Art seeing is shape seeing

Seeing art is seeing shape.
The image on retina is solely responsible for pleasure of seeing shape.
The retinal image is two dimensional and nobody bothers a photograph not being the real object.
Photographs of architecture is not three dimension but still enjoyable to see them as architecture.
As we can see it from many angles,the photographs can be taken from many angles.
Three dimensional art is replaceable for many single two dimensional views.
This is what the retina is doing.

Decades ago I went to see some Gothic cathedral just to be disappointed.
The main reason is that I could not find any good shots of view
 as I expected.
I realized that the photographs in the book of the cathedral are well  taken with much effort beyond the capacity of unprepared tourist.
Architecture is the mixture of functional part and artistic part which must be discovered.
To see an object, we may walk around it but to see its shape we have to stop and fasten the sight.
The image must be static in order to see it's geometric characteristics.

Unless each viewer sees exactly the same image, sound art theory can not be established.
This may be the meaning of Kant's comment that art of garden is painting.
Vasari considered that painting is the major art of the three arts: painting;sculpture; architecture.

Even binocular vision may be problem to see shape.
An art student closes one eye to see the proportion of a model ,
and the proportion is the well known characteristic of shape to give us pleasure of seeing.
There is no wonder all the stereoscopic device failed to maintain the initial popularity.

Art seeing is monocular.
A bower bird has two eyes each on the side.
He makes an ornamented garden to attract female birds.
He must be able to enjoy his garden with one eye only.
I used to know one eyed artist in London and I believe that he has no problem to see things artistically.

It is possible that organism developed the visual sense organ with pleasure sensation before  monocular organ became binocular
 and that the binocular organ was preserved for the convenience of catching food.
The capacity  of seeing shape with pleasant sensation can be very primitive.

Digital image art theory

Everything we see is projected on retina.
On this retinal image level a unified art theory can be established.
Digital image is the model of the retinal image in the theory.
The image is shape whose geometrical characteristics are responsible for sensory pleasure.
All  shapes constitute a structural system.
As the  system is timeless and not cultural,this art theory is timeless and not cultural.

Whenever I find an unusual wild flower (=natural object) I try to search it  online not only for knowing the name but for collecting the digital image (=artifact).
I collect images as music lovers do musical reproduction (=artifact).

The original art works (=fine art) we can see in our life time are only a fraction even if we spend all free time for it.
My collection of images consists of picture books (=artifact) and of digital images.
I want possess an image in order to enjoy it repeatedly because the enjoyment lasts only the moment of seeing.
Art seeing is pure sensing like tasting.
The pleasure of seeing any thing is the same type of sensory enjoyment for me.

The common denominator of all objects I see is the shape.
I extend the idea of art work as any visibly interesting object.
Art theory must be about natural object which includes artifact, which includes applied art, which includes fine art.

The original painting by Rubens is fine art and the print based on the painting is applied art.
What I see daily are the reproductions of the painting and of the print.
They are neither fine art nor applied art but artifact.
Though I collected mostly printed reproductions, digital images started to appear as collectible.

Reproduction was practically print work in the late twentieth century and now digital image is surpassing it.
Reproduction and digital image took over the original in daily life, replacing fine art.

Let me take an example of Picasso in my life.
Until 1990 my new collection of Picasso was mostly cutout pages of auctioneers catalogues.
In 90's I obtained the Picasso Project.
Now I mostly see a Picasso on On-line Picasso.

The small size of the digital image is minor problem for me as long as the shape is clearly seen.
Imagine that we see some figure at a distance when we are getting close to it.
We know we are seeing the same thing in spite of enlarging size, which suggests that the real size is not important characteristics of shape.

I may get several reproduction of the same picture.
They are printed in different color.
Which one is much similar to the original is not the point for me.
The important thing is that the new reproduction gives me different pleasure.
I have several reproductions of the same Matisse.

I occasionally found an upside down reproduction  which is interesting.
In the theory the maker is disregarded.
Only the image matters.

The quality of digital image has reached fully enjoyable state.
Being an original art work or the digital image is the same as being a book or digital book; being a live music or DVD.
It is likely that digital image is the medium of twenty first century art.
The consequence is that museum, commercial galleries and art schools are obsolete.
Art as digital image can be appreciated and studied by anybody anywhere anytime.
With more people involved, the study and creation of art will make progress.