Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The Language of Form - Part 3 - Infinity
Mathematics, by itself, is a cold, dry vista; but when it is accurate then it's the closest thing we have to an utterly objective truth. Art, however, is its other face; colorful and flamboyant in comparison, it reflects subjective truths, and truths of the intelligent and emotional organism. The form language then, is a bridge between the two, giving art its structure and mathematics its vitality and meaning.
So, I think the main point I am trying to make in my discussion, is that the form language is a code that connects the more obtuse, abstract mathematical zone to the more voluptuous, organic geometry of living structures... and, beyond that, to sentience, animism, and the webs of awareness that weave these seemingly disparate expressions into one all-encompasing whole. In this way, it represents a language that can be understood on a universal level and, perhaps, one that can be better understood by intelligences more evolved and/or advanced than ourselves. That the form language is also a unconscious code, the code of the psyche, so to speak, may mean that it is the code-breaker, enabling us to communicate with species that are not human; those of this earth, and possibly any that might exist beyond our present corporeal reach.
In a sense, this post is an intimation of a sort of Alpha/Omega point in what I've tried to describe in my two previous posts (Language of Form: Part 1, Part 2). Which is, more or less, how we've arrived at that strange image above. This image was the "Infinity" card in that enigmatic series of images I initiated over 20 years ago in my search for the form language (mentioned somewhere at the beginning of this essay). This was the "Pelaneiron" version (of my original Metastructures image), when, with my new tool, the computer, I decided to superimpose all the many geometric images onto a series of stones. Why I attempted to do this doesn't really concern us here but, for whatever reason, I "ran out of steam" very early on in the process, so, it's all rather moot.
Of course, within those 20 years, numerous scholars, scientists, theorists, etc. put forth literature that inspired me, informed me and validated my own - albeit weird - work, (although, oddly enough, never changed it). There were all those wonderful books... ones describing Synchronicity by F. David Peat, and Marie Louise Von Franz; Rupert Sheldrake and his Morphalogical fields; Heinz Pagel and Ian Stewart on Symmetry; David Bohm and the Implicate order; Paul Davis and James Gleick on Chaos theory; Mandelbrot and his Fractals; Michael Talbot and the Holographic Universe; Michio Kaku on dark matter and parallel worlds; and there were the philosphies of Aliester Crowely and P.D. Ouspensky; Timothy Leary and Aurthur Koestler; Einstien, Schroedinger, Jung. There was Buckminster Fuller and Synergetics; Dean Radin and Quantum Entanglement; Rudy Rucker and Infinity; Jill Purce and Nigel Pennick on Sacred Art & Geometry; Fritjof Capra and Gary Zukov on the "Tao of Physcis"... And the list goes on and on (and on). (links to come... maybe!)
On a personal, intellectual level I am indebted to them all, but, chances are, you won't find them quoted on this blog. This blog belongs to art - at least, that is my intention! But art would be poorer without ideas, as it would be poorer without music and literature. It is part of a dynamism that includes them all, as the form language is the dynamic code from which they arise.
Previous: The Language of Form - Part 1, Part 2