[coldcreation]

Well, I wasn't sure where to post this. I hesitated between the this forum and Anthropology and Cultural Studies. After all, it does have to do with the science of man (including as an object of natural history or as an animal), of the structure and functions of the human body (in art), of the origins and social relationships of human beings and their cultures (in both science and art).

It is also, perhaps, of historical interest, so here it is in the History forum.


I just posted a new blog at Blogspot.com entitled (and subtitled): State of the Modern Art World, The Essence of Cubism and its Evolution in Time.

The essay deals primarily with the historical relation (or parallel) between science and art, or Cubism more precisely.

Quote

Throughout can be observed an in-depth analysis of the connection between art and science prior to Cubism, during the period of Cubism and thereafter. The crucial years, 1911-1914, are looked at in detail. To aid the viewer (students, laymen, or professionals) in visualizing the changes that transpired, a series of 'before and after' sequences have been produced (representing the works of divers artists including Mondrian, Delaunay, Picabia and Duchamp). [...]

There is a move away from conventional art history, only to show that there are other ways of understanding the events that transpired leading to Cubism (e.g., through Neo-Impressionism). The implication here is that art is more closely related to science than previously suspected. As a result, evolution of 20th century art may be better understood.

There is a necessary analogy between progress in modern art and progress in the sciences (e.g., mathematics, geometry, physics and cosmology), in the most general sense, an analogy visible not so much in the subject-matter: visible on a theoretical, purely synthetic or conceptual level.

The placing of Cubism and its relations (or parallel) to general relativity within the realm of discussion is a means by which to develop a deeper understanding—based on observations from a wide range of epochs—stemming from pre-modern art to the emerging framework of contemporary art.[...]

Present in the discussion (in addition to divers artists) are the likes of Albert Einstein, Willem de Sitter, Niels Bohr, Henri Henri Poincaré, Arthur Eddington and others; scientists/mathematicians who were either influenced by, or had been influential in, the art produced at the epoch(s) under study.


If you have any question(s), I would be delighted to answer them, or at least attempt to do so...


Regards, and enjoy


Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

For anyone interested, I've just updated State of the Modern Art World, The Essence of Cubism and its Evolution in Time by adding an important section entitled An attempt to refute the scientific connection (scroll down toward the bottom of the page where Picasso's Ma Jolie is reproduced).

This crucial section, along with the one that follows (The geometrization of space) is a critique of John Adkins Richardson's, Modern Art and Scientific Thought, Chapter 5, Cubism and Logic, University of Chicago Press, 1971, pp. 104-127.). This new section dispels the myth propagated by Richardson that "the entire notion of a hermetic connection between Einstein's theory and Cubism is false", that "Cubism has nothing to do with the Theory of Relativity."


Enjoy


Coldcreation