The General Philosophy
Perhaps the best summary of traditional art was provided by Cennino d’Andrea Cennini (c. 1370 – c. 1440) in Il libro dell’arte [1]. After describing the fall of humankind from grace, he outlines the various occupations taken up by the descendants of Adam and Eve. He then continues (pages 1 – 2):
“Man afterwards pursued many useful occupations, differing from each other; and some were, and are, more theoretical than others; they could not all be alike, since theory is the most worthy. Close to that, man pursued some related to the one which calls for a basis of that [to that as a basis, i.e., theory was the basis], coupled with skill of hand: and this is an occupation known as painting, which calls for imagination, and skill of hand, in order to discover things not seen, hiding themselves under the shadow of natural objects, and to fix them with the hand, presenting to plain sight what does not actually exist. And it justly deserves to be enthroned next to theory, and to be and to be crowned with poetry.”
Cennino’s meaning is clear; painting in his day was an amalgam of philosophy and manual dexterity, of theory and virtuosity.
By the time of Marcel Duchamp (1887 – 1968), artists had begun to chaff at the restrictions imposed by the norms of traditional art. For, they began to discard one of Cennino’s criteria, namely, the indispensability of virtuosity. Instead, artists of the early 20th century magnified the other criterion, that of theory, in order to break free of traditionalist constraints.
In effect, modern artists transmuted themselves in philosophers. Thus in the modern sense, “art” is something created by an artist and designated as such. In turn, an “artist” is a person who has successfully completed an approved course of artistic study. The latter preserves the system of guilds which developed in the Middle Ages.
The consequence is that beauty, aesthetics, balance, etc. were relegated to the status of trivia and the philosophy driving a work of art was elevated to the highest degree.
Traditionalists may disapprove by pointing out that by encroaching onto the bailiwick of philosophers, modernists condemn themselves to be second-rate philosophers. Such a view can only be sustained if a quorum of practicing artists rally to the traditionalists’ colours and it is not for the outsider to judge.
After all, in the words of Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723 – 1792):
“The excellence of every art must consist in the complete accomplishment of its purpose.”
And who would question the right of artists to write their own rules?
Thoughts on the Philosophy of Renaissance Gallery
One way for Renaissance Gallery to distinguish itself is to project a particular philosophy which describes the natural way in which living creatures acquire knowledge. Despite the best efforts of scientists and philosophers, “intelligence” is largely an opaque concept, almost always conflated with the acquisition of information and experience in applying this information.
In fact, a reasonable view is that it is impossible for a living thing to be unintelligent. Simply because the human creature, particularly of the West, appears to have dominated the globe does not make it more intelligent than any other. It simply indicates a mode of behaviour which will culminate with its own extinction. This is the ultimate proof of its stupidity.
Virtually every human society possessed (and possesses) the capacity to produce philosophy, art, mathematics and science. The efforts of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Chinese, Indians and Muslims long preceded those of Westerners but what distinguishes Western science?
To answer this, it is sufficient to examine the practitioners of science in each of these societies. The scientists amongst the Babylonians, Egyptians and Indians were scribes and priests; those in China were imperial civil servants; of the Muslims, they were a part of the ulema (council of the learned) while science among the Greeks was a genteel pursuit.
In the West, by contrast, the sciences because associated with commerce and warfare, in other words, with money and death. Natural avarice and bloodlust caused a steady supply of gold to be put at the service of the sciences, the one feeding the other in an endless cycle. This is the secret of Western success. It is by no means a complicated matter.
The success of a particular manifestation of science does not invalidate the sciences of other societies but there has been a general failure of explanation. Other societies doff their caps to Western science, yet even in the Western tradition, there exists a well-established (now, alas, sadly neglected) philosophy which avers the validity of other scientific enterprises. This is the philosophy of Francis Bacon (1561 – 1623).
Bacon’s method is essentially summarized by Aphorisms 103 – 106 in Book I of the Novum Organum [2]. It involves, in the first place, the systematic collection of facts through well-designed experiments. Such facts are then organized and intermediate axioms or principles abstracted from them (if possible). From these, through many further series of experimentation, untenable axioms are rejected until a body of reliable principles is left.
It will be recognised that this is precisely the manner in which human societies ensure their own survival and prosperity.
Therefore it would be possible for the Renaissance Gallery to adapt Bacon’s philosophy by growing organically, by accommodating the art market as currently constituted but without selling its soul. Following Bacon, Renaissance should lay the foundations with NFTs and the find a way to move into an intermediate stage with physical art and then finally arrive at a stage to dominate its chosen sector.
The NFT site, marketplace, the choice of blockchain, etc. should follow the same pattern. More that than this, the Gallery could also be open about its philosophy: that it is not just about selling art (a mercantile effort) but to establish a mode of operation which the West itself has lost. I believe this will strike a chord with a great many people.
References
[1] Cennini, C. d’A., Thompson, D. V. (translator), Il libro dell’arte, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1933.
[2] https://pyrrhonist.substack.com/p/amazing-blind-duellists-of-new-zealand