Do I believe in the supernatural? Yes, if by supernatural one means that which exists, but cannot be empirically verified. My subjective experience of the natural world is not verifiable, yet I know it exists. For example, a scientist could show that light of a blue wavelength was hitting my retina, that it was functioning properly by sending that information to my brain, and that my brain showed activity in specific areas, but she could not demonstrate that “I” existed or that I was experiencing the color blue. It is the subjective experience that escapes empirical detection because it is a different kind of thing, not part of the natural world–it is supernatural. The term “supernatural” may also be applied to ideas about the natural world. Where does the mathematical concept of a triangle exist? Without location, there can be no empirical measurement and no verifiable existence.
Can the supernatural arise from the natural as an emergent quality? I don’t know. It would seem unlikely since experience seems to be outside the causality of the natural world (or else it could be measured), yet it might be caused by something in the natural world because the only place I know of where the supernatural exists is in relation to a physical being, namely my body.
I do know that Art addresses, or ought to address the supernatural. I have previously argued that Art deals with beauty, and that anything that does not deal with beauty is not Art; it may have great social value or might make a fine philosophical point, but it is not Art. The term “beauty” of course can be applied to the purely natural, e.g., a beautiful diamond, but the beauty that Art is concerned with is supernatural. This is what distinguishes pornography from a Greek nude; the first is concerned only with a person’s body and its mechanical functioning; the latter is concerned with the person as supernatural being without the weight of materiality; the male or female “ideal” form that later evolved into the Christian idea of the person as a divinely important being.
To create and respond to Art is a supernatural exchange between supernatural beings. I am not claiming more than I must; I’m not speaking of ghosts, goblins or poltergeists. But Art is a kind of bridge between the natural and supernatural; a way of communicating the supernatural to the supernatural via the natural. For example, my images try to capture the supernatural aspect of the subject (physically reflecting the photons of light that are captured by the sensor in my camera) by the imposition of my viewpoint on it.
No. 54: The Supernatural in Art (Part 1)
Do I believe in the supernatural? Yes, if by supernatural one means that which exists, but cannot be empirically verified. My subjective experience of the natural world is not verifiable, yet I know it exists. For example, a scientist could show that light of a blue wavelength was hitting my retina, that it was functioning properly by sending that information to my brain, and that my brain showed activity in specific areas, but she could not demonstrate that “I” existed or that I was experiencing the color blue. It is the subjective experience that escapes empirical detection because it is a different kind of thing, not part of the natural world–it is supernatural. The term “supernatural” may also be applied to ideas about the natural world. Where does the mathematical concept of a triangle exist? Without location, there can be no empirical measurement and no verifiable existence.
Can the supernatural arise from the natural as an emergent quality? I don’t know. It would seem unlikely since experience seems to be outside the causality of the natural world (or else it could be measured), yet it might be caused by something in the natural world because the only place I know of where the supernatural exists is in relation to a physical being, namely my body.
I do know that Art addresses, or ought to address the supernatural. I have previously argued that Art deals with beauty, and that anything that does not deal with beauty is not Art; it may have great social value or might make a fine philosophical point, but it is not Art. The term “beauty” of course can be applied to the purely natural, e.g., a beautiful diamond, but the beauty that Art is concerned with is supernatural. This is what distinguishes pornography from a Greek nude; the first is concerned only with a person’s body and its mechanical functioning; the latter is concerned with the person as supernatural being without the weight of materiality; the male or female “ideal” form that later evolved into the Christian idea of the person as a divinely important being.
To create and respond to Art is a supernatural exchange between supernatural beings. I am not claiming more than I must; I’m not speaking of ghosts, goblins or poltergeists. But Art is a kind of bridge between the natural and supernatural; a way of communicating the supernatural to the supernatural via the natural. For example, my images try to capture the supernatural aspect of the subject (physically reflecting the photons of light that are captured by the sensor in my camera) by the imposition of my viewpoint on it.