What do I mean when I say ‘forever revealing itself not to those who simply listen and observe but to those willing to be moved by its (the universe’s) seemingly invisible patterns (the harmony of the universe)’.
I am talking about one’s ability to realize that it is never the creation itself that is important but the point at which it interacts with reality.
It is not the idea, the product, the object, the art, the formula or whatever else is that can be important or that we should be looking for.
We are looking for something that will cause the existing reality, universe, space to react in a different way.
It’s all about how the existing reality is going to respond to what is created.
It is not the music is the space and its silence.
Length and nature of pauses and echoes.
Or, more specifically our internal ability to imagine and combine silences, echoes, ups and downs enables us to create music.
It is not so much about what the painting as it is about how what is in the painting portrays, reflects, contradicts, questions and so on and therefore affects everything outside of it.
Could we say that a meaningful creation occurs with the desire to transform the space time continuum that surrounds the piece of art or the formula in mind and not with the desire to create an understandable or acceptable piece or art or science.
Music is a very specific case.
It’s as if it were composers and song writers were required to perceive the nature of the state of people’s minds. I am not talking about guessing what people like in order to predict and satisfy their tastes or desires. Not at all.
That is a piece of music is never about itself. Never about the artist’s understanding of the music but about his or her understanding of the space time continuum. As if attempting to create a new piece of music is attempting to create an energy that can reveal new emotional states from which one could view the world.
It’s as if though the composer is inspired by the architecture and spaces and the shape and state of the natural world specific to his period.
That is one begins to sense how one’s work is that which is missing from the environment at that particular moment in time. And the act of his or her creation or the skill, his or her particular skill, is his or her realization of what it is that is missing.
Thus art that teaches something about our time does so because all other art is no longer timely thus we must continue to create all the time. Thus we cannot create without being aware of the nature of our environment. We cannot create without being aware of the nature of the universe. I am talking about very specific knowledge. Physics, mathematics, geometry, astrophysics.
Could it be that a sound, a new sound that has not existed before, thus could not have been heard by anybody, becomes popular precisely because it has not been heard before.
But is that enough?
It cannot be enough.
Many create new sounds but they say nothing about the existing space time?
Again, it’s not enough for a sound to be new. It must fit into, or, more specifically, it must complement the existing perceptions and therefore definitions of the space time continuum.
But what does it mean to complement them.
How can a set of sounds complement physical spaces.
Does it mean that a new musical movement must be able to invoke a new set of physical reactions.
Is this the defining feature of all revolutionary discoveries, especially regarding art? An object’s or an idea’s or a formula’s ability to force people to act.
Thus a piece of art (a painting, sculpture, song) makes its presence by its ability to create an emotional response that forces people to transform their emotional experiences into physical actions?
So a new cultural emotion arises?
A wave of shared internal realizations become a collective perception shift?
So what of its physical shape thus its physical state?
They are derived from the artist’s feeling of the space time and its new possibilities?