Table Of ContentLecture Notes in Morphogenesis
Series Editor: Alessandro Sarti
Stefania Caliandro
Morphodynamics
in Aesthetics
Essays on the Singularity of the Work of
Art
Lecture Notes in Morphogenesis
Series Editor
Alessandro Sarti, CAMS Center for Mathematics, CNRS-EHESS, Paris, France
e-mail: [email protected]
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/11247
Stefania Caliandro
Morphodynamics
in Aesthetics
Essays on the Singularity of the Work of Art
123
Stefania Caliandro
Écolesupérieure d’art etdedesign des Pyrénées
Tarbes,France
ISSN 2195-1934 ISSN 2195-1942 (electronic)
Lecture Notesin Morphogenesis
ISBN978-3-030-29630-8 ISBN978-3-030-29631-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29631-5
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.Thepublisherremainsneutralwithregard
tojurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
PaulKlee.KatastropheimWinter—CatastropheinWinter.1930,229.Watercolourandcoloured
pasteonpaperoncardboard.21(cid:1)33cm.ZentrumPaulKlee,Bern.Photo©ZentrumPaulKlee
Contents
1 The Singularity of the Work of Art. Enquiry for a
Morphodynamic Semiotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2 Paul Klee’s Grey Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3 Vibration as a Morphogenetic Force of Creation. Architectonic
Dynamics in the Work of Peter Eisenman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4 Empathy, Meaning and Abstract Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5 Interlocking Spaces in Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6 Moscow I by Wassili Kandinsky (or, The Psychophysics
of Perception in Art). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7 Eight Theses for (or against?) a Semiotics of Colour . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8 Art as Crystallisation of Life. Considerations on a Work
of Art by Edvard Munch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
9 Feeling the Complexity, Saying the Inconsistent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
vii
Chapter 1
The Singularity of the Work of Art.
Enquiry for a Morphodynamic Semiotics
A renewed morphogenetic approach supported by physics and mathematics has
recently sparked theoretical considerations in humanities concerning the percep-
tionandemergenceofformsaswellastheconstructionofameaning,perceptually
grounded, associated with these forms. Semiotics, which has historically worked
onsenseandsignificance,intendsnowtobridgesocialandnaturalsciencesonthis
fundamentalpoint.Indealingwithmorphodynamicstudies,semioticshas,however,
engageditselfinaprogressivebutdeeptransformationofitsownfoundationsand
included,forinstance,sensorialandperceptualactivities,whetherconsciousornot,
intheactofsemiosis.Analysesthatwerepreviouslyreservedtocognitivefeatures
in order to define the contents of an object or phenomenon are now integrating a
more comprehensive methodology focusing on forms, on how forms do manifest
andexpressthemselvesandbecomerelevanttotheobserver’sexamination.Inthis
sense,suchafertilegroundishelpingtorethinkaboutascientifictheoreticalapproach
toart,despitetheextremelyrichvarietyandunpredictabilityofaestheticcreations.
Resumingtheprojectofascienceofartdoesnotmeanreactivatingpositivistthe-
oriesaboutartdeploymentoritspossibleexplanations,buttoassumetheutopiaofa
functional1descriptionthattakesintoaccounttheperceptualandculturalparticipa-
tionofthebeholderintheconstructionoftheartisticphenomenon.Insteadofdelving
intotheworkofartbymeansofaprioritoolstodetectbasicmeanings,thechallenge
istoacceptanddealwiththecomplexityoftheaestheticphenomenonwhereinevery
secondary aspect may be potentially significant. The complexity which concerns
everyunderstandingofanordinaryobjectinrelationwithitsenvironmentisindeed
particularlystrikinginart,incompliancewiththesubversiveandpuzzlingforceof
artrealisations.Moreover,theideathatthesensearisesfromtheexperienceofthe
workofartmayendorseasemiogeneticapproachinheritingthephysicorientation
JeanPetitothasconsistentlybolsteredinsemioticsfollowingRenéThom’smorpho-
genetic theory. Also the Groupe µ’s latest research discredits theories of meaning
1Somehow,payingdueregardtotheunattainableideaofacomprehensivescientificdescriptionof
theworkofart,Iwouldwillinglyoptforthequalifierdysfonctionnalifitwerenotinthesenseof
asemioticfunction.
©SpringerNatureSwitzerlandAG2019 1
S.Caliandro,MorphodynamicsinAesthetics,LectureNotesinMorphogenesis,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29631-5_1
2 1 TheSingularityoftheWorkofArt
foundedonconventionalityorcodesand,insteadofendorsing,aspreviouslydone,
thestudyofnormsandaverageculturalhabitstomeasuredeviationsandspecificities,
advocates a genetic semiotics exploiting neurosciences’, psychological, sociologi-
cal,epistemologicalandcognitivecontributions(cf.Groupeµ2015,p.20).Inthis
way, Groupe µ is deeply reviewing traditional structuralism and has admitted that
perceptionisnotexteriortostructure(cf.ibid.,p.32)2and,therefore,mustbetaken
asakey-momentinshapingsemioticvalues.
Itisratherhardtoadumbrateageneralmethodologytoanalysethevariousgen-
ressuchaspainting,sculpture,installation,performance,architecture,photography,
videoanddigitalart,justtolimitourenquirytothefieldoftheso-calledvisualarts.
Most of the semiotic studies focus primarily on planar surfaces, as used for draw-
ing, image and canvas, then expanding and adapting the findings to other specific
constraints.Thisisnotwithouttheriskofelaboratingstronglyorientedandrefined
tools that are not very adequate in other artistic fields. To avoid dangerous gener-
alities, it could even be rightfully asserted, in my opinion, that every work of art
determinesitspossibletoolsofanalysis.However,sinceeverytheoryhastodelimit
itselfandtakeonitsboundaries,Iwillproposetostartwithconsiderationscoming
from the visual field, albeit the debatable and very dubious question of visual pri-
macyinaestheticsoverothersenses’appeals,forexamplewithrespecttoplasticity
orembodiment.Thankstohistoricalinvestigationsandthelargeexploitationofthis
medium,itisindeedinthevisualfieldthatasensorialandperceptualmorphogene-
sismayeasilybedepicted.Anyhow,notwithstandingthelimitsofspecificsensory
competences,thereseemstobenoreasontobelievethatperceptionofforms,shapes
and figures, categorisation, recognition of iconic items, the assembling and corre-
latingarrangementssuchasconfigurationdifferradicallydependingonthesenses.
These operations seemingly cross all perceptual modes, as well as their possible
interminglingactivation.
AccordingtoGroupeµ’sPrincipiasemiotica,theemergenceofaformimpliesan
actofthresholding(“seuillage”)inthevisualfield.Theauthorsacutelyobservethat
anyelementaryactofknowledgeresultsfromtheexperienceofadiscontinuity:an
undifferentiatedfielddoesnotgenerateone.Thus,athresholdisaqualitativeorquan-
titativedifferentiation,splittingthevisualfield;itinducestheperceptionofalimit,
be it sharp or fuzzy, and therefore the emergence of boundaries and forms. In this
way,theyidentifyintranslocalqualitiesandincontrastingentities,nameddipoles,
thebasiccriteriaorganisingtheaesthesicapprehension.Throughdistinguishingand
grouping,bothqualitiesandentitiesleadtomoreandmorecomplexsemioticoper-
ations like the abovementioned categorisation, recognition, etc. (Groupe µ 2015,
pp.76–88,esp.80ff.).Fromneurologicalfunctioningtocompositeinterpretations,
theseprocessesguaranteetheelaborationofstimulianddataforhumanactivities.
ThistoomuchabridgedpresentationofGroupeµ’stheoryallowstohighlightthe
relevanceofdifferentiatingandassemblingprocessesinperception,partlyforeseen
bytheGestaltpsychologicaltheory,aswellastheexperientialparticipationofthe
beholder’sperceptualandcognitivesysteminconstructingtheobservedobject.Itis
2Ontheproblemofstructureasrelatedtoaestheticsemiosis,pleaserefertoCaliandro(2019).
1 TheSingularityoftheWorkofArt 3
alsoveryvaluabletoconsidertheactofthresholdingattheverymorphodynamicori-
ginoftheemergenceofperceptualitems.Asartistsdiscerned,inparticularabstract
arttheorists,thevisualfieldisinfactnotapprehendedthroughauniformcontinuous
scanningbutfollowingtensionsandsaliencesthatthehumaneyesencounterinsee-
ing.Nevertheless,thedualprincipleofdipolesthatGroupeµdiscoversinperception
andinfurthersemioticoperationsmightlooklikeanunquestionedlegacyofthetradi-
tionalreasoningtheFrenchschoolhasadoptedinsemiotics,especiallyfromAlgirdas
JulienGreimas.Thecontrastingprincipleseemstoclarifythebifurcationthatmay
occurinacontinuumwheresuddenlytwocoexistingentitiesdifferentiatefromeach
other. Yet, a treatment of the perceptual information arranged in dichotomies may
only be an illustrative exemplification of much richer phenomena where various
differententitiesandqualitiesinteractconcomitantly.Bifurcationisdefinitivelythe
simplestamongthecatastrophesexaminedbyRenéThom.3Moreover,evenanartist
like Paul Klee, balancing opposite elements to study the correspondent weight of
forms, colours, dimensions and positions in the visual field, once the didactic dis-
courseclearedup,feelscompelledtosymbolicallyrefertomoresimultaneousscales
andmeasuretheirconjointdynamism.Itisinfactinthecomplexityofthedynam-
ics that a work of art generally manifests itself, be it a coordinated or conflicting
compositionofmanyentitiesandqualitiesaltogether.
The statement that the field is the “first visual organisable percept” (Groupe µ
2015,p.76,owntranslation)shouldbereconsidered,inmyopinion,inthesenseof
asimplifyingideanotimplyinganychronologicalormorphologicalpriorityinthe
constructionofthevisualexperience.Theclassicaltrendtoputorderintothelogicsof
perception,remnantofalongstandingdispositiontodecomposegrammaticallyplans
andcomponentsofaworkofart,revealsnotonlytobefallaciousbutprecariously
inconsistentwiththespace-timethattheaestheticphenomenoncontributestocreate.
Similarly,asregards thelimitsoftheartisticobject,even thoughstandardformats
habituallyorienttheperceiver,it’stheworkofartitselfinrelationwiththebeholder
thatdefinesitsextent,borders,matter,supportandtheareaoftheperceptualfieldthat
isaddressed.Theanisotropyofthevisualfield,noticedinpsychophysicssincethe
beginningofthetwentiethcentury,4thusmatcheswiththespecificsettingsthework
ofartbringsabout.Likewise,anyelement—beitacolour,aformoraline—isnot
dissociablefromalltherelationshipsithas,alsowithrespecttopersonalsensibility
andexperience.FrancisÉdeline,memberofGroupeµ,hasthoroughlyanalysedthe
semiotic potential of a line in its various features (e.g. as a limit, or as a physical
concretion,i.e.atraitinFrench)anddiffereditsvaluesaccordingtotheframework
(cf.Édeline2008).HubertDamischhasgoneevendeeperinhistreatiseontheline,
titledTraitédutrait,examininghowarticulatedcanbethesenseofalinewithrespect
toitssolerelationshipwiththesupport,whateveritmaybe.Thediscriminationthe
line introduces, its departure from and with (“d’avec”) the surface, determinates a
3Subsequentstudies(i.e.VladimirI.Arnold)havealsoindicatedthatRenéThom’scatastrophes
cannotbereducedtohissevenelementarytypesandthatinfinitevariantsshouldbeincludedinthe
mathematicalmodel.Cf.Wildgen(2017).
4Cf.alsoSchapiro(1969).
