New Nikart
Nik Maack
New painting.
Mall Man
http://www.nikart.com/newer/54.html
Just finished it yesterday. Comments of any kind appreciated.
Ima Sweat
>Comments of any kind appreciated.
As long as they're positive???
Mine: Ho hum (again)!!!
Nik Maack
Ima Sweat wrote:
> >Comments of any kind appreciated.
>
> As long as they're positive???
Nope. All comments are appreciated.
> Mine: Ho hum (again)!!!
Care to elaborate?
Criticism is about describing what you experienced, and why the
experience was a good one, or a bad one. Far too many individuals seem
to believe that criticism is all about blurting out, "BAD!" or "GOOD!"
Artists and writers (the ones I know, anyway) are always complaining
about this kind of criticism. "I like it," or "I hate it" is just not
enough. An explanation helps. That way the artist or writer can weigh
the criticism, and decide whether or not it has merit.
It's nice to know you took time out of your busy life to go to my
website and look at the portrait I did. But saying "Ho hum!" doesn't
really give me the feedback I need. In fact, it's extremely easy for me
to ignore that kind of criticism -- your words are bones utterly
deprived of meat.
Leigh
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca>
>
> Just finished it yesterday. Comments of any kind appreciated.
>
The eyes should have a much darker value. They are the most important
element in the photo, but are lost in your interpretation.
L.
Nik Maack
Leigh wrote:
> The eyes should have a much darker value. They are the most important
> element in the photo, but are lost in your interpretation.
Interesting comment. Thanks.
(I would have emailed this to you, but you munged your email address.
Oh well.)
Nerd Gerl
>> The eyes should have a much darker value. They are the most important
>> element in the photo, but are lost in your interpretation.
I agree with Leigh... however, I'm more interested in your "interpretation"...
if you wouldn't mind explaining it to a Nikart Newbie?
I am trying to appreciate your artwork. (Except the dirty words!) So I need
your help. I like the internal designs between the lines on your faces, but I
keep focusing on the colors and their contrast instead of the face itself.
Perhaps if I were further away from the art?
I dunno. Help me out. First impression (honestly) is weird (but hey - mature
adults call my art weird - teenagers call my art boring and beg to leave its
presence). Is your message, "Hey folks, here is *another* way to paint faces!"?
Or did I miss the point?
:-|
==========
Portfolio of Nude Angels: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
See In Person @ MatrixArts Space | Sacramento, CA
E- Portfolio: http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/nangels.zip
Andrew D
wrote:
+"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca>
+>
+> Just finished it yesterday. Comments of any kind appreciated.
+>
+
+The eyes should have a much darker value. They are the most important
+element in the photo, but are lost in your interpretation.
I'd say the man's nose is not big enough and it's not clear from the
painting that he wears large glasses. But then, I'd also question almost
every other aspect of the painting. :)
So if you judge the painted eyes by referring to the photo, then you would
have to seriously question every square inch of Nik's painting since it
bears no visual resemblance to the man in the photo - who is not covered
with tatoos or face paint.
Let's face it (no pun intended) if you walked past this man shortly after
seeing Nik's painting, you wouldn't recognise him - so I assume that's not
the intent. Once you accept that the intent was not to capture this man's
image on canvas/paper, then there is surely no basis for comparing any one
element of the finished piece with the original photo.
I'd have to say that I personally fail to see the point of all those dots,
shapes and squiggles - or why Nik used a real person as a starting point
for that matter. Mind you, the photo is reproduced in black & white - so
maybe we're not seeing what Nik saw and maybe, just maybe, this man
suffers from some undiagnosed skin disorder??? ;)
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Nik Maack
Nerd Gerl wrote:
> I am trying to appreciate your artwork. (Except the dirty words!) So I need
> your help. I like the internal designs between the lines on your faces, but I
> keep focusing on the colors and their contrast instead of the face itself.
> Perhaps if I were further away from the art?
I have been told by some of my "fans" (for lack of a better word) that
my faces come together better at a distance. All the colour and
distortion makes more sense there. (Insert Mani joke: from about two
miles, perfection!) This seems to be true (in my experience, anyway)
with most impressionist work. Up close, lots of colourful dots and
confusion. At a distance, the pattern starts to make sense.
> I dunno. Help me out. First impression (honestly) is weird (but hey - mature
> adults call my art weird - teenagers call my art boring and beg to leave its
> presence). Is your message, "Hey folks, here is *another* way to paint faces!"?
>
> Or did I miss the point?
I really can't tell you WHAT the point is, if there is one. What I do
is take a face, and then paint and draw a colourful distortion of it. I
like to think this is what people SHOULD look like. Inside us all is a
kaleidoscope that's waiting to explode. I really like the face of old
men, because the patterns of wrinkles gets me all excited. There's so
much there, such strangely naked power.
Photo-realism is not my bag. I'm not trying to give a literal
interpretation of a face. If somebody wants that, buy a camera. But
there's something inside the flesh I'm trying to find. I struggle to
find the thing that tweaked me, that got me excited about this
particular face. And this old guy... He's got a great, miserable,
serious face.
Clowns from hell, that might be a good description of what I'm going
for. Taking the somber and the serious and spraying them with colour.
Cheering up the dead. Turning ancient hieroglyphics into modern day graffiti.
It's about play, whimsy, colour as king, insanity, magic, and mystery.
That's what I get out of my stuff, anyway.
Leigh
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether>
>
>
> Let's face it (no pun intended) if you walked past this man shortly after
> seeing Nik's painting, you wouldn't recognise him - so I assume that's not
> the intent. Once you accept that the intent was not to capture this man's
> image on canvas/paper, then there is surely no basis for comparing any one
> element of the finished piece with the original photo.
Actually, what Nik saw in the man's face is more evident in his painting
than in the photo. I don't see a miserable old man. He has a strong and
rather handsomely put together face. Perhaps a bit questioning, which I see
in his eyes. Maybe it was his body language that gave Nik the impression
that he was miserable. And in that case, he caught him very well and you
might easily recognise him from the drawing after all.
L.
Mon Sune
>> Mine: Ho hum (again)!!!
>
>Care to elaborate?
Well, to paraphrase one of Mani's favorite
sayings, it isn't art if it requires a
lot of verbiage to explain it. Same goes
for criticism, I assume.
I've given you my opinion on your oeuvre in
the past and this latest work fits into the
same body nicely. Seeing your style
once or twice in a portrait rendering is
(refreshing?), but thrice and more becomes - what
can I say - HO HUM!
Mon Sune
>Photo-realism is not my bag.
Pardon me for jumping in here between
you two, but one of the things I advised
you to do when you first introduced your
work to this forum was to study the lifetime
of obsessive portraiture of Chuck Close.
At the time you had never heard of him.
He began as a monumental photorealist who
evolved to the fractured portraiture of
his more recent works - which are still
monumental (in size). Close would never have
kept the interest of the "art collecting
public" had his style remained static at
the photorealist era. That he continues to
make news is, I BELIEVE, due to his continual
experimentation with the facial subject
matter he has chosen to focus on in such
a singular manner.
Your work needs to begin evolving. So far
you show no inclination to experiment
beyond the fractured kaleidescope images
that all take on a sameness in appearance
when seen as a body. I can only imagine
all of your paintings hanging together in
a one-room gallery. I can imagine walking
into that gallery, looking closely at maybe
one or two to get the feel for your technique,
and walking out - ignoring the rest because
they all look alike.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Mon Sune <mo...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d21b...@oracle.zianet.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
know you can argue that photo-realism, magic realism, impressionism,etc.,
all become repetitious after a while but it shows up more in the work of an
artist who focuses upon very similar subject matter - variety they say is
the spice of life.
The understructure of your style is basically medieval - I personally have a
bias towards that understructure. You fill your enclosures with colourful
invented textural markings which contribute to the foregrounding of your
shapes and the subsequent equalisation of their importance.
One poster commented on your colour relationships. This is the essence of
medieval painting in that the medieval artists had to balance there colour
fields, ( yes I said fields - it is an old expression). Balancing colour
fields is extremely complex and is avoided by most artists. Those who try it
approach it from an imitative view point and don't understand the
complexity.
Since I know where you live, I would recommend going to the National
Gallery, second floor medieval religious paintings - also the Montreal
Gallery has wonderful medieval paintings. Study the artist's methods of
unifying coloured enclosures - creating unity within larger groups of
enclosures and their methods for separating figure ground relationships.
They buried their art under the religious content but it is there for the
serious investigator to find.
I would also advise expanding your subject matter into groups of figures
going about their every day activities - creating both unity and separation
within figure masses, separating figure masses from ground masses. You can
do all of this and still maintain the integrity of the flat surface. But, it
will take you years of work - and very few are up to it.
I agree with the poster who said it's time for you to explore the full
potential of your style. These are only opinions of others and in the end
you must choose your own path.
take care: keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D20EA7F...@sympatico.ca...
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D20EA7F...@sympatico.ca...
>
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
+Andy -
+Your posts, particularly your response to Nik's new portrait (which I seem
+to have accidentally deleted), lead me to believe that I could make some
+suggestions that would be of help to you.
+In particular, I'm struck by your objection to Nik's portraits on the
+grounds that they do not imitate the subject exactly.
No. I didn't "object" to them. Sure, they aren't to my liking/taste - but
I didn't denigrate them. I also admitted that I didn't get the point of
them - Nik had asked for feedback, I was giving mine.
But the main point of my post was that I was pointing out the apparent
inconsistency of Leigh's suggestion that the eyes should be darker (with
reference to the photo). I believe that once you go down that path, you
must ask serious questions about all the other "differences" from the
photo provided.
If, on the other hand, we accept that there was no intention of remaining
true to the subject, then there is no basis for commenting on the
incorrect tone of the eyes.
Andrew D
+Nerd Gerl wrote:
+> I am trying to appreciate your artwork. (Except the dirty words!) So I need
+> your help. I like the internal designs between the lines on your faces, but I
+> keep focusing on the colors and their contrast instead of the face itself.
+> Perhaps if I were further away from the art?
+
+I have been told by some of my "fans" (for lack of a better word) that
+my faces come together better at a distance. All the colour and
+distortion makes more sense there. (Insert Mani joke: from about two
+miles, perfection!) This seems to be true (in my experience, anyway)
+with most impressionist work. Up close, lots of colourful dots and
+confusion. At a distance, the pattern starts to make sense.
I copied the two images into Photoshop (For non-profit research purposes I
assure you). I significantly downsized the painting and then converted it
to greyscale, it still bore no resemblance to the subject photo.
Mani may be right ;)
[snip]
+Photo-realism is not my bag. I'm not trying to give a literal
+interpretation of a face. If somebody wants that, buy a camera.
If only there was a camera that delivers a literal interpretation. This is
one of the most worthless put-downs of "realism" that gets trotted out on
a regular basis - "why didn't you just take a photo?".
If you want expressionist portraits then - why bother taking a photo???
Nik Maack
keith,
> Nick: The posters who comment on your strong stylistic unity have a point. I
> know you can argue that photo-realism, magic realism, impressionism,etc.,
> all become repetitious after a while but it shows up more in the work of an
> artist who focuses upon very similar subject matter - variety they say is
> the spice of life.
Thanks for your comments, and thank you every one else who commented.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to get all self-centred and talk
about myself.
I am trying to explore other stuff. I think these two recent works...
http://www.nikart.com/newer/44.html
http://www.nikart.com/newer/45.html
...speak to that. I'm thinking about more abstract art. Less face and
more line and colour and explosion. That's certainly a place I want to go.
Interestingly, it was someone in this newsgroup -- Marilyn -- that gave
me a handle on what I might like to do with abstraction. I noticed her
photographs were complex patterns she'd created that were mysterious and
unexplainable. Somehow, this tweaked my brain, and I got the idea of
looking for complex patterns in reality, and trying to reproduce them
(including the feelings they bring about) would be enjoyable for me.
Also, taking abstract notions of a thing and trying to portray them.
For example, I find myself stuck with a particular image in my head --
an arm raised, the fist clenched, as though shaking. In my head, I can
already see a painting based on that image. Maybe talking about it
jinxes it, but I'll take that chance.
It's weird, but when I dream about art, the paintings I see tend to be
abstract colour and line and distortion. I've had a few dreams where I
faced some kind of challenge or fear, and was "rewarded" (by whom?) with
visions of art galleries full of complex art. And the art, I
instinctively know, is my own.
Another avenue I've been exploring is painted words. I really like this
work of mine, done a million years ago:
http://www.nikart.com/new/41.html
It features nothing but the words BLEED BAKE SCREW SUCK in "fields" of colour.
Painting the word FUCK (which spawned The Dirty Word Art Project) was an
attempt to explore the whole word thing.
http://www.nikart.com/dirty/d3.html
And I recently painted a work that says "Nothing Significant to Report",
a turn of phrase I came across at the office where I spend my days
wishing I was dead. The phrase summed up a sort of ennui I find kind of
funny, so I decided to paint the words. They came out all red on a
complex yellow background. I'd like to put the resulting painting on a
T-shirt, so I've hesitated to put the painting up on my site, while I
ponder the concept some more.
(I want to avoid going through Cafe Press, because I want the T-shirt
project to be MINE, not theirs. Besides, white and gray T-shirts suck.
If you can't get BLACK, what's the point?)
What else am I doing? Well, I also write. And I've been putting off
working on this one story for so long that I'm starting to feel guilty.
So I know that pretty soon I'm going to have to pick up that task. I
tend to bounce back and forth between painting and writing, doing one or
the other while the other art form is on hold.
> Since I know where you live, I would recommend going to the National
> Gallery, second floor medieval religious paintings - also the Montreal
> Gallery has wonderful medieval paintings. Study the artist's methods of
> unifying coloured enclosures - creating unity within larger groups of
> enclosures and their methods for separating figure ground relationships.
> They buried their art under the religious content but it is there for the
> serious investigator to find.
Interesting. I'll have to check that out.
There. I'm done talking about me. Now you talk about me.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-03070...@i160-109.nv.iinet.net.au...
Andrew D
<wTV09.218598$WJf1....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, "keith
o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
+Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+>>Dan wrote:
+> +Your posts, particularly your response to Nik's new portrait
+> +lead me to believe that I could make some
+> +suggestions that would be of help to you.
+> +In particular, I'm struck by your objection to Nik's portraits on the
+> +grounds that they do not imitate the subject exactly.
+> No. I didn't "object" to them. Sure, they aren't to my liking/taste - but
+> I didn't denigrate them. I also admitted that I didn't get the point of
+> them - Nik had asked for feedback, I was giving mine.
+> But the main point of my post was that I was pointing out the apparent
+> inconsistency of Leigh's suggestion that the eyes should be darker (with
+> reference to the photo). I believe that once you go down that path, you
+> must ask serious questions about all the other "differences" from the
+> photo provided.
+> If, on the other hand, we accept that there was no intention of remaining
+> true to the subject, then there is no basis for commenting on the
+> incorrect tone of the eyes.
+agree
In which case you'd surely have to agree that any critique of Nik's work
is pointless since to criticise irequires the application of some sort of
rules and clearly, Nik isn't trying to play by any rules.
No true believer in expressionism as an art form can ever indulge in art
criticism. The reality is that to an expressionist purist, anything
produced by anyone has to be art and also be artistically valid without
explanation or justification. The very fact that someone produced it at
all makes it art.
I disagree - but that's not the issue here.
Erik A. Mattila
> +agree
>
> In which case you'd surely have to agree that any critique of Nik's work
> is pointless since to criticise irequires the application of some sort of
> rules and clearly, Nik isn't trying to play by any rules.
But what do you think a "critique" is? I always think (just to get my
bearings) that when Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" he wasn't
writing that he didn't like reason, or that reason was bad, or needed to
be adjusted etc. He wrote about how we came by our ideas of "reason" in
the first place. That is what a critique is. "Art Criticism" came to
be because philosophers thought there was something about art, artists,
and art production that spoke important things about society and the
human condition. However, as Arthur Danto pointed out, philosophers
take from art that which interests philosophy (leaving a lot behind.)
So Nik's work would be a good subject for art criticism - for example
you could imbricate it in the whole discourse on simulacra and
redundancy that is going on in philosophy today. It wouldn't make a
rat's ass bit of difference whether Nik like rules or not.
> No true believer in expressionism as an art form can ever indulge in art
> criticism.
That's a bold statement. How do you explain the numerous critics who
have, in fact, written on expressionism?
The reality is that to an expressionist purist, anything
> produced by anyone has to be art and also be artistically valid without
> explanation or justification. The very fact that someone produced it at
> all makes it art.
Well, especially modern history has shown us that the magic ingredient
in determining artisticity is consensus. And it doesn't have to be a
broad consensus. A few people can do it, like the part of a museum
staff appointed to manage a blockbuster exhibit.
Erik
Alison A Raimes
>But what do you think a "critique" is? I always think (just to get my
>bearings) that when Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" he wasn't
>writing that he didn't like reason, or that reason was bad, or needed to
>be adjusted etc. He wrote about how we came by our ideas of "reason" in
>the first place. That is what a critique is.
Erik: I am not sure that Kant had art in mind when he wrote the first critique
- in fact he even tells us in the preface that it has no place in his first
critique. It is not until the third critique of aesthetic judgement when he
allows art a look in - when he attempts to bridge the first two critiques -
between cognitive knowledge and imagination/transcendental freedom. But I
realise that you are only trying to set the condition for critique, as such.
However, art criticism as we know it is very far removed from the Kant's body
of work and I'm not sure it works here.
The first critique was a *critical inquiry into the faculty of reason* - an
insight into the faculty of understanding - he tackles just about every
metaphysical problem in order to show that no one dogmatic metaphysical
condition could be accepted (a sign of the times). His question is *what can I
know?*. He also is quick to clarify that *in this sphere of thought, opinion
is perfectly inadmissible, and that everything which bears the least semblance
of an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions*. Kant's
gripe is that traditional metaphysics rests on a fundamental mistake - it
presupposes that we can make substantiate knowledge claims about the world
independently of experience. We are, therefore, unable to make *a priori*
claims about the world which are independent of our cognitive apparatus. When
he moves to the second critique - of practical reason - transcendental freedom
is discussed where *the moral law is the condition under which we can first
become conscious of freedom*. He sets up conditions under which we can make *a
priori* claims. By the time he writes the third critique he is trying to bridge
the *what can I know* with *what ought I do* and *what may I hope for*.
So I am not sure if you are speaking of *reason* in the same way that Kant
would have? can we make *a priori* claims about art? How is art linked to
Kant's main focus of *moral law*?
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik: I am not sure that Kant had art in mind when he wrote the first critique
> - in fact he even tells us in the preface that it has no place in his first
> critique. It is not until the third critique of aesthetic judgement when he
> allows art a look in - when he attempts to bridge the first two critiques -
> between cognitive knowledge and imagination/transcendental freedom. But I
> realise that you are only trying to set the condition for critique, as such.
> However, art criticism as we know it is very far removed from the Kant's body
> of work and I'm not sure it works here.
Are you saying, then, that Kant didn't like pure reason and wanted to
bad-mouth it? Anyway, it's a good example. Art criticism does the same
thing - determines why a particular work of art came to be and how it
is, or not, significant.
> The first critique was a *critical inquiry into the faculty of reason* - an
> insight into the faculty of understanding - he tackles just about every
> metaphysical problem in order to show that no one dogmatic metaphysical
> condition could be accepted (a sign of the times). His question is *what can I
> know?*. He also is quick to clarify that *in this sphere of thought, opinion
> is perfectly inadmissible, and that everything which bears the least semblance
> of an hypothesis must be excluded, as of no value in such discussions*. Kant's
> gripe is that traditional metaphysics rests on a fundamental mistake - it
> presupposes that we can make substantiate knowledge claims about the world
> independently of experience. We are, therefore, unable to make *a priori*
> claims about the world which are independent of our cognitive apparatus. When
> he moves to the second critique - of practical reason - transcendental freedom
> is discussed where *the moral law is the condition under which we can first
> become conscious of freedom*. He sets up conditions under which we can make *a
> priori* claims. By the time he writes the third critique he is trying to bridge
> the *what can I know* with *what ought I do* and *what may I hope for*.
Very interesting. But I was only making the point that a "critique" did
the things above, and I said it in a very general way...something like
"where our ideas about reason come form." What's wrong with that.
> So I am not sure if you are speaking of *reason* in the same way that Kant
> would have? can we make *a priori* claims about art? How is art linked to
> Kant's main focus of *moral law*?
I'm not really speaking of "reason" at all, Alison. I'm speaking of
"critique." Kant is just a good example, because the idea of 'hating
reason" and "criticizing" it is pretty ludacrous, yes? It's just an
exercise to get away from thinking of art criticism as talking about
liking or disliking a work of art, or decideing what is art and what
isn't, and so on.
Erik
Alison A Raimes
>"critique." Kant is just a good example, because the idea of 'hating
>reason" and "criticizing" it is pretty ludacrous, yes? It's just an
>exercise to get away from thinking of art criticism as talking about
>liking or disliking a work of art, or decideing what is art and what
>isn't, and so on.
Well, now I don't understand, Erik. Why would you use Kant's first critique as
a model when it deals solely with pure reason as the cognitive conditions under
which we engage with an object? He goes as far as to tell us that having an
opinion about something has no place in the discussion on pure reason. And as
reason is such a major component of the Kantian critiques, how can you say that
you are not speaking of reason in one sentence when you already said: *But what
do you think a "critique" is? I always think (just to get my bearings) that
when Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" he wasn't writing that he didn't like
reason, or that reason was bad, or needed to be adjusted etc. He wrote about
how we came by our ideas of "reason" in the first place. That is what a
critique is*. Is that what critique is? Kant didn't think so, and neither do
I.
In the first critique, as I have already shown, Kant deals with our knowledge
of objects according to the conditions of experience. In the second he deals
with the realization of freedom under the unconditional of moral law. In the
third, where the conditions for critique come to bloom, he establishes the
bridge between the two - the dependency on each other for critique - for
aesthetic judgement. He deals with taste, subjectivity and sensation. In other
words, Kant does not establish his ideas on aesthetic critique in the way you
say. Critique is not determined only by an objects place in the world - it has
other conditions that are relevant and necessary to it.
So, my friend, what you initially claimed is not what a Kantian critique is -
it must be a Mattila critique ;-) Had you cited the third critique and
established the rules between reason and intuition then you might have received
a completely different response from me! Have you been drinking?
Erik A. Mattila
>>I'm not really speaking of "reason" at all, Alison. I'm speaking of
>>"critique." Kant is just a good example, because the idea of 'hating
>>reason" and "criticizing" it is pretty ludacrous, yes? It's just an
>>exercise to get away from thinking of art criticism as talking about
>>liking or disliking a work of art, or decideing what is art and what
>>isn't, and so on.
>>
>
> Well, now I don't understand, Erik. Why would you use Kant's first critique as
> a model when it deals solely with pure reason as the cognitive conditions under
> which we engage with an object?
You don't understand because you're looking for something that it not
there. I'm discussing what "criticism" is. Forget Kant, he was only an
example. I could argue against what you're saying, but it is pointless.
We have two major ways of thinking about "criticism." An unfavorable
assessment of an object and an analytical method of describing an
object. Popular forms, such as Movie Reviews and Newspaper art critics,
tend toward the former. Philosophical, scientific and social science
criticism tends towards the latter.
My only claim about Kant, by virtue of using his work as an example, is
that he tends towards the latter. If you disagree, then you must be
claiming that Kant was out to create an unfavorable assessment of "pure
reason" (which you disclaim in your detailed account here.)
He goes as far as to tell us that having an
> opinion about something has no place in the discussion on pure reason. And as
> reason is such a major component of the Kantian critiques, how can you say that
> you are not speaking of reason in one sentence when you already said: *But what
> do you think a "critique" is? I always think (just to get my bearings) that
> when Kant wrote "Critique of Pure Reason" he wasn't writing that he didn't like
> reason, or that reason was bad, or needed to be adjusted etc. He wrote about
> how we came by our ideas of "reason" in the first place. That is what a
> critique is*. Is that what critique is? Kant didn't think so, and neither do
> I.
>
> In the first critique, as I have already shown, Kant deals with our knowledge
> of objects according to the conditions of experience.
Is your claim that this does not show us something about our idea of
"reason"?
In the second he deals
> with the realization of freedom under the unconditional of moral law. In the
> third, where the conditions for critique come to bloom, he establishes the
> bridge between the two - the dependency on each other for critique - for
> aesthetic judgement.
This suggest to me that Kant is commenting on the origin of our ideas of
"reason", does it not (in obverse to saying that "I don't like reason"
as an evaluation of the first sense of "criticism" that I mention above.
He deals with taste, subjectivity and sensation. In other
> words, Kant does not establish his ideas on aesthetic critique in the way you
> say. Critique is not determined only by an objects place in the world - it has
> other conditions that are relevant and necessary to it.
I just put all these variables under a very general rubric "how we come
to our ideas about "reason." Gross, for sure, but then I was only
making a minor point about what "criticism" means, or can mean.
> So, my friend, what you initially claimed is not what a Kantian critique is -
> it must be a Mattila critique ;-) Had you cited the third critique and
> established the rules between reason and intuition then you might have received
> a completely different response from me! Have you been drinking?
I think you've just made a mountain out of a mole-hill, actually. I
could have used Irwin Panofsky, Abelard or the Marshmellow Mariachi
Yogurt to make the same point - Kant was just handy and well known. My
use really doesn't merit a defense, Alison. I'm not attacking Kant, you
know, and I'm not distorting him either, as you seem to want to say.
For example, if you want to argue that "how we come to our ideas about
'reason' is inappropriate, then we can come up with another
generalization. It doesn't matter. The only point is that art
criticism as we know it is not really about saying this is good and that
is bad.
Erik, sober as a stone.
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
[snip]
+> No true believer in expressionism as an art form can ever indulge in art
+> criticism.
+That's a bold statement. How do you explain the numerous critics who
+have, in fact, written on expressionism?
If they go on about total freedom of expression being the foundation of
great art and then start criticising OR critiquing *aspects* of some
expressionist works then I would explain it as irony at best and hypocrisy
at worst.
To criticise requires rules and rules are the very antithesis of freedom.
So they can't claim freedom as a fundamental on one hand then apply rules
on the other hand.
It's like when keith tells us that children forget to draw the minute we
start giving them rules then turns around and tells someone they need to
take art lessons or learn composition. The two things don't sit well
together.
I am a person. I am a product of my own lifetime. My thoughts, opinions
and feelings are all a reflection of my life experiences. If my creative
urges lead me to produce semi-realist works of art with a "traditional"
feeling about them, then that is *my* expression. If I design a bus
ticket, then that is my creation - even if I follow a brief. For
expressionists to claim total freedom on one hand then dismiss my efforts
as anything but art because it doesn't reflect *their* notion of
creativity is the height of hypocrisy.
Either there are rules or there aren't. If there are then lets stop all
this nonsense about "total freedom". If not, then stop passing judgement
on other artist's work.
Alison A Raimes
>'reason' is inappropriate, then we can come up with another
>generalization. It doesn't matter. The only point is that art
>criticism as we know it is not really about saying this is good and that
>is bad.
Sorry, Erik - mistook the chance for a decent discussion. As our ideas on art
criticism evolved from Kant's third critique and as a result of the era in
which Kant wrote it, I thought your citing of the first critique was a genuine
one. My mistake.
Nik Maack
Andrew D wrote:
> To criticise requires rules and rules are the very antithesis of freedom.
> So they can't claim freedom as a fundamental on one hand then apply rules
> on the other hand.
Utter nonsense. Criticism, at its best, is merely a description of an
experience. When I "experience" this person's art, what is it I go
through? How does it make me feel? Is it similar to the experiences
evoked by other art? Does the art make me feel anything at all? If the
work fails to evoke an experience, then it can be said to have failed --
at least for this one, particular critic.
All other criticism is (in my opinion) pretentious intellectual game playing.
> Either there are rules or there aren't.
False dichotomy. Why should it be so black and white?
In my experience, each piece of art chooses its own set of rules. For
example, a film can be a black, somber, stark thing. The film maker
chose to do film noire. If in the middle of this black, bleak film,
they burst into a musical number with lots of happy elves and pixies --
then the film has broken its own rules.
While there are sets of rules we call "genres", there are always rules
that the artist (in any medium) chooses for themselves.
> If not, then stop passing judgement
> on other artist's work.
It sounds to me like this is about your hurt feelings -- not about the
theory of criticism.
Alison A Raimes
>experience.
That is expressing an opinion, Nik - it is only part of what criticism is. Why
would anyone be interested in *your* opinion - do you have a huge ego?
Criticism is about making judgements and it is not enough to judge a piece of
art on *what you like/dislike*. That is of absolutely no interest to anyone.
Art criticism requires a critical evaluation of the work along with an
intuitive response. Too bad Erik got up on his high horse about discussing
Kant, because there is some fascinating information secreted within his texts
that once revealed gives us a better insight into what criticism is about.
Erik A. Mattila
You know, Andy, I agree with what you say below. My mistake...I thought
you were talking about "expressionism" in the sense of Blau Reiter or
Die Bruke. I hear many say "I make art to express myself" and I ask
"How does that work?" I never get a clear answer.
Erik
Nik Maack
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Criticism is about making judgements and it is not enough to judge a piece of
> art on *what you like/dislike*. That is of absolutely no interest to anyone.
I didn't say it's based on what you "like/dislike". I said that good
criticism is based on experiencing the art work, and reporting on that
experience. For example, I see a painting. It evokes emotions. It
inspires thought. It reminds me of previously seen pieces of art.
A good critic takes all of that and uses it to describe what happened to
them when they saw the art. They share their experience. This involves
critical as well as intuitive faculties.
But please, continue your pissing match with Erik. Don't mind me.
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> I hear many say "I make art to express myself" and I ask
> "How does that work?" I never get a clear answer.
I don't even understand how you can ask the question. I make art to
express myself. That is, there are indescribable processes going on in
my head and belly that cannot be put in words. I get them out with art.
To put it another way, one way of understanding the inside of my head is
to make that inside an outside -- by putting it in paint. By expressing
myself in this fashion, I can then achieve a better understanding of the
inside of my skull.
Is this a clear answer?
Erik A. Mattila
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>I hear many say "I make art to express myself" and I ask
>>"How does that work?" I never get a clear answer.
>>
>
> I don't even understand how you can ask the question. I make art to
> express myself. That is, there are indescribable processes going on in
> my head and belly that cannot be put in words. I get them out with art.
And there you go - I said "I never get a clear answer" and you say
"there are indescribable processes going on". I can ask the question
"how does that work" because I belive that the processes are
describable, but they wouldn't really add-up to "I am expressing myself."
> To put it another way, one way of understanding the inside of my head is
> to make that inside an outside -- by putting it in paint. By expressing
> myself in this fashion, I can then achieve a better understanding of the
> inside of my skull.
It's an epistomological crises, Nik. On what basis are you
"understanding?" My suspicion is that we fool ourselves all the time.
Utterances such as "I paint to express myself" are coded gestures, much
like holding a pistol a certain way when you murder someone tells the
world what gang you belong to.
> Is this a clear answer?
Well, I accept the "indescribable" part, anyway. That much is clear.
Erik
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
>
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> And there you go - I said "I never get a clear answer" and you say
> "there are indescribable processes going on". I can ask the question
> "how does that work" because I belive that the processes are
> describable, but they wouldn't really add-up to "I am expressing myself."
(*sigh* The literal-minded always rain on the poets' parade.)
Do you believe in the "unconscious"? I do -- I think that majority of
who we are is beyond our conscious mind. It takes effort and strain to
get to see some of who we are and how we feel, because it's either
uncomfortable, or we lack language to express it. This is why we have
symbol and metaphor and dream -- so we can describe this piece of
ourselves that goes beyond "words". It's difficult to describe the
unconscious using rational, logical terms, because it's not a very
logical place -- as our dreams demonstrate.
This unconscious material in our heads can be accessed, but only in
particular ways. Dreams, word association, stream of consciousness
talking, Freudian slips, etc. Also by painting in a particular way --
to express oneself.
Have you ever heard yourself say something, and realized that you didn't
know you believed that, or felt that, until you heard yourself say it
out loud? Maybe in the heat of an argument, you suddenly blurted out a
statement, and it startled you because it was such an accurate depiction
of your feelings.
Painting to express oneself is an attempt to do that very thing -- to
blurt out surprise material. To say something you didn't know you
needed to say. To get that unconscious stuff out of me, and on to the
paper where I can see it, and experience it in a concrete form.
> > To put it another way, one way of understanding the inside of my head is
> > to make that inside an outside -- by putting it in paint. By expressing
> > myself in this fashion, I can then achieve a better understanding of the
> > inside of my skull.
>
> It's an epistomological crises, Nik. On what basis are you
> "understanding?"
Have you ever looked at a dream, trying to decipher what it means to
you? The same can be done with art you create.
> My suspicion is that we fool ourselves all the time.
I agree. This is why it's important, when doing dream analysis, to look
beyond the surface of a dream. Say, I dream I win the lottery. All my
friends gather around my place and are happy for me. I give the money
to all my friends, a piece at a time. When they all leave, I find I'm
broke and miserable.
A shallow interpretation of such a dream would be that I wish I could
win the lottery, because then I'd be rich. A more complicated
interpretation would be that I give away all my resources -- emotional
and physical -- and leave myself with nothing. An issue that needs
dealing with.
> Utterances such as "I paint to express myself" are coded gestures, much
> like holding a pistol a certain way when you murder someone tells the
> world what gang you belong to.
You believe "painting to express myself" is merely a fashionable pose?
It can be, for some people -- just as saying, "I am a painter," is a
pose for some. I met a guy who described himself as a painter. He did
crappy rip-offs of Dali, and he hadn't picked up a brush in over three
years. Still, he called himself a painter.
> Well, I accept the "indescribable" part, anyway. That much is clear.
If you ask a question, it's usually because you'd like to hear an
answer. In this particular case, I'm starting to doubt you want an
answer -- because you already have an answer you enjoy, and aren't
willing to let it go.
Erik A. Mattila
Nik Maack wrote:
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>And there you go - I said "I never get a clear answer" and you say
>>"there are indescribable processes going on". I can ask the question
>>"how does that work" because I belive that the processes are
>>describable, but they wouldn't really add-up to "I am expressing myself."
>>
>
> (*sigh* The literal-minded always rain on the poets' parade.)
>
> Do you believe in the "unconscious"? I do -- I think that majority of
> who we are is beyond our conscious mind. It takes effort and strain to
> get to see some of who we are and how we feel, because it's either
> uncomfortable, or we lack language to express it. This is why we have
> symbol and metaphor and dream -- so we can describe this piece of
> ourselves that goes beyond "words". It's difficult to describe the
> unconscious using rational, logical terms, because it's not a very
> logical place -- as our dreams demonstrate.
I'll tell you, Nik, when I read several years ago that psychologists in
the People's Republic of China did not accept the theory of the
unconscious, I was taken aback quite a bit. I mean, I had accepted it
as a "given" just about all my life. So I thought about that for years,
and now, I can imagine not believing in the unconscious. But more
important, I think, I've also had to question what "belief" is, and how
and why it is sigficant.
> This unconscious material in our heads can be accessed, but only in
> particular ways. Dreams, word association, stream of consciousness
> talking, Freudian slips, etc. Also by painting in a particular way --
> to express oneself.
I think my tendency is to see that "unconscious material" the effect of
synapes, bioelectricity, associations and all that. Since you are using
the 'dream' as the door, consider that a dream, to be known, has to be
rationalized. One good way to 'remember' a dream is to sit on the edge
of your bed when you wake up and try to just clear your head, and it
comes to you. So as crazy as remembered dreams are, they are still
heavily processed just for you to get an image of them, or some
dream-substance to remember. I think consciousness is intruding here,
so a dream is actually a symbolic account of some psysiographic event,
or something like that.
> Have you ever heard yourself say something, and realized that you didn't
> know you believed that, or felt that, until you heard yourself say it
> out loud? Maybe in the heat of an argument, you suddenly blurted out a
> statement, and it startled you because it was such an accurate depiction
> of your feelings.
I can't remember. It could have happened.
> Painting to express oneself is an attempt to do that very thing -- to
> blurt out surprise material. To say something you didn't know you
> needed to say. To get that unconscious stuff out of me, and on to the
> paper where I can see it, and experience it in a concrete form.
Here's where I get skeptical, Nik. "Surprise Material?" Why jump to
the conclusion that that has anything to do with "self" or "truth" or
something native and intrinsic to the individual? Repressed material,
such as our Oedipus complexes or whatever, tend to be literary, and
cultural in origin. What I'm trying to get at is that the source of
"suprise material" could be multivalent and exotic to the individual. I
don't see any guarantee that it is an emblem of the self at all.
One thing that fascinated me reading Julia Kristeva was her ideas about
ego formation and language. She said the moment of ego was found in the
semiotic "signifier" when that connection is made between the sign and
signified. That's why I've always loved Ursula LaGuinn's story "She
Unnamed Them" which is about Eve getting mad at Adam and taking back all
the names that were given the plants and animals of Eden. Reading it
(it's really short, a page and a half or so) you can get an
instantaneouws glimps of what it would be like to live in a world where
there were no names for things - thus no differenciation, no
individuation. It seems to me this is "superconscousness" in that it is
entirely material. By contrast, our habits of dividing up and
catagorizing the world, and assigning names and functions, is the
opposite of consciousness, as it is purely symbolic.
So skipping over a lot of material, I see a statement such as "I paint
to express myself" as a symbolic statement. It has meaning, of course,
but the meaning isn't about the act of painting at all. It is about
belonging...to a group, subculture or whatever, exchange and circulate
such expressions.
>>>To put it another way, one way of understanding the inside of my head is
>>>to make that inside an outside -- by putting it in paint. By expressing
>>>myself in this fashion, I can then achieve a better understanding of the
>>>inside of my skull.
Well, I've found myself "handling" ideas, especially graphic ideas.
Manipulation, trying out different things, with no real analytic thought
behind it, just feelings. But I don't ever see this as "self
expression." It's just a way of thinking, that's all.
>>>
>>It's an epistomological crises, Nik. On what basis are you
>>"understanding?"
>>
>
> Have you ever looked at a dream, trying to decipher what it means to
> you? The same can be done with art you create.
Or anything else, for that matter. Some personify all aspects of the
environment, as you know.
>
>
>>My suspicion is that we fool ourselves all the time.
>>
>
> I agree. This is why it's important, when doing dream analysis, to look
> beyond the surface of a dream. Say, I dream I win the lottery. All my
> friends gather around my place and are happy for me. I give the money
> to all my friends, a piece at a time. When they all leave, I find I'm
> broke and miserable.
>
> A shallow interpretation of such a dream would be that I wish I could
> win the lottery, because then I'd be rich. A more complicated
> interpretation would be that I give away all my resources -- emotional
> and physical -- and leave myself with nothing. An issue that needs
> dealing with.
I like the example Karl Jung gave, I believe it was in "Mysterium
Conuncionus." A Swiss patient confided his dream about a mountain
climbing trip with his bank colleagues, and they cut the rope on him and
he plunged to his death. Typical anxiety about work, promotions,
backstabbing etc. Jung thought. Only several months later Jung read in
the papers that the man had died in a mountain climbing accident, when
he was climbing with his bank colleagues.
>>Utterances such as "I paint to express myself" are coded gestures, much
>>like holding a pistol a certain way when you murder someone tells the
>>world what gang you belong to.
> You believe "painting to express myself" is merely a fashionable pose?
> It can be, for some people -- just as saying, "I am a painter," is a
> pose for some. I met a guy who described himself as a painter. He did
> crappy rip-offs of Dali, and he hadn't picked up a brush in over three
> years. Still, he called himself a painter.
No, I'm not talking about fashion, but more broadly about culture.
"Artist" is something in our culture, and it is full of meaning and
significance. Artists say things to each other all the time that
function primarily as group-speak, or the things members of a groups
exchange to continually restablish and verify the bonds among the group
as well as the group's boundaries.
>>Well, I accept the "indescribable" part, anyway. That much is clear.
> If you ask a question, it's usually because you'd like to hear an
> answer. In this particular case, I'm starting to doubt you want an
> answer -- because you already have an answer you enjoy, and aren't
> willing to let it go.
What I said, Nik, was that I've never had a clear answer. I don't think
there is one, because it's not the sort of statement that is reasonable
(even though it may be important on several levels). But I'm all ears.
But, you would have to establish first what "self" is, and then what
"expression" is. You know, things like that.
Erik
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
>
Nik Maack
Erik,
People say they create art to "express themselves". You ask them what
that means, and you've never been satisfied with the answer anyone has
given you. Is it possible that the problem is not with the terminology,
or the reality of others, but with you? After all, YOU don't get it.
You're not satisfied. Perhaps there is something about you that rejects
this notion outright.
> I mean, I had accepted it
> as a "given" just about all my life. So I thought about that for years,
> and now, I can imagine not believing in the unconscious. But more
> important, I think, I've also had to question what "belief" is, and how
> and why it is sigficant.
I think, perhaps, you think too much. Has it occurred to you that you
might be using intellectualization as a defense mechanism? That is, by
turning everything into a speculative mind game, you keep reality from
having any real emotional and personal impact.
I have this friend -- he's in therapy. He specifically chose a die hard
Freudian shrink to play with. The shrink keeps pointing out to my
friend that he uses his intellect to keep things at an emotional
distance. Having seen my friend do this many times, over and over, I
had to agree. This friend likes to talk philosophy all the time -- and
has a great deal of difficulty feeding and clothing himself. He's also
very Spock-like. His emotional life can be summed up in three emotions:
"irritable" and "guilty" and "none". He's gotten better over time --
thank God. But he's still somewhat emotionally flat.
And he's more than willing to discuss this with you, in an intellectual,
rational manner, for hours and hours. Unfortunately, that's kind of the problem.
> I think my tendency is to see that "unconscious material" the effect of
> synapes, bioelectricity, associations and all that. Since you are using
> the 'dream' as the door, consider that a dream, to be known, has to be
> rationalized.
Yes, when we struggle to remember a dream, we reconstruct it in the
retelling. We shape it into a narrative, making it more "logical". But
not all dreams are a struggle to remember. Some are clear as crystal
upon waking. Dream consciousness varies a great deal. There's a scale
from the murkiest forgotten dream all the way to the "lucid" dream,
where you're in a dream, and fully conscious that it is a dream, and
remember it as clearly as you remember a waking experience.
All this is to say, it is possible to remember a dream without
"rationalizing" it, without the "heavy processing" you mention --
depending on what kind of dream you had.
I don't know how much attention you've paid to your dreams. I've kept
dream journals on and off for years. I used to play with lucid dreams a
lot, summoning characters into dreams to see how they would behave, to
put questions to them, etcetera. It's fair to say that I've had a
complex dream life, full of interesting happenings.
So I find your attempt to dismiss dream as... As what? Bioelectricity?
A little depressing. It's like someone who has never really given much
thought to their feet telling me how unnecessary their toes are. We
could just chop them off -- they don't do anything!
> I think consciousness is intruding here,
> so a dream is actually a symbolic account of some psysiographic event,
> or something like that.
I have this irritating friend who has had all of the poetry sucked out
of his head by psychic leeches. He insists that dreams are random
noise, nothing more. Ironically, this same person is plagued by
nightmares. Which makes me laugh -- because in my model, what's
happening is his unconscious mind is trying to tell him something. He's
not listening ("It's just noise!") so the voice is getting louder, and
Louder, and LOUDER.
But in any event, even if a dream is PURE RANDOM NOISE (something I
don't believe) the human mind perceives everything as having a pattern.
So the noise is perceived as a pattern and takes on symbolic importance.
And, much like viewing an inkblot, the associations seen in this
"random noise" are given meaning. And that meaning is not always
immediately apparent. The meaning is often useful, significant, and
mind expanding.
If I sit you down and play a word association game with you... I say,
"Mother," you say "car crash," or whatever... You don't think that some
of the associations would come as a surprise to you? Perhaps there are
seemingly "rational" associations that, when spoken out loud, would
startle you.
> > Painting to express oneself is an attempt to do that very thing -- to
> > blurt out surprise material. To say something you didn't know you
> > needed to say. To get that unconscious stuff out of me, and on to the
> > paper where I can see it, and experience it in a concrete form.
>
> Here's where I get skeptical, Nik. "Surprise Material?" Why jump to
> the conclusion that that has anything to do with "self" or "truth" or
> something native and intrinsic to the individual?
You seem reluctant to believe that a human being can do something -- any
act at all -- and be surprised that they did it.
"Was that me? Did I say that? Did I do that? That doesn't sound like
me at all! Do I really feel that way? Do I really believe that?"
Given your inability to believe such a thing is possible -- you never
make Freudian slips? -- it's hardly surprising to hear you scoff the
idea of creating art and being surprised by the result.
But if you don't aim to control the art, the end result isn't something
you carefully planned for -- but something that happened outside of your
conscious thinking.
> Repressed material,
> such as our Oedipus complexes or whatever, tend to be literary, and
> cultural in origin. What I'm trying to get at is that the source of
> "suprise material" could be multivalent and exotic to the individual. I
> don't see any guarantee that it is an emblem of the self at all.
I would never suggest that all dreams are useful and interesting
messages from the unconscious. Some dreams are dull. Some are just an
expression of anxiety -- "Oh no! I'm at school and I'm naked!" "Oh no!
My teeth are falling out!"
But other dreams have more depth, more power, and are remembered for
years and years, long after they happened one sleepy night.
So I'd never suggest that a Freudian slip is always of deep, personal
significance. Nor is every piece of "expressive" art significant.
Sometimes you catch a fish, other times you catch a cold.
> So skipping over a lot of material, I see a statement such as "I paint
> to express myself" as a symbolic statement. It has meaning, of course,
> but the meaning isn't about the act of painting at all. It is about
> belonging...to a group, subculture or whatever, exchange and circulate
> such expressions.
That may be true for some artists -- but not for me. I think I have
demonstrated --if only by my willingness to describe to you the process
of "expressing myself" -- that there is more going on in my world than
an attempt to fit in to some group or subculture. Trust me -- "trying
to fit in" is something I have never been accused of.
> Well, I've found myself "handling" ideas, especially graphic ideas.
> Manipulation, trying out different things, with no real analytic thought
> behind it, just feelings. But I don't ever see this as "self
> expression." It's just a way of thinking, that's all.
What's the difference between putting your thoughts on paper -- "a way
of thinking" in a concrete way -- and expressing yourself? "Just a way
of thinking"? Maybe you do understand the idea of making art to express
yourself, and you don't even know it.
> > Have you ever looked at a dream, trying to decipher what it means to
> > you? The same can be done with art you create.
>
> Or anything else, for that matter. Some personify all aspects of the
> environment, as you know.
(Notice how you avoided the personal question, and immediately lunged
back into the abstract?)
Yes, it's also possible to wander through the world, taking everything
as a personal message. It's a fun game to play -- I've played it and
enjoyed it. It's like doing a tarot reading, using real life as the
cards. Or like looking at an inkblot for significance, but making the
entire world your inkblot.
Surrealists -- I should have mentioned them earlier -- were inspired by
Freud, way back in their early days, and a lot of their games and
experiments are all about delving into the unconscious. (Although there
are some modern day surrealists who don't believe in the unconscious.)
They played this same "reality reading" or "walkabout" game of reading
reality as a message.
Have you ever played it? Say, walked around the city or some area for
an hour, interpreting everything that happens as a Message From The
Universe to Erik? It's an extremely interesting game, and I highly
recommend it.
Jungians call this "active imagination" by the by.
> What I said, Nik, was that I've never had a clear answer. I don't think
> there is one, because it's not the sort of statement that is reasonable
> (even though it may be important on several levels). But I'm all ears.
Why do statements have to be "reasonable"? Why must answers be
"reasonable"? It is possible to provide an intuitive, poetic, mythic,
dream of an answer to a question, and have it be perfectly valid.
You're an artist, for Christ's sake! Aren't you aware of poetic
responses to reality?
For instance, here is a poem I wrote:
***
changes in the window
a few
parallel lines
spin on their spines
and the sun
so suddenly
dies
***
What does it mean? Is there a rational message in there? Does there
have to be one?
On the most basic level, this poem is about the blinds at the office
where I work. I saw someone close the blinds and thought -- wow! They
just killed the sun! But the poem is also about so much more. Even I
can't tell you, necessarily, what that more is. A point of view, a
mood, an idea...
When you ask someone, "Please provide me with a reasonable, logical
description of the concept of making art to 'express oneself'," maybe
you're setting up an impossible situation. It's quite possible there IS
no "reasonable" or "logical" answer. That doesn't mean making art to
express oneself is meaningless. It means that it falls outside the
realm of "rational". A lot of what people do is highly irrational --
and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
After all, is there any RATIONAL reason for a person to sit down and
paint a portrait of a face he saw in a magazine? Why do it? For fun?
That's not rational -- is it? Where is the logic in it? As far as I
can tell, there is absolutely no logical, rational, reasonable
explanation for painting ANYTHING other than the side of your barn or
maybe your living room.
(Then again, WHY paint your living room? Or your barn?)
> But, you would have to establish first what "self" is, and then what
> "expression" is. You know, things like that.
Or then there's that old philosopher gag...
"Before we continue this conversation, we're going to have to define our
terms. Could you define 'self'?"
"I'd like to assist you, but first, define 'define'."
Andrew D
[snip]
+I think my tendency is to see that "unconscious material" the effect of
+synapes, bioelectricity, associations and all that.
Much like deja-vu. The spiritually-minded want to believe deja-vu is
evidence of an after-life, reincarnation, a parallel universe or
clairvoyance. I think (and I believe science is coming onside) that it is
just a simple short-circuit from the memory-input sector of our brain to
the memory-recall sector. So, as an event unfolds before us, we seem to
remember seeing it all before but what's really happenng is that the
experience is lobbing itself straight into our memory storage bank at the
same time as our recollection processes scan that storage area for
comparative information. Lo and behold, we find an exact match and believe
this has all happened before.
No sooner do we realise we're having a deja-vu moment than it stops.
Presumably our brains have the ability to fix these short-circuits as soon
as they become aware of them. All easily explained and understood despite
years of apparent mystery (and mysiticism) surrounding it.
It's like trying to save a computer file with the same name as one you've
already saved except in the case of deja-vu, the computer manages to
instantly save a file just before it tries to save it (a kind of
double-save) then reports the file already exists. In fact, I think a
computer hiccups may end up explaining a lot of the inexplicable stuff
that goes on in our heads. How many times has your computer refused to do
a simple task because it believes something's wrong with your filing
system when really it's just a malfuction? I've opened perfectly good
documents and had them display all over the place as if created by a
madman. When our brains do this we get all gooey-eyed and call it
"dreaming", when 'Windows' does it we want Bill Gate's head on a platter.
[snip]
Andrew D
+Erik,
+
+People say they create art to "express themselves". You ask them what
+that means, and you've never been satisfied with the answer anyone has
+given you. Is it possible that the problem is not with the terminology,
+or the reality of others, but with you?
I think that's half the problem, the so-called "reality of others". To
accept your ideas on self and consciousness one first has to accept the
principle of multiple realities. That's the stuff religions are made of.
Nik Maack
Andrew D wrote:
> I think that's half the problem, the so-called "reality of others". To
> accept your ideas on self and consciousness one first has to accept the
> principle of multiple realities. That's the stuff religions are made of.
But there are "multiple realities" in a psychological sense, as opposed
to a religious sense. This is easilly demonstrated. Say you've been
bitten by a dog, have never owned a dog, and now hate dogs more than
anything. I've owned dogs all my life, have never been bitten, and love
all dogs. We're walking down the street together, and we see a man with
an exuberant rotweiller straining on the end of a leash.
The way I perceive this dog is going to be VERY different from the way
you perceive this dog. Whose perception is right remains to be seen --
will the dog bite us or not?
Now back to what I was saying to Erik. Artists go around saying they
create art in order to "express themselves". He finds this expression
wanting, and no one has ever been able to explain the concept to him
satisfactorily. To me, that sounds suspiciously like the problem is
with him.
If I walk around saying I have never satisfactorily seen the colour
blue, we wouldn't blame the colour blue, would we? We'd immediately
understand -- hey, Nik's colourblind. So why should we assume, in
Erik's case, that all of reality is lacking? That all artists who say
they create art to "express themselves" are merely making mouth noises
to fit in with others? That makes no sense.
Erik A. Mattila
> Now back to what I was saying to Erik. Artists go around saying they
> create art in order to "express themselves". He finds this expression
> wanting, and no one has ever been able to explain the concept to him
> satisfactorily. To me, that sounds suspiciously like the problem is
> with him.
>
> If I walk around saying I have never satisfactorily seen the colour
> blue, we wouldn't blame the colour blue, would we? We'd immediately
> understand -- hey, Nik's colourblind. So why should we assume, in
> Erik's case, that all of reality is lacking? That all artists who say
> they create art to "express themselves" are merely making mouth noises
> to fit in with others? That makes no sense.
But Nik, what you offered by way of explanation was some rhetoric
concerning emotonal life and a category named "indescribible." Which is
fine - don't get me wrong. It is just that it is unclear to me, as
regards my original question "how does that work?"
Some years back I was watching a Republican convention in Texas, and one
participant was carrying a sign that read "I support good old American
Values." A reporter asked her what those values were, and her answer
was "I don't know, but I support them." This is just to say that people
all the time say things that have not particular meaning, while at the
same time having an important function in language and culture. I'm
just suggesting that "I make art to express myself" is this class of
expression.
You have to ask yourself if you own any sacred cows that you're
unwilling to disturb, I guess. I've said the above plenty of times, and
felt uncomfortable with the question "does this really mean anything?"
But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your defense of
the concept is largely constructed around the bipolar idea of
emotion/reason, and can be reduced down to a statement like "Erik is
lacking" (in emotional life?) so he can't understand the concept of
self-expression. And indeed, in all possible worlds, that could be the
case. But it simply is not true. My emotional life is in tact, and I
enjoy asking questions of this nature and exploring alternatives. I
believe that "thinking outside of the box" is a very ambitious claim,
and I am probably falling far short of that sort of standard. But
nevertheless it is a direction and goal. So I ask, what's so precious
about any idea or expression that we can't examine and question it, even
severely and to the degree that we might even feel that queasiness of
disorientation when old ideas that formerly supported us collapse.
I have all my books and papers in storage, so I can't find the author of
a quote that I really like. I thought it was Meyer Shapiro, but I have
a nagging doubt...at least one of his contemporary art critics. "The
theory of modern art is a theory of consumption disguised as a theory of
production." In this sort of a context, the idea that "art is
self-expression" would be a code that circulates among artists,
governing their activity to a degree (on a very subtle level), and
extending out into the broader "art world" of patrons, curators,
afficianados, scholars etc.
Erik
Nik Maack
Erik,
> You have to ask yourself if you own any sacred cows that you're
> unwilling to disturb, I guess. I've said the above plenty of times, and
> felt uncomfortable with the question "does this really mean anything?"
This is not exactly a sacred cow for me. I find your line of inquiry
tiresome, because it reminds me of a lot of "serious thinkers" I've met.
They approach everything "rationally" and "logically" -- or what they
believe is rational, anyway -- which results in a lot of ridiculous
moments. What you are effectively doing is saying:
"Please explain to me, in rational terms, a poem."
A good poem, to me anyway, rises above rational thinking. It is an
intuitive thing, an appeal to emotions and instinct and imagery. To put
it another way, you're asking is:
"Describe a rainbow to me in simple black and white."
It can be done, maybe, but I don't think it can be done very well.
If dreams, the unconscious, intuition, and the personal are all
distasteful flights of fancy to you... How on earth can this
conversation go anywhere? It cannot. At least, not with me as a
participant. You want me to entertain the notion that unconscious
doesn't exist? I can't -- because I have experienced it in so many
different personal, concrete, and significant ways.
One example, I have had lucid dreams -- dreams where I am fully
conscious that I am dreaming -- and have summoned characters into my
dream and interacted with them. Given this sort of depth of
involvement, yes, I have a lot of difficulty entertaining the notion
that the unconscious is rubbish. It would be like asking you to
entertain the notion that there is no sky. You might be able to imagine
such a world -- but taking the idea seriously...? Probably not.
> But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your defense of
> the concept is largely constructed around the bipolar idea of
> emotion/reason, and can be reduced down to a statement like "Erik is
> lacking" (in emotional life?) so he can't understand the concept of
> self-expression.
It's more than lacking an emotional life. Your approach to this
conversation is highly abstract, impersonal, and social in scale. The
answer I am trying to give you HAS to be personal and intuitive --
because that's the only answer I can give you. I can only tell you what
I mean when I say I paint to express myself.
Because you're looking for rationality, you perceive my response as
"rhetoric" and a personal attack. I perceive your approach as cold,
vulcan-like, and totally lacking in empathy.
If you genuinely want to understand why a person would say they create
art to "express themselves", you might do better to look at an
individual person saying this, and empathize with what they say they're
doing. Because I don't think keeping your distance, and analyzing it
all in your head, is going to get you anywhere.
> My emotional life is in tact
Interesting Freudian (typo) slip, that -- "in tact" for "intact".
I asked you if you've explored dreams and dreamwork at all, and you
effectively side-stepped that question. Have you ever examined this
topic? Do you remember your dreams? Do they have any meaning to you?
> So I ask, what's so precious
> about any idea or expression that we can't examine and question it, even
> severely and to the degree that we might even feel that queasiness of
> disorientation when old ideas that formerly supported us collapse.
We can examine it, and we are. Or at least, I am. I don't precisely
know what you're doing. You seem to be questioning me, but not hearing
any of my answers. For example:
> In this sort of a context, the idea that "art is
> self-expression" would be a code that circulates among artists,
> governing their activity to a degree (on a very subtle level), and
> extending out into the broader "art world" of patrons, curators,
> afficianados, scholars etc.
This is what you've been saying all along. It's all just a pose,
meaningless jargon. Do you really believe I'm speaking in "artist
code"? Do I come across as someone who is duped by a bit of
intellectual puffery? I really don't think so.
Here's another line of thinking to chew on:
I'm a big fan of art therapy, and have been reading books on the topic.
One such book is called "Silent Screams and Hidden Cries" and features
analysis of drawings done by children who come from abusive homes. The
images are analyzed in order to figure out what the child is going
through -- specifically, the psychologists examine the pictures to try
to find out what feelings the children experience, but have difficulty
talking about.
Can you see how this is creating art to "express yourself"? Perhaps the
child doesn't have the language to express certain feelings, ideas, or
notions of sexuality. Maybe the kid has been taught that aggression is
wrong, but it comes out in their artwork. Adults can do the exact same thing.
So, here's a question: do you think the field of art therapy -- which is
firmly founded on the notion of art as "self expression" -- is complete bunk?
And yet another idea: authors often describe the feeling that a
character they are writing about slips out of their control. They want
to make a character do something, but the character refuses to respond
the way the writer wants them to respond. It's as if the character has
taken on a life of their own. And sometimes the author is surprised by
how a character acts.
The same thing can happen with painting. The artist believes they have
complete control over the painting, but in the process of creating it,
the painting can take on its own life. You want to use red, but the
painting insists that won't work, and drags you off in another direction.
Have you genuinely never experienced these kinds of sensations? These,
to me, are strong pieces of evidence that the unconscious exists, that
art is about expressing things beyond conscious thinking, and that by
creating art a person can learn more about themselves.
What are these experiences, to you? If you've never had any experiences
like them, what do you make of me telling you -- I've experienced them,
and I've heard other people describe experiences similar to them.
Erik A. Mattila
>
> Erik,
>>You have to ask yourself if you own any sacred cows that you're
>>unwilling to disturb, I guess. I've said the above plenty of times, and
>>felt uncomfortable with the question "does this really mean anything?"
>>
>
> This is not exactly a sacred cow for me. I find your line of inquiry
> tiresome, because it reminds me of a lot of "serious thinkers" I've met.
> They approach everything "rationally" and "logically" -- or what they
> believe is rational, anyway -- which results in a lot of ridiculous
> moments. What you are effectively doing is saying:
>
> "Please explain to me, in rational terms, a poem."
But volumes have been written on poetry, Nik. There's no real problem
explaining poetry rationally in my mind.
> A good poem, to me anyway, rises above rational thinking. It is an
> intuitive thing, an appeal to emotions and instinct and imagery. To put
> it another way, you're asking is:
Why is a 'feeling' +above+ rational thinking. I certainly wouldn't
argue that rational thinking is "above" the "immediately apprehended
aesthetic continuum" (to quote F.S.C. Lathrop, "The Meeting of East and
West.")
> "Describe a rainbow to me in simple black and white."
>
> It can be done, maybe, but I don't think it can be done very well.
>
> If dreams, the unconscious, intuition, and the personal are all
> distasteful flights of fancy to you... How on earth can this
> conversation go anywhere? It cannot. At least, not with me as a
> participant. You want me to entertain the notion that unconscious
> doesn't exist? I can't -- because I have experienced it in so many
> different personal, concrete, and significant ways.
Why do you say "distasteful flights of fancy"? I haven't said that.
But it's interesting that you can't conceive of the theory of the
unconscious being untrue. It's just an idea, after all.
> One example, I have had lucid dreams -- dreams where I am fully
> conscious that I am dreaming -- and have summoned characters into my
> dream and interacted with them. Given this sort of depth of
> involvement, yes, I have a lot of difficulty entertaining the notion
> that the unconscious is rubbish. It would be like asking you to
> entertain the notion that there is no sky. You might be able to imagine
> such a world -- but taking the idea seriously...? Probably not.
I've just read that the Chinese don't accept the theory - I haven't had
to opportunity to read their argument. It would have to be fascinating.
>>But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that your defense of
>>the concept is largely constructed around the bipolar idea of
>>emotion/reason, and can be reduced down to a statement like "Erik is
>>lacking" (in emotional life?) so he can't understand the concept of
>>self-expression.
>>
>
> It's more than lacking an emotional life. Your approach to this
> conversation is highly abstract, impersonal, and social in scale. The
> answer I am trying to give you HAS to be personal and intuitive --
> because that's the only answer I can give you. I can only tell you what
> I mean when I say I paint to express myself.
>
> Because you're looking for rationality, you perceive my response as
> "rhetoric" and a personal attack. I perceive your approach as cold,
> vulcan-like, and totally lacking in empathy.
I don't perceive your response as an attack at all, and there's nothing
wrong with 'rhetoric.' In fact, if we are attempting to talk about the
"unknowable" then rhetorical devices are likely to be our only options.
>
> If you genuinely want to understand why a person would say they create
> art to "express themselves", you might do better to look at an
> individual person saying this, and empathize with what they say they're
> doing. Because I don't think keeping your distance, and analyzing it
> all in your head, is going to get you anywhere.
No, my question is how does it work. For example, how do we know that
we are not simply circulating codes when we say such a thing?
>>My emotional life is in tact
>>
>
> Interesting Freudian (typo) slip, that -- "in tact" for "intact".
Well, what you you make of it. Perhaps it was intended.
> I asked you if you've explored dreams and dreamwork at all, and you
> effectively side-stepped that question. Have you ever examined this
> topic? Do you remember your dreams? Do they have any meaning to you?
I just thought it was a bit off-topic. We've only addressed dreaming as
evidence of the existence of the unconscious mind. You are convinced
that it is smoking-gun evidence, and I am not so sure. What can I say?
I've read several works on dreams, and I enjoy dreaming. My favorite
are the ones that come true or are clairvoyant. I'm not convinced that
these have anything to do with my unconscious mind.
>>So I ask, what's so precious
>>about any idea or expression that we can't examine and question it, even
>>severely and to the degree that we might even feel that queasiness of
>>disorientation when old ideas that formerly supported us collapse.
>>
>
> We can examine it, and we are. Or at least, I am. I don't precisely
> know what you're doing. You seem to be questioning me, but not hearing
> any of my answers. For example:
>
>
>>In this sort of a context, the idea that "art is
>>self-expression" would be a code that circulates among artists,
>>governing their activity to a degree (on a very subtle level), and
>>extending out into the broader "art world" of patrons, curators,
>>afficianados, scholars etc.
>>
>
> This is what you've been saying all along. It's all just a pose,
> meaningless jargon. Do you really believe I'm speaking in "artist
> code"? Do I come across as someone who is duped by a bit of
> intellectual puffery? I really don't think so.
Actually, you do come across that way to me. But I don't want to say it
in a way that is derogatory. It's just that I believe that this whole
discourse about mining the precious ore of the unconscious is indeed
"intellectual puffery." Don't forget that these ideas, which have become
so naturalized and seemingly unimpeachable to us today, were invented by
intellectuals such as Jung, Kerenyi, Campbell and so on. I think Edgar
Wind's critique, in "Art and Anarchy" is particulary poignant, in that
he claimed that the appeal of Jungian psychology to popular culture was
that it provided a wonderful venue for intellectual indolence (the
axiom, for example, that if you "think too much" you will block access
to the precious treasure of unconscious splendor).
> Here's another line of thinking to chew on:
>
> I'm a big fan of art therapy, and have been reading books on the topic.
> One such book is called "Silent Screams and Hidden Cries" and features
> analysis of drawings done by children who come from abusive homes. The
> images are analyzed in order to figure out what the child is going
> through -- specifically, the psychologists examine the pictures to try
> to find out what feelings the children experience, but have difficulty
> talking about.
>
> Can you see how this is creating art to "express yourself"? Perhaps the
> child doesn't have the language to express certain feelings, ideas, or
> notions of sexuality. Maybe the kid has been taught that aggression is
> wrong, but it comes out in their artwork. Adults can do the exact same thing.
>
> So, here's a question: do you think the field of art therapy -- which is
> firmly founded on the notion of art as "self expression" -- is complete bunk?
I actually did research with a leading authority on the "Draw a Person"
test, the late Sarah H. Hutchison. She had discovered that American
Indians respond differently to the test than non-Indians, and argued for
a unique interpretation criteria on that basis. Parole applicants are
given this test and Indian parole candidates are judged unfairly by
their response. The research I did with Sarah was to see if pre-contact
cultures responded the same way as contemporary Indian subjects, and we
found that they did. It was very fascinating.
Is it proof that art making is 'self-expression'? Perhaps. But it is
also possible it is cultural. One of the great unknowns of our time is
how culture is transmitted from generation to generation. I think a lot
of things that we pass off as "individual" are in fact "cultural."
>
> And yet another idea: authors often describe the feeling that a
> character they are writing about slips out of their control. They want
> to make a character do something, but the character refuses to respond
> the way the writer wants them to respond. It's as if the character has
> taken on a life of their own. And sometimes the author is surprised by
> how a character acts.
Indulgence works, Nik. I have had a very mystical feeling about
painting - something to do with "becoming" that which is being painted
(even a non-objective design). But I have no reason to see this as a
form of self expression.
>
> The same thing can happen with painting. The artist believes they have
> complete control over the painting, but in the process of creating it,
> the painting can take on its own life. You want to use red, but the
> painting insists that won't work, and drags you off in another direction.
>
> Have you genuinely never experienced these kinds of sensations? These,
> to me, are strong pieces of evidence that the unconscious exists, that
> art is about expressing things beyond conscious thinking, and that by
> creating art a person can learn more about themselves.
I've experienced all of these things. So you are interpreting these
things as the workings of the unconscious. My tendency is to see them
as culture.
> What are these experiences, to you? If you've never had any experiences
> like them, what do you make of me telling you -- I've experienced them,
> and I've heard other people describe experiences similar to them.
Well, that's why I included that quote: "The Theory of Modern Art is a
theory of consumption diguised as a theory of production." I'm
surprised you cut it out. Let me put it in another context - in
advertising, you hear many 'critics' proclaiming that consumers are the
victims of the nefarious schemes of advertisers (and sometimes this is
true, no doubt). But the alternative description is that consumers and
advertisers are co-involved in the same cultural practices, so the
consumer is just as active an agent in determining what comes to be as
advertisement.
Back to art, artists are fully engaged in consumption, handling the
material that comes from culture. The "product" itself is not so much
the the individual work of art, but the whole process of making art,
exhibiting, purchases, and so on. And we are all buying into it, even
though we may have different roles in the process.
Erik
Nik Maack
Erik,
> Why is a 'feeling' +above+ rational thinking.
It isn't. It's different than rational thinking. To put it another
way, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
> I certainly wouldn't
> argue that rational thinking is "above" the "immediately apprehended
> aesthetic continuum" (to quote F.S.C. Lathrop, "The Meeting of East and
> West.")
That's good to know. Because most Westerners that I talk to about
dreams, the unconscious, and all that jazz DO tend to see the rational
mind as the ultimate, while the emotional, irrational mind is something
best avoided.
And while I agree that I am setting up a split here that may not exist
in nature, it's a split that my culture has forced upon me.
> I don't perceive your response as an attack at all, and there's nothing
> wrong with 'rhetoric.' In fact, if we are attempting to talk about the
> "unknowable" then rhetorical devices are likely to be our only options.
I think there's something wrong with rhetoric. It's dull. I would much
rather hear about the personal experiences of others than about their
ideas. Everyone has ideas -- very few people act on them. For this
reason, I would rather read an autobiography than an argument. What you
have given me (mostly) is argument and no autobiography.
> >>My emotional life is in tact
> >>
> >
> > Interesting Freudian (typo) slip, that -- "in tact" for "intact".
>
> Well, what you you make of it. Perhaps it was intended.
A Freudian slip is always intended -- just not by the conscious mind of
the person who spoke it.
> I just thought it was a bit off-topic. We've only addressed dreaming as
> evidence of the existence of the unconscious mind. You are convinced
> that it is smoking-gun evidence, and I am not so sure. What can I say?
> I've read several works on dreams, and I enjoy dreaming. My favorite
> are the ones that come true or are clairvoyant. I'm not convinced that
> these have anything to do with my unconscious mind.
Then what are they?
To me, a lucid dream is extremely strong evidence for the unconscious
mind. If I am dreaming, and fully conscious -- as conscious as I am of
me when I'm awake -- then what is that dream world I'm walking around
in, and who are the dream people I meet and talk to?
For this being proof, we must assume that dream is something that takes
place only inside a dreamer's head -- something I don't always agree
with. There have been a few moments in my life where I think I've had a
"shared dream" -- where I've met people in a dream who could have been
other dreamers. I have no proof, naturally. How could such a thing
EVER be proved?
> Actually, you do come across that way to me. But I don't want to say it
> in a way that is derogatory. It's just that I believe that this whole
> discourse about mining the precious ore of the unconscious is indeed
> "intellectual puffery."
Then let us rephrase it slightly. Know thyself. Watch your own actions
-- be they painting, talking, or farting. Study them, because often
what you do and what you think are not in synch. One useful way of
studying yourself in this fashion is by studying your own art.
All traces of the word "unconscious" eliminated. Is it any more
palatable to you?
> Don't forget that these ideas, which have become
> so naturalized and seemingly unimpeachable to us today, were invented by
> intellectuals such as Jung, Kerenyi, Campbell and so on. I think Edgar
> Wind's critique, in "Art and Anarchy" is particulary poignant, in that
> he claimed that the appeal of Jungian psychology to popular culture was
> that it provided a wonderful venue for intellectual indolence (the
> axiom, for example, that if you "think too much" you will block access
> to the precious treasure of unconscious splendor).
>
I'll admit that the unconscious is a useful metaphor for what may be
many divergent things. However, I find that metaphor BEYOND useful, to
the point where, yes, it takes on religious qualities.
And I have seen far too many people use their intellect to justify their
prejudices. How many times have we seen someone blatantly interested in
a personal point of view justify their opinion using "logic" and
"reason" and "intellect"? The solution to making such errors is
obvious: don't rely solely on your logic and reason.
Nor should you rely solely on intuition and irrationality. Doing so
leads to a whole other world of problems -- like believing that the
voices in your head are real.
> I actually did research with a leading authority on the "Draw a Person"
> test, the late Sarah H. Hutchison. She had discovered that American
> Indians respond differently to the test than non-Indians, and argued for
> a unique interpretation criteria on that basis. Parole applicants are
> given this test and Indian parole candidates are judged unfairly by
> their response. The research I did with Sarah was to see if pre-contact
> cultures responded the same way as contemporary Indian subjects, and we
> found that they did. It was very fascinating.
I agree that culture plays a part in how images should be interpreted.
That makes perfect sense.
> Is it proof that art making is 'self-expression'? Perhaps.
Hooray!
> But it is
> also possible it is cultural.
It must be both cultural and self-expression. After all, we don't grow
up in a vacuum. Who we are is always embedded in where we are, and how
we were raised.
> One of the great unknowns of our time is
> how culture is transmitted from generation to generation. I think a lot
> of things that we pass off as "individual" are in fact "cultural."
This might explain the (irritating) trend of people defining "who they
are" by the kinds of movies they watch and the music they listen to. "I
consume, therefore I am."
> Indulgence works, Nik. I have had a very mystical feeling about
> painting - something to do with "becoming" that which is being painted
> (even a non-objective design). But I have no reason to see this as a
> form of self expression.
Why not?
You understand that, at its most basic, "expressing myself" is
everything I do. Every time I open my mouth and make a noise, I express
myself. Every time I type a word, I express myself.
And many of us feel bombarded, trapped, and programmed by our cultural.
The majority of the people I meet on a daily basis act only as
receivers. They absorb the advertising, music, and art that the world
shoots at them. Another way of thinking of art as self expression is
the idea that the artist isn't only a receiver, but also a transmitter,
broadcasting their particular signal.
And, of course, what they broadcast will be informed by what they
receive. But being more than just a receiver is a wonderful feeling --
and I would encourage everyone on the planet to find someway to
broadcast what they find in their guts.
To "express themselves".
> Back to art, artists are fully engaged in consumption, handling the
> material that comes from culture. The "product" itself is not so much
> the the individual work of art, but the whole process of making art,
> exhibiting, purchases, and so on. And we are all buying into it, even
> though we may have different roles in the process.
Recently I mentioned in this newsgroup the notion that anyone and
everyone can make art. My main focus, in my comments, was the book, "No
More Secondhand Art". A few artists in this group seemed threatened by
that idea -- as if it ripped the power from their hands and gave it to
the world. The artist no longer creates for society as a whole -- the
individual bits of society are free to express themselves.
I like the idea that anyone can make are, to paint, to draw, to say
something significant. And while it might not be as polished as the
work of a professional, that often makes the work more real, more true.
Yeah, I like art brut.
Erik A. Mattila
Hi Nik, been out of synch. I went to the doctor's office the other day
and when I came home I got sick. "Waiting Room Syndrome" or something
like that.
>>Why is a 'feeling' +above+ rational thinking.
>>
>
> It isn't. It's different than rational thinking. To put it another
> way, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
>
>
>>I certainly wouldn't
>>argue that rational thinking is "above" the "immediately apprehended
>>aesthetic continuum" (to quote F.S.C. Lathrop, "The Meeting of East and
>>West.")
>>
>
> That's good to know. Because most Westerners that I talk to about
> dreams, the unconscious, and all that jazz DO tend to see the rational
> mind as the ultimate, while the emotional, irrational mind is something
> best avoided.
>
> And while I agree that I am setting up a split here that may not exist
> in nature, it's a split that my culture has forced upon me.
Wahoah....this is getting interesting.
>>I don't perceive your response as an attack at all, and there's nothing
>>wrong with 'rhetoric.' In fact, if we are attempting to talk about the
>>"unknowable" then rhetorical devices are likely to be our only options.
>>
>
> I think there's something wrong with rhetoric. It's dull. I would much
> rather hear about the personal experiences of others than about their
> ideas. Everyone has ideas -- very few people act on them. For this
> reason, I would rather read an autobiography than an argument. What you
> have given me (mostly) is argument and no autobiography.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. Your writing, for
example, if full of rhetorical devices, or +tropes+. I'm talking about
that formal rhetoric that gives language both its reach and richness.
But what you say is true, I have been debating. I love debate, as a
matter of fact. But either way (autobiography or argument) the language
itself is likely to be embedded in rhetoric.
>>>>My emotional life is in tact
>>>Interesting Freudian (typo) slip, that -- "in tact" for "intact".
>>>
>>Well, what you you make of it. Perhaps it was intended.
>>
> A Freudian slip is always intended -- just not by the conscious mind of
> the person who spoke it.
I'm tempted to make a lie here, just for fun, and claim I intended it.
But the truth is I just didn't know the correct word was "intact." But
looking at the dictionary, "intact" and "in tact" mean just about the
same thing, except "in tact" brings in another sense of "sensitive
mental or aesthetic perception." It would be a great double-intendre.
If you want to make the case it is intended, however, I'll go for that.
How clever of me!
>>I just thought it was a bit off-topic. We've only addressed dreaming as
>>evidence of the existence of the unconscious mind. You are convinced
>>that it is smoking-gun evidence, and I am not so sure. What can I say?
>> I've read several works on dreams, and I enjoy dreaming. My favorite
>>are the ones that come true or are clairvoyant. I'm not convinced that
>>these have anything to do with my unconscious mind.
>
> Then what are they?
Well (if I understand what you are asking) in 1979 I found myself at
Teotihuacan with some Nahuatl and Mayan friends, and as we entered the
city, I remembered a dream that I had had years before. I told it to my
friends, and lo and behold, as we spent the day in the city, all the
details of the dream unfolded and came true. I thought it was so kewl
that I told them before it happened - unimpeachable evidence. But the
thing is, there was no part of the dream that was particularly personal
except the very end, which didn't come true. It was just about events
and sights that happened there.
Experiences like this make me glad for people who (rationally) think
about hair-brained ideas such as "Morphic Resonance." Rupert Sheldrake
http://www.sheldrake.org/
> To me, a lucid dream is extremely strong evidence for the unconscious
> mind. If I am dreaming, and fully conscious -- as conscious as I am of
> me when I'm awake -- then what is that dream world I'm walking around
> in, and who are the dream people I meet and talk to?
>
> For this being proof, we must assume that dream is something that takes
> place only inside a dreamer's head -- something I don't always agree
> with. There have been a few moments in my life where I think I've had a
> "shared dream" -- where I've met people in a dream who could have been
> other dreamers. I have no proof, naturally. How could such a thing
> EVER be proved?
Well, that's what scientists like Sheldrake are out to discover.
> Then let us rephrase it slightly. Know thyself. Watch your own actions
> -- be they painting, talking, or farting. Study them, because often
> what you do and what you think are not in synch. One useful way of
> studying yourself in this fashion is by studying your own art.
Yes, but this does sound like rational thinking to me, Nik.
> All traces of the word "unconscious" eliminated. Is it any more
> palatable to you?
I'm just being skeptical. You know, imagining that the
conscious/unconscious dichotomy is false, or better yet, imagining that
it is a useless linguistic habit.
>>Don't forget that these ideas, which have become
>>so naturalized and seemingly unimpeachable to us today, were invented by
>>intellectuals such as Jung, Kerenyi, Campbell and so on. I think Edgar
>>Wind's critique, in "Art and Anarchy" is particulary poignant, in that
>>he claimed that the appeal of Jungian psychology to popular culture was
>>that it provided a wonderful venue for intellectual indolence (the
>>axiom, for example, that if you "think too much" you will block access
>>to the precious treasure of unconscious splendor).
>
> I'll admit that the unconscious is a useful metaphor for what may be
> many divergent things. However, I find that metaphor BEYOND useful, to
> the point where, yes, it takes on religious qualities.
The Wintun tribe of California has 5 or so terms to describe different
realities. Each is a, well, "reality" and can be rationally described
and considered. If we were Wintun speaking people, I guess we could
have one hell of an argment about this. As it is, were doomed to a
simple two-valued polarity. How dull, eh?
> And I have seen far too many people use their intellect to justify their
> prejudices. How many times have we seen someone blatantly interested in
> a personal point of view justify their opinion using "logic" and
> "reason" and "intellect"? The solution to making such errors is
> obvious: don't rely solely on your logic and reason.
> Nor should you rely solely on intuition and irrationality. Doing so
> leads to a whole other world of problems -- like believing that the
> voices in your head are real.
>
>>I actually did research with a leading authority on the "Draw a Person"
>>test, the late Sarah H. Hutchison. She had discovered that American
>>Indians respond differently to the test than non-Indians, and argued for
>>a unique interpretation criteria on that basis. Parole applicants are
>>given this test and Indian parole candidates are judged unfairly by
>>their response. The research I did with Sarah was to see if pre-contact
>>cultures responded the same way as contemporary Indian subjects, and we
>>found that they did. It was very fascinating.
>>Indulgence works, Nik. I have had a very mystical feeling about
>>painting - something to do with "becoming" that which is being painted
>>(even a non-objective design). But I have no reason to see this as a
>>form of self expression.
>>
>
> Why not?
As I said, it's just indulgence. It's no more than "if it feels good,
do it." There is nothing to "say" about it...nothing to express.
> You understand that, at its most basic, "expressing myself" is
> everything I do. Every time I open my mouth and make a noise, I express
> myself. Every time I type a word, I express myself.
Then art making, if it is "self expression," is not a distinguished
activity at all. We're getting close to the source of my skepticism.
There is something else about art making that is important - the "self
expression" part is, well, meaningless.
> And many of us feel bombarded, trapped, and programmed by our cultural.
> The majority of the people I meet on a daily basis act only as
> receivers. They absorb the advertising, music, and art that the world
> shoots at them. Another way of thinking of art as self expression is
> the idea that the artist isn't only a receiver, but also a transmitter,
> broadcasting their particular signal.
I was trying to map out an alternative scenario..."shoots at them"
implies a active agent and a passive agent...advertisers and consummers,
in this case. The alternative is the concept of exchange and
circulation. Consummers and Advertisers are both positioned to operate
under the influence of a set of rules, or grammar. As Claude
Levi-Strauss pointed out, the "shaman" can only exist when there is
illness and a popular consensus that he can cure it.
> Recently I mentioned in this newsgroup the notion that anyone and
> everyone can make art. My main focus, in my comments, was the book, "No
> More Secondhand Art". A few artists in this group seemed threatened by
> that idea -- as if it ripped the power from their hands and gave it to
> the world. The artist no longer creates for society as a whole -- the
> individual bits of society are free to express themselves.
>
> I like the idea that anyone can make are, to paint, to draw, to say
> something significant. And while it might not be as polished as the
> work of a professional, that often makes the work more real, more true.
>
> Yeah, I like art brut.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
I generally agree. But you're not accounting for the "machine" that
operates in culture that cranks out the imago of art and artists. Not
for me, because I have no objection to your view. But others want to
valorize art. For all I know, it may be valorous. That's another debate.
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> I'm just being skeptical. You know, imagining that the
> conscious/unconscious dichotomy is false, or better yet, imagining that
> it is a useless linguistic habit.
It has been my experience that all linguistic habits are quite useless,
and that if you want to communicate something, you are better off doing
it through actions. How that idea applies to our conversation, I do not know.
For example:
I was having this argument once with a fellow who, conveniently, lived
in the same city as me. He was saying some pretty harsh things about
the choices I have made in regards to my life, and insisted he knew what
I should be doing. So I looked his name up on the phone book, called
him, and asked him (quite seriously) if he'd like to go out for a
coffee. I think I must have scared the shit out of him. It was like a
character on his TV set had stepped out into the real world, and tugged
on his sleeve.
He actually wrote me email where he said "Stay away from my children,"
or words to that effect. Later, he admitted he might have been a little
too harsh in his earlier statements, said he overreacted when he told me
to stay away from his kids, and declined to meet me for coffee.
He hasn't had an argument with me -- or any other form of contact -- since.
We can throw theoretical words back and forth forever. Until one of us
acts, based on these words of ours, we are wasting time.
> Then art making, if it is "self expression," is not a distinguished
> activity at all. We're getting close to the source of my skepticism.
> There is something else about art making that is important - the "self
> expression" part is, well, meaningless.
I really don't understand your motivation. Lots of artists say they
create art to "express themselves". Why would you want to take that
away from them? What do you gain by proving, if only to yourself, that
what they're saying is meaningless? Why does any of this matter to you
at all?
I entered this conversation because I thought you wanted to understand
what they meant. You said that no one had ever satisfactorily explained
it to you. I am now convinced that no one on earth can explain it to
you, because you don't want an explanation. You want the exact
opposite, in fact -- to prove that everyone who says they create art as
"self expression" are deluded liars.
Why on earth do you want to prove such a weird thing as that? What do
you have to gain?
Minnie Ball
>He actually wrote me email where he said "Stay away from my children,"
>or words to that effect.
That's funny, since by coincidence, as I was sitting
in a restaurant with adult friends last evening, two small
girls were running loose and chose to "hide" under
the table where I was sitting. I said to them, "Hey
girls, you should know that I am a child molester!"
I don't know if they had a clue or not, but they soon
ran off.
Nik Maack
Minnie Ball wrote:
> That's funny, since by coincidence, as I was sitting
> in a restaurant with adult friends last evening, two small
> girls were running loose and chose to "hide" under
> the table where I was sitting. I said to them, "Hey
> girls, you should know that I am a child molester!"
> I don't know if they had a clue or not, but they soon
> ran off.
Children are a precious gift -- to whom, I'm not sure. Toy
manufacturers, I guess.
I was in Swiss Chalet once, and I was describing the masturbation
episode of Seinfeld to my girlfriend. A man at the next table, who was
seated with his two children, suggested I change my topic of
conversation, as "there are children present".
We need to protect the ignorance -- uh, I mean innocence -- of our
children, for some reason. Wait until they're older and pregnant with
children of their own, then explain the facts of life on the way to the
abortion clinic.
Erik A. Mattila
> I really don't understand your motivation. Lots of artists say they
> create art to "express themselves". Why would you want to take that
> away from them? What do you gain by proving, if only to yourself, that
> what they're saying is meaningless? Why does any of this matter to you
> at all?
>
> I entered this conversation because I thought you wanted to understand
> what they meant. You said that no one had ever satisfactorily explained
> it to you. I am now convinced that no one on earth can explain it to
> you, because you don't want an explanation. You want the exact
> opposite, in fact -- to prove that everyone who says they create art as
> "self expression" are deluded liars.
>
> Why on earth do you want to prove such a weird thing as that? What do
> you have to gain?
Why project all these nefarious motives on me, Nik? This is a
discussion group, where issues are discussed. It's someting I'm
interested in, that's all. I think one thing about art and artists is
the compelling need for original vision, some degree of social
relevance, and indeed wisdom. Am I incorrect in beliving that such
things are achieved by questioning conventions, givens and stock ideas?
That is the role of the protagonist in literature, is it not?
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> Why project all these nefarious motives on me, Nik? This is a
> discussion group, where issues are discussed. It's someting I'm
> interested in, that's all. I think one thing about art and artists is
> the compelling need for original vision, some degree of social
> relevance, and indeed wisdom. Am I incorrect in beliving that such
> things are achieved by questioning conventions, givens and stock ideas?
> That is the role of the protagonist in literature, is it not?
What an utterly bland and impersonal answer, as cold and clean as the
Kleenex sleeping at the bottom of the box.
Andrew D
+Andrew D wrote:
+> I think that's half the problem, the so-called "reality of others". To
+> accept your ideas on self and consciousness one first has to accept the
+> principle of multiple realities. That's the stuff religions are made of.
+
+But there are "multiple realities" in a psychological sense, as opposed
+to a religious sense. This is easilly demonstrated. Say you've been
+bitten by a dog, have never owned a dog, and now hate dogs more than
+anything. I've owned dogs all my life, have never been bitten, and love
+all dogs. We're walking down the street together, and we see a man with
+an exuberant rotweiller straining on the end of a leash.
+The way I perceive this dog is going to be VERY different from the way
+you perceive this dog. Whose perception is right remains to be seen --
+will the dog bite us or not?
I don't know - neither do you. Same reality.
Erik A. Mattila
> What an utterly bland and impersonal answer, as cold and clean as the
> Kleenex sleeping at the bottom of the box.
Waiting for a big glob of touchie-feelie snot? I don't think so.
Erik
Nik Maack
Jim Hall wrote:
> "Making a statement makes one important. Being important is a very strong motivator. If others make statements, and I prove them wrong or inferior with my statements, then my statements are best. Therefore, I must be more important because what I say is more correct. I am the best."
>
> Silly, isn't it? I do this alot, but it's still silly.
It's hard to get away from it. Debate, argument, all that. I'm more
keen on the sharing of experiences. "This is the way I experienced the
world. How about you?" But I've noticed, through my travels on the
Internet and in real life, that "the personal" is still considered
somehow lacking, offensive, and too close to nudity.
So, for example, it's okay to talk in the office lunch room about how
you think drugs should be legalized -- specifically soft drugs. The
government could make more tax money off them, and we could control them
the same way we control booze and tobacco. What a great idea.
But you can't say, as I did, "My cousin took me to a rave, once. We did
shrooms and pot and danced all night. That's the only time I tried
shrooms, but it's not like we went on a crime spree and destroyed
society or anything."
When I said this, every jaw at the table dropped and the conversation
lay there, dead for a moment. Then someone performed CPR by, yet again,
changing the topic to an impersonal one.
Theory is safe. Experience is scary.
I think this type of thinking starts in high school, when your English
teacher explains that an essay shouldn't have the word "I" in it. We're
told that the "I" is fallible and untrustworthy and "self-centered".
And yet, it's all each of us really has, isn't it?
Erik A. Mattila
> Theory is safe. Experience is scary.
>
> I think this type of thinking starts in high school, when your English
> teacher explains that an essay shouldn't have the word "I" in it. We're
> told that the "I" is fallible and untrustworthy and "self-centered".
> And yet, it's all each of us really has, isn't it?
The proof is in the pudding, Nik. "This type of thinking" is as old as
humanity. Read Levi-Strauss "Science of the Concrete" in "Savage Mind"
for example. But if one only bases thought on personal experience, then
of course the origin of everything would have to be within one's
personal experence. In this case, you "High School" experiences.
There's a term for this: "parochial thinking" (narrow minded). It's ok
if you want to make this your forte, Nik. But why denigrate others who
have a broader approach to understanding?
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> There's a term for this: "parochial thinking" (narrow minded). It's ok
> if you want to make this your forte, Nik. But why denigrate others who
> have a broader approach to understanding?
I have no problem with communication that manifests through abstract
theory AND description of personal experience. There are obviously
limits to personal experience. There are also limits to abstract
theory. Using both in concert makes for a more rounded conversation.
After all, why talk theory if we're not going to talk practice?
So far, your supposed "broader approach" only makes use of abstract
theory. Your emotional life remains "in tact" -- tactfully neglected.
If I were curious as to why people describe their art as "self
expression", I would ask them about it, listen to their answers, and try
to empathize with their experiences. How else can we possibly learn
from others?
But it's pretty clear you're not out to learn anything. Your approach
is to ask, and then ignore the answer. You dismiss their experiences
completely, claim you've reached your position through logic and reason,
declare them all dupes of buzzwords and conformity, and assume you know better.
Now please tell me -- which approach is "parochial thinking"?
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> No, I won't agree to that. I'm correct, you are not.
I've had a wonderful time, but I think this pretty much brings things to
a close. You're getting boring, and more and more impersonal by the
minute. So, bye for now.
Erik A. Mattila
Glad you had a good time, Nik. So did I. But just one thing...
How can you construe "I'm correct, you are not" as being impersonal?
Just wondering.
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> How can you construe "I'm correct, you are not" as being impersonal?
> Just wondering.
You have this habit of stating ideas or references without explaining
what purpose they serve, or how they fit into your life. There's no
personal context. It's like communicating with a road sign.
Dimitri Bichapekerov
news:3D566A4E...@sympatico.ca...
Mr. Maak I have been lurker on this news group for while, but after some
recent additions to your web site, I have to comment.
Your art looks like it was created by retarded child with no artistic
ability. Now you have attracted others of similar ability to participate in
Dirty Word Art project. I suppose you are still at stage in your
development when kaka jokes are funny.
But you simply being talentless deserves not commentary and speak for
itself. One of your talentless friends drawn portrait of Lenin with penis
for nose, and Russian obscene word in his forehead. Surely you know that
even now Lenin is revered by millions of people in Russia and many other
places. How would you liked it if someone placed portraits of your parents,
with penises for their noses, on Internet? That is degree of poor taste of
that Lenin portrait.
Nik Maack
Dimitri,
You can't imagine how happy this posting of yours made me. I laughed
and laughed. Then I read it out loud to my girlfriend, and she laughed.
And then I emailed a copy of it to the man who drew a portrait of Lenin
with a dick for a nose. I am certain that, when he reads your posting,
he will laugh too.
> Mr. Maak I have been lurker on this news group for while, but after some
> recent additions to your web site, I have to comment.
Excellent. Anything that lures a lurker into the open MUST be labeled a
success. The more participants we have, the better.
> Your art looks like it was created by retarded child with no artistic
> ability.
My secret is out. I don't actually paint any of the work on my website.
I go to a nearby centre for the mentally handicapped and purchase all
their art. Then I sign it, and post the work to my website. I knew
that someday the truth be revealed, but I never expected it to happen so soon.
> Now you have attracted others of similar ability to participate in
> Dirty Word Art project. I suppose you are still at stage in your
> development when kaka jokes are funny.
I hope that I never evolve to the point where dirty words lose their
charm. In part, their charm is caused by people who find such words
repulsive and scary. In other words, it's people like you, Dimitri,
that make it all worthwhile.
> One of your talentless friends drawn portrait of Lenin with penis
> for nose, and Russian obscene word in his forehead. Surely you know that
> even now Lenin is revered by millions of people in Russia and many other
> places.
Funny -- Lenin was responsible for one of the darkest eras of Russian
history, and was personally responsible for the deaths of millions.
Would you be offended if I posted any portrait of a serial killer
looking ridiculous, or is it just Russian ones that get your goat?
> How would you liked it if someone placed portraits of your parents,
> with penises for their noses, on Internet? That is degree of poor taste of
> that Lenin portrait.
With your permission, I will email you pictures of my parents so you can
get to work right away.
Gerda Bierghut
dimit...@aha.ru says...
Bichapekerov, don't ya just luv it!
This guy could put me out of business
in the 'naming game'... Hey Dimitri,
in order to compete with me you have
to make the first name count too!
And watch out of ole Erik will getya.
Dimitri Bichapekerov
> You can't imagine how happy this posting of yours made me. I laughed
> and laughed. Then I read it out loud to my girlfriend, and she laughed.
Yes when I was six years old I would also giggle at pictures of genitalia.
> I go to a nearby centre for the mentally handicapped and purchase all
> their art. Then I sign it, and post the work to my website. I knew
> that someday the truth be revealed, but I never expected it to happen so
soon.
You no doubt trying to be funny but what is funny is that what you write
above is so believable.
> Funny -- Lenin was responsible for one of the darkest eras of Russian
> history, and was personally responsible for the deaths of millions.
> Would you be offended if I posted any portrait of a serial killer
> looking ridiculous, or is it just Russian ones that get your goat?
Maybe you should read some good history books not American propaganda.
In 1914 Czar Nikolas II brought Russia into an imperialist war that brought
great profit to arms manufacturers. It also allowed Nikolas crack down on
democratic forces, and suspend any effort at creating parliament. Millions
of Russians died in that war. When Bolsheviks took power in 1917, their
first act was take Russia out of war, which with not doubt saved millions of
lives. But remnants of murderous czarist regime, backed by Britain, United
States and France, started bloody and devastating war in attempt to replace
the new regime with old, imperialist regime. This civil war resulted in
death of millions, and its consequences - major economic devastation of
Russia - in millions of more. Blame Lenin for these deaths requires
ignorance of history. Suggest that you do not rely solely on American
school textbooks for knowledge of history.
> > How would you liked it if someone placed portraits of your parents,
> > with penises for their noses, on Internet? That is degree of poor taste
of
> > that Lenin portrait.
>
> With your permission, I will email you pictures of my parents so you can
> get to work right away.
That is disturbing thing I notice about Western society, total lack of
respect for parents and family. This probably account of many of your
social problems.
Nik Maack
Please pardon the following racism. Thank you.
Dimitri Bichapekerov wrote:
> Yes when I was six years old I would also giggle at pictures of genitalia.
You be talkink like certain villain who enjoy persecuting Moose and
Squirrel. Are you for real Russian or are you being fake Russian with a
faking accent? Me startink to wonder if you are not elaborate prank
created by KGB to be tormenting Canadian artists.
> You no doubt trying to be funny but what is funny is that what you write
> above is so believable.
Ouch. My heart wounded by pointy Russian wit. I am drownink on my own blood!
> Maybe you should read some good history books not American propaganda.
Oh no. Russian lecture me about propaganda of American nature. This
cannot go to a good place.
> That is disturbing thing I notice about Western society, total lack of
> respect for parents and family. This probably account of many of your
> social problems.
Russian families very close, very tight knit. Dimitri sleep with his
own sister well into twenties.
Erik A. Mattila
Why would I do that? "Dimitri Bichapekerov" is the fellow's name, not
some trite nonsense such as your futile attempts at cleverness.
Erik
Nik Maack
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> Why would I do that? "Dimitri Bichapekerov" is the fellow's name, not
> some trite nonsense such as your futile attempts at cleverness.
Remember, Erik -- this is the Internet. There's no telling if Dimitri
is even remotely similar to what he claims to be. "And be given his
talk manner, my doubting notions are increasingly grow. Curse you,
Moose and Squirrel!"
I don't want to come across as overly paranoid, but I've been around
long enough to know that people are sitting at home, bored, looking for
fun ways to cause trouble. Hell, I've been one of those troublemakers
on numerous occasions. And I have plenty of "friends" who would love to
step forward and play this kind of game.
Here's some evidence for you:
1) Doing a Google search on "Dimitri Bichapekerov" turns up zilch.
2) Doing a Google Usenet search on "Dimitri Bichapekerov" turns up
exactly ONE thread -- the one he started about my Lenin image.
3) The name "Bichapekerov" sounds suspiciously like "bite a pecker off".
4) The email address "dimit...@aha.ru" (which Dimitri posted from)
does not exist.
So, am I to believe that this is the very first time ever that Dimitri
has chosen to post to Usenet, using a munged email address? How likely
is that? Either he is a brand new newbie, or this is a mask someone
recently picked up and tried on.
If I had any sense at all, I'd play along with the game, increase my
notoriety, blah, blah blah. But that's... a good idea. Hmmm. But
it's also dull. I'm not much into deception. So why bother?
Hell, Erik -- it's probably you in the mask. I wouldn't be surprised.
Alison A Raimes
>Squirrel. Are you for real Russian or are you being fake Russian with a
>faking accent? Me startink to wonder if you are not elaborate prank
>created by KGB to be tormenting Canadian artists.
Dan Fox is always fun in character - it's when the real *man* comes out to play
that one needs to get seriously concerned.
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Alison A Raimes
Tinman! I should have guessed it was too clever to be Fox.
Nik Maack
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> Fancy that! Just did a trace route and my money is on Keith O'Connor. Nice one
> Tinman! I should have guessed it was too clever to be Fox.
I just found it too weird to imagine a Russian who actually thinks Lenin
is nifty. Didn't they recently tear down all the statues of Lenin? (Oh
those poor artists who slaved away on a Lenin likeness!)
Well, at least it wasn't Margaret Thatcher.
Gerda Bierghut
>Why would I do that? "Dimitri Bichapekerov" is the fellow's name, not
>some trite nonsense such as your futile attempts at cleverness.
>
>Erik
How GULLIBLE can you be?
Maybe 'bit cha pecker off' will give
you a clue! I'm ashamed for you...
david anthony magitis
barrett john erickson
"david anthony magitis" <ima...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:aj8qm3$opc$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
> May I at this point say "Latvia" and then the words "occupied until 1996!"
i have no idea what this has to do with nik drawing like a retarded child,
but sure, say what you want.
on the other hand, if you think coming from Latvia somehow makes your
thoughts on censorship less odious, you'll have to say an awful lot more.
-- barrett
BLUE FEATHERS se2 (The New World Odor) is now available
(BF#4 will be available in July02)
http://www.MagneticFields.org/blue/
bar...@MagneticFields.org
http://www.MagneticFields.org/
surrealists in minnesota
Sur...@MagneticFields.org
==============================================
"Everything tends to make us believe that there exists a
certain point of the mind at which life and death, the real and
the imagined, past and future, the communicable and the
incommunicable, high and low, cease to be perceived as
contradictions."
...André Breton
==============================================
augart
> Maybe you should read some good history books not American propaganda.
>
> In 1914 Czar Nikolas II brought Russia into an imperialist war that brought
> great profit to arms manufacturers. It also allowed Nikolas crack down on
> democratic forces, and suspend any effort at creating parliament. Millions
> of Russians died in that war. When Bolsheviks took power in 1917, their
> first act was take Russia out of war, which with not doubt saved millions of
> lives. But remnants of murderous czarist regime, backed by Britain, United
> States and France, started bloody and devastating war in attempt to replace
> the new regime with old, imperialist regime. This civil war resulted in
> death of millions, and its consequences - major economic devastation of
> Russia - in millions of more. Blame Lenin for these deaths requires
> ignorance of history. Suggest that you do not rely solely on American
> school textbooks for knowledge of history.
I think you should refresh your history. In 1917 there were 2
revolutions. In February and October. In February they abolish the
Czar and try to introduce parliamentary democracy (similar to western
democracies). In October however bolshevicks introduced workers
dictatorship. Instead of parliament and democracy there was now
bolshevick party and Lenin.
It's true that Lenin declared peace with Germany at this time but he
fought many wars to maintain Russian empire. Wars with Poland, Ukrain,
Kozaks, Baltic states and many other nations. Actually Russia is still
fighting imperialistic wars.(Czechnia)
I would also like to remind that Lenin and Stalin killed more of their
friends that Tzar did. (Actually tzar didn't kill he send them to
Siberia)
As a person who lived for 18 years in communist country I say fuck you
to all you leftist inteligentsia for making me experience that
paradise. I just wish that some of you leftists bastards experience
something similar. So if you leftists try to promote your socialist
ideas you better find some other raw models than Lenin and Stalin
because there is blood on their hands and people still remember.
If somebody feels bad about capitalism (parliamentary democracy)they
are more than welcome to share their wealth with me. For donations and
more information how you can contribute for a more just society please
write:
aug...@hotmail.com
Mr.Makk you are the man. Hitler also hated retarded art. So do Lenin
and Stalin.
Dimitri Bichapekerov
> Russian families very close, very tight knit. Dimitri sleep with his
> own sister well into twenties.
This sort of thing is more of problem in Western society.
Dimitri Bichapekerov
> I just found it too weird to imagine a Russian who actually thinks Lenin
> is nifty. Didn't they recently tear down all the statues of Lenin? (Oh
> those poor artists who slaved away on a Lenin likeness!)
Maybe you should pay more attention to world instead of spending so much
time showing how cleverly sarcastic you are.
You are right - many statues of Lenin - especially in big cities like Moscow
and Leningrad (I refuse to call it St. Petersburg) - were torn down by
American puppet regime that now rule Russia.
But even that puppet regime was not able to desecrate Lenin Mausoleum.
Faced with massive protesting they were able to do nothing about it -
millions of ordinary Russian peoples were willing to fight defending Lenin.
And if you to go to the Russian country-side, to small towns, you will see
statues of Lenin not touched, with fresh flowers at the base.
Dimitri Bichapekerov
news:525d72a7.0208...@posting.google.com...
> I think you should refresh your history. In 1917 there were 2
> revolutions. In February and October. In February they abolish the
> Czar and try to introduce parliamentary democracy (similar to western
> democracies).
Bourgeoisie revolution in February 1917 changed nothing for working people -
their democracy was democracy of industrialists and land-ownders, not of
workers and peasants who were majority of Russian people.
> It's true that Lenin declared peace with Germany at this time but he
> fought many wars to maintain Russian empire. Wars with Poland, Ukrain,
> Kozaks, Baltic states and many other nations. Actually Russia is still
> fighting imperialistic wars.(Czechnia)
The war in Chechnya is imperialist war fought by American puppet regime that
now rules Russia, it is of not relevance to this discussion.
The Bolsheviks always been strong supporters of national self-determination.
The peoples of Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics - all rose up against their
oppressors - it was the bourgeoisie ruling elites of those countries that
had no interest in self-determination of their peoples, as they suppressed
uprisings in most brutal manner.
> As a person who lived for 18 years in communist country I say fuck you
> to all you leftist inteligentsia for making me experience that
> paradise.
I lived in Russia as socialist country, and as whatever it is currently. I
much prefer it as socialist country, as do vast majority of people.
Noumenon
> is nifty.
You'd be surprised!
And there is no need to put things as "white" or "black", it is not that
simple.
Whatever history was, Lenin is still rather popular figure in many places in
Russia.
There are still his museums around the world and one in still open in Paris,
France.
> Didn't they recently tear down all the statues of Lenin? (Oh
> those poor artists who slaved away on a Lenin likeness!)
Intelligentsia did not tear anything down. They never do stupid things
within
some idiotic emotional outbursts.
This is what crowd usually do.
However, in this case arse-licking small officials removed statues to please
new government.
It has nothing to do with ordinary people anyway.
By the way, have you seen a statue of Lenin in New York?
One that was bought in Moscow and brought in the States.
It was still there last time I checked.
AS for artists who did the stuff (sculptures and other art):
Nik, you kinda got deluded and confused by playing with your own sarcasms.
Artists who were lucky to have these government commissions - they were
earning plenty of money.
You will never make a small part of it with your art, I am sure.
There were competitions for this kind of works (painting, sculptures, mosaic
panels).
Artist had to be "listed" artist, reputable and rather skilful, w/ MA in
Arts,
and communist party member to qualify...
And artists also had to have special permission to depict any political
figure or high rank
including Lenin, Marx, Stalin etc.
It wasn't slavery - it was rather solid and sweet job (when you did qualify
and got these commisions)
or it was "Gulag" if you did it without qualifications and special
permission.
Of course, there was also mass production or some sculptures (from existing
originals),
but that is another story.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
P.S. Anyway, all this history lessons and
policatical stuff is damn off-topic in this group.
Noumenon
[all skipped]
Dmitri, don't be a child and stop this FLAME.
IT is also advisable to show ACTUAL E-MAIL ADDRESS.
Sometimes people tend to reply directly in e-mail.
When you give fake email, and mail messages bounce back -
people would think you are full of crap and nobody would care about what you
say.
There are certain rules and NETIQETTE conception still exists.
Post messages with you real email address and avoid OFF-TOPIC stuff.
Noumenon
> I just found it too weird to imagine a Russian who actually thinks Lenin
> is nifty.
You'd be surprised!
And there is no need to put things as "white" or "black", it is not that
simple.
Whatever history was, Lenin is still rather popular figure in many places in
Russia.
There are still his museums around the world and one in still open in Paris,
France.
> Didn't they recently tear down all the statues of Lenin? (Oh
> those poor artists who slaved away on a Lenin likeness!)
Intelligentsia did not tear anything down. They never do stupid things
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
P.S. Anyway, all this history lessons and
augart
> The Bolsheviks always been strong supporters of national self-determination.
> The peoples of Poland, Ukraine, the Baltics - all rose up against their
> oppressors - it was the bourgeoisie ruling elites of those countries that
> had no interest in self-determination of their peoples, as they suppressed
> uprisings in most brutal manner.
Such a bullshit about Russia support of independence for other
countries you can try to pass on ignorant western kids not on a
Polish guy.
Communism was so great that millions try to run away from it.
Of course their were elits who lived quite well under communism but
it ended for them with the system change. I guess you are one of those
apparatchicks who lost. Man you should be happy that you are alive
because you could have end up like Ceausescu.
augart
>
> on the other hand, if you think coming from Latvia somehow makes your
> thoughts on censorship less odious, you'll have to say an awful lot more.
>
>
>
> -- barrett
It's a great pity that people so interested in leftist ideas are not
inclined to read to what tragedies these ideas led in countries that
try to practice them. But after all it's much more cool to read Breton
than some really instructive history books. I guess you so lazy that a
visit to a local library or even typing few words on a computer it's
too much daunting task for you.
There is nothing more value in a court than an eye witness. That's why
being from eastern countries gives us moral authority to speak about
these things.
Or maybe you are just not interested?
barrett john erickson
> >
> >
> > on the other hand, if you think coming from Latvia somehow makes your
> > thoughts on censorship less odious, you'll have to say an awful lot
more.
> >
> >
> >
> > -- barrett
>
> It's a great pity that people so interested in leftist ideas are not
> inclined to read to what tragedies these ideas led in countries that
> try to practice them. But after all it's much more cool to read Breton
> than some really instructive history books. I guess you so lazy that a
> visit to a local library or even typing few words on a computer it's
> too much daunting task for you.
of course, you know nothing of me. so your statements come from total
ignorance.
> There is nothing more value in a court than an eye witness.
on the contrary, eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable and easily
discredited.
> That's why being from eastern countries gives us moral authority
> to speak about these things.
> Or maybe you are just not interested?
being from "eastern countries" gives you exactly zero moral authority when
it comes to telling me i should be willing to put up with any degree of
censorship.
Noumenon
----------------------
> Such a bullshit about Russia support of independence for other
> countries you can try to pass on ignorant western kids not on a
> Polish guy.
If Russia was against national values and cultural independence of others,
they would've eliminated everything national on all territories they had
(including Poland).
Probably you wouldn't even known how to speak Polish after Poland being a
part
of Russian Empire for quite a while. No?
Or where would all Polish people be if Russia did not save them in WW-II ?
More likely, all - up in smoke of Nazis' conc.camps...
And that is the end of argument.
How quickly people forget the good and remember only negative - just like
stupid kids!
Taking sweet candies for granted but yelling their lungs off after receiving
a slap or two.
Anyway, political games of the past are other story. Better leave it aside.
----------------------
> Communism was so great that millions try to run away from it.
There probably billions who'd rather run away from capitalism if
there were any place to run.
As for Communism itself. You have to stop juggling things that are have no
ground whatsoever.
There is no such thing as communism in reality because it was never built
anywhere and exists only
in theory and sci-fi books.
Socialism is another thing. You pretend to be so damn accurate in history
reference -
then operate with proper terms and conceptions!
For example, Sweden and Brunei (two countries with highest living
standards),
even keeping formal monarchy, fit all socialism society features perfectly.
And nobody complains or runs away from there.
Even the States look as fallen far behind (in general living standards) in
comparison with them...
If, due to different reasons, Soviets and other Eastern-European countries
screwed up their ways,
it doesn't mean that principles or goals were bad (in the long run).
----------------------
> Of course their were elits who lived quite well under communism but
> it ended for them with the system change.
You are very naive. Those who were true(!) elite, they are still elite. If
you think that they
had fictitious powers given by ruling party only and it's gone with "regime"
you are very much mistaken.
Most of them either "inherited" some funds and means or regained plenty of
power
and what's more important - their connections! Networking!
Now they are sitting pretty.
Many and many have plants, factories and enterprises, plenty of property;
they run commercial banks
and businesses. From sitting in musty apparatchik cabinets they moved into
new offices of their own.
New, perky and stupid 'nouveax riches' came into picture, of course, but the
"old guards" still hold nice
places and have their pieces of pie.
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Dimitri Bichapekerov
news:3D59DD5B...@concentric.net...
> Or where would all Polish people be if Russia did not save them in WW-II ?
> More likely, all - up in smoke of Nazis' conc.camps...
> And that is the end of argument.
So many people forget the Soviet Union defeated Nazi threat on its own, with
symbolic assistance only from others.
Dimitri Bichapekerov
news:525d72a7.0208...@posting.google.com...
> I guess you are one of those apparatchicks who lost.
Was not necessary to be apparatchik to be hurt as result of glasnost and
perestroika. Senior citizens and ordinary workers suffered enormously as
result of Gorbachev's reforms.
augart
> they would've eliminated everything national on all territories they had
> (including Poland).
>
> Probably you wouldn't even known how to speak Polish after Poland being a
> part
> of Russian Empire for quite a while. No?
Actually they try to eliminate polish language and culture but had
really great difficulties in pursuing these policies and they kind of
give up.
>
> Or where would all Polish people be if Russia did not save them in WW-II ?
> More likely, all - up in smoke of Nazis' conc.camps...
> And that is the end of argument.
I would like to remaind you that in 1939 Russia was an ally with Nazi
Germany and actually they invaded Poland together. In 1945 they didn't
have much choice but to go through Polish territory in order to get to
Berlin. It's true they didn't kill as much polish people as the
Germans did but that does not make them any better.
> How quickly people forget the good and remember only negative - just like
> stupid kids!
> Taking sweet candies for granted but yelling their lungs off after receiving
> a slap or two.
Who are Russians to give anybody candies or slaps? Give a slap to USA
and you going to see what they gonna do to you. You will not have time
to give them a second slap.
> ----------------------
> > Communism was so great that millions try to run away from it.
>
> There probably billions who'd rather run away from capitalism if
> there were any place to run.
Unfortunately this is true. But so far no one invented anything
better. And Socialist (communist) experiment was a disaster and a
nightmare and I don't see the point in attempts to defend it.
>
> As for Communism itself. You have to stop juggling things that are have no
> ground whatsoever.
> There is no such thing as communism in reality because it was never built
> anywhere and exists only
> in theory and sci-fi books.
>
> Socialism is another thing. You pretend to be so damn accurate in history
> reference -
> then operate with proper terms and conceptions!
I agree that terminology is really confusing but how I'm not supposed
to be when theoretically Hitler was socialist too. So is Saddam
Husain. Problem is anybody can take name "socialist".
On the other hand there is lots of socialist ideas implemented in
modern western sociaties but I guess no one wants to compare it to the
Soviet style. No one mentions Lenin or Stalin as models to follow and
I'm not surprised.
> For example, Sweden and Brunei (two countries with highest living
> standards),
> even keeping formal monarchy, fit all socialism society features perfectly.
Too bad Lenin and Stalin did't see this as a possibility. I don't
think that even Marx forseen this kind of arrangement. Maybe violent
revolutions are not the way for human betterment?
>
> If, due to different reasons, Soviets and other Eastern-European countries
> screwed up their ways,
> it doesn't mean that principles or goals were bad (in the long run).
Maybe the principals and goals are not bad but I hope that
improvements to human social organization don't cost so much suffering
and human life. Don't count on me for support for the next bloody
revolution.
> ----------------------
> > Of course their were elits who lived quite well under communism but
> > it ended for them with the system change.
>
> You are very naive. Those who were true(!) elite, they are still elite. If
> you think that they
> had fictitious powers given by ruling party only and it's gone with "regime"
> you are very much mistaken.
>
> Most of them either "inherited" some funds and means or regained plenty of
> power
> and what's more important - their connections! Networking!
>
> Now they are sitting pretty.
>
> Many and many have plants, factories and enterprises, plenty of property;
> they run commercial banks
> and businesses. From sitting in musty apparatchik cabinets they moved into
> new offices of their own.
>
> New, perky and stupid 'nouveax riches' came into picture, of course, but the
> "old guards" still hold nice
> places and have their pieces of pie.
This is true. No much to say. I wish I had some solutions but then it
would look like other bloody events from history.
augart
> So many people forget the Soviet Union defeated Nazi threat on its own, with
> symbolic assistance only from others.
Why people don't remember that Stalin and Hitler made a pact to divide
Europe
1939 september- Germany and Russia invade Poland.
1939 december- Russian invade Finland
1940-Russia invade Estonia, Lotva, Lituenia
1940-Russia invade Moldova part of Rumenia
Luckily for humanity that Hitler got soo greedy that he decided not to
share with Stalin spoils of the war.
About the rest you are correct. Russia play with fire, got burn by
fire and had to extinguish it.
It was one impire fighting with another impire. The both were scourge
of the earth.
I feel really sorry for you comrade that they lie to you for so many
years.
Michael Voytinsky
> One of your talentless friends drawn portrait of Lenin with penis
> for nose, and Russian obscene word in his forehead. Surely you know that
> even now Lenin is revered by millions of people in Russia
Dimitri, yes, I know that lots of people revere Lenin for some reason
or another.
Unfortunately, there are so many of them that there just is no way I
could possibly draw portraits of all of them with penises for noses.
However, if you will email me your portrait, I will happily draw it
with a penis for its nose.
Cheers
M
Michael Voytinsky
> Artist had to be "listed" artist, reputable and rather skilful, w/ MA in
> Arts, and communist party member to qualify...
There is a subway station in Moscow - I do not recall its name, but I
could probably find it.
Anyway, as you exit it, you see a bronze statue of Lenin on a
pedestal, surrounded by workers and peasants armed with rifles,
hammers and sickles. Lenin is much larger than the workers, and is
wearing a suit.
Behind and to the sides of Lenin are two enormous buildings of 1950s
Stalinist architechture - big and ugly and powerful and oppressive.
As I stood there, looking at the hideous scene, I remembered the
discussion of the arts in one of Plato's dialogues. The interlocutors
seemed to think that the artists works were inspired by the gods,
showing what the gods wanted to show, not necessarily what the artists
wanted to show.
The scene showed the ugliness of communism brilliantly. The artists,
presumably, wanted to show its glory, but the gods had other ideas.
I think the scene would be less hideous if that statue had a penis for
a nose.
Cheers
M
Noumenon
-------------------
> Actually they try to eliminate polish language and culture but had
> really great difficulties in pursuing these policies and they kind of
> give up.
It's sort of getting tiresome.
Why you people always find someone to blame. What about your own funny ways?
Why not blame yourselves?
Well, let's say: Russian Imperial officials only TRIED to eliminate...
But what about Poland ruling in Lithuania - just for example?
('Rzech Pospolita' times or about), when they ELIMINATED and outlawed
Lithuanian language in schools and Vilnius University?
And generally talking about killing and oppression: read more books on
history and
see who was doing what. Look deeper.
Maybe one day you will wake up to see reality.
Besides, this anti-Russian, anti-Slavic, Commi-hating crap is out of fashion
and hardly interests anyone anymore.
-----------------
> Give a slap to USA and you going to see what they gonna do to you.
> You will not have time to give them a second slap.
Who are "you" and "we"? Why on earth would me (as "we") do that?
And I am not Russian.
We were just talking about history and you are already setting labels.
Set Dimitri as a target for your argument.
I am living in USA and not going to slap anyone.
It's Islamic idiots who are trying to slap everyone.
Don't confuse parties: who is who.
---------------
> Unfortunately this is true. But so far no one invented anything
> better.
Better things are invented already, the only problem is nobody can
build them due to various reasons.
---------------
> No one mentions Lenin or Stalin as models to follow...
They did not invent anything at all. And, (as or if?) you know communism
as ethical conception and social system were invented long time before them.
--------------------
>> For example, Sweden and Brunei [...]
> Too bad Lenin and Stalin did't see this as a possibility.
He did. I wouldn't say about Stalin because he was lousy and ignorant
bastard.
They did not teach you in Polish schools what REALLY happened in 20-ties
in Russia, did they? Too bad.
But of course, you can find info from other sources.
Alas. Your hatred just blinds you and you don't want to know the truth
anyway.
Real information might've changed your opinions a little bit.
-=| NOUMENON |=-
Michael Voytinsky
> Besides, this anti-Russian, anti-Slavic, Commi-hating crap is out of fashion
> and hardly interests anyone anymore.
Have you actually been reading what augart has been posting? He is
Polish - so his statements are hardly anti-Slavic.
> Better things are invented already, the only problem is nobody can
> build them due to various reasons.
You can hardly claim to have invented anything until you have a
working prototype. All that has been invented by Marx et al. is a
whole bunch of wasted paper.
> > Too bad Lenin and Stalin did't see this as a possibility.
>
> He did. I wouldn't say about Stalin because he was lousy and ignorant
> bastard.
I take it you buy into the "bad Stalin, good Lenin" myth. Perhaps you
should read a bit about the history of the October 1917 revolution.
Start with the part where the Bolsheviks lost the election, killed the
winners, and stayed in power.
Lenin certainly deserves to be portrayed with a penis for a nose.
> They did not teach you in Polish schools what REALLY happened in 20-ties
> in Russia, did they? Too bad.
Augart lived in Poland when it was a Soviet satellite. The version of
history he was taught was pro-Soviet.
So you are right. He was not taught about the mass killings that
really happened.
Cheers
M
Dale Houstman
"Michael Voytinsky" <iwontr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5648ac12.02081...@posting.google.com...
> Noumenon <ArtE...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:<3D5B4BEC...@concentric.net>...
>
> > Besides, this anti-Russian, anti-Slavic, Commi-hating crap is out of
fashion
> > and hardly interests anyone anymore.
>
> Have you actually been reading what augart has been posting? He is
> Polish - so his statements are hardly anti-Slavic.
They may or may not be - I've been avoiding most of this silly "discussion"
like a testicle tortion - but - whatever the truth - the simple fact that he
is Polish doesn't preclude him from being anti-Slavic. A person can be (and
often is) repulsed by their own culture/upbringing/etc. to the point of
declaring themselves on the "other side."
>
dmh
>
augart
You are the typical leftist intellectual (probably with an academic
job) dreaming of social relevance and power. The only thing you can
build with this postmodern revisions of communism is your academic
carrier. It's so trendy to be leftists in those quarters.
augart
> > Have you actually been reading what augart has been posting? He is
> > Polish - so his statements are hardly anti-Slavic.
>
> They may or may not be - I've been avoiding most of this silly "discussion"
> like a testicle tortion - but - whatever the truth - the simple fact that he
> is Polish doesn't preclude him from being anti-Slavic.
> >
Mr.Dale Houstman
Your are misreading my comments for one reason or the other.
For the record I'm not antislavic or antirussian. I'm quite
comfortable who I'm. I'm Polish and happy to be one.
On the other hand yes I'm an anticommunist and hate everything that
has anything to do with it. And if somebody tries to beautify the
deeds of those scoundrels in public medium I don't consider this a
silly discussion. Please explain why the deeds of Hitler are
considered a crime against humanity but many more millions of people
that died from the hands of communists are a trivial matter? No one
seems to worry that much about the disapearence of nazis images from
public places but somehow other mass killers are still allow to
disgrace so many cities. Maybe its the fact that communism victims
were mostly slavic people and Hitler dare to touch other
nationalities? How would you feel if we had a Hitler monuments in
public places in New York or Berlin or some other city for that
matter?
Dale Houstman writes:
A person can be (and
> often is) repulsed by their own culture/upbringing/etc. to the point of
> declaring themselves on the "other side."
Are you speaking from you own experience?
Alison A Raimes
>to foil the stalker Alison
Wow, Marilyn! I would never have guessed Agethana was you. Well done!
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Agathena" <agath...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a09425e.02081...@posting.google.com...
> raim...@aol.comnospam (Alison A Raimes) wrote in message
news:<20020816050110...@mb-co.aol.com>...
> when I signed my first post MARILYN under the nym Agathena?
>
> Your ability
> to misconstrue what you read must be giving you a lot of
> difficulty in the pursuit of your MA (or whatever.)
>
> Dedicated to Alison Raimes the Stalker of rec.arts.fine:
>
LOL! I hadn't realised that that silly bint was still knocking around. Her
inability to read is one of the least of the handicaps she has to overcome.
--
If bread is the staff of live then
the life of the saff is a loaf - Molesworth?
Alison A Raimes
> raim...@aol.comnospam (Alison A Raimes) wrote in message news:<20020816050110...@mb-co.aol.com>...
> when I signed my first post MARILYN under the nym Agathena?
>
> Your ability
> to misconstrue what you read must be giving you a lot of
> difficulty in the pursuit of your MA (or whatever.)
>
> Dedicated to Alison Raimes the Stalker of rec.arts.fine:
>
> "There is a sort of jealousy which needs very little fire;
> it is hardly a passion, but a blight bred in the cloudy,
> damp despondency of uneasy egoism."
> GE
Dear old Marilyn - still waltzing to her own tune ;-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > >
> > LOL! I hadn't realised that that silly bint was still knocking around.
Her
> > inability to read is one of the least of the handicaps she has to
overcome.
>
>
> Since the Usenet world is based on reading, wouldn't you say
> that a reading-challenged person like 'silly bint' is in the
> wrong place here? Three years of stalking people on r.a.f
> has not improved its reading comprehension.
>
Don't look at me - I never accused the silly bint of being very bright,
aggressive and nasty, yes, bright never.
--
PHMB badass to the discerning
Agathena
of rec.arts.fine sputtered another message:
> > Dedicated to Alison Raimes the Stalker of rec.arts.fine:
> >
> > JEALOUSY
> > "There is a sort of jealousy which needs very little fire;
> > it is hardly a passion, but a blight bred in the cloudy,
> > damp despondency of uneasy egoism."
> > GE
>
> Dear old Marilyn - still waltzing to her own tune ;-)
Lost for words are you?
Lost for words in your cloudy,
damp despondency of uneasy
egoism?
It must suck to be a troll like you.
Lesley Kupferer
I am amazed at the number of Newsgroups available for just this type of
'banter'.....can we not stick to the commonality we "Subscribed"
for...Fine Art?
Regards,
LK
Nik Maack wrote:
>
> Erik,
>
>>Now the Arrogance Alarm has sounded. You're claiming to have the inside
>>line on the greater meaning of life. Have you ever read the Bardo
>>Thodol for an account of the "self" as illusion?
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> But I find it amusing that you seem to be denying that we use our brain
> and our senses to perceive the universe. From what I understand about
> Buddhism and the self, only an enlightened being can "shed the illusion
> of self" and perceive reality as it truly is.
>
> I hope you're not going to try to convince me you're an enlightened being.
>
> Most of the (hard core) buddhists I have met come across much like the
> (hard core) Christians I have met -- they think their personal belief
> system can be applied universally. If only I would recognize that self
> is an illusion, then I'd see that they are right. If only I would let
> Jesus into my heart, I'd see that they are right.
>
> Anyone who takes themselves that seriously fills me with bemused
> skepticism. Which is probably why I have more faith in Taoist ideas
> that Buddhist ones -- Taoists know how to laugh.
>
> "Life is suffering," says the Buddhist. "But if you recognize that you
> are an illusion, and become passive in pain, you can get through the suffering."
>
> Sounds suspiciously like a recipe for dissociation.
>
> Speaking from a purely scientific and rational level -- the level that,
> up until recently, you chose for this dialogue -- we perceive reality
> through our brains and our senses, which means that our perceptions are
> always biased. They're biased because our particular brain chemistry
> and our particular experiences will distort whatever data we perceive.
>
> If you would like to turn this conversation to matters more mystical and
> less rational -- nifty. But please, some advance warning would be nice.
>
>
>>Again, you're inventing issues, and proceding as if
>>they were true.
>>
>
> Actually, what's happening here is I'm talking about the issue, and
> you're not saying anything at all -- besides telling me I'm wrong,
> delusional, arrogant, and inventing things. While I'm sure that saying
> these sorts of things makes you feel all clever and shit, it's actually
> pretty dull when viewed from the outside of your head.
>
> If you believe such a thing is possible, then by all means, describe
> your method -- how can you get past the particular bias of your brain,
> senses, and experiences? Through mystical exercises? Are these
> exercises you are personally undertaking?
>
>
>>You're a psychologist (I remember a few years back that you wrote that
>>you were studying psychology.) Have you ever read C.G. Jung's Bolingen
>>Series? Especially his work on Medieval Alchemy.
>>
>
> I've glanced at it. Personally, I've never found any meaning in
> medieval alchemy.
>
>
>>I'm just asking
>>because what you are attempting to criticize above is the whole point of
>>alchemy, the spiritual transformation of the alchemist. What do you
>>think the "Chymical Wedding" and the "Mysterium Coniunctionis" are all
>>about?
>>
>
> I know very little about these ideas. However, I suspect I feel about
> them the same way I feel about most of Buddhism. It's a nice ideal.
> Too bad -- like most spiritual and religious ideals -- it's an
> impossible ideal.
>
> [Conversation about whether my art contains "intrinsic Nikosity" snipped.]
>
> Let's agree to disagree on this bit of our conversation. Given that you
> don't believe art is self-expression, and I think all art is
> self-expression, I think this part of our talk is pretty much doomed.
> My stance is that all art contains something of the artist, no matter
> how much an artist might try to conceal it. Your stance (I believe) is
> that art has little or nothing to do with self or self-expression.
>
> It's natural then, for you to see no "Nik" in my art. And it's natural
> for me to see plenty of "Nik" in my art. This arises from our
> previously stated positions.
>
> However, I can't resist the desire to tell you that lots of people see
> "Nik" in my art.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
>
Lesley Kupferer
I was going to check it out, Nik...to no avail....
Nik Maack wrote:
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
>>How can you construe "I'm correct, you are not" as being impersonal?
>>Just wondering.
>>
>
> You have this habit of stating ideas or references without explaining
> what purpose they serve, or how they fit into your life. There's no
> personal context. It's like communicating with a road sign.
>
> Nik
> http://www.nikart.com
>