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
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.
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?
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.
But, we have the epistemological problems with photograph always, due to seeing whole of event through an excerpt of a reality.
The synthetic materiality and imitation of style as fashion are current problem for us in the 21st century.
-> 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.
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.
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.
On "N" in this picture:
A beautiful letter "N" (fourteenth letter) is in the latin alphabet.
The principal quantum number (symbolized n)
N- Nature
Aesthetic emotions are emotions that are felt during aesthetic activity or appreciation. These emotions may be of the everyday variety (such as fear, wonder 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.