Aesthetic Relativity and Fractal Networks

When I wrote the other day about the quality of light I took a rather extreme approach. I placed the difference between quality and angle and color as though they approached a kind of mutual exclusivity. Certainly this is not the case. Some of what makes the colors, angles and the qualities of light interesting in their transformation is the reconfiguration of similar elements we have seen before. The same color coming out of two kinds of light creates a different feel. In a way, this is its own kind of Network. It is a relational system of signs with no inherent meaning. Its meaning comes from its relation to bodies and text and to itself over time. Elements take on significance as time goes on. As they relate to each other. As this four dimensional network expands in time and space.

Relational Networks.

Relational networks of meaning come in many forms. Friendships are a kind of binary network with various ties to external beings. The business world is a Network, politics, art etc. etc. The idea of Networks does not hold much meaning on its own. Rather its meaning is derived from the context in which it is used. As a conceptual tool then it becomes a very strong and powerful idea. Networks then are part of a network and rely on their own networks for meaning.

Joseph Albers in The Interaction of Color states that "In visual perception a color is almost never seen as it really is - as it physically is. This fact makes color the most relative medium in art." This point would become obvious to anyone who studied color even briefly. White can appear white, green, red, blue, or any number of colors. Saturated colors can appear dull just as white or black can appear rich and lush. It is relational. It is a matter of contrast. And as a drawing teacher of mine once said "Contrast equals interest."

Aesthetic Networks.

Why is Rothko so interesting? Well there are many reasons for this perhaps, but one thing for me is how his work stands in relation to the whole history of art and oil painting. When you think 'painting,' names like Vermeer or Ingres and the images associated with them come to mind. Rich and powerful images with a meticulous attention to detail. Full palette of colors utilized to outline and give texture to a myriad forms. And then there is Rothko whose blank canvas is like a snapshot of emotion. The color, if there is any, is simple and clear. We look at these works and see them in relation to everything we know about painting and everything we expect and suddenly, their power overwhelms us and we stand before them in awe.

Fractal Networks.

Aesthetic networks exist in the larger world of art, but also exist on a micro scale within an individual work. Mediums that are time dependent or linear make this very obvious. In a play, or a film or a novel, characters evolve and visual symbols become more and more filled with meaning and significance as the network of relations within the work expands and develops. In the film Hero we might at first be struck by the beauty of the colors and cinematography of the work, but as it goes on and we learn more and more of the story, we begin to see a stronger visual element of story telling. Suddenly we find ourselves immersed in a world where the story is told through image and movement and the words spoken become like a backdrop, a beautiful and necessary element, though not sufficient to tell the story.

Emotional Networks.

Last night a former teacher of mine, Paul Steinberg, came to see Cupid and Psyche and we got into quite a discussion at the intermission. The set designer has created a highly abstracted space. A simple, clean environment that gives a lot of room for the actors and the audience to create the world of the play in their minds. Our discussion centered around how much visual information to give an audience. The point was made that too much information is boring. It leaves no room for the imagination. The audience will be able to imagine something far more fabulous and wonderful than anything that could be put on stage. This is the power of the networked stage. This is the actor reacting to something he sees and inviting the audience in to participate and see what he sees. And when they do, what he sees becomes even more clear and powerful and real. And then the exchange begins.

Theatre is a dialog. It is not a closed system, but an ever growing network of relations that build and feed upon one another. It is not about illusions so much as it is about the imagination. Ingres might give us the beautiful illusion of fabrics and jewels and woods on a two dimensional surface, but Rothko provides a springboard for emotion and the imagination.