. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

From the essay that introduces my art philosophy, Art in Broadband, there is this diagram, which serves as one of several visual underpinnings for my overall view.

I'd like to talk about this a bit, to differentiate my approach to integral philosophy.

The first thing to say is that this diagram is the first of its kind, and it is by far the most inclusive map of the perspectives within the art world than anything else produced by any other art philosopher, as far as I know.

My method to generate this map of perspectives is clear: I use the "concept of the quadrants", illustrated in the center of the diagram, and use its abstract design as a lens that, applied to different contexts in the art world, illuminates more specific perspectives within the art world. My aim is to both towards fullness in the art world, as well as new inquiries that artists themselves generate as a result of my work.

If we are to tell the "stories" of the art world (of the artist, of artwork production, of art institutions, of interpretation), then I assert that the concept of the quadrants give crucial and irreducible outline to the basic perspectives of each story. You simply cannot look at the art world in any sort of inclusive or comprehensive way without referring in some way to this overall framework.

Those familiar with my work know that I've given great attention to the stories of the artist and of artwork production, in particular. For examples of my manifestos on these matters, wee The Artist's Breath (PDF) for the former, and Polysemy (PDF) for the latter. For more about what I mean by "stories in the art world", see my essay, The Integral Stories Of Art (PDF).

I want to stress that implicit in this dynamic are temporary states of consciousness (of whatever cause), the levels of development in all human intelligences (however grouped, modeled, and ordered), types of personality and gender dispositions, dimensions of subjective, intersubjective, objective, and interobjective, and sub-personality psychosexual drama of whatever matrix or weave. For an introduction on these particular issues, see The Artist's Mind.

Note my long-held inclusion of integral semiotics in my art philosophy. I credit Wilber (in an arcane endnote to one of his books), with initial inspiration to pursue the relationship between semiotics and creating new art. Semiotics as a field is many things with many directions (many entirely useless or hopelessly irrelevent). But I hold that its use for new artwork production is the most intriguing and, crucially, the most natural. Why? Because worldviews are made of semiotics. If artists are going to contribute to the growth of an "integral worldview", as I believe they can in ways entirely unique to the power of art, then understanding the primary dynamic at play in worldviews, that of semiotics, makes "aesthetic semiotics", namely artwork, all the more resonant with emerging understanding of being and consciousness in the myriad ways both manifest.

I firmly believe that the field of semiotics, pitched overall to help working artists, is thus best explored by working artists. This is because the perspective of the working artist can naturally recognize the essential from the nonessential, and efficiently sort through such confusion and present the most resonant and relevant perspectives on semiotics.

Semiotics is the study of signs that are material, conceptual, and essential (spiritual). In that way, semiotics has always been "integral" by design because people have chosen to depict their transrational understanding (of God, a profound being, of the world, of themselves) for as far back as we can tell. We have to remember one thing when it comes to older artwork. What is prerational or rational artwork to us wasn't when it was first created. There is a sliding scale of "transrational" because our understanding, and thus, "rational reckoning" of being in the world evolves.

The fact that there is a sliding scale means it is very problematic to simply and carelessly "tag" older art according to some measurement. It is furthermore very problematic to "tag" the level of consciousness of older, long dead artists, because any tag is necessarily made without an opportunity to engage in person to person interview. To tag consciousness with a level or many levels is, in my terms, to "psychograph" a person.

Overall, the biggest problem with psychograph tagging of artist, or of tagging artwork, is that good art, in order to be good, melts boundaries between subject and object. In this way, good art renders tagging moot. A piece of art is good because it is radiant, luminous, resonant, exciting, breathtaking, impossible to ignore. It is not because the psychograph of its creator is at some set of levels, or that the artwork itself is objectively and systemically organized in some degree of complexity.

Rather, following Horace, art is good because it entertains and educates. And to that, I have long added that art can "enlighten". To entertain, educate, and enlighten is one of my original contributions to the field of art philosophy. It is a spectrum not of the actual artwork, but of its effect upon people, and their responses to the artwork. Complexity of created artifact can be important, but it is very secondary. Materials used in the artifact are likewise important, but are too quite secondary. And the psychograph (or psychological profile) of the artist or artists involved in the making are important, but in terms of whether an artwork is "good", is also secondary. Rather, what an artwork does for audiences, what recognition it stirs, is the fundamental aspect of the interpretation and appreciation of artwork.

Which is part of why I created the following diagram, particular to art semiotics, and found in my essay, Polysemy. This expands upon the diagram in the upper right corner of the one above. It outlines the major kinds of signs that artworks can exhibit:

I follow Coomaraswamy in that the primary orientation of the art philosopher is to demystify the artistic process, and these two diagrams, as well as my entire approach to art philosophy are necessarily tempered at every step of the way by that injunction. It is easy to blow steam with fancy terms, pretentious airs, and hype. It is also deeply unresponsible to do so, especially to the creative process, and to artists. Demystify, then get out of the way; that is one way to put my approach as an art philosopher. I suspect this is the least hyberbolic way to be an art philosopher in today's over-hyped world. But my faith is that it is ultimately the most effective and enduring way to go.

Time will tell, and I deeply thank all of my reguiar readers, many of whom I know are working artists who only ocassionally come out from the woodwork, something I find to be a right and proper temperament in order to make truly avant-garde artwork. Because to do so requires work on the soul as well as on artistic technique.