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"

5. Section Four:
Condensed Version Of The Theory And Category As Copyrighted In 1985.

Jump to: Prelude | Part 1 | Part 2 | Psychotic Episodes

PART 1 "The Theory of Artistic Relativity"

We have reached a frustration point in art history where it seems, to cite a popular belief, that "all art is done". By not being able to overcome the implica­tions of this type of artistic barrier, the artworld appears to be headed aimlessly towards its own self-destruction, hence the statement "the end of art". The frustration point or artistic barrier that is spoken of is simply the curtailment in advanced developments or meaningful discoveries in new artistic transgression. "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" was devised to help alleviate this blockage in the art culture. It perceives this blockage not as a problem in itself, but rather as the answer to the overall solution of the creative process. To comprehend the theory and to account for the artworld's demise, we must first begin with the examination of the limitations of art.

The course of the artworld has evolved through different eras, periods, and movements, to which we have attributed various classifications of art. More importantly, from the theory's point of view, we have also gone through the figur­ative, non-figurative extremes with the two known opposite identities, realism and abstraction. When taken on the whole, these two identities constitute what can be likened to a "limited spectrum". In other words, with regards to art, a work of art is either totally realistic, totally abstract, or quite logically, some­where in between. There is nothing beyond total realism or total abstraction, therefore, the "spectrum" is complete and can then be considered somewhat "limited". Since mostly the entire transgression of the artworld lies between these two identities, the limited spectrum is still a notably vast area of develop­ment and source of creativity, but the point of fact is that art has been finalized as far as imagery representation is concerned. This finalization of art is not unknown to current artists, but exactly how they are approaching the solution to this predicament is the nature of the blockage of new meaningful artistic transgression.

The next obvious avenue to pursue for the advancement of art ideals, if one were to continue by the format of the past and as current artists are now attempting to assail, would be to go beyond the limited spectrum and seek out a new acceptable dimension for expansional purposes. Developments in the areas of electronic, holographic, photographic, and computerized effects, attest to being the re-birth of new artistic transgression. However, there are a few prevalent factors that present contradictory elements to this way of thinking. First the art realm is so firmly embedded in two and three dimensional modes of execution (painting, drawing, and sculpture) that consequently would make any artform that does not readily conform with the applications of these factions seem almost non-artistic. This is due to the fact that the "talent" aspect is exemplified by a mechanical apparatus or device rather than exulting humanistic traits. Secondly, the artist, or actually the programmer of the effect, will definitely be using imagery representation from the limited spectrum region previously mentioned. This is the main reason why new works of art now being created are lacking in transgressive advancement since their imagery is always relating back to the realism-abstraction aspect of our dimensional existence. Any new dimension discovered would probably be beyond our limited spectrum components and be very difficult to capture artistically.

"The Theory of Artistic Relativity" merely acknowledges the described dilemma. It then proffers a conjecture that the only alternative for standardized art would be to reverse the course of art and go back into the limited spectrum and restructure transgressional format from within, instead of trying to bypass what has already been done. Most artists use the principals of the theory in partiality, but it is hoped that with full understanding, acceptance, and incorpora­tion into the creative process, artistic transgression will be enhanced. The reversal and restructuralization concepts can be interpreted by analyzing the main component of the theory, which is "The Infinity Formula".

"The Infinity Formula" is a systematic approach for creating and developing new artwork. The formula is based upon the only principal that is contained in each and every work of art executed. This principal is the factual law that "the concept of any artform is based on previous artistic knowledge". Even the very first work of art was derived on some idea for art. This principal is so common that it is mostly undetected or minutely regarded. On the other hand, "The Infinity Formula" resurrects this principal and places prime importance on it. The formula, in a way, is this actual principal. It is the combination of past artistic idealology into new categories of art. Once a new category is created, it is then added to the limited spectrum of artistic transgression. The new category can then be combined with the categories already in the limited spectrum to derive even newer categories of art, which in turn will be added to the limited spectrum for more combinational influx. By continuation of this process, the "formula" has a type of "infinite" aspect, increasing its magnitude categorically between the extremes of the limited spectrum. The entire art realm consciously evolves from the combinations of past artistic idealology, however, emphasis is placed on creating new categories with specific classification identities for a primary reason.

As previously stated, new works of art now being created contain or will contain limited spectrum connotations. This gives way to another problem occur­ring when it comes time to define and denote the works as pertinent to artistic transgression. The lack of categorical references impedes any artistic transgressive advancement by automatically assigning the categorical references of the most visually similar artform created during the limited specturm era. In other words, since any new work of art is going to resemble some aspect of the limited spectrum, something is needed to differentiate the new work of art as a separate identity in the limited spectrum or else it will be placed into a reference category already created, therefore appearing artistically non-transgressive. Art society is ignorantly applying this tendency in their analyses of new works of art, contributing to the downfall of the artworld. The so called ;'end of art" syndrome comes about from art society not being able to describe the direction of art after the establishment of the limited spectrum. In context, "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" portrays to be the description of that direction, for it allows art that may be visually similar to the realism--abstraction aspects of the limited spectrum to attain artistic transgression potential by making the creation categorically acceptable.

It can now be made apparent that the solution to the artworld's problem of curtailment in new artistic transgression will not be based upon some explicit use of artistic technique nor any radical discovery in artistic media, for those are too obvious of avenues and simplistic of levels to contract, but rather as "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" states, the answers lie in an emahasis and upheaval in artistic mentality. It is not enough to just execute a work of art and let art society decide its fate, since they have condemned themselves to dealing only in fad and vogue rarely detecting true artistic transgression.

Therefore, it is also necessary for the artist himself to describe his work as relevant to artistic transgression, if it indeed is! The establishment of certain segments of fad and vogue art are sometimes considered new artistic transgression, but without new categorical references they are only a continual transgression of the chronological order already established by the artworld. In other words, they are mere variations of past discoveries with no pertinent transgressive value. Such is the case when an artist can only expound upon color variations or composi­tional effects, then his work is lacking transgressional substance. New works of art that are pertinent to true artistic transgression should be, in the least, categorically unique with special attributes or else the elements for artistic advancement of the artworld would be questionable.

The final assertion for "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" is to provide an example illustrating the theory's determining factors. The most logical and prime example provision would be the theory's first derivational category of art, "Psychotic Symbolism". Through the dissection and interpretation of this category's artiface, it will hopefully be made apparent the effectiveness of the theory in abetting the creation of art with transgressional substance, as well as contributing to the overall transgressional process of the art realm. "The Theory of Artistic Relativity" is the new regime for the creation of transgressional art, while "Psychotic Symbolism" is its first decree.