Fluidism: A Painting Technique and Kindred Cosmology
by
Robert Kernodle
As an artist, I have come to realize a parallel between my latest style
of painting and a style of thinking happening at the fringes of science. “Fluidism” denotes
the particular painting style, while “superfluid
model of space” denotes the particular thinking style. The superfluid
model of space seems to be a perfect conceptual partner for fluidism,
further defining and grounding this painting style within a new world view.
Given advancing technology’s effect on the very concept of art, and
given a history of painting that some thinkers say has exhausted the medium,
another article about painting might seem antiquated before it hits the
page. On the other hand, consider human
biological structure related to its fundamental fluid nature, over a time span
where this biological structure has not changed considerably. Then painting (as expression of fluid being)
appears to be too basic to eradicate.
Even more, painting as an art form seems persistent in new contexts,
which contexts themselves reorient and refurbish it in what some might call a transhumanist world.1
Technique
Imagine manipulating very shallow pools of colored liquid paint. Place these colored pools on a flat rigid
surface, then move the surface by tilting, shaking, tapping, or using a
combination of these actions. Experiment
with the pools on thought-out backgrounds, or let everything happen at
once. Also propel colored liquid through
the air, and (when motivated) add formal shapes later. The only guiding rule is to discover what
feels interesting, beautiful or pleasing, knowing already that designs are
predetermined in the molecules, geometry and mechanics of fluid flow.
This is “fluidism”—an
intense and exciting physical process that produces a particular style of
painting. Fluidism
is on-the-edge creativity where reality is born unexpectedly. Calculation cooperates with chance. Wild and refined actions unite. Chaos and control combine into unpredictable,
one-of-a-kind compositions.
Action Painting
Readers, no doubt, will make a comparison with Jackson Pollock
(1912-1956), 20th century American painter who epitomizes the Action
Painting school of the 1940’s and 1960”s.2 Fluidism, however,
does not aim to mimic, honor or aspire to any predefined idea of “action
painting”. Instead, fluidism
has arisen of its own accord, on principles, motivations and circumstances
originally not connected to this historical movement. Further, one might venture, fluidism could better ground previous styles of this sort—
it could serve as the broader philosophy.
Fluidism has a distinctive allegiance to a physics-oriented
sense of fluid flow and turbulence.
Rather than appeal to abstract, emotional expressive states of the
artist, it appeals to a fundamental dynamic of the universe. This fundamental dynamic of universe then
registers as emotion. This dynamic
exists in a greater cosmic ocean and comes into unique focus locally through fluidism painting compositions.
The sense here is more that universe finds expression through artist,
rather than artist intentionally expressing his own impression of it. In other words, the artist does not “own” his
impression. Rather, the dynamics of
reality allow it unavoidably through a motion of medium reflecting the most
primal creative principle of all. Fluidism, thus, is a direct expression of the primal
creative principle. It is the primal
principle’s “voice” via the artist. The principle
expresses itself.
Fluid paint, manipulated by the artist, reflects fluid nature
manipulating itself into inevitable self-similar structures. Think of it this way: If fluid paint could last through eons of
evolution, then the form of the artist himself would arise from it as an
emergent complex structure. In the
mortal realm and chemical restraints of paint, however, the artist sees only a
raw early stage of the process. He sees
the curious primitive patterns that are his precursors. A blob that he sees eventually might lead to
a cell. A filament that he notices
eventually might lead to a tail or leg or arm.
A vortex that he observes eventually might lead to a beating heart. All these primitive structures (blob,
filament, vortex) exist in fluid flow. All these primitive structures exist and move
within the highly liquid human body, now contained in their higher-organized
arrangements and relationships. A human
body toying with fluid, thus, is a human body experimenting with the forms and
forces of its own physical creation.
Mathematical Chaos
Pollock again seems like the most obvious famous painter in strong
accord with this liquidity of physical existence. His statement, “I am nature”, echoes a more
profound truth than his contemporaries could have known at the time.3 In
2002, this truth came to light in a paper published by physicist Richard
Taylor, along with Adam Micolich and David Jonas,
where they announce: “. . . it was not
until 1999 that we, the current authors, identified the defining visual
character of his [Pollock’s] patterns as
fractal— bearing the
‘fingerprint’ of nature’s patterns”.4
Such has been the independent qualitative discovery in my fluidism style.
Emergent, aesthetically compelling patterns arise in the action of
jostling thin liquid paint films. Unlike
Pollock, whose liquid assemblages relied primarily on trajectories of fluid
falling (through the air) onto a flat background, I rely primarily on a flat
pool within which collisions and trajectories are generated (inside the pool
itself). Whereas Pollock might be called
a “drip painter”, I might be called a “pool painter”. Whereas Pollock orchestrated his individual
trajectories, I orchestrate the inner workings of a mass spill. Sometimes, as mentioned previously, I further
respond to these orchestrated spills by adding formal geometric elements at a
later stage. In a sense, it is the chaos
that reveals a particular ground for complementary Euclidian control.
Generally, the knowledge of fractal geometry can be applied to fluid
flow. As one source states: “Most physicists who study chaos do so with
carefully controlled laboratory setups of turbulent fluid flow . . . .
Mathematical physics has a particular interest in nonlinear fractals”.5 Here I should make a distinction between
pristine fractals generated by computers and natural fractals found in the
everyday world. The latter are described
as “randomly scale symmetric” as opposed to “exactly scale symmetric”. Furthermore, it is the randomly scale
symmetric variety that I claim manifest in my compositions.
Being chiefly a visual artist, however, I do not observe my fluid
manipulations through rigorous mathematical formalism. Instead, I respond innately (as did Pollock)
to the embedded geometry that such formalism might reveal, in fact. I stress again that an appeal to abstract
emotionalism is not the justification for my art. My appeal is to the inherent order,
predetermined in the physical substrate of fluids. Emotional response to these emergent patterns
is a primitive mathematical awareness of extremely complex order. Stated bluntly, emotion does the math before
logic.
Liquidity in History
Some readers might compare fluidism to various
marbling techniques. Marbling, of course,
involves floating pigment on water and lifting off the random patterns with a
sheet of paper. Fluidism,
however, skips the paper transfer, instead preserving actual original fluid
structure, additionally undisturbed in the least by marbling blotting
procedure. Furthermore, fluidism hails as more than a decorative painting
technique. It brings to light a
foundation of understanding for the fascination with such a practice, to begin
with.
The origin of marbling goes back to China, over 2000 years ago, where it
appears in sacred practices of Shinto priests.6 Priests dripped ink on calm water,
transferred resulting concentric-circle patterns to rice paper, inscribed this
with prayers, presented it to an emperor who burned it in a ceremony, supposedly
carrying the prayers throughout the universe.
Here there was a sense of the power of fluidity to move the cosmos. In a similar sense, fluidism
hearkens back to this sacredness by reconnecting flowing pigments to feelings
about cosmological significance.
Marbling spread from its origin in
century as “suminagashi” (floating ink). The Western tradition of paper marbling was
discovered independently in the old
Until now, my personal interest in the art of flowing paint has
developed independently of this knowledge.
I am pleased, no less, to find myself in the company of such notable
predecessors. The fascination for
flowing colors in the arts, which spans various centuries and cultures
(subsiding and reappearing in different guises) speaks to a profound world
view, or to the possibility thereof. My
venture is to help bring this world view to clear focus.
I sometimes subtitle my fluidism style “the
art of liquid flow”, but I allow all previous similar styles under this
description as well (from ancient Shinto priests to Jackson Pollock to others
in the modern day).8 All
these artists have a distinct common sensitivity to nature’s way. If I echo Taoism here, then the reason is
that Taoism’s chief metaphor also seems to be fluidity.9 Rather than focusing on any single spiritual
philosophy, however, I consider the material upon which the spiritual seems to
be modeled. More precisely, I consider
the material state serving as the strongest analogy for the spiritual
condition.
Of the four ancient Greek elements (air, fire, water, earth), three are
properly considered a fluid state, while the fourth is saturated with fluid.10 Thales (624-548 BC)
saw water as the main element: “. . .
the fire of the sun and stars itself, and the whole cosmos, are nourished by
the exhalations of water”.11
By contrast, Anaximenes (585-525 BC) favored
air, while Heraclitus (544-483 BC) favored fire as
the primal element of nature. Go back
even farther in history, and notice that in
Fluid Reality
All this seems less surprising, given that 70% of Earth’s surface
consists of water,
60-65% of the human body consists of water; the elements hydrogen and oxygen (first and third most abundant
elements in the known universe) comprise water; water pervades every region of the atmosphere, and life as we
know it is impossible without water.13 In short, tangible, understandable reality
depends largely on water or a fluid state.
Little wonder, then, that such a sense of awe, respect or fascination
should surround fluid dynamic behavior.
Little wonder too that art of liquid flow might allow for a most
straightforward expression of fluid being.
Remembering now that modern mathematics has revealed extremely complex
order in fluid dynamic behavior, we might fancy that science somehow can marry
with spirituality or, at least, better explain why we humans experience such
feelings of awe in our existence.
Perhaps such feelings of awe are a rough form of math— a precursor
“calculation” that emotion performs before higher logic defines it. Clearly, geometry seems to underlie our
fascination with fluid flow patterns. Or
perhaps fascination is the truer measure of knowing, of which formal geometry
is but a mere approximation. Approached
either way, fluid dynamic behavior seems preeminently fundamental to reality or
to human perception of reality.14
Nonetheless, Western science veered towards the solid bias of atomism—
the doctrine that all things are composed of a smallest particle. Even while important thinkers postulated the
basic fluid nature of physical reality, other thinkers with a competing point
of view made a strong case too.
Eventually, their thinking dominated over the fluid-view thinkers.15 In going this
route, the dominant paradigm of modern science might have underplayed its
rival. Interestingly,
just as the art of marbling was almost lost at the beginning of the 20th
century, so too was the idea of a basic medium of reality. By “lost”, I mean lost from serious
consideration.
Recently I have been impressed by the number of “fluid-biased”
hypotheses available for reference on the internet. Despite the strength of modern scientific
particle-biased views,
there are disciplined thinkers within and on the fringes of respected science
who continue to insist on the primacy of a fluid-dynamic paradigm. As an artist whose instinctive leaning has
been towards patterns formed in flowing liquids, I cannot help feeling an
allegiance to such thinkers. In view of the
cross-cultural and historical sensitivity of humanity to liquidity in nature,
and in view of the tangible, compositional, incontrovertible presence of
liquidity in all human spheres, I cannot ignore such thinkers as mere
cranks. From a tiny accident in my
kitchen sink, I have evolved a full-blown cosmological perspective that resonates
unmistakably with these thinkers.
Neo-Fluid World View
The various proponents of fluid hypotheses agree that the nature of
space and space itself is not a void or nothingness, but consists of fine
energy-substance.16 Modern physical theories, by contrast,
often have alluded to space as a fabric or more rigid substrate, if a substrate
is acknowledged at all.17
Einstein’s general theory of relativity seems confusing in this respect,
because it both seems to acknowledge space as a malleable thing and then
forbids its being a ponderable medium. Juan Calsiano
discusses this at greater length in his paper, “A Case for a Fluid Space”.18 Calsiano notes
Einstein’s original belief in a medium underlying all things, eventually
abandoned in favor of a technically elegant (although causally confusing)
mathematical formalism. Quantum
mechanics, science’s other great foundational pillar, defies causal
understanding even more by taking a position that science’s place is not to
posit what reality might be. Calsiano, however, points out the captivating similarity
between quantum mechanical and fluid dynamic equations.
Other individuals follow suit.
Barry Baily, in his “The Superfluid
Model”, considers space-time and energy as two superfluids
that do not mix. According to his
hypothesis: “All physical properties
emerge as scalar bubble interactions determined by surface tension”.19 Notice
the uncanny similarity between Baily’s two superfluids and
the ancient Assyro-Babylonian twin waters. On a more esoteric and mystical front, David Wilcock recalls an ancient twin aether
theory, also bearing striking resemblance to Baily’s
more modern mathematical treatment.20
William Hamilton
cross-disciplinary resource where he
highlights additional individuals with a fluid dynamic focus, including: Ross Tessien, Jeff Shifman, Barry C. Mingst, and Dr.
Allen Rothwell.23
Possibly the most impressive case for a fluid dynamic world-view is made
by philosopher/artist Joel Morrison, who has developed an extensive website
dedicated to a little-known, highly-developed theory by Gerald I. Lebau.24
Morrison further develops this physical
theory using his expertise in the most modern metaphysics. Briefly, he summarizes:
This theory is a
purely causal, fluid-dynamic unified field foundational-level replacement for
the current kinetic-atomic-theory-based model of physics. It unifies the “fundamental forces of nature”
through the concept of a continuous, ubiquitous, compressible, material fluid
whose complex fluid-dynamic harmonically-stabilized “wave nature” actions form
all tangible matter and energy. In
unifying the “fundamental forces of nature”, all of the mysteries of current
physics are thus dissolved and explained by the foundation-level fluid-dynamic
mechanisms of basic matter.25
Two additional thinkers deserve mention here, since they supply
authoritative material linking the fractal structure of fluid flow to the
fractal structure of the universe. These
individuals are: geologist Robert L. Oldershaw, an independent researcher in the field of
cosmology who for twenty-five years has worked on a model referred to as the
Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm,26 and theoretical physicist Anup
Rej who has conceptualized, written a book and
numerous articles about a model referred to a the Multifractal
Universe.27 Oldershaw points out that modern astrophysicists portray
themselves to general readers as bastions of confidence, whereas at the working
level of specialists, critical issues are debated heatedly in professional
journals. As Morrison confirms, preference
for a given model grows from a complicated relationship between approved
evidence, peer review, research goals, funding politics, and the speed at which
society’s infrastructure is able to shape around new information or
perspectives.
Today the quantity and speed of information transfer is staggering. Consequently, where to draw a line between
legitimate and laughable theories admittedly seems difficult for
non-specialists to determine. A
sufficient span of time, however, reveals a convergence of ideas from different
areas and eras towards a singular direction.
In modern times, that direction has been towards finite solids in empty
space or abstract mathematical spaces.
Undoubtedly, a competing preference is bubbling under this mainstream,
and how ironic indeed that the word “mainstream” itself alludes to fluidity.
I count myself as another eddy of this undercurrent, since I find hope
for greater shared understanding in Morrison’s philosophical enhancement of Lebau’s fluid-dynamic model. Essentially, this works out to be an
interleaving of seemingly separate ideas where no one idea stands as
absolute. Accordingly, liquidity reveals
itself to be cells of varying solidity, which cells themselves resolve into
even smaller liquid seas of still smaller varyingly-solid cells, and so on
indefinitely.
Atoms stream together to become water molecules, which stream together
to become water droplets, then clouds, raindrops, rivers, oceans, a
planet. Cosmic plasma streams together
to become individual stars, which stream together to become star systems,
galaxies, oceans of galaxies, so on indefinitely. At critical points, human perception seems to
end, but faith in what is perceivable leads us to believe that there is no end
to this simple rule. Universe is
infinite and eternal, forever and forever now a vast unceasing flow.
Closing
Why should a visual artist concern himself with such things? Why not merely make paintings and allow them
their pristine viewing, uncluttered by so many presumptive words? I would answer that a painting is always more
than the eye’s view. It has roots and
tendrils into every other sensation. It
germinates from every other area of culture.
In a way, it floats on all these other areas. Yes, a painting is like a water plant with a
tangle of growth below the calm surface.
Usually best appreciated when left undisturbed, it occasionally can
tolerate a more probing look at its undergrowth. In this regard, I agree with American Arts
publisher, James Cooper: “A
talent for creating beautiful shapes and colors is nothing in itself, if it is
not wedded to a deeper purpose”.28
Endnotes
1. Here
the term “transhuman” describes a world where human
beings exceed their current limits by means of bio-engineering, by designing
super-intelligent machines, and by enabling their own eventual extinction via
technology-accelerated evolution.
2.
“Action Painting”, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_painting).
3.
Richard P. Taylor, Adam P. Micolich, David
Jonas, “The Construction of Jackson Pollock’s Fractal Drip Paintings”, Leonardo, 2002, vol
36 issue 2, p 203-207.
Online summary
available at Ivar Peterson, “Jackson Pollock’s
Fractals”, Math Treck
(http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_9_20_99.html).
4.
Fractals are a class of complex geometrical shapes that commonly exhibit
the property of self-similarity, such that a small portion of it can be viewed
as a reduced scale or replica of the whole.
They are capable of describing spatially uniform phenomena in nature
that cannot be accommodated by Euclidian geometry.
5.
“Fractal Geometry” [article cited from Grolier Encyclopedia], Fractals
by Vickie,
6. Segami (http://www.segami.com/suminagashi.htm).
7. Suminagashi: The Ancient Art of Japanese Marbling (http://www.suminagashi.com/).
8.
For modern-day artists, see for example:
“Roxanne
Regan-Briggs Gallery and Profile Page”, Abstract
Earth Gallery (http://www.abstractearth.com/artist_bio.asp?artist_id=91).
“Artist Leo De Goede
Gallery Page”, Paul Kasmin
Gallery (http://www.paulkasmingallery.com/artists/LeoDeGoede/works.htm.).
“Ella Sipho’s
Premier Artist Portfolio”, Artists Portfolios
(http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/s/sipho).
9. Ray Walder, A Little on Taoism and the Problem of Good
and Evil (http://www.exploretaoism.com/Goodevil.htm).
10.
The National Academies, U.S. National Committee on Theoretical and
Applied Mechanics, The National Academy of Sciences, Research Trends in Fluid Dynamics (http://www7.national-academies.org/usnctam/Fluid_Dynamics.html).
11. Pete Brown, The Ancient Greeks & Nature (http://www.mountainman.com.au/ancients.html).
12.
Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe, “Water and the
Sacred”, Sacred Places (http://witcombe.sbc.edu/sacredplaces/water.html).
13. Witcombe, H2O
– The Mystery, Art and Science of Water (http://witcombe.sbc.edu/water/participants.html).
14.
See, for example, a very mathematical treatment of fluid turbulence in:
A.M. Selvan in
collaboration with S. Fadnavis, Theory of Everything for Chaos, Quantum Mechanics and Gravity
Applicable to Weather Patterns, 2.3 Turbulent (chaotic) Fluctuations and Selfsimilar Structure Formation (http://www.geocities.com/amselvam/).
15.
“Atomism”, Wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomism).
16.
William Hamilton
17.
The most cutting edge hypotheses currently in favor portray space as
anything from strings to membranes to foams, loops or spin networks.
18. Juan Calsiano, A Case for a Fluid Space (http://www.aethernitatis.net/articles/index.html).
19. Barry Baily, The Superfluid
Model (http://www.freewebs.com/superfluid/index.htm).
20.
David Wilcock, “Chapter Six: The Universal Heartbeat”, The Divine Cosmos (http://ascension2000.com/DivineCosmos/).
21.
22.
Henry H. Lindner, Flowing Space
over Relativity (http://www.geocities.com/hlindner1/Writings/Draft/Physess2001.htm).
23.
Brown, Theories of the Aether (http://www.mountainman.com.au/aether.html).
24.
Joel Morrison, “Sorce Theory”, Anpheon.org (http://anpheon.org/).
25. subtillioN [screen name for Joel
Morrison], “The Sorce Theory of Matter, at Ray Kurzweil, editor-in-chief, KurzweilAI.net Mind-Exchange [an open forum focusing on emerging
trends in technology and related fields] (http://www.kurzweilai.net/mindx/frame.html?main=/mindx/show_thread.php?rootID=13620).
26.
Robert L. Oldershaw, Fractal Cosmology (http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/menu.html).
27. Anup Rej, Multifractal Universe (http://worldmultimedia.biz/Science/).
28.
James F. Cooper, “Letters”, American
Arts Quarterly, winter 2006, vol 23 number 1, p
57.