The problem facing the individual who looks at a painting, hears a composition, or is forced, by his friend who mimics an appreciation for performance art, to endure a three hour recitation of a “protorealistic tour de force” entitled “readings from the New York Municipal Phone Directory: Be-Br” is simply, “Is this good?” Posed alternately, the question is “Am I wrong for thinking this is crap somebody just made up?” Upon the completion of my work, the quantification of artistic merit (towards which my present funding is only a pre-inquiry) no one will need to think about these things. In the same way one never questions the precise origins of the middle-aged tennis instructor sporting a club foot and dressed as a school boy that was sent to your room by the escort service at the Hotel Caravaggio, one need never wonder about such trifling matters as the artist's intent, the events which drove him to paint such a scene, or the compounds which poisoned his blood stream as his hands trembled near the canvas.
In the glorious age which will follow the dynamic analysis of artistic merit 1, a person will be able to march right into his neighborhood purveyor of all things lovely and state simply, “Give me a painting. Something between a 7 and an 8. I am willing to pay for it.” The gallery folk will consult their tables, check the database, and produce a piece from inventory that has been certified and marked clearly in the register “~7.5”. I referred to this in my submitted proposals as “transforming the whole of art into a functional space—effectively mapping the highest of human pursuits, bijectively, onto the space of real numbers.”
1The gradual, but complete, birth of this numeric codification of the arts will be referred to alternately as artistic revolution, aesthetic precession and eventually, poethetic nutation .