Re: budhism enquiry
stumper
> Buddhism seems (to me) to be about overcoming, abolishing, extremes. The
> middle way is the answer to this. Granted - no extremes = less suffering.
> maybe.
>
> But I can't see how a great, or even not so great work of art can be created
> without knowing and experiencing extremes.
>
> If I have to choose between no suffering and great art, I will chose art and
> whatever suffering it takes to achieve it over 'safety'. Could a Beethoven,
> for example, have been a dedicated buddhist and created what he did?
>
> My brother in law is a Buddhist. He is also a dedicated musician, singer,
> song writer. Not a part timer - this has been his only career choice since
> he was seventeen. He is now in his fifties. He is also an extremist,
> essential to his art. It all seems to work together for him.
> He is an icon and has payed with the Stones among others. He is well known
> in the US and Canada.
>
> But unlike Tang type buddhism, he doesn't do fluff.
>
> So, as an observer, I wonder how many different kinds of Buddhism are there.
>
> To me, if you take the art out of life, there is no life. No life worth
> living, anyway. And art requires extremes.
>
> tara
>
It just looks that way
when you are not doing art.
I bet, if you live art,
it's the most natural way.
Be free and empty once in a while.
--
~Stumper
stumper
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 20:43:00 -0500, stumper wrote
> (in article <7HmdnfAQeKi...@ptd.net>):
>
>
>> I bet, if you live art,
>> it's the most natural way.
>
>
>
Ask any artist;
what you call extremes come to them
as naturally as Zen comes to some monks
spending decades just sitting still.
--
~Stumper
brian mitchell
> Buddhism seems (to me) to be about overcoming, abolishing, extremes. The
> middle way is the answer to this...
Well, it might be truer to say that Buddhism is about overcoming the
tendency of thought to settle on one side of a polarity or the other,
and that the middle way is about not settling on either, or any.
> Granted - no extremes = less suffering.
> maybe.
> But I can't see how a great, or even not so great work of art can be
> created
> without knowing and experiencing extremes...
This ain't necessarily so. Some of the greatest poets, painters and
composers in the past have led rather humdrum external lives.
Imagination may play a more significant role in art than actual
experience. Mind you, the distinction between imagination and experience
may be a fine one.
> If I have to choose between no suffering and great art, I will chose
> art and
> whatever suffering it takes to achieve it over 'safety'. Could a
> Beethoven,
> for example, have been a dedicated buddhist and created what he did?
I don't know about any individual artist, but there is in general some
tension between art and spiritual dedication (for want of a better
term). Most art comes out of the body of collective thought, culture,
and so on. Buddhism looks beyond thought. The kinds of art which have
cohabited most easily with Buddhism have been what might be called
accidental or non-intentional art; non-representative, done more by the
body than the mind. It leaves out a lot that has gone into the building
of cultures.
> My brother in law is a Buddhist. He is also a dedicated musician,
> singer,
> song writer. Not a part timer - this has been his only career choice
> since
> he was seventeen. He is now in his fifties. He is also an extremist,
> essential to his art. It all seems to work together for him.
> He is an icon and has payed with the Stones among others. He is
> well known
> in the US and Canada.
> But unlike Tang type buddhism, he doesn't do fluff.
> So, as an observer, I wonder how many different kinds of Buddhism are there.
> To me, if you take the art out of life, there is no life. No life worth
> living, anyway. And art requires extremes.
That's a pretty one-sided view. The extremes of art often exclude and
alienate a great many people and can come laden with heavy personal
agendas. And extreme art is very often bad art, just saying: "Look at
me!"
I think great art (as you see it) and Buddhism do coincide in two ways:
firstly, there is something supra-personal in the relationship between
the greatest artists and their art; and secondly, both have to be
without compromise. Is that more what you meant?
Being without compromise is, I'd say, the most difficult thing, whether
in art or spiritual practice. Mostly, where we choose between Buddhist
and worldly views and actions, the world wins.
brian mitchell
Robert Epstein
in inner stillness
the activity takes place
through the artist's hands
and he is free
robert
- - - - - -
Evelyn Ruut
"tara" <jackpine@xplornet{removethis}.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C176974F...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Hi Tara,
I have heard the practice of buddhism described as practicing "perfect
sanity". There is not necessarily the absence of extremes but the absence
of neuroses that come from those extremes.
Art is enhanced, not hindered, when we can get out of our own way. Feeling
passion and extremes for life is not the enemy. Allowing those passions to
cause us ongoing pain by their continuing reverberations in our minds, is
another thing altogether.
The problem, as buddhism approaches it, is not in feeling or experiencing,
but in clinging to those experiences in a negative way, so that we become
obsessed, caught up in, and harmed by them. The process that Tang calls
"mentation" is what is the issue.
Some are emotionally inclined towards extreme emotional swings by their
inborn nature. This sensitivity can be the ground for great creativity, it
is true, but it can also take over and actually work to stop the process of
creating, due to the painful nature of such mood swings.
You might liken it to a rock going into a puddle of water, creating rings of
waves and disturbing the surface long after the rock has sunk to the bottom.
Buddhism stills the repercussive nature of such shocks and allows our mental
"pond" to return to stillness and clarity sooner.
It could nearly be summed up as "it's not what you do, it's the way that you
do it" or "it isn't what happens to you it's the way you allow it to effect
you" sort of a thing...... :-) Becoming basically sane, and not getting in
ones own way, absolutely does not quash creativity, it enhances it.
Hope this helped.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
>
>
>
>
>
Evelyn Ruut
"Robert Epstein" <epste...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b_c4h.9245$bg7.639@trndny04...
Yes. Basic sanity is very free, and creativity happens.
Awaken21
> Buddhism seems (to me) to be about overcoming, abolishing, extremes. The
> middle way is the answer to this. Granted - no extremes = less suffering.
> maybe.
>
> But I can't see how a great, or even not so great work of art can be created
> without knowing and experiencing extremes.
How do you know where the middle is if there are no extremes? The
extremes and the middle create each other.
>
> If I have to choose between no suffering and great art,
Luckily that's not one of the options presented by Buddhism.
> I will chose art and
> whatever suffering it takes to achieve it over 'safety'. Could a Beethoven,
> for example, have been a dedicated buddhist and created what he did?
>
> My brother in law is a Buddhist. He is also a dedicated musician, singer,
> song writer. Not a part timer - this has been his only career choice since
> he was seventeen. He is now in his fifties. He is also an extremist,
> essential to his art. It all seems to work together for him.
> He is an icon and has payed with the Stones among others. He is well known
> in the US and Canada.
So you've actually got a real life example right in front of you, yet
you cling to your intellectual perception of definitions. The truth is
many buddhist are artists and many of them walk the middle path in
their lives while passionately perusing their passions to the extreme.
Any conflicts between these two are not actual conflicts, instead they
illusions, fakes created by an intellect not exposed to actual
practice.
>
> But unlike Tang type buddhism, he doesn't do fluff.
Me either, I take my fluff seriously. I don't take my self seriously,
but I take what I do seriously, mostly because other depend on me,
otherwise I'd just a be monk (who still has lots of sex, I guess I'd
have to move to Japan :) ).
>
> So, as an observer, I wonder how many different kinds of Buddhism are there.
There is no Buddhism in that sense, there's just whole bunch of people
who attempt to follow the path of the Buddha. When refering to them as
a group it's convenient to have a group label. The group label holds no
constant definition of the Buddha's path.
>
> To me, if you take the art out of life, there is no life. No life worth
> living, anyway. And art requires extremes.
Buddhists and buddhist cultures have a long history of creating, loving
and enjoying art of all kinds. That would indicate your assumptions
about following the Buddha's path and what the practice of the middle
way is are somehow incorrect. Just a wild guess but to me it seems like
a lack of exposure to the actual practice, as opposed to reading about
it or talking with others who are Buddhist. The idea that practice is
mandatory to actually understanding is popularly a Zen teaching,
however Zen gets that teaching directly from Buddhism itself, I think
with good reason.
Richard Corfield
>
> You might liken it to a rock going into a puddle of water, creating rings of
> waves and disturbing the surface long after the rock has sunk to the bottom.
> Buddhism stills the repercussive nature of such shocks and allows our mental
> "pond" to return to stillness and clarity sooner.
That was a good article, one I've added to my supply of locally saved
ones. I especially like the puddle of water.
A question though. Do you have to revere Buddha to be a Buddhist? (In
a similar way that a Christian is expected to more than revere Christ)?
Or is it a more abstract shape and set of ideas that fits?
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, .
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone 3^
stumper
> On 2006-11-08, Evelyn Ruut <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>> You might liken it to a rock going into a puddle of water, creating rings of
>> waves and disturbing the surface long after the rock has sunk to the bottom.
>> Buddhism stills the repercussive nature of such shocks and allows our mental
>> "pond" to return to stillness and clarity sooner.
>
> That was a good article, one I've added to my supply of locally saved
> ones. I especially like the puddle of water.
>
> A question though. Do you have to revere Buddha to be a Buddhist? (In
> a similar way that a Christian is expected to more than revere Christ)?
> Or is it a more abstract shape and set of ideas that fits?
>
> - Richard
>
You need to trust the Buddha.
--
~Stumper
Keynes
wrote:
>Buddhism seems (to me) to be about overcoming, abolishing, extremes. The
>middle way is the answer to this. Granted - no extremes = less suffering.
>maybe.
>
>But I can't see how a great, or even not so great work of art can be created
>without knowing and experiencing extremes.
>
>If I have to choose between no suffering and great art, I will chose art and
>whatever suffering it takes to achieve it over 'safety'. Could a Beethoven,
>for example, have been a dedicated buddhist and created what he did?
>
>My brother in law is a Buddhist. He is also a dedicated musician, singer,
>song writer. Not a part timer - this has been his only career choice since
>he was seventeen. He is now in his fifties. He is also an extremist,
>essential to his art. It all seems to work together for him.
>He is an icon and has payed with the Stones among others. He is well known
>in the US and Canada.
>
>But unlike Tang type buddhism, he doesn't do fluff.
>
>So, as an observer, I wonder how many different kinds of Buddhism are there.
>
>To me, if you take the art out of life, there is no life. No life worth
>living, anyway. And art requires extremes.
>
>tara
>
Excellence in art or anything else is a gift.
Meaning that it is not given for efforts or hopeful desire.
The difference between an artist and a hack is intention.
Nothing worthy can be made intentionally. The art must
flow from somewhere unknown and uncontrollable.
(As greeks surmised with their 'muses'.)
For a real artist there is just the art, not the self.
The great productive passion is impersonal and it's
own master, a gift, and not an achievement of anyone.
In this way it's a form of zen, but temporary and partial,
not aimed at the ultimate buddhist liberation.
Awaken21
Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2006-11-08, Evelyn Ruut <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > You might liken it to a rock going into a puddle of water, creating rings of
> > waves and disturbing the surface long after the rock has sunk to the bottom.
> > Buddhism stills the repercussive nature of such shocks and allows our mental
> > "pond" to return to stillness and clarity sooner.
>
> That was a good article, one I've added to my supply of locally saved
> ones. I especially like the puddle of water.
>
> A question though. Do you have to revere Buddha to be a Buddhist? (In
> a similar way that a Christian is expected to more than revere Christ)?
No.
> Or is it a more abstract shape and set of ideas that fits?
Actually it's more practical. You need to attempt to find what the
Buddha found, seek what the Buddha sought, become a Buddha not worship
a dead one.
Robert Epstein
"First Thought Best Thought."
Trungpa's poems had remarkable individuality without attachment.
I think what you said to Tara is very good; basically I would add that
it is ego that causes violent extremes that reflect suffering and cause
further suffering. We just came back from Disneyworld, and there were
some really great roller coasters. Because we knew how well constructed
and protected they were, we were able to enjoy the "violent swings"
without any real underlying fear or pain. Compare that to an out of
control car and a real horrible accident. An enlightened artist could
express all those "swings" without losing a sense of balance and faith
that everything is really okay.
Disneyworld was amazing by the way. I was surprised at how
sophisticated it was, and how enjoyable for adults, especially Epcott.
Robert
==================
Robert Epstein
> On 2006-11-08, Evelyn Ruut <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>You might liken it to a rock going into a puddle of water, creating rings of
>>waves and disturbing the surface long after the rock has sunk to the bottom.
>>Buddhism stills the repercussive nature of such shocks and allows our mental
>>"pond" to return to stillness and clarity sooner.
>
>
> That was a good article, one I've added to my supply of locally saved
> ones. I especially like the puddle of water.
>
> A question though. Do you have to revere Buddha to be a Buddhist? (In
> a similar way that a Christian is expected to more than revere Christ)?
> Or is it a more abstract shape and set of ideas that fits?
>
> - Richard
>
You don't really have to do anything to follow the Buddha's teachings.
In zen they teach one not to personally revere the Buddha, as he is not
meant to be a God but an example. This is probably also true of the
real relationship to Christ. He is a guide or teacher, but not a
removed icon to be revered. Still, in any given sect they will have
their own practices to be adhered to. If you join a group you will
learn its requirements. If you practice independently, you can make
your own rules. The important thing is the practice and how you apply
the teachings to your own personal quest for understanding.
Robert
=======================
Evelyn Ruut
"Richard Corfield" <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrnel3ro7.3jo....@gateway.internal.littondale.dyndns.org...
> On 2006-11-08, Evelyn Ruut <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> You might liken it to a rock going into a puddle of water, creating rings
>> of
>> waves and disturbing the surface long after the rock has sunk to the
>> bottom.
>> Buddhism stills the repercussive nature of such shocks and allows our
>> mental
>> "pond" to return to stillness and clarity sooner.
>
> That was a good article, one I've added to my supply of locally saved
> ones. I especially like the puddle of water.
>
> A question though. Do you have to revere Buddha to be a Buddhist? (In
> a similar way that a Christian is expected to more than revere Christ)?
> Or is it a more abstract shape and set of ideas that fits?
>
> - Richard
Richard there are a million ways of relating to the teachings of buddha,
probably as many ways as there are people. If you keep an open mind, and
read a lot, you may begin to see why buddhists respect him so much.
Buddha was never a god. He was a man like you are. He applied himself
with all his lifes efffort to discovering the nature of human suffering and
how to end it. He did not ask to be worshipped, and we do not worship him.
There is no comparison to the way buddhists respect Buddha, to the way
christians revere Jesus. It is a whole different thing (not that one is to
be seen as good and the other as bad, but just different) In fact there
are may people who respect both for different reasons.
Keep an open mind and read a lot. Perhaps you will like what you read.
A good place to start would be to buy a copy of "What the Buddha Taught" by
Walpola Rahula. I consider it the single best book on buddhism that I know
of.
If you don't have the money for a book, you could go to
http://www.accesstoinsight.org and read there for hours.
Charles E Hardwidge
> zen they teach one not to personally revere the Buddha, as he is not meant
> to be a God but an example. This is probably also true of the real
> relationship to Christ. He is a guide or teacher, but not a removed icon
> to be revered. Still, in any given sect they will have their own
> practices to be adhered to. If you join a group you will learn its
> requirements. If you practice independently, you can make your own rules.
> The important thing is the practice and how you apply the teachings to
> your own personal quest for understanding.
Just thinking of the parallel's between religions and business, and the
parallel between the love of enlightenment and love of money crystallised.
Sure, one has you smoking cigars and swigging port in that big house on the
hill, and the other begging on a rock while you wear a rag, but it does beg
the question about how different material and spiritual greed are. they are
both an overindulgence and useless in their own way.
The difference between a legitimate organisations and terrorists can be a
fine one at times. The underling psychology of people can be twisted by the
persuasion and coercion of focus and peer pressure into something that runs
counter to correct action. If you look within yourself, organisations, and
nation states this should be recognisable. Through this, one may see how all
branches of science, religion, and politics are, really, the same thing.
So, you've got your Buddhas, Einsteins, and Bill Gates but apart from one
moment of insight by natural ability or randam chance, what sets these guys
apart from anyone else? Aren't they just another one trick pony that was
born in the right place at the right time? Sure, the accomplishements of
these people and the many that follow are considerable, but getting obsessed
or hand wavy about it seems like mere comment.
Caveat emptor.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Richard Corfield
> Just thinking of the parallel's between religions and business, and the
> parallel between the love of enlightenment and love of money crystallised.
> Sure, one has you smoking cigars and swigging port in that big house on the
> hill, and the other begging on a rock while you wear a rag, but it does beg
> the question about how different material and spiritual greed are. they are
> both an overindulgence and useless in their own way.
It also brings about the concern, how to progress on whatever path I
take while remembering not to do what what worried me about Christianity -
forget that other people and other people's paths are also valid. It
seems that that risk is everywhere.
All balance. Yoga warns about spiritual greed. Just being, not trying,
seems to be a good idea.
Thanks
Evelyn Ruut
> On 2006-11-08, Charles E Hardwidge <noj...@nojunk.co.uk> wrote:
>> Just thinking of the parallel's between religions and business, and the
>> parallel between the love of enlightenment and love of money
>> crystallised.
>> Sure, one has you smoking cigars and swigging port in that big house on
>> the
>> hill, and the other begging on a rock while you wear a rag, but it does
>> beg
>> the question about how different material and spiritual greed are. they
>> are
>> both an overindulgence and useless in their own way.
>
> It also brings about the concern, how to progress on whatever path I
> take while remembering not to do what what worried me about Christianity -
> forget that other people and other people's paths are also valid. It
> seems that that risk is everywhere.
>
> All balance. Yoga warns about spiritual greed. Just being, not trying,
> seems to be a good idea.
>
> Thanks
>
> - Richard
Richard, make no bones about it. The Buddha tried. He tried with all he
had, as hard as he could. When he had exhausted all the trying, he found
his answer. I won't tell you that some effort isn't needed, because it is.
What one does in the beginning may differ from what one finds ultimately.
Here is an old favorite quote I saved from Kalu Rinpoche. It explains that
part well.
*****
There is nothing to be gained, nothing to be found which is not there
already.
Truth is so simple, Buddhahood is so simple, Bodhicitta is so simple.
Truth is here, even here in this very cell. Truth is in you. The silence,
the sunyata is in you. You are the silence, you are the truth; you are the
Buddha. It is here at this moment, so simple and so near. Yet we make it
so distant when it is so near, so complicated when it is so simple. Do you
know what it is like to be ready to set out, to be at the roadside and
beside your motorcar, but to have lost the way?
You are the Buddha.
Then why do you not feel it? Why do you not know it? Because there is a
veil in the way, attachment to appearances, the belief that you are not the
Buddha, that you are a separate individual, (an atma). If you cannot remove
this veil wholly and at once, then you must dissolve it little by little.
It is because we have made what is simple so complicated, and what is near
so distant, that such complex exercises, mandalas, tantric meditation, the
creation of mental images, yoga and so on are necessary. A complex
discipline is necessary in order to deal with all the aspects of the human
being, all the aspects of that barrier which we have set up between us and
the truth.
But, for someone who wished to be persuaded, who wished to know that THAT is
so near and so simple, all those techniques which are the inheritance of
Tantric Buddhism and for which it is famous; All that skill would be
completely useless!
His Eminence Kalu Rinpoche, 1970 Quoted in The Vajradhatu Sun June/July
1989 issue.
Robert Epstein
The important thing is the "operating instructions" for becoming aware.
If you can follow them and put them into practice you don't have to
worry about much else.
Robert
========================
Robert Epstein
> On 2006-11-08, Charles E Hardwidge <noj...@nojunk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Just thinking of the parallel's between religions and business, and the
>>parallel between the love of enlightenment and love of money crystallised.
>>Sure, one has you smoking cigars and swigging port in that big house on the
>>hill, and the other begging on a rock while you wear a rag, but it does beg
>>the question about how different material and spiritual greed are. they are
>>both an overindulgence and useless in their own way.
>
>
> It also brings about the concern, how to progress on whatever path I
> take while remembering not to do what what worried me about Christianity -
> forget that other people and other people's paths are also valid. It
> seems that that risk is everywhere.
>
> All balance. Yoga warns about spiritual greed. Just being, not trying,
> seems to be a good idea.
>
> Thanks
>
> - Richard
>
Yeah, that's a good trick too.
Yoga can engender attachment to the "perfect body," or the "perfect
mental state." Attachment is attachment, so there are perils everywhere
for one who wants to get beyond ego.
Robert
=================
Charles E Hardwidge
> If you can follow them and put them into practice you don't have to
> worry about much else.
Spoken like a true Platonist.
Golly, it's becoming quite the fashion... o_O
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> mental state." Attachment is attachment, so there are perils everywhere
> for one who wants to get beyond ego.
I think therefore you are.
Problem gone. Heh.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Richard Corfield
> veil in the way, attachment to appearances, the belief that you are not the
> Buddha, that you are a separate individual, (an atma). If you cannot remove
> this veil wholly and at once, then you must dissolve it little by little.
Contemplation of Maya is very interesting, very interesting indeed.
brian mitchell
> For a real artist there is just the art, not the self.
> The great productive passion is impersonal and it's
> own master, a gift, and not an achievement of anyone.
A somewhat piously romantic view, IMO. A large percentage of the world's
greatest artists have been raging egomaniacs for whom *their* art,
*their* creative powers, took ruthless precedence over everything and
everybody else. As a general rule, creative genius and self-effacing
humility occur within different universes.
stumper
How do you know this?
--
~Stumper
brian mitchell
I'm an artistic genius whose creative powers take ruthless precedence
over everything and everybody else, so it MUST be true.
(oh, and a liberal arts education fills in the few gaps my natural
genius doesn't quite span)
Hollywood Lee
It's one of the reasons I have your picture on my alter - right next to
Jesus, Mary, and the Buddha.
brian mitchell
> It's one of the reasons I have your picture on my alter - right next to
> Jesus, Mary, and the Buddha.
While we're on the most fitting subject for universal discussion, what
are the other reasons?
Robert Epstein
Hey, I'm not a Platonist. Where'd you get that out of "awareness?" I'm
a Buddha-ist. I don't believe in pie in the sky. Neither do I believe
in apparencies on the ground.
Robert
-------------------
Robert Epstein
> On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:16:23 -0500, Keynes wrote
> (in article <a504l2th3q7p5enec...@4ax.com>):
> agreed.
>
>
>
>
>>In this way it's a form of zen, but temporary and partial,
>>not aimed at the ultimate buddhist liberation.
>
>
> hmmm.
>
>
>
>
Buddhist liberation is temporary and partial too, a predilection in each
moment, not an eternal icon.
Robert
--------------------------
Robert Epstein
so? what are you going to do about it? :)
robert
====================
Robert Epstein
so....what's wrong with Joseph? Just because Mary dissed him and didn't
have his direct child, don't mean you have to disrespect him too. Put
him on the list, he's a man. And you put Buddha in right with his own
family. Why you have to disrespect Joseph like that?
Robert
--------------------------------
Robert Epstein
He likes your smile. :)
robert
----------------
Charles E Hardwidge
>>> If you can follow them and put them into practice you don't have to
>>> worry about much else.
>>
>> Spoken like a true Platonist.
>>
>> Golly, it's becoming quite the fashion... o_O
>
> Hey, I'm not a Platonist. Where'd you get that out of "awareness?" I'm a
> Buddha-ist. I don't believe in pie in the sky. Neither do I believe in
> apparencies on the ground.
Just shaking the tree to see if some of the low hanging fruit hit the ground
running. It's a helicopter view thing. More seriously, I think, the
rationalist versus hand wavy split between Platonism and Buddhism is an
absurdity. This is a failure to communicate, like Daoism and modern
economics, or warfare and charity. Seek and ye shall find.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
>> greatest artists have been raging egomaniacs for whom *their* art,
>> *their* creative powers, took ruthless precedence over everything and
>> everybody else. As a general rule, creative genius and self-effacing
>> humility occur within different universes.
>
> so? what are you going to do about it? :)
I'm not sure that's entirely true. Many so-called raging egomaniacs are
driven by improvement and giving a damn, just as so many nice people are
driven by sticking their heads in the sand and selfishness. Yes, the
self-publicists troll their way to the top of the pile but they're not the
only ones in play.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Evelyn Ruut
"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
news:3130303030363...@fishing.net...
I don't know, Brian. Being one and knowing a few, I'd say that real
artists are just people. Just like you and me, with bills to pay, kids to
raise, lives to live. They are as diverse as any other group. Few have
the ability to just live for their art. I had to wait for my old age and
retirement, for my elderly mother in law to pass on, and to have a fixed
retirement income to indulge in it. For so many years I simply put my art
aside, because making a living (not as an artist) and keeping life on track,
took all my energy.
There was a woman in an art class I attended who was independently wealthy.
She painted all the time, had the best of everything, and was always taking
lessons, but did not have either talent or skill. So what! She enjoyed
it and liked calling herself an artist. Her paintings were honestly quite
awful, but she got joy from making them. Who would object to her doing
what she liked, no matter how muddy and badly done they were? I never saw
one piece she did that had any good quality at all.
Notice that I mentioned talent and skill separately? Talent is inborn, and
skill can be acquired. You really need both to make really good art or
music or whatever.
To illustrate this, there is another lady I know of, who has skill but
insists she has no talent. I might agree with her inwardly, since her
ability to draw or paint what she sees is not very good, but she definitely
has great color sense, and some of her art seems to have a quality that
draws the eye. Although she technically lacks somewhat in talent, I
honestly like quite a few pieces she's done. It relaxes her. Though she
tosses most of her efforts in the trash, every now and then her hard work
and the skill she has developed, come up with something interesting to look
at.
I wouldn't think that anyone can say "artists are this," or "artists are
that." Artists are people and as diverse from one another as any other
group.
Hollywood Lee
It's that Speedo you're wearing.
Hollywood Lee
Joseph is in the garage, watching over my woodworking tools.
Awaken21
Robert Epstein wrote:
>
> Buddhist liberation is temporary and partial too, a predilection in each
> moment, not an eternal icon.
OTOH objects in motion will tend to remain on their trajectory.
Robert Epstein
Well I like Socrates, although he was a manipulative mf, but Plato
really did have his head in the clouds. He kinda pisses me off with his
ideal form-alism. A lot of mischief emanates from that view.
Robert
-------------------------------
Robert Epstein
I think the original premise and the refutation may both be too general.
I think there are some observable characteristics that a lot of
artists, but not all, have in common, and there is also a lot of
individuality. I think it is a situation of being clear about what
characteristics are fairly general, and which are rumours or
caricatures. That is also true of most statements that are made about
any group, particularly ethnic or racial groups. Some of the
generalizations are true cultural artifacts, and some are based on bias
or bigotry. If we say that an ethnic inner-city family dinner, whether
it is Greek, Italian or Jewish, is probably more expressive, loud and
physical than an upper-class family dinner of Boston bankers [I've
attended one, so I know -- and just narrowly survived!], which is
probably more formal, it would not be generally inaccurate, but you will
always find some shy or formal Italians and Jews and a few crazy Boston
Brahmins. Likewise, to say most artists are more eccentric or
iconoclastic and unconventional in their behavior, or have generally
greater mood swings or expressiveness than the average person who is
trained to do the same civilized job 9-5 day in and day out would not be
too inaccurate either, but you will always find exceptions. The idea
that you have to be miserable in order to be an artist is overstated,
but there is some historical evidence for it at the same time. Certain
forms of art are more inclined towards emotional instability than others
so it also makes sense to specify what you are talking about. The fact
that Robert Lowell and two of his famous emotionally intense
"confessional poetry" students, Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton, all
committed suicide, is not a coincidence. I think artist do tend to be
more self-involved than the general population, or at least are more
willing to admit it, but again, it's not an absolute.
Robert
===================================
Robert Epstein
uh oh! time to do a spyware sweep!!!
robert
------------------
Robert Epstein
he and his child both pretty good carpenters. and the son could fish.
robert
-----------------------
Robert Epstein
--------------------------> **ouch**
robert
-------------------
Charles E Hardwidge
> did have his head in the clouds. He kinda pisses me off with his ideal
> form-alism. A lot of mischief emanates from that view.
That's a pretty fair view. I tend to look at the other side of the spectrum
in the same way. As always, I think, range and flexibility are important
considerations in a situation, and reflected in your own comments on social
stereotypes.
Several thousand years of Platonism and Buddhism, and all the technical and
social analysis we have, and the world hasn't changed a bit. It's the same
old types of people, doing the same old things, with the same old outcomes.
You'd think the penny would've dropped by now.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
brian mitchell
> Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> > I wouldn't think that anyone can say "artists are this," or "artists are
> > that." Artists are people and as diverse from one another as any other
> > group.
> I think the original premise and the refutation may both be too general.
> I think there are some observable characteristics that a lot of
> artists, but not all, have in common, and there is also a lot of
> individuality. I think it is a situation of being clear about what
> characteristics are fairly general, and which are rumours or
> caricatures. [...] Likewise, to say most artists are more eccentric or
> iconoclastic and unconventional in their behavior, or have generally
> greater mood swings or expressiveness than the average person who is
> trained to do the same civilized job 9-5 day in and day out would not be
> too inaccurate either, but you will always find exceptions. The idea
> that you have to be miserable in order to be an artist is overstated,
> but there is some historical evidence for it at the same time. Certain
> forms of art are more inclined towards emotional instability than others
> so it also makes sense to specify what you are talking about. The fact
> that Robert Lowell and two of his famous emotionally intense
> "confessional poetry" students, Sylvia Plath and Anne Sexton, all
> committed suicide, is not a coincidence. I think artist do tend to be
> more self-involved than the general population, or at least are more
> willing to admit it, but again, it's not an absolute.
We expect and encourage our artists to be Bad Boys and Girls because in
our society they perform a kind of shamanic function. They go where we
can't and bring back reports and artifacts for us to share. Right from
the start they are singled out as special, gifted, and their specialness
is cultivated. And if they are good, can communicate well and widely,
they earn praise and status and, these days especially, can earn a lot
of money. All that feeds back into the artistic persona.
When the artist Tracy Emin, amid much critical furore, won the Turner
prize, she was invited onto a tv discussion show with three noble
critics. She was probably drunk at the start, and as the talk wound on
got even drunker. Eventually she turned on the critics, who were all
middle-aged white men, swore at them, told them they wouldn't know art
if it bit them on the arse, that they were killing it with all their
talk, and much more besides. Then she wandered away into the unlit
portions of the studio. It was great tv and the three noble critics were
utterly delighted. Here was Art, the Real Thing, spitting and shouting
at them, kicking over the conventions, just like Art is supposed to do.
brian mitchell
brian mitchell
> There was a woman in an art class I attended who was independently wealthy.
> She painted all the time, had the best of everything, and was always taking
> lessons, but did not have either talent or skill. So what! She enjoyed
> it and liked calling herself an artist. Her paintings were honestly quite
> awful, but she got joy from making them. Who would object to her doing
> what she liked, no matter how muddy and badly done they were? I never saw
> one piece she did that had any good quality at all.
I think this passage touches on an important point, which is that of
communication. Art, to be art, has to communicate. Muddy self-indulgent
daubings may be therapy or vanity, but without that speaking quality
they aren't art.
I do actually partially agree with what Keynes said and have argued both
sides in the thread, but I see the impersonal element of art as this
drive to communicate. Art is a collective function. Who composes not to
be heard? Or writes not to be read? I see it as all part of the great
drive in us to make the unmanifest manifest and conscious. This drive
does come through persons, though, with their particular talents and
experience, and the hard stuff --the dark, disturbing, angry,
iconoclastic stuff-- might not happen at all without the fuel of ego to
power it.
brian mitchell
Charles E Hardwidge
> the Real Thing, spitting and shouting at them, kicking over the
> conventions, just like Art is supposed to do.
This is not unique to artists. It's as common among intellectuals. The hard
part is combining the extreme character with mainstream success. Emin and
her opposite numbers go too far and render themselves irrelevent, making
themselves and their endevours a mere symbol of vanity.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> communication. Art, to be art, has to communicate. Muddy self-indulgent
> daubings may be therapy or vanity, but without that speaking quality
> they aren't art.
I think, it's what you call post-post modern irony. Myself, I tend to think
the new wave of British comedians and artists are full of shit. They're a
self-promoting clique that's bootsrapped itself into a position of authority
and has little or nothing to offer beyond the narrow cockpit of their own
ego.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
D.K.
brian mitchell wrote:
>... I see it as all part of the great
> drive in us to make the unmanifest manifest and conscious. This drive
> does come through persons, though, with their particular talents and
> experience, and the hard stuff --the dark, disturbing, angry,
> iconoclastic stuff-- might not happen at all without the fuel of ego to
> power it.
>
>
extremes of feeling and behavior may be required for great art.
That is not to say that an enlightened or semi-enlightened Buddhist
cannot create great art, he or she obviously CAN. But there is a whole
other TYPE of great art that only will come through the egocentric,
driven self, the suffering self. Where do we get this idea? Look at
many famous great artists. Van Gogh, Dali', Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon,
Janis Joplin, John Belushi, James Dean, Curt Cobain, etc. etc... "The
suffering artist" stereoype...
The art of an enlightened Buddhist is not going to be of the same type
of art as that of a suffering artist. And I think what the OP was
saying - what I am saying - is that if everyone were a Buddhist, we'd
miss out on a lot of great art.
And as I said, I think the same applies to other great things in the
world, like technological progress and other material
accomplishments... I doubt that Buddhists would have the drive
necessary to create these great medical, social and technological
advances. Some yes, but as in the case of art, as explained above, it
would be of a different type, a different flavor of progress and
accomplishment.
Maybe the world is set up and is "supposed to be set up" so that there
is always the enlightened and the suffering. So there will always be
that balance... the Middle Way... Or am I just out in left field here?
stumper
>
> . . . . Art is a collective function. . . .
>
Believe it or not,
so is Zen as well.
--
~Stumper
stumper
That's nothing compared to
breaking the hearts of your parents and wife
by leaving home.
--
~Stumper
Robert Epstein
It's hard to herd cats.
Robert
-------------------
Robert Epstein
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:19:25 -0500, Robert Epstein wrote
> (in article <hE15h.20$tb2.14@trnddc08>):
> good analysis Robert.
>
> From a personal perspective, and I think I have a good one because most of
> the people in my life have been and are now working artists I am very much
> aware of how their psyches seem to work in relation to the general
> population. Also, when I was in Univ, I did a lot of work and research into
> the nature of artists and the 'artistic' temperament. (Freud's analysis
> sucks).
>
> Yes, there are different kinds of artists, as you say, and you really can't
> generalize. However they do appear to be egoists, on the surface, to the
> rest of the world. What they are though, is driven to do what they must do.
> And often that entails giving up most other concerns - conventional
> concerns. And they do suffer personaly for this. Thus, to the rest of us,
> they appear to be self centered.
>
> I can say that I know a few truly egoistic artists without seeming regard for
> others, but most that I am familiar with are truly caring people. They are
> simply driven to do what they do and they follow their path. And thank god
> that they do because without their 'selfish' dedication, we would not have
> great art.
>
> tara
>
>
>
>>===================================
I think the above also goes for a lot of "driven" physicists, brain
surgeons and authors as well. But grappling with creativity has a kind
of uncertainty to it and responsibility for creating something from
one's own vision that takes a unique kind of involvement.
Robert
-----------------------------------
Robert Epstein
> "Evelyn Ruut" <mama-l...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>There was a woman in an art class I attended who was independently wealthy.
>>She painted all the time, had the best of everything, and was always taking
>>lessons, but did not have either talent or skill. So what! She enjoyed
>>it and liked calling herself an artist. Her paintings were honestly quite
>>awful, but she got joy from making them. Who would object to her doing
>>what she liked, no matter how muddy and badly done they were? I never saw
>>one piece she did that had any good quality at all.
>
>
> I think this passage touches on an important point, which is that of
> communication. Art, to be art, has to communicate. Muddy self-indulgent
> daubings may be therapy or vanity, but without that speaking quality
> they aren't art.
That's your definition. Artists in various media from Picasso and
Duchamps to Grotowski in theatre might disagree. Eric Dolphy played his
saxaphone or bass clarinet whether anyone was listening or not. I think
he was in it for the discovery, much like a cosmologist, and not to
communicate to the audience. I think your definition is skewed in the
direction of the audience perspective, which tends to see art's purpose
as edifying someone other than the artist. I agree that such
communication is important, but it is wrong to say without it it is not
art; or that art must be collective. That is just your own limitation
upon it.
Robert
Robert Epstein
well, it's theatre in any case.
robert
---------------
brian mitchell
> brian mitchell wrote:
> >... I see it as all part of the great
> > drive in us to make the unmanifest manifest and conscious. This drive
> > does come through persons, though, with their particular talents and
> > experience, and the hard stuff --the dark, disturbing, angry,
> > iconoclastic stuff-- might not happen at all without the fuel of ego to
> > power it.
> >
> >
> I totally agree and that brings us back to your original theory, that
> extremes of feeling and behavior may be required for great art.
Tara was the OP. Credit where it's due.
> That is not to say that an enlightened or semi-enlightened Buddhist
> cannot create great art, he or she obviously CAN...
Obviously? Who are your examples?
> But there is a whole
> other TYPE of great art that only will come through the egocentric,
> driven self, the suffering self. Where do we get this idea? Look at
> many famous great artists. Van Gogh, Dali', Jimi Hendrix, John Lennon,
> Janis Joplin, John Belushi, James Dean, Curt Cobain, etc. etc... "The
> suffering artist" stereoype...
It is actually possible to trace the development of this idea through
cultural history. It hasn't always been so. It more or less keeps pace
with the rise of the idea of the individual being the flower of society.
> The art of an enlightened Buddhist is not going to be of the same type
> of art as that of a suffering artist. And I think what the OP was
> saying - what I am saying - is that if everyone were a Buddhist, we'd
> miss out on a lot of great art.
> And as I said, I think the same applies to other great things in the
> world, like technological progress and other material
> accomplishments... I doubt that Buddhists would have the drive
> necessary to create these great medical, social and technological
> advances...
There are some who would question your sense of progress and
advancement. If the whole world had adopted Buddhism 2500 years ago,
would we have developed all these technologies of war and environmental
exploitation which seem to be threatening the very future of humanity?
Unfortunately, we'll never know.
> Some yes, but as in the case of art, as explained above, it
> would be of a different type, a different flavor of progress and
> accomplishment.
> Maybe the world is set up and is "supposed to be set up" so that there
> is always the enlightened and the suffering. So there will always be
> that balance... the Middle Way... Or am I just out in left field here?
What we're talking about is the nature of the human mind, the direction
of its development, and so on. We could turn the argument on its head
and say if the mind wasn't so internally conflicted and unbalanced, or
so governed by atavistic instinct, what marvels of art and mental
science might it not accomplish?
Maybe it's all a question about passion. Buddhism's emphasis on
cessation and detachment can make it come across as anaemic and "half in
love with easeful death." Is there a place for passion, or strength, or
adventure in Buddhism? Or Love? I don't know.
brian mitchell
You're a severe judge, Sir. Perhaps they merely reflect the zeitgeist,
which is one of the artistic functions.
brian mitchell
> brian mitchell wrote:
> >
> > . . . . Art is a collective function. . . .
> >
> Believe it or not,
> so is Zen as well.
I'm predisposed to believe, but I think you'd find it a hard sell to
convince most of its practitioners of that.
brian mitchell
> brian mitchell wrote:
> > . . . Art, to be art, has to communicate. Muddy self-indulgent
> > daubings may be therapy or vanity, but without that speaking quality
> > they aren't art.
> That's your definition. Artists in various media from Picasso and
> Duchamps to Grotowski in theatre might disagree...
Why would you think that?
> Eric Dolphy played his
> saxaphone or bass clarinet whether anyone was listening or not. I think
> he was in it for the discovery, much like a cosmologist, and not to
> communicate to the audience...
Did he make records or leave written compositions? It all feeds into the
stream.
T S Eliot wrote some good essays dealing with tradition and the artist,
mostly with regard to poetry but they apply widely. His basic idea is
that every artist has first to imbibe and internalise the tradition,
then apparently reject it and strike out on their own to find what is
uniquely theirs. But, in doing that, they in fact enlarge the tradition
and bequeath it to the next generation.
We like to think of the artist as auteur, pure spark of creative energy,
but that's part of the long story as well.
> I think your definition is skewed in the
> direction of the audience perspective, which tends to see art's purpose
> as edifying someone other than the artist...
I haven't suggested art has a purpose. A *function* is different. I'm
trying to look at art in relation to the mind, otherwise this would all
be horribly off-topic.
> I agree that such
> communication is important, but it is wrong to say without it it is not
> art; or that art must be collective. That is just your own limitation
> upon it.
Not *collectivist*, you understand. Coming from, and answering to, the
Sea of Culture.
Robert Epstein
> Robert Epstein wrote:
>
>
>>brian mitchell wrote:
>
>
>
>>>. . . Art, to be art, has to communicate. Muddy self-indulgent
>>>daubings may be therapy or vanity, but without that speaking quality
>>>they aren't art.
>
>
>>That's your definition. Artists in various media from Picasso and
>>Duchamps to Grotowski in theatre might disagree...
>
>
> Why would you think that?
Well in Grotowski's case, he and his disciples basically stopped
performing and he announced a little while before he died that he was
developing the idea of art as a spiritual path, with the focus on the
changes in consciousness it could cause for the practitioner.
Duchamp destroyed his work and wouldn't allow any more works that
survived into the museums. One piece that had been on the way to the
Museum of Modern Art got smashed in shipment and had a cracked frame,
and he said that one could be displayed as long as it was not repaired.
An art statement to be sure, but of a different kind, which led to the
development of conceptual art, which also takes place to a great extent
within the mind of the artist, although we see more examples of "concept
pieces" that are just unusual art forms.
Brahms said that the best way to experience a symphony was "alone in the
dark with a good cigar." At that time they did not have recordings so
he meant in one's own mind.
Picasso refused to define his own work, saying that it meant whatever
the viewer thought it meant.
>> Eric Dolphy played his
>>saxaphone or bass clarinet whether anyone was listening or not. I think
>>he was in it for the discovery, much like a cosmologist, and not to
>>communicate to the audience...
>
>
> Did he make records or leave written compositions? It all feeds into the
> stream.
Dolphy said: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air; you can
never capture it again." Yet he recorded. Yet he still played mostly
by himself.
> T S Eliot wrote some good essays dealing with tradition and the artist,
> mostly with regard to poetry but they apply widely. His basic idea is
> that every artist has first to imbibe and internalise the tradition,
> then apparently reject it and strike out on their own to find what is
> uniquely theirs. But, in doing that, they in fact enlarge the tradition
> and bequeath it to the next generation.
Well Eliot was a bit neurotic, wasn't he? His main aim was to assert
himself as a British Man of Letters, although he was a midwestern
American. Along with his pal, Ezra "I hate everyone" Pound. You can be
sure Pound wasn't writing for the likes of us during his own lifetime.
Most likely he was trying to prove something to the ancient Romans and
Chinese. I think their audience was each other, and another lovely
people-hater, Yeats; although I am not saying that I am not a fan of
their poetry.
> We like to think of the artist as auteur, pure spark of creative energy,
> but that's part of the long story as well.
>
>
>
>> I think your definition is skewed in the
>>direction of the audience perspective, which tends to see art's purpose
>>as edifying someone other than the artist...
>
>
> I haven't suggested art has a purpose. A *function* is different. I'm
> trying to look at art in relation to the mind, otherwise this would all
> be horribly off-topic.
no offense, but who cares? when we're talking about such things, the
framework of topical congruity is of miniscule merit. how about talking
about it in relation to what it is?
>
>> I agree that such
>>communication is important, but it is wrong to say without it it is not
>>art; or that art must be collective. That is just your own limitation
>>upon it.
>
>
> Not *collectivist*, you understand. Coming from, and answering to, the
> Sea of Culture.
Well I disagree with any limitation that is not inherent. It seems to
me that such a limitation is intellectually derived and arbitrarily
applied. Of course there is a cultural component and cultural relevance
to art, but that doesn't mean that it is defining of the act of creation.
Robert
-------------------------
Charles E Hardwidge
>
>> Believe it or not, so is Zen as well.
>
> I'm predisposed to believe, but I think you'd find it a hard sell to
> convince most of its practitioners of that.
I think therefore you are.
That's getting a good work out this week... o_O
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Evelyn Ruut
"D.K." <pdsni...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163216013.6...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hmmmm....... I think it isn't "set up" to be any way, it just "is" as I see
it.
Great art can come from sensitivity, and occasionally, but not necessarily,
neurosis. Sensitivity is only enhanced with spiritual practice and
advancement, while eliminating the neurosis. As I see it, when we can get
out of our own way, we are able to express better, that which we perceive as
artists.
Van Gogh would have painted to an old age, Jimi Hendrix would still be
living and working and maybe teaching his style to young musicians.... and
you could go on and on thinking of artists who died young because they lost
their way.
It was their neurosis, that killed them, not their great abilities.
Sensitivity is fine, and an inborn thing, but what we do with it is what I
am talking about here, and presumably what Buddha himself was talking about.
It is what Tang calls "mentation" and what some call "proliferation" of
neurotic thoughts, of thoughts that engender, and re-engender more suffering
that destroyed some great artists whose lives were cut short.
The idea that it is their sensitivity that killed them, as one who perceives
more, feels more, is a romantic one, but the truth is that there are also
plenty of sensitive and artistic people who are NOT neurotic, and who do NOT
kill themselves with drugs or wild lifestyles. This would lend itself to
the thought that perhaps it is something other than artistic sensitivity
that drives them to this.
I have been an artistic person all my life, from early childhood on. It
has often been a rocky road, and a somewhat difficult childhood made it
worse. I always felt that an artistic temperament lent itself to more
suffering, because we perceive more, see more, feel more deeply.... and care
more.
But learning to ride that powerful wave of artistic sensitivity is more
skillful than allowing it to drag us under. It takes a few 'wipeouts,'
some of which could prove fatal. Those which don't, teach us better how to
control our own emotions. The times one comes close to the edge can
inspire us to seek greater control, and to analyze the situation, and find a
way to greater peace. One cannot ever escape ones artistic sensitivity or
temperament, but we can definitely escape the neurotic proliferation that
can come of it, and use our special abilities to positive good.
Studying some kind of mental practice, like meditation, or gaining some
wisdom, like buddhist philosophy provides, can make the process a lot
better. I regard myself as living proof of that. Not that I am anywhere
near the goal, but I am infinitely better than when I began my lifes
journey.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox')
Tang Huyen
brian mitchell wrote:
> Maybe it's all a question about passion. Buddhism's emphasis on
> cessation and detachment can make it come across as anaemic and "half in
> love with easeful death." Is there a place for passion, or strength, or
> adventure in Buddhism? Or Love? I don't know.
As I often say, one can engage all one wants, so long
as one keeps mindfulness and doesn't get carried away.
One shouldn't bite more than one can chew. That's
what balance and perspective are for.
Tang Huyen
Evelyn Ruut
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:12lbitf...@news.supernews.com...
Well said!
stumper
Way too ego-centric.
Who cares whether you are awakened or not?
Feel free to be compassionate
enough to burn yourself for others.
And be empty enough to do nothing.
--
~Stumper
stumper
Still drinking the picture of tea?
--
~Stumper
stumper
Do you really think
anyone would sit still for hours and hours
when no one else is around in the world?
--
~Stumper
Tang Huyen
stumper wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! You're so cute
and funny that Jen/fritz can't even keep up. If I
had money I'd pay you to follow me around to
tell me jokes, in addition to reminding me of my
faults and errors. You're precious, son!!!
By the way, both Jen/fritz and Fu are out, so you
lack outlets for your energy. Feel free to dump it
on me, it's much appreciated. The more the
merrier.
Tang Huyen
stumper
Feel free to do the same.
BTW Kindly note that
I rarely read more than
the first and last paragraphs.
--
~Stumper
Monique Y. Mudama
Robert Epstein penned:
> brian mitchell wrote:
>
>> I think this passage touches on an important point, which is that
>> of communication. Art, to be art, has to communicate. Muddy
>> self-indulgent daubings may be therapy or vanity, but without that
>> speaking quality they aren't art.
>
> That's your definition. Artists in various media from Picasso and
> Duchamps to Grotowski in theatre might disagree. Eric Dolphy played
> his saxaphone or bass clarinet whether anyone was listening or not.
> I think he was in it for the discovery, much like a cosmologist, and
> not to communicate to the audience. I think your definition is
> skewed in the direction of the audience perspective, which tends to
> see art's purpose as edifying someone other than the artist. I
> agree that such communication is important, but it is wrong to say
> without it it is not art; or that art must be collective. That is
> just your own limitation upon it.
Let me barge in with my first post to talk.religion.buddhism -- hi
all!
I can think of two counter-examples to the idea that art has to be
about communication.
One is Emily Dickinson.
"Emily Dickinson (1830-1886) was an American lyrical poet, and an
obsessively private writer -- only seven of her some 1800 poems were
published during her lifetime. Dickinson withdrew from social contact
at the age of 23 and devoted herself in secret into writing."
http://www.online-literature.com/dickinson/
Two may be way off base. It's doing martial arts forms. I guess it's
debatable whether that's art, but I think it's a somewhat interpretive
experience, finding the meaning in the moves and the timing. It's
definitely an internal experience, at least to me, and it's also
something that is beautiful. I don't know how to define art, really,
but it seems to me that forms could be art (as well as instruction and
maybe something like meditation -- I know this much >< about
meditation, but I've used forms to bring myself from an anxious,
angry, etc place where I couldn't let go to a calmer, more peaceful
place where I could let go of whatever was bothering me).
--
monique
Monique Y. Mudama
>
>
> And as I said, I think the same applies to other great things in the
> world, like technological progress and other material
> accomplishments... I doubt that Buddhists would have the drive
> necessary to create these great medical, social and technological
> advances. Some yes, but as in the case of art, as explained above,
> it would be of a different type, a different flavor of progress and
> accomplishment.
Um.
I'm still very much in the "ABCs" stage of learning about Buddhism, but
I don't really see it as antithetical to creating greatly in any
environment. People will still do what they can to alleviate
suffering, and part of that is medical care, food for the hungry, etc.
Maybe the "of a different type" just means "technological progress
with a conscience." Maybe it means researchers who won't just work
for the company that pays the most, researchers who consider long-term
impact on the environment, our fellow species, and humans when
exploring their ideas ...
Or maybe it just means being able to follow their interests without
being beset by worries like deadlines, losing their jobs if their idea
doesn't pan out, others' expectations of them ... but also without
getting stuck on one idea even though it's clearly not going in the
right direction.
--
monique
jerry
maybe just fashion
to feed the insatiable self
adventure is just adventure
in the absence of the clinger
that keeps all things neatly on a shelf
the view after the quagmire
seen with out the slant of desire
beauty is revealed to to the no-self
for death without life
is not a reality
:o)
jerry
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:12lbitf...@news.supernews.com...
>
>
Awaken21
> > We expect and encourage our artists to be Bad Boys and Girls because in
> > the Real Thing, spitting and shouting at them, kicking over the
> > conventions, just like Art is supposed to do.
>
> part is combining the extreme character with mainstream success. Emin and
> her opposite numbers go too far and render themselves irrelevent, making
> themselves and their endevours a mere symbol of vanity.
So mainstream success and relevence in the minds of the masses is
important to creativity and art?
Artists who give crap what most people think end up sucking anyway and
are irrelevent before they start.
Evelyn Ruut
"Awaken21" <lukec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1163268782.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I don't know if that is really so. I know a fellow who has always painted
weird stuff. It is not anything you'd ever want to hang in your house or
even own, but he is definitely a talented guy. He is so talented he
actually has something hanging in the Whitney museum! He doesn't really
care all that much about whether his work appeals to anyone, but is totally
geared towards expressing his own vision. Strangely enough he has managed
to be successful in that way, even though his choice of subjects is always
as I said; very weird. As for me, I like to paint things that are
soothing. Mostly landscapes and nature. If I would like to look upon a
lovely scene, I would also like to paint it.
Charles E Hardwidge
These are perspectives. The creativity versus popularity matrix isn't new,
and there's a million and one narratives which fill this space. It's not
something I can be bothered to argue anymore. Life's too short.
I think, I know how to blend creative and commercial success. The hard part
is making it happen, and that requires sound management. As for the outcome,
that's for the audience and my bank account to decide.
There's a lot of creative and economic ego around, and little point in being
dumb about it. Better to accept these things and work effortlessly around
them than get bogged down. People fall in line soon enough.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Robert Epstein
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:38:22 -0500, Robert Epstein wrote
> (in article <2tc5h.73$%U.14@trndny07>):
> I think so too.
>
> But grappling with creativity has a kind
>
>>of uncertainty to it and responsibility for creating something from
>>one's own vision that takes a unique kind of involvement.
>
>
> Yes. And again, thanks for understanding what I've been trying to say in my
> other posts about this subject. You have the gift of saying it the way I
> would if I could. :)
>
> tara
I'm always happy to clock in, when you bring up something that is
interesting. Also a subject that is important to me. I've spent most
of my life involved with music, poetry and performing arts. It's my
core, and my daughter's natural talents are in music, singing and dance
as well. It must be genetic. My Dad's an artist and our family friends
always treated his absent-minded involvement in the objects around him
and his continuous drawing no matter where we were with a combination of
humor and awe. They set him apart almost as much as he set himself
apart, mostly put him on a pedestal and forgave him if he didn't
chit-chat. We would all be chatting in a restaurant and he would be
drawing on the napkins with one of his four billion ever-present ink
pens. My creative energy was always scattered between three or four
competing arts, which did torture me quite a bit, while he was always
focused like a laser on his artwork. Now he is going on 87 and he is
exactly the same, just a little more wobbly on his feet. Today my wife
and I met him at the zoo and he excitedly pointed out the habits of the
red pandas and fishing cats in a new beautiful trail which he had made
his new haunt. He has maintained his aesthetic spirit by a constant
intention and joy. I would say he is happier now in his own
relationship to himself and us than he has ever been. It is great to
see where he has come to through the life of his mind and his work. He
has gone the last 20 years or so without a public show, and while he
likes to share his work, he really basically doesn't care that much
whether anyone sees it or not. It is his world, plain and simple, and
his meditation. With no background in zen or anything like that, he
says that his thoughts stop naturally when he works and he enters a
totally peaceful space, something he's earned in over 70 years of
constant dedication to his work, since the time he was a teenager.
Robert
--------------------------------
Robert Epstein
I don't think Luke is saying that it is bad to be accepted by the masses
or be in a museum; rather it is important what you do to get there. If
your goal is getting into the Whitney, your art is going to be very
different than if you follow your own vision and *happen* to wind up in
the Whitney because you're that good.
Robert
============================
Robert Epstein
GeF
It is indeed exceptional for an artist not to be a hungry ghost with
respect to his work being recognized ...
Do you or your dad have a web site showing what you and he are doing ?
norbu_...@yahoo.com
Why pick and choose?
"Big donkeys, small donkeys, all good to eat".
Hail Eris.
>
> --
> ~Stumper
Noah Sombrero
>It is indeed exceptional for an artist not to be a hungry ghost with
>respect to his work being recognized ...
Maybe it seems exceptional because we so seldom hear of the well
balanced ones.
>Do you or your dad have a web site showing what you and he are doing ?
Seems that would contradict what Robert said about his Dad, at least.
Noah Sombrero
Noah Sombrero
>Why pick and choose?
>
>"Big donkeys, small donkeys, all good to eat".
>
>Hail Eris.
However, one need not feel obligated to eat each and every donkey.
Noah Sombrero
stumper
Why not?
Do you always order chef's choice?
--
~Stumper
Robert Epstein
At present we do not have a website with my Dad's creative work on it,
or mine for that matter, but that is something we are working on, and
I'll post a message when it is up.
Thanks for the interest!
Robert
--------------------------
Robert Epstein
My Dad would love to have his stuff on a site. He is not against having
his work seen, just hasn't been his top priority compared to working.
But we are trying to figure out how to sort out some of his stuff and
set it up on a website; just that we are very slow about it, and lacking
in knowledge as well!
Robert
-------------------
Charles E Hardwidge
> his work seen, just hasn't been his top priority compared to working. But
> we are trying to figure out how to sort out some of his stuff and set it
> up on a website; just that we are very slow about it, and lacking in
> knowledge as well!
I'm dragging my own feet as well. I share your pain.
I have some amount of technical experience on the design and implementation
front. If you have some use for this I could be of some assistance. No
charge, but I wouldn't say no to some free art for my personal site if it
landed on my head.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Robert Epstein
Thanks, Charles. I'm not sure my father is ready to go yet, but I will
definitely run it by him and let you know when we get it together.
Robert
--------------------------
Charles E Hardwidge
>> implementation front. If you have some use for this I could be of some
>> assistance. No charge, but I wouldn't say no to some free art for my
>> personal site if it landed on my head.
>
> Thanks, Charles. I'm not sure my father is ready to go yet, but I will
> definitely run it by him and let you know when we get it together.
In your own time. I won't hold you to that, but thanks for the vote of
confidence. While the momentry reflection this situation caused won't level
mountains, it had merit. Anything which gets me focusing on doing instead of
procrastinating is useful at the moment.
--
Charles E. Hardwidge
Awaken21
Evelyn Ruut wrote:
> "Awaken21" <lukec...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1163268782.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> >> > We expect and encourage our artists to be Bad Boys and Girls because in
> >> > our society they perform a kind of shamanic function. [...] Here was
> >> > Art,
> >> > the Real Thing, spitting and shouting at them, kicking over the
> >> > conventions, just like Art is supposed to do.
> >>
> >> This is not unique to artists. It's as common among intellectuals. The
> >> hard
> >> part is combining the extreme character with mainstream success. Emin and
> >> her opposite numbers go too far and render themselves irrelevent, making
> >> themselves and their endevours a mere symbol of vanity.
> >
> > So mainstream success and relevence in the minds of the masses is
> > important to creativity and art?
> >
> > Artists who give crap what most people think end up sucking anyway and
> > are irrelevent before they start.
>
>
>
> I don't know if that is really so.
Actually what you say below shows that you completely agree with me.