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"

3. Section Two:
Elaborated Version Of The Theory's First Derivational Category Of Art, "Psychotic Symbolism".

I had just enrolled in some art classes at the local university when on the first day of class, I met a fellow art student, who by the end of our conversation, informed me he was determined to be the next "greatest artist" in the world! By the end of the day, I met two more fellow students with similar conviction. At the end of the week, it was up to ten. Pure and simple logic told me, if there are ten "greatest artist" in the world at this university, there must be ten others at every other university, and ten others at every art school, not to mention all those who do not even go to school, WE MUST BUILD BIGGER MUSEUMS! "Houston, we have a problem!"

To solve this problem, I relied upon once again, as stated in "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" (section one), the two most important words in problem solving, "logic dictates". I used the same previously mentioned "thinking process", however, the only "component" present was in the fact that it is obviously impossible to have that many "greatest artist" inductees in the total existence of mankind! My "common denominator" was found in the fact that not one of these portrayers gave much attention to the artwork itself as being wholly significant in the rise to the top. Therefore, "thinking on the whole", I deducted that if one were to execute the greatest artwork in the world, one could conceivably become the "greatest artist" in the world, as if it evens matters. (Remember, it is not the artist that "hangs on the walls" of a museum!) However, this deduction of executing the greatest artwork in the world, a kind of "theory within a theory" (here we go again!), was indeed the exact starting point of "Psychotic Symbolism" and EVENTUALLY the concept of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity"! It was now the time to "transfer one's ego" to the work itself.

Before all the hand waving starts, this is a good time to sidetrack for a moment and answer the proverbial question; "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" To set the record straight, it was the beginning stages of the artwork that came first, followed by the "discovery" (by "accident", of course, in the professor's art class) of the theory (yet untitled), then the subsequent "naming" of the category, and lastly, the titling of theory itself. It is of interesting note that while "the theory" took about the duration of that one particular art history class to "mentally" develop, the "category" (the artwork itself) may never see full realization! This is due to the fact that all artwork is naturally on a continual stage of development with every artist trying to surpass their last creation.

Now I must get back to the main question at hand; "What is the "GREATEST ARTWORK" in the world? To find out, we have to imagine we are in front of some kind of "super computer" that answers any question we program in. We ask the computer our particular question. This super computer, sorts all available data (our realism-abstraction spectrum included), makes its own determination, then finally predicts what our "greatest artwork" could be. More importantly, it will also predict what "components" of art it should contain (think "logic dictates" in computer language). Luckily, I had access to one of those super computers. Actually, we all have access to one of those super computers that "thinks" like that. IT IS OUR OWN MINDS! So I started to think like a "super computer" and process what I know.

"Logic dictates" we list all the factual components present. In this case, our "super computer" (my mind) will have to "predict" all the factual components needed since we are basically speculating at this point what the next "greatest artwork" in the world will be like. in our condensed copyright version, we have listed these "predictions", later to be used as facts, under the TEN ELEMENTS OF COMMAND, sometimes referred to as "The Ten Commandments" of "Psychotic Symbolism"! (Now we credit Einstein and God!) I will elaborate briefly on some thought concepts that may have not been covered in that version (you may refer back to the condensed version at this point). It must be duly noted that "The Ten Commandments" are not necessarily "set in stone" (funny how things just fall into place) since, as previously stated with reference to the category and art in general never reaching full realization or development, ideas may vary in time. However, we will begin with the artistic thoughts at the time.

As I went through art school and observed people's visual reaction to all kinds of art, I would have to say, in my "view", I felt the category of art that received the most allocation was, "Impressionism"! I cannot recall any picture from that era being negatively criticized by any of the "art critics". Since that style of art was also my favorite, I chose (predicted) "Impressionism" as one of the categories I wanted to "combine" (following the principals of "The Theory of Artistic Relativity"). Then I thought (predicted), what if an Impressionist like Monet knew about "Surrealism", what would his paintings look like if he "distorted reality" like Dali did? So then I chose "Surrealism" (since it offered the greatest "expanse" of reality) to combine with "Impressionism" to start to devise a "new" art form.

I then I had to separate the "new" art form from the notion (the professor's notion, true as it may be) that "all art reflects the times" for the art form to be universal for all times. I therefore excluded all aspects of humans and society, yet still, I wanted to point out their underlying "psychotic" tendencies, With this in mind, I decided to make my "trees" look like people (with two branches representing "arms" and two root extensions representing "legs", planning for animation effects). Now we were getting somewhere! If people were "symbolized" as "trees", then I would need more symbols to represent what other aspects of life I deemed necessary for the "new" art form to progress, and so the list of "psychotic symbols" grew. After painting a bunch of symbols on a canvas, I noticed how they could "tell a story" and so came the theme work for each painting. It must be noted here that I also felt that if the "greatest artwork" in the world had any "substance", it should be executed with the simplest of mediums (pencil and paper, paint and canvas) that even a child (yes, a child) could handle (I am not excluding sculpturing from the equation, it's just too hard to carry around a block of marble in grade school!). All this was an "off the cuff" rendition of the chronological order of the basic thought process implemented to create the "new" art form. Now came the million dollar question; "What exactly do I have here and how do I DESCRIBE it?" This is when I took the art history class and the theory came to be.

I now had a totally "new" art form created and according to the theory I now would have to establish it as a totally "new" category of art. Now it was time to "pick a category", or in other words, name it whatever personal identifier I like. One catch, if it is going to be the "greatest artwork" in the world, it had better "live up to its name!" (Oh yeah, did we name it!). It was time to get the dictionary out and come up with the most definitive, most powerful, connotative word in that book to describe the "greatest artwork" ever created, and now also the "greatest CATEGORY of art", ever to be derived according to (who is paying attention?) the "greatest" thinking process ever deducted! (Whew!) Although the dictionary is the source of every word used in life, it was hard to find the right one, so I did what every "artistic scientist" would do at a time like this, call upon another fellow "off the wall" artist for collaboration.

Usually when I got together with my "off the wall" friend and confidant, some kind of joke was always eminent, and this time would prove to be no different. My "partner in crime", call him "Dave", would actually be the one to name the category, dubbed in a roundabout way. He always wanted to get famous, so here is his "fifteen minutes" in time, in my "art studio", in my parent's basement, as the actual conversation occurred. I was sitting in front of my art easel with a painting on it looking through the dictionary. The painting was to give me inspiration to come up with the right word for the category. The painting is what I consider the MOST DEFINITIVE WORK that I have done that sums up the principals of the theory and the category. The painting is titled "Psychotic Trees Grabbing Petals for Their Branches". The theme is psychotic trees (people) grabbing the petals (money) floating by, pushing aside the clouds (heaven) and flowers (beauty) depicting their greed and lust (JUST TRY AND TOP THAT ONE!). It shows what powerful messages can be delivered with each theme and how powerful this category can be (This is definitely NOT abstract art 101!). Anyway, here is the actual conversation with "Dave" as he walked down the basement steps to the "studio":

Dave: "What are we going to do today?"
George: "We are going to come up with a name for this category!"
Dave: "What do you have so far?"
George: "It's going to be "something symbolism" since everything is based on symbols."
Dave: "What is that painting on the easel called?"
George: "Psychotic Trees Grabbing Petals for Their Branches"
Dave: "And the one on the floor?"
George: "Psychotic War"
Dave: "What is with all this "psychotic" stuff? Are you nuts?"
George: "I don't know where it is all coming from but I'm not changing it."
Dave: "These paintings are deranged! You're derangedl Why don't you call the category "Deranged Symbolism"! (As he laughed out loud, something he was good at!)
George: "I need an "intellectual" word, so why am I asking you for help?" (Knowing what word I picked, wasn't this a "moment in time"!)
Dave: "How about "Metaphysical Symbolism"?"
George: "You read a few books and now you're an expert on the subject? Anyway, every simpleton artist tries to elevate their work by coming up with some absurd title that has absolutely no meaning what so ever or they use BIG words in their title like "Metamorphosis of the Square No. 4" for just a dumb square on the canvas and EVERYBODY FALLS FOR IT!"
Dave: "Well, how about "Fantasy Symbolism"?"
George: "Too queer! Since it's the first category that proves the theory, it has to be the most powerful word in this dictionary!"
Dave: "Keep looking, I'm out of here. I'll be back later and we'll work on this."
Before Dave came back, I took the picture off the easel, put it with the one on the floor, and covered both of them up. Dave came down the basement steps later to "help" and noticed no paintings being displayed on the easel or on the floor.
Dave: "Hey, where's all the stuff?'
George: "What stuff?"
Dave: "The paintings! You know, all that PSYCHOTIC stuff, your "PSYCHOTIC SYMBOLISM?"
George: (After one of those long and "infamous" pauses) "What did you call it?"
Dave: "Your "Psychotic Symbolism" stuff! (Laughing, naturally) What a trip!"
George: "Dumb...! I think you just named the category! (Another long infamous pause) In fact, YOU DID! You just named the category! "PSYCHOTIC SYMBOLISM", that says it all!"
Dave: "Are you kidding me! It was a JOKE! I wasn't serious!" (Laughing)
George: "Well, I'm SERIOUS! I can see it all now! There is no word more powerful or connotative than that! And it even ties in!
Dave: "How? This should be good!" (Laughing)
George: "The symbols and themes are based on the real world, and the real world is (now watch this!) DEFINITELY "PSYCHOTIC"!
Dave: (laughing uncontrollably on the floor slapping his sides!) "Do you realize how insane it would be to name it that? You'll never get in any art shows and people will think you're totally nuts! In fact, you know what they are going to say, you're psychotic! But I guess you have to be psychotic to paint psychotic! (Dave tried to laugh, but he was spent!)
George: "So what. It is all based on the real world and that's all I have to say. The more you laugh, the more it fits! Look at the reaction I'm getting out of you and you don't know anything about anything! The "dictionary" is now closed, now go home!"
Dave: (as he is leaving, thank God!) "While you're still in this insane state of mind, don't forget to name your "theory" I can't wait to see what you call that!" (Laughing again, he recuperated)
George: "You mean like Einstein's "Theory of Relativity"? (There goes that long pause again!) The rest is, as the saying goes, ART HISTORY! Thank you, Dave, for being you!
(Let the record show that this is how it all went down. Hopefully, it was at least entertaining!).

Dave was right (once in a lifetime) in the fact that this would be "a hard sell". However, if I have the chance to "elaborate" on everything (the intent of all this), people sometimes tend to "understand". (Sometimes!) They may not necessarily "believe it", but they at least "get it", and I guess that is a start. I needed Einstein to help make it "believable"! By simply adding the word, "Artistic", to the title of his theory, I hope to "ride on his coattails" for validation by elevating "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" and "Psychotic Symbolism" to the same level of importance for the respected fields. To help YOU believe, I will make "one last ditch effort" to accomplish this feat. Please refer to "Section Three" for this effort. The section is entitled; "Let Us Not Forget!" After you read it, it may be a good idea to think about all this with a "new" perspective!