Go Mowk, You are giving me a reversal complex, no only AMI not unhappy, but unreservedly and unabashedly can claim a complete surprise, as to what made You think that.
The feeling is beginning to crawl up my spine, that at times I am expressing too burrowed in thoughts that I may be totally unaware of.
To tell You the truth, my survival depends on total acceptance of every body and mind.
Please rest without further ado, and I am no exception to be concerned about whether I may have said or omitted to say something.
But as a parting shot, deep caverns may harbor insidious and uncommon content.
See you give me a big old fat hug and when I least expect it you plunge your dagger in my side. Caught a bit of kidney there. I should have brought my dagger to the knife fight.
Every artist is obsessed with the thing of their obsession. Objects, ideas anti-objects anti-ideas. You can see a fair amount of what a society thinks by what artists are obsessed with. Barometers. Artist Memo_ [sic] you’re OK in my book. Like I got a book.
“Every artist is obsessed with the thing of their obsession. Objects, ideas anti-objects anti-ideas.”
Exactly
Objectivity entails being able to think both sides, consistent with variable possibilities , that come into conflict and only if the matrix of their commonality can strive to overcome their differences.
If such was not the case, conflict would be unthinkable and posited into unconscious affects.
I can’t guess.
You’re closed to possibilities, perhaps.
Maybe art is dead, along with the gods, for art needs transcendence that opens the floodgates through which the belief in the impossible becomes possible.
Maybe art is dead as a venue, but not as an absolute end of momentary experience of it. (It’s absolute transcending of it’s imminance)
But the monkey is most resembling to man of all primates, and the muse merely draws up the frames*that may evolve the curious into the real possibility of being thought.
Being thought changes
curiously odd work
of art into the
tought
Man.
Yes, I intuit it, as I made it up
Why Art And Science Are More Closely Related Than You Think
Consumer Tech
Has an art ever become a science?
Answer by Dave Featherstone, Professor of Biology and Neuroscience
Science = art. They are the same thing.
“Both science and art are human attempts to understand and describe the world around us. The subjects and methods have different traditions, and the intended audiences are different, but I think the motivations and goals are fundamentally the same”
More to the point:
OPINION & REFLECTION
Science and aesthetics – two complementary views of the world
According to Kyiv-based genetics student Anastasiia Semenova, scientists “still seek and create aesthetic elements in science”. Here she shares some reflections after reading the book To Explain the World: The discovery of modern science by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg.
This article is a part of the February theme of Crastina: Science, poetry, and science poetry.
We often hear about science as a strict, serious, and complicated field, and of art as an irrational and easy way to look at the world. Yet it is amazing to see how often these thought-to-be opposite worlds cross over with the creation of greater ideas.
Science and poetry aren’t often thought about together, nor compared. This is understandable. The first thing that comes to mind when we talk about poetry is literary devices, like meter and rhyme, that are used to create poems. This, indeed, has little to do with recent scientific breakthroughs.
“The first scientists of Ancient Greece were, in fact, poets …”
But then we could talk about poetry in the wider sense, as a language used for aesthetic effect rather than rational and clear explanation of an idea. In this case, one may find that poetry and science aren’t that far apart.
The first scientists of Ancient Greece were, in fact, poets, as they wrote in poetry, vaguely proposing their theories. But they were also poets in the wider sense. They were not describing their experimental findings – instead, it was a mere speculation about how they thought the world might be organized. Their writing was not backed up with any data, they didn’t explain how they came up with their thoughts, and the content wasn’t meant to be taken literally. The importance of the Greek scientists was actually that they were looking for aesthetic explanations of things, preferring the world to be organized by artistic standards.
Now scientists do not write their research in poetry. In his book To Explain the World, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg points out that “much of the writing of physicists barely reaches the level of prose”. Still, they seek and create aesthetic elements in science.
“Symmetry and balance also work for better impression on what is both rational and irrational within us …”
For example, the molecular level of life offers us countless opportunities, as described systems are often so complex, that they need to be simplified to be understood. Why not do that poetically, and go from rigid explanations to something less serious? When the idea is beautifully formulated, it makes it more believable and easier to understand, which some professors use to explain topic to their students. Science is indeed impossible without imagination, and the opportunity to interpret the information that is not meant to be taken literary boosts creativity and makes the learning process easier.
Aesthetic appreciation is not only in the text. I believe that progress of fluorescent labelling wouldn’t be so impressive if, while giving us the fantastic opportunity to see how life works on that level, it weren’t for how mesmerizing it looks under the microscope. Symmetry and balance also work for better impression on what is both rational and irrational within us, along with the colour scheme. Haven’t we all spent time choosing the right fonts and colours, and arranging images for posters and presentation slides? Visualisation itself is important and often crucial for explanation, but it is its appeal to our sense of beauty that makes it noticeable and memorable.
Overall, science and aesthetics – poetry, if you please – do not belong to the opposite sides, they’re interweaved in the search for new ideas about the world, and provide different prospectives on it.
Science and aesthetics – two complementary views of the world - February 6, 2017
FEBRUARY 6, 2017/0 COMMENTS/BY ANASTASIIA SEMENOVA
Intuition is not new, it is the compilation, then the compression of prior learning. For Kierkegaard, aesthetics were of second tier to religion, and the connection between them is not tenuous. Metalhysics’ closure has basically been a slow and painful process, and aesthetic formalism has outlived it, even in terms of retaining it as it applies to the acquisition of theory through hypothesis.
Hypothesis, or a thesis below, translates literally into primordial sequential foundations to knowledge.
Someone along the line, had to intuit such formation, a good example is Meno, whereby intuitive knowledge made available mathematical theorems without reference to learning per as.
Mathematics possesses the same foundations pertaining to the principles of art, as it’s expression: vis. elements of depth, artistic distance, forms of balance, perspective, and the like. The poem has aesthetic structural relations as well, and science derives also from extensions from it’s basic meaning structure, generally: scio~know.
Does or can a poem , premordially anticipating scientific knowledge be an inspiration to later insights? Did not Jules Verne anticipate the very scientific objects which we occupy our life here, doing things faster, assuming more?
Is not the often talked about simulation of AI, do to implode in a generation or so, based on a calculus derived from musical harmonics?
Degrees are recognized individually, a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Science, even though the two schools often share a common campus.
As do the practices and processes.
Social science vs physical science.
Liberal arts vs Fine arts.
With a bachelors degree in art I am not going to land a job in a physics lab.
It is interesting the requirement of reflexivity.
Science = Art, Art = Science. The equation is false. The same meaning is not implied.
One might say science uses art and art uses science, but to state they are equivalent? The same?
While music and math may share similar qualities the symbolism used in their expression are quite different. Fairly sure engineers aren’t solving load equations playing the flute.
In the sense You are exploring it, You are right. So far, I’m exploring MUSES, IN a like sense as nihilism
In the sense of intuition, even there is a legitimate math categorized as intuitive math.
The way You are thinking about it is in the form of separation as in an epistemological distinction.
I am thinking in terms of a derivative sequentiality, with an antiderivatory re integration, or de-differentiation of sources of value.
It is incontestible that such partial differentiation is not only functional and useful, but new, possibly anti-derivitively affirmed by similar associative possible sources.
In practice, in this way, it is plausible to go back into an approximate past, and re-assemble a varied new form of outcome, where a parallel universe covers it.
If You wonder about this Mowk, don’t forget relative spatial/temporal states support this view, and I am trying to think of some works of equivalency within the art world.
My main interest and obsession has been focused on Dali, ( curious, what You think, and/or how You feel about his early stuff, before the melting watch paintings were done)
The focus of interest does have a symbolic sugnificance, watches melting symbolize relative quantum time, however in an earlier work, ’ The metamorphosis of Narcissus, is of a higher symbolic content shoring a way deeper derivation.
I Will not hazard here about that particular painting, because literally, the callousness of the depth would be undermined.
Why?How?
The framing of the substance, the literakness of the title, could not give credence and justice to the levels at which we could sustain such a conversation at this moment.
It has not succeed to established the perimeters, enough, to actually frame it, as being on the same page.
We may or may not come to that, and it may cause embarrassment to try to do so.
Curving the ball, does have a purpose, and so does hardball pitching. We must come to terms with basic assumptions, then go on from there.
I do agree with You in part, as You do with me (when pointing to differing contests in some other reference) as partially differentiated , cut away pieces.They can be reassembled in a collage to form a matrix of multi dimensional construction, whereby the need does not show , may not devolve into one dimensionality.
Classical representation is one dimensional, and there are still artists that feel at home there.
I do too, but the collage and point counterpoint between the surreal and the classical is what Dali does, exceedingly well.
Sorry, I spent too much time thinking about a response and as result the effort in construction was lost and I’ve blown the opportunity afforded. Consider it art without object. I hope you got my meaning.
I did . And less construction , with the intention and the projection of the object.
With that in mind, the analysis into the depth of Narcissus will be attempted, from the point of view pertaining to debt.
Why debt, ?
Because it entails a furitive glance into the depth of the cave.
Furitive and callasouly audicious.
That You lost the construction, implies a constructed possibility a centripetal force of power that overpowers the centrifugal outward force, of the original light out of the cave of darkness.
It undermines it’s self in it’s very being toward it’s existence, it’s prior incarnations negated by failed incantations, it stays within the secure confines of it’s durability.
It waits
And waits, for the likes of Godot.
The deconstructed deity is a shadow , a ghost of the underworld, not realizing that it’s appearent sense of safe harbor is merely a temporary refrain caused by two almost identical pressures temporarily holding each other at bay.
Dali, I am drawn into the scene, the reflections in the water the color hues of an approaching sunset, the long shadows cast from a single light source, perspective, and impressive use of size and scale, leading one in, but into what? If the scene is symbolic it’s meaning escapes me. Scattered subjects of disconnected origins. Disjointed. I don’t get it. Of what meaning? A cracked egg with a flower, A hungry looking animal eating, a checker board with a statue, A group of people on a road. If it were not a known artist from a recognizable period I would call it fantastic, not surreal. If not for the history I would need a program, an artists perspective of why he chose the subject matter, I assume there were reasons, but I don’t get the meaning. It strikes me as an odd scene. Difficult to relate to. Is it relative to a history a reaction, I can not tell from the painting what it is. I’d need a program. Much of the art from that period and beyond doesn’t show me anything. I don’t get a feeling of being communicated to.
The above for example, are you just sticking flowery words together? “It waits” And waits for the likes of Godot"
Meaningless, without some reference? I’d have to be aware of the play and it’s context. I’d have to be impressed enough by Samuel Beckett, to give a shit. Meno_ you again give me far too much credit. You are wasting a fine education on the likes of me.