Chronosemiotics: art tackles the gap between science and religion
Our relationship with the non-obvious relies on understanding, and then on mentally visualizing or representing that understanding. The most direct way of transmitting it, is through sensory representations which connects to others, rationally, emotionally, or both.
To an extent, this is why art exists: it allows us to abstract and transmit the understanding or the experiences of the “non-obvious”.
Along history, we have attempted many ways of explanations, all of which have been fixed in artistic representations. Notably, religion has defined us with the non-obvious and has given explanations about the essence of what makes us, or of who we are.
Science has revolutionized and redefined not only what these relationships are, but also what the non-obvious is.
Inevitably, it has led to a clash, and to a crisis. It has obliged us to re-think our basic axioms and postulates of, who are we, where do we stand, and where are we going.
A crucial factor is time: change and chronological relationships, causality, and the semiotics of moments. While religion tells us to stand still, sciences oblige us to evolve. Religions, act like a Maxwell demon that removes entropy in an impossible way, while science gets rid of this demon, letting entropy to evolve, thus allowing the arrow of time to emerge.
The conflict, our conflict, resides on how to relate to our past, and what to expect from the future. Religion frames our spirituality on belief, while science abandons it. This is the source of our crisis.
To an extent, art covers this gap. But for most, art is too external, too impersonal. Yet, art is the expression of the non-obvious, and which is nothing but our longing to understand, how we relate with our past, and, with our future.