Comment 73903

By MrMikeludo (anonymous) | Posted February 07, 2012 at 20:20:51

There does actually exist a scientific reason why Pollock's drip paintings eventually became the accepted definition of art.

At one point in time there was no such thing as what we think of as an “artist” today, and artists held the same position in society as carpenters, blacksmiths, or any other skilled craftsman. At this point in time, prior to the Renaissance, the masses could not read, so painters were employed by the church to paint murals; to teach their lessons to the masses, and by the rich to paint their portraits, and while artists stilled were not considered “fine art” practitioners, as the fine arts were mathematics, music and science.

Then, in 1480 Leonardo da Vinci did produce a literal visual musical equivalent, and which is the pictorial equivalent to musical notation, and which also requires an understanding of the language to be “experienced” by the viewer. But, because it is a literal visual musical equivalent, it has the intrinsic ability to affect the variety of biochemicals that only music can induce, of serotonin and endorphins, and which music induces because of the articulated cadences of music.

But there is another biochemical which abstracted: devoid of intellectual structure, musical sounds can induce, called dopamine. Except, dopamine is a mindless, and base animalistic, biochemical, which is also the definition of sex, or any physiological indulgence, and which can also be induced because of the environment that music would have been heard “in” for centuries; of the grandiose music halls, and of the: granite – marble – plush carpeting – gilded woodwork – etc.

And people can become capable of experiencing a literal cognitive degradation; over the course of time, and become capable of “confusing the map with the territory,” or actually confusing the intelligence: “territory,” of music, and also the serotonin and endorphins, with the stimulus: “map,” of music: the dopamine affect of the environment, and the abstracted musical sounds. The patrons of the musical fine arts: from 1480 to 1880, were the exact same patrons of the visual fine arts, and were also the exact same ones who had become incapable of experiencing the intelligence of music, and the serotonin and endorphins, and became only capable of experiencing the dopamine affect of music, because of the abstracted musical sounds in conjunction with the grandiose environment.

So, after the musical fine art performance was over, and during which the patrons had only experienced the dopamine affect, the patrons would walk out of the musical art building, and walk right back into a visual art building, and experience another dopamine biochemical induction: because of the grandiose environment, and then say:”You see, the 'affect' we feel in here is exactly the same as in the musical art building, so this too must be 'art.”

Except, this dopamine affect is fleeting, and it is inversely affected. So the dopamine affect needs to be supplemented. And which it can be because dopamine can be induced inside a person's mind whenever we experience something “unexpected,” the example the scientists use is a “car running a red light,” or whenever we “see” something we have never seen before. And which explains this phenomenon:

“Infant Perception and Cognition: In the 1950's and 60's studies began to appear that measured heart rate and sucking (in infants), as well as visual fixation. A group (of) investigators (presented) visual stimuli to infants (and found) a pattern of physiological and behavioral changes to the presentation of novel stimulus...”

Young children: infants, become “excited” every time they are presented with a “novel stimulus,” or something they have never seen before.

So, this one particular demographic: the patrons of the fine arts, had experienced a literal degradation, and had become capable of only functioning: as applicable to processing sensory input information, as infant children, who become excited every time they are shown a “novel stimulus,” and/or something they have never seen before.

So then, along came Pablo Picasso, with all of his brand new, and never seen before, novel stimulus, and all of the patrons: who were behaving like infants, became excited because of there being shown the novel stimulus, created by Pablo Picasso.

So then this: creating a picture of some never before seen thing, became the definition of early 20th century art. And all of the artists painted pictures of all of the “things” that no one had ever painted a picture of before. The Cubists painted cubist things, the Impressionists painted impressionist things, the Fauvists painted fauvist things, the Minimalists painted minimalist things, and over the course of the early 20th century everyone painted every “thing,” and there was actually nothing left to paint a picture “of.”

So then Jackson Pollock painted pure “thing”: he painted “every” “thing,” and because he painted pure abstract “color.” And which: “color,” is defined as:

“One of the physical attributes of mass.”

Pure “mass”: pure “thing.”

Except, this dopamine affect too is fleeting. And so then, the “art world” began to create pure, “uncut,” dopamine, and/or “hype.” Because, as the scientists explain:

“Dopamine can be induced by a hug; a kiss, a word of praise.”

Dopamine can be induced by hype, and/or by conning the world into believing that all of the “artists” who had painted all of the pictures of all of the never before seen things, and/or the “novel stimulus,” were defined “geniuses,” according to all of the con-artists.

Except, because of these scientific facts, we can now know, for a fact, that no they were not geniuses, they were simply con-artists.

And so we can know, for a fact, that the Emperor is indeed naked.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds