The identity of art

Abstract

At the beginning of the 20th century there was a distinction between classical physical knowledge and quantum physical knowledge. With special relativity (space-time and the equating of energy and matter), classical physics culminates; and with the Planck quan- tizetion, a new physics begins, with strange syntheses without identity: transprobability. But, in 1915, an even deeper distinction appea- red, that of self-knowledge (which encompa- sses the classical and quantum), and improper knowledge. It all started when, in Einstein's general relativity, it was not clear that the sacred principle of the conservation of energy was fulfilled. Hilbert claimed (his famous Behauptung) that it was improper knowledge; but he couldn't explain why. It was the mathematician Emmy Noether, an expert in invariants, who, with her two theorems from 1918, explained the radical difference between proper knowledge (conservation of energy, of linear and angular moments, of "charges" ...), and improper knowledge (second theorem). But the deeper reason for improper conservation, which Noether found in Lie's non-enumerable infinity groups, finds itself in theintentionalfield of renewed phenomeno- logy. We find it when the intentional field is crossed not "from the top down" (the movement of the least action), but "from the bottom up": the simple invariance without attention to movement. And there we find the surprising identity of art,different fromthe identity of science. Art is an improper, strong and all-encompassing form of knowledge.