Extra page: On Transculturality in threefoldness

Artefact

On Transculturality in threefoldness – either attention to meaning or to sharpening or to something on surface, or none? / Über Transkulturalität in Dreifachheit – entweder Aufmerksamkeit auf Bedeutung oder Schärfung oder etwas auf der Oberfläche, oder nichts?

 

In dieser Kunstforschung geht es um die Transkulturalität in Dreifachheit (Threefoldness) in Bezug auf die Ästhetik des Alltags (Aesthetics of the everyday), die sich in der Ästhetik des 20. Jahrhunderts verbreitete, insbesondere innerhalb der angloamerikanischen Tradition. Mein Ansatz ist dabei, dass ich die Transkulturalität in Dreifachheit (Threefoldness) auf der Oberfläche des zweidimensionalen Kunstwerks (Fotografie, Zeichnung und Collage) untersuche und somit theoretisiere, in welchem es praktisch keine Grenzen gibt, was die Quelle der ästhetischen Erfahrung werden kann. Die Forschungsmethode ist ähnliche Unterscheidung in der Theorie von Wiesing (2005, 2009), dass er dreifach zwischen dem Bildträger, dem Bildobjekt und dem Bildsubjekt (Motiv) unterscheidet. Dabei erforsche ich auch auf der semantischen Ebene das Ästhetische Verständnis und die unverwechselbare Art der Aufmerksamkeit.

 

Keywords: transculturality, threefoldness, objectivity and subjectivity, aesthetic attention

'Beauty' in the contemporary aesthetics to me is ->

Knowledge

If one ask me ,"what is 'beauty' for you? " then I would answer, " 'beauty' is a goddess, it's mystic, we can see in Phi (as well as in mathematical expressions) that is very dangerous for us Human, but it's 'beauty' in nature that gives us desire for creation in music, visual art, craft, literature, architecture, dance and theater.

What is 'beauty' in the contemorary aethethics to me?

in contemorary arts, in the 21st century.  

Body

Aesthetics

Contemporary aesthetics

something

Manufacture

-> Multisensory of Human -> It is a starting point of us Human in the new era, the 21st century. 

Why aren't most photographs rated the same as painting?

N is Nature, but as Knowledge.

 

x carat brilliant diamond ring (diamond cut) is a manufacture which is based on Phi (brilliant cut and Delta Phi)-> "Whether its material is synthetic or not, or whether brilliant diamond cut of the Delat Phi is precisely or not?" (Its norm was the masterpiece in the modern era.) – Are these questions important in this photograph?

Untitled 2020 - my hand, Erika Matsunami

This is my research question in this artistic research "On Transculturality in threefoldness" its performativity.

For instance,  this photograph Untitled 2020

- I worked allegorical, but it is not really, due to the effect of the lense. 

- From the perspective of phenomenology and epistemology, painting and photography are two different mediums.

Painting is painting, there is no digital.

Photography is photography, even by digital.

Graphic is graphic, even by digital.

 

The Value of the Photograph:

- Phenomenological

- From reality without imagination

But, we have the epistemological problems with photograph always, due to seeing whole of event through an excerpt of a reality.

(January – Early of February, 2020)

The synthetic materiality and imitation of style as fashion are current problem for us in the 21st century.

-> The engegment ring in this photograph „Untitled 2020“ - my hand is not synthetic, who was a catholic ('Beauty' in the Catholic). I knew her story and about this ring.

The subject of „Untitled 2020“ is on private share, that is about what I corresopond in this photograph.

In doing so, my question is "What is ‘common sense' today's society?". It must be the current knowledge, but we can not see the current knowledge as common sense yet, so that I wrote "N" on my left hand that is an aesthetic attention. - In the artistic sense, I dealed with it from Formalisms to Semi-formalisms.

I started to take the allegorical picture of people (private shares including mine). Due to the coronavirus pandemic, I had to stop to take the picture „Untitled 2020“. The photographer journalist corresponds the social event and its matter. I correspond the human life and its environment. Art is a kind of community and now, we have a situation,  "We can not stay together in a room". Since then, I'm creating in the totally isolation.

-> A starting point of Paradigm shift in my artistic research in terms of the current knowledge in the 21st Century.

-> 'Love' of Homo couple is out of the formality by this Catholic 'Beauty', but it is also 'truth of love' by Humanity.

-> 'Love' is the forever subject for us Human.

The brilliant diamond by Delta Phi was mystic of beauty.

-> The Masterpiece in all art branches or sections of the 21st century, I don't see it yet.

Maybe, the Masterpiece won't exist in the 21st century, probably, we Human will create new by nature, It could be the collective Masterpiece together with billion artists in the world. - It is Art in the 21st century.

Solid-state physics

Many properties of materials are affected by their crystal structure. This structure can be investigated using a range of crystallographic techniques, including X-ray crystallography, neutron diffraction and electron diffraction.

The sizes of the individual crystals in a crystalline solid material vary depending on the material involved and the conditions when it was formed. Most crystalline materials encountered in everyday life are polycrystalline, with the individual crystals being microscopic in scale, but macroscopic single crystals can be produced either naturally (e.g. diamonds) or artificially.

Real crystals feature defects or irregularities in the ideal arrangements, and it is these defects that critically determine many of the electrical and mechanical properties of real materials.

If someone say me, "I want to study Art and want to be a Master-artist in the 21st century,", then I would say "It is better to forget it in the 21st century. Because the master-artist can not exsist in the 21st century."

-> It means that please don't forget that the 1 carat brilliant diamond ring itself is since 1970s for general people, everybody can have a chance to reach it.

Since then, the 1 carat brilliant diamond ring is not the Masterpiece anymore and lost the mystic power, due to fashion and lots of editions in the world. The original is exhibited only one in the Museum today.

-> Fabric by IKEA as Background of this allegory (Free market global economy).

Worth of thing is today: The old model of the edition has no worth today. Only the original has the worth which is exhibited at the Museum. The storn 'Diamond' itself has not high worth how people think. The Record needle is made by diamond. 100 years ago, Diamond was the symbolic. 'thing' has the worth only in the culture, how is the culture today, about 'culture' is a subject in this research. Generally, we don't have the culture as capital anymore today. German Nazi had stolen the gold crown for the tooth from Jews, which is only worth about 20 euros for sale today. In Germany, I think that the 1 carat brilliant diamond ring is the symbole of Jews by German Nazi. However there are lots of the editions of the 1 carat brilliant diamond ring, and it has no worth today. About "worth of thing", I want to talk in this research.  German Nazi had killed all Jews for 20 euro in Europe, they didn't know about 'worth of thing', even though today is same, due to historical German Katholizismus. 

-> Which thing has worth today in the 21st century?

 

Transculturality

On "N" in this picture:

A beautiful letter "N" (fourteenth letter) is in the latin alphabet.

Haplogroup N

Haplogroup N (M231)

The principal quantum number (symbolized n) 

The newton (symbol: N)

N- Nature

Aesthetic attention

Threefoldness

Today 'thing', the most worth is 'notion'. How it is valued, it depends on you.

in an allegorical photograph. 

Objectivity and Subjectivity

-> I have no tattoing, because I don't like the pain. I wrote just "N" on my left hand.

Pardox of fiction


The paradox of fiction, or the paradox of emotional response to fiction, is a philosophical dilemma that questions how people can experience strong emotions to fictional things. The primary question asked is the following: How are people moved by things which do not exist? The paradox draws upon a set of three premises that seem to be true prima facie but upon closer inspection produce a contradiction. Although the ontology of fictional things in general has been discussed in philosophy since Plato,[1] the paradox was first suggested by Colin Radford and Michael Weston in their 1975 paper How Can We Be Moved by the Fate of Anna Karenina?.[2] Since Radford and Weston's original paper, they and others have continued the discussion by giving the problem slightly differing formulations and solutions.[3]


 

The paradox[edit]

The basic paradox is as follows:[1]

 

  1. People have emotional responses to characters, objects, events etc. which they know to be fictitious.
  2. In order for us to be emotionally moved, we must believe that these characters, objects, or events, truly exist.
  3. No person who takes characters or events to be fictional at the same time believes that they are real.

 

The paradox is that all three premises taken individually seem to be true, but can not all be true at the same time. If any two points (e.g. 1 and 3) are taken to be true, then the third (e.g. 2) must either be false or else produce a contradiction.


 

Thought Theory[edit]

 

Second is the thought theories, for example from Peter LamarqueNoël Carroll, and Robert J. Yanal.

 

The thought theories deny premise 2 and claim that we can have genuine emotions from things even if we do not believe them to exist.[8]



Aesthetic emotions are emotions that are felt during aesthetic activity or appreciation. These emotions may be of the everyday variety (such as fearwonder or sympathy) or may be specific to aesthetic contexts. Examples of the latter include the sublime, the beautiful, and the kitsch. In each of these respects, the emotion usually constitutes only a part of the overall aesthetic experience, but may play a more or less definitive function for that state.