THE DEEPER SIDE of the design of ART in science
by Henryk Szubinski
HIgher scientific creadbility of artists.
No loner the realm of the cultural side of the sociology of expression, art has become
something greater ,just like every other scientific subject and category. Basically this is
due to the nobel prize winner:
"Frank Wilczek " and his work "A Beautiful question " covering everything from the
DOORS of perception and references to William Blake.
So art is now relatable to the higher realms and the side taking of the basic psychology
that change things nowadays to the sociology and the definite missing values of art
as scientific in current methods of defining it.
Perhaps that's the meaning of it, that it is without question ,the same recall on demand
that art has aquired as the scientific reliability of it.
So how does an artist like myself start to define it. Well there exists language and language
may be scientific. Mathematical language used in art may by direct means become a
true representation of science.
Basically using universes of data to define a work of art is no longer difficult.Any scientific
data may be used as art and interpretations of science.
Naturally any scientist must ask the question. So to now, every artist must ask the scientific question.
So that for example " I'm an artist, who is working scientifically, how do i use the laws of scientific
approach in art now that i know it is science?.
The beautiful question andswers it.
"is the world a work of art ?"
Here is my answer as a scientist and artist.
Because science is deep in it's implications just like water is deep. Going into it for too long
may suffocate the explorer in the depths of the ocean. But by depth, the aquired knowledge
dives deep because it can, for a time aquire the answers it needs and gently return to the
hard and real surfaces of the physical world.
Just like a scientist takes from nature, depth takes from nature but also under the condition
that the question is asked to the depths " may i aquire such a value and then return to the
world of real and tangible things so that you know what has been taken from nature so that
nature is not mistaken into giving things away more than once. As such ,conserving energy
and time.
beauty has long been the "shamefull question " in regards to the strickt laws of science. many scientists
have tried to do away with art totally.Because the definitions of nature as art and science based on the
multiples of, for example: Making specific music in relation to leafs, flowers, trees as a scientific artistic
discover in limitless variables of color, tone, spectra, sound, wind, gentle light vectors and the ways of nature,
the slow motion summer rains, the falling snow flakes and their way downwards in millions of rotations,
Together with the passage of time any art is now any science.It seemed that some were opposed to this
science because it showed humans as weak in reference to the gender differences that in fact, are not
gender related. It is natural.
Art like : design, painting, music, film ...are now scientifically based on sociology whereby any science
may be used in reference to contact with other scientists together with artist scientists.
Stepehn Hawkings "why do your theories only prove that
darkness of space has no other function than to create gravity ?"
Thus ,it was easy to realize the belonging to sociological definitions of any science as the way in which humans interact
and balance exists as
Steven Greer Quotes:
a beautiful light a beautiful tone is at the hear of everything that exists in creation as the GREAT
ART that develops by unbounded mind. Pure infinite love ,awareness, consciousness of ART.
We are now creations just as science defines it by biology and new directions in medicine as thought
and language to be guided in action and thought to manifest what we want that is in our path.
my comment:
The social interactions of science by way of the type of scientist you are, may be used to shed light on the various needs of scientist and sociology more so now than ever because art has been scientifically defined. It's mysterious allure is gone. In place of it, art has now scientific credability.
The old ways seemed to use art and it's language as an unknown. It's explanations used to serve only psychiatry and the concept of sociology (I studied sociology at Lund's university 1993), was unthinkable because very few artists who had psychological problems were even considered for social interaction and integration. That was because the GAP was filled by the CULTURAL unknowns. So art science has sociology and needs no longer the "cultural implications" that was once the method of interpretation of artists who's language relied heavily on the cultural translations and points of view of many artists.Then, the artist was, the "culture translator" and limited to the choices of Culture, sociology , science, psychology,and being an artist. The fact that having each of these at the time of the beginning of the 20 th century would be unthinkable. People who had 5 things in their head simultaneously were outcasts.
By art being a science , any theory of light may be introduced by the new category "scientific artist"into a friendly gathering of scientists such as mathematicians and physics students and any other science by introducing the concepts of light as universal. So that the appearance of the art scientist has the same chance at science than every other scientist by way of making good arguments for the light and the obvious result of knowing what various scientists think about light together as a group so that each scientific representation has the basic sociological input to be able to relate to other people as the scientific, having method,and winning arguments for the peace that results between various scientific arguments.This leads to evolution of science.
extra note:
That artists were persecuted by the very choices they made to be artists in the beginnings of the 19 00's by way of the right choices and luck ,like random number generation and the resulting success as defined by the "IST" in the "Artist" as the 5 variables and the resulting 3 variables and the remaining 2 problems left for the culture to decide on which was the best . The change in time and history was totally left over to belief systems and total unknowns.
I thank Wilczek for defining these questions by their scientific explanations that make art a science.
The social interactions of science by way of the type of scientist you are, may be used to shed light on the various needs of scientist and sociology more so now than ever because art has been scientifically defined. It's mysterious allure is gone. In place of it, art has now scientific credability.
The old ways seemed to use art and it's language as an unknown. It's explanations used to serve only psychiatry and the concept of sociology (I studied sociology at Lund's university 1993), was unthinkable because very few artists who had psychological problems were even considered for social interaction and integration. That was because the GAP was filled by the CULTURAL unknowns. So art science has sociology and needs no longer the "cultural implications" that was once the method of interpretation of artists who's language relied heavily on the cultural translations and points of view of many artists.Then, the artist was, the "culture translator" and limited to the choices of Culture, sociology , science, psychology,and being an artist. The fact that having each of these at the time of the beginning of the 20 th century would be unthinkable. People who had 5 things in their head simultaneously were outcasts.
By art being a science , any theory of light may be introduced by the new category "scientific artist"into a friendly gathering of scientists such as mathematicians and physics students and any other science by introducing the concepts of light as universal. So that the appearance of the art scientist has the same chance at science than every other scientist by way of making good arguments for the light and the obvious result of knowing what various scientists think about light together as a group so that each scientific representation has the basic sociological input to be able to relate to other people as the scientific, having method,and winning arguments for the peace that results between various scientific arguments.This leads to evolution of science.
extra note:
That artists were persecuted by the very choices they made to be artists in the beginnings of the 19 00's by way of the right choices and luck ,like random number generation and the resulting success as defined by the "IST" in the "Artist" as the 5 variables and the resulting 3 variables and the remaining 2 problems left for the culture to decide on which was the best . The change in time and history was totally left over to belief systems and total unknowns.
I thank Wilczek for defining these questions by their scientific explanations that make art a science.