An act of creation is an attempt at recreating the world. Every artist is a minidivinity in his or her microdomain. Every microdomain lays claim to being a world. To create a world, however, an artwork has to have capabilities for both reflection and transformation. The world looks back at itself in an artwork that has succeeded in bringing forth some truth about it. For this truth to be perceived, the world of the artwork has to reveal a transformed shape of the actual world. Different aspects of the world (ideas, expressions, states) cohere into unified wholes to bring forth these microcosms of perception and action.

By being an offering of an undivided self, a work brings forth a unified world. In a unified world both form and content are intrinsically intertwined and brought out simultaneously. The more distinction there is between them, the more objectified and fragmented the work is. Any other way of structuring is condemned to formulaic process; the dichotomy between form and content creates an unbridgeable chasm.

While the coherence of form and content may be axiomatic within the confines of a particular aesthetic tradition, it is an altogether different task to create the same strength and unity of vision within new frames of reference. Most tribal art matches its standards to firmly established cultural archetypes. These, in turn, determine a whole variety of aspects: 1) the social role of art (ritual, work, individual, and collective); 2) the psychological profile (what is being expressed and how); 3) the stylistic constraints (how the psychosocial factors manifest in art); and 4) the structures and processes (languages and forms of a particular culture).

Within established archetypal forms there is often a certain amount of rearrangement of the essential elements that mostly give rise to variation. As we glance from one cultural neighborhood to another, it is possible to reduce the great variety of transformed elements to certain skeletal invariants. Similarly, art worlds develop on formal backbones that unify primarily through the variation or static transformation of a limited number of elements. An encounter between two or more cultures gives rise to amalgamations, which then produce new entities capable of structuring new human realities.

Unlike variation and static transformation, synthesis builds on dynamic transformation capable of amalgamating new structures through the introduction of new elements. In its Greek root synthesis means “an action of putting together.” While collage (from the French coller, to glue) simply superposes two diverse structures on the surface level, synthesis melds or merges structures on the deepest, elemental level. To use a scientific analogy, we could say that collage occurs on the biological level of organs or tissues, whereas synthesis occurs on the biochemical or subatomic level.

Most syntheses build in stages. It usually takes long historical periods to crystallize the unique voice of a culture. Some voices may be extraordinarily rich and idiosyncratic yet not easily transplantable. Others may be intrinsically more flexible or provide larger areas of cultural overlapping. In the encounter of two cultures, unless they are mutually exclusive, usually the common denominators are the building blocks of new syntheses. While these intersecting areas provide pivot points for cultural fusion, some elements mutate (transform) to adjust to newly evolved structures. The synthesis of these systems becomes a larger unity that produces its own rules, which often transform the very building blocks that were the basis for amalgamation.

Somewhat akin to naturally selected species, certain cultures show more survivability than others do. The various syntheses produced by African music are a case in point. The Guinea Coast–style polyrhythmic and polymetric practices are largely dependent on percussion group performance. The music of western Sudan, on the other hand, is largely performed by a single vocalist, often accompanied by a string instrument. Out of the whole wealth of African music traditions, the only two that survived among the North American slaves were the ones that did not depend on percussion ensembles. A single vocalist often accompanying himself or herself with a string instrument became a blues singer; an a cappella group became a Gospel choir. Because of the different treatment of slaves in the Caribbean and in South America the percussion group with its typical polyrhythmic and polymetric practice became widespread, creating a large variety of Caribbean and South American music traditions.

Both North and South American syntheses show some invariant as well as transformed elements. Most of the general characteristics of African music remain the backbone of new idioms: the wide emotional and physical range of expression; the strong, repetitive, and steady rhythmic pulse; the trance-inducing responsorial group singing (in Gospel, Caribbean, and South American idioms); the practice of variation and improvisation; and the use of pentatonic and some heptatonic scales.

Most of these general characteristics (except trance-inducing singing) are the common elements in African and west European folk idioms (country and folk), although they greatly differ in the focus, range, and particularities of their constituents.

While the extraordinary expressive range, coupled with particular rhythmic and melodic structure, give a unique African voice, the use of the major-minor harmonic system and reliance on regularity and symmetry of form give a west European flavoring to the synthesis. Whether one considers blues, jazz, reggae or bossa nova, these elements are easily discernible. As one proceeds from the earlier forms to the newer, there is more and more synthesis at work.

Some earlier forms of blues, for example, show closer ties to the African idiom, mainly in form, irregular phrasing, and flexible meter. With the later formal development, there is more reliance on regularity (12-bar) and on a particular harmonic scheme. Jazz further elaborates on the melodic and harmonic schemes, focusing on the improvised song form (32-bar). From the 1960s onward a wealth of promiscuous syntheses between idioms has brought forth varieties of amalgamations that expand the synthetic range as well as create a confusing and chaotic world of aesthetic possibilities.

Today, because of the fragmented nature of art and culture in general, the world looking back at itself sees its image in a broken mirror. Instead of finding powerful new syntheses, we face a patchwork of collaged realities. If the premodern world built its coherence through collectively evolved aesthetic archetypes, the modern world brought forth new collective and individual (private) models to follow. Whereas the modern world heroically opened up the space of new potential, the postmodern has attempted to deliver its promise.

The unity of form and content, which once guaranteed coherent art and culture in general has been broken. It is up to us to reintegrate the pieces. While every created world throws a nostalgic look at the place of its origin, the new synthetic realities remain homeless and uprooted despite apparent material and potential spiritual wealth.