On the strange influence on the art

[mezon]

Continuing the theme of the relationship of physics and art was revealed to me more depth of their relationship. I hope it will also help you in understanding the interaction of classical, contemporary art and people.

Читать дальше... 

«Most philosophers of science recognize that any explanation of modern science, particularly physics, is a separate phenomenon can not be absolutely true, because it can not be unambiguous. Absolutely true, it would be description of the phenomenon through a unified theory of all reality, but as to create such a theory, apparently, can not, any description of physical phenomena will remain only possible (and so can explain), acceptable, like truth, suitable for our purposes, calculations, etc. In Greek, all these definitions can be expressed in one word eikos. And then can not remember that Plato described in the "Timaeus" its arguments about the sensually perceived, that is, in fact physics, eikos logos.
Interestingly, in mathematics this is the case, apparently, quite different. There is no need to seek a unified theory of mathematical objects to using it for the first time to see the triangle in its true light. Suppose that Euclidean geometry is only a special case of a more general geometry - all the same sum of the angles of a plane triangle will equal 180 °, as well as do not change, and other properties of plane figures.
How would physics has not tried it, says Plato, can not go beyond the credibility and reach the truth, because it reveals eikos on things that exist in the way eikones - similarities. "Talk eikos" means to speak through the likes of, to create images (icons), as do artists and poets. In the understanding of Plato, physics approaches rather with art than with science (mathematics). In contrast to science, the thing intelligible, like the art of studying the physics of the sensual world. But the sensually perceived not know it can be represented or, at best, create. The artist, says Plato in the "State", depicts not the idea of a bed, a bed, made a craftsman. The same way a physicist describes not intelligible cosmos, and his visible incarnation, created by the demiurge. Therefore, the arguments physics, as well as pictures of the artist, the essence of "similarity of similarities" and "shadows of shadows", situated on the "third place on the essence, ... from the king and the truth." They are the product not of reason or rationality, as the five listed by Plato Mathematics and the lowest psychic abilities "eykasii" (eikasia - assimilation), the ability to create a similarity or guess at them on are like. »
In the physics of the nineteenth century it was believed that the body motion can be represented as savokupnosti material points which move along certain trajectories. Just describing wave processes which constitute the movement of energy in dense media. To understand what the question was enough to present in front of the sea: the particles (drops) move it vertically while the energy moves in waves. In the early twentieth century it became clear that the motion of particles in the microcosm (electrons, photons, protons, etc.) can not provide such unambiguous as it was in classical physics. If we continue the analogy with the sea, the elementary particle (drop) is already some real virtuality, namely: the sea is like in our imagination, and the particle can manifest itself in any part of it with a probability as to whether it is any drop of the sea . If a person wants to determine its location and for this sail to it - it is a sea change and thus alter the probability of finding a particle in one or another part of the sea, ie their presence will affect the structure of the sea and the wave field of the particle. This property became known as kaspuskulyarno particle-wave duality, ie particle at the same time inherent properties of solid point and wave. Failure to determine the true location of the particle is considered to be its inherent properties, the observer affects this property changing uncertainty.
   Now let us follow a similar phenomena in the art. Until the nineteenth century, artists were simply craftsmen, able to tolerate the creator of creation on canvas, paper and imprinted on the stone structures. In the early nineteenth century, the observed images have been insufficient, because artists turned to the study, descriptions and images of the spiritual world. Thus they showed karpuskulyarno wave-particle duality of art, where "karpuskula - solid" - it is the classical art, and "wave" - is energy, the spiritual part - contemporary art. Thus karpuskulyarno wave-particle duality in art - a unity of opposites, the unity of classical and contemporary art as a manifestation of the underlying laws of matter: a particle has the properties of waves (energy) has a unity of body and wave energy (spirit), the cosmos is matter and spirit. And here the same way if you want people to define what art is it objectively affects the wave, the energy essence of this notion. Thus each person becomes an independent creator, in his own way to express their vision of the truth. But the objective contradictions between contemporary art and classical no - it is one entity with a solid foundation and spirit of the virtual.

"The adjective eikos uses in his poem Parmenides, in the place where the Goddess, completing the" true word and talk about being "starts the story about the device space. It appeals to the youth-Parmenides with:
  "I tell thee, This mirostroy quite probable,
Do not you obskachet a conception of death ".
Likely (eoikota) means here - possibly together with other views of death and, therefore, not true, but unlike them "appropriate", "appropriate" truth (as suits a nice outfit), then there is a decent enough mirostroy to be told the Goddess man will know the truth and being. In the poem of Parmenides also occurs word myth:
"There remains only a myth ways ...."
Most interesting is that these words begins the famous transfer characteristics of true being: "that exists is not born, not subject to death, tselokupnoe, the Only ... here it is not more than there" etc. "

[color="# 666686"]Added after 3 hours 51 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от natacha_m60

On this subject very well written S. Zweig in his book "Star Hours of mankind" (such as history of the Marseillaise), I recommend reading.

    I read ... Yes, and Rouget de Lisle, with whom there is a miracle, no more than the others understand the importance of what he has created a lunatic state
under the spell of a volatile spirit.

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от mezon

Until the nineteenth century, artists were simply craftsmen, able to tolerate the creator of creation on canvas, paper and imprinted on the stone structures. In the early nineteenth century, the observed images have been insufficient, because artists turned to the study, descriptions and images of the spiritual world. Thus they showed karpuskulyarno wave-particle duality of art, where

It would be nice now such remeslinnikov.Vasha extremely interesting article, but ... Determined yet - the art is a philosophical statement here in a way that whenever a certain world view. I refer to Aristotle - it is "not for profit" ... Those whom you call the artisans would understand the world and man's place in the world, and not fulfill shkolyarskuyu Studies for things like images ...

[mezon]

Сообщение от K-Maler

It would be nice now such remeslinnikov.Vasha extremely interesting article, but ... Determined yet - the art is a philosophical statement here in a way that whenever a certain world view. I refer to Aristotle - it is "not for profit" ... Those whom you call the artisans would understand the world and man's place in the world, and not fulfill shkolyarskuyu Studies for things like images ...

    Each word, there are many values, and his interpretations more, but above all it must be understood in the context of the foregoing. The essence remains such that before the nineteenth century, the paintings depicted the nature and people such as they were in reality and what was the exact copy of this - the better. It is on this main feature of the artist emphasizes the word "artisans". From the word I can refuse, but from the point - no. Thank you for your comment

[color="# 666686"]Posted by 46 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Amateur

I think that the evolution of fine art is not influenced by physics and other sciences in themselves, and their practical results. It is unlikely then the artist versed in the best physical description of the picture of the world such as the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.

  I would say to another: a revolution in art influenced the evolution This however, on the other. Often you can find arguments that contemporary art - it is supposedly not an art at all, or too far from the fact that just now. And what would such disputes were to be understood that the art before the twentieth century - is the art of image outside, and contemporary art - an art image of his spiritual world. In other words, it's different qualities akin karpuskulam and waves, matter and Spirit. Talking about what one is better and more significant simply makes no sense. Karpuskulyarno wave-particle duality in the art - is an inextricable link and integration of past and contemporary art, art external and internal. From the apparent contradiction - to harmony. In physics, recognized the objective existence of "two in one" as a third thing, though long argued that there are elementary particles - karpuskula or wave? It turned out that this "something" completely different, having karpuskulyarno wave-particle duality. In art, in my opinion, is yet to be targeted at. That "something" still in its infancy.

[color="# 666686"]Posted 2 hours 14 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от Amateur

I was about 15 years to hit and has since been etched in the memory of the painting Burliuk "Atom" from the magazine "America" somewhere in 1970 (the painting itself is in the Metropolitan-Museum). She wrote, as I recall, in purple tones, dated 1911 year, but it shows the (conditional, of course) and the orbital electrons and the nucleus of an atom. But the orbital model of the atom was first proposed by Niels Bohr and justified only in 1912! How ...?

Planetary model of the atom was proposed Rozerfordom in 1911.

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от mezon

The word I can refuse, but from the point - no. Thank you for your comment

I see that Aristotle is not enough, then Heidegger: "... in the world is not about playing any single determinate being, but about playing the universal essence of things."

[Amateur]

Сообщение от mezon

The planetary model of the atom was proposed Rozerfordom in 1911.

I did not want to go into the details of priorities. In this paper, E. Rutherford. "The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom". //Philos. Mag., 1911, v. 21, p.669-688, it referred only to the kernel, open Rutherford in 1911, pro forma orbits of electrons as they say something vague and implicit. Boron supplement the model with circular orbits of the electrons (his work appeared in the first issue of that journal in 1913, but accepted for publication in 1912) and to substantiate its findings spectroscopy data. Therefore, the planetary model of the atom model, often called the Bohr-Rutherford. But in any case, if all this was the last word in physics. Hardly Burliuk read serious scientific journals, why ... How many artists does the reading now, for example, May issue of The Physical Review for 2009?
So whether syak there, but the question remains: how the artist could depict things that he could not even know? Or just a coincidence?

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Сообщение от Amateur

It is unlikely Burliuk read serious scientific journals, why ...

And maybe read. Burliuk was very educated, he studied except Russia, and even in Munich, in Paris ...

Сообщение от Amateur

So whether syak there, but the question remains: how the artist could depict things that he could not even know? Or just a coincidence?

Do you think that a coincidence? Perhaps ...

[Amateur]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

Or maybe reading. Burliuk was very educated, he studied except Russia, and even in Munich, Paris ...

Dear Cyril Syzransky, I completely do not deny that possibility, just seriously doubt it. It would be interesting is to compare and timing. Rutherford's work was published in April 1911 And in what month in 1911 Burliuk painted? .. I do not know. Generally, I would like to know more about the film "Atom" on the Internet I could not find anything.

[dedulya37]

Сообщение от Amateur

Actually, I would like to know more about the film "Atom" on the Internet I could not find anything.

Give You Cyril Syzran to return home from Moscow. Maybe then, and find in their books.

[Кирилл Сызранский]

Amateur, yes, the Internet is not a panacea, he now became convinced, once outside the cabinet. Many just do not exist or are difficult to find, such as articles in the old publications. No library is indispensable.
I will see do not forget, I worked early Burliuk, Russia period.

[mezon]

Сообщение от Cyril Syzransky

Amateur, yes, the Internet is not a panacea, he now became convinced, once outside the cabinet. Many just do not exist or are difficult to find, such as articles in the old publications. No library is indispensable.
I will see do not forget, I worked early Burliuk, Russia period.

Well if you find this picture - it would be interesting to see. Only Rutherford planetary model of atom is offered as an explanation of their experiments, ie He is not a guess, but a logical result of experiments. Images of the atom can not be, because in fact, a single atom does not radiate while in the rest and only aroused him, hitting him to electron, we can see the flash, with a particular wavelength, the color green, or say, the next moment. red like a spark vnochi - and silence ... Only a whole bunch of matter at a specific temperature has a certain range of radiation, savokupnost different wavelengths, characteristic for this substance. Invisibility of the atom at rest - is the property of the model proposed by Niels Bohr.

[color="# 666686"]Added after 18 minutes[/color]

Сообщение от K-Maler

I see that Aristotle is not enough, then Heidegger: "... in the world is not about playing any single determinate being, but about playing the universal essence of things."

Neither Aristotle, nor Haydengera nor Leonardo .... not enough to play the universal essence of things and in this sense we are all artisans, compared with the Creator, but when we otkazyvaemya from repeating forms, patterns of data over we become creators themselves.