Visual language
L.Tunkkanen
CONSCUOUS AND SOMATIC IN ART
As I said earlier, I believe the conscious mind is ripples on the
surface of our mental capasity.
The psychoanalytical unconsciousness - whatever it is and whether it is
- is an image of another self, just a bit deeper.
The capasity of conscious self is so small, that somewhere in the
preconscious there must be
a powerful agent that decides, what is important enough to be presented
to the cosciousness.
We can, however, direct our consciousnes like a spotlight at will to
different ideas.
Not unlike we can turn our eyes so that in the blurred whole of
peripheral vision,
we can focus clearly on any tiny spot. So we believe we see all detailed
like in
Caravaggios cityscapes.
Like our eyes receive a million times more data than we can be conscious
at a moment,
so does our brains send million times more data to muscles.
Therefore I believe that much of artistic skill must be learned so we
can performe
on a subconscious level. Erik referred this to rote learning. If you
look at a child
carefully drafting letters with a pencil, you understand that she has
not
much capasity to concentrate to the story she is writing. The same must
be true
in the painting. In a representational work, much of the composition,
color temperature, harmony must be rote learned, to leave space to
the creative activity.
I am not good with colors. I like to have a color box with plenty of
hues to select and
slightly adjust, because my working is frustrated if I have to
experiment every
hue from mere primaries. I have not done the rote learning, and I have
too few years left and more inportant things to do.
* * *
Nor am I familiar with the American artspeak. I have understood that
much
of Abstract expressionism and especially action painting rely more on
the somatic feelings - rote learned - than intellectual contemplation.
In rendering this is called eye-hand coordination.
The rote learning is too narrow term for me. It is more mental than
mere reflexies. Even the basis of our moral is on this
preconscious level. On a highway emergency, before we know, we make the
decision
to drive into ditch, instead driving over a child.
* * *
ABOUT VISUAL LANGUAGE
Semiotics seem to offer valuable tools for literary analysis.
Poetry and litterature are made of arbitrary symbols,
onomapoetic words are the exception that confirms the rule.
Usually we are not presented with more words than
our conscuousnes can handle. ( Except with foreign
languages, where we have to use more information to grasp the meaning.)
Our language is rather redundant, sometimes we grasp the meaning
of half a word. The meaning is something that is understood,
separate of what is said. The meaning lies outside the words.
Visual language is processed differently. We do have some symbols,
like traffic signs or Stars and Stripes. The meaning of Jasper John's
painting was again outside of the symbol.
All of visual data is very much preprocessed, selected and interpreted
before it is presented to our consciousnes. The main purpose of eyesight
is not to render but to extract meanings. The meaning of sexy is not
synthetized of features of the opposite sex ( see Kay, I'm leaning
to be politically correct :-). It is first understood or experienced and
only then maybe analyzed.
That is the thrill of abstract art. We see meanings, evaluate them,
analyze them, but all the time the shapes, colors and values
affect us on that preconscious level, evoking warmth, fear and
whatever.
The books say Michelangelo could see the figures in the stone.
What were the semiotic symbols or marks on the famous
mis-shaped piece of marble that turned out to become David.
In everyday life, an oncoming car, or broken insulator
in wall outlet are not symbols of danger. Though we use
warning signs to assist our perception. The visual world has
predetermined meanings we cannot avoid. That is shown
even in animal psychology. A roughly T-shaped silhuet
above does not disturb hen if it moves the stem first.
If it is moved the crossbar first the hen see it as a hawk.
I do not believe a human mind is a tabula rasa. We too
have instincts that interprete meanings in all we see.
- lauri
--
//www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
tin...@home.com
I find your comment "too few years left...more
importiant things to do"
tragic.
In my opinion the physical thing we call the
painting etc., is the product of an experienced
journey. It is the process of experiencing the
interaction of the physical materials, the
intellectual evaluation and the emotionational
self that produces art. The artist goes on to the
next experience, because art for the artist is in
the making not in the finished product.
Art lovers look at art in the hope of seeing life,
artists look at art in the hope of seeing a path.
have fun:
__________tinman end__________
L.Tunkkanen
tin...@home.com wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------A539B394B977521FE8CBEE73
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ________tinman start________
>
> I find your comment "too few years left...more
> importiant things to do"
> tragic.
>
> In my opinion the physical thing we call the
> painting etc., is the product of an experienced
> journey. It is the process of experiencing the
> interaction of the physical materials, the
> intellectual evaluation and the emotionational
> self that produces art. The artist goes on to the
> next experience, because art for the artist is in
> the making not in the finished product.
>
> Art lovers look at art in the hope of seeing life,
> artists look at art in the hope of seeing a path.
>
> have fun:
> __________tinman end__________
>
we will learn to know each other with time.
It is not at all tragic.
I am old, that's a fact.
On Sep 1st 2001 I retire and become
a full time sculptor.
That's the 'more important thing'
I have to learn woodcarving,
working with stone
and maybe forged and welded iron.
Enough of agenda for the next ten years.
Not to mention that I only started my
university studies in Art History.
L.Tunkkanen
I feel obliged to be more provocative.
If I take Erik's standpoint that Art happen in
an observer, an artist must be a person who
is good in manipulating people at will.
An artist must have sensitivity to other people's
reactions, in order to exploit these reactions,
to make an esthetic or "artistic" experience.
The technical part of artwork should be rote learned,
carried out preconsciously, on a somatic level,
in order to relieve the cognitive capasity free
to work with the intention. ( I have understood
that many US art schools are
more sloppy in this respect than f.ex. our rural
evening classes)
I have experienced that the body does know more
of artmaking than I do. At some point in drawing,
it is better to let it happen. Conscious effort makes
it but clumsy.
My teacher said, I must learn to trust into the line.
I asked him, where can I find a trustworthy line.
This is the Zen if artmaking. After enough rote learning,
let it happen. Nothing mystical, plain physiology.
[Erik noted once that I betray my interest in
oriental. Not so. I have felt the inadequasy of
our western rationality.The oriental tradition
knows something about the unity of mind and body
that we have lost in our rationalism. What a pity
it is often expressed in connection to mysticism,
which I believe is too often wisdom of a cat,
or sphinx to contemplate until you think nothing]
* * *
What is then the visual language at our disposal?
I do believe there are instinctive reactions to
some visual stimuli. It gives a special artistic thrill
when these are so subtle used that we do not know
why we react. Bourgereau is a bit boring, because it is too evident.
We also have a lot of learned, social symbols
available. These too can be abused to carry
some unexpected meaning.
The meanings are not in the message. The meaning is
something we understand, because of
- instinctive reaction
- previous common experience
- social conditioning.
The meaning is evoked inside the observer.
The minimalistic art exploited *ad absurdum*
our capability to enjoy to grasp
the meaning from a reduced set of stimuli.
How does this explain Rothko then?
I don't know.
Dan Fox
> CONSCUOUS AND SOMATIC IN ART
Lauri - thanks for a great post. I've printed it out and will respond when
I get some free time at the end of the month. Like Erik's art it is not
something that want to deal with quickly.
Regards,
Dan
Erik A. Mattila
"L.Tunkkanen" wrote:
> In article <7jebsj$2jg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> L.Tunkkanen <lauri_le...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > CONSCUOUS AND SOMATIC IN ART
> >
> As my first posting did not evoke objections,
> I feel obliged to be more provocative.
Ah, ha. I did have an objection to your first. But I got caught-up in
work projects. Not so much an objection, it's just that I think you
dismiss semiotics too easily. I don't know what you base that on -- I
mean, if you are saying "semiotics are ok for literature, but", then is
this something that has ocurred to you casually or is it the result of
your rigorous study of semiotics?
Since semiology is proposed as 'the science of signs' we need only
determine that a painting, sculpture, comic book etc. function as a
'sign' to decided whether or not semiology is applicable to 'language.'
I think the answer is that it is -- but then there's always that nagging
question: so what? Where would semiotic analyses get you? What would
you gain?
As developed, semiology is part of the structuralist project. I may be
oversimplifying, but I think this says that semiology will look at the
'form'of the object studied, not at the content. In such an analysis,
it won't reveal 'what' the Mona Lisa means to an automobile mechanic in
the Falklands, but 'how' the Mona Lisa 'means' at all. Levi Strauss'
famous interpretation of Oedipus was focused on identifying the
structural elements of the myth -- which came out as 'broken leg' and, I
can't remember the others, but it was quite different than conventional
interpretations of the myth -- but the elements that Levi Strauss
located were critical to th function of the myth in terms of producing
meaning.
At any rate, if it is of interest to you or anyone else, we can go into
semiology deeper. I'm just saying here that the 'yields' of such an
approach would be vaulable: 1) a way of making a functional definition
of a work of art that it allows comparison with others; 2) a way of
revealing the 'grammar' of a work of art - the 'rules' that govern its
form; 3) a way of understanding the work of art in culture; 3) a way to
understand how something can have meaning.
> If I take Erik's standpoint that Art happen in
> an observer, an artist must be a person who
> is good in manipulating people at will.
Yes and no. Something that has always fascinated and baffled me is
'charisma,' or 'stage presence' in an actor or musician. How does that
work. Probably some are clever manipulators, but I think the
individuals who handle that kind of 'magic' best are not contriving, but
rather acting out of a set of sensibilities and sensitivities and are,
as you would say, 'somatically' derived. (I like that term, by the
way). Some painters are very straightforward about this -- they will
read art magazines and try to determine what's hot, and make paintings
as such and try to cash in on the trend. Other's just get focused on
other things, some that just happen to be broadly interesting in the
public sphere. It this case you could say that 'culture' is the
mediating element -- both the painter and the public are responding to
the same set of principles that my determine visual interest. Look at
Kay's complaint about the proliferation of 'red shoes." As it turns
out, "red shoes" have a lot of interest in society, due to several
factors which have turned them into a 'code', more or less. Well,
complete originality is a nice thought (I wonder if it's ever really
possibler) but on the other hand if Kay is using symbols and codes that
are popular anyway, it just gives the work of art more validity (in my
opinion).
> An artist must have sensitivity to other people's
> reactions, in order to exploit these reactions,
> to make an esthetic or "artistic" experience.
I think we have that sensitivity simply by our status as social
animals. We probably can't shake it off. I've read descriptions of
Thorstein Veblen, for example, that he was such a hermit that he had
completely cut all social ties and could therefore be completely
objective in his sociology. I'm dubious. Even being anti-social is a
form of socialization -- you can't be anti-social if 'social' doesn't
exist.
In my opinion an artist shoud just let the chips fall where they may.
Being a human being, a member of a culture and society, the artist
automatically employs sensitivity. This is not to say the artist should
ignore responses, however. I think she/he should always listen, even if
what is heard is rejected entirely.
On the other hand, (on second thought), why not? I can visualize an
artist who is completely dedicated to making art that is totally focused
on viewers tastes and interests. The danger is that the work would be
so impersonal to be drab -- but such a practice could be pushed and
advanced to to a very exciting venue. I'm just speculating, but it
seems like this could happen.
> The technical part of artwork should be rote learned,
> carried out preconsciously, on a somatic level,
> in order to relieve the cognitive capasity free
> to work with the intention. ( I have understood
> that many US art schools are
> more sloppy in this respect than f.ex. our rural
> evening classes)
Please expand on this. There is quite a variety of art curriculum here
in the U.S. I've heard about a pottery school in California that won't
allow students to fire any pots for a few years. They have to keep
throwing pots on the wheel, and crumpling them up -- over and over
again. You can imagine that after two years of doing this it would be
pretty rote -- and also you would have a good basis to decided which
throwing is good or not.
In the early sixties I took art courses at City College of San
Francisco. I hated it. Evans Ecke, the department head, had designed a
very regimented curriculum. Assignments were handed out in numbers.
Numbers for hue, value, and chroma in paint (which was a specific brand
of tempera -- no stubstitutes allowed.) Numbers of design:
contrapunta., symetrical, asymetrical etc. He even had numbers for "Q"
factors (quality of shape). Arrggggh. But you know what -- all that
stuff proved to be very valuable in the long run.
> I have experienced that the body does know more
> of artmaking than I do. At some point in drawing,
> it is better to let it happen. Conscious effort makes
> it but clumsy.
Yes and no. The more your body learns, the mind is freed up for other
things. But if you eliminate conscious control altogether, you have
automatic writing. Personally, I think it needs to be a balancing act.
> My teacher said, I must learn to trust into the line.
> I asked him, where can I find a trustworthy line.
> This is the Zen if artmaking. After enough rote learning,
> let it happen. Nothing mystical, plain physiology.
I like that very much -- 'a trustworthy line.' I would even hazard to
state that you have a very good teacher. Have you done 'contact
drawing,' Lauri. I don't know what you would call it in Finland, but it
is when you draw a simple shape that you are looking at without looking
at the paper. Personally, I think this is the most powerful of all
drawing exercises, even though you seldom get anything worth a second
glance. But this brings to my mind another element in the picture, and
that is perception. Contact drawing teaches one to see edges (lines?)
as well as strengthening hand, eye coordination. It always amazes me
when I discover how 'wrong' I look at things when I do these kinds of
excercises. This bring you face to face with your visual biases.
> [Erik noted once that I betray my interest in
> oriental. Not so. I have felt the inadequasy of
> our western rationality.The oriental tradition
> knows something about the unity of mind and body
> that we have lost in our rationalism. What a pity
> it is often expressed in connection to mysticism,
> which I believe is too often wisdom of a cat,
> or sphinx to contemplate until you think nothing]
I hope we're not having a language problem here. My use of the word
'betray' means, in this sense "reveal.' So it would be that I said that
you 'revealed' your interest in the oriental. (I don't know where I
picked-up that use -- it's really not part of common speech here.
Probably just for effect.)
I'm wondering if F.S.C. Lathrop's "The Meeting of East and West" has
been translated into Finnish. It's pretty interesting, and he is trying
to define the same differences you are referring to. He sets off the
"Theoretically Postulated Universe" of the West against the "Immediately
Apprehended Aesthetic Continuum" of the East.
My theory about 'thinking nothing' as a product of contemplation is that
one achieves the suspension of language - that internal dialog stopps,
and you suppress the words. This opens up all sorts of things, as a
result of virtually eliminating ego (which seems to be a language
construction, by implication). When I paint, however, even when I fall
into a rote, somatic trance, my 'voice' is going full steam. I might be
thinking about alfalfa fields when I'm painting a sea urchin. (example:
I've never painted a sea urchin).
> * * *
>
> What is then the visual language at our disposal?
> I do believe there are instinctive reactions to
> some visual stimuli. It gives a special artistic thrill
> when these are so subtle used that we do not know
> why we react. Bourgereau is a bit boring, because it is too evident.
> We also have a lot of learned, social symbols
> available. These too can be abused to carry
> some unexpected meaning.
I've always wondered about weaving patterns. Over the years, especially
in pen and ink, I've used these patterns and by my own experience they
seem to be very compelling. I mean patterns like you see on a caned
chair, or a simple cross pattern of flat strips interleaved. But again,
I think visual semiotics would be appropriate to this sort of inquiry.
> The meanings are not in the message. The meaning is
> something we understand, because of
> - instinctive reaction
> - previous common experience
> - social conditioning.
> The meaning is evoked inside the observer.
> The minimalistic art exploited *ad absurdum*
> our capability to enjoy to grasp
> the meaning from a reduced set of stimuli.
In semiology these elements you are citing all fall under the therm
lexia (aka ideolects and sociolects). These are the shopping list of
meanings that are transfered to the sign or the code. But in art forms
such as minimalism, perhaps even Rothkos, there is a poverty of lexia
(thus the works seem uncomprehensible) so the mind draws from another
level of lexia which has to do with the material properties and the
contextual properties of the work of art. Thus Greenberg was able to
postulate the "Art for art's sake" hypothesis. However, after these
forms are around for a while, recapitualted and warped and extended by
other artists, a more substancial 'lexia' is contructed in culture and
then a Rothko connects with an abundance of 'meaning elements' that did
not exist when the first Rothko was unleashed.
> How does this explain Rothko then?
> I don't know.
>
> - lauri
> --
> //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
> The fact that I abuse my office address does not
> imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
> my opinions expressed here
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
I was just looking at your web site. The thumbnails for Tightrope
series and Acrobat aren't loading, for some reason. "Dare to do" is
pretty impressive. What did your neighbors think about it? I like this
tightrope series. It has a sort of 'danger' signal in it (something I
also felt from Kay's painting, the first one - vertigo). But then
"Mastering the skill" seems to resolve the problem (but it is not as
exciting as the other two.)
"Bedtime Story" is a very nice piece. It is very similar in form to a
piece I did years ago of Savanarola, except I used the folds of a monks
robe where you are using those flower prints to guide the eye. I was
very influenced by Ersnt Barlach at the time. Have you looked at his
work?
You're obviously interested in the human form. Have you considered
departing from it? I'm really interested in the structure around
"Prisoner of his own thoughts." (or is that just the packing crate?).
So what have you been doing this year? Any new directions? Have you
ever considered birch bark as a sculpture material? You know, that link
to the guy in the birch bark suit, posted on soc.culture.nordic by Ari
Joro, was in response to me comments about my grandparents always giving
me some little curio from Finland every Christmas, made out of birch
bark. I really love the material. It's very beautiful. I'll bet you
could come up with some pretty wild pieces (a little better than a bark
business suit).
Erik
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <375D8940...@tomatoweb.com>...
:
:
:"L.Tunkkanen" wrote:
:
(snipping a wonderful post for some space)
:
:I like that very much -- 'a trustworthy line.' I would even hazard to
:state that you have a very good teacher. Have you done 'contact
:drawing,' Lauri. I don't know what you would call it in Finland, but it
:is when you draw a simple shape that you are looking at without looking
:at the paper.
I've always heard it referred to as "blind contour".
: Personally, I think this is the most powerful of all
:drawing exercises, even though you seldom get anything worth a second
:glance.
I agree. This is my most hated yet most fruitful drawing exercize. One of
my drawing teachers had us warm up with a 10 minute blind contour drawing
each class. It was such torture, teaching the hand to move so slowly... It
is amazing that those early blobs came to take on depth and representation
after 50 tries!
: But this brings to my mind another element in the picture, and
:that is perception. Contact drawing teaches one to see edges (lines?)
:as well as strengthening hand, eye coordination. It always amazes me
:when I discover how 'wrong' I look at things when I do these kinds of
:excercises. This bring you face to face with your visual biases.
(snipping much more of a wonderful post)
:> - lauri
:> --
:> //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
:I was just looking at your web site. The thumbnails for Tightrope
:series and Acrobat aren't loading, for some reason. "Dare to do" is
:pretty impressive. What did your neighbors think about it? I like this
:tightrope series. It has a sort of 'danger' signal in it (something I
:also felt from Kay's painting, the first one - vertigo).
Then I was successful, Erik. I like the danger in films, literature, etc.
My sister and I spend our childhood scaring each other with ghost/slasher
stories, etc. My most influential film (artistically) was Cabinet of Dr.
Caligari, with its disorienting diagonals which give a feeling of vertigo.
You *read* me pretty correctly.
: But then
:"Mastering the skill" seems to resolve the problem (but it is not as
:exciting as the other two.)
:
:"Bedtime Story" is a very nice piece. It is very similar in form to a
:piece I did years ago of Savanarola, except I used the folds of a monks
:robe where you are using those flower prints to guide the eye. I was
:very influenced by Ersnt Barlach at the time. Have you looked at his
:work?
:
:You're obviously interested in the human form. Have you considered
:departing from it? I'm really interested in the structure around
:"Prisoner of his own thoughts." (or is that just the packing crate?).
I looked at the site when there were a lot of posts here to answer and will
go back. I noticed that the top 2 didn't download at all also. I remember
thinking the sculptural images remined me of Maillol, somwhat.
:So what have you been doing this year? Any new directions? Have you
:ever considered birch bark as a sculpture material? You know, that link
:to the guy in the birch bark suit, posted on soc.culture.nordic by Ari
:Joro, was in response to me comments about my grandparents always giving
:me some little curio from Finland every Christmas, made out of birch
:bark. I really love the material. It's very beautiful. I'll bet you
:could come up with some pretty wild pieces (a little better than a bark
:business suit).
:
:Erik
Well, Beuys had his *felt* business suits, I'd like the texture of bark much
better, and as for originality, I don't think it has been done yet! (Sorry
for the tasteless iridescent nice pig post, Erik!)
Kay
"Do you Know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once and
for all."
(from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Kay
tin...@home.com wrote in message <375DCE2D...@home.com>...
:_____tinman start_____
:
:I don't think the artist can manipulate the viewer
:into understanding the artists intent. The artist
:operates at the creative level and the viewer must
:be able to operate at least at the aesthetic
:level.
I disagree a bit, tinman. The viewer can be manipulated into seeing a
certain way (as in the placement of an arm or color to direct our eyes in
the painting) and can arbitrarily choose colors that will have certain
*effects* whether, pleasurable or disconcerting. The line of the work can
make us feel serene or disoriented and so on. So while we may not know the
*specific* intent of the artist's intention, we can still be manipulated
into seeing a certain way which will generated specific generalized
responses.
Kay
Kay
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
tin...@home.com
Hi Tunkkanen:
I am no spring chicken, although I may be a bit
younger than yourself depending upon your age at
time of retirement.
I have been reading postings between yourself and
Eric. I am not sure I understand everything, but I
normally don't let that bother me so I'll put my
two cent's in.
I don't think the artist can manipulate the viewer
into understanding the artists intent. The artist
operates at the creative level and the viewer must
be able to operate at least at the aesthetic
level.
My definition of the aesthetic level generally
agrees with the last two of Roger Fry's four types
of vision. The aesthetic level is that level at
which the viewer can recognize pattern. The
creative level is that level at which the artist,
mathematician, musician, physicist etc., create
pattern.
Education, culture, intelligence, are variables
the viewer carries to the art work. It is up to
the viewer to recognize the patterns created by
the artist. I don not believe it is up to the
artist to create only patterns the viewer can
recognize. That's what galleries want the artist
to do.
If Fry is correct, that creative art is pattern
invention, then you only need the technical
knowledge necessary to create your patterns. If
you think of the patterns you wish to create you
may need less technical knowledge than you first
thought.
Many great sculptures use a series of very simple
forms subordinated to the overall form, but the
joints of the smaller forms are well formed and
integrated into the whole.
so ends my two cents worth.
good luck!
______tinman end__________
L.Tunkkanen wrote:
>
> In article <375AE7E1...@home.com>,
> tin...@home.com wrote:
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > --------------A539B394B977521FE8CBEE73
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > ________tinman start________
> >
> > I find your comment "too few years left...more
> > importiant things to do"
> > tragic.
> >
> > In my opinion the physical thing we call the
> > painting etc., is the product of an experienced
> > journey. It is the process of experiencing the
> > interaction of the physical materials, the
> > intellectual evaluation and the emotionational
> > self that produces art. The artist goes on to the
> > next experience, because art for the artist is in
> > the making not in the finished product.
> >
> > Art lovers look at art in the hope of seeing life,
> > artists look at art in the hope of seeing a path.
> >
> > have fun:
> > __________tinman end__________
> >
> hello Tinman,
> we will learn to know each other with time.
> It is not at all tragic.
> I am old, that's a fact.
> On Sep 1st 2001 I retire and become
> a full time sculptor.
> That's the 'more important thing'
> I have to learn woodcarving,
> working with stone
> and maybe forged and welded iron.
> Enough of agenda for the next ten years.
> Not to mention that I only started my
> university studies in Art History.
>
Quo Vadis
art L. Tunkkanen <lauri_le...@my-deja.com> writes
<snipped a lot of damn good stuff>
>That is the thrill of abstract art. We see meanings, evaluate them,
>analyze them, but all the time the shapes, colors and values
>affect us on that preconscious level, evoking warmth, fear and
>whatever.
>
The powerful agent that Lauri speaks of as being what decides what is
important enough to be presented to the consciousness, must surely
dependant on the viewers experiences and learning ? If we are taught
that a colour or shape is symbolic of a sensory experience, for
instance, then forever our expectations are affected by this. We see a
set of forms and shapes that have provoke a response in terms of
association and our thrill is then based on this. Isn't it ?
>The books say Michelangelo could see the figures in the stone.
>What were the semiotic symbols or marks on the famous
>mis-shaped piece of marble that turned out to become David.
>
>In everyday life, an oncoming car, or broken insulator
>in wall outlet are not symbols of danger. Though we use
>warning signs to assist our perception. The visual world has
>predetermined meanings we cannot avoid. That is shown
>even in animal psychology. A roughly T-shaped silhuet
>above does not disturb hen if it moves the stem first.
>If it is moved the crossbar first the hen see it as a hawk.
>
This, again, will evoke different responses based on past experiences,
won't it ? A car may not be a sign of danger to many but to someone who
has been involved in an accident involving a car will immediately sense
fear ... and so on.
>I do not believe a human mind is a tabula rasa. We too
>have instincts that interprete meanings in all we see.
>
>- lauri
I still have a problem with this *instinct*. Do we have a natural
*instinct* to colour for instance ? or is it part of the complex set of
conditions created from the very initial learning stages ie in the
exposure of certain conditions such as the bright colours that are
presented to children ... brightness and shining are attractive to a
child's eyes we all know, but is the child then conditioned from the
early attraction to these when the sensory visual equipment were not
fully developed. In other words do our interpretations of *meaning* come
as a result of preconditioning.
Bit rambly I am afraid ... but maybe now I have started to get some
ideas down I can focus on developing on what I am implying.
regards
Alison.
L.Tunkkanen
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> I was just looking at your web site. The
> thumbnails for Tightrope series
> and Acrobat aren't loading, for some reason.
lauri: a silly html mistake, I'll correct it soon when I get some new
stuff up-
> I was very influenced by Ersnt Barlach at the time. Have you looked
at his work?
lauri: never heard about
> You're obviously interested in the human form. Have you considered
departing from it?
lauri: Sculpture is very much writing of body language.
I'll put up my first attempt for a landscape, but still-lebens
are harder to sculpt :-)
> I'm really interested in the structure around "Prisoner of his own
thoughts." (or is that just the packing crate?).
lauri: That is part of the engineering ballast, like in tightrope
series.
> So what have you been doing this year? Any new directions?
I scanned some new pieces today. It takes some time to
hang them up in homepage (we have some funny restrictions in
using the company network, and I have no net access from home.
> Have you ever considered birch bark as a sculpture
> material?
lauri: A nice idea, though it may take time to incubate.
- lauri
P.S. I'll follow the visual language thread further.
Thanks folks for your responses
L.Tunkkanen
( replies to tinman, Dan, plenty to Erik, etc.)
Trying to untangle the branching threads,
I compose a collective comment.
Tinman, you referred to Roger Fry's four types of vision.
can you tell more about it?
Erik,
I have only a casual acquaintance with semiotics. My comment
was based on rigorous study of vision, not semiotics.
When I say semiotics is Ok for litterature, I mean that
language is a system of arbitrary, agreed upon symbols.
I tried to explain my point that visual system is so
primary, directly connected to the structure of our brain,
that most of visual world is handled on preconscious level,
partly by "rote learned" and partly by "innate", instictive
mechanisms.
Erk, you needed only to define that a painting, sculpture,
comic book is a sign, to apply semoitics on it. Can you say
*what* it signifies, without verbally tearing it apart,
I mean: What did your abstract studies stand for. They are
signs of what?
You claim a 'functional definition' that allows
comparision with others. I had no time to read the
caravaggio vs Rothko in RAF. how did you compare those?
CHARISMA
Isn't it a gift of manipulating people. I did not mean
calculated, intentional manipulation like TV priests.
Or some top gallery artists.
I believe charisma in painting, or on stage is,
like you say, acting out. On a somatic level, read on a somatic
level, too. That is the fun of figurative sculpting.
It is writing of body language.
* * *
Teaching art
there are many comments on art teaching in many threads.
My comment about the apparent lack of quality in US
schools was based solely on discussions on RAF. Even here
I have seen some complaints. I am aware of our european habit
to regard US as a country like Belgium or Greece, with
a single culture. Sure you have more variation than the whole
ex-soviet hemisphere - where, I belive the traditional teaching
has been best preserved. Rumainan and Mongolian artists I have met,
may work on weird tradition, or superficial modernism,
but they have done their life classes.
As close as St Petersburgh there still is an art school
that teaches the painting methods of the 18th century.
Mani would never get approved there :-)
* * *
Drawing excercises.
I think Erik mentioned that after a pause he can
easily resume painting, but drawing he must learn
anew. I have the same experience. This year I have
missed drawing excercises.
Now I must take the pencil in hand again.
The contact drawing is a good excercise.
My mentor - mr. Johannes Haenninen (the a with two
dots please) - has a couple of variations:
- look at the model for 30 sec. Then keeping
your hands under the table, bend of a wire what you saw.
A very tactile -somatic- excercise.
- look the model 2 mins, then draw 2 mins without model
then look the model again.
You are right, he is a good teacher.
* * *
Patterns
I like weaving patterns, too. I remember seeing
(in Scientific American, anno 196x (?)) a comparative study of
American Indian art and
migren symptoms, which claimed that the
zigzag patterns has a direct neural counterpart.
If that is the case - it is not at all a sign - but
simply a matter of resonance.
* * *
Dan
claimed difficult to follow all the interesting threads.
I suffer the same. That is why I proposed some kind
of markings on the subject line.
The first warm Weekend this year. I have spent 5 hours
in the office with alt. brallen. Missed the Montreal
Formula One in TV. Time to go gome for some sleep.
- lauri
email: lauri....@nokia.com
Quo Vadis
<lauri_le...@my-deja.com> writes
>The first warm Weekend this year. I have spent 5 hours
>in the office with alt. brallen. Missed the Montreal
>Formula One in TV. Time to go gome for some sleep.
>
>- lauri
Lucky this isn't RAF then Lauri, or someone would tell you to 8get a
life* ;-)
Alison
L.Tunkkanen
Don't worry Alison
they know me on RAF.
A beautiful Finnish pop song says
" I do not envy those, who live a double life
I hardly manage this only one".
I do not live for sculpture
i live of it
Quo Vadis
<lauri_le...@my-deja.com> writes
>
>Don't worry Alison
>they know me on RAF.
>
Who are *they* Lauri ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
L.Tunkkanen
L.Tunkkanen <lauri_le...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> CONSCUOUS AND SOMATIC IN ART
>
> Not unlike we can turn our eyes so that in the blurred whole of
> peripheral vision,
> we can focus clearly on any tiny spot. So we believe we see all
detailed
> like in
> Caravaggios cityscapes.
I was referring to Canaletto's Famous Cities of course.
In the ear of a Finn all the Greek names sound the same :-)
Erik A. Mattila
Greek"??
Canaletto? I thought was something with cheese on it.
Erkki
L.Tunkkanen
> Greek"??
Discussing in a foreing language is funny. SOmetimes I need
to hunt days for an idiom I want. Most often the
literary/TV/movies referencies I read - even art referencies -
are next to impossible to spot.
Once I had lot of trouble with the WRU-key on a teletype.
It had no effect on the engine sound.
Only if you KNOW it means 'who are you', the shorthand
is self-explanatory. It does not work the other way round.
> Canaletto? I thought was something with cheese on it.
Thatsa Cheeseburger. My dictionary says Canaletto
is kind of omeletto filled with dog (canis)
A hotdog inside out, so to say.
KEITH OCONNOR
Sorry for the delay:
Roger Fry's four types of vision
1) eyes scan the landscape as a security measure
2) eyes look a strangly coloured rocks insects,
etc in a curious way.
3) eyes and mind can identify patterns
4) eyes and mind can identify and create patterns
based upon analysis
If you visit my website and read my writings you
will not that I am using Roger Fry's ideas and
expanding on them.
the third type of vision I define as aesthetic
the fourth I define as art.
I am modfying the first and second.
But these are only today's thoughts I may change
everything because new perspectives are being
churned around in my head.
________tinman end_____
> of markings on the subject line.
>
> The first warm Weekend this year. I have spent 5 hours
> in the office with alt. brallen. Missed the Montreal
> Formula One in TV. Time to go gome for some sleep.
>
> - lauri
>
> email: lauri....@nokia.com
Erik A. Mattila
fascinated me was that for an instant you could grasp the idea of living
in a world where nothing had a name. This may not happen with every
reader, but I know from discussions that others had the same experience
I had with the story. It was very mystical -- and I would say it has
something to do with very early childhood before ego differenciation.
But the fact of the matter, at least in my opinion, is that we do 'name'
visual imagery in one way or another. This is why when someone says
that art should be about forms and color etc. beyond any 'text' I get
antsy. Even though a Tibetan Mandala is full of 'named' imagery, it
functions as a contemplation object where the task is to get past the
nomnitive where it becomes pure form and color, which erases ego
differenciation.
But then the most pedantic Norman Rockwell painting could be used in the
same way, which leads me to believe that 'non-textual' art forms are
exclusively a matter of apprehension, residing in the domain of the
viewer, not the maker. Thus many will discover nomnitive contents in
the most purely non-objective art, like seeing things in the clouds.
Non-objective art then, seems to be a matter of indoctrinating the
viewer into a species of meditation. Thus the 'text' does exist - even
though it may not be specifically tied to the painting or sculpture --
instead it circulates in culture around the whole ideology and
phenomenology of non-objective painting.
Denomination is the important part of seeing, insofar as this process
leads to the acceptance and rejection of visual data in order that the
visual field becomes intelligible. Without this selective process,
vision would be chaotic and impossible to organize. The classic example
is the problem that the newly sighted have, from advanced eye surgery,
and it takes weeks, perhaps months, in order to learn how to organize
vision in to an intelligible form. So seeing itself is an intellectual
process. The sensing of data is but a part of the total process. Being
intellectual, it is also subject to ideiologies (in the sense of
Althusser). So a fascinating area of academic study is how we learn to
organize vision, and what the ideological implications are. This is
where a concept such as 'semiosis' of vision comes to be. Since it is
understood that as life forms we do not 'see' everything, but reject
somethings, and we organize what is selected into intelligible patterns
that have names, semiosis is rightly expected to occur. "Semiosis" is
that process whereby we relate the raw sensory experience of the 'sign'
to a preconcieved array of meaningful content, or 'lexia.'
Fry's criteria is interesting, in this respect. The most rewarding
aspect of my military experience was the training in vision and night
vision. The training itself seemed very philosophical, and it was
effective. I suppose it impressed me because we take 'looking' and
'seeing' for granted, and we don't spontaneously conceive that you can
refine such practices. It's so natural, after all. But the sergeant's
taught us how to scan a visual field and analyse patterns, and develop
remarable analytical abilities in the process. Seeing breaks or
glitches in the patterns, after much practice, opened up the whole arena
of 'seeing/looking' into all sorts of exciting possibilities. But at
its base and foundation, the training was an intellectual exercise.
There was a wonderful scene in Lawrence of Arabia that illustrates the
intellectual aspect of looking. When Omar Shariff makes his entrance,
the viewer, (looking through Lawrence's eyes) sees an unintelligable
shape coming out of the heat waves of the desert. Slowly, the image
resolves until you can identify a man on a horse. You can bet that some
in the audiance were able to resolve the image before others, as
seeing/looking are not democratic institutions -- some people are better
at it than others.
My tendency is to agree with your expansion on Fry's third and fourth
types. But I would stand by my conviction that the 'aesthetic' is an
ideological consruction, even though it may be based in empiracle
phenomena. This opposes Ariane's idea that 'beauty inheres in the
universe' (which always makes me think of peanut butter) because it is a
reification of the first order. So my extension would be "eyes and mind
can identify, and relate these to ideological content' as a basis for
the aesthetic apprehension. I'm not that well versed in Fry's writings,
but I am wondering what he means when he includes 'mind' in his
postulates. (I would include 'mind' in type 1 and 2 also).
But this is why I have found Cassirer's work to be so fascinating.
Casserer proposes, if I may use a metaphor, a 'gui' (graphical users
interface), between human perception and nature. The processes that
occur within this interface are very ideological and intellectual, which
ultimately implies that the 'empirical' itself in an interpretation.
Which brings us back squarely to the Tibetan Mandala exercise -- so much
of the trajectory of Bonze meditation is to surpass interpretations
entirely in order to connect. Reading Bardo Thodol, the repleated
warning to the newly deceased is to bypass all intelligible experience,
since it is an illusion. If you 'understand' it, it is not real. The
'real' has no name, after all.
I realize now that I didn't respond to Lauri's post which is replicated
below. I need to do this -- at the time I was inundated with work,
which really distracts me.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
> "L.Tunkkanen" wrote:
> >
>
> > Erik,
> > I have only a casual acquaintance with semiotics. My comment
> > was based on rigorous study of vision, not semiotics.
> > When I say semiotics is Ok for litterature, I mean that
> > language is a system of arbitrary, agreed upon symbols.
> > I tried to explain my point that visual system is so
> > primary, directly connected to the structure of our brain,
> > that most of visual world is handled on preconscious level,
> > partly by "rote learned" and partly by "innate", instictive
> > mechanisms.
Cassirer suggests that art and language are both discrete 'symbolic
forms', and in his context it would be difficult to argue that language
or art is more basic and fundamental to the sturcture of the brain, or
psyche, than the other. But we only have to look at the myriad of
natural languages to see how diversely humans can find solution to
similar problems.
My argument would be that on some levels language and art share the same
neurophysiological functions. True, neurologists have located 'centers'
for processing visual data, others for processing linguistic data, but
it is well to keep focused that neurologist paint an overall picture of
neural sturcture that is quite complex and involving simultaneous
actions throughout our brains. BTW, Freud concevied of the whole body
as the 'brain' in terms of the locus of intelligence.
But in this sense, the possibility of a visual semiotics depends on
whether 'semiosis' occurs as we process visual data. In Sassuerian
terms, this is the action in the process of sign, signified, and
signifier, but in other semiotics, such as A.J. Gremais, the proposal is
a little different, more complex, but nevertheless not in opposition to
Ferdinand Sassuer and Charles Sanders Pierce. You see, you are
proposing an alternative -- and I don't think you've explicitly defined
it -- that has to do with a deep level 'instinctive' apprehension of
visual data, where semiosis does not occur.
BTW, semiosis also occurs on a preconscious level. When we see a visual
representation of a wine bottle, or the bottle itself, we are not
conscious of the relational process that goes on in our intellects which
allows us to have the competence to say - this is a wine bottle. But
things always get confused -- I mean it is easy to think of 'semiotics'
as a conscious process if you are thinking of the 'science of the sign',
which is an academic field, and forget that the object of study,
semoisis, is an unconscious process.
Instinctive or innate visual competence is a fascinating subject. I've
read that the human infant is 'pre-programmed' to recognize a human
face. But my question would nevertheless be, what is 'recognition' if
it is not semiosis? "Recognition" rests in the ability to assign
meaning to experience. Or to relate experience to an idea. In infancy
an 'idea' may be nothing more than ill defined 'wants' and 'desires',
much like the pleasure/pain principle that biologists speculate to be
the emotional life of a cell. Thus we may have the kernel here of all
ideologies. Julia Kristeva, a linguist, does argue that the first
operations of the signifier (the relating function of the sign to
signified) occurs in infancy, and it is this original operation that
begns to build the human ego.
> > Erk, you needed only to define that a painting, sculpture,
> > comic book is a sign, to apply semoitics on it. Can you say
> > *what* it signifies, without verbally tearing it apart,
> > I mean: What did your abstract studies stand for. They are
> > signs of what?
Well, it's hard to talk about art without talking, I suppose. To tell
you the truth, my abstracties studies are 'studies' because I'm trying
to understand the signification of such. So I don't know the answer to
your question.
But I can say this -- abstract art in itself is a structure with a
cultural discourse etc. The most purest of abstract painters happily
argue that the view must accept some responsibility in 'learning' to
appreciate abstract art. That implies that there is something to learn
-- a discourse. This may be someting like Greenberg's 'Art for Arts
Sake" or Shapiro's or Fry's writings. The deeper the view indulges in
this discourse, the richer the experience of art appreciation
potentially becomes. Other artists complain about this, complaining
that a painting should stand on its own indeplendant of any discourse.
Again, the only real argument, in my view, about the possibility of
visual semiotics is whether semiosis occurs. If it does, then it is
possible to create a legitimate study -- visual semiotics -- and if it
doesn't, it means that visual language is so discrete that the tools of
formal semiotics are inappropriate to study such. Of course you can
argue against the whole concept of 'semiosis' itself -- but you must
engage in the science, or pseudo-science, itself to make your argument
coherent. It's difficult to have any credibility in saying "I don't
know anything about semiotics, but I think it's bullshit".
Anyway, Say Greenberg is correct, and abstract art is art about art. In
that case the individual abstract image is a sign of abstract art. And
that seems to me to be the ideological intention of abstract painters.
Maybe Dan could comment on this, from his perspective.
And speaking of Dan, his 'rules for painters' in the market place are
excellent as examples of how 'art could be about itself' in a
Greenbergian manner. Some of the rules that seem to be already agreed
on are 'a body of work' and a 'painter's problem." You can see
responses to this in any number of artists. I like the "Ocean Park"
series of Diebenkorn, for example. In some strange ways they are
landscapes, while not being landscapes. But they are 'about' landscape
painting, both by the intention of the artist and the reception of his
work in society. This then becomes part and parcel of the 'discourse'
on Diebenkorn, and by extension, the 'discourse' about abstract
painting. So all this gets pubically filed as 'lexia' and becomes the
referents of the 'sign' which is an individual Diebenkorn. In some
sense the totality of every thing social that relates to Diebenkorn,
from the painterly act, to the market place, to the criticism, to the
ownership and so on, are indoctrinated into this 'system' which allows
'semiosis' to occur.
And we can use the example of biological science early in this century
as a means of legitimizing this social process. Scientists like A.N.
Whitehead realized that previous biology was based on the observation of
phenomena that was decontextualized -- the organism extracted from its
environment and studied under those circumstances. The radical
biologists argued that this caused biology to be both inaccurate and
idealized, since the 'truth' of nature was very contextual, and the
organism must be observed in its natural environment. Thus biological
sciences evolved in to the environmental science we know today, as well
as reorganizing all of the science's internal principles and postulates.
What many people do is to take the painting, or work of art, completely
out of its environment and try to extract 'truth' from this very
artifical positioning. Thus the painting is a rate in a cage, that will
behave as a rat in a cage instead of how it would behave in its natural
environment. Or a flea in a petrie dish (much better image). Whatever
'truth' that is arrived at by this decontextualization is a 'laboratory
truth' that is as artifical as the biological organism's behavior in an
artificial environment.
> > You claim a 'functional definition' that allows
> > comparision with others. I had no time to read the
> > caravaggio vs Rothko in RAF. how did you compare those?
The bulk of that thread in RAF was nothing more than declaration of
personal bias disguised as art criticism. The argument wasn't so much
about Carravaggio and Rothko as it was about neo-classicism vs. abstract
expressionism. In terms of functionality, the works of both artists
functioned as works of art in culture -- more than that, works of art
that were evaluated highly by their individual cultures. Where the
possibility of comparsion broke down was a problem for hermeneutics, in
that Carrivaggio's culture was a mere shadow of truth to our modern
understanding, since we don't really know that culture. Art Historians,
for example, bemoan the great attrition rate of art produced during
Carravaggios time, something like 98% didn't survive to our day (based
on references to works of art in the literature of the day). What
survived was works of art that were valued by individuals and
institutions that had the means to preserve them. So our total sample
of Italian art is a reflection of the tastes and bias of specific but
minor factors of Italian society. So we have a very distorted picture
of Italian Renaissance art, or rather, Italian Renaissance Art is that
which we have a distorted picture of.
On the other hand, we know much about the context of Rothko's work.
Consider the endless tackie art nouvou productions of American Art in
the 1920's -- that's Rothko's context.
> > CHARISMA
> > Isn't it a gift of manipulating people. I did not mean
> > calculated, intentional manipulation like TV priests.
> > Or some top gallery artists.
Well yes, but what is this 'gift' all about. Hitler had a lot of
charisma, he could captivate people, and it may have been deliberate and
calculated. It is known he studied facial expressions and what they
conveyed, and practiced before a mirror.
> > I believe charisma in painting, or on stage is,
> > like you say, acting out. On a somatic level, read on a somatic
> > level, too. That is the fun of figurative sculpting.
> > It is writing of body language.
I'm inclined to believe that certain individuals have the ability to
read cultural codes and play them out in society. In the study of
popular culture, for example, one theory of 'popularity' is that popular
forms display the 'already known' as if it was 'newly discovered' (which
is a pleasurable experience). So chain food resturants are incredibly
popular because you already know what's there before you sit down to
eat. Comic books are popular because its the 'same old story' repeated
endlessly (the same thing happens in cenema, tv etc.) Somehow, Mick
Jaggers performs in already known ways, and it's quite wonderful.
>
> > * * *
> > Teaching art
> >
> > there are many comments on art teaching in many threads.
> > My comment about the apparent lack of quality in US
> > schools was based solely on discussions on RAF. Even here
> > I have seen some complaints. I am aware of our european habit
> > to regard US as a country like Belgium or Greece, with
> > a single culture. Sure you have more variation than the whole
> > ex-soviet hemisphere - where, I belive the traditional teaching
> > has been best preserved. Rumainan and Mongolian artists I have met,
> > may work on weird tradition, or superficial modernism,
> > but they have done their life classes.
> >
> > As close as St Petersburgh there still is an art school
> > that teaches the painting methods of the 18th century.
> > Mani would never get approved there :-)
I'm really interested in the directions Russian art will go in now,
after all the years of repression. I've seen a few web sites, and saw a
reallly eclectic collection ranging from the most sickeningly
sentimental to some very exciting paintings and sculpture. I think it
is quite possible the Russians will grope around for some time before
something really clicks. The old stuff in the early revolution,
pre-Stalin, was really wonderful, even some of the industrial arts. So
I know the spirit is there -- but where will it go and in what
direction. Keep your eyes open, Lauri, and keep us posted.
> > * * *
> > Drawing excercises.
> >
> > I think Erik mentioned that after a pause he can
> > easily resume painting, but drawing he must learn
> > anew. I have the same experience. This year I have
> > missed drawing excercises.
No, it was Kay who said this. I can always draw, or paint. But I do
think that drawing is the place where important discoveries are made --
perhaps it is because it is more casual, and one is not too concerned
with doing it 'just right' as you would if you have a lot of time and
effort invested into a painting or sculpture. Drawing seems much freer
to me. I've 'drawn' much with paint and brushes, and as a result I have
a huge pile of 'painting' that may either be developed one day or
painted over entirely.
> > Now I must take the pencil in hand again.
> > The contact drawing is a good excercise.
> > My mentor - mr. Johannes Haenninen (the a with two
> > dots please) - has a couple of variations:
> > - look at the model for 30 sec. Then keeping
> > your hands under the table, bend of a wire what you saw.
> > A very tactile -somatic- excercise.
> > - look the model 2 mins, then draw 2 mins without model
> > then look the model again.
> >
> > You are right, he is a good teacher.
> > * * *
> > Patterns
> >
> > I like weaving patterns, too. I remember seeing
> > (in Scientific American, anno 196x (?)) a comparative study of
> > American Indian art and
> > migren symptoms, which claimed that the
> > zigzag patterns has a direct neural counterpart.
> >
> > If that is the case - it is not at all a sign - but
> > simply a matter of resonance.
There was an interesting essay in a book edited by Paul Devereux, on the
origins of primitave art (can't remember the title) about a tribe in
Venzuela who had a alphebet of designs that were 'seen' through the
ingestion of yage. One of the anthopologist on the team recogniced
these designs as being quite similar to some images that came from a
Swiss study of a study of a psychoactive drug, which turned out to be
chemically quite similar to yage. They compared the designs, and they
were quite similar. Really very interesting.
In the same book, the Pawnee anthropologist Gene Weltfish had an essay
on weaving being the basis of art. She had studied weaving among
Amazonian tribes, and traced out how the basic designs produced by
everyday weaving of palmetto leaves into utilitarian objects had
generated a vocabulary of graphic elements which appeared over and over
again in the intended art works of these people.
Another interesting essay was on the tranaference of weaving designs to
pottery. Weaving is a much older technology, and when pottery came
along the people already had a design convention based on weaving, and
these designes appear on the clay pots.
>
> >
> > * * *
> > Dan
> > claimed difficult to follow all the interesting threads.
> > I suffer the same. That is why I proposed some kind
> > of markings on the subject line.
> >
> > The first warm Weekend this year. I have spent 5 hours
> > in the office with alt. brallen. Missed the Montreal
> > Formula One in TV. Time to go gome for some sleep.
Would you gladly sacrifice the race for art? Of course you would, we
know how dedicated your are!
Best,
Erik
Keith O'Connor
In the morning I do my regular call to nature, at
which time I make a small sketch. It does not
matter how much time I have, sometimes I may take
30 seconds others 5 or 10 minutes. I keep a small
sketch book and prismacolour pencil, I find they
don't smear as much, in the bathroom. I date every
page. I use a figurative theme, but you can use
any theme you wish.
In the evening I have my daily sketch, another
black bound sketch book, a bit larger, since I
don't keep it in a bathroom drawer, I number and
date every sketch. The theme is figurative. It
does not matter how much time I have I take from 1
min to 30 minutes.
I do this every day summer, winter, vacation (I
carry my daily books with me), and when I must
travel for work, I bring my daily books.
I have been doing this regularly for 810 days or
1600 confrontations with the blank page. I wish I
had started years ago.
In addition to my daily I have my general sketch
books, on each floor, and they are again larger.
These contain extra sketches and ideas. Using this
routine I hope to have at least 5,000 sketches
completed by the time I retire in 4.25 years.
Above that I have special sketch sheets, but I
plan on spending more time with these when I
retire.
This is how I keep my hand in.
_________end tinman__________
Lauri.L.
Thanks for comments.
Unfortunately it is Sunday night,
almost midnight.
And I have only commneted
the other thread.
Printed this,
will read during the week.
Also will find time to the
interesting part hidden under new blood
and maybe elsewhere.
- lauri
Dan Fox
> My aphorism on drawing is
> that it is like swimming, tense up and you will sink.
>
> So, a pre-drawing meditation helps. It might be just
> a quiet contemplation of the subject whether that
> subject is in your head or in front of you.
>
> M.
Yes - I think this is what is meant by the 'right brain' stuff I
keep reading about - you enter a different state of seeing.
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
www.danfoxart.com
Kay
Marilyn wrote in message <378B58...@bc.can>...
:My aphorism on drawing is
:that it is like swimming, tense up and you will sink.
:
:So, a pre-drawing meditation helps. It might be just
:a quiet contemplation of the subject whether that
:subject is in your head or in front of you.
:
:M.
That's why I don't like to draw. I am always, always tense when I draw. it
is the only media which gives me a stomach ache. I really don't know why.
But, the only drawing exercise I can stand are the timed slow blind-contour
because my hand is slowly moving the charcoal/graphite/etc.. while my eyes
are slowly moving along the linear form and that is the only time I feel
*connected* to drawing. There is no *absolute* control of the drawing
because one cannot stop and see if there is a likeness or values, or
whatever. It is very freeing to create a blob which has its own aesthetic
appeal.
Kay
Erik A. Mattila
objective is a very tight, anal-retentive descriptive drawing (like a
scientific illustration). It always works better starting out very
loose, as if you were doing a de Kooning. My favorite aphorism for this
is the popular song "There's a hole on the bottom of the sea" Does
everybody know this? Or, it could be "I know an old lady who swallowed
a fly, I don't know why she swallowed a fly..."
BTW, I ran across an online etext (I haven't looked at it yet) on
Project Gutenberg which is an 19th century "History of Ink" manuscript.
I'll bet it's fascinating -- and free, of course.
Carvalho, David Nunes, 1848-1925. - 1998. - Forty centuries of ink; or,
A chronological narrative concerning ink and its backgrounds,
introducing incidental observations and deductions, parallels of time
and color phenomena, bibliography, chemistry, poetical effusions,
citations, anecdotes and curiosa together with some evidence respecting
the evanescent character of most inks of to-day and an epitome of
chemico-legal ink. - Urbana, Illinois (USA): Project Gutenberg.
http://www.promo.net/pg/
I've always been amused by the naming convention of the modern scholarly
text, which always includes a sub phrase set off with a semi colon.
"The history of art: an anaytical approach" or "Dr. Strangelove: How I
learned to love the bomb.' But the citation above shows where that
naming conventioned comes from. Maybe 'progress' does exist.
Erik
-----------------