Re: What is art
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.