The Non-existence of Randomness and Considerations on Abstract Art.
(This writing was born from thoughts and reflections during the creation of the art collection 'Sullivan's Monsters’).
A writing aimed at making you abandon the idea of the existence of randomness and freeing you from the chains that this automatic cognitive process tends to generate. Consequently, the act of Creation can only be the result of intelligent design.
Like every piece of writing I have published so far, the reading and sharing of this work is completely free. However, the unauthorized appropriation of intellectual property rights will be prosecuted.
Against all injustice, against all coercion, in favor of humanity and human beings.
I do not believe that one can ever address the subject of ‘Randomness’, just as one cannot deal with a ghost but only with the fear that the idea of its existence may generate. Every rational thought inevitably tends to exclude it.
Everything has a beginning, an origin. Nothing comes from nothing, and nothing returns to nothing.
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is my only and beneficial weapon: 'Nothing exists without a sufficient reason for it to exist instead of not existing' – thus stated Schopenhauer, and I wholeheartedly agree.
If we can eliminate the ‘stealth factor’ and the burden of randomness from our automatic cognitive processes, we can also consequently annihilate the false idea of Predestination.
Anyone who supports this nefarious doctrine should be able to demonstrate to me the law of nature that would allow for the diabolical, demonic, and inhuman perpetration of certain abominations with which not only do we condemn ourselves without appeal, but also towards other living forms, which are nevertheless a testament to the same Emanation that created Men. The same Generative force. Thus, I legitimately seek to purify myself by asking which principle of Authority we use to decide who and what should and can survive under our supposed hegemony. A partial answer can be found in the principle of Unity as narrated in Siddhartha, or according to what Marcus Aurelius wrote – it is more than legitimate to abandon to themselves those who do not recognize the principles of Nature as their foundational pillars. In this way, the problem of suppressing another living being does not arise, because they have ceased to be such.
It has become a simulacrum, thus matter, and therefore negligible for the ultimate purposes of our conscious refinement.
There is no predestination that justifies destruction. If the Generative Force were to predestine me to death under bombs, it would become contrary to its very nature. As a creator, it would become a destroyer, renouncing its own being.
I say: Good and Evil are clear, distinct, without confusion.
It would be like a parent deciding the fate of their offspring, forcing them to succumb in the womb or, once born, compelling them to pursue the whims of the parents, distancing them from a path of spiritual rectification that these choices would entail.
But the question is never raised twice when it comes to suppressing a gift from Heaven, a vessel of Universes and Infinite Consciousness, as one would do in the face of a negligible, “random” act, as those who unfortunately still believe in it would say.
If it were within the power of the individual to extinguish the Sun, it would be the last thing they would do for their hypothetical well-being.
"The sun is God," said Turner just before leaving the earthly realm. The sun gives all of itself. The sun asks for nothing in return.
That said, we can admire in the act of creation (and not merely technical reproduction) of any work of ingenuity or nature a certain uniqueness. An authentic aura, that 'here and now' that Walter Benjamin would define as *Hic et Nunc*.
A 'here and now' crystallized on the medium, in all its magnificence under the aegis of Consciousness. The sublime testimony of Consciousness that knows it exists.
A brushstroke that lives and undergoes the course of time like a living being, as opposed to any technical reproduction, no matter how excellent its rendering and execution may be. It is no coincidence that we give flowers to a loved one in the full bloom of their splendor, not a photo of them.
In this regard, one might argue that there are photographers capable of capturing the beauty of the flower, possibly in its best or more 'poetic'/'romantic' aspect. And the answer lies in the objection: is the photographer trying to represent the flower as a direct emanation of the creative force or as an accessory tool? In the latter case, the photographer is attempting to compose (co-position) the scene, rationally 'leaving out' what they consider irrational for the purposes of their artificial representation, consciously choosing to eliminate the entropy of nature.
In the first case, a further exploration is necessary: firstly, the technical reproduction of a living being carries with it a small presence of the aura of that being; it is no coincidence that the first photographs were portraits. The flower, taken individually, possesses in every way the presence of the Aura, of the *Hic et Nunc*. It is a living being that will never be the same as it was in that particular moment, inevitably vibrating in different ways depending on its life cycle.
A rose in a bouquet of roses is almost indistinguishable from its companions; it almost seems technically reproduced. Not only is this false, but it is also dangerous to assert it: from a certain distance, every human being seems identical to the next. Should we then suppose that, in atomic terms, we are all identical?
The same cannot be said for the reproduced photograph, whether it is one, two, or an infinite number of times. The first print is indistinguishable from the second, just as it is from the third; from an ontological standpoint, this reproduction reproduces only itself, and the content becomes hidden, just as a clock does not measure time but only measures itself.
To claim otherwise would be like asserting that listening to a CD of Mozart is equivalent to having heard him perform live.
In recognizing the principle of Emanation and Unity, giving a fragment of it to another living being carries a significant symbolic charge. It is no longer a fetish object to adorn one’s home but an infinite gratitude for what "is."
This brief excursus and explanation have been more than necessary. It is far from my intention to alienate an entire category of artists.
However, it is also true that much of contemporary artistic production seeks to survive on the shoulders of the Great Art that was. But labeling everything modern as derivative (in both senses) would be equivalent to denying the *Hic et Nunc* present in a unique work of genius. However, I cannot refrain from condemning productions (I carefully avoid calling them creations) that are frivolous and devoid of moral and aesthetic value; that nullity, which is not only nothing but, once elevated to genius without any merit, becomes pedantic, insistent, and annoying. Annoying like those who perpetrate such productions, knowing they are acting in bad faith, yet decide to close their eyes, seeking not to save Art and Beauty, but to save face. Here, I willingly revert to the modus operandi mentioned above by Marcus Aurelius, relegating nullity to that which does not aspire, and therefore to that which is not.
If I Live in nature in this way, my intellectual honesty leads me to resonate inevitably with the entropy present in so-called ‘Abstract’ Art. I argue that our unconscious, with its increasing greatness, inevitably increases its own entropy. It becomes disordered; the representations become more chaotic. Thus, they become more natural. (Not unlike what the second law of thermodynamics states).
Therefore, do not take offense; I believe that a certain type of "classical" figuration and representation, which is orderly, is cold and lifeless. Medardo Rosso might say that classical statues, displayed in public squares, are nothing more than targets for bird droppings—these works remain technically impeccable representations, but distant from the very emotion that inspired them, as virtuosity prevails over expression.
They survive as a representation of a reflection of the emotion in question. An airplane can never achieve the ontological perfection of a bird, no matter how much it aspires to. It is cold, like a crystal at 0 Kelvin—perfectly ordered but devoid of warmth.
We, on the other hand, must be the Light of the Sun. We must provide warmth.
Give Life.
I contradicted myself in the past when I asserted that abstract art is abstract in its representation but not in its nature. In reality, abstract art is not abstract in its representation. It is perceived as such only by those who do not know how to look at it; thus, it is potentially abstract in its perceptibility.
A mosaic must be viewed from a proper distance; otherwise, what you see is merely a fragment of a complete work.
For primitive art, action art, expressive art—art that stirs the body as a direct consequence of its power—it is necessary to take a proper distance to observe it in all its Unity. However, this is not a physical distance from the work, as one would do to better enjoy an Impressionist painting, but a perceptual distance from preconceived notions, from non-figurative material representation, from what we might mistakenly consider ‘random.’
So, I ask myself: is it truly possible to consider the entire creative process that leads to the realization of what we call an abstract work of art as random?
To extreme the thought of those who support this view, it would be like saying that a breath of wind on a beach could erect a sandcastle, perfectly structured and adorned with such precise details and ornaments that it makes us believe we are facing a castle from a specific era, rather than another.
We know well that it is not so.
Even a simple sandcastle, built by a child with a shovel and bucket, requires an Intelligent Design. First of all, the material is necessary: the sand itself, then the shovel and the bucket (and we are assuming that there was already a design that created the sand, the shovel, and the bucket).
Now, with these elements at hand, could the aforementioned random gust of wind ever create the desired castle? The answer is evident: what is needed is intelligence. And therefore, consciousness.
But why does this logical principle fall away when we talk about abstract art?
Attention: this does not mean that every abstract representation should be considered excellent or artistically valid. In terms of expression, it may be, but art is a language that follows its own rules. As previously stated, pure form, no matter how expressive, is not enough.
The artist who creates abstract work does so with full awareness of what they are doing. They remove a brushstroke here, add one there, define an area for a certain color, insert another color elsewhere.
It is clear that the success and perception of an abstract work are the result of the consciousness and knowledge of the artist who creates it. This collapses like a house of cards the theory that anyone can create objectively valid Abstract Art.
This is why, in front of the abstract compositions of great masters, we cannot imagine that something could be located elsewhere than where it is.
We can thus conclude that, to create an abstract work worthy of that name, the artist must possess the entire cultural and spiritual background. The individual must have qualities that are not only innate but also refined and developed over time.
It is our task and duty to recognize the cultural power that resides in the utmost expression of a soul that uses the body as a vehicle, flowing in the form of ink into the stamp that becomes its matrix, like rain nourished by clouds, as the unique and singular testimony of its earthly existence.
What we see interacts with what we do not see, and both are used. Our personal natural taste (Invisible) harmonizes with the acquired taste (Visible, as it is inevitably nourished by all our study, rational thought, research, and practice).
Both begin to influence each other, giving life to a creation that must be experienced in the world of Matter, just like Us.
You can find all my writings at the following link → https://linktr.ee/thedivinespark