Categories
Mindprint the subconscious art code

Introduction to Mindprint, the subconscious art code

In artefacts and artworks, where archaeo astronomers see ancient star maps, archaeologists see cultural traditions, and anthropologists see initiation secrets, appear a standard axial grid of archetypes, always in the same sequence.

[UPDATE 2016: Mindprint demonstrated our individual expression of archetype in art. The book laid the foundation for revealing our innate, subconscious, collective expression of archetypal structure, in buildings, villages, temples complexes, pyramid fields, geoglyphs and cities. Our collective subconscious is revealed in Stoneprint, with 400 pages and 130 illustrations, placing subconscious behaviour in the context of five sciences and several cultural crafts. Visit www.stoneprint.wordpress.com for extracts from this important new book.]

The subconscious art code or human imprint also appears in our eye, hand and body reflexology points, and in cosmology. Constellations are only myth maps, but myth, and therefore constellations, also bear the imprint of the structure of our perception.

All inspired artists, in the Stone, Ice, Bronze and Iron Ages; Babylonians, Egyptians, Chinese, Celts, Mayans, Vikings and moderns, subconsciously express mindprint, our eternal artefact.

The core content of art, myth and culture around the world is identical. Beneath thin layers of flamboyant styling and learning lies a surprisingly standard structure, beyond the conscious control of artists, mystery schools or secret societies.

All inspired artworks containing more than ten figures express a standard, involuntary sequence of types. Artists are not aware that their eye -hand -mind co-ordination expresses a universal structure.

Each figure type is characterised by one or two of its optional attributes and by its relative position. The types are spaced as paired opposites around an irregular ellipse, and precisely anchored to a standard axial structure, hinged on a geometric centre with tri-polar elements.

The structure emerging in the 200 illustrations and in the statistical analysis, is a visual grammar or art code, never before described in art history, archaeology, psychology, esoterica or popular crafts. The book is written as popular archaeology, but it has several implications for academic research.

Archetypes could be labelled in mythical, seasonal or astrological terms, yet none of these sets are origins of archetype. All are equally partial and imperfect expressions of pre-existent, universal structure.

The underlying structure of nature, culture and perception is largely subconscious, not fully verbalised by artists or viewers. Now these subconscious meanings are rendered partially conscious, and accessible by identifying relevant features, and thus types, and by using a list of the average frequencies of occurrences of the features of typology, and using the axial grid structure.

The axial geometric structure in the positioning of the eyes of the sequence of figures is made visible by drawing a set of lines that always cross in one point. This structure is visually disguised by some radial distortion (a sunburst shape); variety of subject and style; and two standard deviations, to a heart as a kind of spiritual eye, and to a womb as a kind of unborn eye.

Visual expression arises from nature, reflexology, and the collective subconscious. Learning, borrowing and idiosyncratic features do not affect the options, nor their average frequencies. The structure of perception and expression, or archetype, is inherent in all forms of figurative arts and crafts, including engravings, murals, frescoes, spiritual, religious, political and portable artefacts, professional and amateur art; and building sites (see http://www.stoneprintjournal.blog). Mindprint in ‘story’ paintings on buffalo skin are among the many indications that archetypal structure also enables myth, legend, perception, and to some extent, events.

The ‘readable’ elements in visual expression reveal a similar structure in myth, literature, cosmology, calendric cycles and nature, confirming the role of what philosophy and psychology describe as archetype.

Myth likewise uses characters differentiated by stock attributes, actions, motivations and episodes, and also expresses natural, social and cultural structure.

Art is less constrained by conscious cognitive processes than myth, which is bound by verbal, acoustic and dramatic grammar. Visual art is more direct, more impulsive, more compulsive to artists and viewers, more layered, and closer to inspiration.

The subconscious imprint, referred to as mindprint, tupos (imprint), art code, human subtext, Furter grid or archetypal art code, is predictive and testable. Practical proof of the persistence and prevalence of mindprint in art is illustrated in 200 of the 400 artworks and rock art works listed in the Index (some of the further 600 demonstrations are posted on this site, and the three related sites).

Major, testable, conceptual, as well as minor attributes of types, each with their average occurrences, invariably marked by the standard axial grid, are listed in Mindprint (2014, Lulu.com), in the Introduction and in the Statistical test chapter.

Type 5 Priest or Aquarius, for example, is varicoloured (44%), horizontal (30%), in active posture (31%), and among the four large chracters (24%) on average in all artworks [the list of known features, and known average frequencies, was extended by new discoveries in Stoneprint, and in editions of Stoneprint Journal, in 2018, and 2019; see extracts on http://www.stoneprintjournal.wordpress.com].

Type 10 Teacher or Libra has an arm or arms in V- or W-shape (53%) and holds a staff (34%) on average in all artworks.

Based on overwhelming statistical and geometric evidence of the collective, universal, subconscious sequence of optional attributes in inspired art, and of the conceptual relationships between the optional elements of each type, the tables of myths, icons, constellations and concepts in this study are proven.

They describe the standard structure of visual expression, as an involuntary art code arising from subconscious inspiration.

Additional variant expressions of each type are also considered, for example type 15 Maker or Gemini as a rope (33%) and/or bag (21%), and/or creator (such as Ptah), and/or smiting (16%), and/or doubled as in the concept of Gemini (8%) [however twins is a feature of type 4 King or Pisces], and/or canine, and/or with a hip wound, and/or in a boat shrine (of minor percentages). Identification of types rises above 90% if these variants (discussed in the Attributes section, Tables and captions) are considered together.

(Excerpt from the Introduction to Mindprint, the subconscious art code, by Edmond Furter, 2014, Lulu.com, 266 pages; 100 pages of context and explanation, 200 illustrations. The book is on mail order from Lulu in the USA at $29 plus $8 postage ($37, about R370), and at presentations in South Africa at R250. Order directly from Lulu, not from other websites that may add their costs to the price.

Categories
Structural art analysis using mindprint

Structural art analysis using mindprint

Here are some examples of structural art analysis using mindprint; a set of sixteen types with their frequent attributes; in their standard sequence; with the eyes of typological figures on an axial grid. All art containing more than eleven characters express this structure, without the conscious knowledge of artists.

Some examples here respond to some comments and queries on posts on http://www.edmondfurter.wordpress.com and on http://www.mindprintart.wordpress.com, and on articles and comments on grahamhancock.com (author of the month September 2015), and on articles in the anthropology magazine Expression (editions 9 and 10, published by Atelier Etno).

Egyptian afterlife

A typical Egyptian afterlife map. Mindprint labelling and axial grid added by Edmond Furter.
A typical Egyptian afterlife map. Mindprint labelling and axial grid added by Edmond Furter.

An example of the standard typological sequence and geometric structure, present in all art of all cultures), in a seasonal, clockwise direction, in formal Egyptian funerary art. Type 7g Galactic Centre between types 7 and 8, here both as hieroglyphic figures, is a canal vortex (see hieroglyphs as figures, also in Babylonian and in Mexican art).

A sand mound formed by water expresses the idea of becoming in Egyptian theology. Giza waterworks, including the Sphinx reservoir (see Robert Temple’s book on the Sphinx) and lower shafts (see Edward Malkowski on gravity pumps) incidentally express the concept of the galactic centre and four galactic corners. Many Egyptian sites had symbolic water features, as in Peru, India, and other parts of the far east.
The sun-in-horizon glyphs at Leo and Cancer, express midsummer, the birds express the celestial pole near Ursa Minor, and their ponds may express summer, perhaps a rare incidence of conscious use of some calendric parts of the subconscious structure of cultural expression. The pegs at Cancer may incidentally express solstice or precession calibrators. Some elements in afterlife scenes, as in duat hour scenes, polar groups, decanal groups, and tree of life groups, are traditional, some are updated, and some are re-arranged by the individual artist. Stock artworks were seldom if ever copied by mechanical means, yet beneath their apparent differences, and beneath their apparent stock elements, is a rigorously identical set of types, in standard sequence, with their eyes on a standard axial grid, and some limb joints in standard polar positions.
The galactic poles are both on the edges or ‘elbow’ banks of akhet horizon hieroglyphs, representing desert hills in a cross-section of the Nile valley. A celestial polar marker on the elbow of an extra, polar type 15 Maker or Gemini, tags the inspiration as Age Aries-Pisces, but his hand tags the earlier Age Aries, and the foot of a benben bird on an obelisk provides for the future Age Aquarius. Artists are not conscious of most of the aspects of the detailed iconographic hologram that they express.

Bull foreleg as Ursa Minor and celestial pole is a semi-conscious symbol

Senmut astronomical ceiling with mindprint analysis added (Furter 2015).
Senmut astronomical ceiling with mindprint analysis added (Furter 2015).

The celestial pole star in the Senmut ceiling is at the hoof of a severed bull foreleg, or ‘poing’ stick skewering some dots, as the Ursa Minor tail, calibrator of recent polar positions. Yet this is not an feat of astronomy, but a feat of semi-conscious structural expression.

The bull leg is speared by an extra type 10 Teacher or Libra, decan Bootes, also with his arms raised. His spear is part of the Ursa Major severed bull foreleg (related to the former spring bull, since it calibrated the precession of the celestial pole, and thus of the summer sun, at the time). The two forelegs are conflated in myth and art, though usually separate constellations.

The polar decan behind the bull leg is a nominal type 15 Maker or Gemini, which is often the rope puller, re-creator, smiter, and ancestor. Gods are not enthroned on the poles, however some polar attributes are transferred to the Taweret group in the lower register, which doubles as the seasonal constellations 14 Mixer or Cancer (eye of crocodile on Taweret’s back); 12/13 Heart or Leo (Taweret’s heart, see the note on ‘eyes’ or lucida below); 11 Womb or Virgo (unseen eye in Taweret’s pregnant womb); 10 Teacher or Libra (eye of a duplicate Bootes with his arms up); 8/9 Healer or Scorpius (eye of a rampant crocodile); 7 Child or Sagittarius (eye of a young crocodile curled up).

The Senmut ceiling has a constellation and seasonal cycle split into two. On the upper register appears the rest of the ecliptic (zodiac) constellations (not ‘signs’, which the decans partly are, hence their perpetual confusion). Some ambiguity here due to some extreme variants in typology, indicate that the upper register may have been designed for the other side-wall of a barrel vault, and was thus inverted and stands in retro sequence.

However they continue the seasonal sequence; Capricornus (eye of a crane); Aquarius (eye of a turtle); Pisces (eye of a boatman); Aries (eye of a hieroglyph, a weak point in the visual expression, however it’s determinative is one star, common for delta Arietis in several decanal calendars); Taurus Perseus (eye of a backwards-looking boatman, identified by seven stars as standing on the Pleiades, and by three stars as adjacent to Orion); Gemini (star on an axe-shape, perhaps Canis Sirius).

Some of the decanal figures, and some hieroglyphs, confirm the identifications.
The axial centre confirms the subconscious spacing (I could not find any reference to any artist or school being aware of the mindprint structure in art).

The polar configuration is not marked by ‘gods’ or archetypal principles, but by structural features, usually limb joints; the galactic pole is on Taweret’s jaw (a frequent polar marker), the galactic south pole is on Pisces’ foot. The moving celestial pole was on Dinwiddie’s rear foot, moved to his front foot, as confirmed by his vertical plane, the other figures’ horizontal plane. The celestial south pole was on his elbow, moved to his front shoulder.

The celestial poles, and thus solstices, here lie in the wide gap between Cancer and Gemini, indicating a broadly Age Aries framework. In subconscious anticipation of moving closer to Age Pisces, and thus to a Gemini pole and summer, the bull foreleg hoof offers a (formerly forthcoming) limb joint marker, opposite Dinwiddie’s hips as a limb joint marker for the celestial south pole.

Art, myth, ritual, and crafts like astrology, all derive from archetype. Culture is sustained and standardised by subconscious expression. I did not design archetype, or this quirky cultural expression of archetypal structure. I merely identify and demonstrate this expression.

Astronomical figures are not primarily zodiac figures, since they are not conventionalised. However their ranges of attributes, their sequence, and their relative positioning are highly standardised, forming a mindprint (Edmond Furter; Mindprint, 2015, lulu.com). Mindprint is not a zodiac, it appears in all cultural media, in all cultures and eras, has never been consciously recognised, and does not evolve.

Some zodiacs or star maps subconsciously express mindprint, while motivated by a mixture of calendric, charting, astronomical, mythical, theological, political, decorative, and other conscious aims.

The decans in the lower register, all with red spheres on their heads, perhaps indicating lunar stations (hours), do not stand for much else, as usual. One of the few decans with blank spheres on their heads, doubles as a second Cancer (its eye is on the same axis as the Cancer crocodile’s eye).

The Senmut types, as in all artworks, confirm one another in five ways;
[] by features (eg raised arms is typical of type 10 Teacher Libra, etc, see the statistics in other posts);
[] and in sequence (eg type 10 Teacher Libra is between type 11 Womb or Virgo, and type 9 Healer or Scorpius);
[] and in axial spacing (eg type 10 is always opposite type 3);
[] and in the exact spacing of their eyes (type 10’s eye is opposite type 3’ eye, with two constant, standard exceptions to the ‘lucida’; type 12/13 Heart or Leo is spaced by his heart in 85% or artworks, and type 11 Womb or Virgo is spaced by her womb 87% of artworks);
[] and in the polar structure, based on limb joints and the horizontal or vertical plane.

[UPDATE 2019: Here is the set of labels used to mark typology characters in artworks or building sites, using generic functions instead of myths, and numbering the c-types to enable the Sort function to place them correctly in the sequence. Pairs of opposites that always appear on the same axis, are given above/below one another;

1Builder 2Builder 2cBasket 3Queen 4King 4p

8Healer 9Healer 9cLid 10Teacher 11Womb 11p

 

5aPriest 5bPriest 5cTail 6Exile 7Child 7g

12Heart 13 Heart 13cHead 14Mixer 15Maker 15g

 

 cp   csp  ?  ?

I tested the Senmut ceiling for the book Stoneprint (initially in response to two queries); for clearly demonstrating that traditional astronomical programmes, commissions, and artists, concentrate on consciously political and theological intentions, and on some semi-conscious symbolic conventions.

Yet the same work clearly expresses the universal structure of culture, perception, and nature, using the same predictive and testable criteria as in the book, and in the article. Mindprint analysis of highly detailed cosmological features, reveals how the assumed unique art for or by the talented commoner social climber Senmut, under queen Hatshepshut, and the assumed unique Egyptian culture, repeats the same tupos (seal or imprint) as the art of all cultures and all ages.

Art demonstrates that the origin of culture is archetypal, not astronomical, astrological, mythical, religious, political, calendric, decorative, incidental, etc. All cultural media play some roles in mutating expressions and styles, but the core content is as hardy as the periodic table of chemistry, of DNA.

Like DNA, even slight changes in some attributes, in sequence, or in spatial positioning of ‘chromosomes or acids’ would be fatal. There are other Egyptian ceiling examples in Mindprint on p175 (Seti 1, and Ramses 6); Egyptian art on pp 204, 205, 210, 215, 217; Egyptian palettes on pp 170, 184; and political murals on p166 etc, Egyptian jewellery on p224, 227.

All complex artworks (containing eleven or more figures, or characters) express the complexities of natural structure in surprisingly minimalistic and ‘innovative’ ways, beyond the conscious capacities of the artists. The same goes for each of the other 200 artworks in the book, and about 543 tested since, from all the known cultures in and before history (see some examples in my article at Graham Hancock’s website, under Author of the Month September 2015, and some discussion in the context of archaeo astronomy).

The same goes for a pseudo-Egyptian painting by an amateur South African artist (Mindprint p189). Artists do not have to be ancient, or Egyptian, or have big and commodified names (many of whom feature in the book), to express archetypal structure in Egyptian style, or in any style.

Styling is pseudo culture. Art, language, ritual and all of culture, is first, foremost, and in the final analysis, structure, clothed and disguised in conformist fads.

I have avoided including zodiac artworks in the book, to escape the apparently ‘logical, common sense’, but false impression that mindprint may be ‘based on the zodiac’. The opposite is true; nature, seasons, ritual, myth, art, emblems, zodiacs, crafts, such as astrology or psychology, and everything cultural, expresses archetypal structure.

None of these media derive from any other, or require the pre-existence of any other, although some cultural media sometimes illustrate the conventions of other cultural media at a conscious level. However all cultural media are subconsciously standardised, and sustained, by compulsive structural expression. We are structural creatures.

Categories
Ice Age art analysis Mindprint art examples Structural art analysis using mindprint

Structural analysis reveals another Ice Age mindprint in Chauvet

Chauvet antelopes, horses, and bovids (Patrick Aventurier /Getty. Mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter). The mental capacity, behaviour, and cultural repertoire at the time was identical to modern humans, despite lacking the population numbers to specialise or civilse in villages.
Chauvet antelopes, horses, and bovids (photo after Patrick Aventurier /Getty. Mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter). The mental capacity, behaviour, and cultural repertoire at the time was identical to modern humans, despite lacking the population numbers to specialise, or civilse in villages.

Application of the structural analysis method named mindprint, published in 2014, reveals the same core content in Ice Age cave art, as in hundreds of examples from every other era, place, and culture in the world. (An introduction to the book follows below some recently added posts).

The latest example of the mindprint structure in a Chauvet cave charcoal panel in France, indicates the same repertoire of perception and cultural expression as in various kinds of art and artefacts, from the Younger Dryas ‘thaw’ at Gobekli Tepe, to Babylonian, Egyptian, European, Indian, Chinese, Australian, African and American art.

Two other Chauvet panels (see below) were earlier found to express a partly interlocking double imprint (Furter 2014; Mindprint p154 and p155, Lulu.com). In all artworks containing eleven or more characters, each one expresses one of the attributes of a type; always in the same sequence; always with their eyes on an axial grid; and always with some limb joints in the centre indicating the time-frame of the work. Artists then, and now, are not aware that they express the structure of perception.

Type labels, and Characters in a Chauvet cave artwork, in the usual peripheral sequence (noting archetypal features):

2 Builder or Taurus; An antelope (bovid, not counted here due to abundance), in a twisting posture (twisting)
2c Basket; Jumble of lines (weave)
3 Queen or Aries; An antelope
4 King or Pisces; Horse (equid)
4p Galactic south pole; Horse shoulder (limb joint)
5a Priest or Aquarius; An antler, large (large)
6 Exile or Capricornus; An antler, nearer the centre (ingress)
7 Chile or Sagittarius; ? (often an indistinct shape. Perhaps damaged).
9 Healer or Scorpius; Bovid, large (large)
10 Teacher or Libra; An antler
11 Womb or Virgo; An antler’s womb (womb)
11 Galactic pole; Hump (limb-joint)
13 Heart or Leo; An antelope heart (heart)
13c Basket Head; Tally marks (texture)
14 Mixer or Cancer; An antelope, far out (egress)
15 Maker or Gemini; An antelope
15g Gate; Chasm in the rock face and ‘landscape’.

The ecliptic pole or axial centre is on a horse hoof (limb joint). The celestial pole is on a horse knee (limb joint), on the vertical plane (orientation) of most of the figures (one of the pairs of edges of the polar triangles are often vertical or horizontal). These polar markers place the summer of the subconscious cosmic structure (which is not a star map) in Virgo-Leo, thus the spring, and the cultural inspiration, in Age Gemini-Taurus, about BC 6400. However the time-frame is usually the Age or transition preceding the era of the work, thus this work was probably made in Age Taurus, when autumn was in Scorpius, and winter in Aquarius (both here on corners of the ocular (eye-to-eye) outline. Age Taurus lasted 40 degrees of precession, twice as long as Age Aries, which lasted 20 degrees, due to its compact borders. Subconscious division of ages does not follow the 30-degree divisions of of zodiac months, although Age Pisces lasted the average, of 30 degrees, or about 2100 years.

All five layers of structural expression (attributes; sequence; ocular grid; polar structure; and relation to preceding or current Age), are subconscious to artists, architects, builders and members of any culture.

The general theme here is probably the season, depicted by moulting of neck hair, and contrary movement.

The stoneprint analysis score is….. about 54% [the scoring format has since been updated, see later posts]. Despite the lack of species diversity, and themes that only paleontologists could spot, this panel demonstrates more than half the features identified (Furter 2014; Mindprint p 84 -87). Additional features of subconscious expression may yet be isolated and tested.

Chauvet cave rhino double panel, left half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).
Chauvet cave rhino double panel, left half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).
Chauvet rhino double panel, right half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).
Chauvet rhino double panel, right half (mindprint labels and axial grid by Edmond Furter).

The presence of two other mindprints in Chauvet cave, and another in Lascaux cave (p150-151), and another in Niaux (p241), and another in Addaura (p240), and in Peche Merle, and relief carvings on two Gobekli Tepe pillars, confirms that pre-civilised cultures operated on the same principles of perception and expression as modern cultures do. The only differences between these ceilings, and cathedrals such as the Sistine Chapel ceiling, is in the scale, time, and budget afforded by empire.

Mindprint is present in all complex art, including modern art (see some of the 200 examples in the book, in other posts on this website, and on http://www.mindprintart.wordpress.com.

  • See an article on structural anthropology in the book WWW, Rock art When, Where, to Whom (2016. Atelier Etno).
  • See an article on http://www.grahamhancock.com under Author of the month, September 2015, on cultural structure.