Qualifications as a physicist are some of my shortcomings but it doesn't take much to know the 'M' Theory 'from Stephen Hawking's last book about the functioning of the universe. Apparently there is no meaning for the 'M' as to why it was used in the first place, but it's meaning has grown to an enormous size as it now represents all the physics theories, ever expounded, that might account for the proper functioning of everything physical. Accordingly I propose that we have an 'A' Theory to account for all things artistic. Needless to say this theory would be big enough to include my own artwork as a contribution to the main theory, and of course the artwork of all of my artistic friends, and indeed all artists since the beginning of time. It would include the Egyptians and the Sumerians, Michelangelo and Picasso, Henry Moore and Banksy. If we were going to be really generous I think we could also include 'M' Theory itself as a subsection of the 'A' Theory because everyone wonders where physics would be without Art.
Art points out the need for the study of physics. After all most high school students did present some expletive deleted exclamations on that particular point, and loudly too, "why would anyone want to study physics?". From the art point of view, and with art leading the way, the nature of mediums and pigments, the durability of image materials like, for example, canvas and limestone, the tensile strength of brush materials, the composition of water, acid effects on paper, the ultra violet reflectance of various glass compounds, the diatomacious inclusions of fillers, the durability of archival materials, and the wavelengths and colour spectrum of white light, all call out for a sub-study of physics. Where would artists be without that secondary subject contributing to the grand scale of things artistic? I ask you, where would the Periodic Table be without the inclusion of various hues to distinguish its various codings. Where would those atomic numbers and weird valences be withouth the option of a little bit of yellow and blue, or pink and purple? How would you even distinguish between Ag and Au?
Physics is indeed dull without these colourful questions. The sophisticated use of aerial and linear perspective used by artists gives physics not only a reason to live, but also an audience of more than one. How many people for example would be interested in the formula for the speed of a falling object being impeded by a wind force of 7 miles an hour. I figure that would be a total of about one. Probably Stephen Hawking himself. Do you even know the name of another physicist? The great use of colour in aerial perspective in an impressionist work would interest at least half the world, and Canaletto's linear perspective sold artworks to the other half of the world. Enough said! We definitely need an 'A' Theory, as it will provide a comfortable and loving home for 'M' Theory.