Abstract painting requires an understanding of color and the meaning of abstract shapes such as circles and squares

◆By this latest art work, I would like to explain the law of translating music into painting.

This work was inspired by "Tibetan Dance," the opening piece in Ryuichi Sakamoto's （坂本龍一）"音楽図鑑（Ongaku Zukan)" which some say is his greatest masterpiece.

Many people may think that I have turned the "impressions and images" that came to mind when I heard Ryuichi Sakamoto's Tibetan Dance into paintings.
No, I did not.

I have never made a painting from the impressions and images I had when I heard the music.

This　art work is a translation of " Tibetan Dance "into painting using the "Common Laws of Music and Painting" that I have discovered.

The finished product is then arranged.

I read in Wikpedia that Mr. Sakamoto was inspired to create this piece by the Tibetan dance.

If I would like to paint an impression that I got from this song, I would create a picture like a this Tibetan folk dance .

I also thought, "Did you have this landscape in mind?" I thought, "I see," but then I reconsidered that I might be right.

I think Mr. Sakamoto had this image in mind, and then he turned it into music.

Furthermore, part of the song leads to the image of a high blue sky with clouds.

It reminded me of Ryuzaburo Umehara's(梅原龍三郎）『北京秋天 Beijing Autumn Sky』。

He wrote　the impression 　when painting this piece ,

"The sky of Beijing at that time was like music!" .

I painted this work about 20 years ago. At the time, translation theory had not yet been established, but I used what I had realized up to that point to translate Ryuichi Sakamoto's "The Last Emperor" into a painting.

What emerged was an image of the Great Wall of China and the Guilin forest.

You have already figured it out, haven't you? All, really all, of the popular music, minus some contemporary music, is always this specific image. They are created using images of real things.

In other words, the assumption that 'music is an abstract image that is not a concrete image' is wrong.　Rather, music is not abstract in this sense.

Almost all abstract painters of the world hardly understand these things.

In other words, most abstract painters somehow create their works by placing colors and lines according to their senses.

So, in many cases, they cannot clearly explain why you painted the points, lines, planes, colors, and matiere of your work the way you did.

Music is not abstract. What if there is an abstract image of the real thing?

According to "The Common Physical Laws of Music and Painting," you found that most songs without lyrics are also figurative paintings, which are whole or part of a concrete landscape, person, or story scene, taken as a pattern.

So it is assumed that the lyricist recalls the image of the song created at the song's destination and translates this into lyrics.

I've heard Yumi and Akiko Yano say.

"I write a song by feeling something like an atmosphere or a sensitivity, and then I ask myself, what does the song want to express in my mind? and then I put a poem on it.

This is exactly what you are referring to, isn't it?

Music is not an abstraction. What if it is an abstract image of a real thing?

If you don't understand that, if you think music is abstract forever, you will never understand the meaning of an abstract image.

Once you understand this, you can recognize that Kandinsky and American Abstract Expressionist paintings are more abstract than music.

Only here can we be clearly aware of the abstract elements of painting, that is, to pursue and explore the various expressive possibilities of color and abstract form.

You must understand the meaning of color and abstract images in your work