Here is something I found on this website.
Hume (1711-1776): Asserted that all metaphysical things that cannot be directly perceived are meaningless. Hume divided all knowledge into two kinds: relations of ideas, i.e., the knowledge found in mathematics and logic which is exact and certain but provides no information about the world, and matters of fact, i.e., the knowledge derived from sense perceptions. Furthermore, he held that even the most reliable laws of science might not always remain true.
Now Hume was not the first to tackle this issue of "Knowledge." Not by a long shot. This question of truth - what it is, how to categorize, etc, has been the subject of philosophers' inquiries for as long as there have been philosophers. Plato and his "Platonic Form" were on the right track, but took a couple of seriously wrong terms and ended up dismissing the arts as unreliable, arbitrary endeavors contrasting against truth. And the problem that has remained unresolved is that of "objective" vs "subjective" truth.
I have the audacity to state that Cohry and I have solved it. I don't make this statement out of ego, or because I want to be confrontational or controversial. Rather, I make it because I want to be perfectly clear regarding the point, purpose, and significance of these present writings. I want that understood because I believe that disseminating these ideas is a very moral act.
Having gotten that bit of unpleasantness out of the way, let us proceed from where we left off. Obviously, the question "what is the art of light" is one that follows from the previous discussions of the arts of time and of space respectively. And I don't doubt that the answer is equally obvious - visual art is the art of light.
Let me now point out a very important fact that clues us into the accuracy of the assertion that light must have its own truths, and therefore its own art:
Math is the art of space. The currency of math is the particle. Particles are objects, and many particles make up larger objects. Objects exist in space. True math - i.e. math that is resonant art - describes the truths of particles faithfully.
Music is the art of time. The currency of time is the wave. Waves are defined by their frequency. Frequency is a function of time - that is to say that they only exist in domain of time. True, we only encounter them PHYSICALLY as they manifest through a given medium that is comprised of particles - i.e. a medium that exists in space. Nevertheless, the fundamental nature of a wave is frequency, which exists only in time. And try this: "hear" a pitch in your head. Conceptually, waves do not require space any more than particles, conceptually, require time.
Well, I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Image - visual art - is the art of light. The currency of light is, um... well it's a wave. No it's a particle. Or it's neither. Or both. Or... Well, don't look to me for a definitive answer to this. It's lightstuff, whatever that is. It's the currency of light. I don't know enough physics to even posit possible ideas of how we might better understand "what light is" in the way that we understand "what a particle is" or in the way that we understand "what a wave is."
But I do know this. The question is unanswerable in some sense. The reason it is unanswerable is because the truths of each of these "articles" or "foundations of existence" cannot be pinned down by any of the others. Quantum Physics is all about how time can't be used to pin down space and how space can't be used to pin down time. Einstein's relativity theory is all about how light can't be pinned down by time and space.
Our failure to answer the photon or light wave question stems from the fact that we are trying to pin down light with space and time respectively. Light shrugs and happily pantomimes either for us, but it's just being agreeable. It really is light. Not time or space.
And light has it's own truths. They are the truths of image. I'm hard pressed to come up with much more explanation here about this. It has to do with color, I know that much. And contrast, and all the other things that you can adjust for in photoshop. And I can tell you with certainty that visual truths are just as absolute and eternal as musical and mathematical truths. But it's really hard to say why.
The anecdotal tales of myriad visual artists attest to the fact that it is so, however. A visual artist may start with a very clear vision of what image he wishes to manifest. Or he may start with none at all. One thing, however, is certain. All successful, "true" pieces of visual art manifest the strictest possible adherance to a standard.
Let me explain. I make visual arts. And I don't have much of a natural talent for it. That is to say, I don't visualize well. I don't have a very clear inner image that I am working towards. But what I do have is a very clear sense of when something doesn't faithfully manifest that "inner image," and what part or parts of the work are at fault, and what might be a good candidate to remedy those failures. And I have perserverance. I can spend many hours on a little square of flesh trying to get it to look right.
But right according to what? Well, it isn't actually an internal image that I am comparing the work against. Some artists do visualize well, but not me. It is the truth that I am comparing it against. It is the truth that natural visual artists' "inner images" represent. That is to say, the image that artist compares against is the platonic form of the particular entity of "light truth" that he is attempting to faithfully manifest when he make visual art, if he is doing his job right.
And even though I can't see it very well, simply because I wasn't born with good "eyes," I have a very sensitive "untruth geiger counter" and it beeps every time something ISN'T truth. That's how I make good visual art. I get rid of the untruth until what's left is fairly faithful depiction of an immortal, visual truth. In other words, a successful piece of lookin' art.
The bottom line is that Hume and everybody else was barking up the wrong tree. "Hume divided all knowledge into two kinds: relations of ideas, i.e., the knowledge found in mathematics and logic which is exact and certain but provides no information about the world, and matters of fact, i.e., the knowledge derived from sense perceptions. " Is it clear now where Hume went wrong? Mathematical truths are not more exact because they're logical - "the relations of ideas." Mathematical truths feel more exact for precisely the opposite reason - because their physical! They're the truths of space - of particles and objects. In reality though, they are no more or less true than musical truths or visual truths.
And yet Hume was partially right too. Because it is so that each of these truths is closest to its true nature while still inside of the person channels it. Beethovan heard his ninth symphony perfectly in his head. He heard the melodies and tone and tempo and everything else about it perfectly in his head. And he was fortunate in that he never had to hear it's mortal manifestation fall short, which it necessarily did.
The painter knows what color that crazified sun in his picture should be. And he can mix colors for hours to try to get it just so. But chances are the shade will be just hair off when he's done, and the paint has dried and weathered a bit.
And math in the real world? Well, math approximates about as well as image or music. Which is to say, it approximates well enough to imitate the truths of stasis for a while in our dynamic universes. But no better than that.
Fortunately, that's all we need it to do. To approximate truth is all we ask of arts, because it is all we need from them.
And artists are able to produce work that gets close enough to be wholly rad. Which is really fortunate, because artists are the only connection we have between ourselves and truth. And I, for one, have no desire to live in a truth free world.
So that's it then? Space light and time are the articles. Math, music and image are the three true arts? No. There's at least one more installment. Probably two.
There's a fourth article, remember?
It is the article that I call Agence. And it's currency is language.
The theory: Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four Part Five Part Six
No comments:
Post a Comment