Art and It's Relation to the Human Quest of Classifying Reality.

Art is simply the act of taking fragments of one's life experiences and editing them together to constuct a new whole, with a new meaning and purpose. Thus all men are artists for we all only have fragments, and from that we create an incomplete perspective that we believe to be a whole. We are artists simply because we cannot grasp things in their entirety and must methodically disassemble things into fragments them reassemble them back together in our head. Thus we have a subjective understanding of things because everything we experience goes through this filter. The evidence for this is seen in the fact that people break ideas down into more manageable and manuveable parts.....for example we use individual symbols in sequences to create words and use words to collectively comunicate ideas....this process subjects the overall idea being communicated to degeneration as the details of the idea slip thru the gaps in language both nationally and individually, for even within the same language words can have different conotations to different people based upon their prior experiences with a word. Just for clarification subjectivity does not mean no universal truth. Anyone assuming that merely proves my point about the subjectivity of word meaning due to prior experiences......I'll explain that if anyone does try to counter my claim that universal truth and subjectivity can coexist. All I can say is it is much like the blindmen and the elephant.......just three subjectively misinterpret the identity of the elephant, yet the elephant is still an elephant no matter how far from that truth the blindmen are due to their fabricated perspective of the entire elephant which is founded upon merely a fragment of the whole. The men in this situation may be able to grasp the whole eventually if they collectively orient each other with the part of the elephant they understand, but even still they have not universal experiences but subjective ones as individuals, thus this method will fail, for they will not be able to traverse the barriers set upon them by their individualized internal languages that are based upon the human act of dividing and categorizing experinces, editing them together into new sequences which are organized according to the structure of an individual's mind. This structure develops from birth as the result of the brain actively processing experiences in life. Experiences shape how we organize future experiences. Just as one places the word ant near where one formerly placed an A. Our structures are similar due to language, but even then not identical, for we all to not share the exact same experience with anyone. We may have the same experience externally, but internally they differentiate, for interpretation is part of the process of experience as an experience never reaches us without first being processed throught the filter of our past experiences. Art therefore is our attempt to communicate our experience with others.What ends up happening is we try to recopy our mental record of an experience into a physical record. I forgot to add back when I spoke about how the brain develops Its organizational structure that the structure is like the format as in like a computer harddrive. This format of the brain is constantly updated with each new addition of an experience, thus it is difficult again for communication, for things can take on new meanings over time. So back to art. This physical record is then art, which we issue to others as an attempt to recreate the internal experience of an external event in life. This then is interpreted thru the same process that recorded the original experience of the actively artistic individual, therefore the meaning degenerates even further just as film degenerates each time the negatives are reprocessed. The means erodes even more as the receiving individual views the physical record through the internal record of their experience while externally experiencing the physical record. This event allows for external interference with the individuals external experience. And now I Have exhausted all that is currently on my mind about this subject and must allow the process of experience to restore the reserves of mind. It's all art......it's all human expression......modern art is merely testing the boundaries of visual communication, but it's all the same. Some experiences are very close to being universal, but all are subjective. There is no way for two men to see life from the same mind, although that is the primary endevour of art. See the older art primarily used structures that are more on the universal side of the spectrum. The more specific and detailed the more universal, for that makes it easier for one to identify what one is and isn't familiar with. With abstract, everything is not exactly specific, thus the meaning is not really what is on the canvas, but how the individual organizes the structures presented within the picture inside his mind. This therfore is why modern abstract art seems more subjective. Also it is why artists strove to capture things abstractly, for it left their interpretation of the experience as far out of it as possible, for it is impossible to view anything outside of ones individual perspective completely, but one can try with different methods that came about during modern art. This lead to questions of whether artists were even to be called artists anymore, for sometimes they were so removed from their perspective in a record that it was more like it was just an event that was experienced by an audience rather than an actually human to human communication. Thus some art merely is a record of natural events. An example of this is a guy who hung paint cans from a ceiling to paint. Even then though it is still art, for the artist is communicating his experience with the impurity of human communication and as a result communicates his ambition to achieve communication that is free from subjectivity impurities. The only thing that can express objective truth is existence, but even that is interpreted thru our subjective eyes, thus we cannot be certain as to whether our existence has any solid objective backing or is merely an ungrounded false assumption founded upon our sujective interpretation of our internal experience of existence which is compiled from a collection of external experiences carried to to our brain by electrical impulses thru the nervous system. For all we know the nerves that give us a reason to believe we exist may not exist themselves. This really obliterates the entire structure of human logic when the rest of the order behind human interpretation and experience follow the path that the nonexistence of our nerve endings forms. All our logic is founded upon the structure that we form when we use our nerve endings to gather experiences outside of the interal world that is our minds. Thus if it turns out that our nerves do not exist, we potientially might not exist, for everything which we believed existed based upon evidence collected thru the nonexistent nerve endings is questionable, for something non existent cannot be used as evidence to prove the existence of anything else. This means everything we have ever experienced externally is potientially non existant and everything we have internally experienced is potientially non existence, for internal experiences are based upon external ones. Even if they are purely internal like thoughts, they still are based upon some kind of externally absorbed idea. One cannot think of something that to him does not exist, and since we test existence with external experience, all that we think about has some form of external origin. This means that if the external origin of something is in question pertaining to the matter of existence, then the whole structure that is based upon that external thing is in question of not existinig, therefore even the presence of thoughts cannot be used to indicate one exists. Eventually this destroyed every belief one had as the foundation is first destroyed, thus the very soundness of ones logic is brought into question which is uncertainy and essentially destruction. It's like a domino effect. If ones own ability to reason is in question based upon the fact that ones reason was entirely based upon an internally created perspective of external data coming from the nervous system that has been proven to be potientially nonexistent, then ones entire web of reason left unfounded and uncertain and potientially false, thus one potientially is non existent since the web of reason from which one declares the logical argument in defence of their existence is potientially founded upon experiences that occured through something that may not even exist. For that matter everything one has ever known may poteintially be nonexistent under these conditions.