, and as they can become capable of experiencing what can be defined as regressing back to point time zero, and become only capable of cognitively functioning, in relation to these exact same functions, as a young child:

"At birth a baby's language of the senses is primative - and what he sees is flat. He uses only one eye at a time, his eyes not yet working together to sight an object 3-three-dimensionally..."

As youg children can not yet even "see" 3-D space, let alone begin to cognize it and nothingness also, and certainly can not begin to cognize 4-D time, and all of the simultaneously relative functions which I just reiterated above. And too, very recently, just a few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an article explaining that:

"Memory Process Takes Years To Fully Develop: Children have memories, but the ability to remember the origin of memories develops slowly. A new study reports that this ability matures during adolescence and fully develops only in adulthood..."

Young children can not: neurophysiologically, possess fully matured memory capabilities. And so you may ask: how is this relevant? Well, this is how:

"One thing has become clear to scientists: memory is absolutely crucial to our consciousness. There's almost nothing you do, from perception to thinking, that doesn't draw continiously on your memeory. It can't be otherwise, since there really is no such thing as a present, (while) memory provides a personal context, a sense of self and a sense of familiarity - past, present, and a frame for the future...(But) memeory is not a single phenomenon. We don't have a memory system, we have memory systems, each playing a different role (and when memory is formed) nerve cells are firing simultaneously and coordinating different sets of information..."

Because universally applicable memory; of simultaneously relative a priori 4-D reality, is the definition of uniquely humanistic self-consciousness, and the ability to experience uniquely humanistic cognitive capabilities, and that takes years to fully develop; as it does not fully develop until adulthood.

And so we can know that this concept too is backwards: that you believe that I have a primitive and ancient appreciation for art, and as relative to what you beleive to be a "modern" appreciation for art, and while beggining with Picasso and his 2-D Cubist pictures.

Because 2-D Cubism, which was introduced at the very beginning of the 20th century, is simply the cognitive equivalent of cave-man 2-D art, and which is, obviously and of course, the very definition of primitive and ancient, but not even. And because, as I just cited, the definition of uniquely humanistic consciousness is "memory" of universally applicable simultaneously relative a priori 4-D reality, and there simply is no such thing as a 2-D Cubist thing anywhere in 4-D reality, so it is impossible for a 2-D Cubist picture to be a part of any human being's memory, and so it is impossible for them to be a part of any person's consciousness.

But we can also know that in a 2-D Cubist picture there is no representation of any 3-D space, and so we can also know that cognitively: as far as being able to cognize space and all of the relative functions which define consciousness, there simply is no representation of any of those functions. So it is impossible for any 2-D picture, where there is no representation of 3-D space, to engage the mind in the capacities which I have just cited, and which does then reduce those pictures to a primitive and ancient cognitive capability, and again in reference to the functions which I just cited, as opposed to their socio-political function. And, of course, which I admit exists, and which can give some unique credence to these pictures, but I don't think to the level that you may believe it can, and again, I don't mean that in a demeaning way, just because I believe that you may not be familiar with this concept from my viewpoint.

As you did also say:

"In accepted traditional art history - which is 'Western,' based and developed from Vasari's 'Le Vite'...there are some 'masters' attributed to this 'greatest levels,' because of this man's work..."

And then you go on to cite a review of the work, and cite:

"...It's charicteristic of Vasari's conception of history - that it was dominated by two essentially heterogeneous principles...Today we have gone beyond the seperation of these two principles and fondly believe that the 'art-historical' and the 'art-theoretical' approach represent two points of view dissimilar as to method but necessarly interrelated and interdepent as to their ultimate goal...The Vasarian conception, on the other hand, amounts - considered from our point of view - to a conflation of two antithetical principles not yet recognized as antithetical: it combines a pragmatism...with a dogmatism that believes in an absolute or perfect 'rule of art'..."

And I believe I completely understand exactly what your point is. Except, first of all, I believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't Vasari a pupil, or at least friend, of Michelangelo, and wasn't he also a humanist painter, as was also Michelangelo, and too when he wrote his "Lives" wasn't it biased towards Michelangelo? But yet, you do not see me referencing any of Michelangelo's work. And because none of Michelangelo's works contain the functions which I keep referencing. In addition, I have read Vasari's "Lives," and I have also read countless art theory, and too art history books, and as I can only suppose you have also, and so I can ask of you: have you ever read - anywhere, anything similiar to the concepts to which I keep refering? I know the answer: no. So, why would you ever believe that I have been influenced by any book of any kind, or any opinion of any kind? Because, admittedly, you have never heard of anyone arguing any of these points, in relation to art before. So it is impossible for my opinion, or understanding, to be biased.

And in addition to that, I actually produced my visual musical equivalents, and came to an understanding of their function, before I had ever read a single word about art, and too before I actually went to a gallery, or museum. And the only thing I knew about Leonardo da Vinci was that he had painted The Mona Lisa, and I had only seen The Annunication after I had produced my visual musical equivalents. So it is impossible for my viewpoint to have been influenced by anyone, or anything. And except for, and as Leonardo did explain:

"Though I may not know, like them, how to cite the authors, I will cite something far more worthy, quoting experience mistress of their masters."

Reality. Reality is the only thing which had influenced me, and my exposure to, and experiencing of, reality: is the only thing which has influenced me. So it is actually impossible for it to be as you say:

"This is your way of looking to art."

As if I was influenced by anyone, or anything, else.

In addition, I believe that your interpretation of this concept too is backwards, as the actual history of moden art is not what many think it is, as:

"History of Modern Art: Modern art began with Cubism...(but) Cubism was a delibertly private, essentially esoteric art, created by two painters for themselves and a small number of intimates...(including) the wealthy American Gertrude Stein...The group self-consciously inhabited Bohemia, the world of art. To the larger world it was indifferent: art, as the neglected careers of Cezanne and Van Gogh had proved, was necessarily incomprehensible to the majority...But the group could servive because one of its members was also wealthy. Gertrude Stein probably bought more of Picasso's works (than anyone)..."

When Picasso, and Georges Braque, first painted their Cubist pictures, not only did no one buy them, but also no one even barely acknowledged them. And just as no one had Paul Cezanne, and Vincent van Gogh, as neither of them had sold a single painting in their lifetimes. And so too Picasso had barely sold a single picture, except to, primarily, his close, and very wealthy, personal friend: Gertrude Stein. And Gertrude Stein did:

"...Much of Gertrude Stein's fame derives from a private modern art gallery she assembled, from 1904 to 1913, with her brother Leo Stein. Carl Van Vechten (music critic for The New York Times) and Henry McBride (art critic for the New York Sun), did much to increase Stein's fame in tha USA. Both had wide-circulation newspaper article series in which they frequently exposed Gertrude's name to the public...McBride also made observations that Gertrude 'collected geniuses rather than masterpieces, She recognized them a long way off.' The collection soon had a worldwide reputation..."

Promote the hell out of all of the "genius" works of art which she had bought. And of people such as Picasso, and Cezanne, and all of the other artists who had barely sold a single painting, untill the "wealthy Bohemian" Gertrude Stein began to patronize them, and, of course, her own self also: and too her supposed genius in being able to "recognize" genius. So, this concept too is backwards, as there probably would't even exist a "modern art" if it wasn't for the socio-political influence of Gertrude Stein, and her publicity-machine friends in influential places.

And I don't know if you have seen "Exit Through The Gift Shop," but in it there is a scene where there is a woman, who is described as a "art collector" only, walking through her house, and she is showing her art collection to the producers, and she stops at a "Bansky" and says:"This is my Banksy - he's a genius. I tell all of my friends, who own Picasso's, you must get a Bansky." (I believe it was Picasso - I'm citing from memory.)

And so, yes I exactly:

"You keep saying Picasso is refered to be a genius compared to einstein by some critics - as an artist - you should have dismissed these 'statements'..."

Do dismiss those statements. But the problem is, no one else dismisses them, and everyone IS exactly influenced by them. And, truth be told, I would buy a Van Gogh, or a (few) Cezanne's which I have seen, and maybe even a Picasso, if I had known them, but not for hundreds of millions of dollars. As this concept too contradicts your sentiment. Unless you do actually believe that their paintings have an intrinsic value of hundreds of millions of dollars. You have yet to tell me if you do or do not.

And you have yet to tell me whether, or not, you consider this; that these pictures sell for hundreds of millions of dollars, to be:

"Like there is good art and bad art, there is good and bad criticism..."

Good critism, or bad critism: that people define these people as geniuses, and then say, because of their supposed genius, that the pictures, themeselves and because they are supposed to be a representation of genius, now become worth hundreds of millions of dollars. So, in your mind, is this good for art, or bad for art? And too, then what should be the criteria, for defining something as genius or not? Should there be a special panel, subjectively critiquing all pictures, or should it be a public opinion poll of some kind?

And yes, I can believe that Picasso at one point in time said:

"The goal I proposed myself in making cubism? To paint and nothing more. And to paint seeking a new expression, divested of useless realism, with a method linked only to my thought - without enslaving myself with objective reality. Neither the good nor the true: neither the useful or the useless."

Because, to be perfectly honest with you, I don't even know what that means. And if you could explain it for me, I would be glad to hear it. Because, how can something - anything, be both "neither useful or the useless"? I mean, wouldn't that make it "nothing"? Because, if it is not "useful" and if it is not "useless" than what is it. Even though, I believe I know what he means by that, because I too have created pictures that were like that: just kind of mindless and fun. But then, how do you go from that to Picasso saying this (again I am citing from memory so it might not be spot on):

"My mother told me that if I chose to be a priest, I would become Pope. If I chose to be a soldier, I would be a general. Instead I chose to become a painter, and I became Picasso."

You see, I can understand the mindless: "fun," approach to making art, but then how do you go from that to proclaiming that you consider yourself to be the one of the greatest, if not the greatest, artist of all time? And too while that statement: made by Picasso, contradicts your previous statement, that:

"There is no such thing as 'the greatest artist'..."

There should exist no such thing as a "greatest artist." So, again where is your condemnation for Picasso for doing exactly that: claiming that he considers himself to be "the greatest"? And for what? Having some fun?

And too this statement is exactly not correct:

"So Picasso tried a different way of expression and he 'succeeded,' because people first rejecting his work, in time enjoyed his own way of looking at reality."

As I already cited that the primary reson for his success was Gertrude Stein, and her influence. But too, you are removing the socio-economic, and socio-political, context which you keep telling me is so important. Because, remember, movies were invented in the beginning of the 20th century, so, without the invention of movies, would Picasso have ever become completely successful? Because, remember, prior to the invention of movies, pictures served that function. And, a 2-D cubist picture doesn't communicate a "dialogue" of any kind. So, how long can a person look at them, before they become bored?

And I am especially confused by this:

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

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

And you said yet again:

"From your posts, I see you as an admirer of what roughly is called 'classic arts.' You see art as something sacred and anything too individual; uncompromising...naked human struggle disturbs you when you put in some different expression and labeled as art..."

Except, I am going to emphasize yet again: in general no. What I do have a problem with, is when people - any people: advertise - promote - describe - explain - proclaim - define, a picture, any picture, as"The pictorial equivalent of Mozart," or:"A symphony," or:"Pictorial music," and then when I say to them:"Well, no - that isn't, but this is," they do assail me, or attack me, or belittle me. So, that concept too is exactly backwards; as I am exactly not the one is "uncompromising," they are.

And, again I will reiterate that I never said that we should ignore the cultural, socio-political, or socio-economic, impact upon: art - movies - sculpture - architecture - dance - music - etc., but I also don't feel as if we should strip all of those things of their: cognitive - emotional - cerebral, qualities either. And to me it appears as if you believe that we should simply ignore those things. I simply feel that we should consider all the implications involved with all things, regardless as to how they are, or are not, defined.

P.S. I had lunch with my brother today. My brother was graduated from a prestigious college, with honors (Swarthmore Pa. USA) as a philosophy major. He explained for me that mine is a rather extraordinarily minor, as he said: "Well probably, of one - yourself," viewpoint. So, I can certainly understand your frustration in trying to discuss these concepts with me, and, if nothing else, I certainly appreciate your patience with me, and I am grateful for it, as I do realize how peculiar it can be to hear these things for the first time: in a "philosophy" forum no less. So thankyou for that.

[çağla]

First of all MrMikedo, I am not putting myself in a higher plane thinking that I bestow you some pieces of my precious mind. No. So there is no need for thanking. I've studied art history. More or less, I think I have an idea on art. But of course it can be insufficient or wrong. From that accumulation and experience, as much as my capasity helps, I am trying to tell you what I understand from your posts.

I never meant you take Vasari's work as literally, example to example and and follow its every rule. I meant your frame of mind looking at art falls in to that 'logic', which is belonged to a certain pariod in history.

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

Yes something close to it. And that doesn't lessen Leonardo's worth. Leonardo cannot be "creative" as in the sense we understand it today. And again that doesn't affect his art historical importance.

You are doing the same thing to Leonardo, which you accuse some contemporary critics doing to Picasso or to other artists today.

When Picasso, and Georges Braque, first painted their Cubist pictures, not only did no one buy them, but also no one even barely acknowledged them.

This goes almost for every movement, even for periods of art; i.e., Gothic-Renaissance, though I am not comfortable with the usage of the word “period” loosely. In a rough explanation, when you do something different than it’s been done before and exhibit it, the first likely response is: “What the hell is that?” So it doesn’t indicate anything negative for those works, if anything it’s usually better the more the audience hates.

When you are talking of Paleolitic art as abstract, you forget it wasn’t “done” to be abstract.

I like this. Danto: “The critic Thomas Hess wisely observed that "Abstract art has always existed, but until this century, it never knew it existed."

Without 19-20 century painting we wouldn’t be able to have the look for the abstract art.

I don’t know what you require of me as scientific explanation. But I havhe a suggestion. Do you know the book “Critical Historians of Art” by Michael Podro? It’s a famous book, a crucial source on which questions to ask about art in general and how to treat a work –as data and object of research, as an example- but it’s also a historical study. Roughly from Herder to Panofsky. And includes some great researchers like Semper and Riegl who mostly were avoided in other historical works. (Tough Riegl has been kind of back in the last decades) I wanted to cite an explanation from it, but as I am not at home, I don’t have it with me. I think, it will be very useful for your personal inquiries. And I think you would enjoy it.

Let’s try to see it in a simple way.
I think you take self and media promotion of genius too seriously. Don’t forget it was very strongly present in Renaissance (borrowed from ancient Greek and Rome) and the fact that in 20th & 21st century the trait is just following the same tradition. By the way, don’t forget Picasso lived in the age of mass communication. He had the advantage of a microphone, television, camera...
More than the fact every work of art is unique as an item, today most of the works are installations and videos (just making a generalisation to make a point) and to buy a painting of a dead famous artist always pays more back in money –because he is dead and cannot paint anymore, so supply is very limited- and practically you just hang it on your wall or preserve in a suitable box. It has a historical, artistic and economic value.

Today I’ve read on the news paper that Richard Hamilton died at 89. He is generally refered to as the father of pop art. Now his works cost more than they cost two days ago. Watch the market, sooner or later –in close future- somebody will buy a Hamilton ten times expensive than the previous owner of the piece.

Imagine what would happen when Damien Hirst died. Especially with a sudden and unexpected death. I just whistled. May be he wouldn’t be able to buy one of his works back this time, but I would expect a decent fortune paid for any of his works.

When I ask myself, if I were that rich -I am generally broke so it's just a fantasy- would I buy a painting? Honestly, I think I would. I would love to have a Fikret Mualla for example, because I sincerely love his paintings. But I have to add, I hate the fact that there are people having a Tiziano in their home and they don’t even lend it to museums. (This happened, but I guess it was resolved later.)
Well these are my ramblings for today.

[MrMikeludo]

Owleye:

Please forgive my delayed response, but I believe the points you make are, exactly, the points which I am attempting to convey, and the points which I believe make this approach so difficult.

As you stated:

"...we know art when we see it, so to speak, but it needs examination by our intellect for it to be brought to fruition..."

As this is the exact concept to which I keep referring, except, I believe not in the way that most people may think, as I believe there does exist another, well, "kind" of intelligence, and which doesn't mean what some people may think it means, as, actually, it means the opposite of what I think most, intelligent, people might be instinctively inclined to think it does, at first. As I am not talking about some esoteric, or exclusionary private language, accessible only to members of a secret society of some kind, and introduced only within the 21st century, but an intelligence which, ironically, was experienced more by truly intelligent people in the past, than most, but of course not all, people today. And such as people like Plato, and Da Vinci, and Mozart, but also Jefferson, and Franklin, and Kepler, and Kant, and which I believe we can define as: universally applicable empirical self-consciousness, or the knowledge that all of mankind can have in common gathered through their senses.

Which is different than what I believe most people believe should be our usual approach to art. And which, the usual approach, is, I believe, for someone to look at something, and anything artistic, such as: 2-D pictures - sculpture - movies - dance - television - etc. and then, after - and this is important as I would emphasize AFTER, viewing the medium, to talk about its meaning, and significance: cultural - historical - political - socio-political - etc., and which, of course we should absolutely also do, but while in addition to the things which I am talking about. And which, as this is the thing which I am having so much trouble conveying for some reason, exactly doesn't detract from art, but adds to it: to make it more of a complete experience.

And which is what I am talking about, when Thomas Jefferson wrote this:

"...we ride serene and sublime above the concerns of this mortal world, contemplating truth and nature, matter and motion, the laws which bind up their existence, and that eternal being who made and bound them up by those laws. Let this be our employ. Leave the bustle and tumult of society to those who have not talents to occupy themselves without them..."

And so we can ask ourselves, what did he mean by that? What did he mean to "ride serene and sublime," and to "contemplate truth and nature and matter and motion," and also to "Leave the bustle and tulmet of society to those who have not talents to occupy themselves without them," as this was America 18th century. So, what bustle, and what tumult? I mean, there were no televisions, there were no movies, there were no art museums or galeries, there were no spectator sporting events, there were no automobiles, there were no amusement parks, there were no shopping centers, so what bustle and tumult?

This is what I believe he means: To become capable of experiencing the function which is capable of being experienced when someone engages their universally applicable empirical self-consciousness - to experience reality in a unique way, and while using their "talents" which they have purposefully developed, and also too quite often subconsciously, and which is why I believe so many more people experienced it in earlier centuries: than the 20th and 21st.

And which is also exactly what I believe Kepler meant when he said this:

"Geometrical non-tangible forms: God wanted us to recognize them, when He created us after His image, so that we should share in His thoughts. For what is implanted in the mind of man other than numbers and magnitudes? These alone we comprehend correctly, and if piety permits us to say so, his recognition is of the same kind as the devine, at least insofar as we in this mortal life of ours are capable of grasping part of it...Geometry is one and eternal, a reflection of the mind of God. Nature loves these relationships in everything that is capable of being related. They are also loved by the intellect of man who is created in an image of the Creator."

And what Kant meant when he said this:

"...We have already traced to their sources the conceptions of space and time, by means of a transcendental deduction, and we have explained and determined their objective validity a priori. Geometry, neverless, advances steadily and securely in the province of pure a priori cognitions, without having to ask from Philosophy any certificate as to the pure and legitimate origin of its fundamental conception of space (and) time...for inasmuch as only by means of such form of sensibility an object can appear to us, that is, be an object of empirical intuition, space and time are pure intuitions which contain a priori the condition of the possibility of objects as phenomena, and an a priori synthesis in these intuitions possesses objective validity."

And what Leonardo meant when he said this:

"True sciences are those which have penetrated through the senses as a result of experience and thus silencing the tongues of disputants, not feeding investagators on dreams but always proceeding successively from primary truths and established principles, in a proper order towards their conclusion. This may be witnessed in the principles of mathematics, that is to say, number and measure, termed arithmetic and geometry, which deal with discontinious and continious quantities with the utmost truth..."

And introducing this concept, is the exact problem which you state here:

"I think it could have been more perfect and more concise. I snipped your elaboration, in the hopes that much of it wasn't necessary. I may have lost the thread of your point while you seemed to emphasize first one thing then another, weaving a particular story in a way that suggests it is more like a rant..."

I have experienced this quite literally countless times, and every single time I try to explain the concept, and as I have tried every method of explaining it, it becomes very confusing. But not because the concept isn't legitimate, or because it is a "rant," but simply because it has no audience. Because, I know that the art community doesn't want to hear it, because it contradicts their basic foundation; of absolute abstract theoretical interpretation, and the music community doesn't want to hear it, because they look at it and say:"Well, that's a picture," and the math community doesn't want to hear it, because they too say:"Well, that's a picture - so what," and so it just goes on, and on. And, of course, usually the philosophy people are the last who want to hear it, because they too believe that it contradicts their basic theoretical existence, but, obviously, not in relation to people like Plato, and Kant, and Jefferson (who can be defined as a philospher), and others who have also taught the "geometric" concept.

And, again, this is the exact main problem, you know the demonstration which I explained, of the non-tangible geometric structure which exists within The Annunciation? Well, that is NOT just some coincidental, abstractly made-up: happenstance, and meaningless demonstration, it is a very delibertly function: of a geometric non-tangible formation. In other words, it is not as if you could just take a picture of something - any scene, and then start drawing lines on the picture, and claim that that represents something. And this is where the problem begins, because every time I try to explain it, I always try, basically, one of two methods, of either first demonstrating the non-tangible function, and then they say:"So what," and just lose interest. Or I first try to explain the "language," and then, again, people say:"So what," and just lose interest. And, to be perfectly honest with you, I realise exactly whay most peole lose interest and I don't. And it is because it directly affects me. But too, I have come to learn that there ARE some who do have an interest, but I was always incapable of finding that "person," who is in a position of influence, to introduce it to the world, so that the ones who do have an interest can know it exists, because I do know that there are some.

And so, I don't know if I have already lost your interest. But I will keep going, and by trying yet, again, another new approach, by first explaining a basic function which is central to the entire concept, and which I think, in itself, is, or could be, rather significant, and which is the concept of the mind "moving": "jumping" - "leaping," and experiencing what I believe is a real quantum mechanical affect, and which is not supposed to be possible. And, regardless as to whether it is a quantum affect, or not, I know it is an affect which has been, exactly, either overlooked, or not fully understood, or simply deemed irrelevant.

And which is this: Human beings can only focus upon one single two degree point while at any one single point in space/time, and it is important to recognize that we can identify it as a single "point" in simultaneously relative space/time, and such as point: A. And to understand this, you can try this: Remain focused on a single word printed here, such as: "this," and then; without moving your eyes from that word/point, attempt to read another seperate, and single/discrete word/point: "here," and which is impossible. But, while you do remained focused upon this single point: A, you can"see" this seperate, and discrete/distinct, point, of point: B, within your peripheral sight/mind. And which means, and this is the exact part that most people have yet to simply realize, that in order to "see" point: B - while you remain focused upon point: A, the entire non-tangible form image of, the seperate, and exactly distinct/discrete, point, of point: B, must be simultaneously projected "from" point: B, and "to" the seperate, and descrete/distinct, point, of point: A, and while it is also being simultaneously projected into our minds.

And this is, both, the thing which most people have simply overlooked, or not fully understood, as everyone else states that the non-tangible form images: of the words, or all things, are only projected "from" their position; in space, straight "to" our minds, and through our eyes, and as they have yet to realize this function, but probably because it has never been relevant, but it is exactly for the function to which I keep refering. So you can imagine this point: "A," and a second simultaneously relative seperate distinct/discrete, point, of "B," but instead of them being randomely located in those positions, in these relative positions, of: A--------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. And then imagine that that tangible line: from A to B, is exactly not tangible, but the non-tangible form, and purposefully affected, "projection," "from" simultaneously relative, and purposefully positioned, point: A, and "to" simultaneously relative, and purposefully positioned, point: B, and as Leonardo did explain:

"Point is said to be that which cannot be devided into any part. Line is said to be made by moving the point along."

And so, when you begin to understand this function, and I mean understand it instead of abstractly reading about it, you can begin to understand that when Leonardo produced The Annunciation, he exactly did NOT simply "put" things "in" the 2-D picture randomly, he very purposefully "positioned" them, within 3-D space, to create the function of the simultaneously relative coordinate point system, and to purposefully affect the function of the non-tangible form geometrical equations. He very purposefully positioned the 3-D tangible form elements, to affect the function of 4-D time, and so that the points are formed along the perimeter. And then, with the completion of the projections, he formed the purposefully affected non-tangible form lines, and a simultaneously relative coordinate point system, which when you experience the projected function, which I just demonstrated, enables you to experience the affect of the geometrical equations, and the music.

And I don't know whether, or not, you read what I defined as the visual equivalet, and cognitive function, of "seeing" a scale is, but if you were to walk outside and stand upon a sidewalk, you could see exactly what that is. Because if you took a picture of that sidewalk, and then printed the picture, you could see that the section of sidewalk, you were standing upon, at point: A, would appear to be a little bit wider than the next section, at point: B, and so on up to the horizon line. Now if you replicated that function up to the sky, you could understand that each of those sections of the sidewalk would be the function of the notes upon a scale, as each section of the sidewalk would be a simultaneouly relative fundamental frequncy modulation, and/or note, among the "scale," and from point, to the next point - in the next section and in the distance, and then the next point: at the next section of sidewalk, and so on up to the sky.

Now, take this function: of actually standing upon the sidewalk and seeing each individual section functioning as a scale: of point to point to point to point, and in conjuction with the demonstration of the projections, from point: A, to point: B, and you can understand that going outside and experiencing that function on a daily basis, is, quite literally, equivalent to a music student "practicing their scales," and as Thomas Jefferson did explain:

"Walking is the best possible excercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. While this gives a moderate excercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind..."

And too, that is the, basic, literal equivalent of a music student practicing their scales, level of understanding which is the elementary function which needs to be fully understood, and appreciated, to begin to define exactly how the rest of the complete functions, of: Mozart - Da Vinci - Kepler - Kant - Jefferson, and Plato too, are all related and the same thing, and as I stated:

"...He (the supreme god of Plato's cosmos) is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would be in Plato's conception of art: not an inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless materal..."

And as opposed to Plato's view, as you stated, on "regular" art:

"...Plato has a rather dim view of art, thinking of it as imitation, a rather third world understanding of things, behind direct experience itself. Instead he favors the intellect, one which is able to grasp the forms of reality..."

As we can understand that Plato had a dim view of art, in that point in time, because, according to his understanding of art at that point in time, what would you rather have: a picture of a flower or a real flower? Well, the real flower is better than a picture of a flower. But what Leonardo created in The Annunciation is something which is better than a real flower: or two real people - some trees, and a building. The composition is what transforms the sum of the parts into something greater than the individual real parts themselves, and is exactly equivalent to a musical composer creating a whole which is greater than the parts.

And too, this is the understanding of: universally applicable empirical self-consciousness, as every human being who has ever lived has walked outside, and, sometimes consciously and sometimes subconsciously, experienced that function, of seeing the simultaneously relative function of the "scales," and too seeing the non-tangible form images of the points being projected to, and from, point, to point, to point (and no you do not have to actually be on a sidewalk to experience it as it just exists - the sidewalk analogy just simplifies it).

So, none of what I say is a rant, as it is all related. But, who wants to be bothered to read all of that, and try to understand exactly how it is all related. And, too do you exactly know why? Because, one day there was a friend of a friend who had come to my house, and she saw me reading a copy of Leonardo's "Notes," which was rather substantial in size. And she also happened to be an art student. And when she saw me reading Leonardo's Notes, she said to me:"What's that?" So I told her:"Leonardo's Notes," and she said:"Well, art students don't want to (have to) learn (all of) that." And I am talking about how it is art, so who else could I possibly expect to be interested? That's why I keep trying.

And so, I don't even know if you are still here. Because, who wants to be bothered to read all that? Because, I mean I do it, because it personally affects me. But, why should anyone else do it? But which is exactly why I keep having so much trouble communicating it. Because it is all related, but you can not know that until you have both read, and understand, the functions. But this is why I keep trying new ways of explaining it, and why I provided a definition of the demonstration in conjunction with those references, about the language of the mind - consciousness being patterns in space/time - etc.

So, if you would like for me to try to explain more about how it is all related, let me know, because I can.

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

Auriniff:

I am sorry, but I have made the mistake of replying to a post that wasn't addressed to me before. Is this post addressed to me?

MrMikeludo

[mtbturtle]

aaaaaaaaaaaargh

50 words or less can anybody explain to me what is art according to MrMikeludo?

[Positor]

50 words or less can anybody explain to me what is art according to MrMikeludo?

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

Am I close?

[rrushius]

aaaaaaaaaaaargh

50 words or less can anybody explain to me what is art according to MrMikeludo?

hahaha. I was feeling the same way.

[MrMikeludo]

Positor:(Thankyou.) mtbturtle: rrushius

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

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

MrMikeludo

[rrushius]

I don't know if symmetry is necessarily the definition of beauty--it may seem as if it were, but there are beautiful things that go beyond symmetry. To give just an example that comes to mind, a naevus (or, alternative spelling since the program is correcting my spelling, a nevus), or a birthmark add a touch of beauty to a person, and yet, it is precisely something which breaks symmetry. Since you seem to like definitions, remember also that the expression "beauty spot" is a synonym for birthmark.

In one of the abandoned underground labyrinths in Algiers, where major poets from around the globe meet once every four years and each of them anonymously writes the best poetry they have produced during that year, never to make use of it again in their published writings (sacrificing their work to anonymity), I once found these beautiful verses:

I am the birthmark of the void
pigmented on its terrible face
deriding the eternal balance
with a new kind of symmetry

The words "new kind of symmetry" are not to be taken as really being some higher form of symmetry, but rather a derision of the notion that everything symmetrical is beautiful. A supermax prison also is symmetrical, but I wouldn't call it beautiful. The Trump Tower in Chicago is symmetrical... ;)

[rrushius]

Marshall, I quoted those verses from memory, by the way :)

[MrMikeludo]

rrushius:

Yes, but surely you mean a birth mark, or beauty mark, on Miss America, and not on the Wicked Witch of the West, or some old hag. You can have the Wicked Witch of the West, I'll take Miss America. (There is a reason why Miss America is never 5'0" and 300 lbs.)

I have a very beautiful niece, who has a relatively large amorphous, and rather dark, birthmark right below her eye, and it absolutely doesn't detract from her beauty. But I don't think it is simply because it "breaks" the symmetry of her face, but because it rather adds an air of mystery to her, as if it adds a punctuation mark to her beauty.

Also, I'm sure you, or no other human being, would ever listen to a recording of the sounds of tires screeching, and glass breaking, and car horns blaring, turned up to "11," all day long, as that would be noise. The simpliest definition of simple dynamic symmetry is "music." And there is a reason why people listen to music all day long, and never listen to the sounds, which I have just mentioned, all day long.

I believe also, the reason you would consider the symmetrical supermax not beautiful, is not because of the intrinsic form of its structure, but rather because of its function. (I don't even want to think about Donald Trump.)

MrMikeludo

[MrMikeludo]

owleye and the forum:

I have come to realise that not everyone's computer formats the page the same.

I very deliberately edited my post to owleye so that the demonstration: of the projection of the line from point A-----to------B, would be on the same line, but it doesn't always read that way. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

MrMikeludo

[rrushius]

I did not say that all birthmarks are beautiful--or even for that matter that the birthmark taken by itself is. In fact, there are some birthmarks which, though they may add to a person's face overall beauty, if you focus on the birthmark alone, it may creep you out. On the other hand, I don't know if they add an air of mystery to a person's face, though a scar might--and scars too, though suggestive of ruin, destruction, and danger, sometimes may make someone look good. But since you mentioned it, both the birthmark and the scar, are sort of aberrations. But, since you take symmetry as the definition of beauty, then, how do you explain the attraction with mystery, spoil, and ruin?

As for the supermax prison example, I did not mean that it is not beautiful only because of its function--it simply is not beautiful--no more than a very straight pole standing upright and parallel to another straight pole, or even if you add two more and make it four so as to form a square, or add still more so as to form a lot of squares-- is beautiful.

As, I hope it has become obvious, when the whole symmetry thing is explained so dryly, it loses all appeal. There's no mystery to it. So in the end, it seems, it is not symmetry which is beautiful, but perhaps what you yourself suggested with the example of your niece--i.e., mystery, to which you can add then, all the other good ones that I suggested.

And who knows what exactly appeals to us in music anyway, and what it is that moves in us when we listen to it? The feeling is so undefined that to call it this or that is always going to be a miniscule amount of what really goes on. You call it intellect, I may even call it the loss of intellect, letting oneself go, and be carried away by its power, and we may still both be right.

[owleye]

....
This is what I believe he means: To become capable of experiencing the function which is capable of being experienced when someone engages their universally applicable empirical self-consciousness - to experience reality in a unique way, and while using their "talents" which they have purposefully developed, and also too quite often subconsciously, and which is why I believe so many more people experienced it in earlier centuries: than the 20th and 21st.

My pea-brain isn't able to translate this so that I can situate it within a context I can relate to, but there seems to be something missing that perhaps you can shed light on. What you write seems to be directed to a work of art having something about it that is meaningful, but which has no particular relationship with any artist who created it. It's as if the work is disconnected from the artist once it's completed. Naturally I could be wrong here, and quite willing to be corrected. However, if I'm right, it would seem to suggest that forgeries have the same artistic value as the original.

And what Kant meant when he said this:

"...We have already traced to their sources the conceptions of space and time, by means of a transcendental deduction, and we have explained and determined their objective validity a priori. Geometry, neverless, advances steadily and securely in the province of pure a priori cognitions, without having to ask from Philosophy any certificate as to the pure and legitimate origin of its fundamental conception of space (and) time...for inasmuch as only by means of such form of sensibility an object can appear to us, that is, be an object of empirical intuition, space and time are pure intuitions which contain a priori the condition of the possibility of objects as phenomena, and an a priori synthesis in these intuitions possesses objective validity."

Well, though I can't say I'm well-versed in Kant, I have made a study of him, and especially of his writings dealing with space and time. As such, when he speaks of intuition here, he is restricting himself to that portion of our mind responsible for ordering the objects of experience in space and time. Moreover, his motivation is to demonstrate how the truth of Newton's laws of motion can be grounded in a priori forms of intuition (i.e., space and time). He, of course, punctuates this in accordance with the structure of categories of understanding and judgment. In any case, I can't see the relevance of this particular citation. (But that may be because I don't see it as comparable to the other citations.)

However, with respect to art (of which he has little to say, instead focussing on the nature of beauty, the sublime, and genius), he gives an interesting account of our aesthetic judgment (aesthetic of course is that portion of his critique involving our intuition (not to be confused with what we mean by this term today) that deals with space and time) in which there is a kind of purposeless purposiveness to what is being considered derived from a disinterested take on it. Our understanding seeks an objective conclusion, which, because of its subjective nature can only get as far as an expectation that others would agree -- to be distinguished from something merely being agreeable, which folks would concede is 'just a matter of taste'. (He only surmises that vision and hearing are capable of the former, whereas all our senses are capable of the latter.)

I have experienced this quite literally countless times, and every single time I try to explain the concept, and as I have tried every method of explaining it, it becomes very confusing. But not because the concept isn't legitimate, or because it is a "rant," but simply because it has no audience. Because, I know that the art community doesn't want to hear it, because it contradicts their basic foundation; of absolute abstract theoretical interpretation, and the music community doesn't want to hear it, because they look at it and say:"Well, that's a picture," and the math community doesn't want to hear it, because they too say:"Well, that's a picture - so what," and so it just goes on, and on. And, of course, usually the philosophy people are the last who want to hear it, because they too believe that it contradicts their basic theoretical existence, but, obviously, not in relation to people like Plato, and Kant, and Jefferson (who can be defined as a philospher), and others who have also taught the "geometric" concept.

I don't know. My limited schooling in the philosophy of art has a place of some prominence for a theory in which form is central to art. It's possible you are not finding an audience because of the method of your presentation, not because what you wish to say would be foreign to them. I confess myself not being able to follow the main thrust and can only surmise that Plato's Forms are a major component. Part of the confusion, I think, has to do with how you insert 'function' into your essay. It is often said, especially in biology, that form follows function. Or that function is determined by structure. As such, I think it reasonable that function does exist, though there are philosophers who deny it, believing it only to be an anthropomorphic projection. However, in so far as we're discussing art, if function is important, I can only imagine that the purported function is something derived from the mind of the artist, and as such, might require knowledge of the artists purpose in creating the work. And this gets back to the previous question about the role of the artist.

....
And this is, both, the thing which most people have simply overlooked, or not fully understood, as everyone else states that the non-tangible form images: of the words, or all things, are only projected "from" their position; in space, straight "to" our minds, and through our eyes, and as they have yet to realize this function, but probably because it has never been relevant, but it is exactly for the function to which I keep refering. So you can imagine this point: "A," and a second simultaneously relative seperate distinct/discrete, point, of "B," but instead of them being randomely located in those positions, in these relative positions, of: A--------------------------------------------------------------------------------B. And then imagine that that tangible line: from A to B, is exactly not tangible, but the non-tangible form, and purposefully affected, "projection," "from" simultaneously relative, and purposefully positioned, point: A, and "to" simultaneously relative, and purposefully positioned, point: B, and as Leonardo did explain:

"Point is said to be that which cannot be devided into any part. Line is said to be made by moving the point along."

And so, when you begin to understand this function, and I mean understand it instead of abstractly reading about it, you can begin to understand that when Leonardo produced The Annunciation, he exactly did NOT simply "put" things "in" the 2-D picture randomly, he very purposefully "positioned" them, within 3-D space, to create the function of the simultaneously relative coordinate point system, and to purposefully affect the function of the non-tangible form geometrical equations. He very purposefully positioned the 3-D tangible form elements, to affect the function of 4-D time, and so that the points are formed along the perimeter. And then, with the completion of the projections, he formed the purposefully affected non-tangible form lines, and a simultaneously relative coordinate point system, which when you experience the projected function, which I just demonstrated, enables you to experience the affect of the geometrical equations, and the music.

Here you seem to express the view that we can understand the purpose (function) of a (part) of a work of art by its structure -- its form. We don't really need the artist to figure it out. It is all in the structural arrangement of the components of the work. The work of art doesn't have value in so far as it is moving (having emotional content). Rather its value derives from the way the functional parts formally serve some whole, something which apparently our aesthetic eye is attuned to experience in that way.

...

I'm afraid I'm not up to reading your lengthy posts. I'm sure there is something there, but it's just too much for me. Moreover, I'm not all that familiar with art and its history, so many of the references you give will go right over my head.

James