Art 3

Art. Three. And while its title is from abstract to person, from abstract to person, an alternate title might be Five Dimensional Transforms. You know, you see, in practice all over the world, you see religious people, like especially fingering their beads, the rosary or the japamala or whatever it is. And we associate that with spirituality. And all of that is a misnomer because Fingering. Linearity is a ritual basis which, when it is mistaken for spiritual endeavor, produces a regression. And so the ritual object is very often substituted for the art form, and this has led to a confusion of aesthetics, or at least for the last 50 or 60 years. So that the ritual fingering of a media to produce a statement is taken as some kind of work of art. And this is ridiculous. It's absurd. In very ancient times. Let's use India for for the moment. In very ancient India, the pattern of life included a lot of ritual observance, like the fingering of beads. But towards the end of that life cycle, especially for males, when you had finished your householder duties, the last phase in Vedic life was to take yourself out of the ritual, out of the environment of the culture, and go off Into an a retirement into otherness. Off into the forests or off into the Himalayas. And there all of the accoutrements of the culture were left behind and left aside, and you dropped yourself back into the mysterious flow of nature. You took your cultural accumulated portrait of ritual responses and placed it into a landscape of pure mystery. And if you lived long enough, if you lived deep enough, there was a melting away of all those layers that were essentially protective because the rich will action protects. It seals the body by habitual doing, and one feels secure. Then in the cultural, the traditional, the tribal, the clan aspect of life that comes out of this and that mythic horizon bases itself on the ritual repetition. And all of that was left behind, left aside, so that it was no longer no longer germane and finally no longer operative. And occasionally there were old men Who had an awakening beyond the integral, beyond the symbolic integration of the Vedic way of life, there was an awakening to an entire scope beyond. And this beyond was approached through a threshold of wonderment. And so, in ancient India, about 900 B.C., philosophy was born out of that sense of wonder. It wasn't knowledge, because knowledge is always an accumulation in the integral. But it was remarkably similar to what one remembered was the experience of love as a young man, and so wisdom was personified as a universal woman. She was the queen of the unknown realm of the spirit. In Greek, the word for her was Sophia, and so one came to experience beyond knowledge. In the Awakening Wonder, the love of Sophia, the philosophy and the philosophy was born there, and one of the very first philosophers in the world was named Yajnavalkya and Yajnavalkya. Yajna in the ancient Sanskrit means a dedicated mission. It means an endeavor like a journey. Yajnavalkya was the author of the first Upanishad, huge Upanishad. Hundreds and hundreds of pages called the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. Brihad means in the ancient Sanskrit it means great breath. It don't means. It doesn't mean like that. It's not a big breath. It is great breath. And then Aranyaka means Aranyaka means a forest teaching. So it means and Upanishad means to set as to sit at the feet of something, but one is sitting at the feet. Of oneself in the mystery of nature. In the forest. The great breath forest. Teaching of one who has sat in love of wisdom and explores the beyond. Explores the. Unknown. That entire transformation over the past 3000 years has become more familiar. As an endeavor. And yet all of the aspects of it need to constantly be there. And one of the most beautiful short form Summary presentations of this was made in 1925 by an artist named Paul Clay. Clay. Clay. Clay was at that time teaching in Germany, at an institution that became very famous. At the time it was called the Bauhaus, and his teaching friends Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, Kandinsky, Walter Gropius, the great architect, so that the Bauhaus faculty and staff were the cream of artistic intelligence in the Germany of the 1920s, and the Bauhaus that was originally in Dessau was moved under new administration to Berlin, and then was quickly outlawed when the National Socialist political party, better known as the Nazis, took over the politics of Germany and xed out this aesthetic. First of all, because it was really the number one threat to the Third Reich. They never feared military or political competition. They feared from the beginning aesthetic insight because they knew they were vulnerable. Exactly at that particular point. Clay. In 1925, in connection with a number of other faculty members at the Bauhaus, like Kandinsky, wrote Point and Line to Plane as one of the textbooks for the Bauhaus. Clay's Textbook for the Bauhaus. About the same time, there were a total of 14 of them, and the second one of the 14 is called the Pedagogical Sketchbook by Paul Clay. And Clay teaches in here how to begin to stop fingering beads and to come to the threshold beyond which the unknown opens up, and one begins to learn in a different way, not in terms of accumulating knowledge, but in appreciating the love of wisdom and the translator into English. Of Clay's pedagogical sketchbook was the wife of Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. Sibyl. And she writes in the introduction. Using A quotation from Clay's little writing called paths of the Study of Nature. And the quotation that she translates from Clay's paths of the Study of Nature. Notes. Paths of the study is a kind of form of journeying. Paths of the study is an introspective journeying in nature, introspective journeying in nature, and later on. In fact, Clay expanded that particular book into these two volumes of many hundreds of pages, and volume one is entitled The Thinking Eye, and volume two is entitled The Nature of nature so that Sibyl Moholy-Nagy. Excerpted from paths to the Study of Nature by Paul Klee. This little quotation to begin her introduction to her translation of the Pedagogical Notebook. The translation of the little excerpt reads like this. For the artist, communication with nature remains the most essential condition. The artist is human himself, nature part of nature within natural space. And then she writes this. This statement, written in 1923 by Paul Clay was the leit motif of a creative life. The word leitmotif here comes from Richard Wagner's theories of music. There are motifs and then there are leit motifs. A motif is an element of imagery that is repeatable in strategic places to develop a theme. A leat motif is a feeling toned musical motif, which not only allows for a thematic development of a certain media in art, but has an echo in different media, so that elite motif can go out of one medium into other mediums so that you can have a diagonal A motif that appears in many different ways, many different mediums, and that they all work together. Wagner's theory of art was that there should be an overall art, a master art which includes painting and music and dance and poetry all together. And so elite motif was one of these great diagonals through all the media, through all the media of art together, so that it unites not by addition, but it unites by shared resonance, so that what came out was not more but a harmony. Later on in our time in the late 20th century, mathematics developed An art form similar to this, and out of it came the exploration of a whole field of mathematics, known as a form of numerical analysis into a harmonic analysis and harmonic analysis. In the hands of a man named Johnny, von Neumann led to the ability to take mathematical equations and turn them into atomic energy. For instance. You can't take arithmetic. And make atomic energy. But you can take a harmonic analysis and you can figure out how to do exactly that. So this statement, written in 1923 by Paul Klee for the artist, communication with nature remains the most essential condition. The artist is human himself, nature part of nature within natural space. The statement in 1923 was the motif of a creative life that derived almost equal inspiration from painting and from music. And Paul Klee. Physically, a very small man. He probably in physical reality. I remember once in San Francisco in the 60s, seeing the great sculpture of Benny Bufano, and he was such a little tiny guy. He was about five foot one, and his girlfriends were always over six feet, and he was always very happy. He had his six foot beauties and he specialized in making bufano specialized in great sculptures or great murals of sculptures that had figures that had one huge I not as a cyclops in an ugly way, but that the whole arched face had this beautiful expression, this expression of Italian gentle, beatific directness. And the single eye in all the figures were like targets of resonance, where every figure was resonant together. I remember one time, uh, bufano handed me a little sculpture to hold. It was of a hippo. But it was such a small little hippo that when you held it with both hands, it was like in ancient times of carrying the Buddhist begging bowl that your entire focus was on receiving. It wasn't on getting or having, but it was on being open to receive. And that little resonant hippo was exactly like that. It was an artists form of the vehicle, of acceptance of whatever it was that the world was offering. And Clay was that kind of an individual. He had been raised in a very sophisticated family, and he played the violin so that Paul Clay was a very accomplished musician as well as an artist. And so when it came time to teach, he brought music and painting together to different media, supposedly brought together his friend Kandinsky, who was not as talented in music, not as musical as Clay. Here's one of an excerpt from Kandinsky's letter to Schoenberg very early on the 26th of January, 1190 years ago. Dear professor, your letter has given me a lot of pleasure. I thank you warmly and look very much to knowing you personally. I've often turned several of these ideas over in my mind. For instance, conscious versus unconscious work. Fundamentally, I agree with you. That is, when one is actually at work, then there should be no thought. But the inner voice alone should speak and control. But up to now, the painter has thought too little in general. He has conceived his work as a kind of coloristic balancing act. But the painter, and precisely so that he will be able to express himself, should learn his whole material so well, and develop his sensitivity to the point where he recognizes and vibrates spiritually at the differences between two lines that are equal, like an equal sign in parallel, and two lines which are set at a diagonal like this. And in the letter, Kandinsky makes a sign that if you know Chinese, it looks like the Chinese character. For Rén people, inner knowledge is just that, writes Kandinsky to Schoenberg 1911, inner knowledge is just that. Then there can be building and construction, which results not in geometry but art. I'm very pleased that you speak of self perception. That is the root of the new art. Quote, new art in general, which is never new, but which must only enter into a new phase. Today, the new phase of art is not an idea of a phase of art. The new phase is today. Once, in an interview at the University of Virginia, the old William Faulkner, who allowed for students to question him. He loved the University of Virginia because it was Jefferson's creation, and towards the end of his life, the old Faulkner gave up his cantankerous disdain for others, especially teaching them things which they had no business wanting to know anyway about truth and reality. If you need that, learn it yourself. One of the students asked him, Mr. Faulkner, what's your favorite novel among your works? And his reply was, oh my dear, the next one. It's this quality and Sibyl Moholy-Nagy, see how we're not repeating, but we're circling back and catching it up and going off again and coming back. It's this double looped butterfly effect of the infinity sign of motion. This kind of Mobius strip of return and exploration catching up and coming back. And right at the very beginning of the pedagogical sketchbook clay when he begins lesson 1.1. It's like Wittgenstein's Stein's numbering of his paragraphs for the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus 1.1, an active line on a walk moving freely without a goal. And he makes this little squiggle. It's like our education, beginning with just taking a walk. It's like Yajnavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, who just begins a steady path within nature, but that this nature includes the self perception dimension. When you take a walk in five dimensional time space, something happens where the random movement all By itself, recursively goes back through the starting point and goes off again. And you can do it completely randomly. And that random wild walking line, if left completely random, will always recursively go back through the point of origin and create it as a center point around which the chaos transforms itself into this Mobius strip, infinity sign, butterfly effect. And because that happens so much chaos theory. Fractal chaos theory understands that there is such a thing as paired attractors. But if the pair of detractors are not the center, the center is the dynamic interface between the pair of attractors, so that what is created here is not a line of integral pluses making a unity, but it creates a relationality that is proportional so that you don't end up with more. You end up with a resonance that is harmonic. And that's what the pedagogical sketchbook is all about. And it doesn't take him long to get there at all. If we page through, we started at 1.1, and by the time we get to 1.5, there's our infinity sign that develops completely out of the random wild beginning of taking a walk in freedom in a five Dimensional continuum, which is what art forms. Are there in a five dimensional continuum? You don't have to move. You don't have to ritually take steps to take such a walk. You can, like Yajnavalkya, take a walk in hatha yoga asana, and all of a sudden that asana changes from a hatha to a karma yoga all by itself. And that one takes a path through nature without moving. Sounds a little bit like a section from Dune, huh? Motion without moving. And that if you continue into that threshold of the unknown, that Hatha yoga become a karma yoga. Transforms further and becomes what was known as Raja Yoga Raja, meaning the king. It means the Royal Yoga. It means he or she. There are many great women yogis. He or she begins with the physiological body coming into harmony, goes into the harmony of the motion, the karma, the action. And when that is in its balance, that can be transformed into a Raja yoga. And that Raja yoga, like a Wagnerian leitmotif, links all of the media of which a human being is capable of. No matter how many there are Together in such a way that they form a scale of calibration, which is the most fundamental way to say a value. And that scale of articulate valuation calibration, that rajayoga can be distilled into something that doesn't ever have a name. There isn't like a super Raja yoga that which would be nameable as a super Raja. Yoga is not nameable at all because it never occupies an existential objectivity ever. And so it's always a hiatus of name ability. The ancient Jewish understanding was that any time that you have named God, you have lied. Not nameable. Not nameable. Precisely because not limited. Not limited to existence. Existence is always a ritual action. Objectivity. And to try to prove that God exists is a lesson in foolish paradox. You can always tell somebody who's trying to prove the existence. Existence of something spiritual just doesn't know at all. Or rather, they are limited to an ecology of integration that only includes knowledge as its ultimate and does not have the transform into the love of wisdom. They're not lovers of wisdom because at that point, at that transform, at that threshold, the lovers of wisdom together constitute a resonantly harmonic community. I always use for this the title of one of Ruth Montgomery's books companions along the way. Beautiful way to say it. Socrates, several times in Plato's dialogues tells his young, intelligent, magnificently arrogant, smart and knowledgeable proteges. He always tells them, we cannot learn anything in philosophy until we are companions together, until there is a Union, which is a community of inquiry. We don't have a context of discovery which allows for the proportions of wisdom to manifest, and that as long as we're toting up the numbers, we will always, at the ultimate of that integration, end up with oneness. End up with unity. And many people have mistaken an oceanic trance of unity as being something spiritual. It's not. It's just a mental repose. You can achieve the same thing by somebody taking a mallet and knocking you out. Every time we go to sleep, we we go into that kind of repose. So it's not very sophisticated and it's certainly not spiritual. I mean, sleeping centipedes are in that kind of a state. So, Sybil Moholy-Nagy, notice that we're recursively coming back through the starting point so that that starting point, by being approached many times in different ways, sets up a balance of the inquiry excursion in the form of doing it, not in the form of thinking about doing it. She writes, she's a wonderful woman. Elite motif of a creative life that derived almost equal inspiration between painting and music. Man painted and danced our forbearers tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands of years ago, man painted and danced long before he learned to write and construct. The senses of form and tone are his primordial heritage. His forms are fused both these creative impulses into a new entity. His forms are derived from nature, inspired by observation of shape and cyclic change, periodicity, shape, and periodicity. But their appearance only matters insofar as it symbolizes an inner actuality that receives meaning from its relationship to the cosmos. So you have what amounts in ballet. It would be a double pirouette. Your energy to integrate makes the dynamics so that you can rise to jump off the floor. And the double pirouette in mid-air allows you to come back down in a different realm. And in ballet, it's important how you land. Not that you got off. One of the greatest dancers to ever do this on film was Rudolf Nureyev. And you can see his style so that when you come down off that pirouette you have brought with you a transform of the kinetic landscape, the stage scape that was there before, and it is now transformed and distilled and ready to receive a different five dimensional expressivity. And Sibyl Moholy-Nagy writes, there is a common agreement among men on the place and function of external features. Leg eye roof, sail star. In Paul Klee's pictures, they are used as beacons pointing away from the surface into a spiritual reality. Like Virginia Woolf's lighthouse is a beacon to take us out of the world, where Mr. Ramsey is wondering about the sequences of sophisticated thought, and he's got up to a certain letter he's gotten to, um. Q and he's hoping to get to R, but of course, nobody but the greatest can get to R, and no one has ever gotten to Z, but nevertheless, we're trying. And out of that world of sequential addition into Moreness, one transforms through the symbol, become a transformed beacon from that world of integral sequencing and order, mounting up to an achievement of oneness. Unity a transform into a realm where you don't add Things, but there are resonances calibrated to a harmony, a harmonic. And that infinite. Harmonic is the cosmos. Of the artist herself can calibrate to that infinite harmonic of the cosmos. Doesn't care whether the steps are done sequentially or not. Doesn't care whether they're adding up to moreness or not. It's extraneous. And so she, Sibyl Holy energy, ends her little paragraph of introduction. She says, just as a magician performs the miraculous with objects of utter familiarity, such as cards, handkerchiefs, coins, rabbits. So Paul Clay uses the familiar object in unfamiliar relationships to materialize the unknown, to materialize the unknown. From abstract to person. It isn't as if the person is an arithmetical essence of abstraction that just produces tyrannies. That produces authoritarian hierarchies. It produces the world as we generally find it. It does not in any way ever sing with nature or dance with nature, so that nature in its mysteriousness, is beneath the obviating mesh of ritual comportment, designed by an ideological integral and sieved through the mythic language of feeling and life and experience. The way in which some powerful idea recuts the tribe into a marching army to make sure other people are co-opted into our idea of order. They will live the way we say, or not at all. All of this is a bubble of illusion, pricked by the kind of realization that art brings into play. And so tyrannies fear artists above all. And it only takes one artist in the entire Third Reich is up. Let's take a break. Here's a quotation. Matisse also remained outside the various groups, which for 50 years advanced the abstract cause. Speaking of the Cubist, towards the end of his life in the early 50s, Matisse remarked, I had my own work to do. There was perhaps a concordance between my work and theirs, but perhaps they were trying to find me. Part of the difficulty of Cubism is that it was an ism. And one has to guard against isms because they always lodge themselves in the integral at its indexing point of a good idea, and good ideas pave the road to hell. Because really good ideas give themselves over to modifications and variations without limit in vision. And art is born out of vision, not out of good ideas. The spiritual person is an emergence out of a visionary beyond. And this is why it is so difficult. If we continue to use a mythic language, the best that we will do is to integrate a really good idea. And so a language has to be transformed out of the mythic to the visionary. And the old way of talking of it, sort of an off the cuff way, was to say you have to go from a mythic language to a magic language. Mathematics is a magic language. You can write E equals MC squared, and if you know how to envision that, you can bring atomic energy out of that. It's a difference of order and kind and scale. The mind, naturally is unable to know this because it is not knowable. It's Not a knowable thing. It is a function of knowing. It has a relational proportion which can be developed out of knowing in its function, but it's not objectively knowable, so that the addressing of the unknown by oneself in play in five dimensions is the creative experience. That's the creative experience. And as long as you stay within the tribe, within the culture, within the clan, within the society, that doesn't happen. Instead of that, what happens is that you get a reductive Hello all. And this becomes very, very difficult to get out of. When Clay was writing the pedagogical sketchbook. And he gets to 1.6 structure, he puts straight lines vertically and straight lines horizontally. And he says the most primitive structural rhythm is based on a repetition of the same unit from left to right, from right to left, from bottom to top, from top to bottom. The rhythmic repetition of units, the arrangement of ones. The arrangement of ones so that you have an addition, an additionality. And when you take those two horizons of ones adding together and you overlay them, you get a checkered like in a checkered board, like in a chess board. And this game, played on a chess board two dimensional plane, is not distinguishable by the mind knowing from the kind of play that's there in vision, it just doesn't naturally know better, because its way of knowing is based on that geometric city. You cannot go beyond geometry, even one step, until you understand that there are such things as trigonometric functions, and only then can you think in terms of spheres. And the very first art that makes that transform is music. So that whatever music there was in Paleolithic times was a transforming medium. And you can see that about 35,000 years ago, seemingly out of millions of years of a recognizable geometric city of our forebears actions, there is a big transformation the birth of art. The earliest cave paintings that we have in southern France, along what is today the Mediterranean shore within sight of Marseille, down under a couple of hundred feet of water. Because the Mediterranean coast has subsided in the tens of thousands of years in between. The shelf of the French coast used to go quite far out into the Mediterranean, and that the cave entrance of the oldest cave that we know of is now about 130m underwater. And French divers went in there about ten years ago for the first time. No human being had been in that cave For more than 20,000 years. And the murals, the artistic murals in that cave are pristine from 33, 35,000 years ago, and you can see recognizably right away at the beginnings of art. The transform is not held together, but is pivoted together by the proportion of the human hand. It is the imprint or the stencil. Both. Both complementary symbols work together. But what does it? What does the hand presence? The hand does not represent anything. It presences the artist. He or she who made those murals of the animal world upon which life was based, then Paleolithic hunters. But the images of those Paleolithic animals are transformed by the hand of the artist. They are taken out of the world, of the savannas, out of the world, of the hills, out of the world, of the valleys, of the landscape of nature, and are put inside, under the earth, in the womb of the cave to show a rebirth, a transformation process, and the comprehension of that is pivoted on the hand. The indexing of the hand, not the hand which grasps, but the hand which presences, and you find that same hand constantly. Over the last 40,000 years, as in Buddhism, it is a paired mudra of two related qualities one is teaching and the other is acceptance. The teaching has the forefinger slightly put forward. The acceptance is where there even and both together teaching and acceptance together are the balance which signifies spiritual courage, fearlessness, so that that hand, that comprehension is a complementarity. Transform symbol. It acts as an amulet to seal, to hold together an integral order and understanding in a knowledge. Important to have that. But it's not enough for human life. We need to have a differential as well. And so when you look at Paleolithic hands, they are never together like that. They're always articulate like that. It's always that articulate hand. And if you look at the hands, if you look at the 35,000 year old hands, they are not the the clumsy hands of a primitive. They're the elegant, elongated fingers, usually, that you will find on a very self-presence woman That kind of graceful holding up, not of something which is going to be used as a stencil of proportion, but upon the calibration of that vehicle by which gesture choreographs movement in dance into an art, a presentational art. And so you find that that is a energy of Shiva transformed into Shiva Nataraja, the dancing Shiva that presents life because Shiva and his complement dance together, Shakti and Shiva together, together. And it's that woven vibration Together that creates the complex harmony of the art dance. It's quite extraordinary so that when you come through. 1.6 in 3 pages, the final page shows the diagonals on the chessboard, and then 1.7 shifts suddenly to. We're no longer adding. In contrast to structural units which are repetitive can be added or in an integral mode. In contrast to that individual or abstract numerical divisions which Now are in a different mode. Can never just be reduced to 1 or 2 ones. Notice that unity here a trance like unity where all is one, is not it at all? Not at all. It's extraneous. At this point. If you're paying for weekends to get to that, you're wasting money and time. Babies asleep can do that. What does Clay say? In contrast to structural units? Individual or abstract numerical divisions cannot be reduced to one, but must stop at proportions such as two to 3 to 5. He uses here. Or you could have used the ancient Pythagorean three to 4 to 5, and that those proportions register harmonic unities that are calibrated not in the integral but in the differential, so that their forms are distinctly of a different kind, and yet can weave together with integral forms. Differential forms can weave together with integral forms, but they are a different kind, so that the artist operates through comprehension and not through knowledge. That while knowledge is very precious and index the entire ecology of nature, there's no doubt. It has to Temporarily be set aside so that a different variation in scale come into play. And then those two, the new and the other can be brought together, and you can actually weave them together into a third, which is yet different in scale and in possibility, but with the differential proportion woven in. Then ritual sequencing units, even in their cross-hatched chessboard game geometries can be brought into spheres without end, and that those spheres don't just abstractly sit there, but that they create a harmonic. One of Kandinsky's great paintings that's in the Norton Simon Museum over in Pasadena is called Heavy Spheres, and they generate, like the gamelans of an Indonesian orchestra. They generate a different quality of sound, not a sound which has a linearity, but a sound which penetrates through through a field that has more dimensions than just space. So that one begins to hear a mystic music, because the dimensions of space have been transformed. There's more than just three dimensions of space, so that the trigonometric functions distill further into mystical Calibrations of infinite possibility. And at that scale of journeying, the study through the journey of our landscape has become a cosmic adventure. And there it is. That man discovers that he never was just an animal at all, not even from the beginning, because he feels at home in that kind of a journeying. Two great art genres mark the development of that capacity. The first is the portrait, and the second is the landscape. And that the portrait in the landscape becomes a great universal art. One of the greatest artists in world history was a man named Ma Yuan. He lived in the Southern Song dynasty. He was properly, properly called and popularly called a one corner ma, because he used to start all of his landscape paintings in one corner and radiate out resonances from that, and then leave the rest of it open, not open, so that it was not filled, but open so that it was resonantly infinite. A blank canvas cannot be distinguished from an infinite openness. A ma yuan landscape painting shows the quality of non interruptible infinity and in this art delivers a transform to where the specific of the integral becomes the exacting of the comprehension. Comprehensive exactness is quite different from specificity. It has a different by several orders. It has a different way of functioning, a different way of existing, so that one would have to use existing with quotation marks, because it's like not really existential, it's quote existential. But then you'd have to put quotes around the quotes. So it's double quote existential. Two quotations bring one back to something which is there without any quotations, but without the word. It's like double negatives produce a positive. There's an odd inside out quality to that transform, so that when you look at the very earliest presentation of how a spiritual person form emerges out of this double transformed, visionary mysteriousness, such a being would wear their skeleton on the outside. And so you find that the earliest Medicine men costumes have bones sewn on the outside of the of the buckskin or the hide. You wear your skeleton on the outside. Why? Because the nature and its landscape have been interiorized, not just internalized interiorized to such an extent that they you have turned yourself inside out so that your insides from the integral are now the defining boundary, as it were, of the exterior. But it's no longer a definition and no longer a boundary. Both those terms now are inoperative without several sets of quotation marks, so that the ability of integral language to follow the sinuous transformation doesn't happen. It becomes beggared by it. And so one has to have a new way of speaking, and that that new way of speaking cannot come from the minds order. It cannot come from a sense of integral logical specificity, but must emerge from a comprehension which is, um, includes the unknown all the time. So what you come up with is a language which was which is always provisional in its protean quality of developing variation. When the early Schoenberg was imitating Brahms and Brahms principle of developing variation, he was able to make a musical composition. He. A. Lockdown transformed night is about a night of love and the peace, though, is right on the verge of Schoenberg shifting over into a completely different scale the 12 tone scale. Called serial music sometimes, which sounds to the natural ear, the ear tuned to nature, tuned to that octave, tuned to that ancient scale. It sounds as ugly. Cannot possibly be. And yet it is the first excursion into the realization that there can be many musics. There can be as many musics as there are scales. And we know now that there are no limits to the number of scales. There literally are scales without end in the cosmos. There are more musics that are possible than we could ever explore were we to live a billion years. Furiously composing so that freedom staggers on this sense, on this calibration. It staggers one that freedom is not a rare thing in reality, but is the operating everydayness of the way in which the real occurs, and that what we were doing before was being voluntary prisoners in a very bad jail, and that it would be ridiculous to fight over cell space. Or accuse each other that you're more guilty than me. And you should be in here more than me. All of that is not only extraneous, but is beside the point on many orders of remove from the real. And it is art which delivers one to the transformed, distilled, sealed realm of differential forms. Why are you worried about your place within such and such a story, when you can become a storyteller of infinite stories? And this, of course, takes an education. Why? Because it does not happen in nature. Nature doesn't teach that. It takes a transform distillation Ceiling from a spiritual guide. Not some girl who knows, not somebody who is doing the latest fancy thing. I can't tell you how ridiculous it is. But it is the invitation to dance in a different way from which you were used to. But that that dancing may require you to pirouette in mid-air because the music calls for it. So we're moving from abstract to person, and in doing so, we must overcome one of the most fearful things that cultural prisons impose upon us, more fearful than death is ridicule, that human beings are more afraid of ridicule than they are of being maimed or being killed. And so one has to overcome the ridicule, especially the self ridicule of the actor who's used to being the star of the story. And that is the ego. The ego accuses us most poignantly, in such a way that we cringe from growing into transforms and Stravinsky and his poetics of music, which we'll get to in about a month, he says. Um, the most difficult aspect of our time is to live through non acknowledgment. Non acknowledgment is the original sin of our age. You are ignored. No one pays any attention to you. No one recognizes you. No one agrees with you or praises you or even notices you. In his great Hollywood novel, Budd Schulberg, what makes Sammy run of Sammy says, love me or hate me, but don't ignore me. It's that kind of a thing. It's the Sammy Glick syndrome. I don't care if you hate me or if you love me, but you're not going to ignore me. And it's that quality of facing up to the ridicule that especially characterizes the emergence of a of an artist into an unknown. It always happens at the beginning of the 20th century. It happened in all of the arts at the same time on a scale that hadn't been seen before, because there were more artists, and because the previous times of artists discovering the new was always within context, Michelangelo rarely did anything for himself. He did it for the Pope, or he did it for this commission. Artists were usually under the aegis of the court, some royal thing or the church. And it's only in the romantic era, around the time of the French Revolution, that artists began making works for themselves. And the first grandfather of that is Rembrandt, who made a lot of works for himself. Not just self-portraits, but he would do works that he kept with him in his studio And the link that brought that together with the way in which the late 19th early 20th century art movements were grandfathered by Rembrandt. They were fathered by Goya, by Francisco Goya. Because when Goya, who was the first court painter to the King of Spain, he was as famous as you can get, he made 50,000 reales per year at a time when that was an immense fortune. When he left all that behind. He began making a series of murals in his own place. It was called Quinta del Sordo, the House of the of the Deaf man, because he'd gone deaf from a serious, life threatening illness. And he made a series of murals for himself. It became his own patron. And he made them on two floors, one above the other. And so that when you came in to the lower floor. You would go clockwise around that floor and come back to the entrance, and then go up to the second level, and then go back around and come back through so that you got that infinity sign in these two. Great. The bottom one was like a living room, and the top one was like a large master bedroom room. And there were murals that circumambulated around. There were spaces for 16 paintings. He filled 14 of them himself. He let His son Phil, one of them, and one of them was left blank. And right away, as you come in the very first mural. These murals, because they deal with facing up to the apocalyptic ridicule of the universe, ignoring you, or if it notices you, it comes through in a nightmarish sort of way. So all these paintings together are usually called the Black paintings, the black paintings at the end of Goya's life, and the first painting that's there is of his woman, his great life companion, Leocadia. She's about 35 years younger than him, perfectly matched with him, and he paints her in beautiful black Dress, early 19th century Spanish style with the veil. She is portrayed as ready for the funeral because Goya is going to bring out in the Black Paintings the horrific nightmare landscape of ultimate ridicule and fear and horror, and the Black Paintings index in this transform, like a shaman who's gone into hell and brought all of this back up, and one sees this horrific journey through horror. But when one goes through it again and again and again, you recognize that this is not hell. This is where the man lived. He did it in his own home. He lived there so he acclimated himself to not being afraid of the most titanic apocalyptic art images probably ever painted. Goya's Black Paintings are much more horrific than anything anyone has ever done, and the last one is so nightmarishly pathetic that people weep uncontrollably. It's a canvas about 5 or 6ft high by about four feet wide. It's a yellowish, horrific light coming down like on a cliff face and some kind of a boulder in front of it. And all that's visible in between these two facades of cascading anxiety is the scared face of a dog, only its face In sheer abject terror at what it sees. Not to be afraid of one's own universal hell. Relaxes one into the transform and distillation where you can emerge again. And a rebirth comes out of that. For Goya, who painted these at one of the most horrific, horrific times, Spain went through a false spring of hope where the king was thrown out, the church was thrown out, the Jesuits were expelled from Spain, the royal court was thrown out, and the popular democracy came in. And when it came in, it went through exactly what the French Revolution went through, began killing each other off by the thousands, by the tens of thousands. And finally, when so many people had killed each other off the church and the Crown came back in and took over again and killed anyone who had anything to do with this guy. Of course, being the most famous artist of his time was allowed to leave Spain and he went to live in Bordeaux, France, where at 83, his last painting is of this beautiful peasant Bordeaux girl. It's called The Milkmaid of Bordeaux, and she's dressed exactly like his beloved wife at the beginning of the Black Paintings. Only instead of wearing a veil, she has the face of an ordinary French peasant girl who's at home in her own life. It is this kind of Grandfathering by Rembrandt and fathering by Goya. That you begin to find in the works at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. One of the most horrific black paintings of that time is Arnold Schoenberg's self-portrait, just before the beginning of the First World War. We're going to go on with Rembrandt and Kandinsky and Clay, but be aware that next week is the fourth lecture and the fifth lecture. We're going to shift to another pair. We're going to shift from Rembrandt and Kandinsky, this time to Henry Moore and Frank Lloyd Wright, to sculpture and to architecture. We're going to shift to a different kind of a space, not the geometric space of the plan, not the trigonometric space of the sphere, but to that organic space where the artist inhabits a cosmos. What are the qualities? Which is real for us is that we belong at home in the real, not in jail. No matter how much service they give you, the room service is not enough.