back
5 comments
For starters, I would look at the Bauhaus school (Kandinsky taught there) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauhaus and look into the Hofmann school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Hofmann and I'm working on information which will be posted here if people seem interested http://www.knowingart.com/ Don't be distracted by Hofmann's ugly paintings, he is a good teacher, and if you ever get his strange push-pull principle working in your art, you'll never go back, your perception will change, and the foundation of that goes way back to Michelangelo. Before we learn depth perception, as infants, we see the world as an artist, shapes of color rather than identifying patterns and distinct objects. Part of push-pull is being able to flip between those two ways of seeing the picture plane, in your mind and on the canvas.
I've long enjoyed Szukalski's attempt to find a universal artistic language: Protong. As crack-pot as he is, I find it interesting that his theories still don't get much traction, because they are certainly useful once learned by the casual art observer ..
Huh. Really surprised this isn't about Kandinsky. His short little texts on theory are gloriously impenetrable.
Then he should look about the founations of molecular biology.)

Some viruses, BTW, are works of art, leave alone higher organisms.

The Human arts are poor crude imitations compared to that.

Why, is there are any objections to the premise that the very human concept of art was inspired by natural phenomena in the shared environment, and beauty of ne nature, such as simetry, colors, shapes (which constitutes health markers among other things), sounds (of bird songs, or even wind) comes long before emergence of so called human intelligence, and has little to do with it? Human arts, by the way, has a lot to do with pseudo-intellectual classifications and criticism, instead of the very essence, which we some times call beauty, captured from the environment.