Archive for October, 2017


Pans Horn Gunship by Michael Matthews


The second album: CHILDHOOD – INSIGHT INTO THE CAOTEE: 04 Come and get it


// hacking the very substance of art: programming chaotic magic

The question written on this quantum plane is whether we can understand the reality of art at the subatomic level and if it brings new philosophical understandings to art.
// In the quantum domain the energy matching value will reflect the energy values of all the elements down to the smallest subatomic fractals.

//Fractal is a way of seeing infinity by exposing the abstract geometrical nature of chaos, thereby providing us with an immediate link with nature. // Weinberg, Ian. ‘Quantum Leap’. p.36. And focussing on the spaces between is possibly the way to realise art.

We hope we can safely say that the subatomic position can serve as a useful metaphor to understanding art and help us draw our reflections into a sharper focus. In the 20th century we have been alienated from the world and culture through a mechanical and egocentric philosophy.

Newton’s mechanics assume as fact that shapes, masses and periods are changed only by physical interactions, presuming a state rather than a change. The quantum theory constitutes facts in accordance with uncertainty relations
//Feuerabend, Paul. ‘Against Method’. p.271 and entities sharing similar energy values vibrate in synchronicity.

Relatedly, on the Cartesian plane the self-evident laws of nature are mechanical. We can go so far as to attribute the first vision of a clockwork universe to Descartes more so than to Newton. //Mechanical ideas provide an understanding of all physiological ‘machines’ //as if a flash of lightning just is a discharge of electricity.
//The body is seen as subjected to mechanical laws, which makes the soul ‘the ghost in the machine’, connected by a tiny gland in the middle of the brain!
//Flew, Antony. ‘Western Philosophy’. p.300.

The subatomic view, when applied to art, may thus help to unanaesthetise the alienation caused by mechanical and egocentric acts which have, in the 20th century, resulted in a modernist approach to culture. This can be clearly demonstrated by observing the ‘progress’ of 20th century art. Mies van der Rohe’s ‘glass boxes’, for example, stand in cold defiance of nature and what it represents, and act as clear symbols of man’s alienation from nature. When these or similar type structures are destroyed in a simple, or relatively low scientific way, we are emotionally placed in irrational fear and confusion. The Newtonian mirror is broken and we are forced to face our, what Russell has called, ‘unyielding despair’, giving us a feeling of temporality and a loss of potency:
// “…the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins . . .” // Russell, B. ‘A Free Man’s Worship’, in Mysticism and logic, p.45. //Counter agent: Turbulent or stormy flow is defined by strange attractors.
//I don’t want to be a hero or a soldier. I just want to die (an artist).

Some recent artists use digital technology, graphic design, video production, fractal geometry and special wizardry effects to create, shall we say, works that vibrate with physicality. No wonder some of these images reveal logical paradoxes that could not possibly exist in a mechanical world! In contrast, Realists like Thomas Eakins, it has been proved, traced their images from photographs projected onto canvas’s.
//The New York Times – Section: Arts.//Pliny the Elder, historian of 1st century ancient Rome, said // “All agree that [the origin of the art of painting] began with tracing an outline around a man’s shadow.” //Microsoft Art Collection – ‘Shadow Play’.
Since the 11th of ‘November’ 2001 we can say that finally we are finished with the modernists’ existential hero-type view of the world. It is now bizarre for any culture to concern itself with the ‘corporate-I’; what is needed is a philosophy and culture that are rooted in substances of physicality.

The object in art had, in the later part of the 20th century, posed a problem because of its positioning in an art context. Duchamp and others have brought this dilemma to the fore. The existential object of modernism needed to be rooted in the matrix of art in order for meaning to occur. The concept of ordinary and meaningful meaning was the central focus of art. The jumps in meaning and context were tenuously established but not seen as simultaneous occurrences. For Duchamp and others this non-locality of meaning has been marginalised, whereas Einstein even saw ‘instantaneous non-locality’ as “ghostly and absurd”. // There exists a connectedness of matter in the quantum domain, a kind of order without periodicity. // “I shall speak of ghost, of flame, and of ashes”- Derrida, Jacques. Of Spirit. Only through understanding that the meaning of art is inherent in its arrangement and that this arrangement is continuously changing or relative to its structure, which is in itself in a virtual flux of states, can we recreate our culture and our selves. This approach is obviously a theory that is moulded out of the stuff of quantum physics – as Zohar points out: “Quantum theory is our most successful physical theory ever”. // Zohar, D. The Quantum Self, p.5.

The problem with this theory, possibly because of its instability, is that it can lead to a romantic view – an ‘anti-realist’ view to meaning. What it has is the potential to lead to a reconciling of the object\s and their meaning/s.

When this approach is applied to the art object, it can be seen in a state of ‘complementarity’ in relation to its meaning/s. Wollheim had already realised this issue in 1968. He questioned the problem of where art exists and asked: “What is art?” As with the quantum theorists, Wollheim found that the art object could only be seen when looked at in the context of art. When the same object is observed outside of the context of art, it becomes another object, like, or unlike, every other. //the particle/wave\argument of the quantum theorists.

Wollheim’s argument looks at what he called the ‘physical object hypothesis’, where the object and the meaning become divorced, thus meaning is always in a state of flux, pending on the position of the observer, artist and object. As Wollheim develops his argument it becomes evident that he realises that the very nature of art is a possibility that can and cannot exist at the same time. Quantum theory, when applied to art, questions the enduring contexts of art: //the idea of the object as enduring; //as surviving as appreciated;
//that it is seen or heard; //that its structure is ordered or able to be ordered;
//that it must be valuable, etc. The result is an art that is of the world and in the world:
//the installation is an artwork that is in an environment that functions within the matrix of art
// but is also an autonomous environment which offers keys to meaning.

The nature of art and its meanings can be seen as possible only through a state of complementarity:/between art\observer\artist intent.

never never repeating repeating