The arts are totally underestimated in value and intelligence on this planet. We have an authoritarian hierarchy set up in which the more mechanical intelligence, logic, intellect, appear sufficient for the development of a civilisation, in fact are the criteria for dictating and running all facets of practical existence and society. This is a deviation from the ideal.

As stated previously, physics is the basic subject and its application is relevant to all activities. The logical and intellectual is a manifestation of the quantitative and linear aspects of existence: separation achieved by parts out of phase with one another (different frequency). Quality involves in-phase, resonant parts that then create true unity (holistic, holographic states), not parts stuck together by forces, which is all that science recognises today.

The arts, whether visual art, music, poetry or dancing, communicate quality (even dancing, or movement in general creates energies---patterns of frequencies). Focussing on visual art, let us briefly explain why it transcends normal third-dimensional logical and intellectual existence. All quality has true unity (as per our use of the word). We could give examples of quality ranging from art works to benevolence but only a scientific explanation gives the fundamental principles involved, which then can be applied to any example.

Quality always has integrity. It is a single state; its parts are in unison, resonance. This is true unity. What has this to do with the mind, consciousness and the artist? If we had an advanced science on planet Earth, scientists would recognise the true nature of unity. They would realise that when you bring into phase, into harmony, previously separate elements by matching frequencies, a higher-order state is regenerated, that is, a higher spectrum of frequencies, of wholeness of intelligence (from higher-dimensional strata/realms). This means the unity (or quality) becomes (is) a 'window' allowing into the third dimension greater harmonic structures/concepts that couldn't exist in a 3D particle reality only.

Thus we see that when artists correlate the paint elements---brush strokes, colour, line, mass and shade--the created quality is information coming through from higher-dimensional realms---higher spectrums (of greater frequency rates) This is also what 'spiritual' means. Science will eventually recognise the existence of these higher fractal levels of consciousness. Everything apparently is fractalised.

Regarding quality, if something interrelates in all its parts it has great strength---power is added. Any overall qualitative effect is accentuated by the coherence of the parts. Each part affects other parts holistically. Each part is normally isolated in this 3D and not very effective by itself when not holistically related to other parts.

One of the mechanisms that gives an outlet for quality is fractals; a subject with which we have dealt briefly. It is not a subject the layman will welcome in its technical aspects but good artists have been using fractals expertly since the incipience of art in society. Fractals is a key item in integration and quality. Each system of fractals contains a repeated self-similar pattern but of changing dimensions. If one gazes at the unity of the form of a fern (perception of the whole) one finds that unity repeats in smaller scales in its leaves. A work of art, depending on its complexity, should look balanced at several levels of perception, experienced at different distances from, say, a painting. The details within the picture should be grouped but as one steps away using a wider focus the balance of mass, light and dark through correct grouping, should still be present.

Consciousness is inherently fractal; when it resonates with the environment we can experience beauty, art, etc. It can resonate with its own higher nature and perceive qualitative effects accordingly. That is, a lower fractal level of consciousness, us, resonates with our higher fractal levels (soul, etc.) providing we are creating qualities. These higher levels have additional senses.

Abstract paintings can still contain fractals. Pollock's action paintings are skilful fractal designs. Thus use and application of fractals will aid integration and the communication of quality. Quality acts like a window into higher dimensions of the mind and spirit (this is the inner-space or inner-consciousness). Or we could consider it a window into the unconscious. Good semi-realistic art, such as Impressionism may be less defined but sufficiently integrated to enable consciousness to 'fill in' the gaps (the windows) so to speak with other probabilities and interrelationships; this is where the soul energies enter. Realism limits this; every little point tells exactly what to see third dimensionally. Note that the soul level is merely our next fractal 'up', from which we were 'projected' as humans in the same way a branch projects (grows) a twig.

A great deal of modern art can be summed up as 'art gone wrong'. Even so, some of it is being artistically rendered (which, however, doesn't make it great), and much of it is expressing the times: chaos, conflict, suffering and aberration. Illustrative characteristics are not an inherent part of art as is aesthetics; illustration presents a message, as it should; that is the intention.

Kandinsky, possibly more than any other renowned artist, has examined in some depth the human drive and motivation in art. He divides art expression into external (outer) and internal (inner). He recognises the superficial purpose of representing the external world only---for example, representation, realistic works, copies, rendering technique only. His 'Principle of Inner Necessity' as he calls it covers three aims, 1) the need for the personality to express itself---this could cover subjective motivation, which relates to the particular individual---what they are in tune with, whether of the material world, or simply their own problems and aberrations; 2) the style, as he calls it, which relates to the era, the times. What we might call 'fashion'---it changes with the ages. This is our relative factor mentioned in Part I. Neither 1 nor 2 is constant. The first varies in 'space' and will be different for different personalities, different nationalities, etc. The second varies in 'time' according to the style. Our third and absolute factor is 3) the soul expression. Kandinsky refers to it as the quintessence of art and points out this is the constant, the inner reality of truth and beauty and can only be expressed through abstract art, whereas we are stating that even realistic pictures will, when accomplished with great quality---and particularly with some Impressionistic distortions---open up a window into the soul. Kandinsky perceptively states that art theory follows art, not precede it. Everything is at first a matter of feeling.

The development of human civilisation has stressed logic rather than feeling. This suppression of natural and soul-level feelings, this failure to allow the subjective and psychological outlet causes enforced expression---a type of learning by misadventure. As a result, wild, chaotic and materialistic expressions ensue appropriate to this suppressed, confused state of the unconscious. If higher intuition is repressed, the lower emotion may react into expression.

Great artists seem to be born with an overwhelming drive to create. This would be programmed before this life, actually set up for it to work out that way. (If a sceptic, you may not know that noteable scientists have proved life after death; it has simply been suppressed from the public; imagine what the world would be like now if this had been widespread knowledge 100 years ago.)

A contradictory characteristic of great artists is their eccentricity and even aberration or insanity. Nevertheless this may be positively utilised. It could be beneficial for evolution and race karma that these artists with their distortions would bring in, through their great artistic abilities, a powerful expression of the negativity in the world, possibly to awaken people from their blind acceptance of their reality. Also their expression could act positively as a release (this can be overdone of course). Thus prior to a life, the aberration of the artist could already be taken into account, that is, arranged this way to express in art what society is going through; trauma, wars, anger, but all art mustn't be like this---that is, to be used to express these negative aspects. Also, although ego can relate to bad behaviour, it nevertheless enables artists to work harder---have more drive. They are driven to express certain aspects of life or their mind.

Thus artists bring through a wide variety of emotions. If we were all highly sane and evolved nearly all art would be of harmonious subjects.

Impressionism is probably the purest form of art, plus some modern works, such as abstracts that have aesthetics as dominant. But good art does not have dominant messages, with which some artists get carried away. In good art, a landscape, for example, is not for communicating primarily the scene as realistic information---it is communicating a qualitative view of the scene. The artist is reforming nature qualitatively. It isn't necessarily there in nature but can be triggered within the soul of the artist. As explained, by soul we mean a higher fractal and wider focus of consciousness embracing greater degrees of freedom of which our conscious state is but a 'hypnotised' (relative to 3D) aspect of this greater state. The artist simplifies and extracts from the view or any experience the principal attributes, and will sometimes accentuate them; then puts them together as a whole. Thus these larger qualitative wholes are soul attributes/states and can be integrated into forming a work of art. An attribute may be simply (the quality of) 'treeness' or snowness', etc. Some people remember as a child, experiencing qualities of ordinary things. A realistic picture may have too many bits and pieces, and be unrelated, which either do not express the quality, or distract the viewer from the qualitative attributes when present.

How far can abstract art convey meaning, in particular, if it is extreme abstract work, such as some of Rothco's? They are, however, highly qualitative, with subtle colour renderings, textured with soft edges, but structurally extremely simple, such as a framed square, etc. Is it possible to endow a paintig with much depth from so little? We could be verging on the paranormal here to provide that kind of answer. A work could be endowed with subtle energies from higher aspects of consciousness or channelled energies from the artist's higher counterpart(s)---such as was alluded to in the Mona Lisa article regarding the source of the mysteries of the painting. If this was the case the question arises again: Is this art? (the extra influence). Thus again we would have to suggest a gradient of complications, in this case, ranging from art, where the extra information is totally congruent, to veering away from art as the extra information takes one's attention now away from the canvass into realms of the psyche. Thus if it is congruent with art, forming one whole statement, we can call it art.

Quality from the soul, although can be expressed in 3D, can't be logically detected and defined. We can only hint at or suggest what is happening. Just as we have clear-cut emotions, at least we identify them as such, the soul level of consciousness will have attributes of feelings which in terms of energies will be frequency 'packets', such as joy. To us many of these will be abstract and manifest somewhat weakly in 3D for most people. The harmony and aesthetics is far greater at the soul level though. The soul level imposes its 'feeling tones' (aesthetics, harmonious frequency states), which to us in 3D are abstract higher-emotion attributes (whole states/concepts). This aesthetic rendering, of what would otherwise be merely a photographic view of the environment, enhances enjoyment of the art work, triggering those soul sensations within the viewer. It is as though these feeling tones (frequency patterns) are the 'building bricks' of the soul/spiritual body and may be called archetypes. It is as though the artist is creating a new context for or within 3D by bringing in these higher values and integrations. These states of quality are duplicating the native, innate properties of the spiritual being's modes of consciousness. Good art will resonate with the fundamental and archetypal states of the soul.

Let us say something about 'attributes' in general to give a better idea of what we mean in applying it to art/aesthetics. These states which include the 'feeling tones', aesthetics and higher emotions, have their own existence. In fact the shocking truth to science is that just as is given in quantum physics (considered mathematical fiction) all things can be represented by a wave function. As far as we are concerned here, we mean in reality that even abstract states have a holistic frequency pattern. As an outrageous example even the attribute money could be an energy state (a thought form we have created, of course); or for a physical example, the flame of a struck match is not the effect of the friction and chemical processes, truthfully, but is an energy condition which is 'rekindled' into existence by the 'rules' for this process (it comes into the third dimension!). Thus these are whole causative, independent attributes, they are singular. Thus many or all integral abstract concepts are attributes in this manner.

Let us briefly look at the matter of harmonious subjects and nonharmonious subjects. As we have implied, subjects are illustrative, but this is not art and must never be the sole purpose of art; just as impressions (recall the example given in music) must not be the purpose; there must be sufficient aesthetics apart from the impressions. Much modern art though has moved away from this recognition, and negative subjects are being brought through for their own sake. If the art rendering of the subject is good though then we may still accept it as the 'fashion' of our times; a contemporary expression of reality on planet Earth.

Considering an overview of the art world today it may give some clarification if we understand better that there are two factors in art expression: aesthetics and communication. We could in fact define art to include how one communicates it; or define it purely from the art value, which would emphasise the aesthetics irrespective of whether the viewer appreciates it or not. What we are stating is that there are two separate variables here 1) art, to be at its best possible value, and 2) how it is communicated, to give the degree of appreciation and understanding. If we give attention to how (or what type of) art is communicated, although we may be compromising the level of art attainable by the artist, we shall have more appreciative spectators. Or we could, for example, neglect the communication and bring art to its highest level and only have a few people who would appreciate it. What is the most important? Thus by setting certain constraints on art/aesthetics we can attract different audiences. However, the relationship between art and communication (with appropriate constraints) is often not ideal since the art may be subjugated by the communication as we explained, sometimes of a nature not even desired by the majority. Thus there is the basic ability of the artist, then there is the adjustment consciously or unconsciously of this basic ability by means of regulating the communication factor according to who is to receive it. The artist of course generally isn't always too aware of the communication variable.

Communication would address how positive (for example, pleasing scenes) or how negative (for example, brutality) the subject of the art is. Or how realistic. It could deal with simplification and limiting degrees of abstraction. Aberration that the artist may be expressing would be another communication factor, and finally the emphasis given to the illustrative or informational value. One can see how the value of art can be pushed out by some of these communication factors, and art as art/communication combined could be reduced in value. The artist needs to communicate aesthetics to his or her selected audience using the communication factor without loss to the art value (with those accepted limitations).

Nevertheless considering the extreme cases of this (for example, good artists using aberrated subjects), on the basis that our analysis must be free from formal scientific restrictions and taking an open-minded standpoint, we could strongly suggest that, for instance, Bacon's impulse and drive to paint those human distortions, which are depicted in clinical environments and which he states were not inspired but received, often during alcoholic intoxication, that some other entity was the channel. This is not direct possession. A study of consciousness indicates that merging or infiltration of the mind is not so strange. The host generally is oblivious of this.

A very different factor influencing the art world is programming, or mind manipulation, to embed contextual biasses within the unconscious. By these techniques an artist can be selected and promoted to give a very positive status. A good instance of this in the field of science would be Einstein (now a household name). This type of brainwashing can hugely mould minds towards excessive favouritism of certain artists or their works. Vice versa, background contexts can be built up by this programming---particularly as groups form, supporting this, but in this case to oppose works. This comes under covert politics and will not be pursued.

Art, particularly visual art, is thus very much a manifestation of the unconscious (of which we have included in this unconscious, higher dimensions, soul, and entity phenomena). There is little doubt the subject of the arts will make a lot more sense as we acquire the perception of higher consciousness.

That there are other forms of communication (already discussed), encroaching on the art world and being confused for art, but which are utilising or exploiting art to effect these non-art communications (such as having an intellectual message), the solution is to recognise this, give these other forms of communication their proper place and prevent them from displacing real art, in which art is for art's sake and is not to be subservient to anything else. Finally we must now give a guide line as to how to identify what is genuine or good art. An art work to be called art must be defined as possessing the following qualities as a minimum: it must have unity and harmony; it must be pleasing; it should have a sense of completion---one cannot add or subtract from it without upsetting the balance and integration. In terms of physics this is a single quantum state of perception and when it occurs is instantaneous---beyond space and time. These characteristics could now be called 'aesthetics'. Thus the primary goal of any art must include at least these qualities.

Return to Home Page