Space, Time, Americans, Art, Me

Not, not outer space, just space and the compulsion to own and occupy it.

As an American, I enjoy taking up space. It is also preferable for me to own that space as well as everything in it. When a person buys land, they are really purchasing a volume of space. Legally, the height and depth of development is limited when you purchase an area of land. So what you have is a prism of space that belongs to you as long as you own the property. So not only is it space, but it is space-time. So if we were to think of space-time as an object, we could identify bits of it that belong to certain people. We would be able to see other bits of space-time pass through each other as belongings are transferred and people occupy different spaces. In this way, a person's space-time property is a nodal point, a confluence of things-having-to-do-with-the-owner. Now, this is simply one model of looking at space, time and property, but it is one that I find myself using on a regular basis, and from my admittedly limited life experience, I believe this model ties in, or at least supports, the American approach to property, success and happiness. That is, in America we are able and somewhat encouraged to go out and secure property that we can occupy, control and reproduce in. And the bigger the better, because the larger the volume of space-time that we can occupy and control, the larger our mark will be on space and time. So if we were to look at the great amorphous space-time object, our node would be larger and more substantial than that of the city-dwelling Europeans who were not as concerned with collecting and controlling space, time and objects.

This is what I consider when I look at my apartment and all of my possessions. According to this model, they will be my legacy (the immortal version of myself), and since my mind has for whatever reasons, adopted this model into its daily understanding of reality, my space-time is important to me. However, it is not the most important.

Matter and energy are interchangeable (thank you Einstein). So, we can determine a different kind of personal legacy using a variation on the space-time-property-node model. Instead of focusing on the physical space, we can focus on events, that is, kinetic actions (energy). Then the model changes into a sort of causal network where objects are replaced by events. In this model, a person becomes a collection of causes. The legacy then, are the lineages of effects that he/she releases into the network. I consider this model to be more substantial because it is not as finite. One cause will fan into chaos. Since ownership and objects are more strictly (and arbitrarily) defined, the model of those is less dynamic.

It is difficult to properly explain these ideas with words. I've come to realize that I think in diagrams. This can make it difficult to communicate them verbally which is why I prefer to create visual art and admittedly have little if any capacity to appreciate poetry.



Recently I have been troubled by a distinction in the visual arts. It's a distinction that I have a sense of, but continually fail to explain. I simply haven't found the proper vocabulary for it, and I'm not sure the vocabulary exists. The simplest way to put it is big versus small. Of course, this implies a value judgment, but I don't mean it to, although as I will explain, I do prefer "big" art. It has to do with subject matter and how that subject matter relates the the above models. Let me try to propose some examples. Journalistic documentaries are small. They deal with a very specific, finite instance--a social injustice, a culture, a person... And while a documentary may make an appeal to a larger subject by claiming that the issues presented are more universal and are echoed throughout a larger volume of space and time, this assertion is made from the inside out. It begins with the specific and then expands inductively.

Big art is more difficult for me to explain, even though it is my preference. Big art is most common in novels and films, but can also occupy other media. The one example that immediately comes to mind is Goethe's Faust. In Faust, Dr. Faust is not an individual in the sense that the subject of a documentary is an individual. He is an allegory. He is an idea disguised as a man. Of course Faust is a very complex story and there are many approaches to its interpretation, but the most common in my experience is the interpretation of Faust as an allegory for modernity. Modernity is big. It is the most rapid shift in societal structure ever (and it shows no sign of stopping). It occupies a much larger area of both of my time-space models than any one person, social injustice or individual culture. 2001: A Space Odyssey is another example of a work that has big subject matter--evolution, consciousness, technology... Big art's assertions are deductive. The assertions come from the outside in.

I think my preference for "big" art (both to create and experience) comes from the same mental place as American's desire to take up space. My mind can luxuriate in big art. There is lots of space to stretch my legs and explore. Interpretive variations are almost endless. I can always come back to it and find new things as meaning will gracefully change and adapt over time. Small art will always be doomed to become outdated. Eventually, the subject matter will no longer matter to anyone except highly specialized historians.



I hope some of this makes sense. Otherwise we might just have to wait until I can plug my brain into yours so I can show you the diagrams.