The Problem with Modern Art

http://www.peterpaulrubens.net/images/gallery/the-massacre-of-innocents.jpg

Picasso, Van Gogh, de Vinci, and Michelangelo: the respect and awe inspired by the artwork these artists created has allowed their names to stand the test of time. Whispers of their accomplishments still permeate society, and children at very young ages learn to recognize and cherish their appellations.

           These individuals (and many others I have abstained from listing) held their work to the highest standard, demanded of themselves only the best quality attainable, and utilized their own artistic style to improve upon the artistic endeavors of previous masters.

           What happened to utterly alter the foundations of society’s appreciation of art? The aesthetically pleasing qualities and attention to detail shown in the artwork of Rubens and Monet have largely given way to the offensive, the pointless, and the infantile. This is not a matter of pride; artists today often hold their work in the highest esteem.

           What, then, could it be?

Impressionism was a 19^th-century art movement whose initiators were artists who rejected government-sanctioned expositions and were consequently spurned by influential academic art institutions. It was a style of art that sought to capture the sensory effect of a moment in time, one that did not rely on realistic depictions, and whose followers sought to avoid clear form and utilize intense colors to excite the senses.

           The impressionists held the philosophic idea of aesthetic relativism, in which the judgement of beauty is relative to time, to individuals, and to culture. In an artistic sense, it is a denial of all standards that had previously governed ‘acceptable art.’

           Monet himself was an impressionist. His and his contemporaries’ works still preserved the discipline and execution of talented and dedicated artists, but with each new generation the quality of artwork and the self-imposed standers of creation declined until there were none at all. These standards were instead replaced by personal expression and abstraction.

http://files.brightside.me/files/news/part_2/24305/191755-R3L8T8D-1000-5_1.jpg

   

       Without standards, how does one determine what is superior or inferior? The answer: they cannot.

        All that remains is an undefined perception of a hypothesized meaning that can neither be suitably rejected nor praised. Before, art was a means to create scenes of mythology, or religion, of literature, of substance to make a statement in an appealing way. Today, artists have been known to use shock value to accomplish the same thing.

        Not only is this acceptance of the (often) mediocre the fault of the artists themselves, it is the fault of the artistic community. We as a people have accepted this art; we have allowed blank canvases to sell for millions of dollars, for the randomness of splattered paint to be worth more than most people see in a lifetime.

        Because we have allowed this new ‘art’ to get out of hand, we must also be the ones to put it back in its place. By recognizing that something new and different is not always good, that notable names do not always create notable products, we may yet discourage and subsequently fix what has tainted society’s perception of 'good' art.

        And, maybe then, new names will begin to take their place among legends.

The Multiverse Theory

http://tinyurl.com/znxu8ew

    

       There has never once been a human being that looked back at their past and found only a one-way path. Everyone has, at one time or another, imagined what would have happened if they had done something better, something different, or even turned that something into nothing in a crucial moment of their history. Images of present grandeur or ruin may flood their mind, or even subtle differences that would vastly impact their future, behaviors, beliefs, and memories – for better and for worse.

        However, not everyone may suppose that all of those separate decisions, real or imagined, were and still are being chosen and observed. And by another ‘them,’ no less.

        The Multiverse theory states that the entirety of matter, energy, space, and time is comprised of finite and infinite potential universes, including that which we inhabit. Every decision, no matter how small, made by any and every creature gives birth to a slew of different timelines dependent on that one decision. It is a continuous process that results in the birth of an exponentially growing number of alternate dimensions - each only slightly different from the last.

        Though this supposition is unable to be directly proven, it has long been considered a scientific possibility; the Multiverse theory stems from scientists’ current understanding of quantum mechanics and string theory.

        Take Schrӧdinger’s cat, for example, an animal placed in a closed box. Opening the box allows one possible history to make itself known: one where it is alive; one where it is dead; and, according to the huge scope of possibilities allowed by quantum mechanics, one where it is both dead and alive. 

       One may accept that these prospects are simply a place to store information until the ‘true’ ending is realized with the opening of the box, but one may also accept that each likelihood is true in of itself, just existing in an alternative universe.

       Gravitational force is near impossible to describe on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles (as even the act of observing such particles changes the way they react). String theory, however, states that all fundamental particles are comprised of one-dimensional strings and can describe all forces of nature at once. For this theory to mathematically function, though, it requires at least ten physical dimensions. The four we know of are height, width, depth, and time; the others are hidden from our view.

        There are a number of possibilities to describe how these extra dimensions interact (a very large number, mind you), and each theorized interaction ends with the creation of a universe with different physical laws than our own. This methodology, however, has not been completely accepted, and the matter is a point of contention for many scientists.

        String theory predicts that all alternate universes exist on the same physical plane. Proving the Multiverse theory may depend on the discovery of signs of collision and overlapping parts of the alternate universes. These signs will be, theoretically, unlike the consistency of our universe, such as cold spots and hot spots.

        

       

        Scientists are actively searching for all possible evidence to support a Multiverse reality.

        Should this concept of actuality be revealed as truth, science will never be the same. Should this concept of actuality be revealed as truth, how we as individuals view the actions we take will forever carry a greater weight.

       ‘I may not have been successful, but somewhere out there I am.’

       ‘I may have made a life for myself here, but somewhere out there my life was ruined.’

       The knowledge that one both suffers and prospers all at once is a double-edged blade. What misery have we managed to avoid by a hair’s breadth? What have we denied ourselves that has impacted our future for the worst? Someone out there knows.

       And that someone is another ‘us.’

How the Universe is Like a Cell

Universe

http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/fd89087cbf3f22aa477017

7b7d9d2cf239361a63

Brain Cell

https://images.sciencedaily.com/2015/

10/151008131213_1_900x600

         In 2014, scientists were able to take equations and theories from centuries of astronomical observations to create a three-dimensional, computerized model of the universe. This simulation is able to go forward and backward through time, hypothesizing the past and future layout of the cosmos – of the matter and dark matter it houses.

        Unfortunately, the replica is far from perfect; there exist anomalies that are not supported by current observations. However, its creation will assist in furthering the understanding mankind has of the universe as a whole.

        What makes this simulation far more interesting, however, is that its growth directly resembles that of a brain cell; the shapes of expanding galaxies echo electrical connections between brain cells, as well as the similarities between the connections (some nodules branching out into many links and others into few).

         It is common knowledge that there are certain mathematical functions that govern the natural world (such as the Fibonacci sequence, which has been shown to match the layout of the seeds in a sunflower, the shapes of certain seashells, the outward appearance of pine cones, the spiral of a galaxy, and much more). Could the development of a neural network and the network of space be governed by a similar natural law?

                Scientists have begun to hypothesize that the way that systems evolve in many various networks, ranging from the universe to the internet to the most minuscule of brain cells, is the same regardless of their different appearances. What this means is that the parallels between the small and the not-so-small are greater than can be evaluated at first glance.

Humanity has a limited view of the universe, literally and figuratively. Our eyes may be able to see objects lightyears away from Earth as we glance up at the night sky, but they cannot see the edges of the expanding space we and countless astral bodies claim as our own; and, not every mystery discovered has been found to have a definite answer.

What if the universe isn’t simply like a brain cell, but is a brain cell. Do we exist inside of a separate intelligence? Are we one of many? This would make us, our solar system included, far less than atomic particles.

And if our universe is a brain cell, then what, pray tell, exists within us all?