1. Introduction:
    Explanation Of Content
  2. Section One:
    Elaborated Version Of "The Theory Of Artistic Relativity".
  3. Section Two:
    Elaborated Version Of The Theory's First Derivational Category Of Art, "Psychotic Symbolism".
  4. Section Three:
    "Let Us Not Forget!" - The "Artistic Tragedy" Of A Great Artist.
  5. Section Four:
    Condensed Version Of The Theory And Category As Copyrighted In 1985.
  6. Section Five:
    The Symbolism Of "The Moth"

2. Section One:
Elaborated Version Of "The Theory Of Artistic Relativity".

"The theory of Artistic Relativity" was written in retaliation to a statement made by a college art history professor in one of my art classes at the local university, when in his lecture he stated that we have, so to speak, reached the "end of art". Needless to say, this was not something one wanted to hear if they were contemplating a career in art, so I started to pay attention!

Continuing the lecture, the professor explained that the current feeling in the art world that "all art is done" is attributed to the fact that in prevalent artistic format, we have gone from realism to abstraction and therefore have completed all the visual "forms" of imagery with nowhere else to go. He further stated that any "new" art created will actually be considered "old" in the sense that it will always relate back to this type of "spectrum" of being realistic, abstract, or consequently some form of visual imagery in between. I tended to agree with him that this condition existed, since using deductive reasoning, there is nothing beyond "total (photographic) realism" or "total abstraction". The dilemma that then subsequently unfolds is that any "new" art created will most likely be associated with the closest established "category of art" it resembles. Also, since in each category of art there is usually one stand out artist that is considered "the founding father" of that particular category (Van Gogh with Expressionism, Dali with Surrealism, Picasso with Cubism, etc.), an artist may find their "new" art created associated to them.

Sad to say, I already felt all this to be true because even my own artwork had been "categorized" in this manner. I could never convince any "art critic" that my work was totally unique in itself since those who pass judgment on art rely only upon the knowledge of art history amassed from the "spectrum" of realism-abstraction and cannot see beyond the spectrum's limitations. Seems as if me and the professor were on the same artistic wavelength, but it would be in our separate solutions to the dilemma that we would differ.

The professor next asserted that to create "new" art we can look towards new technologies in electronics to assist us in developing art beyond the spectrum. He perpetrated that computers, cameras, and holograms, can offer "new" dimensions for the advancement of art. This avenue of thinking would substantiate another one of his statements he made that "all art reflects the times". However true this may turn out to be, these methods still struck a chord inside me. Do these devices"paint a pretty picture"? Of course they can, but what about the human factor? Where then does artistic talent lie,in a machine that is merely an artistic prosthesis? I immediately envisioned going to a museum and seeing a self-portrait of Vincent Van Gogh right next to the "self-portrait" of a computer, which was the framed picture of that computer taken from the carton it was shipped in! I felt the professor and his presumed followers were headed in the wrong direction, so halfway through the lecture I started thinking about how I would solve the glitch.

I began the thought process with a mental note of the two most important words in problem solving, "logic dictates". Pure and simple logic is all you really need to start you in the RIGHT direction. The first step is to list all of the factual components present at the time. The next step is to find the common denominator amongst the components. This is an aspect that stands out and you cannot disregard or get away from. Finally, one must think on the whole, see "the big picture", and transform the common denominator in retrospect to be the solution to the problem. You may find most solutions to problems are simply re-evaluating past elements to find the "new" direction.

In this case, one component is the existence of the realism-abstraction spectrum. It does indeed exist, it has boundaries (limitations), and will be present for all time, so therefore it must be utilized as part of the solution to our dilemma. Another component is the fact that within the spectrum itself, categories define what art is, therefore categories will somehow be part of the solution, Another component is the professor's concept that technology will find a new dimension for the new direction of art. However, thinking carefully using logical deduction, people must be able to comprehend this new dimension and for that to happen the new dimension itself will obviously be in the in the same exact realistic-abstract visual format of our current spectrum of art. Once again, for art, there is nothing beyond total realism or total abstraction. Consequently, if the visual format of new technologies for art execution is the same as the current art spectrum, nothing has really changed except for the medium used in the execution and that is NOT ENOUGH SUBSTANCE to be "the saving grace of art", Remember, we are looking for a new direction for art, not just another wav to do art.

It seems like we lose a lot of credibility if we look beyond the spectrum for an answer. Relying again on our two most important words in problem solving, "logic dictates", if we cannot proceed forward in our problem solving thought process, we must go back and this means back into the spectrum we tried to leave behind! Since our answer now lies within the spectrum itself, we must now analyze the spectrum and its limitations "on the whole".

We ask ourselves, what is the most important part of the spectrum besides realism -abstraction boundaries? We have found that to be the categories since they define all art. Logically we ask, how did they come about? We find that artists created the artwork and the art world somewhere along the line labeled each category (or artist) as such. It may seem hard to believe but we have just broken down the entire realm of art from early caveman drawings up to abstract art renderings into three simple parts, the realism-abstract spectrum, artists who created the work, and the categories or styles of art we designate the art into. Comparing art from the spectrum to art beyond the spectrum, we now can find the common denominator to solve our problem, or shall we say, "The missing link".

So now we ask ourselves, what exactly are we "missing" from these three simple parts of the art realm in our attempt to establish "new" art? As for part one, will we be using the realistic-abstract visual format from our predecessors? Quite obviously, yes, since this format will always be there. As for part two, will artists still be the ones creating the artwork? Quite obviously, yes, for even in technical applications the ones implementing, or "programming ", the devices will be considered "artists". As for part three, will categories still be the definitive of art itself? Well I'll be, what have we here? Has anyone, including the professor, ever addressed the need of CATEGORIES to define "NEW" ART? Quite obviously, NO! Could this be the said common denominator needed to expand the spectrum from within? Is this our proverbial "missing link"? Quite obviously, YES!

From using our "logic dictates" deductive reasoning technique, we have discovered the basis of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity", the further need of defined styles of art (categories) that are added to the spectrum allowing the spectrum itself to expand from within, growing "mathematically". Once the "new" category of art is added to the spectrum, artists could use or borrow ideas from that new category along with ideas from other previous categories (just as all artists are influenced by the spectrum), to create even "newer" categories of art to be added to the spectrum, hence the exponential growth. We can now consider this growth, for lack of better words, "legal" rather than "plagiaristic" since our new art created will be something totally different in INTENT and not wanting to be aligned with some past category or artist. It is ironic that the direction for "new" art does not lie in some new technology, some exotic medium, or worst yet, the art world levitating certain artists and their work to high nomenclature because they know the right people or are in "the in crowd", but rather in simply DESCRIBING it as "new"! In a few words, we can sum up the basis of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" with the purest and most simplistic of logical deduction to solve our dilemma, "If you have a NEW CATEGORY of art, you have NEW ART"!

In concluding our "play by play" explanation of the development of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity", we must perform one final task to validate if the theory has any merit. As with any theory, the theory itself must be put to the test to see if it works. In our case here, if the theory proves to work at least ONE time, if we can come up with one totally individual category of art, we will have all the all the validation we need to show merit. Without further ado, "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" has given us the first litmus test of its principals with the creation of its first derivational category of art, "Psychotic Symbolism". The bottom line in testing any theory is the result, regardless of how you got there. In our case here, our bottom line is not necessarily analyzing art in general in relation to the spectrum, not necessarily the combining of categories to execute new art and expand the spectrum, and not necessarily the disregard of technological art, because all this is only the way we got here. Our bottom line, the main point that proves the theory's principals, our RESULT, is the absolute fact we have derived a totally unique category of art, never been done before, with one artist as its sole proprietor. To validate "Psychotic Symbolism" as such one must simply check all the books ever written about art, check all the museums, to see if you can find any "Psychotic Symbolism". Naturally, you won't findanything, but isn't that the RESULT we want? I guess that pretty much proves UNIQUENESS! I guess that is about as "pure and simple logic" as you can get.

More positive results are in the fact once an artist establishes his or her art as a totally unique category in itself, that will then elevate their art and themselves as the said "founding father" of that particular category to the exact same levels as Van Gogh and Expressionism, Picasso and Cubism, and Dali and Surrealism, were to their respected "category" or style. It may seem hard to believe one can attain that high of a level of artistic status, but it is true, The avenue to get there, pure and simple, has always been the same as it was for those masters. Now everyone can have their own category already in place to back themselves up. You just have to convince all the "art critics" in the entire art world your art and category is just as meaningful as those great artists! Think of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" as a type of "trip-tic" that shows you the way, but you must do the actual driving yourself.

Finally, we have saved the BEST positive result and proof for last in the fact that once and for all, one can silence all the "art critics" forever and never, I repeat, never have your art associated with any past art form, artist, or category of art. Offering "Psychotic Symbolism" as an example (from an actual incident that occurred), you will see how the theory works in real life. An "art critic" once told me, while viewing some of my artwork, that my work lacked "depth" and that I should make it more "realistic". My answer was, and I quote: "This is PSYCHOTIC SYMBOLISM, a totally new and unique category of art! It is not intended to have the "depth" you think it should have nor is it intended to have the "realistic" look you think it should have! it is PSYCHOTIC SYMBOLISM, and you know absolutely nothing about what art in that category should look like! I created the category, therefore I am the one who knows what it should look like and I assure you it looks like what I intended it to look like! Since you have never seen nor studied "Psychotic Symbolism", you are not an authority on the subject and therefore you really cannot comment on it! You either personally like it or you do not, pure and simple!
The answer I gave the "art critic", however rash and blunt it was, clearly shows how having your own personal category of art frees your artistic creations from any critical judgments by really anyone. Any critical judgments rendered to your "new" art can be dealt with by a similar response as I have given in the example (you can even be rash and blunt!). No more comments on who or what it relates to, what or how it should or should not be, for it all boils down to "you like it or you don't", END OF STORY!

This is the end of my story on the explanation (or elaboration) of the "in-depth" development of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity". The explanation (or elaboration) of the "in-depth" development of its first derivational category of art, "Psychotic Symbolism" is, no pun intended, ANOTHER STORY! Remember, the theory creates the "categories", the artwork that represents each category is developed solely on its own. The development of "Psychotic Symbolism" is explained in section two, but before we are done here I have a last tribute to pay.

I must pay tribute to Albert Einstein, the author of "The Theory of Relativity", for he was also an inspiration for "The Theory of Artistic Relativity, as one may have summarized. His desire to find solutions in the world of physics gave me inspiration to find a solution to the dilemma in the art world I perceive exists. He is "lending me authenticity" for my thesis (if I called it "A Theory of Art" would it be as potent?). To pay homage to him the same way I "plagiarized" the title of his thesis, I would like to "borrow" another distinguished aspect of his work, and that would be his formula, E= MC SQUARE. Every great theory needs a FORMULA! Well, at least in our case, I see another creative way to capitalize on more "authenticity". By using the letters of his formula except for one, we can simply change that one letter and assign "new" meanings to the letters for our artistic purpose.

In conclusion, with all due respect to Einstein, "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" will now have its own formula. By simply changing the letter "E" to an "A", our "new" formula" will read, A=MC SQUARE! The "new" meanings assigned to the letters are as follows: "A" will stand for ART (the "new" art that will be created), "M" will stand for MEDIUM (whatever material is used in the creation), and "C" (SQUARE) will stand for (the two most important words that begin with the letter "C" needed to create and make any artwork viably "new") CREATIVITY and, drum roll please,...CATEGORYI Some things just fall into place! Since adding "new" categories to the realism-abstraction spectrum will endlessly increase the magnitude of the spectrum itself, our "formula" will have an "infinite" aspect, hence we can also term and denote it as "THE INFINITY FORMULA".

I believe I have covered it all. I must honestly say that initially "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" was devised, or "concocted" if you must, as a way to save my art. Soon after I felt I met my goals, by acquiring relief from the "art critics", I noticed just how well the theory, in conjunction with the category of "Psychotic Symbolism", makes my work, "unique". NOW, when I show and describe my work, I can actually feel "the air of distinction" present and how NOW some of those "art critics" are even "turning their heads" towards the art rather than away from it as before. "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" "works for me!" (Could all this be true?), I sincerely hope it can work for you. Remember, pure and simple, A=MC SQUARE!