perception is limited by reality

8/11/2019 Perception is Limited by Reality.

1/26

Perception is limited by personal experience. Is there a common

perception of what art is?

Matthew Scott

HAD 300 Dissertation

Chapter 1


2/26

1

Abstract

The original thought around the question was just going to be about art and

the mediums through which we received it. I was looking at The Medium is

the Massage (McLuhan,1967) at this point. In delving deeper into the

philosophical heart of perception the focus moved more into the problem of

perception. Everything from the credibility of sources I have researched to the

meaning of everything down to the mundane as explored by Du Champ and

Warhol. This also asks questions of history and our passage through the

space-time continuum. We like to think we have free choice but as we travel

down this one branch of the space-time continuum tree at the end of that

branch we have no means of comparing branches and we only fancy our

chances it is a tree(Nietzsche,1886) anyway. Perception, experience and

memories are all malleable. Methods of hypnosis and drug use alter our

reality but because we have real points of reference. Hypnosis and drug use

may be altering the whole world from our individual point of view. This

statement is as unfalsifiable as its opposite but from this you can see how I

ran into problems presenting this answer because even the format of this

dissertation falls into the hypothesis and proof merry-go-round. The way that

scientific knowledge and art are identified follows almost the same system,

which is deeply rooted in the evolution, that touches on biological and physical

processes. Everything is relevant; our critical judgement informs us what to

use but no critical judgement would be needed if everything were credible.

Because all words are defined they offer an absolute, a death. This is the

quagmire of words I was in became unfalsifiable, pluralistic and undecidable. I

did not know this until I had read the likes of Derrida, Jencks, Freud,


3/26

2

Baudrillard etc. The following is an examination of the systems of perception

at our disposal but because of the limitations in each system creates doubt in

a common reality.

Chapter 2

Introduction

The voice you are reading these words with is different to the voice in which

they were written. They are the same words but these words constitute an


4/26

3

objective reference point outside the mind. This voice is what I am going to

use as my analogy of perception. Everyone registers the same visual stimuli

but this stimulus is then imbued with interpretation in the minds eye. Everyone

in existence has a different perspective of reality because of this. All of what I

am writing is unfalsifiable but this fits in with the unfalsifiable nature of

everything. I think therefore I am (Descates,1649) is the barrier between

complete knowledge of an objective or subjective reality since I only have my

judgement, which is thought, to perceive my existence. All items are subject to

this thought so even if I believe I am a sentient being and can feel what is

real, is this feeling not just a thought? This document is a snapshot of the

thoughts and opinions of me, the author, at the moment I put pen to paper.

The opinions expressed in this document are not those shared by the author.

Although correct at time of writing my perception has increased due to the

temporal nature of experience i.e. time marches on so does everyones

experience. The thought, as captured here, has already begun to change and

mutate; it will be very similar to what is here just not the same. Like all

snapshots this represents a death, of sorts, and it is difficult to express an

argument when this question is so pluralistic in its nature. Through these

deaths I am going to examine other deaths that have been put to paper by

philosophers and academics and those that I find credible I will analyse.

There is a problem with snapshots because depending on the angel of the

camera a different story could be told. An example of this is the work of John

Hilliard, Cause Of Death?(1974). It is a matrix four images each showing a

different angle of the same corpse with a title suggesting a cause of death.

Out of context each image is plausible but not the whole story. This is like an


5/26

4

analogy for this dissertation because if I had read a different set of books or

took my research from a different angle the entirety if this dissertation could

have been a different story. My original direction was to discuss how art

appears to the majority through methods of mass media and bourgeois

academia. There was an irritation I felt with this because I knew it was more of

an existential question. How do I know I didnt just wake up this morning with

all my thoughts and experiences loaded onto a chip in my brain? I know as

much about what the inside of my body looks like as I do the outer reaches of

the universe. All I have to go on is words like trust, faith and belief in the

books and nurture that have informed me that the inside of my body exists

and the outer reaches of the universe exist. Descartes said he was fascinated

by the fact that we are a finite being that can imagine the infinite(Descartes,

1649); I would postulate that the limitations of this imagined infinite are set by

the experience and memories of the imagining perceiver. It is as difficult to

imagine the consensual idea of infinite than it is to imagine the idea of

nothing. These terms are accepted in culture as opposites but both represent

the impossible. Infinite, that goes on and on forever, is confined by the word

that we use to express it and the opposite is true of nothing as the word is

infinite in comparison to what it is expressing. There are limitations to the

language and grammatical systems we use to describe everything.

There are seven billion people on planet earth (World Bank, 2011) each

person with there own set of experience of things, histories and memories.

This becomes a quantitative exponential amount of individual experience

each with subtle differences and nuance. Although each of the bearers will

have a consensual reality in which they belong in order to survive, there


6/26

5

senses and minds eye will all be subtly different where everyone will

experience the same event differently. Every word, every smell, every sight

has different connotations for everyone. Even if there is an objective reality

(unfalsifiable) it is subject to every ones minds eye therefore a consensual

reality is more convenient for this answer.

If we are to come up against issues like that in determining reality and the

credibility of sources etc. what chance do we have in determining what art is?

All of the undecidibles at work make writing anything a minefield. We are

standing on the shoulders of giantsbut are we standing on the right giants?

This is actually a silly question because whatever giant it is, it is the right giant

because we are at the point we are in history now by travelling down one

branch of the tree with no means of comparing the branches.

To analyse the philosophical idea of perception I am going to analyse the

following philosophical ideas; I think therefore I am (Descartes, 1649), we

fancy our chances it is a tree (Nietzsch,1886), undecidable(Derrida,1992),

unfalsifiable (Freud,), the illusion of the end (Baudrillard, 1994) and proof

(Reeves, 2011).

When looking at art do we need proof it is art? Is it art if an artist made it? The

authors brain is the vessel for the living document. To answer this in a

concise yet thorough manner we must first break it down into its constituent

parts and then see what implications this has on the subject at heart.

Because we take reality for granted there are a multitude of assumptions we

are making about everything. We think to a certain point that we think in the

same manner as the majority. People who dont fit this criteria, who dont fit

the capitalist view of productive, are considered elsewhere on the mental


7/26

6

health scale. This fits into Foucaults view of the panopticon (Foucault,1976).

The panopticon is an architectural style of building used for prisons, hospitals

and schools. As the author of this text I am assuming that you, the reader, can

indeed read and will understand it in the language I am writing it. You will also

have an understanding of western cultural concepts and thought to interrogate

these words.

Chapter 3

What is Perception?

The main problem faced in writing this dissertation is, in questioning what art

is in terms of perception, I have had to question it in my own perception and

this has lead me to question more than the existence of art. Not only has it

made me ask, why is art, but why is everything? From these questions I feel

that my personal perception is more limited than first anticipated, not just my

personal perceptions but also the academic criterion we are taught to


8/26

7

perceive with. Like I have mentioned before, if I had read a different set of

books this would be a completely different text.

So what is perception?

The Oxford English Dictionarys (OED) definition is as follows:

Perception n.

1. The ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the

senses.

2. a way of understanding or interpreting something.

3.

the ability to understand the true nature of something; insight.

(OED, 2006: p.)

And because perceptionalludes to insight the definition for insight, from the

same source is as follows;

Insight n.

1. the ability to understand the truth about someone or something.

2. an understanding of the truth about someone or something. (OED,

2006: p.)

This is where the first problem arises in answering this question. Definitions in

dictionaries provide, what is understood to the proletariat, absolutes in terms

of the limits of meaning. Everything that falls outside this limiting wall of words

is not the target of the definition. If we consider what Rookes said in

Perception: Theory, Development and organisation; perception is a massive

area of study that has fascinated scientists and philosophers alike for

generations (Rookes, 2000). The book goes on to explain the process of

perception as if it were a quantitative science. We can tell that the author

believes in an object reality because it explains that the world is made of


9/26

8

stimuli that are detected by sense organ like the eye and describes the

biological process of seeing. All that is seen in the eye then travels through

the optic nerve to the brain where it is corrected (the eye works like a pinhole

camera so the image that is projected onto the retina is upside down and back

to front). Then perception is left to the theories of folk like Gibson and Gregory

who argue between top down and bottom up processing (Rookes, 2000).

I think that top down and bottom up processing is the epitome of the

entire argument of reality. They are both unfalsifiable as is the idea of an

object reality or subject reality. The basic problem with perception is that

perception is in the eye of the beholder. You can either perceive like

Boscovich that things are made of matter (Nietzsche, 1886: p.10) or perceive

like Descartes je pense donc je suis(Descartes, 1649: p.).

Aristotle said that we cannot begin to live until we doubt all that has gone

before (Descartes, 1649:p.)and I would like to use this as a platform that we

can understand everything from. If we accept that reality is both objective and

subjective simultaneously, because we see everything through the minds eye,

we arrive at a consensual reality where we accept that humanity is here and

all of the concepts that give meaning or signage to thing were created by

humans. If we consider The Order of Things by Foucault he says that

knowledge even falls into a system(Foucault, 1966: p.). This system comes

from thought being linked to evolution and like the development of the theory

of evolution (Darwin, ), where it becomes difficult to see where one species

ends and another begins. Where does one idea end and another begin? If we

are thinking the world into existence and attaching meaning and symbolism to

everything where does the abstract end and the reality begin?


10/26

9

Theories resonate throughout all theory of thought. Newtons theory of motion

states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction (Newton,) is

echoed through all thought.

Knowledge of all things starts with a hypothesis that is backed up with

statistics and data that is collected by the proposer of the hypothesis. Taking

this process for granted is what Aristotle was talking about. This system of

hypothesis and hypothesis backup is how everything is presented to our

consensual reality and if it has existed since time immemorial (19990) we

generally just accept it with very few questions. If it looks right, it is right. And

if it is rightdoes this suggest that there is an absolute reality? If there is an

absolute then this raises questions of the readers beliefs because every

argument made is subject to a counter argument, like every hypothesis there

is a counter hypothesis. A person makes a hypothesis. These all start out as

an opinion and then using techniques that can be observed through our

senses or devices that amplify our senses the rest of us accept that opinion

as fact. This fact then becomes an absolute, exists in history and will be

referenced every time the counter of that fact is made. The fact becomes the

word, the word that has existed since time immemorial. Should we always be

at the mercy of these facts? Should we indeed do as Aristotle said and begin

to live when we doubt everything that has gone before? The accepted format

for a dissertation exists in the same way. The author comes up with a

hypothesis and then backs up the hypothesis with structured argument and

data collection to prove the hypothesis. It seems ironic that in order to answer

this question, in terms of hypothesis and proof, that I am explaining it within

the limitations of an academic text.


11/26

10

Chapter 4

What is Art?

The Oxford English Dictionarys (OED) definition is as follows:

Art n.

1. the expression of creative skill in a visual form such as painting or

sculpture.

2. Paintings, drawings, and sculpture as a whole.

3. (the arts) creative activities such as painting, music, and drama.

4. (arts) subjects of study concerned with human culture.

5. A skill: the art of conversation. (OED, 2006: p.)

The identification of art can only happen after the fact. Art fits a strange niche

in culture where it has to fit the criterion that is historically set for a work of art,


12/26

11

such as those criteria in the OED definition, and be original and new. This is a

paradox; it must be both old and new simultaneously. This paradox is not only

true of art but of everything. If someone presents a new piece of knowledge it

must fit a certain pattern so that we know that it is knowledge and the new

knowledge can be accepted (Foucault, 1966). Art can only be what that

bourgeois academy of an epoch defines it as and the new art is formed by

gradually questioning the limitations of that definition. Du Champ did this with

the urinal and Warhol did the same during the 60s when he did the opposite

of everything that was perceived as art at the time. If I am to accept the

history that was written of this period, art became conscious of the fact it was

a philosophy at this time and had the opportunity to destroy itself. It didnt.

This brought about the age where it was dominated by capitalism and the

value imbued in art was as a commodity. If we look at Dantos view of the

Brillo Boxes we can see that Warhol was questioning the boundaries of art

by manufacturing an art work that was as at home in the gallery as the

grocers (Danto, 1999: p.). This, if we look at the greater picture, is a problem

faced by Darwin in his examination of evolution; where does one species end

and the next begin? To help us all understand this the academic bourgeois of

an epoch set the boundaries of compartmentalising that sets a definition.

There is an order in which things exist that is discussed in the works of Michel

Foucault (1966). Because of this order things are generally accepted in

existence because they fit a criteria that has been agreed historically i.e. they

have existed since time immemorial or have already been widely accepted in

a certain nomenclature e.g. Apis Mellifera comes from the Latin Melli meaning

honey and ferre meaning bearing. When bee behaviour was studied there


13/26

12

was an effort to correct the name to Mellifica, which meant honey making but

due to the rules of synonymy in zoological nomenclature, the older name has

precedence (ICZN, 1999).

Compartmentalizing is a way that humans have broken up the whole of reality

into digestible morsels of cause and effect. This conditioning that exists with

right and wrong is built on cause and effect and life and death. With every

cause we expect an effect (with every action, there is an equal and opposite

reaction(Newton, )), with every narrative we expect a beginning, a middle and

an end and with every hypothesis we expect it to be backed up with credible

sources and statistics. If we are to follow Aristotles philosophy how do we

then accept something as a credible source? If we have already made

assumptions of the limit of a thing i.e. it has a beginning, a middle and an end

etc. how do we perceive anything that does not fit this criteria?

Nietzsche stated that every time we look at a tree we are merely fancying our

chances it is a tree. We rely on the tree of experience and memory to fill in the

holes in our vision(Nietzsch, 1886: p.). He also stated this is the same when

we read a text. We rely on the assumption that a sentence must make sense

therefore our experience and memory are already coming up with words that

will fit after other words. Descartes I think therefore I am, goes deeper than

one first assumes. When I first encountered it I just assumed the thinking

referred to life force but on reading it again more recently I believe that I have

come closer to its real contemplative power. Everything is thought, everything

passes through the minds eye which brings us back to the unfalsifiable. I cant

see, feel, hear, taste or smell outside of my perception. Perception and

experience become one and the same. This is a good analogy of the illusion


14/26

13

of the end (Baudrillard, 1994). History and the present have become one and

the same. History cannot happen now because it is broadcast into our

pockets immediately as it happen (I am making an assumption here that the

reader is aware of mobile phones, devices that make sure you are a

consumer of everything!!!).

Art

Art is like this.

Chapter 5

What is an artist?

What is an artist? The paradox of reality continues here. It is a question that

requires definitions and this is where the problem of perception really takes

hold. There is a duality or pluralism that exists in everything. There is the

objective view that set down a rigid criterion for existence and then the

subjective view where the criterion is up for debate. For instance, if we take a

pen, we will all be familiar with its functions and because of this we will all

have an overlapping experience and therefore, will all be able to identify one.

However, my personal experience that creates my definition of a pen will be

completely different to anyone elses, as I will have written a completely

different set of words to anyone else. So we can see already there are several

pluralisms in the question; the artist is subjective and objective. Death

assumes a life that has preceded it. The matter of pinning down the artist is

raised in Michel Foucaults essay, What is an Author?. Foucault discusses


15/26

14

the function of the author. This function is manifold therefore; as I perceive it,

the author has a more fluid definition in Foucaults perception. To this day the

author remains an open question both with respect to its general function

within discourse and in my own writing(Foucault,1969: 321). He had written

this essay to fill holes in a text he had written, The Order of Things, that

looked at verbal clusters as discourse layers which fall outside the familiar

categories of book, work or an author (Foucault, 1969: 321). The time that

has elapsed has expanded his perception therefore his previous vision, The

Order of Things, he can now only perceive with holes. Foucault wrote that

paper with all the information and experience that he had encountered within

the academic epoch that he existed. As previously mentioned time marches

forward perception increases, new ideas occur and the function of the author

and the artist expands along with it.

My view of an artist though continues to change as I experience more

and therefore contains many more tones of meaning. Every conversation,

lecture, book and gallery visit has coloured my view of what an artist is. This is

how my whole reality is constructed. Everything in it, although recognizable to

everyone, will exist objectively yet subjectively like the pen I mentioned

earlier. Foucault writes, Writing unfolds like a game that inevitably moves

beyond its own rules and finally leaves them behind(Foucault, 1969: 322).

Definitions should be considered as part of a Cartian method, constantly

changing due to my ongoing experience. On the negative side of this, it

becomes difficult to write about something in absolutes because in its truest

nature is in constant flux. It would be easy if this were a question of


16/26

15

objectivism because the artist would exist within boundaries and due to these

boundaries I would be able to tell you exactly what art and perception is.

Foucault discusses the kinship between writing and death (Foucault,

1969: 322). The way I understand this is, can we call the creators of the first

cave paintings artists? They painted pictures as an extension of the instinct to

communicate ideas to avoid death. In terms of the OED definition, could they

be artists if they couldnt conceptualize themselves as artists? If we consider

the chicken and egg causality dilemma and apply the Darwinian evolution

theory the egg came first as whatever laid the egg was an evolutionary step

before the chicken. If we consider this proto-chicken in these terms I believe

we can consider the cave painter the proto-artist to the artist, as we know it

now. In this order though we must remember that todays artist is the proto -

artist to the artist of tomorrow. This reinforces the idea that we need a Cartian

method for an artist and this reflects the hypothesis/proof model.

The problem with What is an Author?, is that the analysis is

restricted to the domain of discourse (Foucault, 1969: 329). Also he

differentiates types of author, such as, literary, religious and scientific

therefore we assume, to the extent of what is written, that Foucault just

accepts some objective definitions within the limitations of his text. He looks at

how discourse becomes objects of appropriation; the form of property they

have become is of a particular type whose legal codification was

accomplished some years ago. This takes us into the realms of capitalism

and power and how this has driven art. Because art items have become

things with all of the provenance and concepts the artist has given it they

become objects to have and own.


17/26

16

Art has been driven by many sources of power over history.7 Today the

driving power is capitalism. This introduces an interesting dichotomy to the

case of Damien Hirst as an artist. Hirst has become the most famous living

British artist after David Hockney (Bussel, 1997: 199). With this fame has

come massive wealth. On a small pen and ink drawing he has written:

Everything he touches turns to gold and it kills him in the end(The

Economist, 2008). Because of this wealth he now command the power and

the artistry. Can this all manifest in one person? Hirst has been perceived as

brandmakers calling themselves artists (The Economist, 2008). I think the

problem is that the definition of Hirst is so deeply engrained on our culture that

new Hirst becomes brand expansion. Artists use materials that are more

readily available to them due to necessity. Hirst found himself in command of

large amounts of money to manipulate and with this he orchestrated an

auction of his own work in September, 2008. This throws up a number of

complications; the artists becomes the taste maker, normally a role left to the

bourgeoisie and art dealers, and in doing this he defines himself objectively

therefore causing his own artistic death. There is an irony here in the fact that

work such as, For the Love of God!(2007) and The Physical Impossibility of

Death in the Mind of Someone Living(1991), are examples of work by the

artist that show his fascination with death. Perhaps he is even of this and

manipulates money as his art practice now! It saves him from producing a

Hirst, The worst thing I can do is make a Damien Hirst. I dont believe in

talent8(The Idler, 1995). If you look at art history as a whole, as new materials

and techniques become available they are exploited by the artist of the day;

lens based techniques as theorized by David Hockney in Secret Knowledge9


18/26

17

are utilized by the Old Masters (Hockney, 2001) and photographic

techniques are used by the likes of Muybridge after the invention of the

camera. If we look at this in a more contemporary light, coincidentally,

Hockney is now utilizing the new technology of the Apple iPad to produce

work (Grant, 2010: BBC).

Would a work by Hirst appeal if it didnt have all the expectations that

the function of Hirsts name bring to his work. Foucault said of Shakespeare,

if it were proved that he had not written the sonnets we attribute to him, this

would constitute a significant change and affect the manner in which the

authors name functions (Foucault, 1969: 325), so is Damien Hirstmade by

his work? Does this mean that every work produced is forming a definition of

an artist somewhere? Foucault also wrote we find the link between

writing and death manifested in the total effacement of the individual of the

writer (Foucault, 1969: 323), I think if we look at this in the context of Hirst

then he has become a victim of his own work. The public want a Damien Hirst

and they get a Damien Hirst that fits their perception and definition therefore

retarding Hirst artistically.

The benefit of definition is that it drives the evolution of thought.

It sets precedents that can be used by artists in the future. If Marcel du

Champ hadnt created the readymades such as Fountain (1917) then there

would be no precedent for Sarah Lucass Two Fried Eggs and a Kebab

(1992) or The Old In Out (1998)9. When of their time these works caused

controversy because the lack of skill went against the academies definition of

what art is. Their definition must have included craftsmanship but because it s

very existence created a definition for both the artist and art the precedent


19/26

18

was set for it to be okay not to possess skill. In our cultural consciousness

pluralism exists between those who believe reality exists outside the mind and

those that do not. Those that are objective have a definite set of criteria that

an artist must fulfill and when the artist does fulfill these criteria there is no

cause for alarm but when they are challenged it causes a rift. Those that are

subjective accept that an artist is an artist regardless of skill or rigid criteria to

qualify. One reason there is no longer an artistic avant -garde, in a modern

sense, is that there is no identifiable front line to advance in world village, no

group or movement that cuts across all the arts, no coherent bourgeoisie to

fight, no established salon to enter (Jencks, 1996: 55). This is of relevance as

it recognizes the issue that there is no identifiable beginning of the future but if

we take this one step farther there is no identifiable art until after the

academia or the power or bourgeoisie of the day has recognized art. All art is

seen by the masses or the proletariat with hindsight. With more and more

advances in technology the masses are quickly becoming the academy with

access to infinite art on the internet. Never has there been so much art

available. If we take the OED definition at face value, one who paints or

draws pictures, it gives everyone the potential to be an artist which is a

glorious social ideal but unfortunately due to human nature we unfortunately

place artists on a pedestal. To these ends culture causes its own frustration

with contemporary art. We raise the artist up but then lose faith; it becomes a

case of The Emperors New Clothes10 because of the lack of skill

demonstrated by the artist. Some contemporary artists wouldnt even qualify

as an artist using the OED criteria; paints or draws pictures.


20/26

19

Humans evolved with the ability to communicate that was driven by the

necessity of avoiding death. Art is an evolved thread of this communication

but has come to encompass every aspect of living as opposed to just death

avoidance. As every aspect is explored the function of the artist evolves along

with culture. Because this appears constant there will be a mutually beneficial

relationship between artist and culture sustaining them infinitely. However,

within culture as we perceive and define, we will systematically be killing

artists because they arent this or do not do this or that. In general terms the

artist did not die because the definition should be completely subjective

leaving it open to infinite possibilities of where the artist will go, although,

human need for objectivism is killing artists driving the evolution of the artist.

The problem with objectivity, subjectivity, pluralism and perception is that they

are all unfalsifiable which raises issues with reality.


21/26

20

Chapter 6

Reality & Context

Reality n.

1.

the state of things as they actually exist: he refuses to face reality.

2. a thing that is real.

3. the state of being real. (OED, 2006: p.)

This definition of reality seems pretty plausible but surely it is unfalsifiable as

anything else. Reality is a hypothesis that someone came up with art like

everything else that encapsulates everything. Boscovich hypothesised matter

(Nietzsche, 1886). If matter exists then we are made up of the same matter as

everything else. We have taken this for granted because it is easier to accept

the world, as it exists, the hypothesis has existed since time immemorial and

we have not been shown a different way to perceive it. If we take capitalism,

for instance, capitalism is not working the global economy has collapsed and

the bourgeois are panicking because they cannot see an alternative that

satiates their greed. As I write these words I am faced with constant ironies

because in posing the question of perception, I am questioning the essence of

reality and whatever rationalities it belongs to. In questioning this I am also

made aware of the man-made-ness of words and concepts taken for granted

by the proletariat. All knowledge is subject to too many systems because of


22/26


23/26

22

The tree analogy I am using here is to describe the path that we have

travelled through the space-time continuum.

Chapter 7

Context.

The world as we know is only through the eyes of perception. We are failing to

see any more we just fancy our chances that the world is there.

Knowledge is sometimes only useful within a certain context. Systems of

knowledge sit on top of systems of knowledge, perception begat perception.

This becomes like Ouroborus, the symbol of the snake eating its own tail. At

the heart of every reality sits a pluralistic or undecidable truth. Quarks are

here and then not here, infinity is as difficult to imagine as nothing and there is

always at least two ways to describe everything. Everything exists as a

paradox. Art cannot exist without everything else that is not art but can also

be everything that is not art. This again brings us back to the fact that art and

everything elses existence depends completely on human

compartmentalising and differentiation. Differentiation is a condition survival

response. This is to differentiate the thing that would kill you from the things

that would not. Over generations of evolution these extremes have been

amplified and includes a sort of hierarchy so at the positive end its not just

about avoiding death but finding enjoyment. The avoidance of death

mechanism can been seen at work in the Himba tribe of Namibia. They only

have five words for different colours and have been studied and found that

they only see in these five colours. What is interesting though is they have


24/26

23

many different names for shades within these colours because the difference

in shades of green could be the difference between a poisonous or edible

berry.

All modes of analysis and thinking are driven by these same survival instincts.

The Bible is an analogy I can use here. All schools of thought including maths,

philosophy, art, language etc. are subject to faith. The way these systems

have developed has made it easier to accept the evidence that each of them

presents as opposed to the evidence for god. The evidence presented by

science still needs faith though because you are just accepting the word of a

scientist rather than the word of the pope.

Everything is subject to faith due to the fact you need to accept whether you

believe the hypothesis subject to the evidence or indeed even subscribe to

the criteria of the form that knowledge takes.


25/26

24

Chapter 8

Conclusion

All of what we consider reality is based on faith. When I wake up in the

morning I have no point of reference whether the real that I am perceiving is

all in my head, solipsism, or whether it exists independently of me. If I cease

to perceive does everything cease to exist? We take the stimuli from our

environment, that we have faith exists, and make judgements on everything.

We have no common points of reference within our individual perceptions to

be able to identify anything. We can say that grass is green but if I could put

my perception into your eyes would this be the same hue? There is an irony in

writing this dissertation because the words that I have used have been used

millions of times before in different contexts to achieve different shades of

meaning. These words become like found objects used by Du Champ that we

all have different perspectives on depending on experience. The only real

point of reference we can even begin to consider to accept is the fact that

reality is faith and belief based. This brings us closer to the Descartian idea of

a consensual reality. The impact this has on art becomes inconsequential as

all of reality becomes a homogenous mess of semantics and abstract reality.

All academic disciplines are subject to this belief and we have free choice in

this matter. We can accept it or we can question it. Faith is based on the

word, the word is based on the hypothesis, the hypothesis was said by a man

and this is subject to human error. This faith in an object reality is based on

subjective yet absolute definitions and all other methods of identification. With


26/26

absolute definitions everything that is not the absolute informs as much as the

definition. These absolutes are the closest we can get to points of reference

but the only way we can see the bigger picture is let these definitions go. We

must doubt everything that has gone before. Everything is an oxymoron,

unfasifiable and undecidable. Everything is absolute yet fluid. Since the

standardisation of everything, a shadow of the industrial revolution,

modernisation has lead to a greater perception but this greater perception just

raises more questions. Modern has shown us post-modern and post modern

is the age of pluralism but if we look closer at the history of everything

pluralism is at the heart of it all.

The consensual reality is completely dependent on the defined words we use

to describe it. We take the stimuli of the object and arrive at a consensus (the

definition) through communication. This is not necessarily a satisfactory

explanation of reality but we must accept the fickleness of it since it is based

in Freuds unfalsifiables and Derridas undecidibles and open to infinite

interpretation.

When it comes to art we get somewhere close to a common perception but

only within the constraints of the consensual reality. Art is anything to

everyone and is as open to interpretation as all of reality. So when we have

reached that consensus within the consensual reality there is still the question

of what we perceive as opinion and individual taste.

perception is limited by reality

Documents