"...electric technology dethrones the visual sense and restores us to the dominion of synesthesia, and the close inter-involvement of the other senses."

I recently gave a lecture on science as religion. My contention was that science is a belief system like any other and as such it must, by necessity, be challenged. Art is not the negation of belief. It is, however, in its truest sense, the questioning of belief. What I am questioning (and it is not a new question by any means) is the primacy of reason as given in contemporary life, particularly in a secular society where the "miraculous" nature of science has replaced the spiritual with the material. If art cannot successfully challenge the preeminence of scientific materialism and its power of salvation via the machinery of capitalism, then art will (and has) become just one more commodity within the spiritually and morally bankrupt system.

What s this to do with synesthesia and why did the interpenetration of synesthesia with a critique of rationality (the religion of our technological society) seem so necessary? The answer begins with my attempt to discover a concrete definition of rationality and reason. Rationality is defined in Webster's Third as "the quality or state of being rational." Next I looked up rational: "of, relating to, or based on reason." I was beginning to worry about the way these words tended to play off each other.

Clearly all definitions were leading to the main entry of reason: "the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly, sensible, rational ways." One wonders about the obvious: is this the best definition of the fundamental means upon which Western society has been built these last few centuries? If reason is thinking rationally and being rational is based upon reason can we really define either as anything other than the relation between the two? Isn't there a bit of grey area in the "gospel according to reason"?

I think so and the connection to synesthesia points, borrowing a term from Norman O Brown, toward "a way out". Such an answer is found by determining rationalism's opposite as a means of discerning a questioning (and thus an artistic) stance. What is rationalism? Once again according to Webster's: "a theory that the reason is in itself a source of knowledge superior to and independent of sense perceptions..." This seems to define our rational society as superior to and independent of a sensual life experience. I disagree.

Norman O. Brown wrote Life Against Death as an attempt to bring life back to our dying secularized world through a re-awakening of the primacy of the body. Brown believes that salvation requires a return to our primary sensual nature; not a negation but a reintegration of reason as but one aspect of our sensual life. This reintegration is at the heart of synesthesia, defined as a "sensation or image of a sense other than the one being stimulated."

However, I would contend that our senses are being repressed by the dominant position of intellect in Western society. Should our ability to think be enhanced by an ability to truly taste, touch, hear, see and smell, we might possibly engage in a sensual experience without mediation via the intellect. In fact, intellect might be better served when mediated through our senses. Synesthesia would then be no longer perceived as "other" but rather as an integral part of the perception itself.

The necessity of art as a questioning of mind-body dualism that lies at the heart of rationality brings back an urgency too long lacking in contemporary art. If art is to remain an essential part of society (rather than a mere entertainment for those who can afford it), it must regain the detachment necessary to properly criticize that society. Such detachment may prove difficult for an artistic generation with an almost umbilical relationship towards its audience, particularly those with the power to actually purchase works of art. But, then again, there may be anew generation, one not determined by age but by sensibility, who longs for such a reintegration of our sensual nature as a means of critiquing and combating the present nature of society.

The only necessary future of contemporary art is to bring rationalism and the society that worships it to its knees. A prayerful gesture? Perhaps. More importantly it is the position that art take hold of its responsibility by literally bringing the Western World back to its senses.