Recently I read the theorist Yuk Hui’s article, On the Ranges of Experience of Art. The essay reviews the cross-cultural experience of art and its relation to ideas of reality and truth. Art is the initial techne– as in technology– so perhaps we can understand fact and modern technology in this analysis of truth and art.
Eastern and Western Art
When Hui compares Western art with Eastern art, he considers Western catastrophe and Eastern paint. Old Greek society produced catastrophe, yet Chinese and Japanese societies did not. Hui defines disaster as getting rid of an opposition by catching a destined ‘unfortunate’ end result. It resembles give up but without the valence of freedom because the sacrifice is destined– not cost-free.
Disaster is brave and produces the difference in between the subject and the object, the hero and the atmosphere, and the hero and culture.
Chinese shanshui paint does not compare the subject and the history yet “liquifies the subject.” Hui calls this boring since it lacks the drama of splitting up. Nonetheless, this sense-experience of art results in unity, possibly pertaining to non-duality (like Zen or Advaita Vedanta).
Sense Perception and Truth
Our experience of art leads us to different concepts concerning the globe, values, and how we live our lives. As I have created before, culture develops procedures that develop modern technology and activity.
Hui points to dualities in Western thought instead of dualities in sense understanding, yet a duality in how we share our experiences. Hylomorphism, the distinction in between kind and content, is not in the experience yet in the explanation of the experience.
Hui quotes, “The Master said, ‘Does Paradise talk? The four periods seek their programs, and all points are consistently being generated, yet does Paradise say anything?'”
The duality in the East is between what I can really feel or do and what I can share. Complete legibility is difficult; possibly this is what Kant was attempting to say regarding the thing-in-itself.
What do the body organs really feel?
I call my art splenic due to the fact that it originates from my spleen (perhaps from various other body organs). Which they act upon the spleen (or the various other organs. Hui discusses the heart mind, and the sense understanding of the heart and connects this with intuition. Possibly Eastern art gets in touch with this sense, the feeling perceptions of our internal body organs, rather than the feeling understandings of our interfaces with the world.
Scientific research and Modern technology
The turn comes with the end of the essay– when Hui corresponds science with the augmentation of the detects and viewpoint with establishing our partnership with “various other beings and the globe.”
Art and modern technology are linked in an idea to link these 2 projects. When I think about modern technology from a thoughtful and phenomenological viewpoint, I consider the augmentation of the detects– the telescope, the microscopic lense, the computer system. When I consider art, I consider a chance for sensitivity to sensations and possibly to mostly disregarded senses (like the heart and the spleen). The modern technology of art would enhance sensitivity as component of enhancement and link- both an inward drive toward individual advancement and an outside thrust towards the community. Is this even more dualism?
Art and Power
Art may not influence everybody’s lives, however technology absolutely does; maybe there is a chance to relocate innovation from politics, a logic of power, into the realm of looks, a reasoning of high quality.