On Destiny and Freedom of Choice.

I believe that our lives are preordained and our destinies are fixed. But here is necessary to mark that our fates are predetermined only in a sense of their meaning (content). As for the shapes or forms, we can choose them pretty freely. For example, let us imagine that a great painter was born. But in his life he never painted. In fact he died as an unknown and ordinary person and nobody found out that he was a great (potential) painter.

Since his birth he had a number of possibilities of becoming one, but he chose none. A choice is a relative notion and ultimately depends not so much on the person but the circumstances, time and etc. Never the less the great artist was born and no matter what his life was like he died being a great potential artist. His mistake was that he failed to recognise his artistic potential and therefore didn’t choose pursue it (or pursuing wrong forms). His destiny was fixed in terms of meaning, but he had the freedom to follow a different path

The World Through My Eye.

1.  Every matter has an infinite number of Communication Tubes. Each CT is a parallel world. The number of CT is endless because the amount of matters is infinite too.

2. The infinite Information is cycling along the Warped Circle. The shape of The Circle in the fourth dimension approximately resembles number eight.

3. The point of intersection of The Circle is the real world with the observer in it (presence tense). The first half of The Circle refers to the Future, the second half  – the Past.

4. As long as the Future and the Past are interconnected there is a mutual influence on each other. Therefore choosing the Future we can choose the Past and vice versa.

5.  The Past is unreal. The Future is unreal. The Observer is real. The Present is a moment of constant motion through Space and Time. It is a point where waves from the Future and Past clash with each other. The Present is a probable location of an Object in Space at the moment but its path is indeterminable.

Reason After Fantasy.

Reason is based on previous experience and knowledge, Fantasy, being an element of thinking too, appears to be in opposition with the experience because it is based on novelty. Relationship between Fantasy and Reason should be regarded as a co-relation between the determinate and the subsequent. It should be said that Fantasy does not always determine sober calculation but it never happens vice versa.

Pure Art Negates Beauty.

Plato wants to cut off Art from Beauty because he regards Beauty as too serious a matter to be commanded by Art. Kant, on the other hand, wants to cut off Beauty from Moral because he restricts Beauty for the same reason for which Plato restricts Art – to get it cleanly out of the way of something more important. Plato is a great moralist and he reasonably suspect that Art has no moral message and therefore should not be regarded as a serious matter. Kant, in his turn, sees Art as an instrument which is capable of carrying morals and admits pure Beauty in nature only at levels of satisfaction in simples forms, such as levels and flowers.

In my turn, I want to cut off both Beauty and Morality from Art because pure Art is not subjected to judgements unlike Beauty and Morality.

When we make judgement we first resort to our memories in order to recollect something similar in the past. If the object excels all previous memories in quality, we label it beautiful. So the principle of our judgement is based on recognition, comparison and appreciation. On the other hand, we do not appreciate Beauty unless we can see its purpose or function. For example, a red stain on a nose does not rouse thoughts about beauty (unless there is a special purpose) but painted red lips certainly can adorn a woman’s face. So far,- as long as Beauty serves the Idea, we love it.

Here is another example, a flower in a filed is beautiful and is perfectly embellishes the scenery. The same flower crushed and besmeared by excrements of passing cow does not excite such highly aesthetical emotion. It has lost its purpose and therefore its image of beautiful.

Now we approach the second point of our judgement – EVERYTHING IS BEAUTIFUL IF IT GOES IN HAND WITH OUR MORAL PRINCIPLES. Morality appears to be a very relative notion, and so does Beauty. For instance, in Latin American Indian tribes a woman with her nose pierced with bamboo sticks and dreadfully deformed ears (and other things) is regarded as highly beautiful, whereas an European does not admit this barbaric conception. In some African tribes to offer one’s own wife’s sexual services to a respectable guest is to hit the standards of hospitality. So far, Moral and Beauty are such close sisters that it would be wrong to mix them up with a purpose of pure Art.

We experience Art without understanding it. Art work its secret claim to supreme power blurs the distinction between the presence and the absence of reality, and it tries to cover up a new imagery of the distance between the Known and the Unknown. Beauty has a tendency of becoming a standard and to reorganise Chaos in accordance with one’s moral, whereas Are desires to develops magical structures to reveal the presence of God or his real, whereas Art dwells  in the unconscious. A human’s soul longs for the unconscious, it is no longer trusts visual reality.

Pure Art is free of Morality and our imageries of Beauty because it is based on Novelty and therefore it is not subjected to recollection from the past experience. Art as the great general universal informat is an obvious rival, not necessarily a hostile one, to philosophy and indeed to science. It is born of our refusal to explain the Concrete and highlights and glorifies Human’s rebellion against inevitability  of our downfall.

Philosophy after Art.

Arts are the most efficient means of communication between objective and subjective. Art as Absolute, determines direction of Human minds, whereas Philosophy attempts to define the location. An artist is a carrier of certain philosophical notion and his work, as object of arts, is a mediator in this communication. He is in conflict between the apparent and the real which stirs the mind towards Philosophy. Art constitute appearance, Philosophy questions them. Art and Philosophy are the polar units in world acknowledgement and appear to be in constant opposition to each other. Task of Philosophy lies in substantiating the stimulus of Art. Art undoes the work of Philosophy by deliberate fusing knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. So far if we consider this interplay on example of horse and cart, Art will be the horse and Philosophy will be the cart with all human knowledge and experience mounted on it.

A Brief Description Of The Past And Future.

Imagine yourself standing at the middle of the room. There are big mirrors instead of the right and left walls. Let us suppose that the left wall is the Past and the right wall is the Future. Now look at the Future and you will see yourself in the Past then in the Future and in the Past again and so on, infinite progression. Now look at the left wall and you will see almost the same picture only with a different starting point.

The Idea Of Art.

A process of communication with Art can’t be elementary. Art is some absolute that doesn’t succumb to logical reasoning. Human’s perception and thinking about it is rather relative, at the same time there exist eternal or absolute notions, as for example death, art, belief (by this I don’t imply elementary or conventional religion but the essence of everything which includes in itself all answers on main philosophical questions). Like every Absolute, Art exist outside human reason and has enormous potential energy. We humans are able to get charged from this source. (I think this somehow explains a purpose of existence of Absolutes).  For instance, DEATH inspires homo sapiens for LIFE,  we take an energy in order to use and enjoy our given lifetime before the fatal hour. Our belief in logical structure of the world makes us expect an existence of answers to the questions of the our being. So, the birth of philosophy, which in its turn what ever it is, is a pure faith even if in existence of principles which this philosophy attains. Art as an Absolute inspires artists, poets, or musicians to create. And this itself may serve as the answer on the essence of being. Art like every Absolute is subjective in our perception and it exist of the subject.

Creativity is a process of communications with Art. Every reproduction of Art, like for example poetry, music or a picture is not Art by itself but only in a sense of its purpose. This appears to be only a reflection of the Absolute. Therefore it is not the original. So, for instance we cannot compile ??? identify ourselves with our reflections in the mirror. No matter how precise the resemblance  is, the reflection is only a reflection of the original. Therefore a picture is only a kind of a bridge between a subject and Art. In any case this reflection or reproduction does not explain anything but only constitute an appearance of energy of absolute.

But how to distinguish  a fake from real reflection in the case of Art? The answer to this question cannot be simple and monosemantic. There are no objective premises for determining what we call a masterpiece. It has a conditional character and therefore the judgement is subjective too. On of the objective criteria of defining a masterpiece is, by my words, a “principle of catching”. For example, there are two pictures by one artist in front of you, approximately the same  theme. One of the pictures is O’K, but another “catches” and you cannot explain why. Trying to find the answer we can expose the picture to theoretical analysis of its composition, interpretation, colours, etc. We can continue endlessly.

But are this criteria genuine? Can we explain why we love? If yes – it is not genuine love. The same is with a masterpiece. We feel some kind of attraction, we experience energy which evokes strong emotions, that we find ourselves in no state to reason or analyse, yes, in Art a priority belongs to feelings, to intuition rather then to logic.

Now we approach the next question. If we take an original, for example, a canvas of Van Gogh and would copy it precisely. Why I think it wouldn’t consider it to be a masterpiece? Because this would be a reflection of the reflection. Therefore it would stand even farther away from the Absolute. Like a reflection of a mirror’s reflection, for example, is less precise than the original and so forth. The more we reproduce, the less these reproduction has the original value. We can conclude that the rest value lies in the process itself of giving birth to novelty, in discovery itself. A genuine masterpiece gives us some kind of revelation, a strong feeling, but the more  we get used to this feeling, the less value in this masterpiece would remain. In evaporates proportionally to our process of accustoming to it and a complete familiarity with this picture is equivalent to its death. And it is not a masterpiece any more.

Some may object and say that there exist eternal masterpiece which have not lost the strength to evoke deep emotional experience for centuries like works of Leonardo, Rembrandt, Van Gogh and other. I believe that they are no more masterpieces (at least for myself) but monuments to their past strength and glory. For those who are to used to them properly there won’t be any further revelation or novelty. So the pictures lost the power of influence upon the viewers. The King  died and in homage to his achievement a monument has been erected. His contribution in Art has been appreciated and he is forever in our hearts and in History of Art. The Eternal can be only Absolute, only the Idea of Art and not the object itself.