something
Charlotte Ashley
[It's possible this'll be posted twise 'cause my server sucks, so I
apologise right now. ]
Jean Jacques Rousseau was an interesting case. He and several other
romantics seemed to agree that the only way to live was to lose ones self
wholly in nature, to simplify life to the point where the individual
ego seems to be completely gone. Funny this, I had been thinking of this
just before I found that Rousseau had found it already (see: what if
everything has been thought of already?)
I keep going over the same circuit in my mind.
1) what is the purpose of being an artist? To express? To entertain?
To decorate? To inform? To be insightful? Is it for the artist or
for the viewer?
Dammit, my mind is getting off topic already.
Does the artist preform to purge their mind of what clutters it, or to
put across an idea to the viewer? I can't think of many other reasons for
art... (because the artist "has to do it" is a very romantic but not
terribly thought out response, so please don't)
2) Does the expression of ideas ever accomplish anything? Do we write
books and essays to convince other people of our opinions, or to
grandstand our intellect? Is thought an art? Do philosophers
philosophise to purge their clutter?
I can't help but feel that the commentary on society, people and life is
absolutely endless, but in all a frustrating waste of time. The pursuit
of knowledge ... why? What basic life need is fulfilled by this? Am I
being far too existential in declaring that everything we say about
society and life is inconsequential, because all the topics, or at least
the words about them are just decoration on top of the life itself, and
tend to mask the point, purpose or appreciation of life itself?
3) Simplicity.... pure sensory intake on everything around a person
without marring it with inadequate words. Is this worth striving for? To
strip life down to bear essentials, the most primitive of needs. Breath,
eat, love, laugh. Is this enough? Why would anyone need more? Do we
need the higher thoughts? Do we need complication and frustration to
decorate our lives?
Would it be boring? It can't be harmful, and from an evolutionary sense, a
complete ego - supression and loss of higher western societal values
shouldn't hinder our enjoyment of life at all, should it?
I'm over thinking already, aren't I? I should take my own advice and just
sit back, relax, and watch this freakin' show and stop worrying about
whether I'm worrying about it too much.
I feel like such a fucking child. I am so very far behind in
philisophical evolution. I'm sorry guys, this has been brought to yu by
WastedBadwidth.
Leanan Sidhe
--
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bi284
Life is one big ink blot.
Albatross
Charlotte Ashley wrote:
>
> Jean Jacques Rousseau was an interesting case. He and several other
> romantics seemed to agree that the only way to live was to lose ones self
> wholly in nature, to simplify life to the point where the individual
> ego seems to be completely gone. Funny this, I had been thinking of this
> just before I found that Rousseau had found it already (see: what if
> everything has been thought of already?)
All the Romantics disocvered the Rousseau was wrong; some reverting to
Xtianity, some becoming egoists and dying young. And as to Rousseau
discovering it before you, he was hardly the first- Spinoza in the west,
and the entire east, thought similarly before him.
<snip>
Goodness, when will you ask questions that I have time to respond to?
> I'm over thinking already, aren't I? I should take my own advice and just
> sit back, relax, and watch this freakin' show and stop worrying about
> whether I'm worrying about it too much.
No, you should realize that tackling such problems is every bit as much
a part of the enjoyment of life as wallowing in simple existance, and
leave off the rest of the orientalism, because you will never be a
person who is satified with simply living.- And thank goodness for
that.
>
> I feel like such a fucking child. I am so very far behind in
> philisophical evolution. I'm sorry guys, this has been brought to yu by
> WastedBadwidth.
You are so far ahead of your age that it astonishes me.
I only wish I had more time to dedicate to you.
A
Darkmoon5
The urge toward art for me is just to get what I feel is inside out,
maybe for some kindof of validation in the concreteness of the art
and from the feedback from others that what I experience
inside is real
Michael Staggs
> 1) what is the purpose of being an artist? To express? To entertain?
> To decorate? To inform? To be insightful? Is it for the artist or
> for the viewer?
I think it's for both..the artist feels a need to express himself and the
viewer feels the need to get caught up in another's expression of self.
> 2) Does the expression of ideas ever accomplish anything?
Sure, it accomplishes peace and war, holiness and the utmost debauchery.
>The pursuit
> of knowledge ... why? What basic life need is fulfilled by this?
There is another need by many....the need to be heard...or the need to
educate themselves. Why? So we do not feel alone....a thing dreaded more
by mankind than death itself.
> 3) Simplicity.... pure sensory intake on everything around a person
> without marring it with inadequate words. Is this worth striving for?
To
> strip life down to bear essentials, the most primitive of needs.
Breath,
> eat, love, laugh. Is this enough? Why would anyone need more? Do we
> need the higher thoughts? Do we need complication and frustration to
> decorate our lives?
We may not "need" the higher thoughts....but they are there. We must
satisfy them or live with the empty feeling that we are missing out on
something.
dim...@acsu.buffalo.edu
bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) wrote:
Just kind of a slight theory or opinion, relating to the whole of your
question...
Human beings are the only creatures upon earth (that we know of) that
have found themselves faced with great paradox of knowing that they
are alive, that they exist, and
that they will someday die. Artifacts, cave painting, all myths since
more than 100,000 BCE show human beings, Shamans, Kings, mythical
heros facing the problem of not knowing why they are living if only then
to die.
The only way anyone has been able to resolve this eternal struggle,
and the reason why people read philosophy, religion, practice artwork,
music, and writing, is to attempt to resolve this problem. Every old
myth refers to human beings as being part-animal and part-god, in
relation to the world (they use "Adam was AS a god, Enkidu was like a
God, Akenaton is like ATON (the sun disk)) So Humans create, but they
are not immortal, and then what?
Further more, there is a lot of degrading of ancient religions,
myths, histories, stories, from civilizations living in the 5000 to
even 50,000 BCE (more in the form of cave paintings depicting
shamans.) What no one seems to realize when they look at ancient
cultures is this: There is absolutely no proven difference between the
mind of those people, and the mind that you and I currently posses.
And since all civilizations depended heavily on myths, stories,
Shamans, Priests, Philosophers I'm inclined to believe that we are
to. The only way we do anything, create anything, is by playing a
game, a game where we make up the rules, and change the rules, and
shift our position.. it's a neverending game.
No one can get an answer from any one human being, we all
pursue a different resolution to death. Death is the ultimate problem
in the world - every is upset about it, concerned about, they miss
people, people miss them, people place flowers on graves of people who
died, we try to restore the stories of dead poets, actors, world
leaders, what are we clinging onto? Immortality! We don't want
anything to die.
As far as Rousseau being disproven, that's a matter of opinion. I
don't believe he's right, but I don't think you can really disprove
writing like Rousseau, you can't even Disprove Marx, maybe somewhere
communism really works, some other galaxy, how do you know? (ok, so
it's ridiculous, so is life, it doesn't make any sense.) Individuals
decide what's right for them - others don't decide, they all pass away
in the end, they all fertilize the soil - whether they went to heaven
or came back to earth or became stars or became angels, whatever. I'm
not neccesarily right either - Maybe everything I've studied and
believed in is a load of B.S., a big universal conspiracy of illusory
facts. I accept that that's possible, because I don't need to be
right, but for some reason,I need to think about it.. because I won't
be scratching my head in the coffin.
Basically, we should never really trust any single Philosopher's ideas
despite their research and their bold conclusions. If we want to look
for answers, and use them, we should take their concepts and argue
them in our head until we are sure that their answer is completely
satisfactory to ourself, or whether we have an arguement within
ourselves which brings to light even more.
Socrates,Plato,Nietzsche,Kant,Godel,Barth,Aquinas,Rousseau, Crowley,
Balzac,Schopenhauer,Kierkgaard really have no more intellectual
potential then any other mentally fit human being. If everyone,
universally, took just one of the above philosophers (or any other
person who has ever made any sort of theological, philosophical
statement on things.) to be completely and irrefutably true, I think
we'd be missing out on a lot.
/
\¥ññer
/"I occupy myself with this mystery, because I want to be a man."
- Fyodor Dostoevski
Tschüß!
(*) - gre...@moran.com {|>onald |>immick} - (*)
"So don't touch me! Cuz I'm Electric! And If You Touch Me..
YOU GET SHOCKED!!!"
http://www.frenet.buffalo.edu/~bx103
nag...@miavx1.muohio.edu
In article <5m59do$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) writes:
> I keep going over the same circuit in my mind.
>
> To decorate? To inform? To be insightful? Is it for the artist or
> for the viewer?
Just like I used to be a Christian, not for a purpose but because I just believed.
> Does the artist preform to purge their mind of what clutters it, or to
> put across an idea to the viewer? I can't think of many other reasons for
> art... (because the artist "has to do it" is a very romantic but not
> terribly thought out response, so please don't)
All depends on the artist. Some people just realize thay have a talent and
want to pursue it and see what they can do (though they're a rarity I think).
Others work instinctively and never question their motives (the 'I just have
to' crowd). Some want to make a living and art is a more pleasant way to do
it. Some have things inside their head that they need to get out (some to
communicate to others, others just to get it out where they can deal with it).
I like entertaining or moving people with my work, but mostly I do it because I
enjoy it, it helps keep me sane (I didn't like it that several people in high
school predicted that I'd gun down a McDonald's full of people someday), and I
learn about myself by doing it. Sometimes I feel really inspired, it's an
experience not unlike intimacy that makes the whole world go away for a while.
> 2) Does the expression of ideas ever accomplish anything? Do we write
> books and essays to convince other people of our opinions, or to
> grandstand our intellect? Is thought an art? Do philosophers
> philosophise to purge their clutter?
Some artists do change people with their work, but not that many.
Communicating is often a frustrating or even impossible goal in visual art.
>
> I can't help but feel that the commentary on society, people and life is
> absolutely endless, but in all a frustrating waste of time. The pursuit
> of knowledge ... why? What basic life need is fulfilled by this? Am I
> being far too existential in declaring that everything we say about
> society and life is inconsequential, because all the topics, or at least
> the words about them are just decoration on top of the life itself, and
> tend to mask the point, purpose or appreciation of life itself?
You are looking for a long-term purpose in something that may not have one.
For many the creation of art is a momentary act, and the end product is quite
separate from the act.
>
> 3) Simplicity.... pure sensory intake on everything around a person
> without marring it with inadequate words. Is this worth striving for? To
> strip life down to bear essentials, the most primitive of needs. Breath,
> eat, love, laugh. Is this enough? Why would anyone need more? Do we
> need the higher thoughts? Do we need complication and frustration to
> decorate our lives?
Love's complicated enough all on its own, at least in my experience.
>
> Would it be boring? It can't be harmful, and from an evolutionary sense, a
> complete ego - supression and loss of higher western societal values
> shouldn't hinder our enjoyment of life at all, should it?
Self-worth often derives from issues associated with ego and self.
>
> I'm over thinking already, aren't I? I should take my own advice and just
> sit back, relax, and watch this freakin' show and stop worrying about
> whether I'm worrying about it too much.
:)
>
> I feel like such a fucking child. I am so very far behind in
> philisophical evolution. I'm sorry guys, this has been brought to yu by
> WastedBadwidth.
>
> Leanan Sidhe
losthalo
Sean Somers
Charlotte Ashley (bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: [It's possible this'll be posted twise 'cause my server sucks, so I
: apologise right now. ]
(Body of message snipped, meta-ontos questions snipped.
Theory snipped
"To ask" snipped.")
Ah if samsara were so easy to erase.
: 3) Simplicity.... pure sensory intake on everything around a person
: without marring it with inadequate words. Is this worth striving for? To
: strip life down to bear essentials, the most primitive of needs. Breath,
: eat, love, laugh. Is this enough? Why would anyone need more? Do we
: need the higher thoughts? Do we need complication and frustration to
: decorate our lives?
Haiku: image.
: I'm over thinking already, aren't I? I should take my own advice and just
: sit back, relax, and watch this freakin' show and stop worrying about
: whether I'm worrying about it too much.
Who's the master who makes the grass green?
: I feel like such a fucking child. I am so very far behind in
: philisophical evolution. I'm sorry guys, this has been brought to yu by
: WastedBadwidth.
Ahhhhh, the final gambit's played: The voice behind the theory,
the bewilderment underneath all the convoluted questions. Start with
that. End with that.
And it's all like jazz.
Only my opinion . . .
fuck Art, let's dance,
slan,
sean.
--------------------
Sean Somers endy...@unix.infoserve.net
Here a star, and there a star, |Depts. of English and Humanities
Some Lose their way. | Simon Fraser University
Here a mist, there a mist: (604) 291-3136
Afterwards--day! -emily dickinson
Marcus Pan
nag...@miavx1.muohio.edu wrote:
>
> In article <5m59do$5...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte Ashley) writes:
> > I keep going over the same circuit in my mind.
> >
> > 1) what is the purpose of being an artist? To express? To entertain?
> > To decorate? To inform? To be insightful? Is it for the artist or
> > for the viewer?
To be yourself and express your own opinions. And hope maybe someone,
somewhere, shares them.
StealthGoth PAN - Authoring can be an art form too, y'know!
--
The Pan Pages - http://www.zenweb.com/pan
Legends Online - http://www.zenweb.com/legends
Surreal RAYn - http://www.zenweb.com/rayn
*<(-GothCode Available Upon Request-)>*
B J Kuehl
Wkisky Dave writes:
> (Charlotte Ashley) wrote:
>> 1) what is the purpose of being an artist? To express? To entertain?
>> To decorate? To inform? To be insightful? Is it for the artist or
>> for the viewer?
>>
>> put across an idea to the viewer? I can't think of many other reasons for
>> art... (because the artist "has to do it" is a very romantic but not
>> terribly thought out response, so please don't)
>
> I've always thought of 'art' as having no pratical use[1], that is a use
> that wasn't pre-determined by the artist other than to have no usefulness
> or practical usage.
> I mean if someone designs a tea strainer it's not art as such, because it's
> used for straining tea, but to produce a painting or sculpure has no
> practical use[1] other than it's artistic merit.
> [1] a painting is painted for the viewer to enjoy, but can be used to cover
> a damp patch on a wall.
I'll agree with you on that, WD, and raise you one further.
Art is an experiment on the part of the artist.
I'm not an artist. I can barely paint a bare wall, my drawings look
more illegible than my handwriting, and the only thing I can sculpt
with my hands is bread dough.
But I have several friends that are artists and, whenever I watch
them do their thing and listen to them talking about it outloud,
what I hear are questions like "I wonder what would happen if...?"
It's like they become fascinated with the angles and shadows of
a building or a scene, and they begin asking themselves the 'what
if' questions.
What if I tried this in chalk?
What if I mixed this color with that color?
What if I painted this in the evening shadows rather than the
morning shadows?
It reminds me of how Claude Monet used to paint. He would set up
a half dozen easels in front of a scene and then, as the sun
traversed the sky, he would move from one easel to next to
capture the scene as the lighting changed.
I've never met an artist yet who creates for the viewer (unless
they're doing what I call hotel/motel art ... cheap and easy
paint-by-the-numbers art for home decorating). Most of the
artists that I know don't create for the money but to experiment
with their ideas.
For example, one of my friends (who usually works in water colors)
asked herself "What if I tried using flower petals as a medium?"
The 'paintings' that resulted were tremendous. From a distance,
the flowerpetals blend together visually just as though they were
watercolors. She sold (and gave away) most of these creations
and, when she ran out of 'what if' questions, she went on to
another experiment.
BJ