Jude, I like the discussion of color in Renaissance art and forward. I think
you've put another spin on what Rose was talking about in her appreciation of
black-and-white photographs. Once again, we're back to
fundamentals--origination. Any sources for your discussion?
Jude, you must like the French philosophes and what they did with the question,
to paraphrase, "How could a blind man sense color?" Of course, you say, "Color
is also treacherous in another way. It is the sensation that elludes measurement
and consensus." Color only eludes measurement when it comes to be understood in
terms of the Lockean problem: as the property of a body. Yet, in another sense,
all bodies can have their "color" measured with a spectrograph--though that
color is not necessarily visible (EM spectrum). Locke simply did not have the
tools to make that measurement, and so he confronted color as a problem.
However, in the visible range, we do have a phenomenological problem: A yard
planted in Bermuda grass is blue-purple in midnight moonlight and green-yellow
in the bright morning sun or whatever you see it as. It's the phenomenological
problem that eludes "measurement and consensus." Even when we construct
re-constructable frames of reference, people will sense the world
differently--it's not just sight is it? It's taste and touch and . . . .
We're back to Nietzsche are we? Says Jude, "What if proof is the natural enemy
of art, as well as a false home for philosophy?" You know what the answer is,
don't you?
As to the problem of proof, I think this is the problem that Rose has
encountered in her work: philosophy that leans toward measurement and proof
(science and math) and philosophy that leans toward art. Geometry belongs to the
world of math and ideal philosophy. It also belongs to the history of
perspective in Renaissance art. . . . How does one deal with geometry in art and
philosophy without coming to terms with the "Platonism" of most mathematicians?
JMC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|