Views on Art and Reality
Lectures on Nothing Real
Disclaimer: The following essays are not scholarly writings nor proper academic research. Rather, they are ideas I have encountered over the years through various scholarly books, literature, conversations, and observations. These ideas have combined to give rise to new thoughts. References and cross-references will not be used formally; instead, I will refer to source names as I recall them at the moment. These writings are derived from thoughts and research that have been incorporated into my art practice.
The essays are written in the way I speak, without human editing. Grammatical and spelling mistakes are not intentional but result from insufficient language comprehension; they are to be recognized, corrected, or ignored by more skillful readers. Please note that some facts, places, characters, and civilizations mentioned may be fictional.
Introduction:
In the ancient civilization of Mitrovia, it was widely accepted that understanding the world around us and within us (one and the same thing) is the only logical and meaningful activity within this short game of life: to discover as much new information as possible. The majority of past knowledge was available to Mitrovians if they wished to use it. Playing this game is how some Mitrovians made sense of an otherwise nonsensical life.
Some Mitrovians chose to play the game but accepted only one ancient view, rejecting any facts that supported new discoveries; they were cold "Platonic cave dwellers." Others, however, believed it is our human responsibility to play the game of life and discover as much new information as possible about this complex and non-intuitive world. The more knowledge we have, the more we can see, and the more complex the game becomes. The professions most valued in this "info-game," and most commonly chosen by curious Mitrovians, were Science and Art, which were collectively called Philosophy, as the term encompassed both. It is interesting to note that professions such as law, politics, business, and banking (most commonly cave dwellers) were among the least regarded due to their materialistic focus. In contrast, the most admired and valued roles were those rooted in unique skill or elaborate knowledge, such as artisans, craftsmen, mechanics, agronomists, farmers, and philosophers.
Mitrovians lived on the Berencian peninsula, approximately in the year 300,026 since the beginning of the species.
The following may contain names of artists or scientists with whom readers may or may not be familiar. Fortunately, they are all well-documented on Google servers and are easily accessible via the Google search feature.
All essays that follow are copies of the original lectures taught at the Mitrovian University of Philosophy by the Professor of Art Philosophy.
Many readers will experience strong feelings and specific thoughts of disagreement throughout. Keep in mind that any fact is only valid within a limited time scale. Every fact has an expiration date before a new, more comprehensive fact emerges. Once there was Euclid, but then came Gauss, Bolyai, and Lobachevsky. This type of disagreement is of the highest value as it contributes to progression. However, there is another type of disagreement: that brought by cave dwellers whose eyes have adjusted to the darkness of ancient beliefs, where any new vision angers them and is rejected.
Furthermore, anything can be explained from an infinite number of statements and opposing views due to the informational complexity of existence. Every statement, observation, and question is followed by an altered or opposing one. Hence, your disagreement with a specific statement will likely be short-lived even within these pages, as there is always an "unless" or "however."
Lecture #1: Methodology
Art History
There are four classical levels of Art History.
Level 1: Somatic Art
Somatic Art is representational art of superficial appearances, devoid of any significant substance. This is an agreed-upon reality deprived of individual perception. New ideas are nonexistent, or there are only timid hints of ideas hiding behind apparent symbols. The subject matter, technique, etc., within Level 1 Art is concerned only with logistics. It is Utility Art. Mimicking superficial appearances or repeating well established iconography, without individual views, characterizes this period. Utility Art includes all art from prehistory to the late 19th century. This category includes abstract Islamic art and World Art.
If an art piece is concerned only with its aesthetic appearance, spiritual beliefs, or the imitation of the apparent world, it holds a certain measure of satisfaction where artist and viewer benefit from consuming a good. Somatic Art is useful, profitable, and beneficial for promoting various religions, high-status humans, and ideologies, but at its core, it consists only of the physicality of aesthetic appearance. Somatic Art follows the language of the localized society—their symbols, narratives, aestheticism, and iconography. An artist is a skilled craftsperson, an executor of social cognition and norms. Individualized perceptions, even if present, must be hidden behind and within the aesthetic craft and social symbols.
Somatic Art is Propaganda Art, or as Joseph Kosuth called it, "Furniture." Level 1 Art is equivalent to Newtonian physics; it is based on physical appearances.
Level 2: Cognitive Art
Cognitive Art is Idea-Based Art that begins with Marcel Duchamp, Dada, and Conceptualism. Cognitive Art is equivalent to Quantum Dynamics.
Impressionism, Post-Expressionism, Fauvism, and all movements between Impressionism and Duchamp fall under the Transitional State between Level 1 and Level 2 Art. Those movements are still classical Somatic, but they do evoke a new understanding of the world; hence, they are equivalent to Einstein's theory of relativity.
Level 3: Empirical Art
Empirical Art is Process-Based Art. The rational process of Empirical Art follows the strict methodology of the scientific experiment. However, unlike an experiment whose goal is the proof of an idea, process-based Art is only concerned with re-experiencing the idea to understand it fully, or letting the phenomenon document itself.
The process of an art piece depends heavily on the Quality of Information that must be collected through relevant research. Empirical Art is equivalent to CERN, Fermilab, SLAC, Argonne, etc., where ideas are tested and proven while allowing the phenomenon to be documented.
Level 4: Information Realism : It from Bit to Bit
Wheeler’s “it from bit” , and I would add “to bit” :
Artpiece, IT, is derived from informational relations, BIT, from which, then, informational interpretation emerges. An art piece is defined through its structural, informational properties rather than its material substance.
Information realism in philosophy and physics, is the ontological view that reality is fundamentally composed of interacting informational entities rather than physical matter, positing that "information" is the foundational, mind-independent substance of the universe. John Wheeler suggests that every physical entity (the "it") derives its existence from information, "It from Bit". Similarly, Luciano Floridi, proposes that the world is a totality of informational objects interacting with each other, defining reality through its structural, informational properties rather than its material substance.
We move from the physical to the cognitive, to a merger of both in Empirical Art , and finally to information based Art. What is next? Science seeks the unification of classical and quantum theories through loop quantum theory or something similar. If we follow the evolution of Art instead of Science, we would easily conclude that the next step is not unification or a missing link, but a whole new theory—a whole new approach to Art practice. When quantum thermodynamics was proven, even experts were challenged in their understanding. Similarly, Dada evoked revolutionary confusion among artists. A hundred years later, in our present time, these new ways of thinking have been accepted as the norm and are no longer confusing.
As soon as humans get used to new ways of thinking, when we accept and become comfortable with new ways of looking at the world, it is time for brand new, non-intuitive ideas to arrive and disturb our understanding. Not knowing and not understanding are the only ways for collective and individual consciousness to develop. That uncomfortable state of insecurity is the only state in which creative progression and new knowledge can foster growth.
Perhaps our consciousness is not developed to the degree necessary to comprehend the workings of the universe. Dogs are not capable of comprehending quantum physics or Art in any way, yet they possess parts of consciousness that process smell and feelings that humans could never comprehend. Different consciousnesses see the world in different ways; perhaps we need all of them combined, in addition to new undeveloped ones, to see the whole picture.
The world is more bizarre and strange than physics can ever imagine. This is just the beginning of non-intuitive and nondeterministic understanding. Entropy increases disorder and randomness, and our collective consciousness follows this disorder and illogical way of thinking. After Information Realism, perhaps "Illogical Empiricism" is to follow. Everything is currently deduced via logical thinking. It is time to abandon logic, cause and effect, and determinism, and move on to more complex ways of thinking.
Infosphere and InfoArt
Who are we, and how do we relate to each other?
Luciano Floridi claims that we are all becoming integrated into an "infosphere." The boundaries between our online and offline lives break down. According to Floridi, there have been four revolutions so far. The infosphere is the fourth revolution
1. First Revolution: We are not the center of the Universe. Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish astronomer and mathematician, proposed the heliocentric model of the solar system, placing the sun at the center instead of the Earth.
2. Second Revolution: We are not a unique species. All species of life have evolved over time from a common ancestor through natural selection (Charles Darwin).
3. Third Revolution: Sigmund Freud revealed that we are not rational but unconscious beings.
4. Fourth Revolution: We are not individuals but agents within a network: the infosphere.
The infosphere is our environment. It deeply affects our understanding of ourselves as agents. We appropriate ourselves as connected informational organisms, or "inforgs." We are interconnected informational organisms among other informational organisms, sharing an informational environment: the infosphere. We are not individuals but rely on the network.
In every department of life, the infosphere has become an environmental force creating and transforming our realities. "Onlife" defines our daily activity: the way we shop, drive, work, learn, care for our health, entertain ourselves, conduct relationships, law, finance, and politics, and even the way we conduct war. Who are we, and how do we relate to each other? Is Art to follow? Is Art not to be individualized, made by an Artist, but by inforgs? Can Art be singular, Geocentric Art? Are Artists the agents of the infosphere? Are Artists just a minuscule part of the informational organism, or have Artists always been the agents of the informational Universe?
It seems that art went from socially acceptable and socially controlled somatic Art, to Individually unique Art, and finally to Infosphere Art which just might be another version of socially acceptable Art just global rather than culturally localized.
Defining Art: Art Aesthetics and Reason
I am not attempting to define what Art “is”, but I will try to explain the Art process.
The most common responses or attempts to define Art are: Art is aesthetics; Art has no practical or functional use; Art is feelings; Art is expression; Art is language. The challenge in finding consensus in explaining Art lies in the sheer ubiquitous nature of Art. In fact, it is Reality that is ubiquitous, and Art is just attempting to make sense of any information that Reality is composed of, reflecting upon it, and making Art ubiquitous as well. Reality manifests Art and vice versa. Art is human-made Reality.
The following quote most perfectly summarizes what Art is. Carlo Rovelli, an Italian theoretical physicist, provided us with the most accurate and poetical explanation of what “Science” is. I have simply replaced the word "Science" with "Art":
"Artistic thinking explores and redraws the world, gradually offering us better and better images of it, teaching us to think in ever more effective ways. Art is a continual exploration of ways of thinking. Its strength is its visionary capacity to demolish preconceived ideas, to reveal new regions of reality, and to construct new and more effective images of the world. This adventure rests upon the entirety of past knowledge, but at its heart is change.
Different fields and theories speak different languages, but essentially, they all offer compatible descriptions of the same underlying phenomenon: Reality. There is only one Reality, and infinite ways of thinking about it, each capturing one element of Reality. Art uses the Art language to capture any element of Reality without being tied to any school of thought or theory. Unlike many specialized fields (with few exceptions, perhaps philosophy), the Art language is not limited but ubiquitous, and may explore any element of reality. Artists are philosophers, journalists, engineers, historians, scientists, and all of the above, depending on the piece. Art instigates free thinking and liberates people from self-inflicted decrees.
Art pieces whose main and only purpose is aesthetics are no more than crafty furniture; something you purchase to match your sofa. This usually involves craftsmanship whose process is based on a manufacturing assembly line. This Somatic Art is Utility Art, or Level 1 Art, as explained above. This is not to say that Art should not and does not have aesthetics as part of it. Of course it does. Nature is aesthetic; hence, Art is too. The difference is that aesthetics or decoration cannot be the only reason for an Art piece's creation. In that case, and only then, it is craft and not Art.
Art is not an object but an epistemological statement, or an inquiry into anything that constitutes our experiences and observations. Art is a continuous reconceptualization of human perception, and consequently, cognition.
Should We Define Art or Explain It?
Art is ubiquitous. It emerges from anything and nothing. Art does not show us a mistaken understanding of the world or a subjective opinion, as some may perceive. Instead, it presents the way our human understanding of the world is being constructed. It makes us aware of constructing meaning rather than receiving preconceived and established information. Art presents possible models of how our understanding of the world could be. Art is not limiting in any way. All materials and mediums are at its disposal; all possible ideas, existing and yet to be discovered, are available with which to explore the world, our relationship to the world, and make sense of it.
From the very first cave painting to the present, art is what separates humans from other animals. In the La Pasiega cave in Spain, scientists have found a ladder shape made of red horizontal and vertical lines. The artwork dates to more than 64,000 years ago, suggesting Neanderthals created it. In Maltravieso Cave in Spain, three hand stencils on a wall have been dated to at least 66,000 years ago, also suggesting they were left by Neanderthals. However, there is also a possibility that modern humans reached Europe tens of thousands of years earlier than previously thought. The world's oldest known cave painting made by humans is a life-sized picture of a wild pig, made at least 45,500 years ago in Indonesia.
The urge to understand the world, reality, and our relation to it is what has propelled Homo sapiens to a modern age and distinguished us from other animals. Why would early humans create art, a seemingly useless activity, when they should be minding their survival and building functional tools? Because making sense of the world precedes using and altering that very same world. Thinking precedes doing. Art is thinking. It is philosophy. Art is an essential and obligatory part of human progression. Art makes us aware of things-in-the-world. The more we are aware of, the more we know, and the larger the world becomes. Knowledge expands our physical reality, which I will expand upon. Creativity, curiosity, the ability to see the unseen, and the urge to understand are part of the art process. Because it is materialized as a physical, tactile entity, Art provokes creativity, curiosity, thinking, and awareness in others. Art, I will say it again, instigates free thinking and liberates people from self-inflicted decrees.
After a thousand years of the decline of European civilization and intellectual inexistence, it took the influence of artists to change it all. In the 15th century, the Medici family supported Ghiberti, Brunelleschi, Donatello, Fra Angelico, Michelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo da Vinci. Besides art and architecture, the Medici supported scientists like Galileo Galilei. Art and science have different methods and use different languages, but essentially the same creative and cognitive processes are required for the creation of either. Art and science go hand in hand and feed off each other.
In 15th-century Europe, seemingly useless vanity objects produced by artists and the heretical belief that the Earth revolves around the sun (proven by Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo, even though Aristarchus of Samos in the 3rd century BC used mathematics to prove the heliocentric theory) ignited intellectual freedoms and the spread of reason. Not even Girolamo Savonarola, who destroyed and burned numerous art pieces in the name of his religious ideology, could stop this. The reform was inevitable across Europe. Even if Art was useless vanity (which it was not), it brought a liberation of free thinking that began a landslide of religious, scientific, and artistic reforms. Moreover, this exponential progress is still propagating, one would hope.
When we are within the Dark Ages, within a cave, our eyes adjust, and we are no longer capable of perceiving the situation we are in. We should never again have to rediscover that which has already been discovered in the past. The potential power that Art institutions have to support the right artists, just as the Medici family did, is a heavy responsibility and a matter of humanity's progress.
Unlike any other field, Art in its most fundamental nature is so encompassing and vast in its universality that it is perhaps somewhat difficult to explain. If we were assigned the task of explaining the entire world, the Universe itself, in one sentence, we would miserably fail, just as we are failing in explaining Art. The universe is too encompassing to be summarized into one definition. Art explains the world, and as such, is as vast and complex as the world itself. Art can explore the world by exploring life, properties of matter, motion, energy, and force, just like Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. But just as well, Art may explore cognition, sociology, politics, culture, emotions, perceptions, aesthetics, imaginations, and pretty much infinite other possibilities through which Art may explore experienced and mind-independent reality. Art is not specialized like the subjects and fields mentioned. Art is not limited by seeing the world only through a specific narrow view of a particular profession but is limitless in the possible ways to explore the world. All possibilities are possible, just like the most fundamental structure of the Universe, according to Physics. Art liberates humanity from self-imposed chains and ideological imprisonment. Art's purpose is to advance humanity.
In a narrow sense, Art is the philosophical exploration of the world and its recreation, metaphorically, symbolically, or objectively. Every time a piece is created, the Artist creates a new reality within the collectively experienced reality. By doing so, the Artist not only explores the existing collectively experienced reality for the sake of understanding and/or being aware of a particular part of it but, through this process of exploring—through the physical activity of creating the Art piece—the Artist creates a new reality. In a sense, Artists are like mini-gods constantly creating new sub-universes that adhere to the same or similar laws as the collectively experienced reality. This is the power of Art: the infinity of possible creations, limited by absolutely nothing other than our own intellect. The Universe is just one big Art piece; within it, artists continuously keep recreating small sub-universes with each new art piece.
Artists must understand, fully, the reality that they are recreating. One thing that unifies all humans from the very beginning of our species is the urge for understanding Reality. First, religion, mythology, science, and art have been, each in their own way, trying to understand Reality: seen and unseen, known and unknown, presentations and representations. Every art piece that has ever been created is a self-portrait of reality. In the following pages, I will explore the most fundamental nature of Art processes, its relation to reality, and the relationship to the world as an Artist.
Why Do We Make Art?
Free will and freedom might be debatable concepts. From the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep, our decisions are ruled by others, our own necessities, societal rules, laws of physics, responsibilities, and physiological body constraints. Freedom and free will seem like foreign concepts and impossibilities. But, in moments of Art creation, during the Art process, Artists create their own Universe: the Universe of an Art piece. Within this universe, Artists are unequivocally free to make any decision and experience ultimate freedom. Creating an Art piece requires perpetual decision-making, but because the Artist is the only person making the rules and/or changing them, the Artist experiences the ultimate freedom of free will. This feeling of freedom is impossible to experience in daily life, and once experienced, it is absolutely addictive.
Why Art Matters
Artists decontextualize Reality. Every time Artists make a piece, they reinvent thoughts, perceptions, and the way we connote and denote the world around us and ourselves. Artists do not belong to any school of thought but live in a perpetual state of decontextualizing ways of thinking. Perceptions become tangible. Art does not give us answers like science does—that is true—but it questions Reality and our perceptions of it. The capacity to perceive the world in a new way is not impractical, naive, or idealistic; it is at the heart of any humankind's revolutionary progression through history. This makes Art the most important factor for humankind's progression and incomparably more pragmatic and useful than any other way of thinking, including science.
Process and Information Realism
Asking questions is a fundamental nature of humans that helps us understand the world around and within us. It all starts with perceptions, not only visual but, more importantly, cognitive perceptions. In order to gain a better understanding of the world, some humans set up experiments to test their cognitive perceptions, while others set up an Art process to understand it. Either way, it all starts with questioning perceptions. The best way to learn is to interact with Reality while seeking to understand it and reconceptualizing preconceived notions.
Each Art piece is a mini-universe adhering, fundamentally, to the same laws as the Universe. The most intriguing part about Art is its process, which, from my experience, emulates the most fundamental concepts of Information Theory and Quantum Mechanics, such as superposition (a quantum state can be in multiple states at the same time, a cloud of possibility), eigenstates (the observable state of the system right after the measurement, collapse of the cloud of possibility into one state), entanglement (two subatomic particles can be linked to each other even at large distances), and the act of quantum measurement (collapse of the cloud of possibilities into eigenstates). Information creates matter the same way an Artist creates an Art piece.
On an elementary level, the Universe is made of events, relations, and interactions, as quantum mechanics has proven. Art is made of processes, relations, and interactions. The brain that conjures an art piece, the body that physically creates it, and the art piece itself exist according to identical principles as the particles that make them. The most fundamental structure of the Universe is no different than the Art process. This parallel between the fundamental workings of the Universe and the Art process is the underlying theme of all that follows.
10⁻²⁵ seconds after the Big Bang, at 10¹⁵ degrees Kelvin, particles materialized from pure energy. Artists, within much friendlier conditions, materialize marks from their own energy, consequently creating the new universe of the Art piece.
To trust any artistic ideas, we must test them against experience, just as in science—measurements are performed to test theoretical ideas. Through Art processes, artists experience the questions to understand the answers; scientists build an experiment to confirm the answer. Both Art and Science bring new thoughts to the world, and as such, they are equally practical and necessary for the progression of humanity.
For process-based artists, the value of an Art piece is in its process. Once it is complete, the value shifts from personal to public experience. To explain this further, I will use the most reduced form of Art: a pencil mark-making drawing. At the beginning of an art piece, the paper is blank; there are only the Artist's thoughts, a field of sorts, and all conceivable options are possible. The Artist's piece is in a superposition state. As the first random marks are made, they become visible with their own properties or identity—that is, the information they convey. As the marks accumulate, the relations between marks change the individual information of the mark into collective patterns (just like many single photons make an interference pattern—wave-like features in a double-slit experiment). It is as if all the possible ways of drawing the marks have collapsed into the final pattern, an eigenstate. Moreover, marks are in an entangled state with each other since they are correlated and, together, can be treated as a single object.
There is a lot of information stored in a drawing, but it is not stored in the individual marks; it is stored in the correlation between the marks. If you want to "see" the drawing, you have to collectively observe all the marks. A drawing, just like a quantum system, contains or stores a lot of information, but if you look at its parts—a single mark—you cannot see the information; it is just a dot.
To experience, through one's hands, the materialization from randomness to complex deterministic objects is exhilarating. Once it becomes a material object, an Art piece begins a new life where an observer, a viewer, determines its information based on their superposition with it. A viewer, an observer, collapses a cloud of possibilities into ONE (just as an act of measurement of a quantum state yields only an eigenstate out of many). This means an observer, by interacting with the piece, reduces an art piece's meaning to a single state with one well-defined meaning. Every time a measurement is taken, an observation is made, and the eigenstate is different. The more viewers observe the piece, the more possibilities of the piece are revealed. However, as more views are made, revelations are more likely to be alike.
Art is about relations and becoming, not simply being. Hence, it is not an aesthetic, finite object but a field of an indeterministic wave function. On an elementary level, the Universe is made of events, relations, and interactions, as quantum mechanics has proven. Art is made of processes, relations, and interactions.
"Information" connotes and denotes multiple meanings. The word "Information" is used in this case in two ways. First, in its general meaning as a fact or knowledge (wet water, 100,000 heartbeats in a day, etc.), which I will simply call Information. Secondly, information considered as the fundamental physical unit, as a unit of something physical (i.e., a mark) that is encoded in the state of an Art piece's system, like the temperature of water. I will call this an Informational Unit (IU). Through the relations between IUs, an Art piece's system of meaning arises; meaning the Art piece's information is created.
Information Realism (IR) is art that, through its processes and IUs, most accurately captures information from Reality. What is not understood is created so it could be comprehended. Visual art pieces fundamentally present information observed from Reality. When it is in its purity, materialized into visual information by using only basic IUs and their relations, detached from the artist's beliefs, then it is Information Realism. This is to be distinguished from classical realism, which represents the external appearance of a form and gives us no information about the form except the impression of an appearance. IR is not a movement nor an Art group, but individual Art pieces that present information from Reality verbatim.
A successful Art piece is one that carries information about Reality. Art is information. Observing, interpreting, reasoning, and representing reality is the most fundamental urge in humans. The ability to do so—to have abstract thinking abilities, to imagine and recreate—is what separates us somewhat from the rest of the animal kingdom.
Art Philosophy
Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, existence, reason, values, mind, and language. Philosophy of art studies the nature of art, such as aesthetics (beauty and taste), expression, interpretation, representation, and form. I would propose a new and updated version of the nature-of-art definition. It is not so much that it changed as it has expanded. Art is the least about aesthetics and form, and mostly, if not entirely, about thinking processes. Art is information-based, where matter (form) is just a consequence of the processes (fields) among and within information.
It seems obvious that philosophy of art is studied externally, by non-artists. How else are we to justify studying art through sheer aesthetics, form, and emotion? Epistemology of Art has been criticized greatly throughout the ages, and disturbingly, contemporary philosophers are continuing the tradition. In 1992, Jerome Stolnitz wrote "On the Cognitive Triviality of Art," arguing that art does not and cannot contribute to knowledge primarily because it does not generate any sort of truth. He goes on to explain why, in his opinion (and not via scientific method), Art's influence on social structure and historical change has been inconsequential. His trivial opinions are exactly what he claims Art to be. If art is trivial because it is not using the scientific method, then was that same scientific method used for his own conclusions about art? Or does his opinion have no value or significance and is just as trivial as art is in his view?
The problem here is that the majority of people who write about art are not artists themselves. They base their opinions on external views of the subject without ever experiencing the process and understanding it. Art is epistemological. My thoughts on the subject are not "philosophy of art" but "Art Philosophy." It is a philosophy of an Artist for an Artist.
Many contemporary Art schools try to minimize, or entirely get rid of, the knowledge of traditional art and insist on conceptually based art. This cannot be done unless educational institutions are willing to teach Art Philosophy. Unlike an artist statement, which is a personal introduction to an artist's work or specific project, Art Philosophy reflects reality and its relation to ourselves. Reality is analyzed ontologically, epistemologically, or through axiological inquiries, not by philosophers but by Artists, who present observations through Art language.
The epistemic fundamental nature of things should be analyzed and correlated with Art processes.
Art Education: Art Learning Methods are Inquiry and Problem-Solving Based
Hypatia, who lived in Alexandria in the 4th century in Egypt, was a philosopher in the good old days when that meant astronomer, mathematician, artist, etc. Hypatia was a very good teacher and believed in the importance of taking small steps; she was sure that everyone had the ability to learn a lot. She tried to really understand what students found difficult. Students are usually put off from doing difficult things because we haven't been taught how to start with the easiest, simplest steps first. If students can't learn something, it is because we didn't explain it well enough for them.
Universal lectures, projects, and due dates have never worked for me as an educator. I may start with a lecture; however, a topic is communicated to each student in a unique way with particular examples that they can relate to. Art teaches us that we all reason slightly differently, and the way I learn is not the same as someone else's. This means we must adjust the way we communicate information to each student individually, which requires a great deal of empathic effort by teachers to try to understand and get to know each student individually. Through the process of me trying to understand how students perceive and reason reality, by asking questions and analyzing their work (critiquing), not only do I get to know the student, but they start to understand themselves better. Usually, this results in an avalanche of self-discovery and empowerment for students.
I must emphasize that when I say that I get to know students well, I mean I know *how* they reason and see the world, and if life experiences have scared them and to what degree, without knowing absolutely none of their specific experiences, which should and must stay private.
Once students are empowered by self-discovery and confidence, they start questioning and rethinking, re-contextualizing the world around them, which becomes incorporated in every art piece they make. This requires a high level of complex critical thinking and integration of diverse knowledge, just like in the good old days when philosophy meant art and science, or should I say, STEAM. Art builds self-confidence; Art leads to self-discovery and empowerment. When we are strong, confident, diverse thinkers, we learn faster no matter the field. Art changes us; as a result, Art can transform our lives.
Art learning as a question-base encourages critical thinking, not technique or craft-base, fostering strong, diverse thinkers in any field. Art is an access point for guiding student inquiry, dialogue, and critical thinking.
Questioning and rethinking the preconceived understanding of things-in-the-world results in new ideas. How do we express and materialize those new ideas and perceptions? Well, an artist's approach is not much different from scientists who set up an experiment. Based on an idea or hypothesis, an artist must think of appropriate materials, mediums, format, installation, time duration of the process, space where the process is taking place, etc., so that every aspect of the process most accurately matches the idea. This requires a high level of problem-solving skill.
Even if we are to talk about traditional approaches, problem-solving is an all-encompassing part of the process. What makes Van Gogh, Rembrandt, Anselm Kiefer, or any other Artist from art history so great is the decisions they made along every millimeter of their piece. Artists' choices and decisions of how much, where, to what degree, and in which particular way are what make an art piece an art piece. Choices are based on how we think, see the world, and how we want to present it.
The art piece starts with an idea, but the rest of it is all about problem-solving and making a decision among an infinite number of possibilities. Artists are quite skillful at solving problems that occur in everyday life and find solutions among an infinite number of solutions. A problem is reasoned like a puzzle to be solved instead of an overwhelming tragedy without a solution. Even if a puzzle is without a solution, artists are good at transforming it into a new puzzle that does have a solution.
In Art schools, we teach tools and the craft of making art objects. In order for Art to get out of its Dark Ages existence, we probably should consider changing our education curriculum. If you can use materials that are only two meters around you to build a house, no matter how creative a person you may happen to be, it will not be great. But if you were to have no limits to how far you go to find materials, you are bound to create a magnificent house. Artists should, like Chemists, discover and create new materials. Scientists have no limitations in how far they would go in search of their ideas. Artists, however, look no further than a few meters away for their ideas. Art education must address these limitations.
Art should learn how to truly observe the world around and things in the world, how to observe the world deeply and not be casual observers.
Art for Cognitive Health
Neuro-Arts is multidisciplinary research on how Arts affect us, giving rise to a field that is radically changing how we understand and translate the power of the Arts.
Art processing is part of the frontal lobe, the sections of the brain responsible for problem-solving, language, managing higher executive functioning, judgment, abstract thought, creativity, planning, and decision-making.
Colette J. Brown, a teaching artist and community health researcher, while working with dementia patients, came up with the following project: pick an object, describe it, rename it so it gives a new thought to the object. One participant renamed the word "Hands" to "Choice." "Hands can be used for good or evil," they explained, "we just have to make a choice." Now we have a new connection in our brain between these two new concepts, hands and choice, which results in neuroplasticity, and our cognitive reserve increases. 'Cognitive reserve' is the idea that people develop a reserve of thinking abilities during their lives. Cognitive reserve is directly connected to the neuroplasticity of the brain.
Art that asks more questions than it gives answers is proven to help improve neuroplasticity and prevent cognitive decline. The majority of people who make art for as little as 45 minutes reduce the stress hormone cortisol, no matter the skill level. People who engaged in the arts were found to have lower mental distress, better mental functioning, and improved quality of life.
Lecture #2: Failure of Free Will in Art : Art criticism
"If you would create something, you will be something."
— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
"Habit is the denial of creativity and the negation of freedom; a self-imposed straitjacket of which the wearer is unaware."
— Arthur Koestler
"If the brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't."
— Lyall Watson
Failures:
1. Art fails when it represents superficial appearances of the physical world.
2. Art fails when an idea is already known and expected, and is repetitive.
3. Art fails when it uses known language; when it repeats.
4. Art fails when it becomes deterministic, unless.
5. Art fails when it gives all the answers, unless.
6. Art fails when it is intuitive, unless.
7. Art fails when it has a singular interpretation, unless.
8. Art fails when it is popularized.
9. Art fails when it is concerned with aesthetics only.
10. Art fails when it is too logical, unless.
11. Art fails when it reflects an opinion or a belief.
12. Art fails when it is repetitive, unless.
13. Art fails when it doesn't provoke awareness.
14. Art fails when it uses localized symbols.
15. Art fails when it is not Art.
16. Art does not fail when it is understood by no one.
Failed science is easy to determine; if truth is not obtained, it cannot be science. The measure of truth is Sigma. A five-sigma event (5σ) signifies a finding that is exceptionally statistically significant, meaning it is highly unlikely to be due to random chance. It corresponds to a probability of approximately 1 in 1.7 million that the observed result is a statistical fluctuation rather than a genuine effect. But how do we determine Art failure where truth is superfluous? In fact, truth is not to be found and stated but found and manipulated. First, we should understand what Art is. I purposely say "understand" rather than "know" or "determine," as the definition of Art is to be understood, not summarized in a one-sentence definition. Simply put: if something is Art, then obviously it has succeeded in being Art. If something has failed to be Art, then it is not Art to begin with.
Sometimes, when we attempt to talk about Art, we sound pretentious or even nonsensical, as the above sentence may demonstrate. I believe this is due to our structural linear reasoning and "cause and effect" thinking processes. Thinking comprehensively with emotions and holistically, like Borges's Immortals, is the only way to understand the complexity and ubiquity of Art. Art speaks the language of Immortals, and it is no surprise that Art is timeless and immortal. Cave art is as strong and powerful as the day it was made. A drawing of a horse in the Lascaux cave (15,000 BCE) is as truthful as any other Art piece containing a horse to this day; it is a five-sigma event. Truth is singular, but in Art, truth means one out of infinite truths. Art language is not pretentious nonsense but the timeless language of all there is, all at once.
The following is the wonderful language of the Mortal one:
“Any young person who has studied Heidegger; or seen Ionesco's 'plays'; or listened to the 'music' of John Cage; or looked at Andy Warhol's 'paintings'—has experienced that feeling of incredulous puzzlement: But this is nonsense! Can I really be expected to take this seriously? In fact, of course, it is necessary for it to be nonsense; if it made sense, it could be evaluated. The essence of modern intellectual snobbery is the 'emperor's new clothes' approach. Teachers, critics, our self-appointed intellectual elite, make it quite clear to us that if we cannot see the superlative nature of this 'art'—why, it merely shows our ignorance, our lack of sophistication and insight. Of course, they go beyond the storybook emperor's tailors, who dressed their victim in nothing and called it fine garments. The modern tailors dress the emperor in garbage." — Ron Merrill
Does Art fail if it doesn't speak the language of Mortals? Nonsense lasts only as long as there is no one to make sense of it. Individual lack of comprehension does not mean universal nonsense but the failure of one's rigid reasoning.
Questions:
1. Should we have an Art History of Failed Art, and what would be included in such a history?
2. What is the importance of skill?
3. Should there be a theory that there should be no theory?
4. What is the role of seriousness in Art, like political or religious art?
5. What is the acceptable level of ambition? Can Art be proclaimed successful if it is effortless and requires minimum work effort?
6. Is the art of professional Sunday painters, portraiture, tourists, and hotel art, actually Art?
7. What about the art of celebrities: Bush, Kim Gordon, Hunter Biden, Jim Carrey?
8. Are "how to paint" books and "how to draw a figure" guides teaching Art or Art mimicry?
9. Unoriginality of the group mentality: Are Social Realism (Russian and Chinese), the fifth generation of Abstract Expressionism, and the eighth generation of Surrealism successful influencers and followers? Is Regionalism culturalism? Can Regional Art be Art, or is it trend-following?
10. Are social media Art influencers and Art tutorials Art? Do the number of followers determine the quality of Art?
11. Missing label: Can Art be successful if the meaning is undefined or unknown?
12. Can an Art piece have too much aesthetics or not enough?
13. Does lack of style result in Art failure? Is Duchamp and Picasso's lack of style, as a style, an Artistic failure?
14. Do good Artists get tired and repeat?
Art
Artists are committed to uncovering that which is hidden from our apparent view. Our senses are dreadfully limiting at their best. The only tool available to us is our intellect, with which we are to understand the world beyond Plato's cave without ever leaving it. Art goes beyond reason, using its own language to explore and redraw the world, explore our relationship to the world, and make sense of it. The more we are aware of, the more we know, and the larger the world becomes. Knowledge expands our physical reality.
Art shows us the way our human understanding of the world is being constructed. Art has nothing to do with craft or talent; it is entirely a thinking process. How do Artists represent this not-apparent-yet-ample reality through thinking processes and not craft? Can Art help us decipher the world and our relation to it? What is the true nature of reality, and are Art processes capable of analyzing and decoding that same world?
Does Art fail if it says nothing new about the world?
How do we determine the value of an Art piece and its level of failure?
I would suggest applying Information Theory. If we take information to be physical and the fundamental bit unit of our reality, as Information Theory predicts, we can explain Art this way as well. We can determine the value of Art simply by determining how probable an art piece really is, which determines its information content and its quality.
The Ancient Greeks suggested that the information content of an event depends only on how probable this event really is. Aristotle argued that the more surprised we are by an event, the more information the event carries. This means that information is inversely proportional to probability: events with smaller probability carry more information. In case an art piece is probable—let's say, pure aesthetics—it then does not have much, if any, information content. Let's say a realistic painting of a regular cat, not Schrödinger's (no mystery if it is dead or alive, just a nice fluffy cat). The piece is 90% probable; we know what it is, how it is done, and it is not saying anything new about the cat. Therefore, information content is low, if any; the probability content is higher, and the piece has low or no artistic value. The painting is an Artist's impression and copy of a superficial appearance of an object, or predictable aesthetics, and nothing more. It is agreed-upon reality without offering us new ways of seeing it.
In contrast, Rachel Whiteread's work or Man Ray's The Gift is unexpected and consists of a high level of information content, meaning it is high-value Art. This view I adopt from two of the most brilliant minds: Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Quantum Information Theory at the University of Oxford, and Claude Shannon, an engineer and "the father of information theory." After all, physicists and engineers are artists who are very good at math.
The unit of information is the bit, a digit whose value is either zero or one. Shannon's principal idea is that unlikely messages should be encoded with many zeros and ones; frequent messages should be given a short code. How many zeros and ones should Duchamp's Fountain have in its encoding?
Claude Shannon: "Content is irrelevant. The point of sending the message is to remove the uncertainty; something you didn't know, now you know."
In Art, however, content creates certainty or uncertainty, which is its entropy level. The point of an Art piece is to have as much uncertainty as possible, higher entropy, and the more possible outcomes or states an Art piece can have. This results in more information, hence more quality.
Collection: Cabinet of curiosities
In 16th-century Renaissance Europe wealthy people started collecting and creating encyclopedic collections of extraordinary objects. These private collections blurred the boundaries between natural history, geology, art, and antiquities, serving as precursors to modern public museums.
It was a space in which one can curate the world based on their interests. Collection defines one’s identity and the owner is the center of attention, it is the way to see the world through the objects one collects. There are no labels, truth can be embellished, and only the expert, the collector, can talk about it. The owner becomes a curator creating and dictating the narrative. The owner is the only one with the “knowledge” which creates and gives an extraordinary power to the collector in the viewer's eyes. This knowledge was not scientific by any means. Some of the first cabinets were of the natural world. It has slowly moved to Art i.e. botanical illustration, landscape, etc. creating a space where art and science combined and coexisted.
Cabinet of Curiosities allows us to envision the world through personal mythology. An object has no scientific or artistic value once it is in the context of someone's cabinet but it becomes something totally different, a tiny part of someone's fiction for the sake of validating their ego. Much like the majority of current Art and Science institutions, unknowledgeable collectors, curators, and art historians who hold all the authority while misleading the viewers. Meanwhile some artists decide to play the game and make wonted Art for the cabinets, some give up all together, while others keep creating within isolation and none of the validation.
There is another Cabinet of Curiosities correlation I would like to point out. Many artists took a role as cabinet collectors in order to turn attention to a particular subject. Henrike Naumann, Predrag Đaković, Oriol Vilanova just to mention a few artists from Venice Biennale 2026, in addition to George Maciunas and Joseph Cornell, Wolfgang Laib, Kurt Schwitters, Phoebe Washburn, etc.
Validation
Art history books are filled not with the greatest Artists but with the ones who carved their path via economics. Art books and museums are books and museums of money, because every piece was commissioned or purchased by somebody usually multiple times. More monetary exchanges it goes through more validation it gains. Some of the biggest galleries would bid and purchase their own collection in order to keep up with price and validate the Artist's name. Being an artist is not being free but playing the monetary game of validation. Being an Artist is to be a celebrity. The only way to be a true free artist is to create art once a sustainable job is done and everyone is asleep. In this moment of stillness and serenity, while half conscious from exhaustion, where time slows down, right then is the moment when artists can start creating and be fully free. This comes with zero validation and no acknowledgments. It is the ultimate freedom within void and solitude.
Giorgio Vasari is a very first art historian who unintentionally created a celebrity out of artists. Vasari is an Italian Renaissance painter, architect, art historian, and biographer. He writes Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects, a book that celebrates artists even though he embellished, altered, and simply made numerous factual errors. The book created a trend and what followed is that all wealthy and powerful influential people of the time wanted to be in the book. They wanted to have a piece of the celebrity artist, they wanted their name in the book as well so it can be known that they were the one who supported the artist. This trend has never stopped, it just got more extreme over the centuries.
Around the world artists have undergone different roles. Artists were sometimes humble craftsmen in the workshop, sometimes idealised, sometimes admired but fired, and sometimes like in China the Artist was part of the elite class, elitist men as women were not allowed to paint.
The very foundation of being an artist is coated in having power, power that Art Historians, curators, and collectors (mostly uneducated), impose upon Artist. Artists gain this power by validation. Validation confirms that you are worthy of attention. The curator is in position, with the authority to validate your work, much like the cabinet of curiosities. Vasari's book has set up the rules for the future that still is, it has created Artist’s superstar status that is required nowadays.
Limitations in Art:
Is there such a thing as a new idea? Can Artists have a free will and make any choice they want?
Does free will exist?
Free will and freedom might be debatable concepts. From the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep our decisions are ruled by others’ and our own necessities, societal rules, laws of Physics, responsibilities, etc. Freedom and free will seems like a foreign concept and impossibility. But, in moments of Art creation, during the Art process, Artists just like a mini Gods create their own Universe; Universe of an Art piece, within which Artists are unequivocally free to make any decision, and experience ultimate freedom. Creating an Art piece requires perpetual decision-making, but because the Artist is the only person making the rules and/or changing them, the Artist is experiencing the ultimate freedom of free will. This feeling of freedom is impossible to experience in daily lives, and once experienced it is absolutely addictive. On the other hand Artists' process is extremely limited and controlled by the external world.
- Materials: all Artists are limited by the materials, may that be oil paint, wood, their own body, clay, computers, codes, etc. Which materials to use that best present the idea; what the material is like and how it is used; how to use a material on a new way; how to combine materials that are not typically combined; how to put a particular material in a new context so it changes its quality (umbrella made of sponge); these are some of the challenges Artist take in consideration. We have to know the materials so we can manipulate them. As any Artist has experience, the limitation of materials usually results in finding new unexpected solutions and directions in the art making process. Material limitations and free will are alternating in controlling and oppressing each other. Lawes of Nature will always dictate anything that we humans can do and use.
-Time, as mentioned above, is always to be considered when making an Artpiece. Time also dictates what Artists can and can not do in Art.
-History: When the art piece is created not only controls its context but also its possibility. Imagine Marina Abromovic’s work in the 17th century. Or Claude Monet painting currently. As revolutionary as Artists ideas may be they are just in accordance with the time and reflections on the current state.
-Social rules: Eating a Koran by Abel Azcona, or Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ are only a few examples of social norms and shortsighted superficial beliefs dictating what is allowed and what is not in the Artworld. Commentary on current supreme leaders and supreme religions and gods are off limits even if the art commentary is necessary for the improvement of society.
-Validation and Art market: True free Artist are the unknown once but they can not materialise their ideas and their big projects unless they get validation from the art market that provides space and finances necessary for the materialization. However, once an Artist is validated the freedom of thinking ends, moreover what is allowed and what is not allowed is controlled.
It is interesting to what extent Artist’s free will is controlled and imprisoned by social norms, beliefs, and other actions. Artist Abel Azcona performases caused threats, persecution, and acts of violence. Artists without “proof of Aryan descent” were no longer allowed to practice Art after 1933 under Natzis. Robert Mapplethrop: USA 1989; Owen Maseko: Zimbabwe 2011; Caravaggio: Italy 16th century, M.F. Husain: India 2006, Jafar Panahi: Iran 2009, Ai Weiwei: China 2010; Andrei Tarkovsky: Russia 1984. These are just a few examples of “Artists’ Freedom”.
Art of Politics
Can Art go beyond social trends?
Should Art reflect the current news? Should Artists take sides? Can and should Art fight aggression with aggression? When does Art stop being Art and become a political activism? Can Art change the world?
Lecture #3: Reality or Absurdity : Consciousness: Who Needs it
Socrates:
"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
"Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people."
"Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average people learn from their experiences, stupid people already have all the answers."
Probability
The universe is based on probability, which exists because of a lack of information. We can know, measure, or observe speed but not position, or vice versa (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). We can only know one or the other, never both. The universe allows us to see only partial images, leaving us in a world of probabilities.
What is deterministic and what is indeterministic Art?
Questions may be raised regarding the human condition and the often nonsensical way we think. Art that uses the absurd representation of mundane objects and everyday situations, yet bears tragic profound meaning, is the most extensively equipped for questioning the absurdity of reality. This is Art's strength: its capacity to take the viewer out of their comfort zone and challenge them to consider new sides of the story beyond safe and convenient interpretations through visually powerful concepts.
Official discourses of dishonest empowerment, cherishing violence in the name of greed, paradoxical tautologies in rhetoric, justifications of any ill-conceived action, unquestioning mass followings of those who should not even be acknowledged as humans, and contradictions between personal beliefs and those we follow (for whose ideas we are ready to willingly die or kill) while ignoring the ideological contradiction between our beliefs and the ones we are dying for—these are just a few absurdities we live by. If our arrogance informs us that absurdities are "theirs" and never "ours," as we can see the "correct" way, oh, how wrong we are. All who do not question their views and perceptions but make statements are equally arrogant in their absurdity as the ones they judge.
Science experiments tend to prove an idea; Art processes tend to question ideas. Facing absurdity with proven truth is almost always rejected by the absurd one, who enjoys dwelling in the illogical reality that provides freedom and justification for any ill behavior or thought without consequences. An Art process that results in an absurd Art piece reflects the viewer's absurdity like a mirror; viewers can see themselves reflected in the piece's irrationality. Seeing our reflections diffused in an absurd, deformed reality of beliefs, contradicting actions, and unquestioning following makes us question our identity, and realization arises. Questioning different models of reality is the Artist's responsibility.
Reason and Reality: Reason as the Highest Level of Absurdity
Humans love truth; it is the insatiable instinct of our consciousness. By possessing the truth of a certain idea or thing-in-the-world, we can consciously and conveniently justify any of our actions. We consciously apply logical conclusions from new or existing information with the aim of seeking truth. This capacity for logically concluding in the name of truth is Reason. However, truth is highly damaging for humanity and fails to be that which it argues to be in its definition. Definite truth is impossible; only "truths" exist—the possibilities of all truths within singularity. I see it as a possibility that there are two distinct ways of Reasoning: Functional Reasoning (based on functionality, purpose, and hierarchy) and Quantum Thinking (all possible thoughts in singularity, universalism).
Truth is an effect of perceptual processes. It is perceptually created information, relative and irrelevant. Consciousness should be explained first, but as we know, that has not gone well for millennia. We have theories—versions of idealism, contextuality, and information theory being the most successful thus far—without getting any closer to the answer. If we cannot answer what consciousness is (that with which we reason), how can we then claim reason for anything at all?
Reason ceases to be that which it claims to be. Its definition is as illogical as those that employ it in practice. Its failure stems from the nature of our consciousness. Reason consists of hallucinatory constructs of our consciousness and is never a factual “a priori”. Anil Seth, professor of cognitive and computational neuroscience at the University of Sussex, proposes the idea of the human mind as "constantly hallucinating the world and the self" to create reality.
How does consciousness happen? Without consciousness, there is no self, no reality, no Reason; the universe ceases to exist. Obviously, answering the question of consciousness's origin and function is imperative for understanding all there is. Conscious experiences are controlled hallucinations that happen with, through, and because of our living bodies, according to Seth. There are two properties of being conscious: first, experiences of the world around us, and second, the conscious self, or the specific experience of being a self.
Seth starts with experiences of the world: imagine being a brain, stuck inside a bony skull, trying to figure out what is out there in the world. There is no light or sound inside the skull; all you have to go on are streams of electrical signals, which are only indirectly related to things in the world. Seth says that perception has to be a process of "informed guesswork," in which sensory signals are combined with prior expectations about the way the world is to form the brain's best guess of the causes of these signals. It is the result of the brain continually updating its best guesses to help drive our behavior. "We don't just passively perceive the world; we actively generate it," Seth says. "The world we experience comes as much from the inside-out as the outside-in." In fact, we are all hallucinating all the time. "It's just that when we agree about our hallucinations, that's what we call 'reality'."
Artists study, throughout their art education, how to exploit the "informed guesswork" workings of our consciousness. Artists know that we do not passively perceive the world, and we use well-established tricks to manipulate viewers' perceptions: optical illusions, perspective, ambiguity of form, visual depth, emphasis and blurriness of form to dictate the narrative, symbols, color constancy, just to name a few. Girl with a Pearl Earring by Johannes Vermeer shows a pearl that has no contour and also no hook to hang it from the girl's ear; it is a smudge of a brushstroke, yet we see the most realistic pearl possible. Every art piece is made of particular suggestive specks of information that Artists know will invoke a particular or ambiguous form, narrative, or reality in a viewer's mind. Artists create controlled, agreed-upon hallucinations. Artists create Reality—a new Reality with every piece. By making a decision to put a mark here with such and such properties, or a mark there, we split the universe into a new one, just like a coin toss in Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation. Every decision creates a new world.
My second observation is based on Seth's statement: "We don't just passively perceive the world; we actively generate it. The world we experience comes as much from the inside-out as the outside-in. In fact, we're all hallucinating all the time. It's just that when we agree about our hallucinations, that's what we call 'reality'." Or perhaps, when we agree about our hallucinations, that is what we call Reason, I would say. But Reason is nothing more than an illusion, a construct of our brain trying to make sense of ourselves and our relation to the world. This is exactly why Reason is impossible to be that which it claims to be; its definition fails. Reason is not reasonable.
We are also entirely certain that we have, and that we utterly possess, the understanding of Self. However, Seth posits that this experience is also a hallucination generated by the brain. As neurologists and psychiatrists are already very well aware, these distinct elements of self can break down in all sorts of ways. In the rubber hand experiment, a person's real hand is hidden from view, and a rubber hand is placed in front of them. The real hand and the fake hand are simultaneously stroked using a paintbrush while the person looks at the fake hand. After a while, for most people, the rubber hand begins to feel like part of their body. "Even our experiences of what our body is, is another kind of 'best guessing' by the brain," Seth says.
We misperceive the world at all times. We misperceive ourselves. Experiencing PTSD or panic attacks is a real physical experience of the brain. Fibromyalgia is constant physical pain, yet it is a complete mis-signaling of the nervous system. Our body hallucinates about itself and the world. How can we now use any Reason to make definite statements or actions? The only way to live meaningfully in this nonsensical hallucination we call Self and Reality is to create new realities like Artists do. Anyone who makes a definite statement by the means of Reason to justify their actions, most of the time with destructive consequences, is, as I understand it, on a very simplistic conscious development. Collective hallucinations should never be taken as true Reality, and those that do use the Reason of Conformity to blindly and unquestionably follow the group usually result in destruction and atrocities.
We should have learned by now, thanks to thermodynamics and quantum physics, that there is nothing in nature that is definite; it is about relations and probabilities, indeterminism. No purpose, only relations. "We are part of, not apart from, the rest of nature," as Seth states, and we, and our Reason, cannot adhere to different cosmic rules. Reason fails because it tries to be impossible: to be definite knowledge instead of being all knowledge possible and their relations. Once humanity begins Reasoning this way, we just might become human.
In the 4th century BCE, Leucippus and his pupil Democritus understood that the entire universe is made up of boundless space in which atoms run. Atoms have no quality apart from their shape. There is no finality in this endless dance of atoms. We, just like the rest of nature, are one of the many products of this infinite dance—the product, that is, of accidental combinations. Nature continues to experiment with forms and structures; and we, like the animals, are the product of a selection that is random and accidental over the course of eons of time. Our life is a combination of atoms, our thoughts are made up of atoms, our dreams are products of atoms; our hopes and our emotions are written in a language formed by combinations of atoms; the light that we see is composed of atoms, which brings us images.
Plato and Aristotle rejected Democritus's naturalistic ideas in favor of explaining the world in finalistic terms, believing that everything that happens has a purpose, and understanding nature in terms of good and evil.
Democritus reportedly wrote over 70 treatises, all of which are lost with the exception of a few fragments. What did survive, however, are the works of Aristotle. Aristotle's thought became a foundation and main building block for Western thought, tragically. The edicts of Emperor Theodosius declared brutal anti-pagan repression and that Christianity was to be the only obligatory religion. The closure of schools and destruction of all texts not in accordance with Christian ideas were the effect of the edict. Aristotle's work was accepted while Democritus's was destroyed.
In Democritus's thought, there is no fear of gods, no ends or purposes in the world, no distinction between Earth and heavens, no cosmic hierarchy, only deep love for nature that we are part of—a serene immersion within nature, where all humans, animals, plants, and clouds are all part of a whole without hierarchies; deep and profound universalism. What would the world be like if all of Aristotle's work was lost and Democritus's survived? Had humanity followed Democritus's thought of atomism, naturalism, and universalism, how many divisions, hate, wars, abuse, and atrocities would have been prevented? How many lives would have been saved? Thinking that we are all equal parts of the whole means no hate, no fear. Democritus's luminous and serene meditation on the beauty of the world was destroyed in the name of suffering, violence, and punishments. Unfortunately, we chose to have a hierarchy, punishment, and suffering for a reason, where everything is defined with a purpose, good and evil, where all happens for a reason. We chose Aristotle. The only outcome of hierarchy is tyranny and hate. This is the biggest tragedy of all humanity, with consequences on billions of lost lives through time, as well as the Earth itself (destruction of nature, climate, etc.).
Lucretius (Roman poet and philosopher, born c. 99 BC), in the spirit of Democritus, writes profoundly about unity: that we are all made of the same substance as are the stars and the sea. "To a wise human, the whole earth is open, because the true country of a virtuous soul is the entire universe." It is no surprise that the Catholic Church attempted to stop Lucretius and, in 1516, prohibited his readings in schools. The reasoning that all structures are hierarchical and adhere to cause-and-effect principles—punishment for a reason—did not go away, though, and throughout centuries it has only dug itself deeper into the mass consciousness. This type of reasoning seems to be the only one we humans know of currently. If only we could reject Reason and bring Democritus's thought back in the name of peace among ourselves and peace with the environment. Thinking fluidly and universally, like Artists, should be the next reform of thought. Our thinking processes should be put in a quantum state.
Thinking means consciously connecting close and far, related and unrelated experiences and concepts, and creating and understanding the relations between them. Reasoning, however, is logical thinking, which is a very mechanical and rudimentary way of thinking: if A, then B. Reason leads to fundamentalism. Thinking goes beyond automatic reason and is a free, encompassing range of possibilities and their possible relations. Reason is rigid and usually results in a misunderstanding of the world. Art uses thinking, not reasoning. Artists think of all possible possibilities, not just logical conclusions that are anything but logical. Cause and effect are of no use to an Artist; they are left to those that use Functional Reasoning. Functional Reasoning relies on cause and effect: all happens for a reason, everything must have a reason, A is because of B. Thinking is like an Artist making an art piece: a process through time. Reasoning is the final definite outcome that others see as an art object.
Unlike Zeno, I am not arguing that the failure of rigorous logic means that our perceptions are irrational and illusion, but that there are better, more complex, and more efficient ways to analyze the world: by the means of a continuous thinking process where all possibilities are considered and are possible, but some more likely than others. In this state of continuous process, conclusive beliefs and opinions are not formed; rather, the entire world is comprehended simultaneously, through time—without time. Quantized thinking, perhaps.
Guitar. What is your first connotation: an object, strings, music, etc.? We most likely have a visual image in our head seen from the front. We define it by its function and visualize it simply and most commonly. Cubist Artists would instead break its form so that every possible angle is simultaneously visualized. Moreover, the space of, the space within, and the space around are one and the same. Air is as much a guitar as the wood. Air within it and around it wraps around it, has the shape of it. Air gives the guitar its meaning and allows it to have its purposeful existence by enabling sound waves to travel to our ears. When observing the world, Artists think of all possibilities, then choose one that is materialized into a piece via visual language. Artists think (quantized thinking); they do not reason and make beliefs. Some who call themselves Artists do use the rigorous logic of austere Reasoning. As stated, they call themselves Artists, which does not mean that they are. Perhaps this is how we can critique Art and assess its value: by thinking or reasoning.
The world is made of quantum relations; computers and the Internet are quantum-based (well, we are pretty close to making them publicly available); and I think it is just a matter of time before the science community officially announces proof that our brains are quantum-based (many have published promising data). If the world and all in it works according to quantum principles, why in the world would we not reflect that in our thinking? Our thinking must expand from Functional Reasoning (object-function-cause and effect) to not only the digital age but to quantum. Until then, humanity will keep being inhuman, violent, and oppressive. Cause-and-effect Reasoning will cause our destruction. Perhaps overcoming the primitive geocentric understanding of an individualized rational self that demands a selfish and aggressive attitude of "mine," and instead understanding self as just a part of the Infosphere revolution (explained in Lesson 1)—which means that we are all connected, good and bad, and that we exist within a complex network, thus hurting others hurts the system and consequently us—seems more humane. Inforgs instead of individualized-geocentric-self.
Reason has cost humanity not only progression but, most importantly, billions of lives throughout history. I am not criticizing Reason like Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Foucault, Rorty, or many other philosophers did; I am stating that all methods of Reasoning—"private," "public," Deductive, Inductive, Analogical, Fallacious, Abductive reasoning, and so on—are all extremely dangerous for humanity, and they hold back intellectually any individual that reasons with Reason. Contradictions and hypocrisy are inevitable consequences of Reason. Reason modifies Reality into personalized illusions. Reason makes us blind. We use Reason to justify atrocities, immorality, unethical actions, self-pity, destruction (personal and global), our failures, and blame. Reason is Absurdity.
We group people according to some random quality, which we understand to be rational Reasoning. We then give that group a name: Neanderthals, heathens, barbarians, primitives, etc. (and I can't even go into the more contemporary labels of racism and religious hate). The name evokes Reason to conclude hate, abhorrence, and justifies violence. We conveniently use reason to empower ourselves by belittling others. We create a random, yet seemingly purposeful hierarchy. We use the Geocentric Reason that we are the chosen ones, we are always the "good ones"; we are the ones who can "see"; we are the ones who are "looking up." Our Ego is made of Entitled Reasoning, and the more we self-observe ourselves through Reason, the more self becomes entitled, and our Ego ever so larger. We can easily Reason why we should be immoral, corrupt, or dishonest, most commonly by blaming and accusing others of the same, or by "Entitled Reasoning"—we are better than others. So easily are we capable of spinning it around and not only justifying our immorality but assigning it to others and becoming oblivious to our own wrongdoings, rationalizing them as morally appropriate actions. We accuse others of wrongdoing that, in fact, we are doing.
Interestingly enough, the further we Reason, the further we get from it, and our actions become illogical, hypocritical, and deviated. Consequences of this extreme Reasoning are quite evident in law practice and its failure to rule by Reason. Any event, any case may be successfully argued by the means of Reason even if by doing so the result is utterly nonsensical. The more we Reason, the farther we are from Reason. Common sense, or "Healthy Reasoning" as it is literally called in some languages, is being ever more suppressed in modern societies; what we are left with is Unhealthy Reasoning.
Religious texts, manuals for proper and morally acceptable behavior, contain narratives and instructions describing, encouraging, commanding, and rewarding violent actions by individuals and groups. Among the violent acts are war, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, murder, rape, genocide, and criminal punishment. Gods are telling their tribes to go and kill people belonging to other tribes, ordering the murder of women, children, and infants, and sparing virgins so they may be brought back as prizes. Women and slaves must obey their masters, which has propagated and is propagating abuse and racism for thousands of years. Violence is justified in the name of Reason, globally, for thousands of years.
Those atrocities were possible due to the Reason of Conformity. Social influence involving a change in belief or behavior in order to fit in with a group is an incredibly powerful tool for manipulating individuals and groups for the purpose of having followers. By means of Reasoning, leaders manipulate groups into Conformity. Perhaps, once upon a time, conformity made evolutionary sense, but presently it is a dangerous doctrine and almost always results in human casualties. Conspiracy theories, anti-vaccine movements, violence, wars, racism—just to name a few. Facts are logically ignored; deviated misinformation is used for the support of beliefs, all out of the convenience of conformity. It is intellectually incomparably easier to conform to reason rather than to uniquely think and make individual judgments. Leaders, political and religious, have exploited this method continuously throughout history and currently. Leaders are not to be feared, but those that follow them. The leader is one; the followers are by the millions.
An experiment was conducted in 1935 by Muzafer Sherif to demonstrate that people conform to group norms. Sherif used the autokinetic effect. A small spot of light was projected onto a screen in a dark room; the light appears to move, even though it is still. When participants were individually tested, their estimates on how far the light moved varied considerably, from 20cm to 80cm. The participants were then tested in groups of three. Two people whose estimate of the light movement, when alone, was similar were put in a group with one person whose estimate was very different. Each person in the group had to say aloud how far they thought the light had moved. After numerous trials, the group converged to a common estimate. The person whose estimate of movement was greatly different from the other two in the group conformed to the view of the other two. This showed that people always tend to conform. They tend to come to a group agreement rather than make individual judgments. A person will look to others for guidance and adopt the group norm. They want to do the right thing but may lack the appropriate information. Observing others can provide this information, regardless of how incorrect that information may be. This is known as informational conformity.
In the story The Immortal, Borges writes: "I reflected that our perceptions were identical but that Argos combined them differently than I, constructed from them different objects; I reflected that perhaps for him there were no objects, but rather a constant, dizzying play of swift impressions. I imagined a world without memory, without time; I toyed with the possibility of a language that had no nouns, a language of impersonal verbs or indeclinable adjectives."
What if we can live in thought, in pure speculation? Borges writes about the immortals: "In a self-absorption, they scarcely perceived the physical world." What is this self-absorption that extends beyond self to the universe itself? Can we be absorbed into the construct of the universe and be oblivious to the Ego-deviated self-absorption and physical world? This passage most accurately captures what I believe to be Quantum Thinking or the Artist's way of thinking.
Art speaks the language of immortals. Art speaks the language of no nouns and impersonal verbs, no adjectives, nor tenses, but a constant construct of impressions. Art speaks the language not of objects and/or their use, their properties, but the language of thought. "There is no more complex pleasure than thought," said Borges. Art has no words, no objects, just thoughts, impressions, with which we all create a construct of all there is, the universe itself, where all thoughts and time collapse into singularity. This is the Artist's resistance against Geocentric Reasoning and Logic. This is the Artist's resistance against humanity's absurdity.
Consciousness: Who Needs It
"Because we do not understand the brain very well, we are constantly tempted to use the latest technology as a model for trying to understand it. In my childhood, we were always assured that the brain was a telephone switchboard. (What could it be?) I was amused to see that Sherrington, the great British neuroscientist, thought that the brain worked like a telegraph system. Freud often compared the brain to hydraulic and electro-magnetic systems. Leibniz compared it to a mill, and I am told some of the ancient Greeks thought the brain functions like a catapult. At present, obviously, the metaphor is the digital computer."
— John R. Searle
Consciousness official definition:
Consciousness is the state of being aware of one's surroundings, internal states, and existence.
Does the Universe have consciousness (panpsychism)? Bernardo Kastrup proposes analytic idealism, claiming that phenomenal consciousness is the primary substrate of existence, with individual minds representing dissociated segments of a universal consciousness.
Is my consciousness mine, or a subpart of some more complex universal consciousness of ALL?
Is my consciousness an assembly of smaller parts? What if every cell and every particle has consciousness, and I am just an assembly of all the conscious bits?
A bicycle will never be able to know its purpose nor why it is rolling. Just the same, perhaps we will never be able to understand our purpose by using our limited consciousness; a higher, more complex consciousness might be needed.
Why do we do what we do? Are we just programmed AI by our experiences and our physiology?
Is the Universe a Math construct (Max Tegmark) or someone’s Art project?
Is there something that is more than consciousness? Something that exceeds the classic understanding of consciousness, not awareness but being all simultaneously.
Localized Consciousness:
Consciousness is an internal experience, self interpretation of the world, a self construct of what is. Consciousness is utterly self-centered. Our personal experiences are processed, digested, and perceived by our internal consciousness. For Carl Jung Ego is in the center of consciousness which gives us the awareness of existence and personal identity. Ego is one’s personality. It seems to me that ego feeds itself through conscious awareness by which it grows its own self, its own identity. Ego creates Ego. Now, Jung does make a distinction between Ego and Self. Ego is the center of conscious mind while Self is the entire psyche, that which is conscious and unconscious.
How would it feel if we had more altruistic consciousness, that could comprehend and be aware of all there is simultaneously? All the probabilities all at once. What if instead of seeing a rock we can feel what it is to be a rock? What if we can feel, be, and have every living creature’s feeling, perception, apperception, thought, and comprehension simultaneously in this very moment all at once? Superposition of Consciousness. Can we possess Probable consciousness and what would the world be like in that case? Would time be perceived as linear still or would it be three dimensional or perhaps disappear all together. What would the perception of space be like?
Our consciousness in the current state is a self created prison of self-centered constructs. Self imposed localized “Cave dwellers” perception.
Metacognition is thinking about thinking. It is an awareness of one’s thought processes and comprehending the patterns within thinking. Metacognition allows us to step outside our own mind and observe why we observe or react a certain way. Metacognition, seems like, questions the Ego and by doing so is giving us a first step towards Delocalised consciousness.
From Localized Consciousness, through Metacognition, to Delocalized Probable consciousness.
I will leave it to philosophers and neurologists to discuss the nature and origins of consciousness, with the exception of mentioning a few key ideas. However, I will give examples of concepts that are on par with Artists' creativity and freedom of thinking. In fact, Artists have a reputation for nonsensical, useless thoughts that are as far removed from Reality as possible. Yet, there are few scientific theories and thought experiments that successfully manage to astound even the most creative Artists. Those theories challenge our human reasoning and accepted perceptions and are extremely valuable for learning how to think as an Artist and how far the mind can expand its reasoning.
As I was passing by, a tree leaf caught my sight. The tree was bare due to the winter cold, with only a few leaves still stubbornly holding on. As I was walking, I observed one particular leaf. At any given point in time, that leaf, even though not moving at all, appeared to be moving for me as an observer because I was the one moving through space and time. The leaf looked different and was in a different spot at any given moment (just look at the space around or behind it, and the obvious will reveal itself) not because it was moving or in different points in space, but because I was moving through time, so it appeared to me, as an observer, as if the leaf was changing. The leaf always is, but the observer is the one changing through space-time. This was a beautiful, simple observation that perhaps may be explained through the language of math and quantum physics. The world, with its beautiful structure, constantly reveals itself, but only to those that decide to look. Casual Observers see the world of “Mortals” , while Deliberate Observers who incline towards seeing the world like “Imortals”. Artists are anything but Casual Observers.
In Search Of:
Our curiosities and our questions define us. With questions we explore and learn. Questions expand our consciousness bit by bit. There are 64,000 Google searches per second, 228 million searches per hour, 5.6 billion searches per day, and 2 trillion searches per year. The questions we ask, our searches, reflect ourselves. Is our Google history our self-portrait? What is the cultural self-portrait? What is Google's collective epistemological reasoning versus the individual? The knowledge we decide to seek defines us. Can we search for the same questions as many before us but find our own answers that are revolutionary?
Consciousness:
Ludwig Eduard Boltzmann was an Austrian mathematician and theoretical physicist who came up with "The Boltzmann Brain Paradox," a thought experiment in cosmology and philosophy that questions the nature of reality and the possibility of our existence. The Boltzmann Brain suggests that it might be more likely for a brain to spontaneously form, complete with a memory of having existed in the Universe, rather than for the entire Universe to come about in the manner we think it actually did. Over a sufficiently long time, random fluctuations could cause particles to spontaneously form literally any structure of any degree of complexity, including a functioning human brain.
Boltzmann brains are used to test our assumptions about thermodynamics and the development of the universe. The scenario initially involved only a single brain with false memories, but the scenario works just as well at larger scales, like that of entire bodies or galaxies. Boltzmann argues that, while most of the universe is featureless, humans do not see those regions because they are devoid of intelligent life.
The Hard Problem of Consciousness:
David John Chalmers: The "hard problem of consciousness" refers to the difficulty in explaining how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences, such as feelings, sensations, and the "what it's like" aspect of awareness. It contrasts with the "easy problem," which focuses on understanding how brain processes lead to specific behaviors or information processing.
How can one ever know oneself? Consciousness would have to observe itself through itself. Even self-physicality is an impossibility. We have an idea of how we look physically in a moment, never at all angles at all times. Strangers know better how you look than yourself. A mirror helps, but it does not give us the whole picture. We attempt to research, experiment, philosophize, etc., about what consciousness is by using the very same consciousness we are trying to understand. Perhaps it is all reflection. We reflect our consciousness against any experience, any thought, any opinion, analyzing it like an image in a mirror. It is a highly inaccurate image.
Jean-Paul Sartre:
For Jean-Paul Sartre, consciousness is not a static entity but a dynamic process, always directed towards something and always aware of itself. He argues that consciousness is fundamentally intentional, meaning it is always consciousness “of” something, whether that be a physical object, a person, or even an idea. Furthermore, Sartre asserts that consciousness is self-conscious, meaning it is not only aware of objects but also aware of itself as the subject of awareness.
George Berkeley:
Berkeley's Woods: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" Berkeley's idealism argues that things only exist when they are perceived. Meaning, if no one is there to hear the sound, the tree falling doesn't make a sound because there's no conscious mind to perceive it.
Unconsciousness:
Spinoza's philosophy is rooted in panpsychism, the idea that all things have some form of mind or consciousness. This makes it difficult to draw a clear line between human consciousness and the consciousness of other things, including those we might consider unconscious. Spinoza distinguishes between adequate and inadequate ideas. Adequate ideas are clear and distinct, while inadequate ideas are vague and confused. He argues that actions arise from adequate ideas, while passions depend on inadequate ideas.
David Hilbert:
Hilbert Space is a way to mathematically describe the state of a quantum system. It is a generalization of Euclidean space, allowing for infinite dimensions and the description of quantum wave functions. Hilbert space is a framework for understanding quantum mechanics and the nature of Reality, meaning that Hilbert space serves as the "space" where quantum states, or "wave functions," live.
Can an Art piece exist in a Hilbert Space state with all possible possibilities all at once? If so, would our primitive consciousness be able to comprehend it? Does that even matter? Do we even need to have Berkeley's conscious observer or the quantum observer that can influence the outcome and behavior of a system, or do we all together get rid of an observer's consciousness in Hilbert-based Art?
Madness: My perception of reality is as real and truthful as it is to someone with opposing views, or someone with hallucinations. So how presumptuous would it be to assume that my perception of the world is The correct one and everyone else is wrong. This is madness. To think that the way I see the
world is the right way and whoever disagrees with me is wrong is the most preposterous narrow minded idea. What if my truthful wives are the “mad” ones?
According to Werner Herzog Madness is a state where we can be out and beyond ourselves. What if madness is the state of more complex delocalized consciousness, but the world we constructed is based on reason and logic, which is limiting and leads to absurdity, so we write it off as unwelcomed. Perhaps the madness is an ability to possess Probable consciousness, consciousness of all, without time-space-ego limitations.
Week #4: Seeing or Observing : Reality of a Box : Reality is not as it appears
Reality of a Box
Fundamental Questions:
What is space? What is the space “of”, versus space “around”, versus space “beyond”?
Does space exist?
What is the edge of space? Is there an edge, or is it just another space?
What is the nature of known reality and that of the unknown reality?
What is reality? Is Reality real?
Does time define space or vice versa?
By blurring—and I hesitate in my optimism, hence not saying “erasing”—the strict border between Art and Science great progress is possible in either field. Art and Science may use different languages, but essentially they are the same in their attempt to explain the world. Both pursue the same questions: while scientific life is devoted to discovery and proofs, an Artist's life is devoted to discovery and understanding. In a lab full of metal and liquid helium, scientists set up experiments to test questions and confirm answers. In a studio filled with carbon (pencils) and paper, Artists set up an Art process to experience the questions and understand the answers. Both Art and Science question the world; they bring new thoughts to the world and re-contextualize preconceived ideas and views.
Art and Science require the same fundamental way of thinking: connecting things, beliefs, and ideas that are not typically connectable. They see relations within concepts that are not commonly perceived. The difference is in name, and in name only. Once we label anything, we create a divide—an irreparable divide at this time and age. Art is put in its box labeled "Art," and Science in its own labeled box. The content of the boxes cannot be mixed by any means, and if that accidentally happens, an outrage breaks out. Art content is furious at science, and vice versa. One puts down the other. Labels do that. But in both cases, it is shortsightedness and instinctual hostility brought about by the arbitrary traditions. This labeling, besides academia, appears in all cultures as an integral part of humans’ behavior, us versus them. It sounds ridiculous: bickering and people shouting at each other from their respective caves while drowning in self-imposed stereotypes.
Humanity's progression is possible only if we walk out of our labeled boxes and start communicating with each other. Our thinking is the same, but Artists see connections that Scientists are not accustomed to, just as the reverse is true. Scientists’ chain of reasoning and mindset is quite similar if not the same as the Artists' reasoning processes. The only difference is language.
Erwin Schrödinger writes in “What is Life?” that we have inherited, throughout centuries, unified, universal, all-embracing knowledge, which is the only kind with full credit. However, the depth of knowledge has forced us to branch into specialized, limited, and narrow focuses. Perhaps it is time to go back and attempt to unify some of that knowledge to give us a more comprehensive view of Reality.
Patrick Cavanagh, co-founder of the Vision Sciences Lab at Harvard and a leader in research in visual neuroscience and perception, recognizes that Art is a 40,000-year record of experiments in visual neuroscience that reveals as much about the human brain as it does about the world around us. Roberto Zenit, a researcher in fluid dynamics and Professor of Engineering at Brown University, has extensively studied David A. Siqueiros and Jackson Pollock's painting processes. He realized similarities between their paint techniques and flow phenomena in other areas, which have helped explain the formation of lava domes on Venus and the Great Kavir salt desert in Iran.
If we, the Artists, have a responsibility to present reality, shouldn't we also have a responsibility to understand that same reality with knowledge? I certainly would like to get as much information about "the Box" (an object) before I attempt to represent it within visual language, whether that be a simple impression or its atomic structure.
A Box
Possible view: An object did not exist until I became aware of it, until my interaction with it. (Berkeley's woods: "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?") Or as Rovelli explains: a football game does not exist until the players get together, start interacting, and only then do we have a football game. Once the relation or interaction is established, this is the moment an object, or an event, comes into existence. This is not due to consciousness but interaction. We create our own universe every minuscule moment we happen to be interacting with it. Perhaps Boltzmann was correct in believing in the multiverse, where every event splits the existing universe into all possibilities of that event. An event may have happened somewhere at some point, but for me, it was nonexistent until I entangled myself with it, which became the perceptual construct of reality.
When interpreting an object, an Art object, the Artist presents their relation to the object's information because the Artist has given the object its existence in a moment of awareness. It is this awareness, this interaction, that is being presented. Creation is a documentation of the interaction event.
The identity of a Box is only as such in a moment of observation and is so because of its relation to the world around. Observe a box, now move it to the other side of the room. Every time it is moved and interacts with another set of things-in-the-world, it assumes a different appearance and identity. Traditional Artists know this all too well. We are different people when interacting with different people and in different situations. The world is in constant change, and interactions modify it. Not being aware of this, but believing in the permanent identity of a box or self, is as if life is seen in a snapshot picture without continuity, instead of an ever-changing movie where each picture is invisible and insignificant, yet a crucially important contributor to the overall understanding of life. Strong opinions and rigid views some hold so dearly are those of shortsighted picture observers who are missing the whole picture of the life movie.
Is the Reality that we see around us just made up from a random collection of unrelated rules and events, or is there a common underlying thread from which these all derive? Why is there a Reality in the first place? What is Reality? In order to understand anything, we must break down our observations, decode the bits and intricate connections existing between them, and only then use this information to reconstruct a better and more understanding picture of Reality. How are we, as Artists, to question Reality and our perceptions? Art breaks down the observed and reconstructs it. Art links different aspects of reality and attempts to understand Reality.
Joseph Kosuth's One and Three Chairs (1965) is a perfect example of questioning the realness of reality and the connotation and denotation of the perceived. If we think of a chair, what is the first thought that comes to our mind? Do we envision a chair as a 3D object in space? What material is it? Is it just the meaning of the word "chair" that we see? We can continue asking numerous questions, and each of us will have a different answer. So, what is a chair? This is exactly what Plato's Theory of Forms asserts. The physical reality that we experience as real is imperfect and changing. What is a Chair if we all connote a different chair in our mind? Even if we do agree on a Chair, that same chair is changing physically through time. What is the ultimate chair? What is a true blue, or any other entity that is in the world? If we cannot agree on a physical reality, how are we to agree on concepts and ideas? This is a world of shadows, as Plato stated. According to Plato, the true reality is in the Realm of Forms. This is the world of ideas, ideals, and abstraction. This is the world where concepts live. This reality of true Forms is perfect and unchanging. It exceeds time and space and, as such, is more real than the physical reality of temporary shadows. Just like Kosuth's Chair, there is a chair that belongs to physical reality: imperfect, changing, and one of many other interpretations of a chair—a shadow. The two-dimensional image of a chair is a simple connotation of a chair. And finally, the dictionary explanation of the word "Chair" is a denotation of it: a concept, an abstraction, a Realm of Forms.
What is to be taken from Kosuth and Plato is that our perceptions of a physical reality are not true reality, or at least not a complete reality. Just like in Plato's Allegory of the Cave, our physical perceptual reality is a shadowy illusion and should not be blindly trusted. If we apply what we know of a physical world to our cognitive perceptions instead of simply relying on sensory perception, the world becomes much bigger. Perhaps that is what Plato envisioned with his image of walking out of the cave.
Simply think about what color is. Think of photons and Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR). We can visually perceive only a tiny part of the entire spectrum, 400–700 nm; the rest we know of but cannot perceive (I guess we are out of Plato's cave now). Radio and TV waves, infrared rays, ultraviolet, X-rays, gamma rays, and secondary cosmic rays—all of those frequencies, from 3 × 10²⁶ Hz to 3 × 10³ Hz, or wavelengths from 10⁻¹⁸ m to 100 km—and we can only perceive a minuscule part of it. That tiny part that we do perceive is our prerogative for what reality is. It appears to me that we see less than if we were chained facing the wall in Plato's cave. Picture all the frequencies waving around, rushing through things, reflecting, bouncing off, piercing, and being absorbed. Picture neutrinos, right now, going through our bodies, going through objects with the speed of light, not even the slightest bit disturbed by the solidity of "real things." Picture the vast empty space of all matter around yourself, including yourself. Not only are the visuals astonishing, but the knowledge has allowed us to see more of reality. The world is made of light. But this is just the visible bit of the whole Universe. Dark matter and Dark energy, which we still don't even know what they are, quantum fields, gravity, and a whole lot that we don't know about yet—all of it within us and around us. We are fundamentally all the same part of Nature, our bodies and our desk. Painting that reality with knowledge, where space is waving with speed-of-light photons, and not only the visible color but all frequencies and energies, in the space within objects and in the space around objects, where time and space just is—well, that would be as close as one can get to Plato's World of ideal forms. This view makes us comprehend the oneness with all. We can comprehend and feel Reality. This is the power of Art and Science: we can perceive, feel, and perhaps even understand with our mind and not only our eyes. It is a prerogative to understand things in reality. Limited knowledge and perceptions result in limited reality, and we should question if it is reality at all or a Platonic world of shadows and illusion. Knowledge gives us the power to see and go beyond the realm of shadows and out of the cave.
What we perceive and what we call physical reality is no more than the cave wall an inch away from our faces. As real as it feels, at its best, it is an extremely reduced and deviated perception of reality. With our faces so close to the wall, seeing only the shadows made by the fire behind us, and not having any knowledge whatsoever of the reality of the fire, cave, and chains, we would, understandably, create our own fictional explanations of what the experienced reality is. Evidently, this is a part of human history and the present; we just have to look at politics, conspiracy theories, religion, cults, etc. We are experiencing it; therefore, it is our Reality, except it has nothing to do with Reality, it is self imposed made up reality.
Now, let's say we do the hard work, turn our heads, and learn the state in which we are, the state of our universe. Our reality will expand and change. Knowledge helps us see, understand the state of our being, and ultimately Be in Reality. Currently, all that is known in the Universe—neutrons, protons, and electrons that make up everything we can see—accounts for only about 4% of the mass and energy of the Universe. About 70% of the Universe is dark energy; about 26% is dark matter, and we still don't know exactly what this 96% is. All that humanity has ever discovered and learned accounts for 4% of the Universe. We know about the fire, and we know that there is something else beyond the cave, but we cannot explain what that 96% is. There is 96% that we know we do not know. How much more is there that we do not know that we do not know? Will we ever get out of the cave?
Knowing the unknown is incomparably much more real than not knowing at all.
However, it has been well over 100 years and we are still suffering from “long classicality” in terms of quantum physics as Marcus Appleby, mathematical physicist calls it, comparing it to long covid. There are multiple interpretations that are trying to give the narrative of what quantum mechanics is trying to tell us about reality; Many worlds interpretation, objective collapse, relational quantum mechanics, Spontaneous Collapse Theory, Bohemian mechanics, QBism, etc. These theories defer substantially which is remarkable considering that they are trying to interpret the same theory. It is as if we construct the story based on what we want our reality to be and make it consistent with QM. We form our interpretations based on prior beliefs which is not only true of how we see the news, how we interact and communicate with others, but this is also true when it comes to science data, or Art processes. Can we objectively look at information and let that dictate our interpretations rather than our prior beliefs or what we are told to believe dictating it. Can a rational person be so disjoint from their ego and prior experiences, go in without preconception, and let only data speak?
Physical Reality, Mind-Independent Reality, Reality of Meaning and Knowledge:
Is Physical Reality, the experienced reality, the only real reality? What about Mind-Independent Reality? Just because 100 years ago we did not know of the existence of Dark Matter doesn't mean it did not exist. Obviously, the galaxies held together then just as well as today. Earth keeps spinning, with no interruption, for dinosaurs, flat-earthers, as well as for those who have basic knowledge in astronomy and physics. How many more things hold our Reality together yet there is no consciousness to perceive them? Reality is mind-independent yet no less real.
We know that quantum mechanics works. We know it because we use it daily in our gadgets. We know it is somewhat hard to wrap our minds around. The double-slit experiment is fascinatingly simple in its construction, nonetheless massively challenges our logical reasoning. It clearly implies that tiny objects can be perceived as being in two places at the same time—or do they? We know that it is not an atom that is the fundamental building block of all there is, but the fields. It is the fields' information invisibly shared between fundamental building blocks through interactions.
We relay and base all of humanity's reasoning, from the very beginning, on logic. What if we didn't think logically? What if we don't just deduce and conclude? What if there are exoplanets where reasoning doesn't adhere to the rules of logic? What if we can collectively reason on new, beyond-logical principles? Perhaps like an octopus, who has practically nine brains: a central brain located between its eyes, and a mini-brain in each of its eight arms. This decentralized nervous system allows each arm to act relatively independently. Now, what would decentralized logic look like in highly developed brains? How much would our perceptions of Reality expand, or not? Can something other than logical reasoning even exist? If it does, would our neurology be able to recognize it? The trained mind of an Artist might have a better chance than the rest in recognizing this new, different way of thinking and perhaps expanding our world of perceptions.
Once again, what is the reality of a Box? Is there something more than how we see it? Something more than how we see a snapshot of the superficial appearance in a fraction of a time bit?
I have mentioned Hilbert space: the description of quantum wave functions and all possible spaces existing all at once. What does a Box look like in Hilbert Space? How to paint a Box in a Hilbert Space state?
What is inside an empty Box? Does looking and knowing what is inside the box changes the context of the box? What is the space of nothingness?
Hydrogen atoms are 99.9999999999996% empty space. In order to comprehend the amount of emptiness, imagine if an atom was the size of a large stadium: the nucleus would be about the size of a ping-pong ball, and electrons would be bits of dust floating somewhere around the stands. Why then do solid objects feel solid? How come we do not fall through the chair or walk through the walls? When two atoms come in contact, they do not physically touch, obviously considering they are all made of empty space. However, they have forces, specifically electromagnetic force. It is due to the electromagnetic field that we fail to walk through walls and each other. When a large star collapses at the end of its life with such a strong gravitational field, it merges all of its atoms together, leaving behind only neutrons without empty space: a neutron star. Neutron stars are so dense that 20km of a neutron star is about as heavy as 1.5 times our solar system. Supermassive stars collapse into a black hole. 1cm of a black hole weighs more than Earth. But we know that empty space does not exist. A vacuum is not emptiness but filled with bubbling Quantum field fluctuations. Artists are mostly concerned by the solidity of reality, objects, but do they even exist? Is solidity real?
What is the color of a Box? We say blue, so we paint the whole box blue. Well, not quite. In ancient Greece, the sky was not blue but bronze. In fact, they didn't even have a word for blue. They did, however, have words that describe the intensity of light and dark (glaukos and kyanos). Homer mentions only four colors in the Iliad and Odyssey: black, white, greenish-yellow, and purple-red. The sky is bronze as it is dazzlingly bright like a shield. Wine, the sea, and sheep are all purple-red. NASA's Mars rover in 2006 was designed to read color the same way as ancient Greeks. The objects were grouped by property rather than actual color; i.e., yellow or light green meant fluid, fresh, and living. In Papua New Guinea, many languages have only a word for black and white and no other color. Classical Welsh has no word for brown, gray, blue, or green. So, what color you see depends on your language and cultural reasoning of how the objects' properties are prioritized.
The Box is not the way it is because it IS, but because it is in context and relation to all there is in the universe.
Seeing or Observing
"...originality consists of the achievement of new combinations, and not of the creation of something out of nothing."
— Richard V. Clemence
Can a stable house ever be built from damaged, fragmented bricks? Possibly, but this new problem has to have a different and novel approach. Bricks would have to be assembled in a new way, and we would be forced by the problem to discover a never-before solution, resulting in advancement. We don't need to change the bricks but change the concept of what a house is, what the brick is, and the building approach. Our understanding of the Universe is not complete, and we are trying to fit all the fragmented pieces into the image we are familiar with. Take all of the pieces and make a new image of the Universe.
Hilbert's problems are 23 problems in mathematics published by David Hilbert (German mathematician) in 1900 at the Paris conference of the International Congress of Mathematicians, speaking on August 8 at the Sorbonne (10 problems at that time). They were all unsolved at the time, and several proved to be very influential for 20th-century mathematics. The complete list of 23 problems was published later, in English translation in 1902. Problems 8, 13, and 16 are still unresolved. To combine known things-in-the-world in new combinations is admirable, but it does not even come close to the rare insight of some people to see and know that which is unknown. Solving hard puzzles is great; creating a puzzle is amazing; but creating the unsolvable puzzle is a job for "gods" of intellect.
In some cases, in Art and in Science, we must create different approaches to test the same problem to confirm the result.
Fundamentals
The following might be referring a bit too much to science; however, our understanding of Reality cannot be based on seeing and believing but on analytical observations. Science shows us the non-intuitive, proven fundamentals of Reality. Science tells us that the shadows in front of us that we so obviously see in our everyday experiences within our Platonic cave are not real and that our reality is way more complex. We should be familiar with the proven nature of things in the universe so that we, as Artists, can observe it and properly see. Additionally, science reasoning is based on simplistic complexity much like Artists reasoning.
Information is fundamental to all in nature. It appears to me that there are two types of information: ephemeral and a-priori. Ephemeral information is a manifestation and an effect of the a-priori information; it is our interpretation of Reality. It is a superficial interpretation of Reality, a made-up one, based on our beliefs and personal impressions. A-priori information, on the other hand, is the most fundamental and integral part of Nature.
In 1801, Thomas Young performed the Double-Slit Experiment in order to demonstrate the wave-particle duality of matter and light, showcasing how they can exhibit both wave-like and particle-like behavior. If light passes through two parallel slits, a characteristic pattern of light and dark patches shows on a screen positioned behind the slit.
When the light goes through the screen and passes through the slits, light spreads out and refracts. As the wave passes through both slits, it splits into two new waves, each spreading out from one of the slits. These two waves then interfere with each other. Where a peak meets a trough, they will cancel each other out. And where peak meets peak, they will reinforce each other. Places where the waves reinforce each other give the brightest light. When the light meets a second wall placed behind the first, you will see a stripy pattern, called an interference pattern. The bright stripes come from the waves reinforcing each other.
If one of the slits is blocked off for the moment, we will find that some of the electrons will pass through the open slit and strike the second wall just as pebbles would: the spots they arrive at form a strip roughly the same shape as the slit.
If the second slit is open, we would expect two rectangular strips on the second wall, but what you actually see is very different: the spots where electrons hit build up to replicate the interference pattern from a wave. The interference pattern remains even when you fire the electrons one by one, so that they have no chance of interfering. Strangely, each individual electron contributes one dot to an overall pattern that looks like the interference pattern of a wave after a sufficient number of electrons have hit the screen. Can electrons somehow split?
Similarly, Roman Ondák's piece Measuring the Universe results in the same interference pattern
If a detector is installed by the slits to see which slit an electron passes through, the pattern on the detector screen turns into the particle pattern of two strips. The interference pattern disappears. Somehow, the very act of looking makes sure that the electrons travel like well-behaved little pebbles.
The experiment suggests that particles, such as electrons, somehow combine characteristics of particles and characteristics of waves. It also suggests that the act of "observing," of measuring a quantum system, has a profound effect on the system. In Art, we may observe similar phenomena. An art piece has multiple characteristics; however, the observer, the act of observing, has a profound effect on the art piece, assigning only specific characteristics to it.
Classical physics argues that if we knew properties for all the particles in the Universe, we would determine the outcome of any future event. The universe is deterministic. Quantum physics, however, explains the Universe through probabilities. Through indeterministic relations, the deterministic universe comes to be. As Artists, we are quite familiar that using a sufficient number of random marks always results in deterministic patterns or representational forms.
According to the Copenhagen interpretation, first posed by physicist Niels Bohr in 1920, a quantum particle doesn't exist in a particular state but has a probability to be in all states at the same time. We do not measure one state or another, but we can calculate a probability that the particle is where it is at. This state of existence in all possible states at once is called coherent superposition. The object's wave function is the total of all possible states in which an object can exist. When we observe an object, the superposition "collapses," and the object is forced into one of the states of its wave function. The act of quantum measurement, popularly known as a "collapse of the wave function," was mathematically proven by Viennese physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.
On the other hand, there is The Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which supposes that each possible outcome of quantum measurements is physically realized in some "world" or universe, and the universe splits to accommodate each one. This theory takes the observer out of the equation. No longer are we able to influence the outcome of an event simply by observing it, as is stated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The many-worlds theory is also called the Everett interpretation, after physicist Hugh Everett, who first proposed it in 1957. Many-worlds are explained by the mechanism of quantum decoherence, which has been widely explored and developed since the 1970s. The many-worlds interpretation implies that there are many universes, perhaps infinitely many, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realized.
The tossed coin has two possible outcomes. In reality, it will land on tails or heads because we, as observers, have “collapsed” the wave function and forced it into only one of the possibilities, according to the Copenhagen interpretation. According to Everett, however, as soon as the coin is tossed, all the possibilities do happen: the coin does land on heads and tails simultaneously but in different worlds; we just happen to be conscious of this particular one. Every time a decision is made or an event happens, the world splits into different realities, as so do we.
Just 200 years ago, we would miserably fail in convincing anyone that Earth is spinning at a speed of 460 meters per second, or roughly 1,000 miles per hour. They might even have experimental proof by tossing an object in the air: if the Earth was spinning, the object would not fall straight down. But now we know better. We presently have a hard time comprehending Everett's many-worlds idea, perhaps because we experience this reality as the only reality. Just like 200 years ago we wouldn't believe that the Earth is spinning because we don't feel it, we might have a hard time comprehending the idea of an infinite number of universes because we don't feel it. Now, to be clear, I personally have difficulty with Everett's interpretation not because it is not intuitive but because experimentally it is far from being proven, if ever. What I do admire, though, is the creativity and boldness in reasoning outside of the Platonic cave where the rest of us dwell.
What does this say about our direct experiences and Reality? What is Reality? Is there realness to Reality or just perceptions? What is the implication of all this in Arts? What is an observation? Does an observer collapse all the possibilities of an art piece simply by observing it? Does Art go beyond tactile direct experiences? Should traditional Art education include reasoning that exceeds representing direct experiences of the physical world? Should Art education include the facts of what Reality truly is, on its most fundamental level? Could we, as artists, go beyond quantum mechanics and Everett's theory by observing with reason and not just our eyes? Can we, the Artist, present the true nature of reality, no matter how counterintuitive it may be? Can we go beyond conceptualism, which is last century's movement anyway?
Information is something that is encoded in the state of a quantum system, and it is physical. While quantum mechanics deals with examining properties of matter at the microscopic level, quantum information science focuses on extracting information from those properties.
Reality is made of information. Artists decode this reality, henceforth encode that information into their Art piece, and lastly, an observer decodes the piece. An Artist observes and decodes the world, and as an Art piece is encoded and created, the piece becomes its own universe that is then observed by the world. The decoder becomes the decoder. The decoding always depends on the context and relations within the context.
Where does reality come from?
As an Artist, as someone who Represents reality and the nature of things in the world, I must understand the information that Reality is composed of. The Reality is made of Realities: may that be decoherence, coherent superposition, indeterministic, deterministic, etc. For an Artist, these distinct Realities are not proposing mutual exclusivity but are mutually contributing to the omnipotent vision of reality by connecting far different visions into one complete, or as complete as it can be, view. Artists are concerned with all of the existing models of reality, not orthogonally, but encompass them and present them in an Art context.
Focusing on the superficial appearances of Reality and our distorted interpretation of Reality by our beliefs (ephemeral information) has profound consequences on the world and humanity. We see only differences (which are so superficial and inconsequential for anything at all), we select and group each other, we hate, we don't reason, we destroy, and we are shortsighted and aggressive. On the other hand, if we are to focus, observe, and comprehend the Reality of Nature with all its unknowns and knowns (the a-priori information), we would be preoccupied with reasoning, contemplations, and creativity. We would be consumed by the realization that we are all the same, a simple part of the universe (we are made of stars, anyways), and that our experiences and perceptions have more to them if observed by reason. If for once we could stop being shortsighted and so closely and obsessively looking for the entirely irrelevant differences among ourselves, and instead, just for a moment, try to comprehend the vastness and the complexity of the universe as a whole, I am convinced that atrocities would not exist; we would simply all be humans. Can Art help in this respect? Can Art reform human perceptions on a large scale and make us more human? Artists do not claim to See, but we, the Artist, Observe and understand.
Marks: Physics of Art Process
The most fundamental nature of the Universe is its granularity (Rovelli), as quantum mechanics has shown us. The universe is made of bits, little packets of energy, grains, or bits of information. These tiny packets that all are made of exist only when interacting with one another. A particle, a packet of information, materializes only when it interacts with another entity, a screen of the detector or a photon, for example. The cloud of probability with which we conceived of it 'collapses,' and the electron materializes at that point only in relation to the detector screen. The act of quantum measurement in quantum mechanics occurs when a wave function, a wave of probabilities, reduces to a single state due to interaction with the external world. This interaction is called an "observation." In relation to any other object, the particle and the detector screen are together in a superposition. Prior to the interaction, it does not have any mathematical value; hence, it does not exist. The physical world has no value until it interacts with something else, and when it does, it becomes deterministic but only in relation to the thing it interacts with and remains indeterministic for the rest of the Universe. Interactions between information create physical reality.
Biological systems or humans may be observed the same way. Humanity is granular. Each human can be seen as a granular bit. In order for a human to exist, in order for any human to have a particular material value, that particular person must somehow interact with another, may that be a physical interaction, through media, storytelling, or whichever other way. One human exists for another only if one is aware of the other through interaction. In relation to any other person, the interacting people are together in a superposition. We group people; we superposition them by nationality, race, profession, etc.
More interaction between particular humans means more events appear, more reality is created, and realer they are to one another. We may be aware of a person's existence by seeing them and hearing about them on TV, let's say, and even though we know they are real, they are a part of a very tiny part of our reality. Unlike, let's say, a parent, whom we have been interacting with our entire life. In this case, the events are many, the interactions are numerous, so the level of created reality is vast. Your parent is as real to you as you are to yourself, although your parent does not exist for me because we have not met, we have no shared events, nor interactions. We, as living animals, create our reality through interactions between one another. Of course, we must not omit the interactions between us and the environment. Vlatko Vedral beautifully applies information theory of quantum mechanics into explaining the fundamentals of biological systems and their DNA in a most inspiring book, Decoding Reality.
We do not interact with the majority of seven billion people; hence, they do not exist for us, and only a minuscule part of humanity is real to us. The rest of the seven billion people we only know as possibilities, superpositions, but have no known interaction value. The wave function did not collapse for our personal observations.
Our knowledge of the universe must be just as minuscule because we do not interact with the majority of it. Who can guess the existence of all the people we never heard of existing? Who can guess all the forces and the information the universe is made of but we will never interact with, thus never know about? We see only a small part of the universe just as we only see a small part of humanity. We are terribly shortsighted. We create reality of the physical world, of the universe, by what we see and know. Reality is only as big as we interact with it. The Universe is only as big as we manage to interact with via intellect. Reality is created by the intellect (observations).
We as individuals are responsible for creating our own levels of reality. Almost like a video game: more interactions, higher the level reached, and bigger the physical reality is. But, does this mean that reality is an illusion? If we all create our own reality by our intellect through interactions, then each of us should have a different reality. Well, in a sense we do, but illusion it is not. It is imperative to distinguish two different perceptions of reality: one being personal reality and the second being collective reality. Personal reality is created by our personal interactions, our experiences, and the root of it are our beliefs. Collective reality is what we can all agree upon regardless of our beliefs, like laws of physics.
We may find proof in history. Before humans discovered the electromagnetic force, humanity was blind to it, and electromagnetism was not part of reality. It did not exist. Humans lived, each minding their own reality as real, being convinced that their conscious reality is real and all there is to it. After electromagnetism was discovered, our collective and personal realities expanded dramatically. The reality became bigger with more possibilities.
Once upon a time, the universe revolved around the earth, and it took the intellect of Johannes Kepler to interact with the perceived reality to expand our collective reality into a much bigger one, simply by pointing out the fact that the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits. Our world was also just fine when it worked on Isaac Newton's laws. We went to space by using his reality. Quantum mechanics, however, expanded exponentially our reality, personally and collectively. Intellect creates reality; lack of intellect shrinks reality.
This proposition that intellect creates reality is a reflection on Information Theory. Intellect is information. If the world is made of Information and information is physical as Vedral proposes, then our brains, being part of the physical world, are made of information. The brain might as well be in a quantum state, as many researchers are trying to prove. Quantum interactions of the information between our intellect and the world result in more information, meaning larger reality. Reality expands through the intellect. The universe expands physically with the increase of information, entropy (entropy is the information content of an object), just the same as our physical reality expands with the collective and personal intellectual information. The increase in intellectual entropy is a natural state of things.
Why does this matter to an Artist? Well, firstly, because when we talk about the most fundamental structure of the Universe and its granularity, it is as if we are talking about an Art piece and the granularity of marks that create an art piece that makes its own unique universe. Artists are like mini-gods creating a new unique Universe every time an Art piece is created. We, the Artists, use the granular marks, whose interactions and relations create a new reality.
Prior to the interaction between pen and paper, or one mark and another, an art piece does not have any value; hence, it does not exist. The mark, just like a particle, is only concrete in a relationship to the other physical object it is interacting with, i.e., paper or other marks. The mark, hence an art piece, does not exist unless the relation is established between paper and the pen or mark and another mark.
As a whole, the physical world of an Art piece has no value until it interacts with something else, meaning an audience or when an art piece is put within an art context and interacting with the other art within the context. When it does so, it becomes deterministic or Real Art, but only in relation to the thing it interacts with and remains indeterministic, inexistent, for the rest of the Art Universe. Art is made of interactions. Interactions create physical Art reality. Within the art piece, interactions are many and deserve more detailed elaboration. For the sake of simplification, I will use a simple pen-on-paper drawing example.
a. Artist – Paper relation: At the very beginning of the piece, the piece is inexistent, but all possible possibilities are possible; it is in a state of a wave function. An Artist who faces the blank paper may contemplate the probability that the piece may be this or that way, but it will not be deterministic or specific until the relation or interaction is established. It is inexistent yet it has a potential, and the Artist holds all the probabilities of a piece.
b. Pen - Paper relation:The Artist is like a Universe holding all possible combinations until the moment of the pen-paper interaction, the very first contact. But as soon as the relation is established, deterministic information appears, meaning the piece begins its existence. With every new mark added, the number of possible futures decreases. An increase in marks impacts and reduces the endless possibilities of a piece. The piece is starting to form in a specific way.
c. Mark – Paper relation: Pen–Paper interaction creates particular information, a mark. Information of the visual mark is determined by its relation to the space around it, meaning the character of the mark is determined by the space of the paper (composition, format, etc.). The character of a mark, the mark's information, determines the character of the entire Art piece.
d. Mark-Mark/Marks relation: As the Pen-Paper relation increases, the visual information increases as well. More interaction, more information. Increase in information increases the entropy. The piece becomes more complex and more deterministic. Each bit of information, each mark, is now determined by its Mark-Paper interaction as well as its interaction to all the other marks. How wonderful it is to be able to recreate the most fundamental workings of the universe. This is a perfect thermodynamics reenactment by the Artist's hand and not the accelerator.
A Mark, or a particle, materializes only when it collides with another entity: a screen of the detector or a photon in the case of a particle, and paper or another Mark in the case of a Mark. The cloud of probability with which the Artist has conceived of it 'collapses,' and the Mark, or the particle, materializes at that point only in relation to the paper or detector screen. In relation to any other object, the Mark/particle and the detector screen/paper are together in a superposition. The Mark is only concrete in a relationship to the other physical object it is interacting with. With regards to all the others, it does not exist, until the interaction is expanded as the following two points, e. and f., explain.
e. Art piece – Art context: An Art piece, just as the physical world, has no value until it interacts with something else, and when it does, it becomes deterministic but only in relation to the thing it interacts with and remains indeterministic for the rest of the Universe. Interactions create physical reality. Similarly, an Art piece has no value until it interacts with the space of Art, meaning put in the context of Art. Once put in the context of art, an Art piece exists only within the context of art and remains indeterministic for the rest of the Universe. An oil stain on the sidewalk, even if created by an artist, has no artistic value unless it is presented as an art piece within an art context; otherwise, it is no more than an oil stain. Just the same, an art piece within an art context has no other value than art value. It is possible, though, due to the ambiguity of art, for an art piece to interact with another context, like politics, science, etc., and to exist within an Art context as well as some other one. An example would be the Teeter-Totter Wall, by Rael San Fratello and Colectivo Chopeke.
f. Art piece – Observer: Once the art piece begins existing within an art context, it is in a superposition, and it is only concrete within this relation and inexistent for all other contexts (unless, as explained above, an art piece is interacting with multiple contexts). A viewer, an observer, collapses a wave function, meaning an observer, by interacting with the piece, reduces an art piece's meaning to a single meaning state. An Art piece becomes deterministic by its interaction with an observer. An art piece is constantly in a superposition state with many possibilities, and for every observer, it collapses its superposition to a different meaning. An art piece is Omni-meaningful and becomes specific for one observer perhaps differently than for another.
Where is an art piece before it is created? Where is a mark before it is drawn on the paper? It does not exist, just like the particle does not exist until it interacts with something. The interaction of the brain that moves the pen, the pen, and the paper creates a mark. The mark does not exist, but it is a consequential outcome of the brain-pen-paper interaction.
During his night walk in a park in 1925, Werner Heisenberg, through his intuition, came up with a fundamental equation of quantum mechanics. In the park, there are occasional street lamps separated by extensive darkness. A figure passes by, but the figure is perceived by Heisenberg only as he appears beneath a lamp, and then disappears into the dark before reappearing beneath another lamp, and then vanishing back into the dark again. From one pool of light to another, appearing and vanishing. Heisenberg reasons that the man obviously does not appear and disappear; he can even easily reconstruct the man's trajectory from one street lamp to another. What if particles vanish and reappear? What if, between one interaction with something and another with something else, the particle could be nowhere? Particles are something that only manifests itself when it interacts, when it collides with something else; and between one interaction and another, it has no precise position. This is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics: the relational aspect of things. Particles don't always "exist." They exist when they interact. Heisenberg has proven mathematically his logical observations. We know that this is the truth and the way nature reality works. We just have to look down at our phones to have a perfect example.
Particles have a wave function. A Wave Function is a wave of probability where anything can happen. It is a cloud of probability. Like the man in the dark who can be anywhere and is nowhere. When a particle interacts with something, it collapses its cloud of possibilities into an eigenstate. An Eigenstate is a fixed and determined state, one out of many possibilities. Every time a measurement is taken, an observation is made, and the Eigenstate is different. The way to visualize it is that man in the park walks underneath the light, and we observe him as such and such. For the observer sitting ten benches farther from Heisenberg, a man will appear smaller and disappear more slowly and in different spots. If Heisenberg was walking as well, every time he makes an observation of the man, it will be different, too. However, the more observations are made, the more we will all come to the same conclusion that this particular man is in this particular park.
The beauty of the fundamentals is that all that comes after, all that is bigger, works and is the same. What if the world is to be explained through an Artist’s view? What if the world is like an art piece instead of a man walking through the night park? We would come to the exact same conclusion. An art piece depends on the interaction/perspective of a viewer, which creates a different reality. There are many Art pieces, mine included, that change meaning/concept (piece’s identity), as well as its physical appearance depending on the observer’s observable distance and angle the piece changes. The piece has many different properties, wave functions. For an observer there is only one property that is revealed through the interaction with the piece, an eigenstate. However, as the observer moves other properties and meanings are revealed (as in piece: Unknown of the Known, 2017/2019, Pencil on paper, h54"x w84" each of two, 55,000 portraits and 95,000 blank portraits). In Art, an observer’s perspective reveals different previously identifiable properties. Even though every viewer collapses a piece into an eigenstate, more viewers observe it closer to the eigenstate. Piece has many possibilities, equal to the wave function. Each viewer reads it differently. Each viewer has their own interpretation. The more viewers observe the piece, the more of the possibilities of a piece are revealed. Interestingly enough, more views are revealed closer they are to be alike. Art is quantum mechanical just like quantum mechanics is Art, simply because all is fundamentally information. The nature of the quantum information, a particle, is the same as the nature of the information of a mark.
Another interesting observation I would like to point out is that a simple visual experience of the mundane reality may provoke thoughts within highly intellectual people, like Heisenberg, consequently changing the collective intellect and expanding our reality. Artists are trained to observe reality, but unfortunately Art education teaches us to copy it literally, superficially and without any intellectual reasoning, or observing. We should be training our Art students to think and analyze their observations. We should be reasoning, not mimicking. Maybe then, one day Art intellect will expand our collective intellect and will help us expand our reality to an ever much bigger universe. Somebody has to ask questions so we can collectively move forward and who can be better at questioning things than artists. Artists’ reasoning questions the existing perception of reality.
Entropy in statistical thermodynamics is understood as the macroscopic state of a system that is characterized by a distribution on the microstates, and distribution is explained by Gibbs entropy formula. The macroscopic state of an Art piece is characterized by a distribution of marks on the microstates of the piece.
How much information is in the Universe?
What is the information carrying capacity of our human head?
According to Bekenstein bound (Jacob Bekenstein, an Israeli physicist): the number of bits that can be packed into any system is at most 1044 bits of information times system’s mass in kilograms and its maximum length in meters. If the human head is 20 centimeters in diameter and weighs 5 kilograms, we can calculate that the head can store 10 to the power of 44 bits of information. Computers can store 10 to the power of 14. Computers still have 10 to the power of 30 less informational power in comparison to humans.
The universe, however, is 15 billion light-years in diameter and a mass of about 10 to the power of 42 kilograms, meaning, the informational capacity of the universe is 10 to the power of 120 bits. Archimedes estimated 10 to the power of 63 grains of sand in the Universe, not too bad for the 3rd century BC.
Week #5: Art for N-Space and Hipertime : Art beyond Earth
Many scientists not only toy with an idea but even try to understand and prove the existence of other universes. Many researchers devote their lives to researching the Cosmos. Science does not limit the research to Earth only as they understand all too well that life on Earth IS, depends, and is ruled by the Universe. And I am not talking only about physicists and chemists here but biologists (the origin of life), philosophers, and research in consciousness. How many of us Artists have ever considered the world as a whole and not just the immediate surface boundaries of this particular planet. How many of us have considered making art about and for another planet, another solar system? What about Art for different spices? What if we had a show inside a black hole? What kind of piece can be created for the unknown incomprehensible rules and laws of physics? What if the art piece is made for space, just floating in space. What materials would we use in order for the piece to withstand the harsh environment of space? Can predictions be made based on the materials for how long it would exist? For whom would it be made for? Does a piece exist if there is no conscious viewer to perceive it? Is the Artist conscious all there is needed without the piece ever reaching another consciousness? Can the piece be made for all different levels of consciousness? Can my dog or an alien understand my Art as Art? What would the Art piece’s message be; what would it be about? What is Art for another consciousness?
What if there is a new force?
The universe is governed by four distinct fundamental forces. Strong Nuclear Force, Electromagnetic Force, Weak Nuclear Force, and Gravitational Force. These four forces act on everything from micro to macro world, shaping our Universe.
At extremely high energy levels the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear force act as one and are combined into a single force called the electroweak force.
Strong Nuclear Force: Binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, and holds the atomic nucleus together. It is the strongest of all fundamental interactions but operates only at subatomic scales.
Electromagnetic Force: Acts between electrically charged particles. It is responsible for electricity, magnetism, light, and almost all chemical reactions, forming the everyday structures of atoms and molecules.
Weak Nuclear Force: Controls the radioactive decay of subatomic particles and triggers the nuclear fusion that powers the sun and other stars. It acts only at incredibly short ranges.
Gravitational Force: The force of attraction between all objects that have mass. While it is the weakest of the four forces, it operates over infinite distances, making it the dominant force shaping the large-scale structure of the cosmos.
Due to strict geometric rules, there are exactly five shapes in the three-dimensional convex polyhedra, also known as Platonic solids (or Platonic shapes). They are defined by having identical, regular polygon faces with the exact same number of faces meeting at every corner.
Tetrahedron: 4 faces, each an equilateral triangle.
Cube (Hexahedron): 6 faces, each a square.
Octahedron: 8 faces, each an equilateral triangle.
Dodecahedron: 12 faces, each a regular pentagon.
Icosahedron: 20 faces, each an equilateral triangle
The four classical elements of ancient Greece, earth, water, air, and fire, were the fundamental building blocks of all matter. First proposed by the Sicilian philosopher Empedocles around 450 BCE and later formalized by Aristotle, this philosophical framework defined physics, medicine, and cosmology for nearly 2,000 years.
Plato associated each of the four classical elements (earth, water, air, and fire) with a regular solid. Earth was associated with the cube, air with the octahedron, water with the icosahedron, and fire with the tetrahedron. Of the fifth Platonic solid, the dodecahedron, Plato obscurely remarked, "...the god used it for arranging the constellations on the whole heaven". Aristotle added a fifth element ether and postulated that the heavens were made of this element, but he had no interest in matching it with Plato's fifth solid.
Our standard model of the universe consists of four forces that make up the Universe. What if there is a fifth force? Well, a fifth force is a hypothetical fundamental interaction. Scientists theorize it to explain cosmic anomalies like dark matter and dark energy, though definitive proof remains elusive. Models like the "chameleon" force suggest a repulsive force that changes its strength depending on how dense the surrounding environment is.
How to see the invisible? How to know the incomprehensible?
What is beyond the Universe? What is the space time within the black hole?
Consider the creativity and innovation of ideas such as the Boltzmann Brain, Hilbert Space, and Everett's Many Worlds, just to mention a few.
The primary concern of physicists is the universe as a whole, from minuscule particles to infinite universes, with complete disregard for public acceptance. Artists, however, are concerned with immediate public outreach and pleasing the general public. The concepts in Art, regardless of how revolutionary they may have been, make us aware of things-in-the-immediate world. These things-in-the-immediate world already exist in an obvious way: social issues, understanding of experienced physical space, use of materials, psychological states, emotions, visual spectrum, just to name some.
We Artists learn and then teach our students how to use very primitive tools to mimic our observations and how to observe and see the appearances of things-in-the-world. But what we see is infinitely shortsighted. In the past, Artists copied superficial appearances of objects in still-lives with their stone tools, creating aesthetic decorations. Presently, Artists copy news, information, or anything else from their close proximity, creating an aesthetical mimicry of the obvious and shared experiences.
Duchamp and DADA may have revolutionized Art thinking perhaps more than anyone before or since. However, have we changed much at all? Kosuth implied that artists must invent new languages. Perhaps we need to reinvent art in its entirety. Art always represents some-thing or an idea. But those ideas are obvious and limited to direct observations, just like Kosuth's chair or Duchamp's urinal. With our Art, we mimic direct observers from our close proximity, and then we talk to Art institutions and the general public. Just as the rejection of the Copenhagen Interpretation got rid of the observer, which opened the door to the many universes, Art should also get rid of the observer.
But how is this to be done when the observer, in most cases, makes the Art piece? If we are to get rid of an observer, are we getting rid of the fundamental identity of Art? What if the interacting observer is other than another human?
What would happen if, instead of observing only our small planet and making Art only for humans in the present time, we considered making Art for infinite time and space, and for any possible consciousness? What would Art look like to an Alien consciousness, and what would it mean to them? What if Artists could obliterate an observer, including themselves? Can Art be rid of an observer fully, or does it have to have at least one—the Artist themselves? What if we take into consideration not the single event or observation from recent history or the present, not the whole planet, but the whole infinite universes, micro and macro scales? What kind of Art would that be? What does art mean to an artist personally? What are we as Artists in search of? What if we stop making Art on a human scale but on a Universe scale?
Art usually exists in the moment and is made for the time it was created at. Art is only concerned with the immediate perceivable linear time. What if time is not as it appears to be? What if the time arrow is not linear but three dimensional; a sphere of time? What if the past, present, and future are all at once but could not be comprehended? What would an art piece look like if it was made for all times all at once. Can Art exist outside the time?
Art, currently, is obeying Newton's law of direct observation. We are at least 400 years behind science. Art is still in its geocentric state of shortsightedness, and it must escape it.
Imagination is infinite. Ideas are infinite. Perception is limited, but the searching mind is infinite. Art is made of ideas; thus, its creations absolutely cannot be limited. Art may be a portal to any universe, including those created by the artist, and to those places that are something completely other than the Universe. Art currently is an object that contains and/or provokes an idea within an observer. Performance, 4D, Process-based art, and all other versions still exist in time and space, and the reason for their existence is some kind of message communicated to an audience.
Now, how can Art be involved in and contribute to the understanding of reality? Well, Art has no cognitive or medium limitations. Science must adhere to the laws of physics or math. New rules may arise from the existing ones (e.g., Newton to Relativity to Quantum, Euclidean geometry to Non-Euclidean geometry), but it still must follow the math. Art is completely and infinitely free in thinking and doesn't have to adhere to absolutely any particular laws. This is the power of art. Artists could be creating new universes with a whole new set of laws. Ideas are infinite, and Art should not be finite but just as infinite. Unfortunately, artists have not utilized this amazing ability fully. Art can create new laws. Art can combine all existing laws. Artists can combine theories of music, biology, mathematics, thermodynamics, sculpture, anthropology, astrophysics, emotions, psychology, and quantum physics—all ideas, all theories—into one ultimately simple one. Mathematicians see all as a function of math. Physicists see all through laws of physics. Artists could see reality through all the information at once. The Artist's view is the ubiquitous one. Imagine the universe explained through the ultimate understanding of all. Art and the Artist have been ridiculed and underappreciated, justifiably so. It is time to use the power of Art reasoning and finally do something with it. Art doesn't have to discover the universe, but it just might be able to represent it, understand it, and/or coexist with it. Artists could have the idea that would change the way we think and perceive as humans. With their ideas, Artists can find questions. The ultimate goal of an art piece is completely different from that of a scientist. An art piece just has to be.
Probable Interferences
Fermilab Colloquium, 2026
As a kid I shared a room with my sibling who had monopoly over it, and whose untypical sense for the interior design resulted in walls covered with posters, not of the super stars but real stars, galaxies, and nebulas. We both spent countless hours staring at those walls that transfigured into the infinite unknown worlds, and we both wondered the exact same questions “What in the world is all of this around us?” We both pursued this question and while my sibling’s life is devoted to physics, while mine to art. In the lab full of metal and liquid helium, my sibling sets up experiments to test the question and confirm the answers, while I, in a studio filled with carbon (pencils) and paper, set up an Art process to experience the questions and understand the answers. Both Art and Science question the world; they bring new thoughts to the world, and re-contextualize preconceived ideas and views.
To illustrate this I chose Carlo Rovelli’s quote, an Italian theoretical physicist, that provided us with the most accurate and poetical explanation of what Art is even though he was in fact talking about science, I just replaced the word science with the word art.
“[Artistic] thinking explores and redraws the world, gradually offering us better and better images of it, teaching us to think in ever more effective ways. [Art] is a continual exploration of ways of thinking. Its strength is its visionary capacity to demolish preconceived ideas, to reveal new regions of reality, and to construct new and more effective images of the world. This adventure rests upon the entirety of past knowledge, but at its heart is change.”
Art and Science may use different language but essentially are the same in their attempt to explain the world.
Erwin Schrodinger writes in What is Life? that we have inherited, throughout centuries, the unified, universal, all-embracing knowledge, which is the only one with full credit, however, the depth of knowledge has forced us to branch into specialized limited and narrow focus. Perhaps it is time to go back and attempt to unify some of the knowledge that will give us a more comprehensive view of Reality
Patrick Cavanagh, a co-founded the Vision Sciences Lab at Harvard, and leader in research in visual neuroscience and perception, recognizes that Art is a 40,000-year record of experiments in visual neuroscience that reveals as much about the human brain as it reveals about the world around.
Roberto Zenith, researcher in fluid dynamics and Professor of Engineering at Brown University, have extensively studied David A. Siqueiros and Jackson Pollock’s painting process realizing similarities between the paint technique to flow phenomena in other areas, which have helped explain formation of lava domes on Venus, and the Great Kavir salt desert in Iran.
Rayleigh-Taylor instability.
Professor Zenit recognises that artists manipulate flow of fluids, control instabilities to create patterns, they use Fluid mechanics as a tool for artistic creation while at the same time Art is a Source of inspiration for fluid mechanics.
In his lab professor Zent uses the exact brushes, inks, paint, and paper as I do in my classroom or studio. In my studio I have to learn by repetition and fine adjustment of how I use materials (speed of mark, amount of water and material on brush, surface, angle and pressure of the brush, etc) so I can understand the interaction and behavior of materials so I can willingly be able to repeat and get particular result. Prof. Zenit measures the exact same materials, their speed, angle, type, and amount of paint, and uses math language to explain the measurements so he can understand it and repeat it. Different language, same understanding.
Art that best encompasses these ideas of all-embracing knowledge is, what I like to call Information Realism, the Art that questions reality and shows us the unknown or not so obvious. IR is art that through its processes, through the relations between informational units (marks, brush strokes, etc), allows, most accurately, information from Reality to materialize into an art piece. An artist sets up an art process that allows a phenomenon to be documented by the phenomenon itself. IR presents information from Reality verbatim. IR is to be distinguished from classical realism that represents the external appearance of a form and gives us no information about the form except the Artist’s mimicary of the superficial appearances. Additionally, it is to be distinguished from data visualisation, that just like classical realism is concerned with visual mimicry.
Throughout history I recognise a few different stages of Art.
Level 4: Information Realism : Wheeler’s “it from bit” to bit :
Artpiece, IT, is derived from informational relations, BIT, from which, then, informational interpretation emerges. An art piece is defined through its structural, informational properties rather than its material substance.
Examples of Information Realism:
El Castillo cave in Spain contains handprints about 40,000 years old. We have direct information of the person’s physicality and actions who 40,000 years ago was present in the cave. The information of their existence at the moment, in the moment, is permanently preserved. This is one of the very first IR.
Similarly, Roman Ondák’s Measuring the Universe begins with an empty gallery space. Gallery attendants mark, with a marker, height, name and date of each visitor who enters the space. As the blank walls transform into a universe of marks, a dense, dark mass congregates at the average height of participants. Measuring the Universe is the most realistic, the most literal, representation of everyone who walked into the space, and who by simply existing in the space, temporarily has transformed that very space. Every name, even if invisible, has permanently defined the current state of the space while existing within the space only for a brief moment, just like the cave handprints. Ghostly trace of a moment in time and its effects. Randomness of the individual height marks has over time accumulated into a wave pattern.
Art movements like Dada and Fluxes liberated Art from physical objects at around the same time Thermodynamics liberated matter into field theory.
Dada, a nonsensical, 20th century European avant-garde art movement, is one of the most intriguing modern Realists. Developed in reaction to World War I, the Dada movement formed in Zürich, Switzerland in 1916. Dada rejected logic, reason, and aestheticism, instead expressing nonsense and irrationality in their works. In the time of WW1 the entire world was using the most rational reasons and arguments, according to them, for justifying behaviors that were the most irrational and ill conceived. The world made no sense and the most realistic representation would be nonsensical art and irrationality, which is exactly what Dada did. Interestingly enough, around the same time Max Planck, Niels Bohr, Louis de Broglie, Paul Dirac, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Erwin Schrödinger, to name only a few of the great thinkers, were working on Quantum theory. Quantum Theory, like DADA, at the same time period, seemed not to make sense at first and required a high level of abstract thinking, knowledge, and intellect in order to be understood.
Cornelia Parker is one of the most acclaimed British contemporary artists. In Parker’s work are literal objects, or more accurately, their remains, that have undergone dramatic event of a destruction, making them a documentation of an event frozen in time; an infinitesimal moment permanently tangible, like in Cold Dark Matter: An Exploded View 1991.
Charles Ross’s piece Year of Solar Burns (March 20, 1992–March 20, 1993), 366 painted wooden planks, 10" x 20", with solar burns; consists of burned wooden planks by concentrating sunlight with a lens. The Sun is 150 million km away from our planet Earth. Light travels at 300,000 km/s. It took 8 minutes and 33 seconds for the photons to travel from the surface of the Sun to Earth and burn the wood. The Sun is drawing a portrait of itself. Observation of the phenomenon documented by the phenomenon itself.
Rachel Whiteread makes us aware of things-in-the-world that we experience and are part of, yet are rarely, if ever, consciously aware of. By pouring the concrete inside a building, under the chairs, elevators, etc. she makes air and even more importantly space itself, solid. We exist now in our rooms only because of the space between the walls, we exist within the air, yet how often do we think about space under the table that allows our legs’ comfort. What if the air was solid and we were the air?
William Anastasi would hold a pencil, one in each hand, paper on the lap, and close eyes while taking a ride on the subway train. The movement and vibration of the train would move pencils across the paper creating the Subway Drawings. Even though the rules were the same, the commute, pencils, eyes closed, etc. the drawings are unique and different each time the same ride is repeated. The realistic representation of the phenomenon’s information, in this case a train ride, is documented by the phenomenon itself. Identity of things-in-the-world and experiences are never finite but unique and ever so changing due to the relation to all that is involved with.
Man Ray’s The Gift, 1921, flatiron with brass tacks glued in a column down its center, and Wolfgang Paalen’s Articulated Cloud, 1938, an umbrella crafted from spongy foam, both take an information that defines the object’s identity, reversing it into its opposite. The sponge umbrella denies the object’s intended function by causing water to be absorbed rather than repelled, the same as the flatiron with tacks fails to be flat. Reconstructing Reality makes us aware of Reality.
Personal IR studies and Probable Interferences, which is the name of the show currently in the Fermilab gallery.
Information realism in philosophy and physics, is the ontological view that reality is fundamentally composed of interacting informational entities rather than physical matter, positing that "information" is the foundational, mind-independent substance of the universe.
John Wheeler suggests that every physical entity (the "it") derives its existence from information, "It from Bit". Similarly, Luciano Floridi, proposes that the world is a totality of informational objects interacting with each other, defining reality through its structural, informational properties rather than its material substance.
Works created for the Probable Interferences attempt to reflect upon the Information theory, and to go beyond mimicking things in nature or visually represent information, but to derive information through Art processes, through interactions. The assigned Information that is derived from the Art process results in structural, physical, or logical arrangements that inform or form the art piece. Many works have dual or multiple assigned information presenting possible different views that interfere but never cancel, instead they amplify the meaning and the artpiece. I wanted to show the unlimited, ubiquitous nature of Art that can derive and apply the information to anything from scientific laws to social structures, consciousness, mathematical constructs, etc.
Any complex state, in this case an Art piece, has a cloud of possibilities, but it is through the interactions that we "collapse" its meaning to a particular state. Every art piece, even though specific, contains many probable interpretations referring not only to the most fundamental quantum nature of things but also that our strong beliefs and views are no more than one of many equally possible views.
Many Worlds Interpretation
20,000 drawings, 2025
Sizes vary from 1”x1” to 60”x130”
Mixed media
It has been well over 100 years and we are still suffering from “long classicality” in terms of quantum physics as Marcus Appleby, mathematical physicist calls it, comparing it to long covid. There are multiple interpretations that are trying to give the narrative of what quantum mechanics is trying to tell us about reality; Many worlds interpretation, objective collapse, relational quantum mechanics, Spontaneous Collapse Theory, Bohemian mechanics, QBism, etc. These theories defer substantially which is remarkable considering that they are trying to interpret the same theory. It is as if we construct the story based on what we want our reality to be and make it consistent with QM. We form our interpretations based on prior beliefs which is not only true of how we see the news, how we interact and communicate with others, but this is also true when it comes to science data, or Art processes. Can we objectively look at information and let that dictate our interpretations rather than our prior beliefs or what we are told to believe dictating it. Can a rational person be so disjoint from their ego and prior experiences, go in without preconception, and let only data speak?
In Many Worlds interpretation piece 20,000 drawings are drawn without any limitation regarding format, material, and subject matter. Each drawing is numbered. Only some drawings are installed onto the available walls while others are left two plexiglass boxes on the pedestals. Drawings that are installed onto the walls are randomly chosen from the pile as well as the drawings with a significantly important number related to particle physics, i.e. the bottom quark mass is 4.183 GeV/c^2 so the 4183rd drawing is installed onto the wall. Every wall has its own unique label interpreting the piece partially and differently. Additionally, every month the installation will be replaced with a new set of drawings while labels will stay the same.
Complex systems with a large amount of information, visible and invisible, result in multiple interpretations depending on the context and our interpretation. Depending on the observer's interaction and context the Artpiece can be split into multiple interpretations, hence the title reference to the Hugh Everett III many worlds interpretation. Each of the statements collapse the Artpiece’s meaning into a single state, losing the information about its superposition. Viewers being exposed to a particular statement will interpret the piece that way. How much is our view of the universe influenced by the previous interpretations?
Time : Order : Disorder, 2026
16” x 16”
Clay board and string
Two clay boards are connected with strings. On the first panel strings emerge from a perfectly arranged grid and connect randomly with the second panel.
The universe progresses from order to disorder, following the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Entropy and the concept of entropy, which provides a one-way direction for time.
While one may follow a single string and believe they are on a straight path—much like others around them—the collective result is random and far from the original perfect grid. In complex systems where multiple simultaneous timelines interact, disorder emerges as a result of individual choices. Is it possible to step back, view the universe as a whole, and attempt to straighten our paths? Or are we simply too close to our own strings to notice they are no longer straight?
Probability, 2025
String and Marker on Paper
h40.25” x w41.25”
Process: String is randomly dropped 100 times onto the paper and traced with pencil. The traced line is covered with the dot marks. Approximately 90,000 marks.
Interpretation: Randomly determined waves dictate the individual marks localization. The more waves accumulate, the more interference patterns appear. From randomness to determinism. Once the interaction between string, paper and gravity happens, all the random possibilities result in an interference pattern. Observing an individual mark (particle) has a determinate, definite value, an eigenstate. Additionally, the piece’s process evokes de Broglie-Bohm theory, a deterministic interpretation of quantum mechanics where point-like particles are guided by a wave function, as well as the interference patterns of the double slit experiment.
The Art Interpretation: Individual marks follow strictly the random path. As individuals we follow strictly predetermined parts yet they are as random as any other ones. The more random paths there are, the more we cross and interfere. Essentially, we choose to live our, seemingly particular, lives yet our paths interfere leading us to the same or similar paths of beliefs, reasoning, and life choices. Randomness forms individualism which through interference results in deterministic herd-thinking/behavior.
Dual interpretation: Art does not mimic nature but is an integral part of it, that has a power to interpret and perceive correlations within and of Nature as a whole, without narrowing view to the particular parts of Nature. A good physicist does the same. Art and Science interfere resulting in the same path of trying to understand the Universe.
Hidden Perceptions I, 2026
Each of 16 14” x 10”
Tracing paper, carbon paper, empty mechanical pencil
Write continuous thoughts on the two layers of tracing paper and carbon paper in between. The whole time while writing the marks are invisible and can only be viewed after the sheet is complete as the carbon paper transfers the writing marks.
Some of the very complex information is invisible but the effect of it materializes something else into existence. The examples are numerous from the Higgs field, Dark matter, neutrinos, virtual particles or quantum fields, to our daily actions and choices. Attempting to decipher the invisible information is difficult, however defining something through its effects makes the invisible tangible.
Hidden Perceptions II, 2026
Each of 16 14” x 10”
Carbon paper
An Art process of Hidden Perceptions I consisted of writing continuous thoughts on the two layers of tracing paper and carbon paper in between. The whole time while writing the marks are invisible and can only be viewed after the sheet is complete as the carbon paper transfers the writing marks. Through the process the carbon paper initially used only as a tool, as a field through which the information will materialize, becomes its own Artpiece with its own meaning. When exposed to the light, hence installed on the window, the traces of the writing marks are clearly visible.
Through the interactions the carbon paper was altered by the forces, materializing the information but in reverse (white marks on black). From invisible forces (top layer tracing paper covered with blank pencil), to partially visible information (carbon paper visible only with the lite source going through), and finally to the clearly visible materialized information (bottom layer of the tracing paper with the carbon transfer on it).
Straight line : Free will, 2026
Each of 20 10” x 14”
Paper, wood stain, white marker
Paper is uniformly covered with the woodstain. After drawing two straight white lines with a ruler and a marker, paper is crumpled.
Does a straight line appear straight? Can a true identity ever be what it is or is it defined by the state of the other identities?
Our state of being, our attempts and actions are altered by other forces, visible and invisible, by the laws of physics, society, family, etc.
Einstein’s General Relativity of curved space-time due to gravity.
Dark matter and bending of light through gravitational lensing.
Foundation, Building Blocks, 2026
Installation varies
Used Bricks
Used bricks collected from different Chicago neighborhoods. Trace them onto the wall in an arrangement resembling the standard particle model. Crash the bricks onsite and install them on the pedestal in front of the wall drawing.
Indeterminism, 2022/2026
Drawing and prints each: h100” x w100”
Paper, mixed media
Process: After completing 100 drawings of flowers, 10” x 10” each. After the completion, all 100 drawings are photo documented and the originals are cut into 1 x 1 cm squares, a total of 40,000. Cut pieces are randomly reassembled back onto one hundred 10” x 10” pieces. The Giclee prints are printed of the original 100 flower drawings which are then installed on the wall next to the cut pieces. For 40,000 there are 2.1x10166,713 possible rearrangement possibilities (40,000 factorial which is 21 followed b y the 166,712 zeros).
What is the difference between determinism versus indeterminism and how is it expressed in reality? On the most fundamental level the world is made out of randomness, uncertainty, which, through interactions, causes the deterministic reality. Are randomly assembled small drawing pieces going to create new patterns, containing all together a new meaning? Is the world no more than absolute randomness with the human mind assigning the deterministic patterns to it? Is determinism nothing more than a human way of making sense of reality?
If we have the information of the specific recognizable imagery, flowers, but presented in random bits (cut drawings and randomly reassembled) would we visually be recreating the familiar patterns, creating new patterns, or would we only see randomness? Would randomness create wave patterns and clumps of more and less material, or would it be even? What is the state of disorder, the entropy, and order? How do we perceive order versus disorder?
Universe, 2022/2026
Liquid charcoal on paper
Universe is a wall size installation mosaicked by the small textured charcoal drawings. The mosaicked installation is in the shape of an oval resembling the current imagery of the Cosmic Background Radiation and Map of the visible Universe. One small drawing has two minuscule figures drawn, practically invisible, symbolizing humanity. The figures are independently looking down. There is no order to the drawing tiles, hence every time the piece is installed it is in different random order and visually different.
The process: Liquid charcoal and water are applied first onto the paper. Charcoal pencil is used at the end to emphasize already created textures. The charcoal creates textures by following the paper’s surface texture and water, accumulating more or less in different areas, resulting in 3D implied visual space. There is a correlation between the drawing creation process and that of the visible Universe. Superficially looking, paper and water are an invisible and insignificant part of the drawing, considering that we observe and are interested in a drawing's appearance and not the surface it is on. However, the blank paper and water are an invisible scaffolding that dictates where the charcoal will collect, consequently the appearance of the drawing at the end. The Universe is mostly made of Dark Energy (71.4%) and Dark Matter (24%), which has a strong influence on its structure and evolution, and affects the universe on the largest scales. Dark matter is invisible (it does not interact with the electromagnetic field) yet determines the structure, just like paper does. Water mysteriously forces charcoal matter to move and collect, causing it to spread/expand.
7 days of self portraits, 2024
Each day draws a number of marks equal to the number of days alive (17,354, 17,355, etc) on plexiglass. What pattern will appear? Will there be a pattern where marks clump up together or are absent. Who are we if we repeat ourselves, can we repeat or are we slightly different every day? Does our past, our memories appear differently to us daily as it marges with the previous layers? ......
1,000,000, 2005
170” x 41”
Pen on paper
Process: Draw one million bricks.
The piece: What is One million?
John von Neumann was a Hungarian-American mathematician, physicist, computer scientist, engineer and polymath. “How can we make something of long duration from parts that are very short lived? How something that is perfect could be constructed out of imperfect components? This is the basis of living systems.”
Any individual mark, in this case about 1/8”, carries its own imperfection. Any of one million marks would be invisible by itself, insignificant. Nevertheless, one million of insignificant imperfections, together as a whole, give rise to the massive wall (the part and the whole are rectangular in shape).
Probability, States of Information, 2026
68” x 52”
Paper, oil paint, house paint, gesso, and 12 pencils
This work utilizes twelve pencils to represent the twelve fermions of matter, used simultaneously to record continuous thoughts. Each pencil varies in grade from 6H to 9B. Four distinct materials, representing bosons as force carriers, are applied unevenly across the paper. The paper functions like the Higgs field, providing the foundation that allows these materials to interact and materialize.
While all pencils are used simultaneously to convey the same information, the resulting traces vary greatly based on their specific energy levels—determined by the pressure and angle with which they were held—and their interaction with surface materials like oil paint or gesso; interacting fields creating the material world.
Ultimately, this process reflects how our thoughts, however unique, are continuously molded by the environments with which they interact.
Book of Knowledge, 1,000 pages, 500,000 bits of mark information, 2021
Marker on paper
8.5” x 5.5” x 3.5”
Process: 1,000 page book has a total of 4% filled-in pages with the bits while the rest is blank, corresponding to the 4% of the known about the Universe, and 96% of the unknown. Filled in pages are fragmented and at the beginning of the book just like our collective knowledge of any subject is fragmented and missing. Estimate of 500,000 mark bits.
Knowledge helps us see, understand the state of our being and ultimately Be in Reality. Currently all that is known in the Universe, neutrons, protons, and electrons that make up everything we can see accounts for only about 4% of the mass and energy of the Universe. About 70% of the Universe is what is dark energy; about 26% is dark matter, and this 96% is unknown. All that humanity has ever discovered and learned accounts for 4% of the Universe. There is 96% that we know that we do not know. How much more is there that we do not know that we do not know? Is our consciousness not complex enough to see the unknown even though we are staring at the answers? Knowing the unknown is incomparably much more real than not knowing at all.
Mark-in-time, 2020
Pencil and Marker on paper
2.75” x 2.75”, Each of 365
Process: Paper is field with 1440 marks daily, number of minutes in 24 hours. 365 pieces of paper in total, one for each day in a year. Colored-in is the number of awake minutes daily.
The piece: Being aware of every minute of existence makes one experience the relativity of the time arrow perception.
Life:Death, 2010 redone 2018
Pencil on paper
h68” x w30”
Process: The number of marks on each drawing represents the number of daily births (on the right side) and deaths (on the left side) worldwide.
353,015 births
155,520 deaths
The book of all, 10,000 things, 2011/2023
9” x 6”, book thickness 60”
Ink, watercolor, pencil, charcoal on paper
Process: The book of 10,000 things, the book of all, contains 4 sections, 2500 drawings each: plants, stones, animals (including humans), and places.
The Piece: The book is a collection of perceptions, of the world, of being in the world.
Heart Beats, 100,000 marks, 2015
Watercolors on paper
5” x 3.5”
Process: Draw 100,000 watercolor marks in the book which format corresponds to the average heart size. The drawing represents the following fact: The human heart beats about 100,000 times in a day and about 35 million times in a year. During an average lifetime, the human heart will beat more than 2.5 billion times.
Self portrait of them, 2009 updated in 2018
Pen on glass
16” x 16”
Each side of the glass respectively contains the number of marks equal to the days in each of my parents’ lives. 24,622 ; 26,889
Limited view of a self-portrait, 1 mile drawing, 2004/2022
Mixed media
2.25” x 1 mile (1,609 meters or 5,280 feet)
Process: Originally created in 2004, as a kilometer long drawing of portraits, was expanded to a mile long drawing in 2022. The piece is installed on the film reels and the viewer can observe only a few feet at the time as they rewind the reels.
One mile long drawing represents all the possible selves even though the viewer can observe only one or few portraits at the time. They all ARE simultaneously in the superposition existence, that we, or the observer, collapse into one state, one impression of a character at the time. Our perceptual cognition has not yet evolved into complex enough consciousness to be able to comprehend the whole mile of portraits. Until that happens we must do the hard work of rewinding the reel in order to perceive. How much are we not aware of, within and around us?
Self Limitation, Circle, 40hr piece, 2004
Pencil on paper
h67” x w23.25”
Process: The piece began by drawing a spiral-circle with a continuous line for 40 hr. The limitation of the paper format (height of the paper equals physical body height) as well as physical exhaustion led to the circle’s deformation and line breakage.
One has a given amount of potential. One may constantly work hard on developing and building one’s self, but at some point one will reach one’s own limitations (the circle could not expand beyond the paper or physical abilities). However, when a limitation is reached, in order not to stop and go beyond imposed limitations, one must act or be something other than what one has been; the line breaks and deforms. In self development the further one gets, further one is from the self so that the self can be more of the self.
1 line extended, 30 hr., 2004
Pencil on paper
16.25’ x 1.7’
Process: A continuous line is drawn for 30 incessant hours.
The piece: Through the focused durational activity self becomes an observer and observed, simultaneously; one who is experiencing and one who is observing the experiencing self. How much can one extend oneself in 30 hr.?
How do we determine the value of an Art piece?
By applying the information theory, of course. This is the power of fundamental physics, that it can explain anything including Art.
If we take information to be physical and the fundamental bit unit of our reality, as Information Theory predicts, we can explain Art this way as well, I would argue.
We can determine the value of Art simply by determining How probable an art piece is, which determines its information content, and its quality.
The Ancient Greeks suggested that the information content of an event depends only on how probable this event really is. Aristotle argued that the more surprised we are by an event the more information the event carries. This means that information is inversely proportional to probability, meaning events with smaller probability carry more information. In case that an art piece is probable, let's say pure aesthetics, it then does not have much, if any, information content. Let's say realistic painting of a regular cat, not Schrödinger’s, (no mystery if it is dead or alive but a nice fluffy cat) the piece is probable, we know what it is, how it is done, and it is not saying anything new about the cat, therefore, information content is low, if any, the probability contact is higher, and the piece has low or no artistic value. The painting is an Artist’s impression and copy of a superficial appearance of an object, or predictable aesthetics, and no more, it is agreed upon reality without offering us new ways of seeing it. In contrast, Rachel Whiteread’s work or Man Ray’s The Gift is unexpected and consists of a high level of information content, meaning it is a high value Art.
This view I adopt from two of the most brilliant minds, Vlatko Vedral, Professor of Quantum Information Theory at the University of Oxford, and Claude Shannon an engineer and "the father of information theory". After all, physicists and engineers are artists who are very good at math.