Statistics
There have been several attempts to use information theory
to assess the works of art. In the most straightforward approach,
one tries to compare the statistical characteristics of "aesthetic"
signals with those of standard noise. Indeed, using the 1/f
discrimination between noise and art seems quite natural,
and it would definitely work the same way for visual arts as for music.
However, this approach is far too primitive to describe
the way art differs from the drunkard's walk. For instance,
there was an article by I.Yevin [Leonardo, v.27, no.5,
pp.413-415 (1994)], the main result of which was that the arts
show fractal behavior near the critical region. To put it
bluntly, the statistical investigation is not applicable to art,
and all one can do is just register some regular violations of
any regularity, which do not obey any fixed statistics. However,
such fractality can be observed in almost any physical system
near the critical points. I do not say that it has nothing to do
with beauty. Fractals may be quite fascinating, like snow flakes,
or clouds. I only observe that the same fractal behavior may produce
something beautiful one time, as well as some junk the other time.
This can be easily observed in the numerous fractal screen savers
for personal computers.
Complementary realities
Guy Levrier has suggested
that art and science refer to "complementary realities"
encountered by humans in their exploration of the holistic
Universe. One would better say: "complementary views of
reality", which is principally the same, with more stress on
the integrity of the world, any subjectivity being its necessary part.
Different people perceive the world differently --- in a more
fundamental formulation, the world is differently reflected in
(or projected onto) its different parts; since the world is the unity
of all its innumerable components, the complete world view can only
be obtained through integrating these partial images, and every one of
them is as required for completeness as any other.
In particular, the causal view of the world (advocated by science)
must be necessarily complemented with non-causal reflections, of which
art can serve as a common example. There are other kinds of reflection,
which either cannot be associated with the idea of causality or
incorporate both causal and non-causal pictures of the world.
So, the scientists yelling too much on those who admit any
doubts about the power of the purely logical reasoning merely
demonstrate their utter ignorance of anything beside their
narrow profession. This ignorance naturally leads them to
the arbitrariness of a much worse kind, which might be
illustrated by, say, Tipler's
books. Luckily, many scientists are wise enough to understand
the restrictions of the physicalist view on the Universe; one
might refer to the sober mental experiment by F.J.Dyson
[Reviews of Modern Physics, v.51, pp.447-460 (1979)],
which has been often compared, in the WWW discussions, with Tipler's
"phantasms", being its logical antipode.
As one of the most fundamental principles of the Unist aesthetics states,
the main function of art is to produce conceptions. Science feeds
on the results of this grand preparatory work, which is the first
stage of any comprehension. Scientific concepts are nothing but formalized
conceptions, and they can never be defined within science, despite all
the pretence of logical positivism.
One more instance of complementarity is provided the difference in
the look of the same thing from either producer's or consumer's viewpoint.
In particular, the author and the observer of a work of art
(listener, viewer, reader etc.) are equally responsible for the
result of perception.
In the USSR, V.Koren performed a number of
experiments on the
mechanisms of creative perception, with the basic premise that
both the author and the observer may be equally creative,
and there is no passive observation of the work art.
He studied how the creative process is organized, and how the
perception of the works of art could involve co-creation.
It has been demonstrated that the observer's perception reveals
two basic hierarchical structures in the scene observed,
those of attractivity and significativity. For integrity,
the two structures should be correlated, and they tend
to merge with more observation. The author's conception
of his work manifests an intention hierarchy, which can
be compared with the structures of attractivity and
significativity, usually with a high correlation. However,
there can be no complete coincidence, since individual
perception may introduce new elements into the situation.
However, too small correlation says that the author failed
to realize his intention --- in other words, the thing
must be meaningful. On the contrary, too much correlation
means suppressed co-creation, mechanical perception that makes
no sense. True art implies a delicate balance between the
two extremes (not necessarily 50/50), which is not too
frequent among professional artists.
The author should not be afraid of interfering with people's
perception, when expressing any general considerations
on art or the thoughts about particular works. The observers
(listener, reader) will interpret everything their own way
anyway, and it is comparison that is of interest. Moreover,
why not admit the existence of the ways of the author's
interaction with the "consumers" of art other than exhibiting
the works of art to them? The observers may as well be interested in
perceiving the author in a personalized cultural environment,
rather than an abstraction of an artist.
However, today's people have to be brave enough to answer the
artist's claim for cooperation. Since it will require
some bravery indeed, as any creativity does. This is especially
so when a quite new attitude is being suggested: people have
been taught for centuries to passively adore the sacred
message from the heights of artistic genius --- and it may
seem most unusual to co-create and be active.
[General aesthetics]
[Unism & Art]
[Unism Central]
[Main sections]
[Page index]
[Keyword index]
[Search]
[Contact information]