REALISM IS DEAD.
Electrolux
after seriously studying fine art, who continues to think ancient
greek statues and the renaissance have any real meaning, besides pure
realist aesthetic and a fable turned here and there, are culturally
speaking about as knowledgeable as salvadore dali.
Mike Coleman
I suppose this is a troll, but I'll bite. As far as realism goes, what if I
just enjoy looking at it?
Mike
Electrolux
more substance? a concept ,an stance? something that makes you look
further then the marble it was carved in...yes its aesthetic, and i
can understand that up until the impressionists it was considered fine
art, because people hadn't conceieved that art can and should be more
then that...anyone who lives beyond 1815 who still considers it to be
the era where art was in its hayday, hasn't a clue about art and what
it means.
E.
Thur
"Electrolux" <flux_cap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9a57e75.04041...@posting.google.com...
Troll, must be. Two statements posted with no explanations, arguments,
quotations, sources, logical argments, but repeating some kind of
rant
eg.
>hasn't a clue about art and..<
Try alt.troll
Thur
Dilettante
> Im not trying to make a childish rebel point. I believe that anyone,
> after seriously studying fine art, who continues to think ancient
> greek statues and the renaissance have any real meaning,
The aesthetic that contemporary artists seem to aiming toward is one
with no rules that can be articulated and imposed. This makes your
argument a non-question. Secondly, if you look carefully at a lot of
realism, it was not realistic. Ingres's Odalisque, for example, is
anatomically incorrect. While classical realism does not seem to be
in vogue among the major art forums, your obsessions with its demise
means that you are still clinging to it. Why bother?
Dilettante
Unknown
(Electrolux) wrote:
Oh, knowlegable one:
There is more to realism than revivalist crap.
The mimetic mode will be with us for quite some time and it need not
serve as a rallying point for the anachronistic anti-modernism crowd
or a as whipping-boy for your uninformed ilk .
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Cliff D. Weller
flux_cap...@hotmail.com says...
>anyone who lives beyond 1815 who still considers it to be
>the era where art was in its hayday, hasn't a clue about art and what
>it means.
>E.
I guess we jackasses who have to have our "hayday"
every day are to blame.
Lauri Levanto
but I'll not be one of them. In the history of arts, the trends clash
sometimes.
In other cases they just deverge to different genres more or less
coexisting. That has happened to music: we have baroque, romantic,
jazz, rock etc. All with different fans and especially different critics.
They have a peaceful co-existence. No hate, just ignoring the other.
The rise of photography in the ranks of visual arts is, for me, a sign
that there is demand for photorealistic (pun intended) art.
Shall we leave *all* reprentational work to phographers/video artists
is another question.
-lauri
--
Considering my limited brain capasity, I have to use it sparingly.
It has to last a couple of more years.
Gary Oblock
Maybe I'm going to get myself seriously bashed for saying this but I think
I make a reasonable stab at trying to say something with my sculpture.
Take a look at my work in progress picture for "Victory Kneels Down".
Your might be able to criticize the composition, the execution or what I'm
saying but I don't think you can say there is no meaning there.
Have you ever asked yourself why there is so much trite representational
art and the "Art" community is off messing with things like unmade beds?
It might have to do with the fact that representational art can be very powerful
in the right hands. The last powerful representational art, American
Expressionism, died as this country entered the McCarthy era and I don't
think this was a coincidence. There were and are to this day people out there
that don't want artists to say anything significant.
-- Gary Oblock
http://www./bronzedreams.com
Electrolux
> flux_cap...@hotmail.com (Electrolux) wrote in message news:<e9a57e75.04040...@posting.google.com>...
> > Im not trying to make a childish rebel point. I believe that anyone,
> > after seriously studying fine art, who continues to think ancient
> > greek statues and the renaissance have any real meaning,
>
>
> means that you are still clinging to it. Why bother?
>
> Dilettante
I'm not a psychology major, but i'd say you feel like you have no
power or prestige and so you try to regain it anonymously across the
internet by making petty psychoanalytical jibes at people who are
progressionists and who want to push things forward by creating
progressive arguments in fine art directories. I have a stance, and so
do you. I dont think there is any need to get personal,but obviously
this is how you get your kicks, so kick away dude.
E.
Electrolux
> I have nothing against the romanticism of the revivalist group,
> but I'll not be one of them. In the history of arts, the trends clash
> sometimes.
> In other cases they just deverge to different genres more or less
> coexisting. That has happened to music: we have baroque, romantic,
> jazz, rock etc. All with different fans and especially different critics.
> They have a peaceful co-existence. No hate, just ignoring the other.
>
> The rise of photography in the ranks of visual arts is, for me, a sign
> that there is demand for photorealistic (pun intended) art.
> Shall we leave *all* reprentational work to phographers/video artists
> is another question.
>
> -lauri
Lauri,
I like your comparison to music movements, but to say that they
happily co-exist is not really accurate.dissidence in 18th century
Russia?? The mods versus the Rockers in 60's brighton? beatnicks vs.
hippies etc.competition breeds progression.there has always been
tension between art movements,and really i have no major qualms with
anyone who considers realism the prime form of fine art. What i'm
really pointing at is there can be no real progression in the culture
of this race without considering the possibilty of pushing the
boundaries of what we consider our brain capacities to be, our thought
progressions, our minds ability to register a purly abstract point. I
think the bauhaus and vasily Kandinsky and his contemporaries to be
the foremost epitomy of my point,impressionism then Cubism began that
progression of the human brain to view the world in a different way,
to offer new alternatives to the real. It focuses on the very
boundaries of the brains ability to register information, to PROGRESS.
This is really why i say that realism is dead. For any real
progression we of course should not dismiss our forefathers work, but
to stay in a loop of past experiences instead of pushing through seems
futile to me. forgive me, but its like war. we know it works, its
worked for centuries. so lets not push our minds past physical
agression to solve our problems. lets be lazy and use what we know
works. why try to mend it if its not broken?
E.
Electrolux
> Electrolux wrote:
>
> > Im not trying to make a childish rebel point. I believe that anyone,
> > after seriously studying fine art, who continues to think ancient
> > greek statues and the renaissance have any real meaning, besides pure
> > realist aesthetic and a fable turned here and there, are culturally
> > speaking about as knowledgeable as salvadore dali.
>
> Maybe I'm going to get myself seriously bashed for saying this but I think
> I make a reasonable stab at trying to say something with my sculpture.
> Take a look at my work in progress picture for "Victory Kneels Down".
> Your might be able to criticize the composition, the execution or what I'm
> saying but I don't think you can say there is no meaning there.
>
> Have you ever asked yourself why there is so much trite representational
> art and the "Art" community is off messing with things like unmade beds?
> It might have to do with the fact that representational art can be very powerful
Gary,
I'm not from the u.s. so i cant say i now much about your political
history, but i dont doubt that it overlaps with art movements, as in
every other country.
I checked out your website.I'm goin to be harsh but you asked me to be
the critic so here it goes. Outward, Inward and Loss. The depictions
seem fairly run of the mill to me.the titles aren't extremely
insightful into the human dilemma.why not drug enduced hysteria,
suicidal and a complete rip off ofthe little mermaid in copenhagen?
sorry.no bad feelings.
E.
Chris
Art is not mathematics, and it's not a set of aerobics for the intellect.
Modern art, by and large, is incredibly uninteresting for the very reason
that for the last 100 years or so, it has ignored what it is good at -
exploring the human side of life, and the meanings (or lack there of) we
search for- and attempted to ascend into the realms of pure science.
Abstracting art from everyday experience is an act of cowardice. Dilettante
made a very good point when he said it seeks an aesthetic where no rules can
be formulated or imposed. It's not anarchy, or chaos in any positive sense
though, it's more like the big whimper some cosmologists propose for the end
of the universe. The art of dyspepsia. It's an art that says nothing, stands
for nothing, does nothing. It avoids the dirt and grime of life and suits
itself to decorating the halls of corporate head offices, and provides an
amusing diversion for corporate spouses.
> This is really why i say that realism is dead. For any real
> progression we of course should not dismiss our forefathers work, but
> to stay in a loop of past experiences instead of pushing through seems
> futile to me. forgive me, but its like war. we know it works, its
> worked for centuries.
First, you might want to correct your terminology. There is no "realism" per
se; a representational work does away with that as soon as the artist
collapses four dimensions (the three physical ones, and time) onto two (or
three). To think of greek sculpture as "realistic" is simply uneducated; do
you believe all Greek men wandered around with bulging muscles & teeny
peckers? Do you really think Greek artists were so incompetent that they
thought this looked just like their models? (As an aside, if you are
interested in sculpture that attempted realistic appearances, check out the
busts done in the Empire phase of Roman domination. Compare & contrast with
the Greek; the paper's due next week.).
As for the question of time - well, sorry to be rude, but that's just
bullshit. I assume you are at least at a level where you can enjoy a work of
art that isn't, at that moment, undergoing its creation at the hands of the
artist. Do you insist that the artist be present & breathing? Suppose that
you find some work somewhere that you take as meaningful. What you are
enjoying is something created in the past - albeit maybe 5 minutes ago. If
the artist is not physically there then, for all you know, he could be dead,
but until you know that fact, it can not change your appreciation of the
art. The artwork exists on its own, independently of its moment of creation.
An ability to extend your appreciation back over longer periods of time is
not the problem of the art, or the artist; it's your problem. He couldn't
predict the time that you live in; but with a little generosity and a lot of
work, you can come to some understanding of his.
>so lets not push our minds past physical
> agression to solve our problems. lets be lazy and use what we know
> works. why try to mend it if its not broken?
Art based in reality can never be static simply because reality is never
static. Art is a primary tool for understanding our reality; and the more we
use it the greater the art - and the reality - become. You reduce art only
to what can be encompassed within theoretical treatises, you wind up with
trivia. That's just an extension of Godel's theorem.
Chris
Mike Stengl
do you make any differentiation between representational and
photorealistic, or does anything that resembles something familiar
fall from your eyes as being passe?
Gary Oblock
E --
I said:
"look at my work in progress picture for "Victory Kneels Down"."
Oh and by the way, I didn't say:
"and while your at it take backhanded swipe at the rest of my work" ;-)
I don't take offense at what you said but I didn't rip off "The Little Mermaid".
Loss was meant to depict what happens when someone suffers a great loss. I
pictured the person slumping to the floor with the only tense muscles in the body
being in the arms (which are clutched to chest as if to hold onto something) and
the face. The lower body portion of this pose worked best, with this particular
model, as the slump. If I'd had another model the pose would have been different if
she had been more comfortable slumped in another position. You can hurt somebody
by asking them to pose in a position that over stresses their joints and I won't do it.
-- Gary
Electrolux
> "Electrolux" <flux_cap...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e9a57e75.04041...@posting.google.com...
> > Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
> news:<4078E2B0...@netti.fi>...
> > >
> > I like your comparison to music movements, but to say that they
> > happily co-exist is not really accurate.dissidence in 18th century
> > Russia?? The mods versus the Rockers in 60's brighton? beatnicks vs.
> > hippies etc.competition breeds progression.there has always been
> > tension between art movements,and really i have no major qualms with
> > anyone who considers realism the prime form of fine art. What i'm
> > really pointing at is there can be no real progression in the culture
> > of this race without considering the possibilty of pushing the
> > boundaries of what we consider our brain capacities to be, our thought
> > progressions, our minds ability to register a purly abstract point. I
> > think the bauhaus and vasily Kandinsky and his contemporaries to be
> > the foremost epitomy of my point,impressionism then Cubism began that
> > progression of the human brain to view the world in a different way,
> > to offer new alternatives to the real. It focuses on the very
> > boundaries of the brains ability to register information, to PROGRESS.
>
> Art is not mathematics, and it's not a set of aerobics for the intellect.
> Modern art, by and large, is incredibly uninteresting for the very reason
> that for the last 100 years or so, it has ignored what it is good at -
> exploring the human side of life, and the meanings (or lack there of) we
> search for- and attempted to ascend into the realms of pure science.
>
___________Sci"ence\, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p.
pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience,
Conscious________________________
the Human side of life, you say?? Conscience-is this not the essence
of humanity? and if this is so, would it not back up your point (if it
is correct) that art should depict what is actually real humanity? oh,
as an afterthought- what about psychology? it doesnt use paint or
marble or rubber to search for the innermost truths of people, but in
principle, is it not the same?
Abstracting art from everyday experience is an act of cowardice.
what constitutes everyday experience? What constitutes abstraction?are
you taking, (to use another musical reference) an american idol stance
on this? Is everyday experience similiar to what constitutes a popular
love song? Because the lyrics are easier to understandand and relate
to, does that make it intrinsically better? if that was the case, we
wouldnt have jazz. or everything that was bourne from it.
And to be honest- if im sticking to my principles here-the human
conscience is ABSTRACT. The subtleties of human experience are varied
and multiplicitous in thought, action, reality.I think modern art is
just trying to represent humanity in a much more truthful way, by
ridding itself of purely realistic methods of depiction, which seeing
as conscience is abstract- seems much more fitting. To simply
territorially categorise art as a seperate entity to the rest of what
constitute our realm of existence eg:science, is a mistake.realists
out there will appreciate my next point-in the renaissance, art would
have floundred if it wasn't for religion. hey, isn't religion
abstract??????????(:)
Dilettante
> made a very good point when he said it seeks an aesthetic where no rules can
> be formulated or imposed.
Dilettante did. But he took that as a negative. I see it as THE real
freedom of expression.can you say that our humanity has rules that
impose themselves on our thought? Do you think that rules should apply
to our form of expressing our humanity?? should we have boundaries
when it comes to our minds? This is getting a bit too 1984 for me. I
bet you supported the iraq war and all didnt you??:)but seriously,
this bit really borders on psychology.If you take that we are what we
have been influenced by,and that certain things have been inbuilt into
us through our culture. ie: walk around naked, get arrested. The word
Fuck is an insult etc. why do we need to apply the same indoctrination
to art?
It's not anarchy, or chaos in any positive sense.
> though, it's more like the big whimper some cosmologists propose for the end
> of the universe. The art of dyspepsia. It's an art that says nothing, stands
> for nothing, does nothing. It avoids the dirt and grime of life and suits
> itself to decorating the halls of corporate head offices, and provides an
> amusing diversion for corporate spouses.
This is you just pissing as high as you can against a brick wall. As
in reality i will pay it the same amount of attention. oohh....whiffy.
>
>
> First, you might want to correct your terminology. There is no "realism" per
> se; a representational work does away with that as soon as the artist
> collapses four dimensions (the three physical ones, and time) onto two (or
> three).
fair enough. I stand corrected.
To think of greek sculpture as "realistic" is simply uneducated; do
> you believe all Greek men wandered around with bulging muscles & teeny
> peckers? Do you really think Greek artists were so incompetent that they
> thought this looked just like their models? (As an aside, if you are
> interested in sculpture that attempted realistic appearances, check out the
> busts done in the Empire phase of Roman domination. Compare & contrast with
> the Greek; the paper's due next week.).
>
Your taking me literally mister. Im talking about the CONCEPTUAL end
of realism.I dont think, in this modern age, figures of david and
goliath, sodom and gomorrah, or anymore of those trite (to use
American terminology)SUNSET BEACH MELODRAMAS should be considered to
be relevant today.
> As for the question of time - well, sorry to be rude, but that's just
> bullshit. I assume you are at least at a level where you can enjoy a work of
> art that isn't, at that moment, undergoing its creation at the hands of the
> artist.Do you insist that the artist be present & breathing?Suppose that
> you find some work somewhere that you take as meaningful. What you are
> enjoying is something created in the past - albeit maybe 5 minutes ago. If
> the artist is not physically there then, for all you know, he could be dead,
> but until you know that fact, it can not change your appreciation of the
> art. The artwork exists on its own, independently of its moment of creation.
> An ability to extend your appreciation back over longer periods of time is
> not the problem of the art, or the artist; it's your problem.
no they dont even have to be alive. I love expressinism, cubism, the
bauhaus, as i said in my PREVIOUS POST.somnambulism. hmmm...bet u
think thats a movement, dont you??:)
He couldn't
> predict the time that you live in; but with a little generosity and a lot of
> work, you can come to some understanding of his.
>
I understand there work. Ive studied it. BUT I DONT WANT TO GET STUCK
IN THERE HISTORY- I'VE GOT THE PRESENT TO THINK ABOUT AS WELL.I'LL
THINK BACK FONDLY OF THEM,AS I WOULD A DEAD PARENT.SURE THEY BUILT THE
FOUNDATIONS.BUT WOULD THEY WANT ME TO GET STUCK ON THEIR MEMORY....OR
PROGRESS?
>
> E.
Electrolux
Mike,
For me its really simple. The medium doesnt matter- the CONCEPT
DOES.or more the progression of concept.
Jake and Dinos Chapman(www.the-saatchi-gallery.co.uk)use mannequins
that would be classed as realistic. Some people consider their work as
'shock art'. But i believe for once Saatchi has bought something
worthwhile. I dont know if your familiar with their work, but it is
quite gruesome in its delivery.There work is most certainly
figurative- but you certainly dont visit the saatchi gallery and say-
oh..thats beautiful.It makes you think. Its an essay on modern
culture. Everything about the physical of the piece is synthetic,
manufactured.But the concept behind the works are extremely more
intriguing.
Holding the same space as the chapman brothers is ron muecks 'angel'.
what a bland piece. it is super realist figurative, but ive seen it
before- its an angel for christs sake- with little real progression of
concept behind it.
those are two figurative examples i have given. these are easy to
read, because they are staying in the familiar to express their
concepts.This works for the chapmans style,only because their concept
is strong.For me the really interesing modern art develops beyond the
realistic.
E.
Lauri Levanto
"It focuses on the very
boundaries of the brains ability to register information, to PROGRESS."
"And to be honest- if im sticking to my principles here-the human
conscience is ABSTRACT."
Registering information? I register a lot, I rather understand some.
PROGRESS?
Where is the progress - in our environment.
The human condition remains the same. That is why we are touched
by Shakespeare's plays or the Greek drama.
Or like my former cow-orker said: "When they replaced the dumb
elevator girls with smart elevators - why that is called progress?"
There has been a tendency in Art History to explain the western
art as continous "progress" that culminated in Bouguereau. For some hard to explain reasson
I appreciate the lascaux cave paintings more.
Sure there is progress in 20th century art.
It has widened the scope. The experience of art is now in focus,
not only the piece. It was a pleasant surprise when I wisited
Helsinki last time. The old powerline masts had been replaced
by new blue, technically sound but aesthetic ones. To see a powerline
as an artwork. Yes there is progress - in the environment.
We human bastards remain the same, fall madly in love, drink too much.
Well, I agree with you that the human consciousness is abstract.
It deals with symbols, not with real things.
"The most important things are not seen with the eyes" said the Petit Prince.
I do like art with intellectual challenge, like Magritte or
Esher. These are exceptions. Art, music or litterature can be
analyzed in bits and pieces, but are we then any wiser.
Art is for experience.
From evolutionary standpoint, the conciousness is a byproduct.
Some say that we think in words, but how often we have to think
to find the words. Conscious layer is very thin. We deal with megabits
per second - the badwidth of consciousness is about 10 bit/sec.
Why in a western duell, the good guy alwaus wins?
Because he reacts. The bad guy makes the conscious decision when to draw,
and that takes time.
The abstraction in art was founded by Brunelleschi perspective.
The first time an object was picted *out there* in
a 3D coordinate system, unrelated to the observer, his movements
his values. Was the medieval value perspective not more correct,
where influential characters were picted larger, as they play
a greater role in our lives.
Very little of modern abstract art is about "what matters".
Too often it is about stimulation, registering information.
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
>
> Or like my former cow-orker said: "When they replaced the dumb
> elevator girls with smart elevators - why that is called progress?"
Art is everywhere, or elsewhere. For example, your innocent typo
"cow-orker." Having orked a few cows in my life myself, it is an
intriguing concept.
> There has been a tendency in Art History to explain the western
> art as continous "progress" that culminated in Bouguereau. For some hard to explain reasson
> I appreciate the lascaux cave paintings more.
> Sure there is progress in 20th century art.
> It has widened the scope. The experience of art is now in focus,
> not only the piece. It was a pleasant surprise when I wisited
> Helsinki last time. The old powerline masts had been replaced
> by new blue, technically sound but aesthetic ones. To see a powerline
> as an artwork. Yes there is progress - in the environment.
> We human bastards remain the same, fall madly in love, drink too much.
But isn't it a tautology, Lauri. I mean, selecting a set of things that
lay within a historical time period, and calling that "progress" and
viola! you have proof of progress.
>
>
> Well, I agree with you that the human consciousness is abstract.
> It deals with symbols, not with real things.
> "The most important things are not seen with the eyes" said the Petit Prince.
Personally, I have problems with defining the "human" in terms of
consciousness. I suppose it boils down to how you define consciousness.
I think I tend to think of it in a distilled form, where symbology is
stripped leaving the holder with a sort of pure awareness with little
content. Of course that would leave earthworms with a higher
consciousness than humans, I suppose, unless you factor in the complex
social life that earthworms enjoy - in that they would resemble humans
in many ways. If I was asked to point to a unique attribute to human
mentality, I think I would be looking not at "consciousness" but rather
at "unconsciousness." But you would get into definition problems there
to (do Dogs really dream?) and since we're considering definitions it
may well be only language - or more a certain degree of language
capacity, that would distinguish the human in the animal kingdom.
>
> I do like art with intellectual challenge, like Magritte or
> Esher. These are exceptions. Art, music or litterature can be
> analyzed in bits and pieces, but are we then any wiser.
> Art is for experience.
Thus spake John Dewey. ("Art as Experience"). I tried reading it, but
it was too dense for me, plus I had a nagging doubt about what Dewey was
claiming.
> From evolutionary standpoint, the conciousness is a byproduct.
> Some say that we think in words, but how often we have to think
> to find the words. Conscious layer is very thin. We deal with megabits
> per second - the badwidth of consciousness is about 10 bit/sec.
Back to my point above, I would feel more comfortable separating
"consciousness" from "language." And certainly I would go along with
your "symbol" idea that you express above. But then consider Cassirer's
"Philosophy of Symbolic Forms" where he holds language up to other
symbolic forms we use, i.e. Art, Mythology, Maths etc. The question is
is there a binding grammar that covers all of our symbolic forms (in my
mind). A "uniform field theory" of cognition, you might say. It seems
like there would be, but then that concept tends to threaten the concept
of "free will" (or the "value" of "free will") which we use to valorize
ourselves in our standing in the animal kingdom.
>
> Why in a western duell, the good guy alwaus wins?
> Because he reacts. The bad guy makes the conscious decision when to draw,
> and that takes time.
Yet another tautology, me thinks. "Survival of the fitest" means those
who happen to survive are "fit" by virtue of surviving.
> The abstraction in art was founded by Brunelleschi perspective.
> The first time an object was picted *out there* in
> a 3D coordinate system, unrelated to the observer, his movements
> his values. Was the medieval value perspective not more correct,
> where influential characters were picted larger, as they play
> a greater role in our lives.
Riding in the back seat of my Dad's Pontiac looking out the back window,
around 1954 in the Canadian Rockies, I watched the mountains grow larger
the further we got away from them.
> Very little of modern abstract art is about "what matters".
> Too often it is about stimulation, registering information.
>
> -lauri
But what about "art for art's sake?" Dang, I'm still trying to remember
what art critic wrote: "The Theory of Modern Art is a theory of
consumption disgised as a theory of production." Meyer Shapiro? I'm
sure it wasn't Greenberg. Who the hell was it. (We're buying a home in
Brawley now, so I'll be able to finally get my library out of storage
and look it up!)
Erik
>
>
>
Cliff D. Weller
>For example, your innocent typo
>"cow-orker." Having orked a few cows in my life myself, it is an
>intriguing concept.
>calling that "progress" and
>viola! you have proof of progress.
Speaking of typos...YoYo Ma loves you too!
He might even "ork" you with his bow...
Lauri Levanto
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
> >
> > Or like my former cow-orker said: "When they replaced the dumb
> > elevator girls with smart elevators - why that is called progress?"
>
> Art is everywhere, or elsewhere. For example, your innocent typo
> "cow-orker." Having orked a few cows in my life myself, it is an
> intriguing concept.
>
> >But isn't it a tautology, Lauri. I mean, selecting a set of things that
> lay within a historical time period, and calling that "progress" and
> viola! you have proof of progress.
>
Exactly, a journey from A to B is progress only if that is the direction I want.
As I mentioned, my favourite pieces are scattered over some milleniums,
without implying direction. We humans stay the same, and art for me is much
about human condition.
That case was from an experiment of Nils Bohr and his staff.
With several repetitions, the one who draws last, shoots first.
Forget the cliche of good guys and bad guys.
>
>
> > The abstraction in art was founded by Brunelleschi perspective.
> > The first time an object was picted *out there* in
> > a 3D coordinate system, unrelated to the observer, his movements
> > his values. Was the medieval value perspective not more correct,
> > where influential characters were picted larger, as they play
> > a greater role in our lives.
>
> Riding in the back seat of my Dad's Pontiac looking out the back window,
> around 1954 in the Canadian Rockies, I watched the mountains grow larger
> the further we got away from them.
>
> > Very little of modern abstract art is about "what matters".
> > Too often it is about stimulation, registering information.
> >
> > -lauri
>
> But what about "art for art's sake?" Dang, I'm still trying to remember
> what art critic wrote: "The Theory of Modern Art is a theory of
> consumption disgised as a theory of production." Meyer Shapiro? I'm
> sure it wasn't Greenberg. Who the hell was it. (We're buying a home in
> Brawley now, so I'll be able to finally get my library out of storage
> and look it up!)
>
It goes even deeper, to the sound of falling tree nobody hears.
It is tempting to think that a piece of art has art within, that a CD conteins music.
It is not music without a CD player, a piece is not art if not reckognized as such.
-lauri
>
> Erik
>
> >
> >
> >
Electrolux
> >
> >
> >
> I do like art with intellectual challenge, like Magritte or
> Esher.
Magritte: "My painting is visible images which conceal nothing; they
evoke mystery and, indeed, when one sees one of my pictures, one asks
oneself this simple question 'What does that mean'? It does not mean
anything, because mystery means nothing either, it is unknowable."
and Escher used simple optical illusions, a trick of our natural
biological make-up. Not very intellectually challenging in my eyes.
> From evolutionary standpoint, the conciousness is a byproduct.
A by-product that allowed the cave-men in Lascaux to makes some nice
shit, no?
Some say that we think in words, but how often we have to think
> to find the words.
That exact phenomenon is what has fuelled art to exist at all. The
challenge of expressing something extremely hard to
express.Abstraction is a purer form then realism because it sticks to
the basics of what humaninity is. we ARE disarticulated, we ARE
confused.
Conscious layer is very thin. We deal with megabits
> per second - the badwidth of consciousness is about 10 bit/sec.
If we forced ourselves to progress, by really challenging
ourselves.wouldn't it be nice to use a little more then 10 percent of
a brains capacities??
> Why in a western duell, the good guy alwaus wins?
> Because he reacts. The bad guy makes the conscious decision when to draw,
> and that takes time.
Art is not about natural reactions. Its about using this CONSCIOUSNESS
to interpret the human and sociological condition.Our consciousness
allows us to see any aesthetic or religious faith, Working beyond
aggression,eating, shitting and fucking. And what about napolean??
westerner?? STRATEGIST??
>> Very little of modern abstract art is about "what matters".
> Too often it is about stimulation, registering information.
its about uncovering the truth.And it does this in a much more fitting
way then anything that is flesh.. brick.. tree.. lake.. tries... but
fails...to achieve.
> -lauri
Paul Mesken
(Electrolux) wrote:
>If we forced ourselves to progress, by really challenging
>ourselves.wouldn't it be nice to use a little more then 10 percent of
>a brains capacities??
Is this that popular story again that we only use a part of our brain
as if we leave the majority of it unused? Holding "great promise" of
what we could achieve when we used "all of it"?
This is misleading. First : all of our neurons are active all of the
time, "humming" at least their base frequency. Much like our muscles.
Even if muscles are not participating in some voluntary movement then
they still participate in maintaining the body's equilibrium or
working together with their antogonists. There's always some tension
in the muscles.
It's not like we only use a limited part of our brain in our lifetime.
Only a limited part of our brain shows heightened activity at _one_
time. But *all* of it is used over time. We don't come equiped with
oversized brains of which we haven't discovered all capacities yet.
If all neurons would start to show heightened activity at one time
then our lives would flash before our eyes, our bodies would twitch in
every possible way, we would experience all possible sensations, etc.
In short : we would have one Hell of an epileptical seizure, probably
lethal.
Let's not forget that the brain and the rest of the nervous system is
not all about intellect.
Over half of it is simply used for motion and combining sensory
signals to achieve fine control over those motions. We're not
attempting to make every possible movement at the same time. You could
say this means we're not using our brain's capacities at the fullest.
But it should be evident that this is not a bad but a good thing :-)
Electrolux
ITS ABOUT CONSCIOUNESS....EVERYHTING ELSE IS NOTHING BUT A MACHINE.aRE
YOU GOING TO ADD TO THE HEART OF THE DEBATE OR SKIRT ABOUT THE EDGES
SOME MORE?
Paul Mesken
(Electrolux) wrote:
>ITS ABOUT CONSCIOUNESS....EVERYHTING ELSE IS NOTHING BUT A MACHINE.aRE
>YOU GOING TO ADD TO THE HEART OF THE DEBATE OR SKIRT ABOUT THE EDGES
>SOME MORE?
Nah, from what I've seen so far it seems you've already worked
everything out and I wouldn't want to rob anyone of the illusion of
being a carrier of Truth.
Lauri Levanto
>
> Conscious layer is very thin. We deal with megabits
> > per second - the badwidth of consciousness is about 10 bit/sec.
>
> If we forced ourselves to progress, by really challenging
> ourselves.wouldn't it be nice to use a little more then 10 percent of
> a brains capacities??
>
I have a two-litre car from 1987 and running fine.
The formula1 racers have a two-litre engine,too, which gives 900 hp more
than my car. The MTBF - mean time between failures for that racer
is about 5 hours, for my car it is 15-20 years.
If the nature provides redundancy, it has a reason.
BTW, where comes that myth of 10 percent?
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Electrolux wrote:
>
> ITS ABOUT CONSCIOUNESS....EVERYHTING ELSE IS NOTHING BUT A MACHINE
So you are capable of only mechanical emotions :-)
As I said, consciousnes is but ripples on the brain surface.
Consciousness is a reflection, the image of ourselves.
-lauri
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>> If we forced ourselves to progress, by really challenging
>> ourselves.wouldn't it be nice to use a little more then 10 percent of
>> a brains capacities??
>
>I have a two-litre car from 1987 and running fine.
>The formula1 racers have a two-litre engine,too, which gives 900 hp more
>than my car. The MTBF - mean time between failures for that racer
>is about 5 hours, for my car it is 15-20 years.
>If the nature provides redundancy, it has a reason.
Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life. This
is of course not by design (Nature doesn't design, it brainstorms :-)
The longer life for the individuals resulted in a more successfull
species in our case (there's also a downside to longer life). Some
animals have a very short life but can be successfull as a species
nevertheless.
>BTW, where comes that myth of 10 percent?
I think it's from the modern brain imaging techniques (PET, (f)MRI,
EEG, etc). These techniques can visualize brain activity and showed
that only certain parts of the brain have heightened activity at one
moment, the locations being task specific. Of course this doesn't mean
that the other parts are doing nothing. Nor does it mean that we never
use those other parts. It only means that during a certain task
certain brain regions show heightened activity.
Of course, some people liked the idea that only part of the brain is
used (while this is a wrong idea, all of it is used, just not all of
it at the same moment). It suggests that we have an enormous hidden
potential.
As a matter of fact, our brains are a bit undersized for the
requirements of Modern Life and this forces us to distribute our
skills to external tools and methods like writing down stuff so we
don't forget it and using a calculator to perform reliable
calculations.
Humans don't have the biggest brains of all animals, not is absolute
size nor in relative size. For a big part, it is our vast
communicative skills, our cooperative nature and our great ability to
manipulate objects (with our front legs :-) that made us into such a
successfull species. We just happen to have a good combination of
existing skills.
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life. This
>is of course not by design (Nature doesn't design, it brainstorms :-)
>The longer life for the individuals resulted in a more successfull
>species in our case (there's also a downside to longer life). Some
>animals have a very short life but can be successfull as a species
>nevertheless.
>
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Consciousness is a reflection, the image of ourselves.
Yes, I believe consciousness is mostly about self-perception. It's not
at all a vital part for survival but it offers great advantages. By
virtue of statistical learning we find out what our needs are and,
this way, we can define long term goals. A simple animal might
temporarily have its behaviour driven by a desire like hunger but
conscious animals like ourselves also become aware of that internal
desire and can consider it even if we're not experiencing it at the
moment. We can stock up on food just in case we get hungry :-) Of
course there are other mechanisms that can achieve such behaviour but
the advantages of self knowledge (which can only come about by the
virtue of self perception) are obvious.
We can also project this self knowledge upon others and this way we
can predict their behaviour and needs.This makes us more successfull
as a social species. Our consciousness is of such a great level that
we're even able to lie and manipulate others because knowing ourselves
is knowing everyone else as well. We are aware of how certain
information drives our behaviour. Very few other animals can do this
trick.
Paul Mesken
<bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>I surely hope not even you, the author, believes what you wrote below.
Let me guess : you don't like the "cooperative nature" part of my
post.
Erik A. Mattila
Does culture itself have a brain? A collective intelligence? I'm
thinking of Eugene Marias again, who encouraged us to regard a termite
colony as a singlular organism.
It's...it's...it's like, could G.W.Bush survive on this planet without a
lot of help from his friends? ;-)
Erik
>
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:26:36 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
><bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>
>>I surely hope not even you, the author, believes what you wrote below.
>
>Let me guess : you don't like the "cooperative nature" part of my
>post.
That's not it. As in the case of most goofballs owning the privilege to
vote, you appear to be making some sort of attempt at explaining something
to ---yourself---. Thus, I am peeved that you used this exercise to explain
something to another person.
>>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life.
Evidence that longevity is a direct result of organ size??
>>>This is of course not by design (Nature doesn't design, it brainstorms
:-)
Of course, because "Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a
longer life." <rolling eyes>
>>>The longer life for the individuals resulted in a more successfull
>>>species in our case (there's also a downside to longer life).
Evidence that success is a direct result of longevity?? Oh, and success...
is??
>>>Some
>>>animals have a very short life but can be successfull as a species
>>>nevertheless.
Because success is... (I mean, since longevity is such an important factor
and everything.)
>>>As a matter of fact, our brains are a bit undersized for the
>>>requirements of Modern Life
Please, enlighten on how modern life (which humans invented with their
little bitty brains) requires a --bigger-- human brain!! And when you're
done with that, please enlighten on how a bigger human brain could -or-
would accommodate for this "modern" life when it is a fact that size does
not matter - esp in regard to people ahead of their time (George Washington
Carver, Tesla, Leonardo, etc.).
>>>and this forces us to distribute our
>>>skills to external tools and methods like writing down stuff so we
>>>don't forget it and using a calculator to perform reliable
>>>calculations.
No one is forced to use these tools. There are plenty of people living in
this "modern world" do just fine without them. And plenty of people living
outside the "modern world" continue to thrive as well.
>>>Humans don't have the biggest brains of all animals, not is absolute
>>>size nor in relative size. For a big part, it is our vast
>>>communicative skills, our cooperative nature and our great ability to
>>>manipulate objects (with our front legs :-) that made us into such a
>>>successfull species.
Successful. That's Funny. Um, what (pray tell) makes us more successful than
say... our friendly tomato plant?
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Does culture itself have a brain? A collective intelligence? I'm
>thinking of Eugene Marias again, who encouraged us to regard a termite
>colony as a singlular organism.
The "hive mind" concept applied to culture. Of course it doesn't have
a brain like we do but it could be regarded as an organism, even be
perceived as one with an intention. After all, we consider ourselves
as organism while we're composed of a lot of relatively independent
cells which have no concept that they in fact make up us. Therefor it
is probably hard, if not impossible, for us to consider this
"meta-organism" of which we are the "cells".
>It's...it's...it's like, could G.W.Bush survive on this planet without a
>lot of help from his friends? ;-)
I thought he got by with "resolve". Waving his gun in the desert,
shouting out "Make no Mistake!" ;-)
You know, I'm sure he will be re-elected. It is hard to top him :-)
Erik A. Mattila
But Lauri already defined most of what you are calling "consciousness"
as "symbolizing." And I agree with him, strongly. But it may all boil
down to a semantic crises. We ought to attempt an agreeable definition
of consciousness before we proceed to discover all of us secretly agree.
"Self-perception?" That is of course "ego" formation. So we don't
remember much from our childhood before we acquired language (one of
several symbolic forms we use, as humans). That should tell us that
"ego" and "symbolism" is intimately connected. Then the question
remains...are pre-linguistic kids "conscious?" My position is yes,
fully so. But kids don't differentiate - it is a "it's all one" sort of
thing, as much the form as the field. When the child learns "mine"
"mine" "mine" something happens that occludes consciousness, and it's
ego and it's right-hand symbolism.
Julia Krestiva, for example, argues that the birth of the ego is
corelational to the first act of semiosis - that is, fixing a connection
between sound form (word) and a particular meaning. It makes me sense
to me because there's no possibility of "I" without the possibility of
"Not I." Crude as it is, it's a grammar rule, maybe the first.
BTW, it's all expressed very well in classical Nahuatl: texcanixlia
(the reflecting mirror); tezcatlipoca (the smoking mirror) and
tlalchiyaloni (the perforated mirror.)
Erik
>
Paul Mesken
<bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>>>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>>Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life.
>
>Evidence that longevity is a direct result of organ size??
It's of course relative size. If we had a heart which is _just_ big
enough to satisfy our blood demand then this would mean that the
failure of a relative small amount of heart cells would mean our
death. As we grow older, more and more cells become inactive while not
being replaced (this is quite normal and causes physical aging). A
reason for this is that errors creep in with cell replication (our
regenerative and growing capability) and some of these errors result
in a defective apoptosis mechanism : "the programmed cell death",
which is necessary to get rid of malfunctioning cells. It's easy to
see that this error is a cumulative one, the inactive cells keep
occupying space. If we weren't born with slightly oversized organs
then we would live shorter because of this. Bigger organs give us a
greater defense against aging, a bigger part is allowed to be
defective without directly resulting in our death.
>>>>The longer life for the individuals resulted in a more successfull
>>>>species in our case (there's also a downside to longer life).
>
>Evidence that success is a direct result of longevity?? Oh, and success...
>is??
Do I really have to explain that? Here's a hint : successfull in
biological terms.
>>>>and this forces us to distribute our
>>>>skills to external tools and methods like writing down stuff so we
>>>>don't forget it and using a calculator to perform reliable
>>>>calculations.
>
>No one is forced to use these tools. There are plenty of people living in
>this "modern world" do just fine without them. And plenty of people living
>outside the "modern world" continue to thrive as well.
How many of us are running around naked and never touch a tool? I've
heard there's a tribe in the extreme south of South America doing that
but that's a rare exception.
Sure : I wrote "writing down stuff" and "using a calculator" but I
also used the word "like" before those examples (relying on the reader
to think of other examples). Almost all of mankind uses some means to
overcome the limitations of their human body (including the brain).
Whether it is wearing clothes, using a language to structure thoughts
and to communicate (we're not born with a language, a language is a
construct) or driving a car. There are not many people who live like,
for example, lions : completely relying on their body and nothing
else.
>>>>Humans don't have the biggest brains of all animals, not is absolute
>>>>size nor in relative size. For a big part, it is our vast
>>>>communicative skills, our cooperative nature and our great ability to
>>>>manipulate objects (with our front legs :-) that made us into such a
>>>>successfull species.
>
>Successful. That's Funny. Um, what (pray tell) makes us more successful than
>say... our friendly tomato plant?
I think the simple fact that there are 6 billion of us, all over the
world, makes us a successfull species, especially given our size (and
thus our demands on our environment). Furthermore, we've cultivated
great parts of the world for our needs. Indeed, the tomato plant is
very successfull but only because we eat them and are the ones growing
them in such great numbers. We've all but eliminated a lot of other
organisms which we're competitors to us or even harmfull. The wolves
are a good example. They were our competitors (eating our life stock)
and now they're almost extinct due to hunting. OTOH dogs are doing
very well and they are descendants of the earlier wolves. We have use
for dogs and they're not a pest to us like wolves.
But tell me, you obviously disagree with me that mankind is a
successfull species, that somewhat oversized organs produce a longer
life and that humans use external means to overcome limitations of
their bodies (including the brain of course). Surely you have a good
reason for this, so let's hear it.
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:407C767A...@oco.net...
>
>
>
> But Lauri already defined most of what you are calling "consciousness"
> as "symbolizing." And I agree with him, strongly. But it may all boil
> down to a semantic crises. We ought to attempt an agreeable definition
> of consciousness before we proceed to discover all of us secretly agree.
>
I wonder - maybe being concious is simply being in the state where you are
aware of the alternative. Have you ever been knocked out? Coming too is a
fascinating process, when your short term memory starts sputtering back to
life; aware of things but only in the instant they happen, the next minute
the memory is gone, and you have no psychic record of events. But you go
about doing whatever your routine is.
> "Self-perception?" That is of course "ego" formation. So we don't
> remember much from our childhood before we acquired language (one of
> several symbolic forms we use, as humans). That should tell us that
> "ego" and "symbolism" is intimately connected. Then the question
> remains...are pre-linguistic kids "conscious?" My position is yes,
> fully so. But kids don't differentiate - it is a "it's all one" sort of
> thing, as much the form as the field. When the child learns "mine"
> "mine" "mine" something happens that occludes consciousness, and it's
> ego and it's right-hand symbolism.
>
> Julia Krestiva, for example, argues that the birth of the ego is
> corelational to the first act of semiosis - that is, fixing a connection
> between sound form (word) and a particular meaning. It makes me sense
> to me because there's no possibility of "I" without the possibility of
> "Not I." Crude as it is, it's a grammar rule, maybe the first.
>
I don't see why there needs to be defined a "Not I". Isn't this sort of an
artificial concept, that everything exists in distinct sets? What would
happen if one formulated conciousness in a sense of distance (say) - as
closer of further from a center. but never distinct from it? The law of the
excluded middle is useful, mathematically; but is it more less just a
convenient way of handling and communicating concepts, rather than some
inherent truth? Idunno.
> BTW, it's all expressed very well in classical Nahuatl: texcanixlia
> (the reflecting mirror); tezcatlipoca (the smoking mirror) and
> tlalchiyaloni (the perforated mirror.)
>
> Erik
Cheers;
Chris
>
> >
>
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>But Lauri already defined most of what you are calling "consciousness"
>as "symbolizing." And I agree with him, strongly. But it may all boil
>down to a semantic crises. We ought to attempt an agreeable definition
>of consciousness before we proceed to discover all of us secretly agree.
I agree with Lauri as well. We all agree with Lauri :-)
An agreeable (in the global sense) definition of "consciousness" might
be tricky though. Much like "intelligence", consciousness is something
we attribute certain phenomenons to but it might in fact be many
things at the same time (it probably is, from the way things look
now).
>"Self-perception?" That is of course "ego" formation.
Not only that. Of course, "Ego" formation is a result of it (although
not a very objective one :-) but it is mostly being aware of our
intentions, feelings, emotions, desires, etc. : "the internal things".
Even the posture of our body is signaled to our brains by our
proprioceptors, which is a Good Thing else we would need to carry a
big mirror with us to see what our body is doing :-)
Note how an organism could perfectly well live without awareness of
these internal things (or external things for that matter). One
doesn't need to be aware of one's driving force as long as the
behaviour is successfully driven by it. Having a motive and being
aware of it are two different things. The first one is more important
to survival than the other one.
An organism's behaviour is largely driven by need (there are simpler
organisms of course but we're talking mammals and stuff here). There's
no necessity for the organism to be aware of the need. Foraging
behaviour is driven by hunger but one doesn't need to be aware of
hunger to forage, as long as hunger results in foraging everything is
okidoki. Homeostasis will be preserved.
But being aware of hunger and its relation to behaviour and the
environment opens up a couple of interesting, new possibilities. BTW I
believe consciousness is more than a term only describing the
awareness of oneself. I don't see advantages in only being aware of
one's environment without being aware of oneself. We would miss the
"meaning" link. An environment can only have meaning if we are aware
of how it makes us feel, therefor we both need awareness of ourself
and of the environment., both the internal and external. I seriously
doubt whether there can be an awareness of the environment without a
self awareness.
> So we don't
>remember much from our childhood before we acquired language (one of
>several symbolic forms we use, as humans). That should tell us that
>"ego" and "symbolism" is intimately connected. Then the question
>remains...are pre-linguistic kids "conscious?" My position is yes,
>fully so. But kids don't differentiate - it is a "it's all one" sort of
>thing, as much the form as the field. When the child learns "mine"
>"mine" "mine" something happens that occludes consciousness, and it's
>ego and it's right-hand symbolism.
My sister got a son (Robin) about 7 months ago. It's fun to see how he
develops. It looks like "the lights are slowly switched on, one by
one". One by one new skills are discovered, tried out vigorously
(which is fun to watch and automatically encouraged by childish idiots
like me :-) and finally integrated in the whole. I believe development
is a problem of the integration of innate skills.
It takes time for conceptual differentiation to develop. Some basic
things are innate (pain : bad, eat : good), the rest needs to be
formed by statistical learning (like logic). I believe the semantic
memory (in which the abstract concepts are and which makes language
possible) is through with developing as one of the last because it
relies on a lot of other skills to be integrated first and needs a lot
of exposure.
Roughly, memory is conceptually and anatomically (meaning they occupy
distinct locations but not necessarily a single one) divided in 3
major parts in the following phylogenetical order (from evolutionary
primitive to more modern) :
- Procedural memory in which all motor programs and their refinement
mechanisms are. For a very big part this is innate (and part of it is
not even in the brain). We don't learn *how* to walk, we only learn
how to walk *right*. The cyclical motor programs for the gait are
innate, we only need to learn proper control of it, integrating it
with other things like the visual system.
- Episodic memory in which experiences are stored. "Storing" is not an
accurate term, memory is _changed_ by experience (the connections
between the neurons). All perceived events leave an imprint and are
strongly coupled with our emotions. This is dual coding : the event
itself and how this event made us feel (this is the base requirement
of meaning) so it can guide future behaviour by manipulating emotions.
This is a "limbic system" thing. I will argue that this memory serves
two purposes in humans : one of guiding behaviour by its association
with emotions, and the other of recalling past events but this last
one is a *new* skill formed on top of an existing system. Recalling
past events is an active thing, not a static one. The recalled past
event is a _reconstruction_ *based* on the imprint the original event
left on the episodic memory. It's not the imprint itself. The imprint
was originally meant to make recognition for association possible, not
reconstruction. Much like how we can recognize a face in an instance
but find it close to impossible to use this skill to draw an accurate
portrait of a face from memory. Thus : the information stored to
enable recognition is not necessarily fit for reconstruction, it's not
necessarily reversible.
- Semantic memory which is like abstractions from our experiences
("experiences" is of course everything we've seen, felt, etc.). It
heaves a virtual order from the chaos of experiences :-) Whereas
episodic memory deals with specifics, semantic memory deals with the
general idea. Its nature is quite statistical. It's like a big linking
station and to have any meaning it must link with the phylogenetically
older episodic memory. This is what makes language and structured
thought possible : categorizing stuff by linking them. This way many
experiences are made accessible by single concepts. We have had many
experiences with apples and the semantic memory links them all up
under the "apple" concept (it's a bit simplistic, concepts have many
facets which can be activated and manipulate the meaning).
It's easy to see how the semantic memory needs a lot of exposure to
data before it becomes something we can use. It probably relies on
statistical learning which has been shown to be a major component of
learning a language which is made possible by the semantic memory.
Language and semantic memory are not the same thing but language can
only be made possible by the semantic memory (hence "semantic"
memory).
I don't think children think that "all is one" but that all is
*different* because order still has to be developed in the semantic
memory in their young life. This gives the very same effect :
everything is different and therefor the same (chaos). The structure
in all of it is still under construction at that time :-)
Although the brain is still developing after birth I don't believe
there is no episodic memory shaped from day one. I believe the
"childhood amnesia" is more a result of that the memories are hard to
recall because they're not properly "indexed" by the semantic memory
which isn't ready at that time. We simply don't have the means to make
a reconstruction of the past (which is remembering).
Recalling can be done by associative search (you simply experience
something that reminds you of something of the past) or by "strategic
search" in which a "key" needs to be fabricated to recall the required
piece of information. But what kind of key needs to be constructed to
access such old information? The memories of those days are hardly
structured. Recalling past events is _reconstructing_ events from the
imprint they left on the episodic memory. Let's not forget that the
original function of the episodic memory is not to recall past events
but to guide behaviour by emotions.
But this doesn't mean there aren't such memories. The episodic memory
is very important to guide behaviour. Amongst others, it warns us for
repeating harmfull behaviour (like sticking our hand in a fire),
equips us with a couple of fears of which we don't know the origins,
etc. It makes its presence clear by manipulating emotions (like
invoking fear), not by supplying us with snapshots of the past.
"Freely roaming" this episodic memory is probably a relatively late
evolutionary development and the skills required to "store events" in
such a way that it can be recalled as a reconstruction are probably
developed quite late in childhood. I believe the semantic memory plays
a big part in such reconstructions and that this is the reasons why we
have childhood amnesia.
Of course, this is all slightly informed speculation. Calvin (from
Calvin and Hobbes) wonders what information could be so important that
his parents have brain washed him so that he couldn't remember his
first years :-)
Paul Mesken
>
>"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
>news:407C767A...@oco.net...
>>
>> But Lauri already defined most of what you are calling "consciousness"
>> as "symbolizing." And I agree with him, strongly. But it may all boil
>> down to a semantic crises. We ought to attempt an agreeable definition
>> of consciousness before we proceed to discover all of us secretly agree.
>>
>
>I wonder - maybe being concious is simply being in the state where you are
>aware of the alternative. Have you ever been knocked out? Coming too is a
>fascinating process, when your short term memory starts sputtering back to
>life; aware of things but only in the instant they happen, the next minute
>the memory is gone, and you have no psychic record of events. But you go
>about doing whatever your routine is.
Yes, I seriously wonder whether consciousness is possible without
memory. Or at least short term memory, there are people whose
experiences are no longer stored, all they have is their old memories
and the short term memory lasting only seconds (the phonetic loop and
stuff).
I've been knocked over by a car once. I was riding my bicycle and my
steer got blocked by a bag hanging from it. I made an unvoluntary hard
left because of this and the last thing I remember was the thought
that I hoped there wasn't a car behind me. Of course there was one and
the next thing I remember was lying on the sidewalk and a queue of
stopped cars. I was completely unharmed but was told that I was hit by
the first car (luckily there was no damage done). I don't remember a
single thing of the lightning reflexes I must have carried out to get
out of this unscathed but apparently they happened :-)
Amazing. I must have lost something like 10 seconds. How can I be sure
that it was me who saved my hide (so I can claim glory for it) and not
some old survival mechanism which can override me in such cases? Am I
truly in control or am I only the part thinking to be in control?
Perhaps I'm only an illusion conjuring up an image of a single minded
creature so that the efforts of the many constituent parts are
believed to benefit all? Much like how people are willing to work,
fight and die for their country while in fact this country is only an
idea meant to unify their efforts. These questions haunt me ;-)
Thur
For the scientist it is probably important to understand this, but the
importance of the concept that the human brain's capability is never
fully reached is important for the rest of us too.
If we remember the amazing but rare people who have shone such
as Mozart, Newton, DaVinci, etc. (you pick your own) then
there is some evidence that given the right environment, possibly
as early as months before birth, amazing intelligence can be
seen.
If we are completely fatalist, then we might be inclined to accept that
we have been born with a limited capacity, and that is why we are
not Nobel prize winners, in place of an attitude that we have far more
brain power than we can use, and it only requires feeding through the
senses.
Coming to a lighter note, I liked this quotation:-
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere
in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
Bill Watterson (1958 - ), cartoonist, "Calvin and Hobbes"
Cheers,
Thur
Paul Mesken
This has nothing to do with using the "other 90%" of our brains. What
I'm saying is that the idea that we only use part of our brain is a
false one. We use all of it, some just make better use of it for
certain tasks than others. This indeed has a lot to do with the
environment and a better way of integrating the different skills which
are present in all humans.
Being a genius doesn't mean one uses parts of the brain that are
sitting idle in others. It merely means that one is more successfull
in achieving results by a better use of the basically same type of
brain shared by all humans.
Electric Nachos
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:12:46 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
><bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>
>>>>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>>>Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life.
>>
>>Evidence that longevity is a direct result of organ size??
>If we weren't born with slightly oversized organs
>then we would live shorter because of this. Bigger organs give us a
>greater defense against aging, a bigger part is allowed to be
>defective without directly resulting in our death.
I certainly haven't heard any statistics that suggest premature babies die
younger (in adult hood) than other babies (assuming the premies don't have
severe health problems.) I was a premie - And I ain't dead yet!
>>>>>The longer life for the individuals resulted in a more successfull
>>>>>species in our case (there's also a downside to longer life).
>>
>>Evidence that success is a direct result of longevity?? Oh, and success...
>>is??
>
>Do I really have to explain that? Here's a hint : successfull in
>biological terms.
Meaning what? That a species is capable of sustaining itself and its
environment for a specified length of time? If that's your definition of
success, then humans fail by most accounts.
>>No one is forced to use these tools. There are plenty of people living in
>>this "modern world" do just fine without them. And plenty of people living
>>outside the "modern world" continue to thrive as well.
>
>How many of us are running around naked and never touch a tool? I've
>heard there's a tribe in the extreme south of South America doing that
>but that's a rare exception.
There are others. MANY others - some even in the U.S.
>Sure : I wrote "writing down stuff" and "using a calculator" but I
>also used the word "like" before those examples (relying on the reader
>to think of other examples). Almost all of mankind uses some means to
>overcome the limitations of their human body (including the brain).
>Whether it is wearing clothes, using a language to structure thoughts
>and to communicate (we're not born with a language, a language is a
>construct) or driving a car. There are not many people who live like,
>for example, lions : completely relying on their body and nothing
>else.
Yet it is with these tools, designed to compensate for some sort of
inadequacy - that you call humans "successful". I think you have the word
"successful" confused with "adaptation" and "invention." The latter shown to
exist in the behavior of all living things - not just your beloved human.
>I think the simple fact that there are 6 billion of us, all over the
>world, makes us a successfull species, especially given our size (and
>thus our demands on our environment).
Like the cockroach?
>Furthermore, we've cultivated
>great parts of the world for our needs.
Like the ant?
>Indeed, the tomato plant is
>very successfull but only because we eat them and are the ones growing
>them in such great numbers.
You're saying that tomatoes serve no value other than to be eaten by humans?
And that tomatoes are totally incapable of reproducing themselves in great
numbers??
<burst of laughter>
>We've all but eliminated a lot of other
>organisms which we're competitors to us or even harmfull. The wolves
>are a good example.
Nah - I think diseases are a BETTER example. They're a better example to
show how insignificant you are in the wider scope of things.
>They were our competitors (eating our life stock)
>and now they're almost extinct due to hunting. OTOH dogs are doing
>very well and they are descendants of the earlier wolves. We have use
>for dogs and they're not a pest to us like wolves.
Lord!
1. People have wolves for pets.
2. Wild dogs behave exactly like wolves.
>But tell me, you obviously disagree with me that mankind is a
>successfull species, that somewhat oversized organs produce a longer
>life and that humans use external means to overcome limitations of
>their bodies (including the brain of course). Surely you have a good
>reason for this, so let's hear it.
a. "Man" ain't all that.
b. "Man" is not alone in the universe.
c. Life is bigger than "Man".
d. "Man" is not at the top of the food chain.
e. Get over yourself.
f. This ain't "Man's" planet.
g. "Man" gotta lot to learn.
h. Non-human things are not here to serve "Man".
i. "Man" is not God.
j. "Man" is just a speck of dust floating in the universe.
k. "Man" has a lot in common with ameoba.
l. Trees have more respect for nature than "Man" does.
m. If "Man" screamed in space, no one on earth would hear it or care.
n. The people in "Man's" imagination think "Man" is stupid.
o. "Man" is nothing more than a naked ape.
p. The bad bacteria in "Man's" body think they're at the top of the food
chain.
q. "Man's" value of self-worth is self-determined.
r. "Man" is mere food to some species of aliens.
s. "Man" can not solve the very problems it creates.
t. "Man" is its own enemy.
u. "Man" breaks it's own rules.
v. "Man" is the only animal who pollutes the planet to bury its dead.
w. "Man" will perform reproductive acts with its own sex.
x. "Man" can not control nature, yet...
y. "Man" thinks it is superior to nature.
z. To life on other planets, "Man" doesn't even exist.
Erik A. Mattila
Chris wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
> news:407C767A...@oco.net...
>
>>
>>
>>But Lauri already defined most of what you are calling "consciousness"
>>as "symbolizing." And I agree with him, strongly. But it may all boil
>>down to a semantic crises. We ought to attempt an agreeable definition
>>of consciousness before we proceed to discover all of us secretly agree.
>>
>
>
> I wonder - maybe being concious is simply being in the state where you are
> aware of the alternative. Have you ever been knocked out? Coming too is a
> fascinating process, when your short term memory starts sputtering back to
> life; aware of things but only in the instant they happen, the next minute
> the memory is gone, and you have no psychic record of events. But you go
> about doing whatever your routine is.
Good example, Chris. I'm thinking that consciousness is that exact
moment when you wake up and become aware, with no strings attached.
>
>
>>"Self-perception?" That is of course "ego" formation. So we don't
>>remember much from our childhood before we acquired language (one of
>>several symbolic forms we use, as humans). That should tell us that
>>"ego" and "symbolism" is intimately connected. Then the question
>>remains...are pre-linguistic kids "conscious?" My position is yes,
>>fully so. But kids don't differentiate - it is a "it's all one" sort of
>>thing, as much the form as the field. When the child learns "mine"
>>"mine" "mine" something happens that occludes consciousness, and it's
>>ego and it's right-hand symbolism.
>>
>>Julia Krestiva, for example, argues that the birth of the ego is
>>corelational to the first act of semiosis - that is, fixing a connection
>>between sound form (word) and a particular meaning. It makes me sense
>>to me because there's no possibility of "I" without the possibility of
>>"Not I." Crude as it is, it's a grammar rule, maybe the first.
>>
>
>
> I don't see why there needs to be defined a "Not I". Isn't this sort of an
> artificial concept, that everything exists in distinct sets? What would
> happen if one formulated conciousness in a sense of distance (say) - as
> closer of further from a center. but never distinct from it? The law of the
> excluded middle is useful, mathematically; but is it more less just a
> convenient way of handling and communicating concepts, rather than some
> inherent truth? Idunno.
It's because "I" has no meaning if it is not detached from everything
else. In order for me to say "I am I" and "You are You" I automatically
define you as "Not I." Your alternative is interesting, but "closer and
further" proposes polarities also - maybe even more radically than a
simple negative "I."
>
>
>>BTW, it's all expressed very well in classical Nahuatl: texcanixlia
>>(the reflecting mirror); tezcatlipoca (the smoking mirror) and
>>tlalchiyaloni (the perforated mirror.)
>>
>>Erik
>
>
> Cheers;
Now "Cheers," there's an interesting concept...oops.
Erik
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
Erik A. Mattila
Paul Mesken wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:23:38 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>But Lauri already defined most of what you are calling "consciousness"
>>as "symbolizing." And I agree with him, strongly. But it may all boil
>>down to a semantic crises. We ought to attempt an agreeable definition
>>of consciousness before we proceed to discover all of us secretly agree.
>
>
> I agree with Lauri as well. We all agree with Lauri :-)
>
> An agreeable (in the global sense) definition of "consciousness" might
> be tricky though. Much like "intelligence", consciousness is something
> we attribute certain phenomenons to but it might in fact be many
> things at the same time (it probably is, from the way things look
> now).
>
>
>>"Self-perception?" That is of course "ego" formation.
>
>
> Not only that. Of course, "Ego" formation is a result of it (although
> not a very objective one :-) but it is mostly being aware of our
> intentions, feelings, emotions, desires, etc. : "the internal things".
> Even the posture of our body is signaled to our brains by our
> proprioceptors, which is a Good Thing else we would need to carry a
> big mirror with us to see what our body is doing :-)
I'm a partial paraplegic, and I've lost most of the proprioception in my
right leg. You're correct, of course. It's very strange to not know
where a part of you is in time/space at any given moment. BTW, I've
never figured out why proprioception isn't listed among the 5 senses
(should be 6 senses.) Most people seem to unaware that they have it,
and unaware of its importance. I remember when I was a lemur-like
creature. I couldn't have jumped branches without it - I would have
been bat food.
>
> Note how an organism could perfectly well live without awareness of
> these internal things (or external things for that matter). One
> doesn't need to be aware of one's driving force as long as the
> behaviour is successfully driven by it. Having a motive and being
> aware of it are two different things. The first one is more important
> to survival than the other one.
>
> An organism's behaviour is largely driven by need (there are simpler
> organisms of course but we're talking mammals and stuff here). There's
> no necessity for the organism to be aware of the need. Foraging
> behaviour is driven by hunger but one doesn't need to be aware of
> hunger to forage, as long as hunger results in foraging everything is
> okidoki. Homeostasis will be preserved.
Hmmm...I wonder: a rotogen's little propellers might be linked to its
sex drive by a tiny universal joint that we all have.
>
> But being aware of hunger and its relation to behaviour and the
> environment opens up a couple of interesting, new possibilities. BTW I
> believe consciousness is more than a term only describing the
> awareness of oneself. I don't see advantages in only being aware of
> one's environment without being aware of oneself. We would miss the
> "meaning" link. An environment can only have meaning if we are aware
> of how it makes us feel, therefor we both need awareness of ourself
> and of the environment., both the internal and external. I seriously
> doubt whether there can be an awareness of the environment without a
> self awareness.
Actually, I'm not even saying that it's "awareness of one's self." Just
"awareness - period". I'm not arguing that is advantageous or even
interesting. I'm just offering up a standard definition of what we mean
when we write "consciousness." It's just a vocabulary issue. If we
want to talk about self awareness, then "self-consciousness" would work,
or personally identity, "ego-consciousness" etc. And it's just for the
sake of communication - if each one has a personal definition and they
don't match, communication is impaired - sometimes impossible.
>
>
>> So we don't
>>remember much from our childhood before we acquired language (one of
>>several symbolic forms we use, as humans). That should tell us that
>>"ego" and "symbolism" is intimately connected. Then the question
>>remains...are pre-linguistic kids "conscious?" My position is yes,
>>fully so. But kids don't differentiate - it is a "it's all one" sort of
>>thing, as much the form as the field. When the child learns "mine"
>>"mine" "mine" something happens that occludes consciousness, and it's
>>ego and it's right-hand symbolism.
>
>
> My sister got a son (Robin) about 7 months ago. It's fun to see how he
> develops. It looks like "the lights are slowly switched on, one by
> one". One by one new skills are discovered, tried out vigorously
> (which is fun to watch and automatically encouraged by childish idiots
> like me :-) and finally integrated in the whole. I believe development
> is a problem of the integration of innate skills.
>
> It takes time for conceptual differentiation to develop. Some basic
> things are innate (pain : bad, eat : good), the rest needs to be
> formed by statistical learning (like logic). I believe the semantic
> memory (in which the abstract concepts are and which makes language
> possible) is through with developing as one of the last because it
> relies on a lot of other skills to be integrated first and needs a lot
> of exposure.
Indeed. Motor skills are involved. And look at the impact of
malnutrition on child development. Actual critical neural pathways are
not made during the "window of opportunity" that nature provides, and
there's no second chance.
Give us a citation here, Paul. Sounds like "cognitive theory" as in
Chompsky - but I'm really not competent to pin it down.
>
> I don't think children think that "all is one" but that all is
> *different* because order still has to be developed in the semantic
> memory in their young life. This gives the very same effect :
> everything is different and therefor the same (chaos). The structure
> in all of it is still under construction at that time :-)
It's not a question of thinking "all is one" but rather of "being" in
that sort of universe. What's interesting to me is trying to remember
living before language. I think I have some very vague and fleeting
memories, but there's no way to be sure.
>
> Although the brain is still developing after birth I don't believe
> there is no episodic memory shaped from day one. I believe the
> "childhood amnesia" is more a result of that the memories are hard to
> recall because they're not properly "indexed" by the semantic memory
> which isn't ready at that time. We simply don't have the means to make
> a reconstruction of the past (which is remembering).
How is that different than my saying it is because it is pre-linguistic?
At least some linguistic theory entertains "ontology
recapitulates phylogeny" so your "episodic" memory may be covered. It
bothers me though, because "experience" itself is largely symbolic. How
could it be otherwise - since our perceptors send messages through our
nervous system and translates the stimuli into patterns?
Interesting speculations, though. But you would have to say a lot more,
since it's very complex. That might require a career change.
Erik
>
Erik A. Mattila
There was a passage in Proust's "Rememberances of Things Past" I read
years ago - his description of waking-up and a sphere of consciousness
that crystalized with something like the feeling of his lip stuck to the
pillow then slowly expanding to encompass the pillow and his head, his
bed, his room, and the memory of who he was. It was very striking - I
was about 18 when I read it. What an amazing project. He locks himself
in a room at midpoint in his life, with several pounds of hashhish, and
spends the second half of his life remembering the first.
Erik
>
Paul Mesken
<bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:12:46 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
>><bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life.
>>>
>>>Evidence that longevity is a direct result of organ size??
>
>>If we weren't born with slightly oversized organs
>>then we would live shorter because of this. Bigger organs give us a
>>greater defense against aging, a bigger part is allowed to be
>>defective without directly resulting in our death.
>
>I certainly haven't heard any statistics that suggest premature babies die
>younger (in adult hood) than other babies (assuming the premies don't have
>severe health problems.) I was a premie - And I ain't dead yet!
What does this have to do with our relatively slightly oversized
organs? Premature born babies have them as well. All humans have them
and a lot of animals. You simply fail to grasp, what is now, common
knowledge.
>>>Evidence that success is a direct result of longevity?? Oh, and success...
>>>is??
>>
>>Do I really have to explain that? Here's a hint : successfull in
>>biological terms.
>
>Meaning what? That a species is capable of sustaining itself and its
>environment for a specified length of time? If that's your definition of
>success, then humans fail by most accounts.
We've sustained long enough to get our numbers to 6 billion. If we're
not a successfull species then no species is. Really, you have to get
over your hatred of mankind. You're a member yourself.
>>>No one is forced to use these tools. There are plenty of people living in
>>>this "modern world" do just fine without them. And plenty of people living
>>>outside the "modern world" continue to thrive as well.
>>
>>How many of us are running around naked and never touch a tool? I've
>>heard there's a tribe in the extreme south of South America doing that
>>but that's a rare exception.
>
>There are others. MANY others - some even in the U.S.
It wouldn't surprise me if you knew them all.
>>I think the simple fact that there are 6 billion of us, all over the
>>world, makes us a successfull species, especially given our size (and
>>thus our demands on our environment).
>
>Like the cockroach?
The cockroach is pretty successfull as well. But they haven't been on
the Moon yet. ....at least, I don't think so, they might have been
brought along for experiments.
Mankind : chariots of the cockroaches :-)
>>Furthermore, we've cultivated
>>great parts of the world for our needs.
>
>Like the ant?
No, on a far bigger scale. We also sell the stuff. Ants don't make
money of their efforts. But there are a surprising number of
activities shared between ants and mankind. Ants even do wars.
>>Indeed, the tomato plant is
>>very successfull but only because we eat them and are the ones growing
>>them in such great numbers.
>
>You're saying that tomatoes serve no value other than to be eaten by humans?
>And that tomatoes are totally incapable of reproducing themselves in great
>numbers??
No, you have a reading comprehension problem. Not surprisingly I might
add.
>>We've all but eliminated a lot of other
>>organisms which we're competitors to us or even harmfull. The wolves
>>are a good example.
>
>Nah - I think diseases are a BETTER example. They're a better example to
>show how insignificant you are in the wider scope of things.
That's a good one. Viruses are so small you need a very powerfull
microscope to see them, how's that for insignificant? BTW we're the
only species actually knowing that viruses are the cause of disease.
>>They were our competitors (eating our life stock)
>>and now they're almost extinct due to hunting. OTOH dogs are doing
>>very well and they are descendants of the earlier wolves. We have use
>>for dogs and they're not a pest to us like wolves.
>
>Lord!
>
>1. People have wolves for pets.
Sure, everyone has one. I'm not disputing that but it's pretty clear
you have problems between distinguishing between exceptions and
regular things. Try to understand this : lots of people have dogs,
there are a lot of dogs in the world. There are not many wolves left
in the world, very few people have a wolf as pet. The number of wolves
have dwindled so low because we hunted them down in the past.
>2. Wild dogs behave exactly like wolves.
No, you really have to watch National Geographic, the Discovery
channel or Animal net. There are differences between the behaviour of
dogs and wolves. For example : wolves don't indulge themselves with
barking, dogs OTOH are quite noisy.
>>But tell me, you obviously disagree with me that mankind is a
>>successfull species, that somewhat oversized organs produce a longer
>>life and that humans use external means to overcome limitations of
>>their bodies (including the brain of course). Surely you have a good
>>reason for this, so let's hear it.
>
>a. "Man" ain't all that.
But we're most of it.
>b. "Man" is not alone in the universe.
So?
>c. Life is bigger than "Man".
This belief is only present in man because we actually measured the
sheer size of life (approximated is more like it, most of life happens
to be underground).
>d. "Man" is not at the top of the food chain.
We get eaten like every other organism (posthumously) but we are not
normally killed for food by predators. We kill other animals for food
at such an alarming rate that we have to breed new ones like crazy.
Only a lucky shot will turn the tables around. If we're not on the top
of the food chain then there is no top of the food chain.
>e. Get over yourself.
I'm already over myself. Now you have to do what I've already done.
>f. This ain't "Man's" planet.
Yes it is, simply because we call it ours. That is what possesion is :
claiming something as your own and defying claims saying otherwise.
Mankind has claimed this planet and no-one is disputing that (apart
from some silly persons).
>g. "Man" gotta lot to learn.
We learn all of the time, although I have my doubts about you.
>h. Non-human things are not here to serve "Man".
Nevertheless we make them serve us. Unless we invent a machine that
can serve us even better.
>i. "Man" is not God.
Man invented God. We're God's God.
>j. "Man" is just a speck of dust floating in the universe.
Good things come in small packages.
>k. "Man" has a lot in common with ameoba.
So has the rest of nature. As a matter of fact, there's a very
primitive form of life living on the ocean floor near geysers (or
whatever they're called, they're like miniature volcanos on the bottom
of the sea) and its genetic code is practically present in all other
forms of life on Earth.
>l. Trees have more respect for nature than "Man" does.
Trees don't have respect. I takes a nervous system like ours to have
respect. Trees also don't respect our privacy, there's one standing in
front of my window for years now.
>m. If "Man" screamed in space, no one on earth would hear it or care.
Yeah, it's a near vacuum in outer space. Sound can't travel through it
because there isn't any air to propagate it. What's your point? (if
you have any).
>n. The people in "Man's" imagination think "Man" is stupid.
Only in your imagination.
>o. "Man" is nothing more than a naked ape.
We also walk upright, have a fat layer covering our entire body (much
like seals or dolphins for example). Can talk because of our erect
posture (other apes can't). Are specially equipped to swim and have
"webs" between our toes and fingers the other apes don't have. We also
outnumber all other apes and monkeys at an enormous factor.
We're not *just* "a naked ape". We are _the_ Naked Ape (with apologies
to Desmond Morris :-)
>p. The bad bacteria in "Man's" body think they're at the top of the food
>chain.
They can't think. They're too stupid to do so.
>q. "Man's" value of self-worth is self-determined.
Pretty good deal hu?
>r. "Man" is mere food to some species of aliens.
Oh no! You're one of those "I've been abducted by an alien" people.
Either that or you've been watching "V" again, believing it to be a
documentary. It's a movie NerdGerl, a mini series actually. You can
tell because Freddy Krueger plays Willy, the friendly alien.
>s. "Man" can not solve the very problems it creates.
Prove it!
>t. "Man" is its own enemy.
I thought you suggested the "bad bacteria" were.
>u. "Man" breaks it's own rules.
Because we can. It takes more than mere rules to stop us!
>v. "Man" is the only animal who pollutes the planet to bury its dead.
We've done worse things.
>w. "Man" will perform reproductive acts with its own sex.
So will other species. Homosexuality is not restricted to mankind.
Here's a good article about gay penguins in Manhattan :
http://www.wsse.ca/nucleus2.0/index.php?catid=16&blogid=1
>x. "Man" can not control nature, yet...
We control a big enough part of it already and our grasp on nature is
strengthening. Very soon we will give evolution itself shape. A good
novel on this issue is Michel Houellebecq's "The Elementary
Particles".
>y. "Man" thinks it is superior to nature.
You think man thinks it's superior to nature. I think man is a part of
nature, the best part that is :-)
>z. To life on other planets, "Man" doesn't even exist.
Nonsense, if there's any intelligent life out there then they also
believe there are other species out there. To them we exists like they
exist to us.
... Well, that were 26 arguments that completely failed to support
your ideas that mankind is an unsuccessfull species, that mankind is a
tool user to extend their own abilities (there are more animals who do
this BTW) and that relatively oversized organs don't result in longer
life. Of course this doesn't surprise me in the least bit :-)
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 21:53:01 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
><bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>
>>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 16:12:46 -0700, "Electric Nachos"
>>><bueno...@mother.fucker> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Our organs are a bit oversized and this gives us a longer life.
>>>>
>>>>Evidence that longevity is a direct result of organ size??
>>
>>>If we weren't born with slightly oversized organs
>>>then we would live shorter because of this. Bigger organs give us a
>>>greater defense against aging, a bigger part is allowed to be
>>>defective without directly resulting in our death.
>>
>>I certainly haven't heard any statistics that suggest premature babies die
>>younger (in adult hood) than other babies (assuming the premies don't have
>>severe health problems.) I was a premie - And I ain't dead yet!
>
>What does this have to do with our relatively slightly oversized
>organs?
It disproves your gross line of bullshit by challenging your unit of
measurement.
>Premature born babies have them as well. All humans have them
>and a lot of animals. You simply fail to grasp, what is now, common
>knowledge.
LOL - Cite it.
>>Meaning what? That a species is capable of sustaining itself and its
>>environment for a specified length of time? If that's your definition of
>>success, then humans fail by most accounts.
>
>We've sustained long enough to get our numbers to 6 billion. If we're
>not a successfull species then no species is. Really, you have to get
>over your hatred of mankind. You're a member yourself.
What a dumb ass mark of success. "Doh - 6 billion served." I'm sure the
people-eating aliens are preparing to stick 2 golden arches onto the planet
as we speak!
>>>>No one is forced to use these tools. There are plenty of people living
in
>>>>this "modern world" do just fine without them. And plenty of people
living
>>>>outside the "modern world" continue to thrive as well.
>>>
>>>How many of us are running around naked and never touch a tool? I've
>>>heard there's a tribe in the extreme south of South America doing that
>>>but that's a rare exception.
>>
>>There are others. MANY others - some even in the U.S.
>
>It wouldn't surprise me if you knew them all.
<whisper> Close your mouth! Your ignorance is showing again. </whisper>
>>>I think the simple fact that there are 6 billion of us, all over the
>>>world, makes us a successfull species, especially given our size (and
>>>thus our demands on our environment).
>>
>>Like the cockroach?
>
>The cockroach is pretty successfull as well. But they haven't been on
>the Moon yet. ....at least, I don't think so, they might have been
>brought along for experiments.
Assuming humans have been to the moon - what VALUE did they bring to
"sheeple," like you?
>Mankind : chariots of the cockroaches :-)
>
>>>Furthermore, we've cultivated
>>>great parts of the world for our needs.
>>
>>Like the ant?
>
>No, on a far bigger scale. We also sell the stuff.
So we're going to start --adding-- factors into the equation now because we
can't defend it? For Shame!
>Ants don't make
>money of their efforts. But there are a surprising number of
>activities shared between ants and mankind. Ants even do wars.
>
>>>Indeed, the tomato plant is
>>>very successfull but only because we eat them and are the ones growing
>>>them in such great numbers.
>>
>>You're saying that tomatoes serve no value other than to be eaten by
humans?
>>And that tomatoes are totally incapable of reproducing themselves in great
>>numbers??
>
>No, you have a reading comprehension problem. Not surprisingly I might
>add.
And you neglected to answer the questions that challenged your silly
response. (Not surprisingly I might add.)
>>>We've all but eliminated a lot of other
>>>organisms which we're competitors to us or even harmfull. The wolves
>>>are a good example.
>>
>>Nah - I think diseases are a BETTER example. They're a better example to
>>show how insignificant you are in the wider scope of things.
>
>That's a good one. Viruses are so small you need a very powerfull
>microscope to see them, how's that for insignificant?
You have it backwards, ssabmud.
>BTW we're the
>only species actually knowing that viruses are the cause of disease.
Proof?
>>>They were our competitors (eating our life stock)
>>>and now they're almost extinct due to hunting. OTOH dogs are doing
>>>very well and they are descendants of the earlier wolves. We have use
>>>for dogs and they're not a pest to us like wolves.
>>
>>Lord!
>>
>>1. People have wolves for pets.
>
>Sure, everyone has one. I'm not disputing that but it's pretty clear
>you have problems between distinguishing between exceptions and
>regular things.
No, **You're** the one with the problem. You can't grasp that your
"exception" is "regular" to people all around the world. Where in the world
do you live - Paul's Republic? Meskinland? Can others get the hell outta
there?
>Try to understand this : lots of people have dogs,
>there are a lot of dogs in the world. There are not many wolves left
>in the world, very few people have a wolf as pet. The number of wolves
>have dwindled so low because we hunted them down in the past.
New strategy: Throw numbers into the mix when they are irrelevant and were
never introduced by either party's rebuttal. <shaking head>
>>2. Wild dogs behave exactly like wolves.
>
>No, you really have to watch National Geographic, the Discovery
>channel or Animal net. There are differences between the behaviour of
>dogs and wolves. For example : wolves don't indulge themselves with
>barking, dogs OTOH are quite noisy.
You really need to get your head out of your ass!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wolves/howl.html
>>a. "Man" ain't all that.
>
>But we're most of it.
No you aint!
>>b. "Man" is not alone in the universe.
>
>So?
So if you think being 6 billion strong is "successful," what are you
compared to life in the universe? LOL
>>c. Life is bigger than "Man".
>
>This belief is only present in man because we actually measured the
>sheer size of life (approximated is more like it, most of life happens
>to be underground).
Dude?! LOL.
>>d. "Man" is not at the top of the food chain.
>
>We get eaten like every other organism (posthumously) but we are not
>normally killed for food by predators. We kill other animals for food
>at such an alarming rate that we have to breed new ones like crazy.
>Only a lucky shot will turn the tables around. If we're not on the top
>of the food chain then there is no top of the food chain.
>
>>e. Get over yourself.
>
>I'm already over myself. Now you have to do what I've already done.
Lucky for you - you aren't within my fist's reach!
>>f. This ain't "Man's" planet.
>
>Yes it is, simply because we call it ours. That is what possesion is :
>claiming something as your own and defying claims saying otherwise.
>Mankind has claimed this planet and no-one is disputing that (apart
>from some silly persons).
U Related to Columbus or somthin'?
>>g. "Man" gotta lot to learn.
>
>We learn all of the time, although I have my doubts about you.
My education isn't in question. Care to stay on topic?
>>h. Non-human things are not here to serve "Man".
>
>Nevertheless we make them serve us.
Yes, this is what UNsuccessful apes do.
>Unless we invent a machine that
>can serve us even better.
>
>>i. "Man" is not God.
>
>Man invented God. We're God's God.
Tightening fist...
>>j. "Man" is just a speck of dust floating in the universe.
>
>Good things come in small packages.
>
>>k. "Man" has a lot in common with ameoba.
>
>So has the rest of nature. As a matter of fact, there's a very
>primitive form of life living on the ocean floor near geysers (or
>whatever they're called, they're like miniature volcanos on the bottom
>of the sea) and its genetic code is practically present in all other
>forms of life on Earth.
>
>>l. Trees have more respect for nature than "Man" does.
>
>Trees don't have respect. I takes a nervous system like ours to have
>respect.
Proof?
>Trees also don't respect our privacy, there's one standing in
>front of my window for years now.
That's not funny.
>>m. If "Man" screamed in space, no one on earth would hear it or care.
>
>Yeah, it's a near vacuum in outer space. Sound can't travel through it
>because there isn't any air to propagate it. What's your point? (if
>you have any).
You have no clue as to what "success" is.
>>n. The people in "Man's" imagination think "Man" is stupid.
>
>Only in your imagination.
They think you're stupid because you are badly behaved little monkey!
>>o. "Man" is nothing more than a naked ape.
>
>We also walk upright, have a fat layer covering our entire body (much
>like seals or dolphins for example). Can talk because of our erect
>posture (other apes can't). Are specially equipped to swim and have
>"webs" between our toes and fingers the other apes don't have. We also
>outnumber all other apes and monkeys at an enormous factor.
>
>We're not *just* "a naked ape". We are _the_ Naked Ape (with apologies
>to Desmond Morris :-)
Men do very little to rise above the lowly status of naked aped-ness. And
your upright, fat, erect, webbed finger and toe qualifications to speak and
swim are astoundingly stupid. Apes talk - but I'll admit I don't know why
they don't swim. I would attribute their failure to do so toward their
posture more than some non-existant webs!
>>p. The bad bacteria in "Man's" body think they're at the top of the food
>>chain.
>
>They can't think. They're too stupid to do so.
Bacteria most certainly does think. I believe you are living proof.
>>q. "Man's" value of self-worth is self-determined.
>
>Pretty good deal hu?
Lame.
>>r. "Man" is mere food to some species of aliens.
>
>Oh no! You're one of those "I've been abducted by an alien" people.
>Either that or you've been watching "V" again, believing it to be a
>documentary. It's a movie NerdGerl, a mini series actually. You can
>tell because Freddy Krueger plays Willy, the friendly alien.
>
>>s. "Man" can not solve the very problems it creates.
>
>Prove it!
Get a damn newspaper.
>>t. "Man" is its own enemy.
>
>I thought you suggested the "bad bacteria" were.
Well stop thinking then! I didn't say that.
>>u. "Man" breaks it's own rules.
>
>Because we can. It takes more than mere rules to stop us!
>
>>v. "Man" is the only animal who pollutes the planet to bury its dead.
>
>We've done worse things.
>
>>w. "Man" will perform reproductive acts with its own sex.
>
>So will other species. Homosexuality is not restricted to mankind.
>
>Here's a good article about gay penguins in Manhattan :
>
>http://www.wsse.ca/nucleus2.0/index.php?catid=16&blogid=1
I won't debate homosexual behavior in animals kept in captivity.
>>x. "Man" can not control nature, yet...
>
>We control a big enough part of it already and our grasp on nature is
>strengthening. Very soon we will give evolution itself shape. A good
>novel on this issue is Michel Houellebecq's "The Elementary
>Particles".
>
>>y. "Man" thinks it is superior to nature.
>
>You think man thinks it's superior to nature. I think man is a part of
>nature, the best part that is :-)
>
>>z. To life on other planets, "Man" doesn't even exist.
>
>Nonsense, if there's any intelligent life out there then they also
>believe there are other species out there. To them we exists like they
>exist to us.
>
>... Well, that were 26 arguments that completely failed to support
>your ideas that mankind is an unsuccessfull species
NOT - your rebuttals however, completely showed your hampered reasoning. Man
is unsuccessful. Making 6 billion more of us is NOT a sign of success!
>, that mankind is a
>tool user to extend their own abilities
I never said they weren't. Reading???
> (there are more animals who do
>this BTW)
I already said that.
>and that relatively oversized organs don't result in longer
>life.
I sure hope you can cite this (online) cause if you don't, I'm going to
ridicule you over this like you've never seen.
Thur
speak in a language that is now heard by all but understood by few.
I was referring to how issues of the kind your post was dealing with
might give a popular misunderstanding, and I was attempting to
re-interpret.
I have engaged in debate [elsewhere]about how intelligence
is acquired, and I have been told by many that it is acquired through our
genes.
They suppose that our capabilities are limited by our breeding, and
have a prejudice that "race" can produce greater or lesser intelligence.
They seem to dismiss that parents and environment are
fundamental to our development.
Thur
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>I'm a partial paraplegic, and I've lost most of the proprioception in my
>right leg. You're correct, of course. It's very strange to not know
>where a part of you is in time/space at any given moment.
Interesting, you must have difficulty controlling that leg. I've had
an anaesthetic once (only once dammit!) when I had a tooth pulled.
When I opened my mouth it appeared to me that I only opened it on one
side (which is impossible of course, given the rigidity of the lower
jaw). I had to touch the anaesthetized side to confirm it was indeed
opened. I guess your right leg must be close to that strange feeling.
I wonder if your right leg is stronger because of a lack of control?
A lot of the fine control over our body is brought about by subdueing
the innate jerky but powerfull motion of the reflexes but this
"subdueing" needs senses like the proprioceptors to work correctly
(doing feedback, but the brain also adds "feed forward" based on
expectations). There are only a few motions that are not controlled by
controlling the older reflexes, cyclical programs, etc. Things like
"fine control" are built on top of the "older controls", all of the
motion control is built hierarchically. Nature hardly ever redesigns,
it builds new things on top of the older things. However, the
independent moving fingers are new. Their control comes from the
cortex directly and is not built on top of reflexes. Scratching OTOH
is a cyclical program controlled from the spine (and initiated from
the brain).
There's a kind of "map" in the brain "projecting" our entire body and
what it is doing. It does happen quite frequently that people who had
a limb amputated still experience the missing limb as if being in a
certain posture (often the last posture the limb was experienced in).
There have been methods developed to "fool" the brain by the use of
mirrors that the missing limb is moved (while in fact the opposing
limb is moved). More or less the same happens with people who had a
stroke in a certain part of the right half of the cortex. The will
suffer from a paralyzed left half of the body but deny it. This seems
awfully strange and even when doctors told such people to carry out a
task needing both halfs of the body (like lacing the shoe) then they
came up with strange excuses as to why they were unable to carry out
this task. The right half of the brain contains (in most cases) the
part that can process changes. The left part of the brain is more
concerned with order and things that stay the same. Therefor the
stroke disabled people to process the change that had come over their
body.
>BTW, I've
>never figured out why proprioception isn't listed among the 5 senses
>(should be 6 senses.) Most people seem to unaware that they have it,
>and unaware of its importance.
I think it's a bit of an artificial boundary between senses concerned
with external stimuli and internal stimuli. We have a lot of different
senses. One of the stranger ones is the one that measures the amount
of CO2 in the blood. When the level is too high then we need to
breathe quicker. But it would have been better if it measured oxygen
because if we suffer from CO poisoning then we don't get aware of the
fact that the oxygen level has dropped to lethal amounts (CO attaches
to our red bloodcells far better than oxygen and it never lets go). We
just experience a bit of dizzyness and then we die without ever having
been warned of the emergency. Of course, the CO2 sense works _most_ of
the time, CO poisoning doesn't happen that much in nature :-)
>Indeed. Motor skills are involved. And look at the impact of
>malnutrition on child development. Actual critical neural pathways are
>not made during the "window of opportunity" that nature provides, and
>there's no second chance.
Yes, it's amazing how development goes through distinct phases. It
follows a quite rigid scenario. There was this story of some child
that was locked alone in some cabinet till she was found at (I think)
12 years old (now there's a story that could bring the death penalty
back). She probably will never be able to speak well because she
wasn't exposed to speech when she had to (I believe children need to
be exposed to speech before they turn 4).
>> It's easy to see how the semantic memory needs a lot of exposure to
>> data before it becomes something we can use. It probably relies on
>> statistical learning which has been shown to be a major component of
>> learning a language which is made possible by the semantic memory.
>> Language and semantic memory are not the same thing but language can
>> only be made possible by the semantic memory (hence "semantic"
>> memory).
>
>Give us a citation here, Paul. Sounds like "cognitive theory" as in
>Chompsky - but I'm really not competent to pin it down.
I wish I could but it is a hodgepodge of different theories :-)
My foggy memory even switched some terms and definitions. I believe
"Episodic Memory" (a term from Tulving who split up "Declarative or
Explicit Memory" in Semantic and Episodic Memory) should have been
called "Autobiographic Memory" (I believe it comes from Fink) for the
definition I gave it (although both are basically the same).
According to Tulving the Episodic Memory develops last (consistent
with the "Childhood Amnesia") but I don't believe this. I believe that
the *skill* to make _reconstructions_ from the Episodic Memory is
developed last and that the Episodic Memory is developed quite early
because it is needed to learn from one's experiences.
Perhaps I just misunderstood Tulving's definition. He might have
defined it so that it *is* in fact the _capacity_ to make
reconstructions from the traces left on memory by experience and not
*all* memory that is involved in making these reconstruction. I have
mentioned "Procedural Memory" but this is a term for a type of memory
belonging to a greater set called "Implicit Memory". My take on
Episodic Memory might in fact be composed of two parts : the Tulving
definition of Episodic Memory and Associative Implicit Memory.
Associative Implicit Memory is what made Pavlov's dog salivate :-)
It might very well be so that Tulving meant by Episodic Memory the
*extra* information that is necessary for recalling past events. This
would make a lot of sense. After all, there is no reason for
Associative Implicit Memory to make reconstructions of past
experiences. It's primarily meant for the important goal of bringing
about a change in behaviour based on past experiences triggered by
perception. But is seems clear to me that this Episodic Memory can not
operate without that Associative Implicit Memory. About everything new
to our brains operates on top of older parts.
Anyway, the distinction between Explicit Memory (split up in Semantic
and Episodic Memory) and Implicit Memory (which can be associative and
non-associative) is clear : Explicit Memory can be recalled by making
reconstructions (therefor it needs the "Working Memory" which is quite
limited) and can be "phrased" IOW it can be made "explicit" both for
the sake of reconstruction and communication. Implicit memory can not
be actively recalled. It simply brings about a change in the
individual whenever it is triggered by the environment. Implicit
memory is far older than explicit memory.
So, if we return to Pavlov's dog and the bell is rung then it is the
Implicit Memory that makes the dog salivate (the bell is associated
with food and food causes salivation) and it is Explicit Memory that
makes the dog think "Hey, that bell means food!" (if he could
understand English :-) Given that Explicit Memory can be part (by
means of Working Memory) of formal thinking the dog could figure out
he's part of some experiment. Implicit Memory could not come up with
that conclusion, it only brings about behavioral changes.
If you want sources then you can search the internet for Tulving,
Schacter, Fink, etc. in combination with memory. I especially liked
Daniel Schacter's books on memory, very accessible. Furthermore :
books of Oliver Sacks and Antonio D'Amasio are accessible books about
the brain as well (focusing on special disorders that give us some
insight in how the brain works). A good "Everything about the brain"
book is Kandel's "Principles of Neural Science".
>> I don't think children think that "all is one" but that all is
>> *different* because order still has to be developed in the semantic
>> memory in their young life. This gives the very same effect :
>> everything is different and therefor the same (chaos). The structure
>> in all of it is still under construction at that time :-)
>
>It's not a question of thinking "all is one" but rather of "being" in
>that sort of universe. What's interesting to me is trying to remember
>living before language. I think I have some very vague and fleeting
>memories, but there's no way to be sure.
Yes, the same here. It's hard to figure out whether these vague
memories are real or not. If we simply bring things back to Explicit
and Implicit Memory and assume the Explicit Memory only starts working
at around 3 or 4 (much like it takes, I believe, 2 weeks before Color
Vision starts working) then it is easy to see that we *do* have
memories of our early childhood in Implicit Memory but that they
cannot be recalled because they're not linked into the Explicit Memory
(which wasn't ready at that time).
Speech is only possible with the Explicit Memory (in particular the
Semantic Memory). It doesn't mean remembering the past relies on
language but it does mean that remembering relies on the part that
makes language possible and therefor the earliest childhood memories
and the ability to talk coincide.
Nothing is easy in neural science. Every part relies on older parts.
Without the Implicit Memory, the Explicit Memory would not be possible
and without Working Memory we couldn't recall Explicit Memory.
That's probably also why it is so hard to come up with definitions.
Consciousness relies on perception but is not the same. Without
perception consciousness is impossible but perception doesn't need
consciousness, it operates independent from it.
>> Although the brain is still developing after birth I don't believe
>> there is no episodic memory shaped from day one. I believe the
>> "childhood amnesia" is more a result of that the memories are hard to
>> recall because they're not properly "indexed" by the semantic memory
>> which isn't ready at that time. We simply don't have the means to make
>> a reconstruction of the past (which is remembering).
>
>How is that different than my saying it is because it is pre-linguistic?
> At least some linguistic theory entertains "ontology
>recapitulates phylogeny" so your "episodic" memory may be covered. It
>bothers me though, because "experience" itself is largely symbolic. How
>could it be otherwise - since our perceptors send messages through our
>nervous system and translates the stimuli into patterns?
It's all a matter of subtleties :-)
"Pre-linguistic" suggests that language (or other symbolic tools)
itself plays a part in recalling past events. This is not the case.
Oliver Sacks had an interesting case (I don't remember in which book)
in which a deaf person finally started to learn ASL (American Sign
Language). Lip reading (deaf people were often forced to behave like
non-deafs and thus were not learned ASL) doesn't give deaf people a
proper symbolic set to "structure" their thoughts with. This is what
the deaf person felt : finally she had a means to structure her
thoughts with.
Without a symbolic set like language it is harder to manipulate
thought but that doesn't mean the concepts haven't properly formed.
They did, they were just hard to invoke because they weren't properly
"labeled". Language is a convenient means of labeling and accessing
concepts.
Language is a tool to make thought easier (the manipulation of
information from the Explicit Memory : Semantic and Episodic). But
that doesn't mean it is a requirement for thought and recollection of
past events, it only makes it easier.
Language, abstract thought (Semantic Memory) and remembering the past
(Episodic Memory) rely on Explicit Memory. That's probably why the
acquisition of language and the first memories coincide but we don't
need language to recall past events or to have abstract thought.
Language is one of those external tools by which we extend our
capabilities (easier manipulation of thought and accessing memory).
But it isn't a requirement.
But it is very interesting to see how we, people, have developed
symbolic things like language, signs, art, etc. as both a means to
communicate with other people and access our own memory in a
convenient way (there are theories that language wasn't originally
meant for communication but only to manipulate one's own thoughts).
What do symbols stand for and what governs their appearance?
First of all, symbols must address concepts in our Semantic Memory
else they are meaningless. How are concepts formed? Gestalt theory
probably has some answers. Things that are in someway similar to our
perceptual system are linked together to slowly form a concept that
gets more and more entrenched by exposure to the World. Concepts are
probably formed around feelings and other human conditions. Things
that are linked to "pain" for example make up the concept of pain. We
don't make a concept about everything that is a line (even though a
line is an element of our visual system). It must mean something to
us, a line on itself is meaningless. We do make a concept about moving
around though and subconcepts of cars, air planes, etc. Concepts are
all about _how_ we experience the world as humans, not necessarily
about what our objective eyes can see.
The symbol's appearance is governed by the perceptual system (after
all : that's the system that must recognize it). Symbols must be
distinct from each other but at the same time be easy to identify.
But symbols don't need to be static things, they can cooperate in a
formal way as they do in language and art (signs OTOH are quite
static). There are rules as of how we can use symbols (even parts of
it, like how syllables might be combined to form words). Of course,
rules are also born out of the perceptual system that is also
concerned with patterns underlying rules. Rules don't make patterns,
we try to find out rules behind patterns (much like how theories
attempt to cover the phenomenons of the World).
Needless to say culture plays a big part here. We don't need to invent
symbols, we receive them from the culture we are in and perhaps we can
give it some symbols back.
What could be wondered about is in how far the symbols we learn push
our thoughts into a certain direction? Could it subtly change the mode
of thoughts within a culture?
Lauri Levanto
your lenghty postin was good reading.
A few comments, not necessariry critic.
"self-perception is mostly being aware of our intentions, feelings,
emotions..."
I believe too, that the world of a newborn is chaos, finding (no, inventing)
ego is one step
in creating order. It must happen before language. When a baby discriminates
a new face,
she must have the notion of familiar faces.
About distinct memory locations:
"procedural memory in which all motor programs..are"
I read it as reflexes. Much of them are innate (hard wired) but they can
be conditioned to an unbelievable extent.
"episodic memory" is a new concept to me. Sounds credible.
"The imprint was originally meant to make recognition for association
possible, not reconstruction. Much how we reckognize a face in an instance
but find it close to impossible to use this skill to draw an accurate
portrait of a face from memory."
That was a sgock to read.
How good we are in reckognition! Not only recognition of the familiar, but
also reckognition of change. I notice that a female looks different (than
last time 6 month ago).
After asking we come to a conclusion that she has a new eye-liner - or a
change in
emotional life. We can reckognize the difference, not the reason for it.
This must have something to do with the mental bandwidth. The eye receives
information
at 10 Mbits/sec. The bandwidth of consciousness is around 16 bits /sec. our
brains (the
unused 99.9999 percents:-) select only the precious bits we can be
consciously aware.
This has something to do with the zen-thing in art. many tasks we can do
better without conscious inference. In a good moment you are not painting -
making something. The piece has taken over, you unconsciously follow it. You
are not a subject workin on an object - the painting. You are part of the
process of an emerging painting.
"Semantic memory" nobody knows how a child learns a language, though we all
have done it. I remember when my son was very young. We met a dog with a cage
around the mouth ( I do not know the English term) and the son cried " a
horse". He refused to believe when I said it is a dog. For him horse was an
animal with something wrapped around the head. A good guess I must say.
When ou meet a new word, you learn it by associating it with other concepts.
That is what dictionaries are about. The child has no dictionary to refer.
It is a truism that all great ideas in modern physics were made at an age
under 25.
After that we are less and less capable of *thinking differently*. In
sciences like
jura, medicine and humanics the opposite is true. Only a wast collection of
links seems to make new links possible.
To close with a Calvin:
H: have you done your homework yet?
C: No, you can't turn the creativity on like a faucet,
it takes a proper state of mind.
H: may I ask, what is the proper mindset?
C. the last minute panic!
-lauri
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>I believe too, that the world of a newborn is chaos, finding (no, inventing)
>ego is one step in creating order. It must happen before language.
That's interesting. I hadn't thought of the ego as a means of creating
order while, now you say it, it becomes clear that it does heave a lot
of order out of the chaos of perception. The first distinction between
the external world and the one that reacts on it.
To me the ego is much of a template upon which to base behaviour for
the sake of long term goals. It enforces a sudden directive of
behaviour on the whole. Emotions can turn us into a different person
but the ego maintains a kind of continuity. We find out what is good
and bad behaviour in the course of our lives and invent a person (the
ego) who only does the good and surpresses the bad.
Of course, for it to work, it must feel bad not living up to the ego,
there is shame and pride associated with the ego. This can be remedied
by simply interpreting one's own behaviour differently so that it fits
the ego again. Even redefining the ego can be done. The ego is not
only shaped by the self, also the environment plays a crucial role :
parents, friends, society and culture. This ensures that the ego not
only makes living good for one's self but also to the environment.
After all : we're social beings.
>When a baby discriminates a new face, she must have the notion of
>familiar faces.
Yes, there are certain regions of the visual system completely
dedicated to face and eye perception. I guess it gets "programmed"
with the very first persons seen. This might account for the fact that
people have a harder time with distinguishing between faces of
different ethnical backgrounds than encountered in early childhood
although I believe the effect is non-permanent and living amongst,
let's say black people while one has a background with white people,
will sharpen recognition of black faces.
>How good we are in reckognition! Not only recognition of the familiar, but
>also reckognition of change. I notice that a female looks different (than
>last time 6 month ago).
>After asking we come to a conclusion that she has a new eye-liner - or a
>change in emotional life. We can reckognize the difference, not the reason for it.
Yes, there's also the often experienced feeling how someone looks
different only later to hear that he has shaven off his moustache or
started wearing contacts instead of glasses :-)
>This must have something to do with the mental bandwidth. The eye receives
>information at 10 Mbits/sec. The bandwidth of consciousness is around 16 bits /sec. our
>brains (the unused 99.9999 percents:-) select only the precious bits we can be
>consciously aware.
Yes, our working memory is quite modest. We can only think of 5-9
things at the same time. These "things" are activated concepts in our
memory (they can be big or small). We don't see a face in our
consciousness, we recognize a face and operate on the information
belonging to that face by means of a link.
There's the popular question "How many stripes does the tiger have?"
to show that we only _think_ we see it all. If I would encounter a
tiger on my path then I would immediately recognize it and know it is
a danger. However, I only think I see it completely consciously while
in fact it would take me a lot of time to count its stripes. If I
would really see the tiger completely then that task would be far
easier.
Nevertheless, relatively short lived constructs can be made in less
permanent memory like a mental map of how we should navigate in a
space so we don't bump into things. This information is of course
encoded by means of the feeling of our motions. We don't think "that
table is 3 feet 8 inches from me", we _feel_ that the table is only 2
normal steps away from us. We don't know how far in inches the remote
control is but we do know how far we need to stretch our arm to reach
it.
>To close with a Calvin:
>H: have you done your homework yet?
>C: No, you can't turn the creativity on like a faucet,
>it takes a proper state of mind.
>H: may I ask, what is the proper mindset?
>C. the last minute panic!
Calvin and Hobbes are great! I only need one book more and then I have
the series complete (too bad Watterson quit).
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>It enforces a sudden directive of behaviour on the whole.
"Certain directive" is what I meant. Amazing! My inability to speak a
good "r" reflects poorly on my writing as well. I write what the voice
in my head tells me and he has a speaking disorder :-)
Mani Deli
(Electrolux) wrote:
>REALISM IS DEAD.
Most art students and Modern Academics repeat this about three times a
day after meals in order to reassure themselves that the incompetent
stuff they reproduce has some value.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
>>Electrocute wrote:
>> Im not trying to make a childish rebel point. I believe that anyone,
>> after seriously studying fine art, who continues to think ancient
>> greek statues and the renaissance have any real meaning, besides pure
>> realist aesthetic and a fable turned here and there, are culturally
>> speaking about as knowledgeable as salvadore dali.
>
>I suppose this is a troll, but I'll bite. As far as realism goes, what if I
>just enjoy looking at it?
>
Its not a troll. You simply aren't on the same level in Electrocute's
mind. Enjoyment, that's not for those who regularly need to reassure
themselves that they are more cultured than you are.
Mani Deli
>mike, if its classed as fine art, shouldn't it contain something of
>more substance? a concept ,an stance? something that makes you look
>further then the marble it was carved in...yes its aesthetic, and i
>can understand that up until the impressionists it was considered fine
>art, because people hadn't conceieved that art can and should be more
>then that...anyone who lives beyond 1815 who still considers it to be
>the era where art was in its hayday, hasn't a clue about art and what
>it means.
>E.
Sounds like the sort of drivel you get during the first day of Modern
Academic Art class. Its the prelude to never learning how to draw. Its
why the Dill and many others here can't show their work. Someone might
just laugh and spoil their trance.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>There has been a tendency in Art History to explain the western
>art as continous "progress" that culminated in Bouguereau.
Not true. The culmination is supposed to drive towards the holy
trinity, Cezanne, Picasso and Matisse. No Modern Academic Art student
learns otherwise.
Mani Deli
>That exact phenomenon is what has fuelled art to exist at all. The
>challenge of expressing something extremely hard to
>express.Abstraction is a purer form then realism because it sticks to
>the basics of what humaninity is. we ARE disarticulated, we ARE
>confused.
Yes you are confused and your double-talk clearly reveals it.
...Artspeak snipped
I'm sure we all now understand what " the basics of what humaninity
is."
cantueso
> >REALISM IS DEAD.
>
> Most art students and Modern Academics repeat this about three times a
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
I have been told that great art creates joy. isn´t that a good
definition? so the difference between figurative and non figurative is
what is dead.
I believe that some of the greatest artists created joy by means of
colour, (not shape). I know that Chagall is one of those and I thought
that Cesanne was, too. I am a beginner in this, but I would consider
that Picasso´s drawings, in their ease and lightness, create joy,
while his paintings don´t: colours flat, subject sentimental or none.
a classification like that of figurative and non-figurative is too
facile, too mechanical.
Lauri Levanto
The modern academic teaching - if such exists -
never claim that C,P,M completed what the earlier
masters attempted.
They opened a new direction.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
I would like todwell a little more with reckognition.
The strangers say my brother and I look the same.
The relatives say my brother has my fathers features,
I have mom's.
The relatives do not see what we have in common, for them that is
the plain human look. in the sculpture class I have noticed
how much each person depicts herself, when modeling a face
after a life model. A particular case was a girl with
exeptionally small jaw. It came into her sculpture, though the model
was a robust male. For her a "human face has a small jaw".
Your notion of the racial difficulty is part of the same. The black/gipsy/asian
face is different, and our subconsciousness picks out the differencies that are
enough for us to classify and ingores personal features as noise.
Another intersting experience is that sometimes I work with the students.
How much easier it is to pinpoint faults in other people work.
( We all are little Mani's :-) ).
After seeing it elsewhere I can see I had made the same mistake.
(I'm not perfect, we are not little Mani's :-) ).
-lauri
--
I know the second childhood is approaching,
but I do not feel any younger yet.
cantueso
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
I think I mentioned Cezanne as an example of a painter who is famous
for his colours.
well, that seems to be wrong.
Chris
"Biljo White" <biljowhit...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20040416074300.063$i...@newsreader.com...
> cant...@dieznet.com (cantueso) wrote:
> >
> > I think I mentioned Cezanne as an example of a painter who is famous
> > for his colours.
> >
> > well, that seems to be wrong.
>
> has been saying these exact same things for many years. He is just a kook
> who posts on art and knows nothing.
>
> Read art history or take courses if you possibly can to learn about the
> great artists (of whom Cezanne is one of the greatest). rec.arts.fine is
> not the place for it, as there are real artists, real thinkers, ignorant
> pompous people, and nut cases mixed together - and for the beginner there
> is no way to tell the difference.
>
But Biljo - is this really any different from your typical diploma mill? I'd
even venture to say that there a much higher proportion of ignorant pompous
people holding down tenured positions than in the general population; tenure
lends itself to that. In the long run, you can really only tell the
difference by working it out for yourself. Cezanne, after all, would never
have seen the light of day if academics had had their way back in the late
1800's and early 1900's; one wonders what equivalent is being suppressed
these days.
As for reading art history; there I agree with you. Not that going to school
is actually bad; perhaps all I am saying that if one doesn't direct one's
own education, it's not going to be worth much.
Chris
Carmen Miranda
found refreshing from the common banter on this group. I congratulate you
for admiting the ephiany you had when working with students once you went
back to your own studio. I, too, have had the same experience.
It seems some well in fact many, think that art is the end product which one
produces. In my opinion it is more the process, of life's journey. Art is
not replicating nature or life for that matter, it is how we interpret it.
If we wanted to replicate it photography would be the medium of
choice--though it has its own distortions.
Art seems to jump to life when an artist, uses/reveals a subject, not only
with techinque but with descriptive thoughts, emotions or revealations put
into visual communication.
"Lauri Levanto" <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:407FAAEA...@netti.fi...
Erik A. Mattila
yes, as the old saying goes: "familiarity breeds contempt!"
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Biljo White wrote:
> Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>Sounds like the sort of drivel you get during the first day of Modern
>>Academic Art class.
>
>
> You're making this up. When did you ever take an art class of any kind?
> Your work looks like the self-taught stuff you see in outdoor
> art-in-the-park shows.
>
> Biljo
Now just a dang minute, Biljo (just kidding). But don't you think some
pretty good ptngs could end-up in the park?
Erik
Electrolux
enough.
To begin. I agree with you. There should always be skill in art. But
does skill mean that it has to be realistic? Skill.Please define what
your on about.
secondly,
> Most art students and Modern Academics repeat this about three times a
> day after meals in order to reassure themselves that the incompetent
> stuff they reproduce has some value.
hmmm....what about picasso's early realistic paintings and drawings?
He moved through that to cubism. He was very SKILLED, in the way that
i think your talking about.would you consider his later work as less
skilled??
And as far as art students are concerned, im surrounded by them
everyday of my life. I can most certainly say that less than half of
them consider progressive modern art as a subject which they convey
any compatibility for. They have retreated to what is considered 'old
masterterritory'. and as a result, i would argue that these are the
type of students who
> reassure themselves that the incompetant
> stuff they reproduce has some value.
But the whole postmodernist route your taking with this is a valid
one. maybe the only way to create something new is to be abstract, to
be vagrantly unrealistic, instead of reproducing ancient history.
Alot of modern artists have skill. Maybe, like me, drawing or
sculpting something that looked closely like its original wasn't
satisfying them.Maybe they felt like simply making facsimiles wasn't
what they were trying to convey. Maybe thats the old road of conveying
human emotion. I'll draw you a facsimile if you want. It'll be like a
multitude of work thats gone before-the skill will be there...and
shit...most people will think its brilliant. Why do it feel like a
reproduction? Why arent i getting any satisfaction?? Because its not
good enough. Fucking hell, Ive got a xerox that'll send me a fax wen
i want it.
E.
Electrolux
> "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere
> in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."
> Bill Watterson (1958 - ), cartoonist, "Calvin and Hobbes"
>
>
> Cheers,
> Thur
Im in complete agreement. I think a lot of what humanity has achieved
has been posed by the question 'what if?'.I certainly hold that to the
artworld, aswell as the rest of what is achieveable,and
concieveable.The only thing that we have to have is the
appreciation..and acceptance.. of original thought.A sight that seems
particularly resistant in this directory.
E.
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:408011A...@oco.net...
I was reading Vollard's autobiography; he mentions a rather amusing incident
re. Cezanne. Seems Paul was a member of a local painting society - the
outdoor-art-in-the-park type of society - that was obliged to hang work from
all their members in their shows. But since they had to hang his work, they
did it as inconspicously as possible, under the stair case....So next time
you go to a mall show, you'll know where to look for the good stuff :)
Speaking of outdoor shows with people putting up their own work; do you
remember that incident (maybe 20 years ago?) when a group of Russian
abstract expressionists did just that, since they couldn't show their work
in a regular public venue? I have vague memories of the show being
bulldozed, and making the news here...
Chris
Mani Deli
>cant...@dieznet.com (cantueso) wrote:
>>
>> I think I mentioned Cezanne as an example of a painter who is famous
>> for his colours.
>>
>> well, that seems to be wrong.
Cezanne is famous for his colors. If you look at little else besides
20th century academic art you might think he is a colorist. I think
Cezanne is an abomination and the result of his influence is the worst
no-skill-realism, He attracts the incompetent because they can come
close to imitating his errors.
>If you are a beginner, you would do well to ignore Mani Deli's rants. He
>has been saying these exact same things for many years.
But am I correct?
> He is just a kook
>who posts on art and knows nothing.
You can check out some of what I know on my web site. I assume this
bozo has also been here for years and you will notice he has nothing
to show.
No skill no art!
Mani Deli
White) wrote:
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Sounds like the sort of drivel you get during the first day of Modern
>> Academic Art class.
>
>You're making this up. When did you ever take an art class of any kind?
>Your work looks like the self-taught stuff you see in outdoor
>art-in-the-park shows.
>
I'm sure that it irritates someone like you who has never gotten
beyond art school and can't show his work on the net.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Another intersting experience is that sometimes I work with the students.
>How much easier it is to pinpoint faults in other people work.
>( We all are little Mani's :-) ).
>After seeing it elsewhere I can see I had made the same mistake.
>(I'm not perfect, we are not little Mani's :-) ).
And for all your babble, you have never shown us your work.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Nonsense, and you know it.
>The modern academic teaching - if such exists -
>never claim that C,P,M completed what the earlier
>masters attempted.
Never said they did. Read my words. As to Bouguereau, the only thing
one learns in a Modern Art academy about him is that he's a bad guy.
Most have never seen a B. in a book or original You can check it out
at http://www.artrenewal.org/.
The skill which B. exhibits scares Modern Academics.
Lauri Levanto
I did save your comments on my works, it is some while ago I admit.
-lauri
Chris
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 12:25:20 +0300, Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi>
> wrote:
>
> >Nonsense, and you know it.
> >The modern academic teaching - if such exists -
> >never claim that C,P,M completed what the earlier
> >masters attempted.
>
> Never said they did. Read my words. As to Bouguereau, the only thing
> one learns in a Modern Art academy about him is that he's a bad guy.
> Most have never seen a B. in a book or original You can check it out
> at http://www.artrenewal.org/.
>
> The skill which B. exhibits scares Modern Academics.
>
No shit - check out the current furor with dork-of-the-year Patrick Noon &
the Minneapolis Institute of Art over the proposed sale of B.'s "La
Bohemienne" . Not content to let the painting languish in storage for 10
years (despite the fact that it is one of the favourite pieces with the
public), they are now going to "de-acquisition" it in favour of a much
lesser (i terms of its historic value) piece.
The neat thing is that it is sparking a real debate in the arts; should be
fun to watch.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4724966.html
I still prefer Cezanne though :)
Cheers;
Chris
Mani Deli
(Electrolux) wrote:
>no skill no art. I think I'll call you that from now on.You repeat it
>enough.
>
>To begin. I agree with you. There should always be skill in art. But
>does skill mean that it has to be realistic? Skill.Please define what
>your on about.
>
>secondly,
>
>> Most art students and Modern Academics repeat this about three times a
>> day after meals in order to reassure themselves that the incompetent
>> stuff they reproduce has some value.
>
>
>hmmm....what about picasso's early realistic paintings and drawings?
Nothing special average art school stuff of the time. Looks ok if you
don't compare it to other work..
>He moved through that to cubism. He was very SKILLED, in the way that
>i think your talking about.would you consider his later work as less
>skilled??
I don't consider Picasso much of an artist on any skill level
>
>And as far as art students are concerned, im surrounded by them
>everyday of my life. I can most certainly say that less than half of
>them consider progressive modern art as a subject which they convey
>any compatibility for. They have retreated to what is considered 'old
>masterterritory'. and as a result, i would argue that these are the
>type of students who
>
>> reassure themselves that the incompetant
>> stuff they reproduce has some value.
I'm sure you are correct. With art teachers like you even if they
devot themselves to realism the most the will achieve is
no-skill-realism
>
>But the whole postmodernist route your taking
POMO is bullshit! I take a rational view and judge work by comparison.
>with this is a valid
>one. maybe the only way to create something new is to be abstract, to
>be vagrantly unrealistic, instead of reproducing ancient history.
>Alot of modern artists have skill.
-in your academic opinion not mine.
> Maybe, like me, drawing or
>sculpting something that looked closely like its original wasn't
>satisfying them.Maybe they felt like simply making facsimiles
Fine artwork isn't "simply facsmiles." Thats a concept you have to
push in order to cover up your incompetence.
> wasn't
>what they were trying to convey. Maybe thats the old road of conveying
>human emotion. I'll draw you a facsimile if you want.
Sure lets see it. Lets hope its better than the Dilled Pickle's
invisible elephant.
>It'll be like a
>multitude of work thats gone before-the skill will be there...and
>shit...most people will think its brilliant.
You need to compliment your self often but just show us the drawing
and spare the bullshit!
>Why do it feel like a
>reproduction?
I'm sure you have to ask your students this in case they might just
attempt to draw what they see.
>Why arent i getting any satisfaction?? Because its not
>good enough. Fucking hell, Ive got a xerox that'll send me a fax wen
>i want it.
Sounds like another full-of- crap art teacher who leads students on
the road to failure.
Mani Deli
..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
painting most often held up as a perfect example of his all round
technical superiority. Yet even here in a work which can not be
accused of flatness, ugliness, gross distortion or even poor
drawing, I still maintain that although a careful look reveals
Picasso at his best, it shows nothing beyond a superior art
student standard or at best a very average illustrator.
I believe that this work is called a masterpiece because it is
superior to thousands of ugly schmiery canvases which are little more
than hack drivel. Anything is a slight relief after a dose of that
stuff.
His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
Copied from a photograph, this painting not only exposes the
artist's leanings toward utter incompetence but also his
ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste, which appears when he
lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
his usual repetitive intellectual kitsch. This painting is the real
Picasso really expressing himself. Had it been done by a retiree who
just entered art school, it would not merit a comment. It exhibits all
manner of drawing errors and laziness. Even some outspoken
critics get meekly negative about this sort of Picassoid drivel
modestly saying, "Not his best."
Challenging questions:
Is Picasso’s " Sleeping Peasants" really an example of such superior
draftsmanship as critics claim that it should rank as a masterpiece?
Is it unconventional?
In what way is it exceptional?
Jonsmind
Even Pablo's kitchiest work is superior to your sideshow crap. Maybe
I'll start taking you seriously as an artist, once you stop producing
'Dali's, and start to emerge as a wholy original artist, and start
producing 'Deli's, for a change. Then again I may never take you
seriously.
cantueso
> ..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
> painting most often held up as a perfect example of his all round
> technical superiority.
would you know whether it is on the net? can you give an access?
>
> His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
> Copied from a photograph,
!! are you sure? it would explain a lot of things
this painting not only exposes the
> artist's leanings toward utter incompetence
qué va. he was competent, very very competent, and he knew it.
technical skills, but what for? there seems to have been no purpose
and so it looks as if only his drawings mattered. and those are good.
> ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste,
watch out kiddy. that is no way to classify people
which appears when he
> lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
> his usual repetitive intellectual kitsch.
it is sentimental. vapid people nearly always are. maybe picasso was
depressive. his colours are.
>
> No skill no art!
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
your selectionof bad things: they are bad, but I think you
misunderstand. Cézanne most certainly knew how to draw. skill is very
important as a result of rectitude, but not in itself.
cantueso
>
> >cant...@dieznet.com (cantueso) wrote:
> >>
> >> I think I mentioned Cezanne as an example of a painter who is famous
> >> for his colours.
> >>
> >> well, that seems to be wrong.
>
> Cezanne is famous for his colors. If you look at little else besides
> 20th century academic art you might think he is a colorist.
>If you are a beginner, you would do well to ignore Mani Deli's rants.
He
> >has been saying these exact same things for many years.
I have not seen Biljo White愀 message that you seem to refer to.
I am new to this group and do not yet know who is who here.
though I am a beginner, I have been around people who know very much
so that I have also started to take a rather active interest.
> You can check out some of what I know on my web site.
I looked at your collection of bad things twice. I think those things
are bad, but maybe not for the reason that you think. I mean it is
rather obvious that a certain clumsiness was a reaction to the slick
crap produced en masse
> No skill no art!
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
it would be nice if instead of saying what is bad you gave access to
things that are nice. to find a bad thing I really really to surfdo
not need the internet.
cantueso
sorry about the mistake in the last line which should read:
to find a bad thing you really really do not need to surf the internet.
Dilettante
> I believe that this work is called a masterpiece because it is
> superior to thousands of ugly schmiery canvases which are little more
> than hack drivel.
Mani once again defeats himself with a meaningless argument.
Dilettante
Electrolux
> > No skill no art!
> >
> >
> skill is very
> important as a result of rectitude, but not in itself.
ROGER THAT !YOU JUST SAID A MOUTHFUL.
NO SKILL NO CONCEPT!
E.
Mani Deli
(Electrolux) wrote:
You can have all the concept you want. If you lack the skill to
execute it you have nothing. which is what most Modern Academic Art
amounts to.
Mani Deli
You have nothing to say as usual. Hows your invisible elephant coming
along.
Mani Deli
>I looked at your collection of bad things twice. I think those things
>are bad, but maybe not for the reason that you think.
What are your reason?
> I mean it is
>rather obvious that a certain clumsiness was a reaction to the slick
>crap produced en masse
Name some slick crap.
>it would be nice if instead of saying what is bad you gave access to
>things that are nice. to find a bad thing I really really to surfdo
>not need the internet.
Read some of my former messages.
Mani Deli
By the age of thirteen, Picasso was producing academic-style work
which was up to the standard of a much older student. These student
works are interesting and paradoxical. Compared to the finest academic
paintings, these early works could only be classified as not much
better than awful. They are full of youthful errors. They are today
very valuable in monetary terms but were they not genuine Picasso's,
they would be considered fairly worthless. Nevertheless, as the
product of someone so young, they reveal an artist who showed much
promise, a promise which was never fulfilled.
In judging the boy academic Picasso critics take great pains to point
out his classical ability. They love to assure us that, underneath it
all, Picasso, even then, was a most sensitive and able classical
draftsman. This admiration for the academic Picasso is often used as
an excuse to help justify his questionable later works. When someone
points out an error in Picasso's drawing or sloppiness in his
painting, the critic can retort, "This only looks bad to you because
you don't really understand; a look at Picasso's student work should
easily convince you that he could really draw well whenever he wanted
to!"
M.A. critics who use this argument must be blind to skill. For any
careful viewer of these early works can see that here at his very
beginning is exactly where Picasso lacked skill. These academic works
already hint at his future. They exhibit careless proportion and a
lack of ability in creating detail. Even at his best Picasso was a
mediocre draftsman early on and always thereafter.
In his 1897 "Science and Charity," [ILLUSTRATION] one can clearly see
all kinds of errors even in small reproductions. This picture, which
is very large and very uninteresting, shows no originality. The aim of
the picture was to portray sentiment and realism in the academic
style. Here, especially in rendering the cloth, Picasso sacrifices
care to speed. Neither the mirror over the bed nor the wall cabinet is
in perspective with the flat looking bed. The face of the nun and her
hand are carelessly rendered. The stripes on the blanket are wrong.
Errors here show rather glaringly because the aim of this painting was
full realism. Any form of highly realistic painting magnifies even the
smallest error. With M.A. almost any "error" can be made to disappear
and just about everything can be left askew. Much M.A. could be seen
as a balance of errors which the critics call distortions. All this
passes unnoticed to an eye which has grown accustomed to seeing these
so called distortions.
Picasso's best most technically correct early portraits are in reality
little more than correct. They are conventional and show no particular
creative flair. None really outranks the work of a very ordinary,
though perhaps older, street-corner portraitist. In truth these works
are far less amazing than ecstatic M.A. critics like to make out.
It is certainly true, as some critics claim, that Picasso painted like
a twenty-year-old at the tender age of fourteen. However, his academic
abilities did not improve beyond those of a very average
twenty-one-year-old. This was really no great achievement for one who
is sometimes ranked among the "greatest artists who ever lived."
I challenge anyone here to tell us what is particularly good about any
particular Picasso student work. As to his vanity in imagining himself
close to Raphael I can only say his drawing skills are far closer that
seen in Dick Tracy only not nearly as good.
Mani Deli
>Even Pablo's kitchiest work is superior to your sideshow crap.
Whether its superior or not isn't the point. Picasso is supposedly a
master. I think he ranks no better than a third rate cartoonist who
spent most of his life imitating himself.
> Maybe
>I'll start taking you seriously as an artist, once you stop producing
>'Dali's, and start to emerge as a wholy original artist, and start
>producing 'Deli's, for a change.
I don't give a shit whether anyone takes me seriously or not.
> Then again I may never take you
>seriously.
Lets hope not. So lets see what you can do. where is your stuff?
Perhaps it will lead some to take you seriously.
Jonsmind
FYI, I have posted my link, before. Perhaps you were too absorbed
into yourself, to have noticed. Actually, it's how I met our charming
Dil, with his ever so kind words.
http://www.pcpages.com/jonsmind/GalleriaOrso.html
It's not that I would take to heart anything you would have to say,
but you can't accuse me of not putting my money where my mouth is.
Electrolux
> On 16 Apr 2004 10:42:57 -0700, flux_cap...@hotmail.com
no skill,the martyr of the 'people',
> Just a quick bit to begin. I'm a student, and before you infiltrate me with the fact that ive been 'moulded by the establishment', i'll let you know that i came to the conclusions that i have individually.
> POMO is bullshit!
That's interesting that you say that. Have you read conducively on the
subject? The artists you have chosen wouldn't look out of place with
postmodernist thought. And your 'manifesto' on your website isn't far
off it either ie:
1)Suspicion and rejection of Master Narratives; local narratives,
ironic deconstruction of master narratives: counter-myths of origin.
2)Dichotomy of high and low culture (official vs. popular culture);
imposed consensus that high or official culture is normative and
authoritative.Like your apparent appreciation for Walt Disney as one
of the great artists of our time.
and "The erosion of the older distinction between high culture and
so-called mass or popular culture" (Jameson).
>I take a rational view and judge work by comparison.
hmmm.
no skill re: Dali: Most art history books try to ignore him but can't
so they minimize him. They have to in order that he isn't compared to
the drivel they
are pushing as the only art of the 20th century.
and 'Fine artwork isn't "simply facsmiles." Thats a concept you have
to
push in order to cover up your incompetence.
(Jameson on Postmodernism) and something that i think you should take
seriously as your work is salvadore 'Deli'.
"in a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all
that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and
with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum" No
individualism or individual style, voice, expressive identity. All
signifiers circulate and recirculate prior and existing images and
styles.
I can draw. I'm not pushing anything, i have absolutely no will to
exume my ego or let the world know this bit of information for any
other reason than this. I am saying it purely on the basis to let you
know my viewpoint.I can draw anything, in a traditional sense, well. I
arrived into art straight from secondary school knowing this. I didn't
feel like it was a worthy skill, particularly. I felt this way because
i didn't want to just be able to draw. In the world we live in,
knowing what has gone before us, i believed that 'skill' was not
enough to represent the stuff i wanted to express. I didnt just want
to draw and paint realistically well. Its been done, in my opinion, to
death.I learnt later that first year that this was a common thought.
And it reaffirmed what i was bluntly and disarticulatly letting my
tutors know. Ive gotten praise for my skill. but for me thats like
getting praise for the words i use in a poem, rather then the meaning.
i wanted to express pure concept, and i wanted to try and do this in a
way that didnt focus on what was physical, because a lot of what i do
is about the workings of the mind, and our relationship with concept
and realisation of concept.ie:the thought is pure in our mind, the
talking of it fucks it up.realism i didnt see it as a means that
would let me really focus on what i wanted to do. because i think that
the mind deals in abstract form.
as far as i'm concerned, i think our difference of opinion lies in a
very simple point. you believe that there should be skill in a
histrionically rational sense.I believe, as a progressionist until the
moment i die, that their should be forward linear movement in art. I
feel like retrospectives are a step back, rather then a step forward.
anything you say i'm sure will fall from your eyes as wrong. so be it.
I have full belief in what i think. I cant help it. and i doubt if any
more timewasting in an obscure internet directory will change either
of our minds.
im done in here. Just keep an open mind is all i'll say.
E.
Gorne
> I’ll mention two Picasso masterpieces
>
> ..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
> painting most often held up as a perfect example of his all round
> technical superiority. Yet even here in a work which can not be
> accused of flatness, ugliness, gross distortion or even poor
> drawing, I still maintain that although a careful look reveals
> Picasso at his best, it shows nothing beyond a superior art
> student standard or at best a very average illustrator.
I would not say that "Sleeping Peasants" is Picasso masterpiece.
It is not "an average illustration" either.
>
> I believe that this work is called a masterpiece because it is
> superior to thousands of ugly schmiery canvases which are little more
> than hack drivel. Anything is a slight relief after a dose of that
> stuff.
What are you talking about exactly? Do you claim that Picasso painted
thousand of ugly canvases? If so how do you explain the influence
these ugly canvases have had?
>
> His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
> Copied from a photograph,
Picasso made it clear that he never intended to copy anything, not
even a photograph.
this painting not only exposes the
> artist's leanings toward utter incompetence
When he worked as a graphic artist on aquatint and other very
technical products, Picasso worked with very competent specialists who
admired his patience, inventiveness, skillful hand etc... they
recognized him as a competent craftman.
but also his
> ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste,
Do you mean that being interrested in surealism and dadaism during the
1920 and 30 is evidence of middle class taste? Or that having children
out of wedlock and that playing with them is vulgarand petty bourgeois
as an occupation as well as a subject for representation in a work of
art?
> which appears when he.
> lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
> his usual repetitive intellectual kitsch. This painting is the real
> Picasso really expressing himself. Had it been done by a retiree who
> just entered art school, it would not merit a comment.
Then why didn't retirees did not ?
It exhibits all
> manner of drawing errors and laziness.
What, in your opinion is a drawing error in Pablo on a donkey?
What in Pablo on a donkey demonstrate Picasso laziness?
Even some outspoken
> critics get meekly negative about this sort of Picassoid drivel
> modestly saying, "Not his best."
This only tend to show that Picasso has done more important work of
Art than this one but say nothing about it being kitsch.
>
> Challenging questions:
>
> Is Picasso’s " Sleeping Peasants" really an example of such superior
> draftsmanship as critics claim that it should rank as a masterpiece?
Would you accept that the concept of "masterpieces" in this context is
somewhat a "bourgeois concept" and that critics do not isolate Pablo
on a dounkey as standing out as the most important painting by
Picasso?
> Is it unconventional?
All art works are resting on conventional agreement of some sorts
When he painted Pablo on a donkey Picasso had already wan his
revolution.
> In what way is it exceptional?
It is painted by a man recognized as one of the most influenctial
artist of the twentieth century.
It has caused many specialists to be willing to Pay enormous sum of
money for its acquisition... they must have thought it was worth it.
Dilettante
> 1)Suspicion and rejection of Master Narratives; local narratives,
> ironic deconstruction of master narratives: counter-myths of origin.
I hate to be captious, but I just had to interject a point of
information here: I believe you mean counter-deorigination of
post-mythifaction.
> "in a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible,
Not true. Francis Bacon created a new painting style, as did
Diebenkorn.
All
> signifiers circulate and recirculate prior and existing images and
> styles.
A bit facile, n'est pas? Keep this up and I will decline to restrain
the Mani hound from you.
you believe that there should be skill in a
> histrionically rational sense.
Even an artist can learn better English than this. Unleash the
Mani-beast.
> im done in here.
That's for sure.
Dilettante
Gorne
anyone,
> after seriously studying fine art, who continues to think ancient
> greek statues and the renaissance have any real meaning, besides pure
> realist aesthetic are culturally
> speaking about as knowledgeable as salvadore dali.
I am not convinced that Salvador Dali is the best standard to measure
the meaning of ancient Greek statues.
But it is worth noticing that the realism of ancient Greek statues
are somewhat limited. At first they followed Egyptian standards of
what statues should be and then slowly developed toward a sort of
idealism of what the human body should be, just like to day
illustrations of fashion magazines represent the woman body as an
impossible long legged standard mannequin.
As to the renaissance painting and sculptures they were clearly
propaganda material aimed at representing powerful people as they were
not.
Obviously there has been a conversation about what is ART, for many
millennium.
What in your opinion would give a person competence to be in that
conversation to day?
What kind of believes?
Do you need to be able to fabricate work of art that are different
from anything made so far in history?
Do you need to have an advanced craftsmanship dictating how you must
draw, paint, carve, display, choose your subjects.
Do you need a vocabulary of forms that make you stand out of the
ordinary, the ordinary is bad the very strange is good?
I don't know. What are the qualities you values.
Reading your post I sort of get what are the things you do not admire
in others... What do you admire? What kind of art inspire you? When
you spill your guts on a canvass or when you intellectually plan a
"composition" what do you see a good? Do you have words for it?
cantueso
I think those things
> >are bad, but maybe not for the reason that you think.
> What are your reason?
the reason in this case was sad, dumb, wallpaper colour
>
> > I mean it is
> >rather obvious that a certain clumsiness was a reaction to the slick
> >crap produced en masse
>
> Name some slick crap.
can´t. it is nameless. I am writing from Madrid, Europe. in any
furniture shop you can see sea scapes and mountain scapes and pretty
women painted in oil, meaningless, but later I will try and find some
on Google. it is as if at some point everybody had learnt competently
to reproduce the thing he had in front of his nose.
>
>
> >it would be nice if instead of saying what is bad you gave access to
> >things that are nice. to find a bad thing I really really to surfdo
> >not need the internet.
>
> Read some of my former messages.
well, you could have given a name. you seem to write a lot. you could
at leat say what messages.
cantueso
> I’ll mention two Picasso masterpieces
>
> ..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919) is perhaps the Picasso
> painting most often held up as a perfect example
I think it is an unknown painting, and of course it is not typical in
its colours which are probably a commentary on Van Gogh's "sleeping
peasdants", where he took the idea from.
I found it at
it is brutal or very very unkind. that is obvious in the way the
peasants are made to look. that is insulting and would have to be
compared to Van Gogh´s painting of the same name, where the lady has
such a sweet way of sleeping turned towards her husband.
> His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
yes it is. it is sentimental: false coin.
(interrupted. I'll continue later)
cantueso
>
> ..The painting "Sleeping Peasants" (1919)
compare to Van Gogh's "sleeping peasants" at
now to find out whether Picasso was a brute..?
? of course, sentimentalists often are and intelligent
sentimentalists maybe always
but to find out would take time, and it is not worth it.
his drawings are perfect and remain perfectly in one´s memory.
Thur
"Gorne" <bo...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:91f9f335.04041...@posting.google.com...
With regard to > > greek statues and the renaissance< <(Electrolux)
It takes only a little reading to find that (as you say) Greek Art,
including
sculpture was never a single style, but a continuing development over
several eras.
The same with the Renaissance. To dismiss either with sweeping
statements as (Electolux) is to fail to understand.
To claim they do not have any real meaning requires definition.
What art does he think has "real meaning" then?
Is he the Troll that I originally suspected, I wonder?
Is he trying to find a way of setting one section of this ng against
another,
as Trolls do?
> Obviously there has been a conversation about what is ART, for many
> millennium.
Let it continue.
Surely here in this ng is a where that conversation can be continued.
Thur
cantueso
> On 17 Apr 2004 02:52:07 -0700, cant...@dieznet.com (cantueso) wrote:
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
now I had a look at your paintings, but they are Dali rehashed.
now what is that for?
you dilute the meaning of Dali. your paintings are insulting to Dali.
I do not like Dali very much, but even so I hate to see him being aped
and mimicked.
technically you are very good but
"thou hast no speculation in those eyes
which thou doest glare with"
mac...@3.4.95
Mani Deli
>
>I would not say that "Sleeping Peasants" is Picasso masterpiece.
>It is not "an average illustration" either.
Its a third rate illustration.
>What are you talking about exactly? Do you claim that Picasso painted
>thousand of ugly canvases?
Yes, ugly incompetent, repetitive over-rated schlock.
> If so how do you explain the influence
>these ugly canvases have had?
>>
Incompetence and ugliness is the trademark of Modern Academic art. Its
an economic evolution. Picasso except in the realm of written hype is
actually a minor influence.
>> His "Paulo on a Donkey," a painting of his son, is another matter.
>> Copied from a photograph,
>
>Picasso made it clear that he never intended to copy anything, not
>even a photograph.
Picasso constantly used projected photos.
>
>this painting not only exposes the
>> artist's leanings toward utter incompetence
>
>When he worked as a graphic artist on aquatint and other very
>technical products, Picasso worked with very competent specialists who
>admired his patience, inventiveness, skillful hand etc... they
>recognized him as a competent craftman.
> but also his
>> ordinary, bourgeois, middle-class taste,
>
>Do you mean that being interrested in surealism and dadaism during the
>1920 and 30 is evidence of middle class taste?
I didn't mention either.
> Or that having children
>out of wedlock and that playing with them is vulgarand petty bourgeois
>as an occupation as well as a subject for representation in a work of
>art?
>
I mean that when he wanted to express his sentiments he turned utterly
conventional.
>> which appears when he.
>> lets his guard down and decides to produce something other than
>> his usual repetitive intellectual kitsch. This painting is the real
>> Picasso really expressing himself. Had it been done by a retiree who
>> just entered art school, it would not merit a comment.
>
>Then why didn't retirees did not ?
?
>> Challenging questions:
>>
>> Is Picasso’s " Sleeping Peasants" really an example of such superior
>> draftsmanship as critics claim that it should rank as a masterpiece?
>
>Would you accept that the concept of "masterpieces" in this context is
>somewhat a "bourgeois concept" and that critics do not isolate Pablo
>on a dounkey as standing out as the most important painting by
>Picasso?
No.
>
>> Is it unconventional?
>All art works are resting on conventional agreement of some sorts
>When he painted Pablo on a donkey Picasso had already wan his
>revolution.
Picasso is a sales revolution the rest is hype. The only thing that
matters is the signature. The mountains of repetitive incompetent
schlock he knocked off daily is of little interest.
>
>> In what way is it exceptional?
>It is painted by a man recognized as one of the most influenctial
>artist of the twentieth century.
>It has caused many specialists to be willing to Pay enormous sum of
>money for its acquisition... they must have thought it was worth it.
>
I suppose that makes for great art in your opinion.
Mani Deli
>That's interesting that you say that. Have you read conducively on the
>subject? The artists you have chosen wouldn't look out of place with
>postmodernist thought. And your 'manifesto' on your website isn't far
>off it either ie:
Never wrote a manifesto and find most all that aren't jokes to be
bullshit.
>>I take a rational view and judge work by comparison.
>
>hmmm.
Address that if you can.
>I can draw.
Bet you can't.
>snip- I didnt just want
>to draw and paint realistically well.
Bet you can't and never did.
>excuses snipped
>I believe, as a progressionist until the
>moment i die, that their should be forward linear movement in art. I
>feel like retrospectives are a step back, rather then a step forward.
Sure, just lets see what you can do. Bet is as vacuous as the inflated
drivel you write.
>anything you say i'm sure will fall from your eyes as wrong. so be it.
>I have full belief in what i think. I cant help it. and i doubt if any
>more timewasting in an obscure internet directory will change either
>of our minds.
>im done in here. Just keep an open mind is all i'll say.
>E.
Slow down on the gas and just show us what you can do!
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<6sj2809t70nbhlaqn...@4ax.com>...
>> On 17 Apr 2004 02:52:07 -0700, cant...@dieznet.com (cantueso) wrote:
>> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>
>now I had a look at your paintings, but they are Dali rehashed.
>
>now what is that for?
Name some Dali's I rehashed.
>you dilute the meaning of Dali. your paintings are insulting to Dali.
>I do not like Dali very much, but even so I hate to see him being aped
>and mimicked.
Its ok these days to constantly rehash AE wall covering but anyone who
paints in a surreal format is simply imitating Dali. What really
irritates Modern Academic fundamentalists is skill and competence of
any kind.
>technically you are very good but
That is enough for me. It has always gained me respect and a good
living. More isn't necessary for me.
Is everyone who paints a bowl of fruit just rehashing Cezanne?
No skill no art!