Introduction
In his 2004 essay Art and Theory on Preposterous Universe, physicist and philosopher Sean Carroll’s reflection on Emile de Antonio’s documentary Painters Painting (1972) struck me as a rare and invigorating moment in academic discourse, where the rigor of physics was brought into dialogue with the phenomenological depth of art; encountering this interplay was deeply pleasing, as it underscored the necessity for artists to engage with scientific thought not merely as metaphor but as a way of grappling with the structures of reality itself, reminding us that phenomenology and physics together can enrich artistic practice by grounding it both in the material laws of the universe and in the lived experience of perception, thereby opening a space where art becomes a form of theorizing about existence.
The essay highlights a tension: artists are
brilliant at practice and phenomenology, but often vague when articulating
theory.
"This critique raises a provocative question: Can art
theory be grounded in a fundamental principle, rather than remaining a
collection of personal rules of thumb? Furthermore, are painters truly terrible
theorists, or is he correct about me—a painter with forty years of
experience—who has recently found a physics axiom that transcends and applies
to art theory?"
My Contribution: The Davidson Equation
In my own practice, I have attempted to formalize one
aspect of artistic experience mathematically. I propose the equation:
t₀ → t₀ + Δt
This represents the irreducible delay between perception
and action—the subtle gap that arises whenever one sees a motif and then
attempts to render it. Cézanne, Hockney, Riley, and Merleau‑Ponty all sensed
this delay, but none mathematized it. The Davidson Equation is not a universal
law of art, but a gesture toward coherence: a symbolic shape for what artists
have long described qualitatively.
The Davidson Temporal Reality Hypothesis (DTRH)
Building on this equation, I propose a unifying axiom:
The Present is Unattainable due to the structural necessity
of Δt.
Seen through this lens, the seemingly contradictory
theories of Stella, De Kooning, and Rothko become equally valid strategies for
negotiating the same cognitive reality.
- Incoherence vs.
Contradiction: What Carroll saw as incoherence (e.g., Stella’s smooth
surfaces vs. De Kooning’s expressive brushstrokes) can be reframed as
necessary contradictions, each a response to the temporal barrier of Δt.
- Rules of Thumb
vs. Engineering Feats: Rothko’s approach, far from being a mere
“rule of thumb,” can be understood as a precise cognitive engineering feat
designed to manipulate neural processing. His theory is structurally
accurate about human psychology.
Conclusion
When measured against the cognitive axioms of the DTRH, the
theories of Stella, De Kooning, and Rothko are not incoherent but structurally
sound. They were not poor theorists; they were astute observers of the
subjective temporal barrier that governs all experience.
My hope is that this framework demonstrates one possible
way painters might become better theorists—not by abandoning phenomenology, but
by daring to cross into mathematics. Carroll’s critique has sharpened my own
understanding, and I offer the Davidson Equation as a modest contribution to
the ongoing dialogue between art and theory.
