John Ruskin was not against Turner
tra...@pipeline.com
Someone recently said:
>Its hard to know how much of Turner's true abstract work was relegated to the trash
>bin by Ruskin, but there is enough evidence that Turner was intent on
>removing any reference to the human figure. That was, in essence, the
>beginning of Abstract Art.
I came across a biography of Turner today....and it was interesting
to discover just how incorrect an impression the above statement
gives.
It gives the impression that Ruskin was against Turner. Nothing could
be further from the truth. Although there wa a great age difference
between them and they never became close friends, Ruskin admired
Turner and even defended him against his detractors.
It was even thought that Ruskin was *the* person to write his
biography after Turner died, but he felt that that should be left to
someone else, as he wanted instead to write the critiques of his art
work.
The person who said that would not seem to know their art history.
Tracy
Andrew Werby
horrified, on becoming the executor of Turner's artistic estate, to find a
lot of work contained therein that he considered pornographic, and which he
promptly destroyed. So according to this version of events, it was Ruskin,
not Turner, who was "intent on removing any reference to the human figure".
I would have preferred he'd left it to posterity to decide, though...]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
tra...@pipeline.com wrote in message
<394c94e9...@news.pipeline.com>...
tra...@pipeline.com
having been the executor of Turner's estate. It did mention that he
did not leave much of anything to relatives, but instead to Sarah
Danby's children, who may have been his own.
If they were never close friends, it doesn't seem plausible that
Turner would have made Ruskin the executor of his estate, though.
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
A quote from John Ruskin's "Lectures on Art", page 167:
"It is surely a severe lesson to us in this matter (re: his opinion of
the superiority of oil painting over water color), that the best
works of Turner could not be shown to the public for six
months without being destoyed, - and that his most ambitious ones for
the most part perished, even before they could be shown."
I do not know what he could have meant by the six months, but it does
not sound like he was in favor of destroying Turner's works....rather
that he feared for the safety of these works.
It would seem that not much is known about Turner's philosophy of art,
and that could be a very important thing to know with regards to the
development of abstract art, whic is a shme for the rest of us.
Tracy
iian_...@my-deja.com
> It would seem that not much is known about Turner's philosophy of art,
> and that could be a very important thing to know with regards to the
> development of abstract art, whic is a shme for the rest of us.
I admit to being one of those who doesn't know a great deal about
Turner's philosophy of art; and like everyone else, I haven't seen thoe
supposedly abstract watercolours which were destroyed. But I'd like to
put forward the theory that even if Turner had painted watercolours
which looked somewhat abstract, that these still could not be counted
as forerunners of abstract art.
The development of art is more than merely technical. There are also
cultural, religious and philosophical elements to factor in as well. I
am proposing here that even if Turner had created an 'abstract'
watercolour it really WASN'T an abstract because Turner wasn't part of
that stream of artistic thought which brought abstract art into
existence. Turner was born far upstream, he mingled with the Romantics
and the Neo-Classicists. Admittedly in his time there may have been a
glimmering of the 'art for art's sake' credo, but so far as I know it
would have been confined to the writings of Theophile Gautier in
France. The impact of the Aesthetic doctrine was not really felt in
England until the age of Swinburne, Wilde and Whistler. And even when
it did beach itself on the shores of Britain, the resemblance between
it and the Victorian Classicism of Leighton or Albert Moore bears some
consideration. Certainly, Whilster was a good friend of Albert Moore's.
Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to call
abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
By promoting Turner as the "Father of Abstract Art" don't you risk
removing him from the context of his time, and super-imposing a
twentieth century view onto an aesthetic credo which did not even exist
then?
I say that if Turner is to be championed as a forerunner of abstract
art he would have needed to do more than produce a few vague,
indistinct watercolours. We would need to show that his ideas, his
beliefs, were in some way sympathetic to those of other abstract
artists, and that what he was doing was a DELIBERATE REACTION against
the art of his time.
False starts do not count.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
tra...@pipeline.com
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:22:44 GMT, iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>I admit to being one of those who doesn't know a great deal about
>Turner's philosophy of art; and like everyone else, I haven't seen thoe
>supposedly abstract watercolours which were destroyed. But I'd like to
>put forward the theory that even if Turner had painted watercolours
>which looked somewhat abstract, that these still could not be counted
>as forerunners of abstract art.
I would put forth that, in the course of my own research, it is
seeming to me that he was not in fact the forerunner, even if he was
a very early example. Being first does not necessarily make one the
most influential.
>
>The development of art is more than merely technical.
Is the execution of art more than merely technical?
>There are also
>cultural, religious and philosophical elements to factor in as well. I
>am proposing here that even if Turner had created an 'abstract'
>watercolour it really WASN'T an abstract because Turner wasn't part of
>that stream of artistic thought which brought abstract art into
>existence. Turner was born far upstream, he mingled with the Romantics
>and the Neo-Classicists. Admittedly in his time there may have been a
>glimmering of the 'art for art's sake' credo, but so far as I know it
>would have been confined to the writings of Theophile Gautier in
>France. The impact of the Aesthetic doctrine was not really felt in
>England until the age of Swinburne, Wilde and Whistler. And even when
>it did beach itself on the shores of Britain, the resemblance between
>it and the Victorian Classicism of Leighton or Albert Moore bears some
>consideration. Certainly, Whilster was a good friend of Albert Moore's.
>
>Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to call
>abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
>references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
>cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
You forgot to mention the most vital factor - the spiritual intent,
if not the spiritual execution.
>
>By promoting Turner as the "Father of Abstract Art" don't you risk
>removing him from the context of his time, and super-imposing a
>twentieth century view onto an aesthetic credo which did not even exist
>then?
I don't believe I really am promoting him as such a thing...merely
musing. I agree it did not exist then.
>
>I say that if Turner is to be championed as a forerunner of abstract
>art he would have needed to do more than produce a few vague,
>indistinct watercolours. We would need to show that his ideas, his
>beliefs, were in some way sympathetic to those of other abstract
>artists, and that what he was doing was a DELIBERATE REACTION against
>the art of his time.
We cannot do that, as not much is known about his rationale for his
work.
>
>False starts do not count.
Agreed.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> >The development of art is more than merely technical.
>
> Is the execution of art more than merely technical?
Well, the execution of art is certainly more than merely MECHANICAL.
But then, that could be said of any higher cognitive activity. A
mathematician might argue that when he is engaged in formulating a
theory he is being more than merely mechanical. Or, to put it in other
words, he is doing something more than that which can be reduced into a
system and programmed into a machine. Just to shunt off into a sideline
for a moment, we briefly touched on the writings of Searle in my
philosophy course, with regard to artificial intelligence. Searle
believed that no matter how smart contemporary computers might seem,
they were merely information processing SYSTEMS. To advance his
argument he proposed the idea of the 'Chinese Room', which is simply
this. Lock an American who can't speak Chinese into a room, give him a
book which translates Chinese symbols into English characters, and when
the American has finished "translating" he will end up knowing as
little about real Chinese as when he entered. This is because he is not
engaged in any creative or higher cognitive activity - he is merely
substiting one symbol (in Chinese) for another (in English). There is
no UNDERSTANDING involved.
We might, for the sake of novelty, apply this concept to art. The
mechanics of art execution range from the holding of a pencil and
brush, right up to the laws of perspective, colour theory, sculptural
drawing (bringing out the form), composition, and so on. Now, part of
the drive of academies has been to reduce as much of the intuitive
aspect of art into systematized blocks of knowledge; i.e., manuals on
painting, theory books, etc. The question is: How perfect can our
intellectualisation of a fundamentally intuitive process be? How far
can we go in reducing what seems to be a sub-conscious process into a
clearly defined number of steps?
Most of the good artists I've read about would agree that theory can
only take you so far. The mechanics of art can be written about -
systematized - but no real art can be produced until the mechanical
knowledge has been fully absorbed and digested by the subconscious, and
has become a natural means of expression.
This isn't as mystical an idea as it may at first seem. Whenever we are
in the process of learning something new; whether it be playing the
piano, learning to touch type or to play touch football, we are engaged
in learning certain rules. Depending on the difficulty of the activity,
the time we need to spend mastering it will vary. Since touch typing is
a fundamentally straightforward process, it doesn't take as long to
learn as, say, playing the piano. Similarly with painting and
sculpture, we have to undergo a period of apprenticeship in which our
conscious mind is absorbed in assimilating as many rules as it can, and
converting these into subconscious processes. The fact that I have been
typing at the keyboard since I was a child means that I do not have to
spend time hunting for each letter as I type. All I need to do
is "think" what I want recorded and, lo and behold, my fingers make the
appropriate movements. With something as complex as painting, the
process is inevitably more involved and drawn out, but the principle is
the same.
But what is certain is this - it is that the process goes much faster
if the conscious mind is fully concentrated. That is to say you won't
learn the piano very quickly by watching television at the same time,
or reading a newspaper. When you apply conscious energy to the task,
the complex system of rules is more quickly automatized by the
subconscious. The writer Colin Wilson, appropriately enough, calls that
part of the mind which automatizes "the robot". Unlike the robots of B-
grade science fiction films, this robot we have is multi-talented and
capable of learning. If a task is repeated enough times and with
sufficient mental alertness, the robot can memorize what needs to be
done and efficiently automatize it for future use.
So, coming back to your insightful question, "is the execution of art
merely technical", then it would be true to say of the great artists
that, "No, it is not merely technical. And this because there mere
technique has already been automatized by our built-in robot, leaving
our conscious mind - or the superconscious mind, if you prefer - at
liberty to tackle more demanding issues."
I'm afraid that what this means is that you can't cheat technique.
There is no way out of working through the apprenticeship; whether it
be the apprenticeship to touch type, to play the piano, or to become an
artist.
> >Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to
call
> >abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
> >references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
> >cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
>
> You forgot to mention the most vital factor - the spiritual intent,
> if not the spiritual execution.
It's not so much that I forgot to mention it as I am really not certain
how to go about discussing it on this group. There is no such thing as
a common spiritual baseline anymore. We all have different views on
what the highest values are. Speaking personally, I do not believe that
the modernists, the abstract artists, etc., were any MORE spiritual
than any of the artists before them. But then, we should have to debate
the point of the meaning of spirituality. Is it high-mindedness,
seriousness, selflessness, the rejecting of the world? How can we make
the judgement that Gustave Moreau, say, is a more spiritual artist than
Gustave Courbet? Or Pollock more spiritual than Moreau?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> >Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to
call
> >abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
> >references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
> >cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
>
> You forgot to mention the most vital factor - the spiritual intent,
> if not the spiritual execution.
>
it is a circular definition. What is art? -> It is that which is
produced with spiritual intent -> How do we know something has been
produced with spiritual intent -> Because it is art.
A while ago, I spent a long time trying to find out exactly what the
difference was between something being 'spiritual' and it being 'good',
'nice', 'beautiful', 'aesthetically pleasing' or some other slightly
better defined catagory. I didn't find many people had a very coherent
idea of what 'spiritual' meant at all. In fact, as far as I could
establish it, the more people used the word, the less they understood
it, and the other way round.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Tracy,
>
> > >The development of art is more than merely technical.
> >
> > Is the execution of art more than merely technical?
>
> Well, the execution of art is certainly more than merely MECHANICAL.
> But then, that could be said of any higher cognitive activity. A
> mathematician might argue that when he is engaged in formulating a
> theory he is being more than merely mechanical. Or, to put it in other
> words, he is doing something more than that which can be reduced into
a
> system and programmed into a machine.
>
debate on the subject in uk.philosophy.misc recently. I don't think it
is at all obvious that there is good evidence, philosophical or
otherwise, that there is any human activity that can't be programmed
into a machine.
>
> Just to shunt off into a
sideline
> for a moment, we briefly touched on the writings of Searle in my
> philosophy course, with regard to artificial intelligence. Searle
> believed that no matter how smart contemporary computers might seem,
> they were merely information processing SYSTEMS. To advance his
> argument he proposed the idea of the 'Chinese Room', which is simply
> this. Lock an American who can't speak Chinese into a room, give him a
> book which translates Chinese symbols into English characters, and
when
> the American has finished "translating" he will end up knowing as
> little about real Chinese as when he entered. This is because he is
not
> engaged in any creative or higher cognitive activity - he is merely
> substiting one symbol (in Chinese) for another (in English). There is
> no UNDERSTANDING involved.
>
Yes, this point about semantics is well understood. However, it is
rather behind the times. Computers have been able to provide new proofs
in mathematics that human beings have not - not just the big number
crunching ones either.
>
> We might, for the sake of novelty, apply this concept to art. The
> mechanics of art execution range from the holding of a pencil and
> brush, right up to the laws of perspective, colour theory, sculptural
> drawing (bringing out the form), composition, and so on. Now, part of
> the drive of academies has been to reduce as much of the intuitive
> aspect of art into systematized blocks of knowledge; i.e., manuals on
> painting, theory books, etc. The question is: How perfect can our
> intellectualisation of a fundamentally intuitive process be? How far
> can we go in reducing what seems to be a sub-conscious process into a
> clearly defined number of steps?
>
This is a good point. I think very different from the point about
computers and the reduction of human brains to them.
Simply put, if you think about what you are doing when you ride a
bicycle, you fall off.
>
> Most of the good artists I've read about would agree that theory can
> only take you so far. The mechanics of art can be written about -
> systematized - but no real art can be produced until the mechanical
> knowledge has been fully absorbed and digested by the subconscious,
and
> has become a natural means of expression.
>
Here you have a different problem. The meaning of 'real' as in 'real
art'. Somebody might, say, go all the way to becoming a good
watercolourist, lets say a universally acknowledged one. Are you really
saying that he is still not a good artist because he has not mastered
oil painting?
>
> This isn't as mystical an idea as it may at first seem. Whenever we
are
> in the process of learning something new; whether it be playing the
> piano, learning to touch type or to play touch football, we are
engaged
> in learning certain rules. Depending on the difficulty of the
activity,
> the time we need to spend mastering it will vary. Since touch typing
is
> a fundamentally straightforward process, it doesn't take as long to
> learn as, say, playing the piano. Similarly with painting and
> sculpture, we have to undergo a period of apprenticeship in which our
> conscious mind is absorbed in assimilating as many rules as it can,
and
> converting these into subconscious processes. The fact that I have
been
> typing at the keyboard since I was a child means that I do not have to
> spend time hunting for each letter as I type. All I need to do
> is "think" what I want recorded and, lo and behold, my fingers make
the
> appropriate movements. With something as complex as painting, the
> process is inevitably more involved and drawn out, but the principle
is
> the same.
>
Absolutely! Recent research proves that practice is far more important
than talent or instruction in producing excellence in virtually any
field.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
> if the conscious mind is fully concentrated. That is to say you won't
> learn the piano very quickly by watching television at the same time,
> or reading a newspaper. When you apply conscious energy to the task,
> the complex system of rules is more quickly automatized by the
> subconscious. The writer Colin Wilson, appropriately enough, calls
that
> part of the mind which automatizes "the robot". Unlike the robots of
B-
> grade science fiction films, this robot we have is multi-talented and
> capable of learning. If a task is repeated enough times and with
> sufficient mental alertness, the robot can memorize what needs to be
> done and efficiently automatize it for future use.
>
'mental practice' improves performance. Just imagining that you will
play the piano better for so many hours a day does produce better
performance than not doing it - counter intuitive as this may be.
>
> I'm afraid that what this means is that you can't cheat technique.
> There is no way out of working through the apprenticeship; whether it
> be the apprenticeship to touch type, to play the piano, or to become
an
> artist.
>
knowing how to properly - many people survive on two finger typing even
into adulthood today! However, you are slow, and you do make more
mistakes. The same is not true of the piano, you do need a certain level
of technique before you can play reasonable melodies, generally.
However, this doesn't mean that you have to be able to read music, nor
that you need to have had formal instruction. Many jazz players can play
any piece they like, by ear, without being able to read a single word of
music - they certainly needed the practice, but they don't actually have
the technique of a concert pianist.
>
> > >Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to
> call
> > >abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
> > >references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
> > >cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
> >
> > You forgot to mention the most vital factor - the spiritual intent,
> > if not the spiritual execution.
>
> It's not so much that I forgot to mention it as I am really not
certain
> how to go about discussing it on this group. There is no such thing as
> a common spiritual baseline anymore. We all have different views on
> what the highest values are. Speaking personally, I do not believe
that
> the modernists, the abstract artists, etc., were any MORE spiritual
> than any of the artists before them. But then, we should have to
debate
> the point of the meaning of spirituality.
>
something different to you than to somebody else, then, in order to
communicate, you need to find a common ground from which you can. Simply
not discussing the matter isn't a good solution, unless you really meet
a brick wall.
>
>Is it high-mindedness,
> seriousness, selflessness, the rejecting of the world? How can we make
> the judgement that Gustave Moreau, say, is a more spiritual artist
than
> Gustave Courbet? Or Pollock more spiritual than Moreau?
>
art? If spirituality is what you say in the first paragraph, then any
artist who died of drink, siphilis or other evidence of living a
dissolute life would be disqualified no matter how good the paintings he
left. That would seem rather arbitary to me.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Erik A. Mattila
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Tracy,
>
> > It would seem that not much is known about Turner's philosophy of art,
> > and that could be a very important thing to know with regards to the
> > development of abstract art, whic is a shme for the rest of us.
>
> I admit to being one of those who doesn't know a great deal about
> Turner's philosophy of art; and like everyone else, I haven't seen thoe
> supposedly abstract watercolours which were destroyed. But I'd like to
> put forward the theory that even if Turner had painted watercolours
> which looked somewhat abstract, that these still could not be counted
> as forerunners of abstract art.
I think this thread wasn't talking about missing works, to begin with, at
least. I think it was more of an acknowledgement that some of Turner's
major [late] works took on an abstract quality - or at least a de-emphasis
on the subject in the interests of showcasing the formal qualities of color
and space and form. It's pretty easy to forget you're looking at a
landscape when viewing Shade and Darkness - the Evening of the Deluge
(1843). http://www.artchive.com/artchive/ftptoc/turner_ext.html
I've read very little Ruskin, but what I have read suggests to me that his
interest in Turner would lean toward figurative works, or works with an
emphasis on subject matter. Ruskin seems to have been interested in the
'meaning of meaning,' if you will. When Ruskin cataloged Turner's 300
paintings and 19 thousand watercolors after the artists death, it wouldn't
surprise me if the critic ignored a lot of the 'abstracts.' I don't think
he would have destroyed any, however. But if Turner had a 'blue file' of
erotic subjects, I think Ruskin would have been disturbed. Ruskin was,
even by Victorian standards, pretty repressed sexually.
> The development of art is more than merely technical. There are also
> cultural, religious and philosophical elements to factor in as well. I
> am proposing here that even if Turner had created an 'abstract'
> watercolour it really WASN'T an abstract because Turner wasn't part of
> that stream of artistic thought which brought abstract art into
> existence. Turner was born far upstream, he mingled with the Romantics
> and the Neo-Classicists. Admittedly in his time there may have been a
> glimmering of the 'art for art's sake' credo, but so far as I know it
> would have been confined to the writings of Theophile Gautier in
> France. The impact of the Aesthetic doctrine was not really felt in
> England until the age of Swinburne, Wilde and Whistler. And even when
> it did beach itself on the shores of Britain, the resemblance between
> it and the Victorian Classicism of Leighton or Albert Moore bears some
> consideration. Certainly, Whilster was a good friend of Albert Moore's.
Well, if the argument is 'who invented abstract art' I think it will carry
us back 45,000 years to the first antler scratches. The point here is if
Turner's later work had any known influence on others and set in motion a
trend that culminated in something like abstract expressionism or
whatever. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know it is an art
history problem. You can't base the proposition on resembelances and
expect that to qualify as art history. You have to find evidence,
sometimes just showing that a certain visited a Turner exibition and
subsequently showed a turn it his/her own work, that shows how Turner may
have been an influence. Better yet, and artists correspondence, memoirs,
conversations with others that have been documented, etc. and then you can
make an acceptable argument for influence. It wouldn't surprise me at all
if this could be shown with Turner's work. (and perhaps it has been shown.)
This reminds me of a paper I attempted to write which claimed Delacroix was
politically motivated in his salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell."
Researching this took me to Dante, and even to Virgil, to Gericault's
studio two years before (The Raft of the Medusa) and into some of the
scandal in Delacroix life that could have produced political malice towards
some of his contemporaries - but the big missing link was that Delacroix
produced 15 volumes of memoirs and in all these thousands of pages there
was pitifully little to show that he had a political bone in his body.
Nothing! So at best all I could do was make a circumstancial argument,
based on some pretty wild speculations, and it just wasn't good art
history. Dang! (I'm certain it was a political piece, in spite of all
that.)
> Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to call
> abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
> references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
> cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
True, but yet there is a pure formalism about it. Kandinsky told us how he
was inspired towards non-objective painting, and that was his experience in
the Ukraine, being inside native homes that were fully decorative in the
local folk motif. So in some ways we can say the Crimean's 'invented'
abstract art, I suppose. I just think it's plausible that Turner did show
other artists that a painting could be a painting even without an explicit
discriptive quality, or with a simple exposition of pure color and form,
somewhat disembodied from a depiction or rendering.
> By promoting Turner as the "Father of Abstract Art" don't you risk
> removing him from the context of his time, and super-imposing a
> twentieth century view onto an aesthetic credo which did not even exist
> then?
Well, that's a good point, Iian. That sort of intellectual time-travel
muddles up the picture, alright. But let's say Di Vinci left a legacy of
figurative work that extended into two or there centuries after his time,
and hold him up as 'the father of figurative drawing' (this is just an
arbitrary example off the top of my head - please don't challenge the 'art
history' of it!). We wouldn't necessarily be superimposing Leo on the 17th
century, if we were only arguing and supporting a chain of influence that
goes back to Di Vinci (even though the Rococo examples would look quite
different from Di Vinci's work.)
> I say that if Turner is to be championed as a forerunner of abstract
> art he would have needed to do more than produce a few vague,
> indistinct watercolours. We would need to show that his ideas, his
> beliefs, were in some way sympathetic to those of other abstract
> artists, and that what he was doing was a DELIBERATE REACTION against
> the art of his time.
Well, apparently there's not much known about Turner's own ideas about what
he was doing. He may have thought "Art for Art's sake" or more plausibly,
thought that the subject matter of a painting was less important that its
formal aspects. But keep in mind that Ruskin carved out his little niche
in history 'defending Turner's work!" That indicates to me that Turner was
reacting to the status quo of art. He had previously shown himself
competent to paint within the mainstream, acceptable and expected
categories. So I can't help thinking of him as a rebel, causing Ruskin to
feel the need to defend him pubically (and successffuly too - demonstrating
the role of art criticism itself in change and development in the arts.)
I think there's just too many 'abstract' Turner's around to be considered a
'false start.' It looks like the man was after something to me.
Best,
Erik Mattila
>
>
> False starts do not count.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > Well, the execution of art is certainly more than merely MECHANICAL.
> > But then, that could be said of any higher cognitive activity. A
> > mathematician might argue that when he is engaged in formulating a
> > theory he is being more than merely mechanical. Or, to put it in
other
> > words, he is doing something more than that which can be reduced
into
> a
> > system and programmed into a machine.
> >
> Well, this is quite a contentious point! I have been engaged in a
lenthy
> debate on the subject in uk.philosophy.misc recently. I don't think it
> is at all obvious that there is good evidence, philosophical or
> otherwise, that there is any human activity that can't be programmed
> into a machine.
To be fair I should have qualified my statement in this way: ".... he
is doing something more than that which can, AT PRESENT, be reduced
into a system and programmed into a machine." Personally, I do not know
enough about the mechanics or either human or artificial intelligence
to be able to set sharp boundaries between either. Indeed, David Cope's
Experiments in Musical Intelligence, the programme that gained much
notoriety by "composing" a symphony in the style of Mozart, as well as
works in the style of other composers; yes, there have been massives
strides in systematizing basic compositional rules into the format of a
computer programme. Of course ... a computer programme is merely an
automaton which executes a number of set instructions. It is
interesting to speculate that a human being, following a similar
programme, would be able himself to do the same task, albeit much
slower. But then, the point is that humans DO the same thing on a
subconscious level. Despite the relative success of EMI, there still
remain vast tracts of human consciousness to systematize. Is the fact
that a painting or sculpting robot still eludes us a sign that the
endeavour is impossible, or merely of extraordinary complexity.
I guess we'll never know until someone builds one!
> > The question is: How perfect can our
> > intellectualisation of a fundamentally intuitive process be? How far
> > can we go in reducing what seems to be a sub-conscious process into
a
> > clearly defined number of steps?
>
> This is a good point. I think very different from the point about
> computers and the reduction of human brains to them.
Here's another way of looking at it, Peter. The writers of books on
aesthetics, treatises, manuals on art, etc., were really programmers
writing code for human beings to execute.
Now that's an interesting concept ....
> Simply put, if you think about what you are doing when you ride a
> bicycle, you fall off.
I would dearly love to hear an explanation for this. Why is it that
when the conscious mind butts in when its not wanted, disaster
inevitably results?
> > Most of the good artists I've read about would agree that theory can
> > only take you so far. The mechanics of art can be written about -
> > systematized - but no real art can be produced until the mechanical
> > knowledge has been fully absorbed and digested by the subconscious,
> and
> > has become a natural means of expression.
> >
> Here you have a different problem. The meaning of 'real' as in 'real
> art'.
By "real art" I mean art that is more than "paint by numbers". Art that
has a connexion to a more complex, rich, three-dimensional reality than
is available in the slavish adherence to a scheme or programme. After
all, academies are criticized precisely because of their "coldness",
their excessive "cerebrality", their ignorance of the sensual laws that
govern art.
There is perhaps a case to be made that art is at its best when the
senses are perfectly wedded to the intellect. To give a concrete
example, let's contrast (generally speaking) modern prose with antique
prose. Antique prose draws its roots from the oral tradition. Its works
were meant to be recited, acted or sung. Modern literature is written
with the aid of typewriters and computers and is distributed over an
exclusively printed medium. Is it possible that some of the aenemic
qualities of mediocre modern literature are a result of writers of
average talent abandoning the voice as an instrument, and relying on
the mental impression of the spoken word?
Consider the very real difference. When you speak something aloud, you
have only a certain amount of physical energy to put into the delivery.
The very process of sounding out vowels, consonants, word-groups and so
on, tends to shape the form of your speech into something natural. The
same analogy can be made to music. There are some pieces that are
written FOR the piano and sound natural to its range and capabilities;
and there are other works that are transcribed for it and which somehow
lack the true "pianistic" feel.
In the modern age, where we rely more on the typewriter and word-
processor than the autodidact or an eagerly-listening audience, we have
the temptation to let our mental narrative run away with itself. We are
not constrained by the limits of the vocal equipment. We don't need to
take breaths in thought. We stumble less upon certain words that do not
agree well with our voices. In short, we are progressively losing touch
with some of our sensual equipment. The natural result for the mediocre
writer is a certain inflatedness to his work, a lack of focus and
economy of expression, the combination of harsh-sounding words out of
their proper relation. (I see the plank of wood in my own eye, so don't
worry! ...)
So it might be said that "real writing" was forged when the senses (the
ear and the vocal equipment) were married to the intellect (the thought
itself) and found expression through speech and its symbolic form,
literature.
Dare we stretch this analogy into the fine arts ... ? Will it snap back
like an over-strained rubber band? The "real art" that I hinted at
above might very well be that art that successfully marries the
intellect (the systematized body of rules, methods, etc.) to a more
intuitive, organic sensibility (the senses). After all, we perceive art
through our senses. Computers do not have the same sort of senses as
us. They haven't evolved theirs over a billion years in the rat
marathon. Their senses are crude approximations we've developed to give
them some semblance of sentience. The challenge of the architects of
artificial intelligence is to unwind the threads knitted together in a
billion years of evolution, and see whether they can't make a new quilt
out of the same bindings.
> Somebody might, say, go all the way to becoming a good
> watercolourist, lets say a universally acknowledged one. Are you
really
> saying that he is still not a good artist because he has not mastered
> oil painting?
No, that's not what I am saying. Personally, I believe that an artist -
in a pinch - need only be a great draughstman to be worthy of being
ranked with the greats. For draughstmanship is the common link between
all of the fine arts, both plastic and painterly.
> > With something as complex as painting, the
> > process is inevitably more involved and drawn out, but the principle
> is
> > the same.
> >
> Absolutely! Recent research proves that practice is far more important
> than talent or instruction in producing excellence in virtually any
> field.
And the persistence to practise can trace itself back to the initial
will of the student, coupled with his sense of purpose. If his sense of
purpose is defocused, vague or defeatist, then he will lack the drive
to practise. If he has the purpose but not the will, he also lacks the
drive to practise and the endurance to bear failure. But this doesn't
directly bear on our discussion.
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
Definitely some strong points here, Erik.
> I've read very little Ruskin, but what I have read suggests to me
that his
> interest in Turner would lean toward figurative works, or works with
an
> emphasis on subject matter. Ruskin seems to have been interested in
the
> 'meaning of meaning,' if you will. When Ruskin cataloged Turner's 300
> paintings and 19 thousand watercolors after the artists death, it
wouldn't
> surprise me if the critic ignored a lot of the 'abstracts.' I don't
think
> he would have destroyed any, however. But if Turner had a 'blue
file' of
> erotic subjects, I think Ruskin would have been disturbed. Ruskin
was,
> even by Victorian standards, pretty repressed sexually.
Without being intimately familiar with Ruskin's writings, life or his
personality, I also can't fathom what he would have done with those
Turner watercolours. I am inclined - like you - to give him the benefit
of the doubt and assume that he would have preserved them.
> Well, if the argument is 'who invented abstract art' I think it will
carry
> us back 45,000 years to the first antler scratches.
So modern abstract art is "Neo-Neolithic"? That's even more of a
mouthful than the usual epithets slung at it! Levity aside, though, I
believe you've hit upon a really important point, and it isn't about
abstract art specifically (although I dare say you're right in your
analysis there). No, what your point reminds me of is an article
written by the British musicologist and critic Ernest Newman. Newman is
most famous today for the literary "slug fest" he conducted with
Bernard Shaw (no less) over the matter of whether Richard
Strauss's "Elektra" was really a great work, or the just a load of
unpleasant-sounding noise. And yes, my friends, we can smile ironically
over what is probably the longest running argument in aesthetics to
date, which both Shaw and Newman hoped - I imagine - they had solved
conclusively and, what's more important, to the absolute ruin of their
rival ... Newman, at any rate, believed that the greatest composers
were to be found not in the BEGINNING of an artistic movement, but at
the END of one. He cites J.S. Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven,
Schubert, Wagner, any number of the grand old daddies of classical
music in support of his theory. Now I think that this theory has a good
dose of sense to it, and so did Salvador Dali (although I hope that
doesn't put you off). Dali's argument - applied to painting - was that
Raphael was a greater painter than Picasso precisely because he did not
diffuse his energy in germinating a plethora of new styles; rather, he
inherited the tradition of High Renaissance and had no interest in
budging. Raphael was able to concentrate his genius on the purely
formal problems of art, without having to expend himself in a frenzied
searching for new means of expression. Rather, he inherited a means of
expression and BROUGHT IT TO PERFECTION. This is the argument that
Newman applies to Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and the other giants. He
believed that art history would be better served in finding where a
movement reached its PEAK, not where it began its crescendo.
In my opinion, this is a very sound way of looking at art history. It's
also a fairly radical one compared to the method adopted by the
standard text book. The standard text book searches for the FIRST
artist to inaugurate a style, for being FIRST is one of the qualifying
badges of originality, which is a requisite for genius. Now, if I
understand Newman and Dali correctly, Raphael and Mozart aren't the
greats because they were "unoriginal". Far from it. Rather, their
originality was more subtle, was an originality more of EXPRESSION than
of style and technique, although both were innovative here as well. It
is this point that is the crux of my argument.
Modern art has run itself to exhaustion seeking after novelty, after
originality in style and form. But the REAL originality - the
originality that endures and builds a tradition and a culture - is that
which is of CONTENT and EXPRESSION. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Wagner,
all of these men expressed different shades of feeling, some feelings
that were never plumbed deeply in music before them. The content of
their music - the intellectual component - is also a supreme
achievement and will guarantee their respect forever.
What is the solution to the modern world's craze for innovation, then?
Abandon this frenzied search for novelty, for newness of style and
form. Attach yourself to a tradition which best expresses who you are
and what you desire, work within the tradition, absorb it, grow from
it, add to it; and when you feel strong enough to break away from it,
do that too.
Do not succumb to the vulgar lure of outward originality. The tinsel
and glitter of fine art. Rather, be prepared for your work to be
ignored at first glance because it is neither striking, nor shocking;
for your kind of work will be of the kind that steadily attracts after
each viewing, that ripens under constant analysis.
</soapbox>
> The point here is if
> Turner's later work had any known influence on others and set in
motion a
> trend that culminated in something like abstract expressionism or
> whatever. I don't know the answer to that, but I do know it is an art
> history problem. You can't base the proposition on resembelances and
> expect that to qualify as art history. You have to find evidence,
> sometimes just showing that a certain visited a Turner exibition and
> subsequently showed a turn it his/her own work, that shows how Turner
may
> have been an influence. Better yet, and artists correspondence,
memoirs,
> conversations with others that have been documented, etc. and then
you can
> make an acceptable argument for influence. It wouldn't surprise me
at all
> if this could be shown with Turner's work. (and perhaps it has been
shown.)
Good clear thinking, Erik.
> This reminds me of a paper I attempted to write which claimed
Delacroix was
> politically motivated in his salon piece, "Dante and Virgil in Hell."
> [...] in all these thousands of pages there
> was pitifully little to show that he had a political bone in his body.
> Nothing!
Always leave room for accident. Delacroix might not have been a
political animal by nature, but it may be that he was so inspired -
this one time - to express a political message in this painting. Life
is often full of surprises.
> > By promoting Turner as the "Father of Abstract Art" don't you risk
> > removing him from the context of his time, and super-imposing a
> > twentieth century view onto an aesthetic credo which did not even
exist
> > then?
>
> Well, that's a good point, Iian. That sort of intellectual time-
travel
> muddles up the picture, alright.
It's the sort of problem that is further obscured when critics start
bandying words like "anticipated" or "precursor" around. I've written
elsewhere of the dangers of using words like these; pure historical
revisionism.
> But let's say Di Vinci left a legacy of
> figurative work that extended into two or there centuries after his
time,
> and hold him up as 'the father of figurative drawing' (this is just an
> arbitrary example off the top of my head - please don't challenge
the 'art
> history' of it!).
A case might be made for Leonardo as a "precursor" of the Baroque. His
Battle at Anghiari uses compositional elements that were later taken up
by Rubens who, incidentally, chose just this piece to copy in a drawing.
But I do not place great store by words like "precursor". Most of the
time a precursor is merely invoked to invest a critic's pet favourite
with the authority of tradition, whilst at the same time belittling the
artist preceding him who was truly a pioneer. Don't think that this
problem is confined to modern art (ie. Ingres as precursor to Picasso).
Mozart has been called a precursor to Beethoven, Chopin "anticipates"
certain chords by Wagner. It's all a load of rubbish. A composer isn't
a bloody fortune teller. He is an artist. If some fellow composer fifty
years after he is dead wants to copy him, then suddenly our poor
composer becomes a precursor. We write history in our own image.
> Well, apparently there's not much known about Turner's own ideas
about what
> he was doing. He may have thought "Art for Art's sake" or more
plausibly,
> thought that the subject matter of a painting was less important that
its
> formal aspects.
It's interesting to observe how close the classicists were to this
approach to art. But idea-ists are always more inclined to regard a
world of Platonic form to be of more intrinsic reality than
the "accidentally ephemeral".
> I think there's just too many 'abstract' Turner's around to be
considered a
> 'false start.' It looks like the man was after something to me.
I agree that Turner was after something. Whether or not that something
can be closely aligned with the something that the abstract artists one
hundred years later were after is a matter for extended, and subtle
debate.
Best regards,
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > [...] this robot we have is multi-talented and
> > capable of learning. If a task is repeated enough times and with
> > sufficient mental alertness, the robot can memorize what needs to be
> > done and efficiently automatize it for future use.
> >
> True, however, interestingly enough, research has also shown that
> 'mental practice' improves performance. Just imagining that you will
> play the piano better for so many hours a day does produce better
> performance than not doing it - counter intuitive as this may be.
Yes, I heard about this some years ago as well. Apparently a music
teacher in the United States had helped prepare his choir for an
interstate competition in this way. He instructed them to go home every
night (always a good thing) and to visualize themselves singing in
front of the audience and judges at the competition. They had two or
three weeks to practise this, and when the time for the competition
arrived, they had so strengthened their confidence and self-image that
they took away first prize.
I have even heard that you can physically build muscle tissue by
imagining that you're exercising. Now THAT'S counter-intuitive.
> The same is not true of the piano, you do need a certain level
> of technique before you can play reasonable melodies, generally.
> However, this doesn't mean that you have to be able to read music, nor
> that you need to have had formal instruction.
Well, what you say is true up to a point. You don't need to be able to
read sheet music in order to improvise or to play someone else's music
BY EAR. But if you are really serious about getting to the heart of the
composer's intentions, then you really need to study the score. No one
performance is going to satisfy all discriminating critics of music, so
no one performance can ever be ultimately definitive. The only
definitive source is the score. If your aim is to become a classical
musician, being without the ability to score-read is a distinct
handicape. (Yet there were great pianists who were poor sight readers.
Joseph Hoffman, pupil of the great Anton Rubinstein, was a notoriously
bad sight reader. Yet he was able to play a sonata by Nikolai Medtner
after only three or four hearings of the composer's performance.)
> Many jazz players can play
> any piece they like, by ear, without being able to read a single word
of
> music - they certainly needed the practice, but they don't actually
have
> the technique of a concert pianist.
They don't need the technique for what they want to do. And that's
valid so far as it goes. But ask such a pianist to perform Alkan's
Piano Concerto and be prepared to ask for your money back.
> > But then, we should have to debate
> > the point of the meaning of spirituality.
> >
> Yes, you would, but what is really wrong with that?
Well, I'm not confident that I can add anything ground-shaking or even
particularly original to a topic which has been thrashed so soundly to
death by professional philosophers ... but I am game if you are.
> If you find it means
> something different to you than to somebody else, then, in order to
> communicate, you need to find a common ground from which you can.
Simply
> not discussing the matter isn't a good solution, unless you really
meet
> a brick wall.
Well, I'm not about lay out in black and white my ten spiritual
commandments because, to be honest, I haven't consciously formulated
them. What I can do is articulate my beliefs in the language of other
writers who have influenced my thinking and perhaps diverge from there.
So, coming back to the question of "What is spirituality" ... I believe
that it is the reverrance and service to an idea that is greater than
the individual ego can conceive of. To be spiritual is to be taken out
from the world of self-pity, of self-glorification, of self-
despisement .. in a word, to be taken away from that self that we have
constructed in order to be a sane and reasonable member of society. I
don't believe that this self-image is constructed entirely
premeditatively, but it is subject to an implicit kind of will that
determines whether or not we choose to accept a particular valuation of
who we are. The mechanisms that determine the formation of this self-
image have been exhaustively studied; stimulus, response, conditioning,
etc. But what I am primarily coming to believe is that the defining
characteristic of the modern self-image is cowardice and conformity.
Our ancestors risked - and lost - their lives in building a
civilisation where before there only roamed wild beast. And what do we
have to show for this civilization but for a terminal sense of boredom
and futility, expressed, concentrated and glorified in certain
philosophies and works of art. We are a people who fear danger and
risk. We do not live on the edge. We do not walk in the shadow of
death. And the price we pay for our precarious certainty is that
dreaded French word ... ennui. I believe that not only is it desirable
to escape from the self (the self-image), but that it is our duty, and
that it is only when we are not morbidly preoccupied with ourselves
that we approach anything like spirituality. I believe that
spirituality is really a misleading term, and that a better one for
artists would be "impersonality". I believe that the true Michelangelo,
the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in their
lives, because in their art they were most realized as human beings.
They had attained the peak their consciousness could ascend to. I
believe that we accept a lower water level of consciousness as being
the norm, and we are immensely suspicious of anyone who operates at a
higher level because we inevitably feel guilty about our lost
potential. To round it all up .. I believe that the artist is most
spiritual when he is most impersonal. When he has outgrown the immature
compulsion to "express himself" all over his work, to, in effect, wear
his heart on his sleeve. Toward this end I am all far any art that
emphasises the dignity of craft and craftsmanship and which places the
painting above the personality.
Sorry, Peter, but you asked for it!
> >Is it high-mindedness,
> > seriousness, selflessness, the rejecting of the world? How can we
make
> > the judgement that Gustave Moreau, say, is a more spiritual artist
> than
> > Gustave Courbet? Or Pollock more spiritual than Moreau?
> >
> Good questions, but are they really helpful in deciding what is good
> art? If spirituality is what you say in the first paragraph, then any
> artist who died of drink, siphilis or other evidence of living a
> dissolute life would be disqualified no matter how good the paintings
he
> left. That would seem rather arbitary to me.
What you say would be true if we judged an artist by his life. I tend
to do it the other way around. I judge an artist's character - his
stature - by his art. For his art represents the highest that his
consciousness can attain. I ask myself - what is he using his art for,
and what is it that he talks about? Is he obsessed with himself, with
his worries, his grievances, his pains. Or does he boldly leave his
personality behind and construct something objectively beautiful? I
believe that the immature artist expresses, and that the mature one
constructs.
Best regards,
-- Iian
tra...@pipeline.com
heavily influenced by occult (perhaps pseudo-occult) writings of the
late 19th century, most notably those of Helen Blavatsky and her
Theosophical Society, which was just another cult, with watered-down
inforamtion as their basis.
They were trying to depict a mystical state of consciousness. The
type achieved when one has reached a certain level of development,
and/or have developed what is known as "clairvoyant vision",
something which no materialistic reductionist woiuld give credence to.
To depict that, they felt they needed to completely leave out any
remmnants of the physical realm.
My point of contention is that most of these people were not really
mystics (meaning: people who actually take up a spiritual practice,
with the intention of achieving spiritual development), rather they
were spiritual enthusiasts....they just played around with the ideas.
I think that's a pretty clear-cut definition. Works for me.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:29:16 GMT, Peter H.M. Brooks
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <394edaf9...@news.pipeline.com>,
> tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>>
>> >Just to round things up ... that movement in history we choose to
>call
>> >abstract art was the result of more than just a desire to escape
>> >references to the human form. It was born from diverse political,
>> >cultural, philosophical and historical concerns.
>>
>> You forgot to mention the most vital factor - the spiritual intent,
>> if not the spiritual execution.
>>
>If you can say what this vital factor means, that is. The danger is that
>it is a circular definition. What is art? -> It is that which is
>produced with spiritual intent -> How do we know something has been
>produced with spiritual intent -> Because it is art.
>
>A while ago, I spent a long time trying to find out exactly what the
>difference was between something being 'spiritual' and it being 'good',
>'nice', 'beautiful', 'aesthetically pleasing' or some other slightly
>better defined catagory. I didn't find many people had a very coherent
>idea of what 'spiritual' meant at all. In fact, as far as I could
>establish it, the more people used the word, the less they understood
>it, and the other way round.
>
>--
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
>growing aversion to
>feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
>prudish fear of anything
>that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
> - Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
>
>
tra...@pipeline.com
>Well, I'm not about lay out in black and white my ten spiritual
>commandments because, to be honest, I haven't consciously formulated
>them. What I can do is articulate my beliefs in the language of other
>writers who have influenced my thinking and perhaps diverge from there.
>So, coming back to the question of "What is spirituality" ... I believe
>that it is the reverrance and service to an idea that is greater than
>the individual ego can conceive of. To be spiritual is to be taken out
>from the world of self-pity, of self-glorification, of self-
>despisement .. in a word, to be taken away from that self that we have
>constructed in order to be a sane and reasonable member of society.
Spirituality is heightened awareness...the degree of awareness depends
on one's progress, or rather the stage of awareness one is at. There
is the awareness of the person at work who has to focus himself on the
work at hand, necessarily limited (as one example of limited
awareness), and at the other exteme is the awareness of the fully
enlightened, which is different not only in terms of amount, but in
nature as well. Of course spiritual development tends to lift one out
of self-pity, self-glorification, etc. That is just the way it
works. It is not a passive process. One has to do something to get
oneself there. When you say reverence and service to an idea that is
greater than the individual ego can concieve of, it seems you are
describing the same thing people the world over have described as
something else, in a much more traditional way - but I say that
*something* is not external, it is not internal, it is both.
My own view of it is more shamanic. Everyone must pull themselves up
spiritually, by their own bootstraps. Also, my appproach is more
non-personal than impersonal, meaning not denying the self or ego, but
going beyond it. and at the same time knowing that the self or ego is
the bedrock for the going beyond.
>don't believe that this self-image is constructed entirely
>premeditatively, but it is subject to an implicit kind of will that
>determines whether or not we choose to accept a particular valuation of
>who we are. The mechanisms that determine the formation of this self-
>image have been exhaustively studied; stimulus, response, conditioning,
>etc. But what I am primarily coming to believe is that the defining
>characteristic of the modern self-image is cowardice and conformity.
>Our ancestors risked - and lost - their lives in building a
>civilisation where before there only roamed wild beast. And what do we
>have to show for this civilization but for a terminal sense of boredom
>and futility, expressed, concentrated and glorified in certain
>philosophies and works of art.
Speak for yourself!
>We are a people who fear danger and
>risk. We do not live on the edge. We do not walk in the shadow of
>death. And the price we pay for our precarious certainty is that
>dreaded French word ... ennui.
What civilization are you referring to? The United States? Western
Civilization? It seems to me that much of the population on earth
really is living on the edge. The ecology is too. Wildlife lives on
the edge every minute of every day - the edge of exctinction. Anyone
who does not see that would really seem to have isolated himself in
his own little rich enclave, without looking at the world around him.
And perhaps that is the crux of that particular little viewpoint.
>I believe that not only is it desirable
>to escape from the self (the self-image), but that it is our duty, and
>that it is only when we are not morbidly preoccupied with ourselves
>that we approach anything like spirituality. I believe that
>spirituality is really a misleading term, and that a better one for
>artists would be "impersonality". I believe that the true Michelangelo,
>the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in their
>lives, because in their art they were most realized as human beings.
perhaps it was in their art that they could express their realization
to others, not in their art that they found their their realization.
I believe that art can indeed take us out of ourselves, can put us in
touch with a part of ourselves that we wouldn't ordinarily have access
to..but I have always believed that art, by itself, can only take one
so far. It takes something more, like a regular, and real, meditation
practice (for example) to reach higher levels of awareness. I see it
this way...the art is the vehicle for expression, for those with that
inclination, but only on a minor level is it the means to heightened
awareness. Many, in fact most that do, reach these heightened levels
of awareness without being artists. The heightened awareness does not
depend upon the art, It is the other way around.
It is certainly possible to reach those states and then use that
heightened awareness in art, to express it to others, or just simply
to express.
I think that if one fully enlightened person, only one, had come out
of that milleau....one person also with real artistic ability and a
balanced personality...someone not overly enamored of the "siddhis"
nor in denial, (becaue they really are not the most important thing),
the artists of the abstract might just have rocked the world. But it
didn't happen that way. I really think if they had actully understood
more about what they were symbolizing, their perception of it would
have been different as well.
>They had attained the peak their consciousness could ascend to.
>believe that we accept a lower water level of consciousness as being
>the norm, and we are immensely suspicious of anyone who operates at a
>higher level because we inevitably feel guilty about our lost
>potential. To round it all up .. I believe that the artist is most
>spiritual when he is most impersonal.
That seems a rather twisted way to interpret it. You idealize being
impersonal as a practice in everyday life as a way of doing honor to
the concept of going beyond the self. One has nothing to do with the
other.
When he has outgrown the immature
>compulsion to "express himself" all over his work, to, in effect, wear
>his heart on his sleeve. Toward this end I am all far any art that
>emphasises the dignity of craft and craftsmanship and which places the
>painting above the personality.
>
>Sorry, Peter, but you asked for it!
>
>What you say would be true if we judged an artist by his life. I tend
>to do it the other way around. I judge an artist's character - his
>stature - by his art. For his art represents the highest that his
>consciousness can attain.
I don't agree with that.. There is so much more that any person's
consciousness can attain.
I ask myself - what is he using his art for,
>and what is it that he talks about? Is he obsessed with himself, with
>his worries, his grievances, his pains. Or does he boldly leave his
>personality behind and construct something objectively beautiful? I
>believe that the immature artist expresses, and that the mature one
>constructs.
How about both....I recently wrote a poem to my sick dog who died. It
was far more consoling to be able to write something that I knew was
art, than just the simple fact of expressing. By far.
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> To be fair I should have qualified my statement in this way: ".... he
> is doing something more than that which can, AT PRESENT, be reduced
> into a system and programmed into a machine." Personally, I do not
know
> enough about the mechanics or either human or artificial intelligence
> to be able to set sharp boundaries between either. Indeed, David
Cope's
> Experiments in Musical Intelligence, the programme that gained much
> notoriety by "composing" a symphony in the style of Mozart, as well as
> works in the style of other composers; yes, there have been massives
> strides in systematizing basic compositional rules into the format of
a
> computer programme. Of course ... a computer programme is merely an
> automaton which executes a number of set instructions. It is
> interesting to speculate that a human being, following a similar
> programme, would be able himself to do the same task, albeit much
> slower. But then, the point is that humans DO the same thing on a
> subconscious level. Despite the relative success of EMI, there still
> remain vast tracts of human consciousness to systematize. Is the fact
> that a painting or sculpting robot still eludes us a sign that the
> endeavour is impossible, or merely of extraordinary complexity.
>
>
> I guess we'll never know until someone builds one!
>
then we would know before then. So far attempts to do this have failed.
>
> > > The question is: How perfect can our
> > > intellectualisation of a fundamentally intuitive process be? How
far
> > > can we go in reducing what seems to be a sub-conscious process
into
> a
> > > clearly defined number of steps?
> >
> > This is a good point. I think very different from the point about
> > computers and the reduction of human brains to them.
>
> Here's another way of looking at it, Peter. The writers of books on
> aesthetics, treatises, manuals on art, etc., were really programmers
> writing code for human beings to execute.
>
> Now that's an interesting concept ....
>
brain as something that reacts (when trained to, up to a point) to art,
then the process of training a brain to produce art that produces that
reaction is a fairly mechanical process. A bit like training somebody to
be an expert in torture - you would have to point out how the nervous
system and psychological vulnerabilities work, then leave it up to the
ingenuity (artistry) of the particular torturer to use existing methods,
then transcend them.
>
> > Simply put, if you think about what you are doing when you ride a
> > bicycle, you fall off.
>
> I would dearly love to hear an explanation for this. Why is it that
> when the conscious mind butts in when its not wanted, disaster
> inevitably results?
>
activities are best carried out with a large amount of automation.
>
> > > Most of the good artists I've read about would agree that theory
can
> > > only take you so far. The mechanics of art can be written about -
> > > systematized - but no real art can be produced until the
mechanical
> > > knowledge has been fully absorbed and digested by the
subconscious,
> > and
> > > has become a natural means of expression.
> > >
> > Here you have a different problem. The meaning of 'real' as in 'real
> > art'.
>
> By "real art" I mean art that is more than "paint by numbers". Art
that
> has a connexion to a more complex, rich, three-dimensional reality
than
> is available in the slavish adherence to a scheme or programme. After
> all, academies are criticized precisely because of their "coldness",
> their excessive "cerebrality", their ignorance of the sensual laws
that
> govern art.
>
think it ought to. It does admit abstract art, though, which is good.
The problem with it is that our perception of reality is subjective. So,
what you see in a could may be a weasle, what I see may be a ferret, or
nothing. Obviously if we are judging a cloud, we can both see that what
we 'see' is a projection upon it - when we are judging a picture it is
more difficult to see that what we are seeing is a projection upon it.
>
> There is perhaps a case to be made that art is at its best when the
> senses are perfectly wedded to the intellect. To give a concrete
> example, let's contrast (generally speaking) modern prose with antique
> prose. Antique prose draws its roots from the oral tradition. Its
works
> were meant to be recited, acted or sung. Modern literature is written
> with the aid of typewriters and computers and is distributed over an
> exclusively printed medium. Is it possible that some of the aenemic
> qualities of mediocre modern literature are a result of writers of
> average talent abandoning the voice as an instrument, and relying on
> the mental impression of the spoken word?
>
slippery the 'intellect' is in the phrase you use. I take the metaphor
of literature - and I agree that prose close to the oral tradition does
have a vibrancy about it. I don't, however, believe that it is possible
for any prose writer to be completely divorced from the spoken word,
unless the person is deaf from birth.
>
> Consider the very real difference. When you speak something aloud, you
> have only a certain amount of physical energy to put into the
delivery.
> The very process of sounding out vowels, consonants, word-groups and
so
> on, tends to shape the form of your speech into something natural. The
> same analogy can be made to music. There are some pieces that are
> written FOR the piano and sound natural to its range and capabilities;
> and there are other works that are transcribed for it and which
somehow
> lack the true "pianistic" feel.
>
for piano, but I think sounds much better, and more natural, with its
excellent orchestration.
>
> So it might be said that "real writing" was forged when the senses
(the
> ear and the vocal equipment) were married to the intellect (the
thought
> itself) and found expression through speech and its symbolic form,
> literature.
>
not fan of the nonsense of semiotics! The oral tradition, because it
relies upon devices for aiding memory, uses symbolism as well as
assonance and so forth, to draw known pictures. Cliche is part of the
essense of the oral tradition. Good modern novels deal with a richer
context, behind the superficial - at least that is what I would think.
The Illiad, while an excellent example of the oral tradition, uses the
devices I mention above, and, while a brilliant work, is fairly
superficial in its treatment of people and their relationships. Now, I
know that in 'The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the
Bicameral Mind' Julian Jaynes argues that this is because people then
didn't think the way that they do now, I think that this is pretty
clearly not true. It is a misreading of the techniques of the oral
tradition.
>
> Dare we stretch this analogy into the fine arts ... ? Will it snap
back
> like an over-strained rubber band? The "real art" that I hinted at
> above might very well be that art that successfully marries the
> intellect (the systematized body of rules, methods, etc.) to a more
> intuitive, organic sensibility (the senses). After all, we perceive
art
> through our senses. Computers do not have the same sort of senses as
> us. They haven't evolved theirs over a billion years in the rat
> marathon. Their senses are crude approximations we've developed to
give
> them some semblance of sentience. The challenge of the architects of
> artificial intelligence is to unwind the threads knitted together in a
> billion years of evolution, and see whether they can't make a new
quilt
> out of the same bindings.
>
the sensors, eyes, lips, skin, etc, the other part is the sense itself,
which is entirely mental. So there is no reason whay the mental part
shouldn't be part of a computer program - even though, for example,
nobody is going to produce a human eye to connect to it, a different
sensor will do as well.
>
> > Somebody might, say, go all the way to becoming a good
> > watercolourist, lets say a universally acknowledged one. Are you
> really
> > saying that he is still not a good artist because he has not
mastered
> > oil painting?
>
> No, that's not what I am saying. Personally, I believe that an artist
-
> in a pinch - need only be a great draughstman to be worthy of being
> ranked with the greats. For draughstmanship is the common link between
> all of the fine arts, both plastic and painterly.
>
previous statement.
>
> > > With something as complex as painting, the
> > > process is inevitably more involved and drawn out, but the
principle
> > is
> > > the same.
> > >
> > Absolutely! Recent research proves that practice is far more
important
> > than talent or instruction in producing excellence in virtually any
> > field.
>
> And the persistence to practise can trace itself back to the initial
> will of the student, coupled with his sense of purpose. If his sense
of
> purpose is defocused, vague or defeatist, then he will lack the drive
> to practise. If he has the purpose but not the will, he also lacks the
> drive to practise and the endurance to bear failure. But this doesn't
> directly bear on our discussion.
>
ability to render good prose - not the theoretical knowledge.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > > [...] this robot we have is multi-talented and
> > > capable of learning. If a task is repeated enough times and with
> > > sufficient mental alertness, the robot can memorize what needs to
be
> > > done and efficiently automatize it for future use.
> > >
> > True, however, interestingly enough, research has also shown that
> > 'mental practice' improves performance. Just imagining that you will
> > play the piano better for so many hours a day does produce better
> > performance than not doing it - counter intuitive as this may be.
>
> Yes, I heard about this some years ago as well. Apparently a music
> teacher in the United States had helped prepare his choir for an
> interstate competition in this way. He instructed them to go home
every
> night (always a good thing) and to visualize themselves singing in
> front of the audience and judges at the competition. They had two or
> three weeks to practise this, and when the time for the competition
> arrived, they had so strengthened their confidence and self-image that
> they took away first prize.
>
>
> I have even heard that you can physically build muscle tissue by
> imagining that you're exercising. Now THAT'S counter-intuitive.
>
that the mind influences the body in this way for millenia - though
they have rather compromised their credibility by going on about
levitation as well.
>
> > The same is not true of the piano, you do need a certain level
> > of technique before you can play reasonable melodies, generally.
> > However, this doesn't mean that you have to be able to read music,
nor
> > that you need to have had formal instruction.
>
> Well, what you say is true up to a point. You don't need to be able to
> read sheet music in order to improvise or to play someone else's music
> BY EAR. But if you are really serious about getting to the heart of
the
> composer's intentions, then you really need to study the score.
>
achievement that can be reached without the score.
>
>No one
> performance is going to satisfy all discriminating critics of music,
so
> no one performance can ever be ultimately definitive. The only
> definitive source is the score. If your aim is to become a classical
> musician, being without the ability to score-read is a distinct
> handicape. (Yet there were great pianists who were poor sight readers.
> Joseph Hoffman, pupil of the great Anton Rubinstein, was a notoriously
> bad sight reader. Yet he was able to play a sonata by Nikolai Medtner
> after only three or four hearings of the composer's performance.)
>
Remarkable! It does, I think, make my point, though. What is cruical is
not the academic ability to read the score well - just as an ability to
read a poem isn't going to qualify you to be a minstrel. What is
required is behind that, and behind the academic understanding of the
music, or verse.
>
> > Many jazz players can play
> > any piece they like, by ear, without being able to read a single
word
> of
> > music - they certainly needed the practice, but they don't actually
> have
> > the technique of a concert pianist.
>
> They don't need the technique for what they want to do. And that's
> valid so far as it goes. But ask such a pianist to perform Alkan's
> Piano Concerto and be prepared to ask for your money back.
>
much as that of the concert pianist is. One may argue that the concert
pianist produces 'fine art'.
>
> > > But then, we should have to debate
> > > the point of the meaning of spirituality.
> > >
> > Yes, you would, but what is really wrong with that?
>
> Well, I'm not confident that I can add anything ground-shaking or even
> particularly original to a topic which has been thrashed so soundly to
> death by professional philosophers ... but I am game if you are.
>
that there is such a think as 'spirituality' apart from its component
parts, I would need to be convinced that it was required to assist in
explanation, when I see beauty, good, nice, elegant etc. etc. adequate
myself.
>
> > If you find it means
> > something different to you than to somebody else, then, in order to
> > communicate, you need to find a common ground from which you can.
> Simply
> > not discussing the matter isn't a good solution, unless you really
> meet
> > a brick wall.
>
> Well, I'm not about lay out in black and white my ten spiritual
> commandments because, to be honest, I haven't consciously formulated
> them. What I can do is articulate my beliefs in the language of other
> writers who have influenced my thinking and perhaps diverge from
there.
> So, coming back to the question of "What is spirituality" ... I
believe
> that it is the reverrance and service to an idea that is greater than
> the individual ego can conceive of.
>
can be conceived and that the inability to conceive something is a
reason to be reverent to it.
>
>To be spiritual is to be taken out
> from the world of self-pity, of self-glorification, of self-
> despisement .. in a word, to be taken away from that self that we have
> constructed in order to be a sane and reasonable member of society. I
> don't believe that this self-image is constructed entirely
> premeditatively, but it is subject to an implicit kind of will that
> determines whether or not we choose to accept a particular valuation
of
> who we are. The mechanisms that determine the formation of this self-
> image have been exhaustively studied; stimulus, response,
conditioning,
>
we do is explained by our genetic makeup and isn't learned at all.
>
>
> etc. But what I am primarily coming to believe is that the defining
> characteristic of the modern self-image is cowardice and conformity.
>
certainly not been absent from the human condition over millenia!
It is interesting to note that when the opposite was most valued, it
wasn't that pretty either. In ancient Rome the gladiators (vide the
recent entertainment of that name) were there to give the indolent
populace the image of courage and skill in mortal combat.
>
> Our ancestors risked - and lost - their lives in building a
> civilisation where before there only roamed wild beast.
>
Well, if you look at Jared Diamond 'Guns, Germs and Steel' you may come
to a different conclusion. Civilisation, the act of living in cities,
isn't all that great, most disease, malnutrition and really unpleasant
behaviour can be traced to it. The bushmen live a life of quiet ease,
chatting in the sun for most of their days.
>
> And what do we
> have to show for this civilization but for a terminal sense of boredom
> and futility, expressed, concentrated and glorified in certain
> philosophies and works of art.
>
Ennui is simply a result of a lack of imagination. I blame plebvision
for much of the ennui that is part of the zeitgeist in the west. After
all, it has been shown that people watching plebvision are less mentally
active than people who are asleep.
>
>We are a people who fear danger and
> risk. We do not live on the edge. We do not walk in the shadow of
> death.
>
Speak for yourself! I moved to South Africa recently, since I have been
here, a friend has been shot eleven times in his car (he lived) another
friend and her six year old daughter has been brutally murdered and, to
add some bathos, we have been burgled.
>
> And the price we pay for our precarious certainty is that
> dreaded French word ... ennui. I believe that not only is it desirable
> to escape from the self (the self-image), but that it is our duty, and
> that it is only when we are not morbidly preoccupied with ourselves
> that we approach anything like spirituality.
>
Surely all these 'New Age' cults are an expression of people's inchoate
desire to achieve some 'spiritutality'?
>
> I believe that
> spirituality is really a misleading term, and that a better one for
> artists would be "impersonality". I believe that the true
Michelangelo,
> the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in their
> lives, because in their art they were most realized as human beings.
>
Amen to that! I am not for this silly post-modernist deconstruction that
ignores the author and concentrates (if they can be said to concentrate
on anything) only on the text. However, to say a piece of art is only
what the artist says it is is to miss the point too.
>
>
> They had attained the peak their consciousness could ascend to. I
> believe that we accept a lower water level of consciousness as being
> the norm, and we are immensely suspicious of anyone who operates at a
> higher level because we inevitably feel guilty about our lost
> potential.
>
I think you are right here. Even though your terms are vague.
>
> To round it all up .. I believe that the artist is most
> spiritual when he is most impersonal. When he has outgrown the
immature
> compulsion to "express himself" all over his work, to, in effect, wear
> his heart on his sleeve. Toward this end I am all far any art that
> emphasises the dignity of craft and craftsmanship and which places the
> painting above the personality.
>
I agree with this too, up to a point. I value Lawrence Durrell's 'The
Black Book' as much as his Alexandrian Quartet. Clearly the latter are
far better crafted, more impersonal etc. etc., as you say. However, the
raw energy of the former and the way it helps one understand the latter
is of great value. Actually, even if he had died after 'The Black Book',
I think he would have produced an important piece of work - though he
wouldn't be so widely known or read.
>
> Sorry, Peter, but you asked for it!
>
There is absolutely no need to apologise.
>
> > >Is it high-mindedness,
> > > seriousness, selflessness, the rejecting of the world? How can we
> make
> > > the judgement that Gustave Moreau, say, is a more spiritual artist
> > than
> > > Gustave Courbet? Or Pollock more spiritual than Moreau?
> > >
> > Good questions, but are they really helpful in deciding what is good
> > art? If spirituality is what you say in the first paragraph, then
any
> > artist who died of drink, siphilis or other evidence of living a
> > dissolute life would be disqualified no matter how good the
paintings
> he
> > left. That would seem rather arbitary to me.
>
> What you say would be true if we judged an artist by his life. I tend
> to do it the other way around. I judge an artist's character - his
> stature - by his art. For his art represents the highest that his
> consciousness can attain. I ask myself - what is he using his art for,
> and what is it that he talks about? Is he obsessed with himself, with
> his worries, his grievances, his pains. Or does he boldly leave his
> personality behind and construct something objectively beautiful? I
> believe that the immature artist expresses, and that the mature one
> constructs.
>
Yes, you explain this above, and I think it is an important point. I
wouldn't simply put it down to maturity. I think that many mature
artists have been very personal and expressive, but I think that they
are two importantly different modes.
On a slightly differnt tack, I am not sure that 'personality' is quite
the right word here. A personality is more than self-obsession, worry
etc.. I would expect even the work you describe as mature would express
personality and not be anodyne.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> Here we go. Abstract art got is "reason for being" from artists
> heavily influenced by occult (perhaps pseudo-occult) writings of the
> late 19th century, most notably those of Helen Blavatsky and her
> Theosophical Society, which was just another cult, with watered-down
> inforamtion as their basis.
>
'post-modern' infected by nonsense like 'semiotics' has taken over these
days.
However, you are really talking about constructivist rather than truly
abstract art.
>
> They were trying to depict a mystical state of consciousness. The
> type achieved when one has reached a certain level of development,
> and/or have developed what is known as "clairvoyant vision",
> something which no materialistic reductionist woiuld give credence to.
>
In other words they were producing a marketing stunt to draw in more
punters. All frauds are keen mainly on duping the punters.
>
> My point of contention is that most of these people were not really
> mystics (meaning: people who actually take up a spiritual practice,
> with the intention of achieving spiritual development), rather they
> were spiritual enthusiasts....they just played around with the ideas.
>
They were mainly charlatans out to take money, those that were not, were
fools.
>
> I think that's a pretty clear-cut definition. Works for me.
>
Yes, but I don't think that it is an accurate one. An awful lot has
happened both practically and theoretically since then! It is a little
like saying that the origin of the Aston Martin is the Coach, it is
true, but it doesn't tell me very much about an Aston Martin.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Spirituality is heightened awareness...the degree of awareness depends
> on one's progress, or rather the stage of awareness one is at.
You might like Colin Wilson's concept of "the ladder of selves". I am
frantically looking through his "New Pathways in Psychology" to see if
I can find a concrete reference to it; for I have a lurking suspicion
that he borrowed the term from someone else, somelike like Jung. For
the moment there, let's suppose Wilson said it. The "ladder of selves"
concept is comparable to your stages of awareness; where
Sartre's "nausea" represents one of the lowest rungs on the ladder,
everyday consciousness a few rungs higher, and superconsciousness, with
all of the intervening shades, finding expression in saints, artists,
composers and writers. And also, interestingly enough, "ordinary
people" who have been driven to it in a state of emergency. Wilson
believes that mankind's next step is to continue climbing the ladder of
selves - to ascend to the superman. Either that, or waste away in his
current state. It all sounds rather fervently messianic.
> There
> is the awareness of the person at work who has to focus himself on the
> work at hand, necessarily limited (as one example of limited
> awareness), and at the other exteme is the awareness of the fully
> enlightened, which is different not only in terms of amount, but in
> nature as well.
It would be good if you could explore the differences in nature between
work-consciousness and super-consciousness.
> Of course spiritual development tends to lift one out
> of self-pity, self-glorification, etc. That is just the way it
> works. It is not a passive process. One has to do something to get
> oneself there. When you say reverence and service to an idea that is
> greater than the individual ego can concieve of, it seems you are
> describing the same thing people the world over have described as
> something else, in a much more traditional way - but I say that
> *something* is not external, it is not internal, it is both.
This is another statement that could be expanded on.
> My own view of it is more shamanic. Everyone must pull themselves up
> spiritually, by their own bootstraps.
Which means you affirm the importance and efficacy of the will; or, as
Wilson might have phrased it, "intention-directed consciousness".
> >But what I am primarily coming to believe is that the defining
> >characteristic of the modern self-image is cowardice and conformity.
> >Our ancestors risked - and lost - their lives in building a
> >civilisation where before there only roamed wild beast. And what do
we
> >have to show for this civilization but for a terminal sense of
boredom
> >and futility, expressed, concentrated and glorified in certain
> >philosophies and works of art.
>
> Speak for yourself!
I used the words "certain ... works of art". I never hinted that all
works of art are like this. There is no denying that there ARE certain
works of art that encourage pessimism, defeatism, fatalism. I am not
saying that they are devoid of quality though.
> >We are a people who fear danger and
> >risk. We do not live on the edge. We do not walk in the shadow of
> >death. And the price we pay for our precarious certainty is that
> >dreaded French word ... ennui.
>
> What civilization are you referring to? The United States? Western
> Civilization?
Yes.
> It seems to me that much of the population on earth
> really is living on the edge.
I was talking about modern western civilization which, as you have
pointed out, is an a very real sense living on the edge, although not
so much as the wildlife or third world nations. My point is that crisis
and emergency can awaken man out of himself and rouse those slumbering
energies which he thought he didn't possess. The structure of modern
western civilization is one which aims to reduce physical danger, but
which has not yet produced an equally effective imaginative
replacement. Hence some of our greatest artists - Charles Baudelaire,
Gustave Flaubert, Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, James Joyce, T.S. Eliot,
etc. - find it hard to shake the burden of pessimism. Baudelaire,
Flaubert and Eliot in particular are considered to be modern artists
par excellence, artists who express something of the ennui, the
futility of modern civilization. They represent a cry of outrage. "How
is that we've come to this!" they cry. "When we are surrounded by all
of the intricate and ingenious devices of modern civilization, why is
it that we still feel bored, depressed, listless?" In reaction to this
state of affairs there has developed an escapist literature, one which
seeks to stimulate the imagination with heroic adventures. Yet whilst
they tend to give us a boost - like a hefty dose of caffeine - the
drive inevitably dwindles away and we're left back in a world with no
meaning. What makes pessimistic art so vital - despite its fatalistic
message - is the sheer energy that has gone into its creation. Yet it
can smack of a tragic labour; an immense effort, an enormous natural
strength which dissipates itself in boredom. "What is the use of all
this effort when I have to face tomorrow?" This is why movies
like "Fight Club" and "American Beauty" are so potent as they address
this dilemna head-on. "Fight Club" takes the painful route. "Agony can
awaken in me the sense that I am alive. Agony possesses an intensity of
experience that boredom and ennui do not." "American Beauty" takes the
view that art can revitalize us again. "There are perfect moments
taking place all around us; moments of great beauty that we are blind
to because our minds and senses have become deadened by futile
routine." Despite their greatly differing story lines and ultimate
message, both films are united in their attempt to jolt modern man into
a higher water level of consciousness, to rouse him from his torpor.
> The ecology is too. Wildlife lives on
> the edge every minute of every day - the edge of exctinction. Anyone
> who does not see that would really seem to have isolated himself in
> his own little rich enclave, without looking at the world around him.
> And perhaps that is the crux of that particular little viewpoint.
Isn't it lucky that I am not one of those people?
> >I believe that the true Michelangelo,
> >the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in their
> >lives, because in their art they were most realized as human beings.
>
> perhaps it was in their art that they could express their realization
> to others, not in their art that they found their their realization.
> I believe that art can indeed take us out of ourselves, can put us in
> touch with a part of ourselves that we wouldn't ordinarily have access
> to..but I have always believed that art, by itself, can only take one
> so far.
Art can only take you as far as you're willing to go. Art, like any
experience, can be intensified or deadened depending on the energy that
you bring to it. The school boy who dreams all throughout the year
about his trip to the beach will enjoy far more than if he went there
everyday. To derive the fullest pleasure out of an experience - whether
it be a painting, symphony or a holiday at the beach - the mind first
needs to be awakened. In a sense the boy has been meditating on the
concept of freedom represented by the beach. Religious ritual - whether
you call it lies, dogma, or the opiate of the masses - often effects a
similar transformation.
Nine-tenths of our delight in an experience is produced by
anticipation, by meditation on what this experience represents to us.
This is why some people can weep before a great painting, and others
can walk by unmoved. Yet even despite the enormous influence of our own
expectations, there remains something in art that can awaken us without
any premeditation on our part. This is, perhaps, what you mean when you
say that spirituality is both external and internal.
> It takes something more, like a regular, and real, meditation
> practice (for example) to reach higher levels of awareness. I see it
> this way...the art is the vehicle for expression, for those with that
> inclination, but only on a minor level is it the means to heightened
> awareness. Many, in fact most that do, reach these heightened levels
> of awareness without being artists. The heightened awareness does not
> depend upon the art, It is the other way around.
Agreed.
> It is certainly possible to reach those states and then use that
> heightened awareness in art, to express it to others, or just simply
> to express.
I still think that art is more than simply expression. Expression
suggests a subsidiary quality, rather like illustration. The greatest
works of art do not express - they impress. Debussy once said that
music expresses does not express something - IT IS THAT THING. Pure
music is not merely the "expression" of feeling - just like an
illustration is the expression of a literary passage - it is the
feeling itself.
> >They had attained the peak their consciousness could ascend to.
> >believe that we accept a lower water level of consciousness as being
> >the norm, and we are immensely suspicious of anyone who operates at a
> >higher level because we inevitably feel guilty about our lost
> >potential. To round it all up .. I believe that the artist is most
> >spiritual when he is most impersonal.
>
> That seems a rather twisted way to interpret it. You idealize being
> impersonal as a practice in everyday life as a way of doing honor to
> the concept of going beyond the self. One has nothing to do with the
> other.
I'd like you to explain more fully what you mean.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > I guess we'll never know until someone builds one!
> >
> Well, if somebody could establish why, in principle, it was
impossible,
> then we would know before then. So far attempts to do this have
failed.
Attempts to do this would have to tackle the question of what is
consciousness and whether it is intrinsic to organic life. Probably by
the time philosophers and psychologists have proved irrefutably it is
impossible to build an aritficial intelligence, someone would have made
it.
> > Here's another way of looking at it, Peter. The writers of books on
> > aesthetics, treatises, manuals on art, etc., were really programmers
> > writing code for human beings to execute.
> >
> > Now that's an interesting concept ....
> >
> Yes, it is a good point! It makes sense too, if you look at the human
> brain as something that reacts (when trained to, up to a point) to
art,
> then the process of training a brain to produce art that produces that
> reaction is a fairly mechanical process. A bit like training somebody
to
> be an expert in torture - you would have to point out how the nervous
> system and psychological vulnerabilities work, then leave it up to the
> ingenuity (artistry) of the particular torturer to use existing
methods,
> then transcend them.
What remains impossible at the moment is that final step, the move that
brings together all of the laws, the rules, the methods, and fuses them
consciously into an entity that is able to operate independently. It
may prove impossible to codify the mechanics behind human creativity,
which is probably why many writers on the theory of art haven't made
artists themselves extinct. Or made artists out of everyone, which is
economically the same thing! (Who would pay you for doing something
that everyone does daily and at no cost?)
> > I would dearly love to hear an explanation for this. Why is it that
> > when the conscious mind butts in when its not wanted, disaster
> > inevitably results?
> >
> The conscious mind is not very good at doing much, that is why. All
> activities are best carried out with a large amount of automation.
Here is an answer suggested by Kimbal Welch:
"Bike riding once learned becomes a sub-process in the Cerebellum with
direct real-time interactions. When we stick consciousness into the
Cerebellum-Body loop the filtering processes that make up consciousness
slow the bike riding process down until it can't compensate in time.
You know you're loosing your balance, but you can fix it fast enough.
That's why our reflexes operate directly at the spine avoiding the
brain.
--> Input --> Bike Riding --> Output (ride)
--> Input --> Consciousness -----------> Bike Riding --> Output (Fall
off)
Consciousness is a slow process."
> > By "real art" I mean art that is more than "paint by numbers". Art
> that
> > has a connexion to a more complex, rich, three-dimensional reality
> than
> > is available in the slavish adherence to a scheme or programme.
After
> > all, academies are criticized precisely because of their "coldness",
> > their excessive "cerebrality", their ignorance of the sensual laws
> that
> > govern art.
> >
> That is a good description. It excludes constructivist decoration -
as I
> think it ought to. It does admit abstract art, though, which is good.
> The problem with it is that our perception of reality is subjective.
So,
> what you see in a could may be a weasle, what I see may be a ferret,
or
> nothing. Obviously if we are judging a cloud, we can both see that
what
> we 'see' is a projection upon it - when we are judging a picture it is
> more difficult to see that what we are seeing is a projection upon it.
Because it is a more complex process it demands a more subtle analysis.
Critical evaluation of art is just like the creation of art in that
there exists no codex of laws and rules which eliminate the need for a
critic. Ultimately, if the process of criticism or creation could be
reduced to clearly defined steps, there is no reason why we should need
the critic or the artist, since every human who wished to could
instantiate the "programme" in his own person and output a work of art.
I am inclined to believe that the automatization of the critical
faculty will be invented precisely when the creative faculty is
automated. There can be no creative faculty without a corresponding
critical faculty.
> > Antique prose draws its roots from the oral tradition. Its works
> > were meant to be recited, acted or sung. Modern literature is
written
> > with the aid of typewriters and computers and is distributed over an
> > exclusively printed medium. Is it possible that some of the aenemic
> > qualities of mediocre modern literature are a result of writers of
> > average talent abandoning the voice as an instrument, and relying on
> > the mental impression of the spoken word?
> >
> This is a fair argument, and it might fly. The difficulty is how
> slippery the 'intellect' is in the phrase you use. I take the
metaphor
> of literature - and I agree that prose close to the oral tradition
does
> have a vibrancy about it. I don't, however, believe that it is
possible
> for any prose writer to be completely divorced from the spoken word,
> unless the person is deaf from birth.
I also agree that there are no examples of prose writing that are
completely divorced from the spoken word. What I do believe is that
without the practise of reading text aloud - or of mimicking this
process internally so perfectly that one is doing essentially the same
thing -, without the cut and thrust of weighing each and every word on
our vocal equipment, rolling it around our mouths for its suitability,
without that vital, real-time experience of intellect arm-wrestling
with our senses for the perfect poise which is lyrical prose ... well,
without exercising this faculty - energizing it with the senses -
literature, music and art risk atrophying.
But you might say, "Why can't the process of sensory experience also be
systematized?" And I would respond to you - "That's a very interesting
suggestion, and it couldn't hurt artificial intelligence engineers to
follow it up."
> I am not sure I agree with this. The 'senses' are in two parts, one is
> the sensors, eyes, lips, skin, etc, the other part is the sense
itself,
> which is entirely mental. So there is no reason whay the mental part
> shouldn't be part of a computer program - even though, for example,
> nobody is going to produce a human eye to connect to it, a different
> sensor will do as well.
This is the faculty that A.I. Engineers will need to lay bare before
they can create an independent intelligence. Trying to create a
disembodied intelligence is, arguably, impossible for the human mind.
It requires an utterly different psychology. Our attempts at artificial
intelligence are, after all, only so successful as our understanding of
ourselves.
> > And the persistence to practise can trace itself back to the initial
> > will of the student, coupled with his sense of purpose. If his sense
> of
> > purpose is defocused, vague or defeatist, then he will lack the
drive
> > to practise. If he has the purpose but not the will, he also lacks
the
> > drive to practise and the endurance to bear failure. But this
doesn't
> > directly bear on our discussion.
> >
> I think it does. The practice is what produces the draftsmanship and
the
> ability to render good prose - not the theoretical knowledge.
Yes and practise is important because it requires decision making -
intellectual acumen - balanced against a sensitive response to our own
sensory reactions.
This is at present a too subtle process to be systematized by
psychologists, philosophers of the Artificial Intelligence Engineer
(who is probably the only new kind of artist in thousands of years).
-- Iian
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>
> Spirituality is heightened awareness...the degree of awareness depends
> on one's progress, or rather the stage of awareness one is at. There
> is the awareness of the person at work who has to focus himself on the
> work at hand, necessarily limited (as one example of limited
> awareness), and at the other exteme is the awareness of the fully
> enlightened, which is different not only in terms of amount, but in
> nature as well. Of course spiritual development tends to lift one out
> of self-pity, self-glorification, etc. That is just the way it
> works. It is not a passive process. One has to do something to get
> oneself there. When you say reverence and service to an idea that is
> greater than the individual ego can concieve of, it seems you are
> describing the same thing people the world over have described as
> something else, in a much more traditional way - but I say that
> *something* is not external, it is not internal, it is both.
>
'enligthenment'. In both views, arriving as an enlightened person means
that you do nothing and think nothing. If this is valuable spirituality,
then dogs are really there, they have arrived and are the enlightened
ones (only transcended by viruses, that are only transcended by stones).
>
> My own view of it is more shamanic. Everyone must pull themselves up
> spiritually, by their own bootstraps. Also, my appproach is more
> non-personal than impersonal, meaning not denying the self or ego, but
> going beyond it. and at the same time knowing that the self or ego is
> the bedrock for the going beyond.
>
>
> >We are a people who fear danger and
> >risk. We do not live on the edge. We do not walk in the shadow of
> >death. And the price we pay for our precarious certainty is that
> >dreaded French word ... ennui.
>
> What civilization are you referring to? The United States?
>
tests of civilisation.
>
>Western
> Civilization? It seems to me that much of the population on earth
> really is living on the edge. The ecology is too. Wildlife lives on
> the edge every minute of every day - the edge of exctinction. Anyone
> who does not see that would really seem to have isolated himself in
> his own little rich enclave, without looking at the world around him.
> And perhaps that is the crux of that particular little viewpoint.
>
understanding evoution, and the whole of the cosmos, through
understanding cosmology is to be stuck in a 'little viewpoint' too.
>
> >I believe that not only is it desirable
> >to escape from the self (the self-image), but that it is our duty,
and
> >that it is only when we are not morbidly preoccupied with ourselves
> >that we approach anything like spirituality. I believe that
> >spirituality is really a misleading term, and that a better one for
> >artists would be "impersonality". I believe that the true
Michelangelo,
> >the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in their
> >lives, because in their art they were most realized as human beings.
>
> perhaps it was in their art that they could express their realization
> to others, not in their art that they found their their realization.
> I believe that art can indeed take us out of ourselves, can put us in
> touch with a part of ourselves that we wouldn't ordinarily have access
> to..but I have always believed that art, by itself, can only take one
> so far. It takes something more, like a regular, and real, meditation
> practice (for example) to reach higher levels of awareness. I see it
> this way...the art is the vehicle for expression, for those with that
> inclination, but only on a minor level is it the means to heightened
> awareness. Many, in fact most that do, reach these heightened levels
> of awareness without being artists. The heightened awareness does not
> depend upon the art, It is the other way around.
>
can all enable you to reach different levels of 'awareness'. If you
label some levels of awareness as 'higher', that is up to you, but the
levels achieved by meditation are much the same as those achieved by the
other methods. Aldous Huxley's 'Doors of Perception' gives a pretty good
explanation of this.
>
> It is certainly possible to reach those states and then use that
> heightened awareness in art, to express it to others, or just simply
> to express.
>
consciousness, then it is realistic art, not abstract art at all. For
example, the view of a light in the distance with a tunnel leading
towards it, commonly reported by people who nearly died, is simply what
you see when the neurons in your retina fire randomly. If you painted
that, you would be painting as realistic a painting as any by Rembrant.
>
> I think that if one fully enlightened person, only one, had come out
> of that milleau....one person also with real artistic ability and a
> balanced personality...someone not overly enamored of the "siddhis"
> nor in denial, (becaue they really are not the most important thing),
> the artists of the abstract might just have rocked the world. But it
> didn't happen that way. I really think if they had actully understood
> more about what they were symbolizing, their perception of it would
> have been different as well.
>
evidence can be led for this one way or the other.
>
> >What you say would be true if we judged an artist by his life. I tend
> >to do it the other way around. I judge an artist's character - his
> >stature - by his art. For his art represents the highest that his
> >consciousness can attain.
>
> I don't agree with that.. There is so much more that any person's
> consciousness can attain.
>
>
> I ask myself - what is he using his art for,
> >and what is it that he talks about? Is he obsessed with himself, with
> >his worries, his grievances, his pains. Or does he boldly leave his
> >personality behind and construct something objectively beautiful? I
> >believe that the immature artist expresses, and that the mature one
> >constructs.
>
> How about both....I recently wrote a poem to my sick dog who died. It
> was far more consoling to be able to write something that I knew was
> art, than just the simple fact of expressing. By far.
>
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Tracy,
>
> > Spirituality is heightened awareness...the degree of awareness
depends
> > on one's progress, or rather the stage of awareness one is at.
>
> You might like Colin Wilson's concept of "the ladder of selves". I am
> frantically looking through his "New Pathways in Psychology" to see if
> I can find a concrete reference to it; for I have a lurking suspicion
> that he borrowed the term from someone else, somelike like Jung. For
> the moment there, let's suppose Wilson said it. The "ladder of selves"
> concept is comparable to your stages of awareness; where
> Sartre's "nausea" represents one of the lowest rungs on the ladder,
> everyday consciousness a few rungs higher, and superconsciousness,
with
> all of the intervening shades, finding expression in saints, artists,
> composers and writers. And also, interestingly enough, "ordinary
> people" who have been driven to it in a state of emergency. Wilson
> believes that mankind's next step is to continue climbing the ladder
of
> selves - to ascend to the superman. Either that, or waste away in his
> current state. It all sounds rather fervently messianic.
>
being meant though.
It is all really a matter of brain chemistry. If there is a state beyond
the conscious state, we ought to be able to see it in a PET scanner.
Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what evidence
is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
this super-conscious state? Furthermore, what evidence is there that the
art produced in such a state need be good, interesting or intelligible?
Surely, since art is a communication, the art of the truly enlightened
person would only be accessible to another person in that state of
enlightenment?
>
> > There
> > is the awareness of the person at work who has to focus himself on
the
> > work at hand, necessarily limited (as one example of limited
> > awareness), and at the other exteme is the awareness of the fully
> > enlightened, which is different not only in terms of amount, but in
> > nature as well.
>
> It would be good if you could explore the differences in nature
between
> work-consciousness and super-consciousness.
>
Well, how would they exhibit themselves? Would the person in one state
have a different heart-beat, level of blood sugar or a peculiar stare?
>
> > Of course spiritual development tends to lift one out
> > of self-pity, self-glorification, etc. That is just the way it
> > works. It is not a passive process. One has to do something to
get
> > oneself there. When you say reverence and service to an idea that
is
> > greater than the individual ego can concieve of, it seems you are
> > describing the same thing people the world over have described as
> > something else, in a much more traditional way - but I say that
> > *something* is not external, it is not internal, it is both.
>
> This is another statement that could be expanded on.
>
I think it needs contracting to meaning first. If something is both
internal and external, then in what sense is it both? You could say that
when you look at a painting the painting (as well as the paint and the
canvas that we see as composing it) is in the frame and in our head at
the same time - so, if we said this, would it be both 'internal and
external'?
Actually I think that the painting is always internal, only the paint is
external and it is just the substance from which we extract the painting
in our process of perception.
>
> I used the words "certain ... works of art". I never hinted that all
> works of art are like this. There is no denying that there ARE certain
> works of art that encourage pessimism, defeatism, fatalism. I am not
> saying that they are devoid of quality though.
>
Art can, in my opinion. give rise to almost any feeling from love to
disgust with all in between. At least it gives rise to the echo or
memory of the feeling, rather than the feeling itself.
This is true enough. The aetiology of the ennui is partly the banality
of plebvision, as I have said, and its demeaning effect on individual
consciousness. Of course, if you hark back to Joyce, Elliot and
Dostoevsky, then plebvision can't be the only problem! All these artists
were very conscious of their situation, so, I suspect that, in their
case it was more of a minority problem - not part of the zeitgeist.
Kafka and Orwell also forsaw something that wasn't part of their
zeitgeist, but now has come to be.
I am not sure that simple anticipation is the answer to everything.
>
> Nine-tenths of our delight in an experience is produced by
> anticipation, by meditation on what this experience represents to us.
> This is why some people can weep before a great painting, and others
> can walk by unmoved. Yet even despite the enormous influence of our
own
> expectations, there remains something in art that can awaken us
without
> any premeditation on our part. This is, perhaps, what you mean when
you
> say that spirituality is both external and internal.
>
I am not sure that this describes anything 'spiritual' at all. If a work
of art chimes with you, communicates with you and makes you feel what
the artist wished you to feel, then it is because you are ready to
receive the communication - this indeed is true. However, this readiness
need not be a 'spiritual' thing. If are a mother who has lost your son,
then your reaction to the pieta will be very visceral and strong, this
isn't because of 'spirituality', but because of recent experience. If
you respond, even without the experience, then it could simply be that
you have sensitivity to the subject.
>
> > It is certainly possible to reach those states and then use that
> > heightened awareness in art, to express it to others, or just simply
> > to express.
>
> I still think that art is more than simply expression. Expression
> suggests a subsidiary quality, rather like illustration. The greatest
> works of art do not express - they impress. Debussy once said that
> music expresses does not express something - IT IS THAT THING. Pure
> music is not merely the "expression" of feeling - just like an
> illustration is the expression of a literary passage - it is the
> feeling itself.
>
Music cannot represent, so it has to be expressive.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > You don't need to be able to
> > read sheet music in order to improvise or to play someone else's
music
> > BY EAR. But if you are really serious about getting to the heart of
> the
> > composer's intentions, then you really need to study the score.
> >
> Oh, I do agree. I was simply pointing to the remarkably high level of
> achievement that can be reached without the score.
That is because score-reading is, in comparison to music performance, a
simple mechanical activity that does not require a great deal of
intelligence. Our present understanding of human psychology means that
even our computers can read scores (through a combination of optical
character recognition and basic rules of sound production - length,
pitch, volume of sound, etc.) But the computer's present understanding
of music is about as advanced as those programmes that can read out
text aloud. They don't actually comprehend what it is they're saying,
they're only applying certainly phonetic laws to the reproduction of
vocal noises.
So yes, score-reading is probably the least musical part of the
musician's faculties; except if you approach score reading in a more
subtle sense, like you approach the reading of Shakespeare. And that
kind of reading is more of an interpretation that happens to take place
in the mind rather than in sound. It just goes to show that even when
following the score scrupulously, two musicians can devise utterly
different interpretations. This is obviously because this higher
process of score-reading - or to say it more accurately, mental
performance of the score - is an interpretative activity in itself.
> > (Yet there were great pianists who were poor sight readers.
> > Joseph Hoffman, pupil of the great Anton Rubinstein, was a
notoriously
> > bad sight reader. Yet he was able to play a sonata by Nikolai
Medtner
> > after only three or four hearings of the composer's performance.)
> Remarkable! It does, I think, make my point, though. What is cruical
is
> not the academic ability to read the score well - just as an ability
to
> read a poem isn't going to qualify you to be a minstrel.
What is interesting from the point of view of the contemporary
classical musician (of which I am NOT one) is the decline of importance
attributed to improvisation. In the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries
it was common for composers not only to play their works but to also
improvise at the drop of a hat. They usually called that
activity "fantasy", though. Probably the last of the great executant-
composers who improvised would be Anton Rubinstein. There's something
about the current music industry climate that seems hostile to
composers performing their own works.
> What is
> required is behind that, and behind the academic understanding of the
> music, or verse.
Many of the great pianists have said exactly that. Horowitz once
declared that the true music lies behind the notes.
> Of course! But what they produce is art, even if it is popular art, as
> much as that of the concert pianist is. One may argue that the concert
> pianist produces 'fine art'.
I think that jazz musicians - like folk musicians - offer us something
valuable that 'fine art' style performances are lacking. And this
certainly isn't an intrinsic limitation of the classical art, as I've
revealed before. (The great composers were inveterate improvisers.)
> > So, coming back to the question of "What is spirituality" ... I
> believe
> > that it is the reverrance and service to an idea that is greater
than
> > the individual ego can conceive of.
> >
> I would need to be persuaded that there are ideas that are greater
than
> can be conceived and that the inability to conceive something is a
> reason to be reverent to it.
My above statement is riddled with ambiguities. I haven't clarified
what I mean exactly by "individual ego", nor what is greater than it,
as well as the sort of things it can't conceive. I'll have another go
at phrasing it: "I believe that spirituality is a higher water-mark of
consciousness; that it seems mystical, indeed 'spiritual', to us
because we live most of our days at a lower mental pressure."
> > Our ancestors risked - and lost - their lives in building a
> > civilisation where before there only roamed wild beast.
> >
> Well, if you look at Jared Diamond 'Guns, Germs and Steel' you may
come
> to a different conclusion. Civilisation, the act of living in cities,
> isn't all that great, most disease, malnutrition and really unpleasant
> behaviour can be traced to it. The bushmen live a life of quiet ease,
> chatting in the sun for most of their days.
Hmmm. I'll need to go away and think hard about that for a while. No
conclusions or new thoughts occur to me at just this point in time.
> Ennui is simply a result of a lack of imagination. I blame plebvision
> for much of the ennui that is part of the zeitgeist in the west.
After
> all, it has been shown that people watching plebvision are less
mentally
> active than people who are asleep.
And imagination is by its very nature anti-fatalistic, even if the
content of its fantasy is morbid. Ennui is a failure to imagine with
vitality. Intriguing.
> Speak for yourself! I moved to South Africa recently, since I have
been
> here, a friend has been shot eleven times in his car (he lived)
another
> friend and her six year old daughter has been brutally murdered and,
to
> add some bathos, we have been burgled.
The state of emergency does not need to be physical to boost
consciousness a few rungs up the ladder. It can be a self-induced sense
of crisis. This seems to be a good explanation for why students work so
hard at essays when they're due tomorrow. In the words of Samuel
Johnson, "When a man knows he is going to be executed it concentrates
his mind wonderfully." The deadline for the assignment is a miniature
execution, which we struggled with all our cunning and vital reserves
against. When we successfully defeat our would-be executioner - the
professor with the red-biro in hand, ready to spill blood all over our
assignment - there is an immense uplift of relief, like jumping off a
cliff and into the sea. Whenever we encounter such situations we
inevitably - if successful - emerge with an energized consciousness,
and the recognition that we possess intellectual muscles and vital
reserves that we hadn't suspected.
The problem of the modern world is that we spend most of our lives as
Clark Kent and only turn into Superman when we're about to fall off a
building - or when the building is collapsing around us.
The great artists, like Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and Rubens,
were Clark Kents who could rip off their business suits and don the
vermillion tights of the super-hero whenever they willed it (and were
strong enough to bear it).
> Surely all these 'New Age' cults are an expression of people's
inchoate
> desire to achieve some 'spiritutality'?
I'm inclined to agree.
> > I believe that
> > spirituality is really a misleading term, and that a better one for
> > artists would be "impersonality". I believe that the true
> Michelangelo,
> > the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in their
> > lives, because in their art they were most realized as human beings.
> >
> Amen to that! I am not for this silly post-modernist deconstruction
that
> ignores the author and concentrates (if they can be said to
concentrate
> on anything) only on the text. However, to say a piece of art is only
> what the artist says it is is to miss the point too.
Perhaps it's because what an artist SAYS his work is about represents
the conscious judgement of his intellect. There are other factors that
inform his work that his intellect might not be subtle enough to
distinguish.
> I agree with this too, up to a point. I value Lawrence Durrell's 'The
> Black Book' as much as his Alexandrian Quartet. Clearly the latter are
> far better crafted, more impersonal etc. etc., as you say. However,
the
> raw energy of the former and the way it helps one understand the
latter
> is of great value. Actually, even if he had died after 'The Black
Book',
> I think he would have produced an important piece of work - though he
> wouldn't be so widely known or read.
I know precisely the sort of work you're talking about - even if I
haven't read Durrell's Black Book or his Alexandrian Quartet.
> Yes, you explain this above, and I think it is an important point. I
> wouldn't simply put it down to maturity. I think that many mature
> artists have been very personal and expressive, but I think that they
> are two importantly different modes.
>
> On a slightly differnt tack, I am not sure that 'personality' is quite
> the right word here. A personality is more than self-obsession, worry
> etc.. I would expect even the work you describe as mature would
express
> personality and not be anodyne.
Yes, I'm also unhappy with the precision that the word 'personality'
offers in this case. Yet I don't find the words 'self' or 'ego' to be
ultimately satisfactory either.
-- Iian
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <394f7ab4...@news.pipeline.com>,
> tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> > Here we go. Abstract art got is "reason for being" from artists
> > heavily influenced by occult (perhaps pseudo-occult) writings of the
> > late 19th century, most notably those of Helen Blavatsky and her
> > Theosophical Society, which was just another cult, with watered-down
> > inforamtion as their basis.
> >
> Yes, I know about the poor dears! A similar cult movement the
> 'post-modern' infected by nonsense like 'semiotics' has taken over these
> days.
And what do you find 'nonsense' about semiotics?
But it seems to me that you are both just dismissing a lot of interesting
history here. The European Avant Garde was fueled by marginality - Madame
Blavatsky is just the tip of the iceberg. But cultism, hardly. For the
most part is was just an interest at cocktail parties, with exceptions such
as Johannes Itten, at the Bauhaus, who wore hair robes -- he still managed
to invent the 'color wheel' which all our computers use today. But you
know, this is what's meant by "Bohemian culture."
An interesting aside, Karl Jung (one of the cult leaders, yes?) wrote at
the time "every one of my German patients exhibited severe
psychopathological disorders" ("Civilization and its Discontents.") Jung
goes on to describe these marginal movements, from Blavatsky, Mithraic
revivialism, Zoroastrianism, and on down the line.
I don't think this sort of thing is comparable with 'post-moderninsm' at
all. In fact, it is very similar to the current fantasy of artists - that
they are the 'neo-shamans' of the post-industrial civilization - which is a
very anti-post-modern idea.
Also, Madame Helena Petrovna von Hahn Blavatsky was a fascinating person.
If there ever could have been a meaningful icon to guide Euopean
intellectuals into transgressive behavior, it was she. I'm surprised she
hasn't been ressurected as a model for Women's Liberation. She was way
kewl in that regard. I started reading her bio on the Theosophists web
site last year, and got swept away. It's quite tragic, also.
http://www.theosophical.org/eswtable.html
> However, you are really talking about constructivist rather than truly
> abstract art.
> >
> > They were trying to depict a mystical state of consciousness. The
> > type achieved when one has reached a certain level of development,
> > and/or have developed what is known as "clairvoyant vision",
> > something which no materialistic reductionist woiuld give credence to.
> >
> In other words they were producing a marketing stunt to draw in more
> punters. All frauds are keen mainly on duping the punters.
Sheesh, Peter. I think you need to contemplate 'the uses of history.' All
the 'silliy ideas' of 1920 will resemble the 'silly ideas' of 2000 by
2050. You know how corney actors look in the silent films. As some point
you have to try to put yourself in the 1920 audiance, and accept that it
wouldn't look as silly when it happened. You just can't pass all this
stuff off as fraud, dupedom, or counterfiet because it looks that way in
2000.
Look at it this way. A lot of this exotica and cultural tourism of 1920
was also picked up by the National Socialists, who weeded out all that
appeared to them to be 'non-germanic' and kept the rest and
institutionalized it into a national referendum. You know, Bavarians in
1920 didn't really wear liederhosen whilst frolicing around the Teutonic
landscape, but you wouldn't know that by viewing Nazi Art.
> >
> > My point of contention is that most of these people were not really
> > mystics (meaning: people who actually take up a spiritual practice,
> > with the intention of achieving spiritual development), rather they
> > were spiritual enthusiasts....they just played around with the ideas.
> >
> They were mainly charlatans out to take money, those that were not, were
> fools.
I'm confused by who 'they' are. The only name memtioned so far is
Blavatsky, and she was already dead. So who's taking money from who?
Itten was a genuine mystic, in the sense that Miester Ekhart was a genuine
mystic, but Itten was an exception, not a rule. For the rest of the Avant
Garde, these mystical things were pretty much curiosities, as Tracy seems
to be saying. I don't think a full-fledge 'art theology' hit the streets
until the popularization of Jungian psychology occured after WWII. That
was the driving force behond A&E, along with some then current popularized
anthropology. But Pollack's interest in Najavo mysticism is little
different than the current twinkie-shamanism idea being circulated, except
the current stuff is more pop culure based that Jung in 1950 - which still
property of a intelligencia style Avant Garde. All that's really changed
is that Walt Disney is calling the shots today.
> >
> > I think that's a pretty clear-cut definition. Works for me.
> >
> Yes, but I don't think that it is an accurate one. An awful lot has
> happened both practically and theoretically since then! It is a little
> like saying that the origin of the Aston Martin is the Coach, it is
> true, but it doesn't tell me very much about an Aston Martin.
I thought the Aston Martin's origin was Q's workshop at the British
Intelligence HQ.
Cheers, Erik
>
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
> As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
> growing aversion to
> feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
> prudish fear of anything
> that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
> - Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > > I guess we'll never know until someone builds one!
> > >
> > Well, if somebody could establish why, in principle, it was
> impossible,
> > then we would know before then. So far attempts to do this have
> failed.
>
> Attempts to do this would have to tackle the question of what is
> consciousness and whether it is intrinsic to organic life. Probably by
> the time philosophers and psychologists have proved irrefutably it is
> impossible to build an aritficial intelligence, someone would have
made
> it.
>
> A bit like training
somebody
> to
> > be an expert in torture - you would have to point out how the
nervous
> > system and psychological vulnerabilities work, then leave it up to
the
> > ingenuity (artistry) of the particular torturer to use existing
> methods,
> > then transcend them.
>
> What remains impossible at the moment is that final step, the move
that
> brings together all of the laws, the rules, the methods, and fuses
them
> consciously into an entity that is able to operate independently. It
> may prove impossible to codify the mechanics behind human creativity,
> which is probably why many writers on the theory of art haven't made
> artists themselves extinct. Or made artists out of everyone, which is
> economically the same thing! (Who would pay you for doing something
> that everyone does daily and at no cost?)
>
do it frequently, not every day, but most, but I still pay to have my
food cooked in restaurants.
>
> > > I would dearly love to hear an explanation for this. Why is it
that
> > > when the conscious mind butts in when its not wanted, disaster
> > > inevitably results?
> > >
> > The conscious mind is not very good at doing much, that is why. All
> > activities are best carried out with a large amount of automation.
>
> Here is an answer suggested by Kimbal Welch:
>
> "Bike riding once learned becomes a sub-process in the Cerebellum with
> direct real-time interactions. When we stick consciousness into the
> Cerebellum-Body loop the filtering processes that make up
consciousness
> slow the bike riding process down until it can't compensate in time.
> You know you're loosing your balance, but you can fix it fast enough.
> That's why our reflexes operate directly at the spine avoiding the
> brain.
>
> --> Input --> Bike Riding --> Output (ride)
> --> Input --> Consciousness -----------> Bike Riding --> Output (Fall
> off)
>
> Consciousness is a slow process."
.
Yes, that is a good way of putting it. The analogy is with a PLA, a
programmable logic array.
That makes some sort of sense. I find it remarkable to see quite how
poor most critics are, not just art critics, film critics are generally
quite awful - once you know their prejudices, you know how they will
probably misunderstand or otherwise get a film wrong.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It isn't clear to me quite how a bad
critic gets a proper job.
Yes, there is that risk. However, excellent prose turns up in the most
unlikely places. The most unlikely place that I have found it is in
Dirac's 'Quantum Mechanics' - it is worth reading the introduction even
if it makes little sense to you, just for the prose. So the risk isn't a
certain danger, only something to be concerned and careful about.
>
> But you might say, "Why can't the process of sensory experience also
be
> systematized?" And I would respond to you - "That's a very interesting
> suggestion, and it couldn't hurt artificial intelligence engineers to
> follow it up."
>
Well, I think that, at the moment, it would hurt them a good deal!
However, in principle, it should be a project for them in the future.
>
> > I am not sure I agree with this. The 'senses' are in two parts, one
is
> > the sensors, eyes, lips, skin, etc, the other part is the sense
> itself,
> > which is entirely mental. So there is no reason whay the mental part
> > shouldn't be part of a computer program - even though, for example,
> > nobody is going to produce a human eye to connect to it, a different
> > sensor will do as well.
>
> This is the faculty that A.I. Engineers will need to lay bare before
> they can create an independent intelligence. Trying to create a
> disembodied intelligence is, arguably, impossible for the human mind.
> It requires an utterly different psychology. Our attempts at
artificial
> intelligence are, after all, only so successful as our understanding
of
> ourselves.
>
I am not sure about that. Evolutionary algorithms enable you to grow
creatures that exhibit the requirements that you wish them to have. At
the moment the production of such algorithms is at a fairly primitive
stage, but the promise of the field is huge. Once you have a good
evolutionary method, a powerful computer, a well defined genome and a
set of conditions that you wish the end result to comply with, there is
no reason that you shouldn't arrive at an almost perfect fit. If the end
condition is to paint original paintings that will be confused with
human art, I see no reason at all why it shouldn't be achieved quite
easily - in time.
>
> > > And the persistence to practise can trace itself back to the
initial
> > > will of the student, coupled with his sense of purpose. If his
sense
> > of
> > > purpose is defocused, vague or defeatist, then he will lack the
> drive
> > > to practise. If he has the purpose but not the will, he also lacks
> the
> > > drive to practise and the endurance to bear failure. But this
> doesn't
> > > directly bear on our discussion.
> > >
> > I think it does. The practice is what produces the draftsmanship and
> the
> > ability to render good prose - not the theoretical knowledge.
>
> Yes and practise is important because it requires decision making -
> intellectual acumen - balanced against a sensitive response to our own
> sensory reactions.
>
Yes, and possibly even more importantly, it tests the 'knowledge'
against reality. Somebody may tell you how they think they learned to
ride a bicycle, but you will only learn through your own scrapes and
bruises.
>
> This is at present a too subtle process to be systematized by
> psychologists, philosophers of the Artificial Intelligence Engineer
> (who is probably the only new kind of artist in thousands of years).
>
I am not sure about the last point. As soon as a problem is solved it
becomes part of standard computing and leaves AI, so, if AI succeeds, it
will no longer exist.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, I know about the poor dears! A similar cult movement the
> > 'post-modern' infected by nonsense like 'semiotics' has taken over
these
> > days.
>
> And what do you find 'nonsense' about semiotics?
>
fairly obvious. It is part of the nonsense of continental philosophy -
it looks and sounds good in wordy profusion, but means nothing.
>
> But it seems to me that you are both just dismissing a lot of
interesting
> history here. The European Avant Garde was fueled by marginality -
Madame
> Blavatsky is just the tip of the iceberg. But cultism, hardly. For
the
> most part is was just an interest at cocktail parties, with exceptions
such
> as Johannes Itten, at the Bauhaus, who wore hair robes -- he still
managed
> to invent the 'color wheel' which all our computers use today. But
you
> know, this is what's meant by "Bohemian culture."
>
your being able to do senseible things! I wouldn't dream of suggesting
such a thing.
>
>
> An interesting aside, Karl Jung (one of the cult leaders, yes?)
>
his recent followers. Still, my views on Jung probably aren't quite what
you were looking for.
>
> wrote
at
> the time "every one of my German patients exhibited severe
> psychopathological disorders" ("Civilization and its Discontents.")
Jung
> goes on to describe these marginal movements, from Blavatsky, Mithraic
> revivialism, Zoroastrianism, and on down the line.
>
very barmy ideas, he wasn't completely daft.
>
> I don't think this sort of thing is comparable with 'post-moderninsm'
at
> all. In fact, it is very similar to the current fantasy of artists -
that
> they are the 'neo-shamans' of the post-industrial civilization - which
is a
> very anti-post-modern idea.
>
that post-modernism doesn't actually commit itself to saying anything,
it is rather the same as cults that are keen to say lots not very much,
but are very unkeen to get down to brass tacks.
>
> Also, Madame Helena Petrovna von Hahn Blavatsky was a fascinating
person.
> If there ever could have been a meaningful icon to guide Euopean
> intellectuals into transgressive behavior, it was she. I'm surprised
she
> hasn't been ressurected as a model for Women's Liberation. She was
way
> kewl in that regard. I started reading her bio on the Theosophists
web
> site last year, and got swept away. It's quite tragic, also.
> http://www.theosophical.org/eswtable.html
>
interest after the initial appeal, however,
>
> > However, you are really talking about constructivist rather than
truly
> > abstract art.
> > >
> > > They were trying to depict a mystical state of consciousness. The
> > > type achieved when one has reached a certain level of development,
> > > and/or have developed what is known as "clairvoyant vision",
> > > something which no materialistic reductionist woiuld give credence
to.
> > >
> > In other words they were producing a marketing stunt to draw in more
> > punters. All frauds are keen mainly on duping the punters.
>
> Sheesh, Peter. I think you need to contemplate 'the uses of history.'
All
> the 'silliy ideas' of 1920 will resemble the 'silly ideas' of 2000 by
> 2050. You know how corney actors look in the silent films. As some
point
> you have to try to put yourself in the 1920 audiance, and accept that
it
> wouldn't look as silly when it happened. You just can't pass all this
> stuff off as fraud, dupedom, or counterfiet because it looks that way
in
> 2000.
>
of the 'sensible' people rejected it then.
I don't think actors look that bad in silent films.
>
> Look at it this way. A lot of this exotica and cultural tourism of
1920
> was also picked up by the National Socialists, who weeded out all that
> appeared to them to be 'non-germanic' and kept the rest and
> institutionalized it into a national referendum. You know, Bavarians
in
> 1920 didn't really wear liederhosen whilst frolicing around the
Teutonic
> landscape, but you wouldn't know that by viewing Nazi Art.
>
This is true. Cults are dangerous - even the ones that just seem a bit
batty.
>
> > >
> > > My point of contention is that most of these people were not
really
> > > mystics (meaning: people who actually take up a spiritual
practice,
> > > with the intention of achieving spiritual development), rather
they
> > > were spiritual enthusiasts....they just played around with the
ideas.
> > >
> > They were mainly charlatans out to take money, those that were not,
were
> > fools.
>
> I'm confused by who 'they' are. The only name memtioned so far is
> Blavatsky, and she was already dead. So who's taking money from who?
>
Sorry! I mean spiritualists, cultists, theosophists, table rappers,
mesmerists (even though hypnosis is a real phenomenon).
>
> Itten was a genuine mystic, in the sense that Miester Ekhart was a
genuine
> mystic, but Itten was an exception, not a rule. For the rest of the
Avant
> Garde, these mystical things were pretty much curiosities, as Tracy
seems
> to be saying. I don't think a full-fledge 'art theology' hit the
streets
> until the popularization of Jungian psychology occured after WWII.
That
> was the driving force behond A&E, along with some then current
popularized
> anthropology. But Pollack's interest in Najavo mysticism is little
> different than the current twinkie-shamanism idea being circulated,
except
> the current stuff is more pop culure based that Jung in 1950 - which
still
> property of a intelligencia style Avant Garde. All that's really
changed
> is that Walt Disney is calling the shots today.
>
Yes, up to a point. I am not really sure what you mean by a 'genuine
mystic', but that is probably another discussion...
>
> > >
> > > I think that's a pretty clear-cut definition. Works for me.
> > >
> > Yes, but I don't think that it is an accurate one. An awful lot has
> > happened both practically and theoretically since then! It is a
little
> > like saying that the origin of the Aston Martin is the Coach, it is
> > true, but it doesn't tell me very much about an Aston Martin.
>
> I thought the Aston Martin's origin was Q's workshop at the British
> Intelligence HQ.
>
My god, here am I sparking conspiracy theories... I must get a grip.
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> That is because score-reading is, in comparison to music performance,
a
> simple mechanical activity that does not require a great deal of
> intelligence. Our present understanding of human psychology means that
> even our computers can read scores (through a combination of optical
> character recognition and basic rules of sound production - length,
> pitch, volume of sound, etc.) But the computer's present understanding
> of music is about as advanced as those programmes that can read out
> text aloud. They don't actually comprehend what it is they're saying,
> they're only applying certainly phonetic laws to the reproduction of
> vocal noises.
>
>
> So yes, score-reading is probably the least musical part of the
> musician's faculties; except if you approach score reading in a more
> subtle sense, like you approach the reading of Shakespeare. And that
> kind of reading is more of an interpretation that happens to take
place
> in the mind rather than in sound. It just goes to show that even when
> following the score scrupulously, two musicians can devise utterly
> different interpretations. This is obviously because this higher
> process of score-reading - or to say it more accurately, mental
> performance of the score - is an interpretative activity in itself.
>
text, or just the reader that matters, all three are bound up in the
process. I know that some post-modernists would say that, but they
wouldn't mean it in the sense that you describe it above. After all, the
score describes the composers intent as exactly as he can, as the player
plays it with the closest attention to the score - but the two are
different is a reflection of the nature of communication between two
conscious beings [each of whom is attempting to interpret the subjective
of another], not a mistake, or suggestion that the score (text) in the
middle has some mystical significance.
>
> > > (Yet there were great pianists who were poor sight readers.
> > > Joseph Hoffman, pupil of the great Anton Rubinstein, was a
> notoriously
> > > bad sight reader. Yet he was able to play a sonata by Nikolai
> Medtner
> > > after only three or four hearings of the composer's performance.)
>
> > Remarkable! It does, I think, make my point, though. What is cruical
> is
> > not the academic ability to read the score well - just as an ability
> to
> > read a poem isn't going to qualify you to be a minstrel.
>
> What is interesting from the point of view of the contemporary
> classical musician (of which I am NOT one) is the decline of
importance
> attributed to improvisation. In the nineteenth and eighteenth
centuries
> it was common for composers not only to play their works but to also
> improvise at the drop of a hat. They usually called that
> activity "fantasy", though. Probably the last of the great executant-
> composers who improvised would be Anton Rubinstein. There's something
> about the current music industry climate that seems hostile to
> composers performing their own works.
>
what they were flogging as Fred's Symphony No 3, actually was quite
different from any version that Fred had conducted himself.
>
> > What is
> > required is behind that, and behind the academic understanding of
the
> > music, or verse.
>
> Many of the great pianists have said exactly that. Horowitz once
> declared that the true music lies behind the notes.
>
>
> > Of course! But what they produce is art, even if it is popular art,
as
> > much as that of the concert pianist is. One may argue that the
concert
> > pianist produces 'fine art'.
>
> I think that jazz musicians - like folk musicians - offer us something
> valuable that 'fine art' style performances are lacking. And this
> certainly isn't an intrinsic limitation of the classical art, as I've
> revealed before. (The great composers were inveterate improvisers.)
>
experience they offer is very different, with different strengths and
weaknesses from the classical.
>
> > > So, coming back to the question of "What is spirituality" ... I
> > believe
> > > that it is the reverrance and service to an idea that is greater
> than
> > > the individual ego can conceive of.
> > >
> > I would need to be persuaded that there are ideas that are greater
> than
> > can be conceived and that the inability to conceive something is a
> > reason to be reverent to it.
>
> My above statement is riddled with ambiguities. I haven't clarified
> what I mean exactly by "individual ego", nor what is greater than it,
> as well as the sort of things it can't conceive. I'll have another go
> at phrasing it: "I believe that spirituality is a higher water-mark of
> consciousness; that it seems mystical, indeed 'spiritual', to us
> because we live most of our days at a lower mental pressure."
>
definition of 'spiritual' would suggest that most people have never even
had a hint of it. I am a strong supporter of elitism, but this does seem
a rather unkind view. I would like to think that, if spirituality means
anything, it would be something approachable by the ordinary person in
the presence of the extraordinarily beautiful.
>
> > Ennui is simply a result of a lack of imagination. I blame
plebvision
> > for much of the ennui that is part of the zeitgeist in the west.
> After
> > all, it has been shown that people watching plebvision are less
> mentally
> > active than people who are asleep.
>
> And imagination is by its very nature anti-fatalistic, even if the
> content of its fantasy is morbid. Ennui is a failure to imagine with
> vitality. Intriguing.
>
you can easily have a fantastic suicide.
>
> > Speak for yourself! I moved to South Africa recently, since I have
> been
> > here, a friend has been shot eleven times in his car (he lived)
> another
> > friend and her six year old daughter has been brutally murdered and,
> to
> > add some bathos, we have been burgled.
>
> The state of emergency does not need to be physical to boost
> consciousness a few rungs up the ladder. It can be a self-induced
sense
> of crisis.
>
>
> This seems to be a good explanation for why students work
so
> hard at essays when they're due tomorrow.
>
last week?
>
> In the words of Samuel
> Johnson, "When a man knows he is going to be executed it concentrates
> his mind wonderfully." The deadline for the assignment is a miniature
> execution, which we struggled with all our cunning and vital reserves
> against. When we successfully defeat our would-be executioner - the
> professor with the red-biro in hand, ready to spill blood all over our
> assignment - there is an immense uplift of relief, like jumping off a
> cliff and into the sea. Whenever we encounter such situations we
> inevitably - if successful - emerge with an energized consciousness,
> and the recognition that we possess intellectual muscles and vital
> reserves that we hadn't suspected.
>
Sadly, some personality types can't be pleased with their past success -
they have to start working for their next one.
>
> The problem of the modern world is that we spend most of our lives as
> Clark Kent and only turn into Superman when we're about to fall off a
> building - or when the building is collapsing around us.
>
> The great artists, like Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and Rubens,
> were Clark Kents who could rip off their business suits and don the
> vermillion tights of the super-hero whenever they willed it (and were
> strong enough to bear it).
>
the past.
>
> > > I believe that
> > > spirituality is really a misleading term, and that a better one
for
> > > artists would be "impersonality". I believe that the true
> > Michelangelo,
> > > the true Titian, are to be found in their paintings and not in
their
> > > lives, because in their art they were most realized as human
beings.
> > >
> > Amen to that! I am not for this silly post-modernist deconstruction
> that
> > ignores the author and concentrates (if they can be said to
> concentrate
> > on anything) only on the text. However, to say a piece of art is
only
> > what the artist says it is is to miss the point too.
>
> Perhaps it's because what an artist SAYS his work is about represents
> the conscious judgement of his intellect. There are other factors that
> inform his work that his intellect might not be subtle enough to
> distinguish.
>
painted some weeks or months later.
>
> > I agree with this too, up to a point. I value Lawrence Durrell's
'The
> > Black Book' as much as his Alexandrian Quartet. Clearly the latter
are
> > far better crafted, more impersonal etc. etc., as you say. However,
> the
> > raw energy of the former and the way it helps one understand the
> latter
> > is of great value. Actually, even if he had died after 'The Black
> Book',
> > I think he would have produced an important piece of work - though
he
> > wouldn't be so widely known or read.
>
> I know precisely the sort of work you're talking about - even if I
> haven't read Durrell's Black Book or his Alexandrian Quartet.
>
>
> > Yes, you explain this above, and I think it is an important point. I
> > wouldn't simply put it down to maturity. I think that many mature
> > artists have been very personal and expressive, but I think that
they
> > are two importantly different modes.
> >
> > On a slightly differnt tack, I am not sure that 'personality' is
quite
> > the right word here. A personality is more than self-obsession,
worry
> > etc.. I would expect even the work you describe as mature would
> express
> > personality and not be anodyne.
>
> Yes, I'm also unhappy with the precision that the word 'personality'
> offers in this case. Yet I don't find the words 'self' or 'ego' to be
> ultimately satisfactory either.
>
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
iian_...@my-deja.com
> > [...] And also, interestingly enough, "ordinary
> > people" who have been driven to it in a state of emergency. Wilson
> > believes that mankind's next step is to continue climbing the ladder
> of
> > selves - to ascend to the superman. Either that, or waste away in
his
> > current state. It all sounds rather fervently messianic.
> >
> Sounds a bit like Nietsche! I don't think that that is quite what is
> being meant though.
It's a real pity that Wilson doesn't write like Nietzsche, though. What
I have read of his works suggests that he is something of a sham. If he
had invested as much of himself in his conception of man's ascent to
the superconscious then you would expect his prose to be powerfully
tawt and leonine. More often than not it's cough syrup thoroughly
diluted in a glass of water. It's an extraordinary thing, but I had
never thought of reading as a truly painful exercise before. The worst
part about it is that the man's ideas are damnably fascinating; and
just when you think he has doddered off and is mumbling in his sleep,
he'll suddenly exclaim something in surprise at the top of his lungs,
like my father waking up in the middle of a episode of Law and Order.
Damn all subtle thinkers with mediocre prose talent.
Sorry about the tirade. It's one of those love / hate things.
> It is all really a matter of brain chemistry. If there is a state
beyond
> the conscious state, we ought to be able to see it in a PET scanner.
I am fairly certain that there has been such tangible evidence found,
Peter. I may have read it in Wilson's "New Pathways in Psychology"
text, but I've been under the impression for a long time now that
people have had their brainwaves measured (with the encephalogram,
presumably), which distinguished between distinctly different conscious
states, including the one induced when you're enraptured by a fragment
from a symphony or a reproduction of a painting. For some time now
there has also been talk that listening to the music of Mozart and Bach
has measurable short-term effects on the intelligence of the subjects.
To say that is all a matter of brain chemistry though makes you wonder
where consciousness fits in exactly. After all, if yogis have been
saying for centuries that the mind can affect the body - which we now
know to be true - and if a sense of life-purpose can affect your entire
psychological well-being ... how do we reduce it to the interaction of
brain-chemicals? How can we tell the phenomena apart from the epi-
phenomena?
> Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what
evidence
> is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
> this super-conscious state? Furthermore, what evidence is there that
the
> art produced in such a state need be good, interesting or
intelligible?
This suggestion is meant to be just that, not a statement of fact. But
if we agree - as facts force us to - that art produces a measurable
effect upon people, susceptible to art or not, and if we also agree
that art can in some sense communicate to others the tension of mind
that the artist sustained while producing it ... then all we need to do
is strap our subjects to a brainwave scanner (encephalogram or whatnot)
and expose them to the works of art we want to measure. If the
conscious states of a statistically significant number of our subjects
are affected, then we'll have some crudely objective measuring tape for
a work of art. Basic theory : If our subjects conscious state moves
towards superconsciousness when exposed to this work of art, then the
artist was in a superconscious state when he produced it. The reverse
also holds. If their conscious state recedes, their awareness becomes
duller, than the same might be said for the artist's state when he
produced the work of art.
This is simply a recognition that WE are the true measuring tape of
art. What we need is someone to measure the measurers.
> Surely, since art is a communication, the art of the truly enlightened
> person would only be accessible to another person in that state of
> enlightenment?
I wonder whether art is a communication. When I sit down to write a
story I don't have anyone in mind but myself. I'm not communicating to
anyone. I'm talking to myself. When I sit down at my easel to work on a
study in class I don't think of communicating. I am too caught up in
trying to balance the opposing visual elements, trying to extract some
meaning and order out of the forms to be concerned about emotion or
feeling. This is different from the feeling of my model. If she has an
expression than I will try and convey that through my study as well,
but I think it is dangerous to talk about art having "feeling". You
came close to it when you said that art could give rise to an "echo or
memory of the feeling". This is not too different from Tolstoy's
definition of art as being: "The deliberate transmission of a feeling -
whether imaginary of experienced - through the use of certain lines,
colours, tones or words when it has been reflected upon." Tolstoy held
that a boy stubbing his toe and crying out in pain wasn't art. But if
he, after some reflection, was able to simulate in himself the
experience of stubbing his toe, and then be able to affect others
around him in such a way as if he HAD stubbed his toe, then he would be
being artistic. But what we must remember is that this "emotion in
reflection" (which sounds like a description of Wordsworth or Elgar ..
never mind) is not the same as the feeling in its raw state. The
feeling in its raw state is a physiological reaction. I stub my foot, I
cry out in pain. I'm called a nancy boy, I grow angry. Some intelligent
and not unattractive young woman pays me a compliment and ... yes,
well, this isn't a Mills and Boon novel, and I'm sure you get the idea.
With this in mind I like to call the reactions that art
produces "pseudo-emotions" or "pseudo-feelings", and in the
misconception I had that these took place in the brain's alpha-wave
state, I called these also "alpha-feelings". Whatever the right term
for them is, they are not the same sort of feelings produced on our
nervous systems by raw experience.
They are ... intellectualised emotion. Yes, that's what I wanted to
say. The greater the intellectualised emotion content of a work of art,
the greater it is as a pure work of art. The more it is polluted with
raw emotion the less artistic it is.
> > It would be good if you could explore the differences in nature
> between
> > work-consciousness and super-consciousness.
> >
> Well, how would they exhibit themselves? Would the person in one state
> have a different heart-beat, level of blood sugar or a peculiar stare?
Yes, why not? I say we should start reading up on it. If you have any
idea of where we could begin, just give me a few names and I'll start
reading.
> > This is another statement that could be expanded on.
> >
> I think it needs contracting to meaning first. If something is both
> internal and external, then in what sense is it both?
To what extent is externality a mere concept of internality, being that
we are subjective creatures? Sorry ... one of those damned nasty
questions. No need to answer it.
> You could say that
> when you look at a painting the painting (as well as the paint and the
> canvas that we see as composing it) is in the frame and in our head at
> the same time - so, if we said this, would it be both 'internal and
> external'?
What do you think of the idea that for everything that exists in the
outer world it is represented also in the inner world? Following this
train of thought to its junction, we could say that yes, the painting
exists externally as a flat canvas surface encrusted with oily
substances; but that there also exists a painting in your mind, but one
that possesses an extra dimension that the original lacks. A mental
stereoscopy. After all what we call the 'external world' is a
recreation of the world via our senses and sensual-mental interface.
This 'external world' we keep talking about is as much a mental
construction as the internal one. Don't be misled into thinking that
I'm saying it's all an illusion. The concept of illusion itself becomes
meaingless when you invalidate the veracity of reality. The concept of
illusion has as its axiom that there IS something real for it to stand
against.
But to return to the point here. We see the painting in front of us,
made of wood, canvas, oils and pigments. We also see these things
through a mental reconstruction of the real world. We know that the
painting IS a painting and not a window into another world. If we
didn't know that then we'd be loony. So, the painting doesn't exist in
order to fool us into thinking it is a really a window into another
place. The painting exists because the artist has chosen particular
shapes, colours, lines, forms, objects and spaces out of a non-
intellectual - call it super-intellectual, if you will; at least, it is
a non-literary - process in conformance with a particular idea he wants
to instantiate in the art work. But even a word like 'idea' -
beautifully abstract - isn't sufficient for what goes on in the head of
a Beethoven when he sits down to compose his Seventh Symphony. Where
does he begin? Sometimes with a rhythmic motif, a tune, a melody; or
maybe a sense of the entire design or the spiritual (ie., existential)
message he wants to convey. But what he is really doing is building. He
is constructing a superconscious experience with the materials of his
craft. And while he is busy composing, dragging his artistic self out
of the gutter of everyday like a respectable Victorian gentleman
pulling his dissolute brother out of a den of villainy, he takes part
in something of a feedback loop. While his consciousness starts to get
energized and warmed up, his musical thinking will start to become
clearer, sturdier, more delightful. And the more that this happens, the
greater his consciousness rises until the two are soaring in harmony.
That is the peak experience, the crescendo. The problem with man at
this stage of his evolution is that he can't seem to sustain that peak
experience for a very long time. Even his greatest specimens - his
composers, writers, artists and saints - find their mental arms sore
from so much flapping and have to come back down again. The personal
drive of the artist is climb to a greater height on his next attempt,
and to hold his ascent up there for a longer time. But like any other
physical muscle it needs to be exercised, and this is where practise
comes into it.
> Actually I think that the painting is always internal, only the paint
is
> external and it is just the substance from which we extract the
painting
> in our process of perception.
Have you heard of T.S. Eliot's "objective co-relative". So far as I
understand the concept, it is the selection of objective components and
their connexion in a certain order so that they collectively give rise
to the thought-feeling the artist wants to instantiate or make
permanent. The more I think about it, the more I think that the artist
is striving to create a logical and self-contained system. That we
speak of this system in terms of raw emotion is perhaps a blunder.
Granted that what he is creating - constructing, building - is a
system, we can say that the components of the system are those
intellectualised emotions I referred to previously. And lurking behind
all of these intellectualised emotions is a still more abstract state
we might call a sense of life-purpose. But it isn't all as dry as this
makes it sound. Each artist's system-world has its own ecology and
biochemistry. It is the abstract expression of his individuality.
(Just a quick aside. The term "abstract emotion" might be more to the
point than "intellectualised emotion". It has the benefit that its
counterpart, "concrete emotion", is a more satisfying concept than "raw
emotion", which has become a cliche.)
> Art can, in my opinion. give rise to almost any feeling from love to
> disgust with all in between. At least it gives rise to the echo or
> memory of the feeling, rather than the feeling itself.
Yes, I strongly believe that this is true.
> Music cannot represent, so it has to be expressive.
Music is capable of representation, but it is the lowest form of music.
Music, in my opinion, does not truly express anything. It constructs
something that happens to be built out of abstract feeling given a
symbolic form (in this case, in sound). If you want to get back to what
music expresses, then Ernest Newman's idea that all music can be traced
back to the cries or sighs of pain and delight of the native or the
child - crescendo, diminuendo, etc. - and that musical history has been
the progressive subtilisation of these basic elements; the increasing
intellectualisation of a basic sensual, viscous experience.
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Sod's law would make that a certainty!
Sounds like a good line for my signature file ...
> Yes, that is a good way of putting it. The analogy is with a PLA, a
> programmable logic array.
Incidentally Peter, while this isn't directly related to fine art or
anything like that, are you interested in computer simulations which
attempt to create a social world where human participants can wander
through? The closest this concept has been realised today is in the
MUDs (Multi User Dimensions) on the internet. These are computer games
played over an internet connection, where users advance their character
through a fantasy universe by typing various commands in. To advance
they have to deal with various obstacles.
Now, this concept attracts me because I've always found
the "neverending story" idea quite interesting. The idea that a
programmer can create the initial conditions for a digital world, give
it appropriate codified "laws of physics" and then be able to come back
in a couple of months time and **be capable of being surprised**. One
of my childhood enthusiasms was typing such programmes in and wandering
around those worlds. Half the fun was imagining the situations based on
the textual output.
Those basic fantasy games don't satisify me these days. What I'd like
to do is create something more akin to a simulation - a textual version
of The Matrix - where I as the creator could participate with a sense
of newness and discovery - a sense of surprise which is not possible in
the normal games. (For the programmer inevitably knows all of the
answers to the tasks he invents.) My aim, also, would be to increase
the sense of reality by having the computer come up with its own
descriptions of the digital world based on the objects in the world.
Thus, unlike normal games where the descriptions are fairly static, as
a creator in this world you would give your objects certain properties,
programme in physical laws, and then let those physical laws operate on
the digitial environment. The introduction of other players who can
also create, destroy and modify the environment makes for an
interesting social environment as well.
Well, to cut a long question short ... How much do you know about
these things? How much progress is being made in this area? And if you
have some computing experience would you be interested in kicking the
idea around with me for a while? (Over email is fine.)
> > There can be no creative faculty without a corresponding
> > critical faculty.
> >
> That makes some sort of sense. I find it remarkable to see quite how
> poor most critics are, not just art critics, film critics are
generally
> quite awful - once you know their prejudices, you know how they will
> probably misunderstand or otherwise get a film wrong.
>
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It isn't clear to me quite how a bad
> critic gets a proper job.
The bad critic, like the bad artist, the bad sports reporter, etc.,
gets his job because he is a what is called "a personality". It is
worth noting, though, that even if a criticism is bad it isn't
necessarily worthless. Some people believe that George Bernard Shaw's
musical criticisms were heavily blinkered by his own prejudices ... but
no one accuses Shaw of being a bad writer. And that's why, ultimately,
Shaw's musical criticism is worth reading today. For he always wrote
with an incredible tenacity.
> Yes, there is that risk. However, excellent prose turns up in the most
> unlikely places. The most unlikely place that I have found it is in
> Dirac's 'Quantum Mechanics' - it is worth reading the introduction
even
> if it makes little sense to you, just for the prose. So the risk
isn't a
> certain danger, only something to be concerned and careful about.
Thanks for the recommendation. I too wouldn't have expected Paul
Dirac's "Quantum Mechanics" to be a paragon of good prose. I'll
definitely look into it now.
> > Our attempts at
> artificial
> > intelligence are, after all, only so successful as our understanding
> of
> > ourselves.
> >
> I am not sure about that. Evolutionary algorithms enable you to grow
> creatures that exhibit the requirements that you wish them to have.
Ahhh, I had forgotten about that particular stream of A.I., with its
genetic algorithms, neural networks, etc. I have heard of A.I.
programmes that can already invent new designs for computer chips, as
well as discover laws of mathematics that it took people centuries to
formulate. I haven't heard anything particularly ground-breaking from
these programmes since, though, which makes me wonder whether they can
actually exceed the present knowledge of the people who programme
them...
> > This is at present a too subtle process to be systematized by
> > psychologists, philosophers of the Artificial Intelligence Engineer
> > (who is probably the only new kind of artist in thousands of years).
> >
> I am not sure about the last point. As soon as a problem is solved it
> becomes part of standard computing and leaves AI, so, if AI succeeds,
it
> will no longer exist.
Unless the Artificial Intelligence itself attempts to create another
artificial intelligence ... there's a concept!
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Yes, that is interesting. Maybe the record companies would be upset if
> what they were flogging as Fred's Symphony No 3, actually was quite
> different from any version that Fred had conducted himself.
I haven't had the budget to follow this up yet, but the Naxos label
have lately released a number of recordings conducted by composers.
Sometimes they conduct their own works. I have a few Rachmaninov discs
where he plays the piano in his own concertos. I also have the Elgar
violin concerto conducted by Elgar, with Yehudi Menuhin as soloist. So
the record companies are perhaps not too put off by composers recording
their own work. Yet it is puzzling why there aren't more soloists today
writing their own music. Lack of time, specialisation, perhaps? A
literature that is already over-saturated with fantastic works?
> > "I believe that spirituality is a higher water-mark of
> > consciousness; that it seems mystical, indeed 'spiritual', to us
> > because we live most of our days at a lower mental pressure."
> >
> Well, I could say 'speak for yourself', but I won't be so wicked! This
> definition of 'spiritual' would suggest that most people have never
even
> had a hint of it. I am a strong supporter of elitism, but this does
seem
> a rather unkind view.
But this is exactly my point, Peter. These peak experiences - which I
am learning through Wilson and his study of Abraham Maslow's work -
don't just happen to authentic artists, saints and other nutcases. They
are available to all of us, and we've all had them - of varying
intensity - frequently throughout our lives. Maslow himself explains
what he means:
"For instance, a young mother scurrying around her kitchen and getting
breakfast for her husband and young children. The sun was streaming in,
the children, clear and nicely dressed, were chattering as they ate.
The husband was casually playing with the children: but as she looked
at them she was suddenly so overwhelmed with their beauty and her great
love for them, and her feeling of good fotune, that she went into a
peak experience ...
"A young man working his way through medical school by drumming in a
jazz band reported many years later, that in all his drumming he had
three peaks when he suddenly felt like a great drummer and his
performance was perfect.
"A hostess after a dinner part where everything had gone perfectly
and it had been a fine evening, said goodbye to her last guest, sat
down in a chair, looked around at the mes, and went into a peak of
great happiness and exhiliration."
Here is a somewhat longer quote, again from Maslow, and caps off his
explanation:
"When I started to explore the psychology of health, i picked out the
finest, healthiest people, the best specimens of mankind I could find,
and studied them to see what they were like. They were very different,
in some ways startlingly different from the average ...
"I learned many lessons from these people. But one in particular is
our concern now. I found that these individuals tended to report having
had something like mystic experiences, moments of great awe, moments of
the intense happiness, or even rapture, ecstasy or bliss ....
"These moments were of pure, positive happiness, when all doubts, all
fears, all inhibitions, all tensions, all weaknesses, were left behind.
Now self-consciousness was lost. All separateness and distance from the
world disappeared as they felt one with the world, fused with it,
really belonging to it, instead of being outside, looking in. (One
subject said, for instance, 'I felt like a member of a family, not like
an orphan'.)
"Perhaps most intriguing of all, however, was the report that these
experiences of the feeling that the had really seen the ultimate truth,
the essence of things, the secret of life, as if veils had been pulled
aside. Alan Watts has described this feeling as 'This is it!', as if
you had finally got there, as if ordinary life wa a striving and a
straining to get some place and this was the arrival, this was Being
There! .... Everyone knows how it feels to want something and not know
what. These mystic experiences feel like the ultimate satisfaction of
vague, unsatisfied yearnings ....
"But here I had already learned something new. The little that I had
ever read about mystic experiences tied them in with religion, with
visions of the supernatural. And, like most scientists, I had sniffed
at them in disbelief and considered it all nonsense, maybe
hallucinations, maybe hysteria - almost surely pathological.
"But the people telling me ... about these experiences were not such
people - they were the healthiest people! .... And I may add that it
taught me something about the limitations of the small ... orthodox
scientist who won't recognise as knowledge, or as reality, any
information that doesn't fit into the already existent science."
> I would like to think that, if spirituality means
> anything, it would be something approachable by the ordinary person in
> the presence of the extraordinarily beautiful.
As defined by Maslow - as a peak experience - spirituality is not only
approachable to the ordinary person, we all have glimpses of it
frequently in ours lives.
> > > Speak for yourself! I moved to South Africa recently, since I have
> > been
> > > here, a friend has been shot eleven times in his car (he lived)
> > another
> > > friend and her six year old daughter has been brutally murdered
and,
> > to
> > > add some bathos, we have been burgled.
I am very sorry to hear about your friends' tragedies, not to forget
your own loss as well.
> > This seems to be a good explanation for why students work
> so
> > hard at essays when they're due tomorrow.
> >
> Yes, but why are they due tomorrow? Shouldn't they have been completed
> last week?
That's what my conscience tells me!
> > The great artists, like Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and Rubens,
> > were Clark Kents who could rip off their business suits and don the
> > vermillion tights of the super-hero whenever they willed it (and
were
> > strong enough to bear it).
> >
> You may be right, though I am a little suspicious of romantic views of
> the past.
Yes, that's a fair enough point. I suppose there was a fair amount of
rhapsodising over the past in the above lines. It's not really true to
say that there are such intellectual giants still around today, or to
imply that the past periods did not experience problems with ennui.
> > I know precisely the sort of work you're talking about - even if I
> > haven't read Durrell's Black Book or his Alexandrian Quartet.
> >
> I can recommend them.
I'll certainly look into them.
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Yes, that's a fair enough point. I suppose there was a fair amount of
> rhapsodising over the past in the above lines. It's not really true to
> say that there are such intellectual giants still around today, or to
> imply that the past periods did not experience problems with ennui.
It's funny what happens when you miss out three little characters. The
line above should have read: "It's not really true to say that there
aren't such intellectual giants still around today ..."
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <39508FB2...@tomatoweb.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, I know about the poor dears! A similar cult movement the
> > > 'post-modern' infected by nonsense like 'semiotics' has taken over
> these
> > > days.
> >
> > And what do you find 'nonsense' about semiotics?
> >
> Pretty well all of it. It is an overblown pseudooccupation with the
> fairly obvious. It is part of the nonsense of continental philosophy -
> it looks and sounds good in wordy profusion, but means nothing.
But you haven't included any substance here, Peter. Obviously I'm fishing,
but I am really interested in negative critiques of semiology that go
beyond a simple declaration "Oh, semiotics [whatever that i], I'm against
it!"
For the record, semiotics is not a post-modern phenomena - it's roots are
much longer than that. You can start with Socrates, and follow the
'science of signs' up through John Lock and other British philosophers.
The American Charles Sanders Pierce advanced it substancially with his sign
theory work in the late 19th century. Ferdinand Sassure accidentaly gave
it a shot in the arm with his "Course in General Linguistics" in the early
twentieth. So you can't say that semiotics is post-modern with any
accuracy - it would be like saying that Socrates is post-modern because
someone who is interested in post-modernism uses Socrates to validate an
idea- or to give an idea a historical perspective.
So I'm interested in your argument, if you actually have one.
>
> >
> > But it seems to me that you are both just dismissing a lot of
> interesting
> > history here. The European Avant Garde was fueled by marginality -
> Madame
> > Blavatsky is just the tip of the iceberg. But cultism, hardly. For
> the
> > most part is was just an interest at cocktail parties, with exceptions
> such
> > as Johannes Itten, at the Bauhaus, who wore hair robes -- he still
> managed
> > to invent the 'color wheel' which all our computers use today. But
> you
> > know, this is what's meant by "Bohemian culture."
> >
> Of course, being involved in barmy cults doesn't, in itself, preclude
> your being able to do senseible things! I wouldn't dream of suggesting
> such a thing.
> >
> >
> > An interesting aside, Karl Jung (one of the cult leaders, yes?)
> >
> There is rather a lot of the cultist in Jung - and there certainly is in
> his recent followers. Still, my views on Jung probably aren't quite what
> you were looking for.
Which are?
>
> >
> > wrote
> at
> > the time "every one of my German patients exhibited severe
> > psychopathological disorders" ("Civilization and its Discontents.")
> Jung
> > goes on to describe these marginal movements, from Blavatsky, Mithraic
> > revivialism, Zoroastrianism, and on down the line.
> >
> Well, though Jung's theory of the universal unconscious has lead to some
> very barmy ideas, he wasn't completely daft.
No, I don't think Jung was daft at all. I've read all of Jung's work
(well, I could have missed a couple of tomes). It amazed me too, because
I've known professors who claim Jung (like graduates of the San Francisco's
"Humanistic Psychology" programs) yet have never read his works (beyond the
pop culture editions like "Man and His Symbols." Personally, I think Jungs
study of Alchemy is mighty.
However, I think Jung was dead wrong about some fundamental concepts. A
very good critique can be found in Edgar Wind's "Art and Anarchy" which I
reccommend to every artist. The Warburg scholars are outstanding, in my
opinion (Courtland Institute) and here's a branch of philosophy which is
not at all 'continental' which rips a lot of 20th century ideas to shreds.
The problem with the 'collective unconscious' is that it is based on
assumption of a 'like begets like inference.' The concept is fueled by
comparative mythology, which, of course, focuses on the similarity of myth
world wide, while de-emphasizing the differences. The differences, as
important as they are, are occluded by the power of myth itself -- i.e. a
form that is so naturalized to our thinking that we can only see the fuzzy
sameness. But with tools such as structural analyses these differences can
be identified, and their significance understood. For example,
Levi-Strauss was able to show that while the Old and New World used the
'twin' mytheme, in the Old World the twins are competitive and in the New
World they are cooperative. Since this sort of thing operates at the level
of the Jungian archetype, the difference is profound and begins to
undermine the concept of a collective unconscious. Since all human beings
share much - physiology, having culture, comparable symbolic forms, it is
not at all surprising that broad and general myth motifs are also shared.
But this doesn't validate the concept of a 'collective unconscious' unless
'collective unconscious' is defined along other lines than Jung defined it,
i.e. like Cassirer defined it (another Warburg Scholar). But of course
Structuralism grew our of semiology, so it may be hard for you to accept.
>
> >
> > I don't think this sort of thing is comparable with 'post-moderninsm'
> at
> > all. In fact, it is very similar to the current fantasy of artists -
> that
> > they are the 'neo-shamans' of the post-industrial civilization - which
> is a
> > very anti-post-modern idea.
> >
> I am not sure. It may seem very different to post-modernism, but, in
> that post-modernism doesn't actually commit itself to saying anything,
> it is rather the same as cults that are keen to say lots not very much,
> but are very unkeen to get down to brass tacks.
I think you need to focus on the question of why an artist today would
claim to be a neo-shaman. It is very transparent, I think. It is part and
parcel or a valorization of the artist in society. I think there's good
reason for this, actually. "Art" is a funny thing, in how it is treated by
culture. On one hand it is lauded as cultural heroics, and on the other it
is denigrated as not being a productive force in society. "Oh, no, you're
not going to try to be an artist, are you! How will you make a living?"
Since most people's experience in art making is as a recreational activity
in school (the breath of fresh air between math lessons and history
lessons) it's not surprising that the public attitude of art as recreation
exists. So there's a need for some sort of compensation, and I think one
of the forms this compensation plays out is to pump-up the idea of the
'artist' in society with various forms of valorizations.
But the post-modern trend is the opposite, that is, not to valorize the
artist. In fact, to work against the idea of authorship completely (thus
the recycling of pre-existing forms, appropriations, regurgitations etc.)
That's why I would say the 'artitst-as-shaman' idea is not at all
post-modern.
> > Also, Madame Helena Petrovna von Hahn Blavatsky was a fascinating
> person.
> > If there ever could have been a meaningful icon to guide Euopean
> > intellectuals into transgressive behavior, it was she. I'm surprised
> she
> > hasn't been ressurected as a model for Women's Liberation. She was
> way
> > kewl in that regard. I started reading her bio on the Theosophists
> web
> > site last year, and got swept away. It's quite tragic, also.
> > http://www.theosophical.org/eswtable.html
> >
> I understand the appeal. I don't think that there is much of substantial
> interest after the initial appeal, however,
Well, according to Peter Bürger (Theory of the Avant Garde) there was no
lasting power to any Avant Garde strategy. Simplly because whatever the
trajectory was, it's possibilities were quickly exhausted. In other words,
futurists, cubists, minimalists, fauvists were able to very quickly say
what they intended to say, and to continue would just be redundant - which
conflicted with the ideology of 'progress' that permeated late modernism.
It's interesting to comtemplate how the interest in social margins
functioned in this sort of environment. Personally, I think that the
marginal material was used as a paradigm for something 'other' than the
status quo, in order to gain insights which allegedly led to innovation
(novelty?). When the innovative strategy exhausted itself, so did the
interest in the model (marginal paradigm).
I also think that some of this survives today, but it is played out
entirely differently (than in late modernism) due to the developments in
mass culture and media. I haven't got my thoughts gathered on this, but it
would be an interesting topic, I think.
> > > However, you are really talking about constructivist rather than
> truly
> > > abstract art.
> > > >
> > > > They were trying to depict a mystical state of consciousness. The
> > > > type achieved when one has reached a certain level of development,
> > > > and/or have developed what is known as "clairvoyant vision",
> > > > something which no materialistic reductionist woiuld give credence
> to.
> > > >
> > > In other words they were producing a marketing stunt to draw in more
> > > punters. All frauds are keen mainly on duping the punters.
> >
> > Sheesh, Peter. I think you need to contemplate 'the uses of history.'
> All
> > the 'silliy ideas' of 1920 will resemble the 'silly ideas' of 2000 by
> > 2050. You know how corney actors look in the silent films. As some
> point
> > you have to try to put yourself in the 1920 audiance, and accept that
> it
> > wouldn't look as silly when it happened. You just can't pass all this
> > stuff off as fraud, dupedom, or counterfiet because it looks that way
> in
> > 2000.
> >
> I am not sure about that. Most of the evidence was there then and most
> of the 'sensible' people rejected it then.
>
> I don't think actors look that bad in silent films.
Of course. But come on, it looks corney by todays standards of film
acting. You know, the point of comparison is always how one experience the
behavior of those around her/him. Thus they say "this is believable, this
is not believable." (Like film critics do). I'm not discounting one's
ability to enjoy silent films and get into a mind-set that appreciates
these films on their merit.
> > Look at it this way. A lot of this exotica and cultural tourism of
> 1920
> > was also picked up by the National Socialists, who weeded out all that
> > appeared to them to be 'non-germanic' and kept the rest and
> > institutionalized it into a national referendum. You know, Bavarians
> in
> > 1920 didn't really wear liederhosen whilst frolicing around the
> Teutonic
> > landscape, but you wouldn't know that by viewing Nazi Art.
> >
> This is true. Cults are dangerous - even the ones that just seem a bit
> batty.
Yes, but my point was that you can't pass-off Avant Garde style and fashion
in 1920 as a simple exercise in hucksterism. Undoubtedly charlatans were
doing their thing, but the whole impact of the 'other' on society can't be
simply dismissed on this basis.
> > > > My point of contention is that most of these people were not
> really
> > > > mystics (meaning: people who actually take up a spiritual
> practice,
> > > > with the intention of achieving spiritual development), rather
> they
> > > > were spiritual enthusiasts....they just played around with the
> ideas.
> > > >
> > > They were mainly charlatans out to take money, those that were not,
> were
> > > fools.
> >
> > I'm confused by who 'they' are. The only name memtioned so far is
> > Blavatsky, and she was already dead. So who's taking money from who?
> >
> Sorry! I mean spiritualists, cultists, theosophists, table rappers,
> mesmerists (even though hypnosis is a real phenomenon).
Yes, I understand that. I was asking how it all works in the context of
art movements, like saying the Theosophists were expoloting Johannes Itten
by charging him 50 bucks a month to carry out his fantasies in their name.
(Actually, I think Itten was involved with Mithras, not Blavatsky. I think
Kandinsky was a Blavatsky fan - but I would have to check the art history
on that.)
> > Itten was a genuine mystic, in the sense that Miester Ekhart was a
> genuine
> > mystic, but Itten was an exception, not a rule. For the rest of the
> Avant
> > Garde, these mystical things were pretty much curiosities, as Tracy
> seems
> > to be saying. I don't think a full-fledge 'art theology' hit the
> streets
> > until the popularization of Jungian psychology occured after WWII.
> That
> > was the driving force behond A&E, along with some then current
> popularized
> > anthropology. But Pollack's interest in Najavo mysticism is little
> > different than the current twinkie-shamanism idea being circulated,
> except
> > the current stuff is more pop culure based that Jung in 1950 - which
> still
> > property of a intelligencia style Avant Garde. All that's really
> changed
> > is that Walt Disney is calling the shots today.
> >
> Yes, up to a point. I am not really sure what you mean by a 'genuine
> mystic', but that is probably another discussion...
My idea is pretty simple, actually. Tracy threw the question out - they
were not 'real' mystics. In my view, a 'mystic' is anyone who makes the
claim. I think you made the point in another post that assuming the
consciousness of a dog is 'mysticism' and I tend to agree. (I hope I
haven't misquoted you).
I had an epiphany once while thinking about reading that in the People's
Republic of China psychologists did not accept the western theory of the
unconscious mind. "How could this be?" I thought. So I played the mental
game of pretending that the Chinese are right, and tried to map out the
consequences. So one line of thought led me to consider that maybe it's
all backwards. As we are more and more deeply imbricated in our symbolic
forms, we become less 'conscious.' If we strive to drive out the demons of
symbolism from our psychic realities, we become more conscious. So then I
thought that 'mysticism' was just that, getting past our symbolism to
experience the world without ego driven differenciation, sensing ourselves
as 'one' with the world. And that is full consciousness, I think, and
probably very close to the consciousness of a worm (although I understand
that worms have a quite complex social life) so we might want to go deeper
to the amoeba level!) So the trajectory of mysticism is to become fully
conscious (as opposed to finding a doorway into the unconscious [if it
exists at all]).
Erik
tra...@pipeline.com
>'enligthenment'. In both views, arriving as an enlightened person means
>that you do nothing and think nothing. If this is valuable spirituality,
>then dogs are really there, they have arrived and are the enlightened
>ones (only transcended by viruses, that are only transcended by stones).
Try reading Godel, Escher, Bach or Douglas Hofstadter.
God! What you don't know could fill a book. This is so simplified
it is beneath cartoon level.
BTW...I remeber you now...from the Godawful goodart list. I also know
what the modus operandi of the goodart list is.
It was nice, for a few posts.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Try reading Godel, Escher, Bach or Douglas Hofstadter.
>
> God! What you don't know could fill a book. This is so simplified
> it is beneath cartoon level.
>
> BTW...I remeber you now...from the Godawful goodart list. I also know
> what the modus operandi of the goodart list is.
Oh dear me, Peter, you should have told me you were from the Good Art
list. I've been a member there on and off for the past three years and
I don't even remember seeing your name. If I had known you were from
there I would have asked you to join our conspiracy. We're tying to get
Tracy to believe that we're really a bunch of para-military art-
fanatics out to gun down all post-modernists. We meet secretly every
Sabbath in an effort to advance our plot for art-world domination. We
also specialise in erasing identities and mind control. And yes ... we
killed J.F.K.
Unfortunately, Tracy has become wise to our plan. She knows too much.
I'm afraid we'll have to kill her.
-- Iian
tra...@pipeline.com
Heehee!
Ok, now my company is gone, I can correct a typo......I meant to say:
Godel, Escher, Bach *by* Douglas Hofstadter. It is a pulitzer
prize winning book, written by a mathematician. Even if you may not
like the tone of the recommendation, you may consider just thumbing
through it at the library one day.
Tracy
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Ok, now my company is gone, I can correct a typo......I meant to say:
> Godel, Escher, Bach *by* Douglas Hofstadter. It is a pulitzer
> prize winning book, written by a mathematician. Even if you may not
> like the tone of the recommendation, you may consider just thumbing
> through it at the library one day.
I agree that it's a darned fascinating book. The first thirty or so
pages I flipped through at the library were very engrossing. When I get
some more I'll borrow it out and read all the way through.
-- Iian
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> [interesting ideas deleted]
> Well, to cut a long question short ... How much do you know about
> these things? How much progress is being made in this area? And if you
> have some computing experience would you be interested in kicking the
> idea around with me for a while? (Over email is fine.)
>
evolutionary algorithms for neural networks, which takes up most of the
time that I am not working, painting or having fun, so I don't have much
bandwidth!
I have played with some of the games, and, a very, very long time ago,
looked at the programming involved in producing them. I am certainly not
current in the area and probably couldn't help much.
>
> > > There can be no creative faculty without a corresponding
> > > critical faculty.
> > >
> > That makes some sort of sense. I find it remarkable to see quite how
> > poor most critics are, not just art critics, film critics are
> generally
> > quite awful - once you know their prejudices, you know how they will
> > probably misunderstand or otherwise get a film wrong.
> >
> > Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? It isn't clear to me quite how a bad
> > critic gets a proper job.
>
> The bad critic, like the bad artist, the bad sports reporter, etc.,
> gets his job because he is a what is called "a personality". It is
> worth noting, though, that even if a criticism is bad it isn't
> necessarily worthless. Some people believe that George Bernard Shaw's
> musical criticisms were heavily blinkered by his own prejudices ...
but
> no one accuses Shaw of being a bad writer. And that's why, ultimately,
> Shaw's musical criticism is worth reading today. For he always wrote
> with an incredible tenacity.
>
Yes, I would agree with this point. It also applies to his prefaces,
even when you disagree with him, he still makes his point so elegantly
and, as you say, forcefully, that you enjoy it all the same.
I also find bad criticism worth while if it is short and actually
addresses the matter at hand (rather than being wordy waffle intending
to impress you with the critic himself). It can help establish in your
own mind exactly what is good or bad in contrast to what the critic is
trying to say.
>
> > > Our attempts at
> > artificial
> > > intelligence are, after all, only so successful as our
understanding
> > of
> > > ourselves.
> > >
> > I am not sure about that. Evolutionary algorithms enable you to grow
> > creatures that exhibit the requirements that you wish them to have.
>
> Ahhh, I had forgotten about that particular stream of A.I., with its
> genetic algorithms, neural networks, etc. I have heard of A.I.
> programmes that can already invent new designs for computer chips, as
> well as discover laws of mathematics that it took people centuries to
> formulate. I haven't heard anything particularly ground-breaking from
> these programmes since, though, which makes me wonder whether they can
> actually exceed the present knowledge of the people who programme
> them...
>
Oh, they certainly do! I am very interested in the field, but I think
that it has become a little stagnant - mainly because it has been going
through a period of producing a better mathematical foundation to what
it is up to. I have a project of my own on the go that I am hoping for
some interesting results from - but it will be some time!
>
> > > This is at present a too subtle process to be systematized by
> > > psychologists, philosophers of the Artificial Intelligence
Engineer
> > > (who is probably the only new kind of artist in thousands of
years).
> > >
> > I am not sure about the last point. As soon as a problem is solved
it
> > becomes part of standard computing and leaves AI, so, if AI
succeeds,
> it
> > will no longer exist.
>
> Unless the Artificial Intelligence itself attempts to create another
> artificial intelligence ... there's a concept!
>
Indeed.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> It's a real pity that Wilson doesn't write like Nietzsche, though.
What
> I have read of his works suggests that he is something of a sham. If
he
> had invested as much of himself in his conception of man's ascent to
> the superconscious then you would expect his prose to be powerfully
> tawt and leonine. More often than not it's cough syrup thoroughly
> diluted in a glass of water. It's an extraordinary thing, but I had
> never thought of reading as a truly painful exercise before. The worst
> part about it is that the man's ideas are damnably fascinating; and
> just when you think he has doddered off and is mumbling in his sleep,
> he'll suddenly exclaim something in surprise at the top of his lungs,
> like my father waking up in the middle of a episode of Law and Order.
> Damn all subtle thinkers with mediocre prose talent.
>
> Sorry about the tirade. It's one of those love / hate things.
>
>
> > It is all really a matter of brain chemistry. If there is a state
> beyond
> > the conscious state, we ought to be able to see it in a PET scanner.
>
> I am fairly certain that there has been such tangible evidence found,
> Peter. I may have read it in Wilson's "New Pathways in Psychology"
> text, but I've been under the impression for a long time now that
> people have had their brainwaves measured (with the encephalogram,
> presumably), which distinguished between distinctly different
conscious
> states, including the one induced when you're enraptured by a fragment
> from a symphony or a reproduction of a painting. For some time now
> there has also been talk that listening to the music of Mozart and
Bach
> has measurable short-term effects on the intelligence of the subjects.
>
>
> To say that is all a matter of brain chemistry though makes you wonder
> where consciousness fits in exactly. After all, if yogis have been
> saying for centuries that the mind can affect the body - which we now
> know to be true - and if a sense of life-purpose can affect your
entire
> psychological well-being ... how do we reduce it to the interaction of
> brain-chemicals? How can we tell the phenomena apart from the epi-
> phenomena?
>
though. Many body processes, from, for example, the fight-flight
reactioon, are feedback loops between brain states, blood chemistry and
glandular secretions. It is all quite complex, as people find when they
try to interfere with the processes - the perfection of the
contraceptive pill is not yet achieved. However, in principle, it is
clear that the mind affects the body through these feedback loops.
>
> > Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what
> evidence
> > is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
> > this super-conscious state? Furthermore, what evidence is there that
> the
> > art produced in such a state need be good, interesting or
> intelligible?
>
> This suggestion is meant to be just that, not a statement of fact. But
> if we agree - as facts force us to - that art produces a measurable
> effect upon people, susceptible to art or not, and if we also agree
> that art can in some sense communicate to others the tension of mind
> that the artist sustained while producing it ... then all we need to
do
> is strap our subjects to a brainwave scanner (encephalogram or
whatnot)
> and expose them to the works of art we want to measure.
>
scale.
>
> If the
> conscious states of a statistically significant number of our subjects
> are affected, then we'll have some crudely objective measuring tape
for
> a work of art. Basic theory : If our subjects conscious state moves
> towards superconsciousness when exposed to this work of art, then the
> artist was in a superconscious state when he produced it. The reverse
> also holds. If their conscious state recedes, their awareness becomes
> duller, than the same might be said for the artist's state when he
> produced the work of art.
>
> This is simply a recognition that WE are the true measuring tape of
> art. What we need is someone to measure the measurers.
>
a story, or painting a picture, communication is not the topmost intent.
However, if anybody sees the picture, or reads the story, then
communication is the result.
>
> With this in mind I like to call the reactions that art
> produces "pseudo-emotions" or "pseudo-feelings", and in the
> misconception I had that these took place in the brain's alpha-wave
> state, I called these also "alpha-feelings". Whatever the right term
> for them is, they are not the same sort of feelings produced on our
> nervous systems by raw experience.
>
>
> They are ... intellectualised emotion. Yes, that's what I wanted to
> say. The greater the intellectualised emotion content of a work of
art,
> the greater it is as a pure work of art. The more it is polluted with
> raw emotion the less artistic it is.
>
time, I did feel a strong physical feeling of emotion when seeing the
originals of some paintings that I had known, in reproduction, for
years. On my most recent visit, I felt far less of a physical feeling
and far more of what you call the 'intellectual emotion'. I wouldn't
really want to say one or other was bad - and clearly neither was a
definitive reaction to the work.
>
> > > It would be good if you could explore the differences in nature
> > between
> > > work-consciousness and super-consciousness.
> > >
> > Well, how would they exhibit themselves? Would the person in one
state
> > have a different heart-beat, level of blood sugar or a peculiar
stare?
>
> Yes, why not? I say we should start reading up on it. If you have any
> idea of where we could begin, just give me a few names and I'll start
> reading.
>
may supply the raw data. You probably have read it, but I think that
Pinker's 'How the Mind Works' is excellent in its exploration of
perception and consciousness.
>
> > > This is another statement that could be expanded on.
> > >
> > I think it needs contracting to meaning first. If something is both
> > internal and external, then in what sense is it both?
>
> To what extent is externality a mere concept of internality, being
that
> we are subjective creatures? Sorry ... one of those damned nasty
> questions. No need to answer it.
>
as the end, rather than the start, of discussion.
>
> > You could say that
> > when you look at a painting the painting (as well as the paint and
the
> > canvas that we see as composing it) is in the frame and in our head
at
> > the same time - so, if we said this, would it be both 'internal and
> > external'?
>
> What do you think of the idea that for everything that exists in the
> outer world it is represented also in the inner world?
>
true, however.
>
> Following this
> train of thought to its junction, we could say that yes, the painting
> exists externally as a flat canvas surface encrusted with oily
> substances; but that there also exists a painting in your mind, but
one
> that possesses an extra dimension that the original lacks. A mental
> stereoscopy. After all what we call the 'external world' is a
> recreation of the world via our senses and sensual-mental interface.
> This 'external world' we keep talking about is as much a mental
> construction as the internal one. Don't be misled into thinking that
> I'm saying it's all an illusion. The concept of illusion itself
becomes
> meaingless when you invalidate the veracity of reality. The concept of
> illusion has as its axiom that there IS something real for it to stand
> against.
>
the two sides of the commuication. You cover the creative side well in
the above - but it is not symetrical with the appreciation.
>
> > Actually I think that the painting is always internal, only the
paint
> is
> > external and it is just the substance from which we extract the
> painting
> > in our process of perception.
>
> Have you heard of T.S. Eliot's "objective co-relative". So far as I
> understand the concept, it is the selection of objective components
and
> their connexion in a certain order so that they collectively give rise
> to the thought-feeling the artist wants to instantiate or make
> permanent. The more I think about it, the more I think that the artist
> is striving to create a logical and self-contained system. That we
> speak of this system in terms of raw emotion is perhaps a blunder.
> Granted that what he is creating - constructing, building - is a
> system, we can say that the components of the system are those
> intellectualised emotions I referred to previously. And lurking behind
> all of these intellectualised emotions is a still more abstract state
> we might call a sense of life-purpose. But it isn't all as dry as this
> makes it sound. Each artist's system-world has its own ecology and
> biochemistry. It is the abstract expression of his individuality.
>
>
> (Just a quick aside. The term "abstract emotion" might be more to the
> point than "intellectualised emotion". It has the benefit that its
> counterpart, "concrete emotion", is a more satisfying concept than
"raw
> emotion", which has become a cliche.)
>
>
> > Art can, in my opinion. give rise to almost any feeling from love to
> > disgust with all in between. At least it gives rise to the echo or
> > memory of the feeling, rather than the feeling itself.
>
> Yes, I strongly believe that this is true.
>
> > Music cannot represent, so it has to be expressive.
>
> Music is capable of representation, but it is the lowest form of
music.
>
sense that a photograph is representation.
>
> Music, in my opinion, does not truly express anything. It constructs
> something that happens to be built out of abstract feeling given a
> symbolic form (in this case, in sound). If you want to get back to
what
> music expresses, then Ernest Newman's idea that all music can be
traced
> back to the cries or sighs of pain and delight of the native or the
> child - crescendo, diminuendo, etc. - and that musical history has
been
> the progressive subtilisation of these basic elements; the increasing
> intellectualisation of a basic sensual, viscous experience.
>
fundamental to the psyche.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> I haven't had the budget to follow this up yet, but the Naxos label
> have lately released a number of recordings conducted by composers.
> Sometimes they conduct their own works. I have a few Rachmaninov discs
> where he plays the piano in his own concertos. I also have the Elgar
> violin concerto conducted by Elgar, with Yehudi Menuhin as soloist. So
> the record companies are perhaps not too put off by composers
recording
> their own work. Yet it is puzzling why there aren't more soloists
today
> writing their own music. Lack of time, specialisation, perhaps? A
> literature that is already over-saturated with fantastic works?
>
sculpters produced their own bronzes, they would have a lot less time to
sculpt.
>
> "I learned many lessons from these people. But one in particular is
> our concern now. I found that these individuals tended to report
having
> had something like mystic experiences, moments of great awe, moments
of
> the intense happiness, or even rapture, ecstasy or bliss ....
> "These moments were of pure, positive happiness, when all doubts,
all
> fears, all inhibitions, all tensions, all weaknesses, were left
behind.
> Now self-consciousness was lost. All separateness and distance from
the
> world disappeared as they felt one with the world, fused with it,
> really belonging to it, instead of being outside, looking in. (One
> subject said, for instance, 'I felt like a member of a family, not
like
> an orphan'.)
>
self-analytical to express the feelings.
>
> "Perhaps most intriguing of all, however, was the report that these
> experiences of the feeling that the had really seen the ultimate
truth,
>
book; 'Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs' by Michael A. Persinger.
He explains the biological basis for this feeling.
>
> > I would like to think that, if spirituality means
> > anything, it would be something approachable by the ordinary person
in
> > the presence of the extraordinarily beautiful.
>
> As defined by Maslow - as a peak experience - spirituality is not only
> approachable to the ordinary person, we all have glimpses of it
> frequently in ours lives.
>
>
> > > > Speak for yourself! I moved to South Africa recently, since I
have
> > > been
> > > > here, a friend has been shot eleven times in his car (he lived)
> > > another
> > > > friend and her six year old daughter has been brutally murdered
> and,
> > > to
> > > > add some bathos, we have been burgled.
>
> I am very sorry to hear about your friends' tragedies, not to forget
> your own loss as well.
>
as it was. The culprits for the murders are now serving their sentences
too, which is a good thing.
>
> > > This seems to be a good explanation for why students work
> > so
> > > hard at essays when they're due tomorrow.
> > >
> > Yes, but why are they due tomorrow? Shouldn't they have been
completed
> > last week?
>
> That's what my conscience tells me!
>
>
> > > The great artists, like Michelangelo, Leonardo, Raphael and
Rubens,
> > > were Clark Kents who could rip off their business suits and don
the
> > > vermillion tights of the super-hero whenever they willed it (and
> were
> > > strong enough to bear it).
> > >
> > You may be right, though I am a little suspicious of romantic views
of
> > the past.
>
> Yes, that's a fair enough point. I suppose there was a fair amount of
> rhapsodising over the past in the above lines. It's not really true to
> say that there are such intellectual giants still around today, or to
> imply that the past periods did not experience problems with ennui.
>
>
> > > I know precisely the sort of work you're talking about - even if I
> > > haven't read Durrell's Black Book or his Alexandrian Quartet.
> > >
> > I can recommend them.
>
> I'll certainly look into them.
>
set of books on the bedside table it can provide a good deal of delight.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > Yes, that's a fair enough point. I suppose there was a fair amount
of
> > rhapsodising over the past in the above lines. It's not really true
to
> > say that there are such intellectual giants still around today, or
to
> > imply that the past periods did not experience problems with ennui.
>
> aren't such intellectual giants still around today ..."
>
I missed that, I read it to read what you intended it to read - quite a
reliable communication link really, usenet.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > Ok, now my company is gone, I can correct a typo......I meant to
say:
> > Godel, Escher, Bach *by* Douglas Hofstadter. It is a pulitzer
> > prize winning book, written by a mathematician. Even if you may not
> > like the tone of the recommendation, you may consider just thumbing
> > through it at the library one day.
>
> I agree that it's a darned fascinating book. The first thirty or so
> pages I flipped through at the library were very engrossing. When I
get
> some more I'll borrow it out and read all the way through.
>
as good reading only a day or so ago, then Tracy told me that I should
read it. I don't think that I have been responsible for any conspiracies
on any art lists - though this may indeed simply be the usual denial
that you expect from cabal members.
tra...@pipeline.com
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:08:25 GMT, iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>> Ok, now my company is gone, I can correct a typo......I meant to say:
>> Godel, Escher, Bach *by* Douglas Hofstadter. It is a pulitzer
>> prize winning book, written by a mathematician. Even if you may not
>> like the tone of the recommendation, you may consider just thumbing
>> through it at the library one day.
>
>I agree that it's a darned fascinating book. The first thirty or so
>pages I flipped through at the library were very engrossing. When I get
>some more I'll borrow it out and read all the way through.
>
> -- Iian
tra...@pipeline.com
If you have read that book, and you can still say:
>In both views, arriving as an enlightened person means
>that you do nothing and think nothing. If this is valuable spirituality,
>then dogs are really there, they have arrived and are the enlightened
>ones (only transcended by viruses, that are only transcended by stones).
>>
Then I don't know what to tell you.
If one has achieved is known as "one-pointed consciousness",
(and it's not easy let me tell you), *that* is when interesting
things start to happen, (for lack of any more precise term),
spiritually. It is well known among meditators. That is one major
reason I like art....this activity is along those lines.
lake
so-called "occult" philosophy. A significant interest in empiricism was
also a factor - for example the influential writings of P.D. Ouspensky.
Abstract art has always been concerned with the relation between the
very mystical and the very pragmatic.
The depiction of, or the exploration of a mystical consciousness, has
always been near the heart of abstraction. Today, Blavatsky and
Ouspensky, et. al. are widely debunked (perhaps unjustly) and abstract
art is adrift in a sea of semantics and historical relativism.
As abstract art moved closer to "pure form", that is, away from
depiction - it became paradoxically more and more "material", which is
to say, more concerned with the physicality of its components. I doubt
that it became any more spiritual.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
tra...@pipeline.com
>> To what extent is externality a mere concept of internality, being
>>
>> > You could say that
>> > when you look at a painting the painting (as well as the paint and
>the
>> > canvas that we see as composing it) is in the frame and in our head
>at
>> > the same time - so, if we said this, would it be both 'internal and
>> > external'?
>>
>> What do you think of the idea that for everything that exists in the
>> outer world it is represented also in the inner world?
Are you perhaps referring to the old occult concept of "as above, so
below"?
tra...@pipeline.com
>>
>If an art piece is expressing what is seen in an altered state of
>consciousness, then it is realistic art, not abstract art at all. For
>example, the view of a light in the distance with a tunnel leading
>towards it, commonly reported by people who nearly died, is simply what
>you see when the neurons in your retina fire randomly. If you painted
>that, you would be painting as realistic a painting as any by Rembrant.
>>
>> I think that if one fully enlightened person, only one, had come out
>> of that milleau....one person also with real artistic ability and a
>> balanced personality...someone not overly enamored of the "siddhis"
>> nor in denial, (becaue they really are not the most important thing),
>> the artists of the abstract might just have rocked the world. But it
>> didn't happen that way. I really think if they had actully understood
>> more about what they were symbolizing, their perception of it would
>> have been different as well.
>>
>This is an expression of a religious belief. I don't think that any
>evidence can be led for this one way or the other.
Which part of the above do you see as religious belief?
Your comment could be more specific.
Perhaps the first statement could be considered a bit messianic, but
that's not quite the way I meant it. In any art movement there does
tend to be defining personages, such as Kandinsky became. *That*
is what I was musing on. What is it that you might be looking for
evidence for?
tra...@pipeline.com
see any refernce to "Godel, Escher, Bach" anywhere.
>>
>This exchange has puzzled me a bit. I suggested 'Godel, Escher, Bach'
>as good reading only a day or so ago, then Tracy told me that I should
>read it. I don't think that I have been responsible for any conspiracies
>on any art lists - though this may indeed simply be the usual denial
>that you expect from cabal members.
>
>--
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>growing aversion to
>feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
>prudish fear of anything
>that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
> - Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
>
>
iian_...@my-deja.com
> It could just be the trend for specialisation. After all if all
> sculpters produced their own bronzes, they would have a lot less time
to
> sculpt.
But you have to wonder why there were more Romantic executant-composers
performing their own works than the equivalent musicians today. Have
economic pressures changed so much that a classical pianist couldn't
throw in one of his shorter works into his programme? Or could it be
that composition has been de-emphasised in the training of musician's
today? And if that is the case, why has it been?
> > "Perhaps most intriguing of all, however, was the report that
these
> > experiences of the feeling that the had really seen the ultimate
> truth,
> >
> Yes. This is explained very well by a neurologist in a most excellent
> book; 'Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs' by Michael A.
Persinger.
> He explains the biological basis for this feeling.
Presumably the best way to distinguish epiphenomena from phenomena is
to establish a two-way relationship. If Persigner could show that by
changing the brain's chemical balance he could send his subjects into a
mystical state (a peak experience) then that would be proof that the
observed brain events are phenomenal.
> > > Yes, but why are they due tomorrow? Shouldn't they have been
> completed
> > > last week?
> >
> > That's what my conscience tells me!
> >
> I think that you are right, we do all do better with a bit of
pressure.
The leading question is why do we do better under pressure? Why do we,
in ordinary circumstances, wait until the night before an essay is due
in to finish it. I understand that this is generalising one student's
experiences. There are students who plan their essays well in advance,
work on them consistently and accumulatively, and have them finished
well before the due date. I would like to know what makes one student
adopt that approach, in contrast to the ones who leave it to the last
moment. "Oh, that's easy," you might say, "The latter type of student
is merely lazy. He can't be bothered working away at the essay." But
that is not correct. The latter student DOES work away at the
assignment, he merely waits until the last possible moment, until he
can avoid it no longer or else fail. Both students will hand their
assignments in on the due date. As far as I can tell there are a number
of explanations:
(a) The student's priorities are legitimately eslewhere with family or
health matters;
(b) The student has no interest in the assignment or the class he is
taking;
(c) The student hasn't managed to summon up the energy to finish the
assignment, even if the subject interests him - he finds the thought of
the effort vaguely distressing;
(d) The student, without consciously realising it, wants to feel that
rush of panic and vital energy that bursts from him on the night before
the assignment is due.
Options (a) to (c) are the usual explanations for the situation. (c) is
usually assumed to mean that the student is lazy. While I'm not
attacking the credibility of options (a) to (c), I think (d) is an
option that is not often explored, and may lead to fruitful results.
In my own case, it is options (b) and (c) that most often dominate, but
I've lately come to wonder whether (c) might be a disguised form of
(d). The student knows intellectually that it is best to work on the
assignment steadily, allowing him or her to gather up enough research
material and to assimilate it thoroughly, in order to be able to give a
comprehensive analysis of the topic. Might it be, though, that option
(d) is actually acting to prevent the student from working on the
assignment, giving rise to option (c)? What I mean is this: Is the
student's subconscious magnifying the labour of the task in order to
discourage him from doing it, just so he'll experience that burst of
vitality on the night before.
I agree that it is a counter-intuitive theory. Why should the student
deliberately want to make things hard for himself? But therein lies the
crux of the theory - It is the fact that it IS hard that makes the
student want to delay. The subconscious may be trying to compensate for
the lower mental/vital pressure that dominates in the student's
ordinary life, and one way to compensate for that is to cause an
upsurge of vital energy. And a sure way to ignite such an upsurge is to
create an emergency from which the student has then to escape from. The
emergency engages the whole being in an effort to dispel the
threatening conditions and preserve the integrity of the body, mind or
the self. The student's mad-dash to complete the assignment at three in
the morning the night before it is due is a mad-dash to save his self-
esteem and sense of worth from the chopping block.
What I am wondering is whether it is the student himself who willingly
places his head on the chopping block, to force his entire being to act
at a higher mental pressure.
I am not saying that is a very intelligent solution; but this maybe a
safety response from the subconscious, an attempt to jolt the self out
of its everyday complancy and sunken mental pressure.
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> Ok, accusation withdrawn, and book recommendation to you withdrawn.
>
> If you have read that book, and you can still say:
>
> >In both views, arriving as an enlightened person means
> >that you do nothing and think nothing. If this is valuable
spirituality,
> >then dogs are really there, they have arrived and are the enlightened
> >ones (only transcended by viruses, that are only transcended by
stones).
> >>
>
> Then I don't know what to tell you.
>
> If one has achieved is known as "one-pointed consciousness",
> (and it's not easy let me tell you), *that* is when interesting
> things start to happen, (for lack of any more precise term),
> spiritually. It is well known among meditators. That is one major
> reason I like art....this activity is along those lines.
>
what you describe above, and the state of consciousness that
conventional meditation aims for. I think that I know exactly what you
mean - in that I have had the same experience, or at least have had a
subjective experience that I would describe the same way. However, it is
an active, not a passive state, and, though one is not conscious in the
same way that one normally is, one is certainly conscious.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> Hmm....I've gone through this thread quite thoroughly now, and I don't
> see any refernce to "Godel, Escher, Bach" anywhere.
>
think it was this thread!
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> >> I think that if one fully enlightened person, only one, had come
out
> >> of that milleau....one person also with real artistic ability and a
> >> balanced personality...someone not overly enamored of the "siddhis"
> >> nor in denial, (becaue they really are not the most important
thing),
> >> the artists of the abstract might just have rocked the world. But
it
> >> didn't happen that way. I really think if they had actully
understood
> >> more about what they were symbolizing, their perception of it would
> >> have been different as well.
> >>
> >This is an expression of a religious belief. I don't think that any
> >evidence can be led for this one way or the other.
>
> Which part of the above do you see as religious belief?
> Your comment could be more specific.
>
person with the abilities you mention had been part of the movement. I
probably is unkind in saying that the belief that it would have made
such a difference was 'religious'.
>
> Perhaps the first statement could be considered a bit messianic, but
> that's not quite the way I meant it. In any art movement there does
> tend to be defining personages, such as Kandinsky became. *That*
> is what I was musing on. What is it that you might be looking for
> evidence for?
>
think that what was lacking was the essential integrity that was
required - you can contrast this with the impressionists, for example.
It is because of this lack of integrity (that lead to the Emperor's new
clothes syndrome where meaningless constructed mismaches of colour where
claimed to have some meaning) that nobody of that stature joined in. My
point is that the very nature of the activity precluded it having a
genuine messaih.
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> > It could just be the trend for specialisation. After all if all
> > sculpters produced their own bronzes, they would have a lot less
time
> to
> > sculpt.
>
> But you have to wonder why there were more Romantic
executant-composers
> performing their own works than the equivalent musicians today. Have
> economic pressures changed so much that a classical pianist couldn't
> throw in one of his shorter works into his programme? Or could it be
> that composition has been de-emphasised in the training of musician's
> today? And if that is the case, why has it been?
>
only speculate.
>
> > > "Perhaps most intriguing of all, however, was the report that
> these
> > > experiences of the feeling that the had really seen the ultimate
> > truth,
> > >
> > Yes. This is explained very well by a neurologist in a most
excellent
> > book; 'Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs' by Michael A.
> Persinger.
> > He explains the biological basis for this feeling.
>
> Presumably the best way to distinguish epiphenomena from phenomena is
> to establish a two-way relationship. If Persigner could show that by
> changing the brain's chemical balance he could send his subjects into
a
> mystical state (a peak experience) then that would be proof that the
> observed brain events are phenomenal.
>
it was OK to feed psychotropic substances to people as part of research,
most people today are not quite so gung ho about it. Also, from an
ethical point of view, would it be proper to give somebody the temporal
lobe siezure that is the basis of the religious gestalt knowing that you
may saddle that person with a belief system that may well cost him a lot
of money, lead him to violent and anti-social behaviour and the rest of
the drag along that religious belief entails? I think that you would
have to be very sure that you had an antidote for the road to damascus
feeling before you inflicted it on people gratuitously.
your list. Sheer laziness with (d) as a rationalization is probably the
real reason.
>
> I agree that it is a counter-intuitive theory. Why should the student
> deliberately want to make things hard for himself? But therein lies
the
> crux of the theory - It is the fact that it IS hard that makes the
> student want to delay.
>
sophisticate to realise that pleasure deferred is pleasure increased, as
it takes one to realise that pain advanced is pain reduced.
Students are generally not sophisticates.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>It's true that abstract art got its "reason for being", largely from
>so-called "occult" philosophy.
I assume you mean Modern Academic Abstraction. Abstract art is
ancient.
>A significant interest in empiricism was
>also a factor
Abstract art is anti-emipirical as is all the fuzzy babbling theory
that goes along with it. In fact the only sensible thing that POMO
admits is that its anti emperical.
> - for example the influential writings of P.D. Ouspensky.
A mystical nut case.
>Abstract art has always been concerned with the relation between the
>very mystical and the very pragmatic.
Only pragmatic as far as making money for a very few who make. The
rest of the lot border on religious fanaticism who claim to see
something in practically nothing.
>The depiction of, or the exploration of a mystical consciousness, has
>always been near the heart of abstraction. Today, Blavatsky and
>Ouspensky, et. al. are widely debunked (perhaps unjustly) and abstract
>art is adrift in a sea of semantics and historical relativism.
...and pure bullshit.
>As abstract art moved closer to "pure form", that is, away from
>depiction
Form is representation of the 3rd dimension the illusion conveyed by
most abstraction is flat as a board because abstractionists lack
knowledge of perspective and light and shade. Dali and Tanguy etc.
painted pure abstract form.
> it became paradoxically more and more "material", which is
>to say, more concerned with the physicality of its components. I doubt
>that it became any more spiritual.
>
In other words the paint in an a modern abstraction never manages to
transcend the look like of a lot of paint. If its not hard edged
patterns it never transcends the look of the sort of schmiery paint
which you claim to like.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>If one has achieved is known as "one-pointed consciousness",
>(and it's not easy let me tell you), *that* is when interesting
>things start to happen, (for lack of any more precise term),
>spiritually. It is well known among meditators. That is one major
>reason I like art....this activity is along those lines.
>
- - Spirituality A Recipe - from Ulysses R. Sam
- Ingredients:
- 1/4 cup archaic customs (these must be dysfunctional)
- 2 cups ideology (see directions)
- 1/2 cup superstitions
- 3 tblsp mumbo jumbo
- 1 pint mindless repetition
- 2/3 cup brain washing
- (or 1/4 cup mind control)
- 1/2 pint pure passion
- 2 tspns pure extract of fear
- 1 tblsp peer pressures
- 1/2 tspn subliminal suggestion
- 1/4 pkg blind faith
- 1 pkg electromagnetism (optional)
- Directions:
- Select ideology inspecting for sufficient philosophical idealism
and looking for as many over-valued and irrational ideas as possible.
It must be at least 1000 years old, but not more than 3000 years old.
Combine, in a wide open mind, customs, ideology and supersititons,
beating vigorously. Blend in mumbo jumbo. Then add mindless
repetition, stirring until the mixture is very thick and completely
homogenized. This will produce a doughy mixture.
Mix brain washing, or alternatively mind control if available, with
pure extract of fear, and peer pressures. Beat vigorously, keeping
isolated, until nearly beaten stiff. While beating add pure passion in
small amounts and then beat vigorously after each addition. Then blend
together with the doughy mixture, until there is no tendency for the
ingredients to separate. Place into a large roasting pan, that has
been prepared by greasing liberally with blind faith, and keep stoking
the fires. Bake under moderate to high heat until well done. This
should take about 20 to 30 years. Sprinkle with electromagetism as
often as necessary. This is optional and could include radio waves,
microwaves, or selected mass media broadcasts.
This recipe almost never fails, if nothing is put into doubt and if
these directions are followed completely and mindlessly.
tra...@pipeline.com
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3952212b...@news.pipeline.com>,
> tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>> Ok, accusation withdrawn, and book recommendation to you withdrawn.
>>
>> If you have read that book, and you can still say:
>>
>> >In both views, arriving as an enlightened person means
>> >that you do nothing and think nothing. If this is valuable
>spirituality,
>> >then dogs are really there, they have arrived and are the enlightened
>> >ones (only transcended by viruses, that are only transcended by
>stones).
>> >>
>>
>> Then I don't know what to tell you.
>>
>> If one has achieved is known as "one-pointed consciousness",
>> (and it's not easy let me tell you), *that* is when interesting
>> things start to happen, (for lack of any more precise term),
>> spiritually. It is well known among meditators. That is one major
>> reason I like art....this activity is along those lines.
>>
>Now, this is something rather different! There is a difference between
>what you describe above, and the state of consciousness that
>conventional meditation aims for.
That One-pointed consciousness *is* excatly what conventional
meditation aims for. I am wondering what kind of meditation technique
you are thinking of. In fact, I would posit that is the same state of
consciousness that all forms of religous or shamanic practic are
really aiming for - with varying degrees of success. Most get too
bogged down in non-essential stuff.
> I think that I know exactly what you
>mean - in that I have had the same experience, or at least have had a
>subjective experience that I would describe the same way. However, it is
>an active, not a passive state, and, though one is not conscious in the
>same way that one normally is, one is certainly conscious.
>
tra...@pipeline.com
>>
>What I mean is that there is no knowing what would have happened if one
>person with the abilities you mention had been part of the movement. I
>probably is unkind in saying that the belief that it would have made
>such a difference was 'religious'.
>>
>> Perhaps the first statement could be considered a bit messianic, but
>> that's not quite the way I meant it. In any art movement there does
>> tend to be defining personages, such as Kandinsky became. *That*
>> is what I was musing on. What is it that you might be looking for
>> evidence for?
>>
>I was looking for evidence that all that was lacking was a messaih. I
>think that what was lacking was the essential integrity that was
>required - you can contrast this with the impressionists, for example.
>It is because of this lack of integrity (that lead to the Emperor's new
>clothes syndrome where meaningless constructed mismaches of colour where
>claimed to have some meaning) that nobody of that stature joined in. My
>point is that the very nature of the activity precluded it having a
>genuine messaih.
I agree they lacked the integrity. Perhaps you are right. My point is
that if they had actually been practising mystics, they would have had
a different perception. As it was, their perception was just as
dualistsic, just as Piscean as the view of any major organized
religion.
(Meaning, a view that separates the spritual from the physical,
completely denies the physical, thus causing much silliness. A
really good example would be the Victorian attitude toward sex)
tra...@pipeline.com
>Hello Tracy,
>
>> Spirituality is heightened awareness...the degree of awareness depends
>> on one's progress, or rather the stage of awareness one is at.
>
>You might like Colin Wilson's concept of "the ladder of selves". I am
>frantically looking through his "New Pathways in Psychology" to see if
>I can find a concrete reference to it; for I have a lurking suspicion
>that he borrowed the term from someone else, somelike like Jung. For
>the moment there, let's suppose Wilson said it. The "ladder of selves"
>concept is comparable to your stages of awareness; where
>Sartre's "nausea" represents one of the lowest rungs on the ladder,
>everyday consciousness a few rungs higher, and superconsciousness, with
>all of the intervening shades, finding expression in saints, artists,
>composers and writers. And also, interestingly enough, "ordinary
>people" who have been driven to it in a state of emergency. Wilson
>believes that mankind's next step is to continue climbing the ladder of
>selves - to ascend to the superman. Either that, or waste away in his
>current state. It all sounds rather fervently messianic.
There are many authors who put forth the idea that man is still on an
evolutionary ascent. Whether or not that might actually happen is
anybody's guess. How do you see it as messianic ? I think it would be
a messianic idea if it was thought that one leader would cause this to
happen.
But if it just happened, with no apparent leader, one at a time and
gradually - that wouldn't seem messianic to me.
>
>> There
>> is the awareness of the person at work who has to focus himself on the
>> work at hand, necessarily limited (as one example of limited
>> awareness), and at the other exteme is the awareness of the fully
>> enlightened, which is different not only in terms of amount, but in
>> nature as well.
>
>It would be good if you could explore the differences in nature between
>work-consciousness and super-consciousness.
Already Am.
>
>> Of course spiritual development tends to lift one out
>> of self-pity, self-glorification, etc. That is just the way it
>> works. It is not a passive process. One has to do something to get
>> oneself there. When you say reverence and service to an idea that is
>> greater than the individual ego can concieve of, it seems you are
>> describing the same thing people the world over have described as
>> something else, in a much more traditional way - but I say that
>> *something* is not external, it is not internal, it is both.
>
>This is another statement that could be expanded on.
>
>> My own view of it is more shamanic. Everyone must pull themselves up
>> spiritually, by their own bootstraps.
>
>Which means you affirm the importance and efficacy of the will; or, as
>Wilson might have phrased it, "intention-directed consciousness".
Well yes, and this is true for everyone interested in that sort of
development, regardless of whether one's culture values individual
will, or not. It takes will to sit in mediation everyday (or to
achieve anything else for that matter), and no teacher or book can be
a substitute for it.
>
>> >But what I am primarily coming to believe is that the defining
>> >characteristic of the modern self-image is cowardice and conformity.
>> >Our ancestors risked - and lost - their lives in building a
>> >civilisation where before there only roamed wild beast. And what do
>we
>> >have to show for this civilization but for a terminal sense of
>boredom
>> >and futility, expressed, concentrated and glorified in certain
>> >philosophies and works of art.
>>
>> Speak for yourself!
>
>I used the words "certain ... works of art". I never hinted that all
>works of art are like this. There is no denying that there ARE certain
>works of art that encourage pessimism, defeatism, fatalism. I am not
>saying that they are devoid of quality though.
Understood.
>> >We are a people who fear danger and
>> >risk. We do not live on the edge. We do not walk in the shadow of
>> >death. And the price we pay for our precarious certainty is that
>> >dreaded French word ... ennui.
>>
>> What civilization are you referring to? The United States? Western
>> Civilization?
>
>Yes.
>
>> It seems to me that much of the population on earth
>> really is living on the edge.
>
>I was talking about modern western civilization which, as you have
>pointed out, is an a very real sense living on the edge, although not
>so much as the wildlife or third world nations. My point is that crisis
>and emergency can awaken man out of himself and rouse those slumbering
>energies which he thought he didn't possess.
True. But I don't think that danger is necessary to cause man to
awaken out of himself and rouse those slumbering energies. That's
just one way it happens.
>The structure of modern
>western civilization is one which aims to reduce physical danger, but
>which has not yet produced an equally effective imaginative
>replacement. Hence some of our greatest artists - Charles Baudelaire,
>Gustave Flaubert, Leo Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, James Joyce, T.S. Eliot,
>etc. - find it hard to shake the burden of pessimism. Baudelaire,
>Flaubert and Eliot in particular are considered to be modern artists
>par excellence, artists who express something of the ennui, the
>futility of modern civilization. They represent a cry of outrage. "How
>is that we've come to this!" they cry.
It *is* a valid issue for artists to address, but it's not the only
way of seeing things, or the only thing to be seen.
>"When we are surrounded by all
>of the intricate and ingenious devices of modern civilization, why is
>it that we still feel bored, depressed, listless?" In reaction to this
>state of affairs there has developed an escapist literature, one which
>seeks to stimulate the imagination with heroic adventures. Yet whilst
>they tend to give us a boost - like a hefty dose of caffeine - the
>drive inevitably dwindles away and we're left back in a world with no
>meaning. What makes pessimistic art so vital - despite its fatalistic
>message - is the sheer energy that has gone into its creation.
Now there you're getting into an intereting area. How, in your view,
does one know that sheer energy has gone into the creation of a work?
>Yet it
>can smack of a tragic labour; an immense effort, an enormous natural
>strength which dissipates itself in boredom. "What is the use of all
>this effort when I have to face tomorrow?" This is why movies
>like "Fight Club" and "American Beauty" are so potent as they address
>this dilemna head-on. "Fight Club" takes the painful route. "Agony can
>awaken in me the sense that I am alive. Agony possesses an intensity of
>experience that boredom and ennui do not." "American Beauty" takes the
>view that art can revitalize us again. "There are perfect moments
>taking place all around us; moments of great beauty that we are blind
>to because our minds and senses have become deadened by futile
>routine." Despite their greatly differing story lines and ultimate
>message, both films are united in their attempt to jolt modern man into
>a higher water level of consciousness, to rouse him from his torpor.
I have not yet seen those 2 movies, but will make an effort to.
>I still think that art is more than simply expression. Expression
>suggests a subsidiary quality, rather like illustration. The greatest
>works of art do not express - they impress. Debussy once said that
>music expresses does not express something - IT IS THAT THING. Pure
>music is not merely the "expression" of feeling - just like an
>illustration is the expression of a literary passage - it is the
>feeling itself.
The greatest works of art do both - I did not mean that art consists
only of, or should only value, the expression aspect. Expression is
one aspect of creating art - and always will be. Are you perhaps
trying, in your own philosophy, to counteract the extreme emphasis on
"expressing" in the 20th century?
>
>> >They had attained the peak their consciousness could ascend to.
>> >believe that we accept a lower water level of consciousness as being
>> >the norm, and we are immensely suspicious of anyone who operates at a
>> >higher level because we inevitably feel guilty about our lost
>> >potential. To round it all up .. I believe that the artist is most
>> >spiritual when he is most impersonal.
>>
>> That seems a rather twisted way to interpret it. You idealize being
>> impersonal as a practice in everyday life as a way of doing honor to
>> the concept of going beyond the self. One has nothing to do with the
>> other.
>
>I'd like you to explain more fully what you mean.
Hmm... I think I need to back up and ask you something.
In a previous post, you said:
"There is perhaps a case to be made that art is at its best when the
senses are perfectly wedded to the intellect."
How do you correspond that with with:
" I believe that the artist is most spiritual when he is most
impersonal."
First, you may be talking about two entirely different things, i.e.,
what causes art to be at it's best, and then what causes art to be
spiritual.
But it seems to me that if a case can be made that art is at its best
when the senses are perfeclty wedded to the intellect, that would most
definitely not be an example of impersonality on the part of the
artist. In fact, it would seem that that achievement would result in
the artist being intimately emotionally involved with his work.
Is that what you meant by impersonal - that the artist approaches
spirituality in the course of creating by taking an impersonal
approach toward his work, having an impersonal feeling about it,
toward any result of his work, toward the subject and what it means to
him? Perhaps rather like Duchamp?
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <8ipvn3$p94$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> Hello Tracy,
>>
>> > Spirituality is heightened awareness...the degree of awareness
>depends
>> > on one's progress, or rather the stage of awareness one is at.
Hello Peter,
>Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what evidence
>is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
>this super-conscious state?
There is no evidence. I don't know that it has ever happened, or not
happened.
> Furthermore, what evidence is there that the art produced in such
> a state need be good, interesting or intelligible?
>Surely, since art is a communication, the art of the truly enlightened
>person would only be accessible to another person in that state of
>enlightenment?
Hmm...interesting question construction. What evidence is there?
No, I don't think the state of consciousness has anything to do with
the mechanical skill, or is guaranteed to be good, interesting, or
intelligible, necessarily. But what if the artist can weld both
together....wouldn't that be something?
Yes, it is entirely possible that the art of a truly enlightened
person would only be accessible to another person in the same state.
But some of those who have achieved it do not seem to be held back
from writing about it, at least in the 20th century. Some do not hold
back from trying to express what the experience was like, in writing,
which is one form of communication.
>Well, how would they exhibit themselves? Would the person in one state
>have a different heart-beat, level of blood sugar or a peculiar stare?
There are lots of physiological changes. Lots of scientific research
needs to be done. The problem is: scientists in the West aren't that
interested. However, scientists in India are, and though they have
fewer scientists, they are able to produce world-class scientists.
There is a project under way in India to scientifically study it,
provided the funding can be found.
Tracy
Marilyn
in part & in response to Iian:
>>Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what evidence
>>is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
>>this super-conscious state?
>There is no evidence. I don't know that it has ever happened, or not
>happened.
Joan Miro claimed that many of his images came to him during hunger
hallucinations. If you would consider that state of mind/spirit to be
elevated consciousness, then there is your example. The reference would be
in the catalogue of his Montreal exhibition, circa 1986-7.
Marilyn
iian_...@my-deja.com
> in part & in response to Iian:
Just to clear up a bit of ambiguity here, none of the lines below were
written by me. They were written by Tracy and Peter.
> >>Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what
evidence
> >>is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
> >>this super-conscious state?
>
> >There is no evidence. I don't know that it has ever happened, or not
> >happened.
>
> Joan Miro claimed that many of his images came to him during hunger
> hallucinations. If you would consider that state of mind/spirit to be
> elevated consciousness, then there is your example. The reference
would be
> in the catalogue of his Montreal exhibition, circa 1986-7.
Joan Miro might be a good place to start. In another letter I suggested
to Peter that volunteers might be hooked up to an electroencephelograph
whilst they are subjected to a barrage of modern, classical, and
romantic art - as well as objects that aren't artistic at all. The idea
would be to establish the neurophysiological effects of art. The
effects of art on the brain and our conscious states. As crude as these
devices might be, they would be sensitive enough to measure some change
in the brain-wave patterns.
If there is a super-conscious art then this might be the way of proving
it.
-- Iian
Marilyn
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Marilyn,
>
> > in part & in response to Iian:
>
> Just to clear up a bit of ambiguity here, none of the lines below were
> written by me. They were written by Tracy and Peter.
>
Sorry about that.
>
> > >>Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what
> evidence
> > >>is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
> > >>this super-conscious state?
> >
> > >There is no evidence. I don't know that it has ever happened, or not
> > >happened.
> >
> > Joan Miro claimed that many of his images came to him during hunger
> > hallucinations. If you would consider that state of mind/spirit to be
> > elevated consciousness, then there is your example. The reference
> would be
> > in the catalogue of his Montreal exhibition, circa 1986-7.
>
> Joan Miro might be a good place to start. In another letter I suggested
> to Peter that volunteers might be hooked up to an electroencephelograph
> whilst they are subjected to a barrage of modern, classical, and
> romantic art - as well as objects that aren't artistic at all. The idea
> would be to establish the neurophysiological effects of art. The
> effects of art on the brain and our conscious states. As crude as these
> devices might be, they would be sensitive enough to measure some change
> in the brain-wave patterns.
>
> If there is a super-conscious art then this might be the way of proving
> it.
>
> -- Iian
>
Oh NO, no, no. The wiring would alter the consciousness too much.
What you suggest is something like what they are doing in prisons from the
criminally insane. For something as sensitive as you are discussing I
believe we would have to get far away from technology.
Marilyn
lake
nothing to do with brain-wave patterns. It would be like swimming out
with a yardstick to measure a jellyfish.
Thomas Ziorjen
mdeli wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 18:52:09 -0700, Marilyn <wq...@victoria.tc.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >
> >in part & in response to Iian:
> >
> >>>Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what evidence
> >>>is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
> >>>this super-conscious state?
> >
> >>There is no evidence. I don't know that it has ever happened, or not
> >>happened.
> >
> >Joan Miro claimed that many of his images came to him during hunger
> >hallucinations. If you would consider that state of mind/spirit to be
> >elevated consciousness, then there is your example. The reference would be
> >in the catalogue of his Montreal exhibition, circa 1986-7.
> >
> >Marilyn
> >
>
> R. Mutt was in a super-conscious state and saw a vision of the Virgin
> Mary. How did he know she was a virgin?
>
> Reference: National Inquirer.
Mani, I'm curious -- what was your state of consciousness when you saw 'Fish
Tales'? Looks distinctly like a case of mushroom poisoning, or perhaps
paranoid schizophrenia?
Thomas
lake
trusts his "eye", it is obvious that modern abstract art began with
Turner. His intentions are plain, to the eye of a painter, no matter
what may or may not have been written about them.
They were plain to the Impressionists, they were plain to the Cubists,
and they are plain to the Post-modernists. By "plain" I mean simple,
obvious, self-evident. Verbal documentation is entirely post-facto.
mdeli
wrote:
>tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
>in part & in response to Iian:
>
>>>Anway, since all these states are internal and subjective, what evidence
>>>is there that a particular piece of work was produced by somebody in
>>>this super-conscious state?
>
>>There is no evidence. I don't know that it has ever happened, or not
>>happened.
>
>Joan Miro claimed that many of his images came to him during hunger
>hallucinations. If you would consider that state of mind/spirit to be
>elevated consciousness, then there is your example. The reference would be
>in the catalogue of his Montreal exhibition, circa 1986-7.
>
>Marilyn
>
R. Mutt was in a super-conscious state and saw a vision of the Virgin
Mary. How did he know she was a virgin?
Reference: National Inquirer.
Mani DeLi
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, what evidence is there that the art produced in such
> > a state need be good, interesting or intelligible?
> >Surely, since art is a communication, the art of the truly
enlightened
> >person would only be accessible to another person in that state of
> >enlightenment?
>
> Hmm...interesting question construction. What evidence is there?
> No, I don't think the state of consciousness has anything to do with
> the mechanical skill, or is guaranteed to be good, interesting, or
> intelligible, necessarily. But what if the artist can weld both
> together....wouldn't that be something?
>
pictue of exactly what you mean, I think that it certainly can be part,
an important part, of the process.
>
> Yes, it is entirely possible that the art of a truly enlightened
> person would only be accessible to another person in the same state.
>
enlightened' so, without further evidence, as I said before, it could,
without any other supporting evidence, be seen as a less than ideal
state to be in.
>
> But some of those who have achieved it do not seem to be held back
> from writing about it, at least in the 20th century. Some do not hold
> back from trying to express what the experience was like, in writing,
> which is one form of communication.
>
opened their eyes to the possibility (probability?) that they were
wasting their time and wouldn't be understood - so their writing about
it is prima facie evidence that either they were not truly enlightened,
or that true enlightenement doesn't give very good insight into the
world.
>
> >Well, how would they exhibit themselves? Would the person in one
state
> >have a different heart-beat, level of blood sugar or a peculiar
stare?
>
> There are lots of physiological changes. Lots of scientific research
> needs to be done. The problem is: scientists in the West aren't that
> interested. However, scientists in India are, and though they have
> fewer scientists, they are able to produce world-class scientists.
> There is a project under way in India to scientifically study it,
> provided the funding can be found.
>
months there some years ago, I can well imagine this.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
between
> >what you describe above, and the state of consciousness that
> >conventional meditation aims for.
>
> That One-pointed consciousness *is* excatly what conventional
> meditation aims for.
>
spoken and written on the subject is metaphorical and vague, so it is
rather difficult to establish that this really is the primary and only
aim.
>
> I am wondering what kind of meditation technique
> you are thinking of. In fact, I would posit that is the same state of
> consciousness that all forms of religous or shamanic practic are
> really aiming for - with varying degrees of success. Most get too
> bogged down in non-essential stuff.
>
various versions claim that their process is superior to all others and
produces a 'really real'(TM) result. Vide the commercial TM (TM) company
that has caused real injury to people by having them hop about in the
lotus position deluded into thinking that they are levitation - risible
if it weren't so dangerous and wicked.
Peter H.M. Brooks
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> Brain-wave patterns indeed. All good art is super-conscious art, & has
> nothing to do with brain-wave patterns. It would be like swimming out
> with a yardstick to measure a jellyfish.
>
laser, rather than a yardstick.
So, of all 'good art' is super-conscious art, then why not simply say
that all 'art' is super-conscious? Is it possible to produce art in a
non-super-conscious state? Conversely, is it possible to be in a
super-conscious state and attempt to produce art that is either bad or
not art?
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <3173cd51...@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com>,
> lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> > Brain-wave patterns indeed. All good art is super-conscious art, & has
> > nothing to do with brain-wave patterns. It would be like swimming out
> > with a yardstick to measure a jellyfish.
> >
> I like the jellyfish image - though you can measure jellyfish by using a
> laser, rather than a yardstick.
>
> So, of all 'good art' is super-conscious art, then why not simply say
> that all 'art' is super-conscious? Is it possible to produce art in a
> non-super-conscious state? Conversely, is it possible to be in a
> super-conscious state and attempt to produce art that is either bad or
> not art?
Heheehe. I'm remembering the old rhetoric, from the golden days of
pyschodelia, which was 'expanded consciousness' (an earlier form of
'superconsciousness').
So I thought at the time, as consciousness expands, its substance
dissipates - stretches further (like the model of the expanding universe)
and there is more empty space between its particles.
So you could always spot someone with an expanded consciousness, because
when encountering a parking meter, instead of putting in a dime, they would
exclaim "Wow!"
But that's what superconsciousness bring to you - exacerbated profundity in
the tiniest miracle of existance. Wow!
Erik Matila
Alison A Raimes
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes
>To a painter, who doesn't rely on literary documentation but rather
>trusts his "eye", it is obvious that modern abstract art began with
>Turner. His intentions are plain, to the eye of a painter, no matter
>what may or may not have been written about them.
>
>They were plain to the Impressionists, they were plain to the Cubists,
>and they are plain to the Post-modernists. By "plain" I mean simple,
>obvious, self-evident. Verbal documentation is entirely post-facto.
>
>- Lake
Oh oh, the Pond and I agree ...... get out the champers ;-)
Turner's intentions are plain - to remove the human figure or any
relationship to it and create an experience based solely on aesthetics.
If you read Ruskin's letters to Turner, he demonstrates his reluctance
to allow Turner to show any work that was not representational in some
aspect. Researchers at the Tate Gallery in London have written about the
works that Ruskin destroyed and believe that amongst them were several
non-representational works that Ruskin believed would ruin Turner's
reputation.
Peter H.M. Brooks
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > So, of all 'good art' is super-conscious art, then why not simply
say
> > that all 'art' is super-conscious? Is it possible to produce art in
a
> > non-super-conscious state? Conversely, is it possible to be in a
> > super-conscious state and attempt to produce art that is either bad
or
> > not art?
>
> Heheehe. I'm remembering the old rhetoric, from the golden days of
> pyschodelia, which was 'expanded consciousness' (an earlier form of
> 'superconsciousness').
>
> So I thought at the time, as consciousness expands, its substance
> dissipates - stretches further (like the model of the expanding
universe)
> and there is more empty space between its particles.
>
> So you could always spot someone with an expanded consciousness,
because
> when encountering a parking meter, instead of putting in a dime, they
would
> exclaim "Wow!"
>
>
> But that's what superconsciousness bring to you - exacerbated
profundity in
> the tiniest miracle of existance. Wow!
>
tra...@pipeline.com
>>
>> I am wondering what kind of meditation technique
>> you are thinking of. In fact, I would posit that is the same state of
>> consciousness that all forms of religous or shamanic practic are
>> really aiming for - with varying degrees of success. Most get too
>> bogged down in non-essential stuff.
>>
>Yes, I am familiar with the experience. However, most practicioners of
>various versions claim that their process is superior to all others and
>produces a 'really real'(TM) result. Vide the commercial TM (TM) company
>that has caused real injury to people by having them hop about in the
>lotus position deluded into thinking that they are levitation - risible
>if it weren't so dangerous and wicked.
Ah, I feared you may have been referring to the TM people. It's
watered down hogwash, designed for the purpose of maintaining
a group.
TM is not conventional by any means. Yes, what they do is dangerous
and wicked, and I never give credence to anyone who claims
that their method is superior to all others. That is a first class
warning flag right there.
My personal take on it is it's better to stay away from groups
completely - humans still have that *groupthink* aspect that
we haven't learned yet to overcome.
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
>Yes, I think it is - having had more of a discussion and got a better
>pictue of exactly what you mean, I think that it certainly can be part,
>an important part, of the process.
>>
>> Yes, it is entirely possible that the art of a truly enlightened
>> person would only be accessible to another person in the same state.
>>
>Which would mean that nobody else would know what it meant to be 'truly
>enlightened' so, without further evidence, as I said before, it could,
>without any other supporting evidence, be seen as a less than ideal
>state to be in.
It's not a state that depends upon its meaning to other people for its
value.
>>
>> But some of those who have achieved it do not seem to be held back
>> from writing about it, at least in the 20th century. Some do not hold
>> back from trying to express what the experience was like, in writing,
>> which is one form of communication.
>>
>True, but, if their enlightenement was any good, it should at least have
>opened their eyes to the possibility (probability?) that they were
>wasting their time and wouldn't be understood - so their writing about
>it is prima facie evidence that either they were not truly enlightened,
>or that true enlightenement doesn't give very good insight into the
>world.
Not necessarily. I do know of poets who have most likely had such an
experience - Rimbaud as an example. He did sometimes get close to the
edge of not being understandable, but for the most part he was, and
he wrote beautiful poetry, and was understood. I just don't know of
any artists - perhaps it's because artists tend not to be verbally
oriented anyway.
tra...@pipeline.com
>Yes, I think it is - having had more of a discussion and got a better
>pictue of exactly what you mean, I think that it certainly can be part,
>an important part, of the process.
>>
>> Yes, it is entirely possible that the art of a truly enlightened
>> person would only be accessible to another person in the same state.
>>
>Which would mean that nobody else would know what it meant to be 'truly
>enlightened' so, without further evidence, as I said before, it could,
>without any other supporting evidence, be seen as a less than ideal
>state to be in.
Come to think of it, Peter, I do have one piece of evidence to offer,
albeit anecdotal. It pertains to music.
One day I was riding in the car with German, and on the radio was a
Carlos Santana piece. I had heard the name before, I had heard his
music before, but I had never paid much attention to it, nor did I
know much about him. The music got into one of those long, soaring
Santana guitar solos...and I experienced a sensation up my spine..kind
of like lightning, on a smaller scale. That really got my attention,
and I asked who was playing the guitar. German told me, and then
informed that he is known to be an advanced yogi (which I am not).
I will try to keep this brief, as it looks like this thread is winding
down. Here are my conclusions:
1. It is more significant to have sensations in the spine, in
response to music, than it is to just have them on the surface of the
skin (which is where I usually do).
2. Whether or not he may have had some experience like enlightenment,
he's definitely got something going on.
3. His music was comprehedable to me both normally and beyond
normally.
So, this is my answer to both your question - "What evidence is there"
and to Iian's proposition of an experiment, because I think an
experiment such as he proposes would need to have subjects able to
sense the art both normally and synaesthetically. There.
Tracy
>>
>> But some of those who have achieved it do not seem to be held back
>> from writing about it, at least in the 20th century. Some do not hold
>> back from trying to express what the experience was like, in writing,
>> which is one form of communication.
>>
>True, but, if their enlightenement was any good, it should at least have
>opened their eyes to the possibility (probability?) that they were
>wasting their time and wouldn't be understood - so their writing about
>it is prima facie evidence that either they were not truly enlightened,
>or that true enlightenement doesn't give very good insight into the
>world.
>>
>> >Well, how would they exhibit themselves? Would the person in one
>state
>> >have a different heart-beat, level of blood sugar or a peculiar
>stare?
>>
>> There are lots of physiological changes. Lots of scientific research
>> needs to be done. The problem is: scientists in the West aren't that
>> interested. However, scientists in India are, and though they have
>> fewer scientists, they are able to produce world-class scientists.
>> There is a project under way in India to scientifically study it,
>> provided the funding can be found.
>>
>Yes, funding and India do rather go together - having spent several
>months there some years ago, I can well imagine this.
>
iian_...@my-deja.com
> My main problem is time. I am actually doing some private work on
> evolutionary algorithms for neural networks, which takes up most of
the
> time that I am not working, painting or having fun, so I don't have
much
> bandwidth!
That's okay. Some of our discussions on this newsgroup are providing
useful material for my project.
> I have played with some of the games, and, a very, very long time ago,
> looked at the programming involved in producing them. I am certainly
not
> current in the area and probably couldn't help much.
I have a friend who is up on all the programming required to build the
simulation. The sort of input I was talking about was more conceptual
than concrete. To give you an example, my friend and I have have been
discussing ways in which to make the interface more intuitively
responsive to the player's (participant is a better word) personality.
For example, if the adopted character had spent most of his life in a
city environment, then what he sees or hears elsewhere will be
conditioned by his experiences. If he walks into a forest with a
woodcutter and a possum bursts through the bushes six or seven metres
away, the city-dweller will see on his screen: "You hear a nice some
metres away," whereas the woodcutter, who has hunted in these woods all
of his life, will see: "You hear a possum seven metres to the north."
The greatest problem in creating this simulation lies in making the
world dynamic and interactive. The standard text-based "fantasy game"
comes with the descriptions built in to certain locations. The writer
sits down and describes what the location looks like. In my project,
all of this would be eliminated. The writer would only need tell the
software what was in the room, how much lighting, atmosphere, humidity,
etc., and the programme would create a description out of thes dynamic
elements (any one of these elements could change).
This is where a straight-forward technical exercise becomes more
creative ... The writer, who no longer has to spend his time in
creating static descriptions of rooms, can now create vast tracts of
forest, fields, cities, give them all various physical properties, and
then let the entire world act itself as a simulation. He can enter the
simulation and change things; or he can merely observe.
This is the plan, any way!
> Yes, I would agree with this point. It also applies to his prefaces,
> even when you disagree with him, he still makes his point so elegantly
> and, as you say, forcefully, that you enjoy it all the same.
George Bernard Shaw's writing is invested with the power of any well-
developed technique. You do not have to find his message appealing to
appreciate the mastery of his prose. Shaw used to be irritated at
praise of his style, though. He used to say, "Praising my style is like
praising a man for his laconicism when he shouts 'Fire!' while his
house is burning down." Or words to that effect!
-- Iian
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Not necessarily. I do know of poets who have most likely had such an
> experience - Rimbaud as an example. He did sometimes get close to the
> edge of not being understandable, but for the most part he was, and
> he wrote beautiful poetry, and was understood. I just don't know of
> any artists - perhaps it's because artists tend not to be verbally
> oriented anyway.
Did you know that Michelangelo, Raphael, and Annibale Caracci used to
write poetry? What I've seen of Michelangelo's is superb, although I
suspect that Raphael merely dabbled in it as a gentlemanly pursuit. I
have a Word document with samples of their poetic work should you be
interested.
Leonarda da Vinci whilst, to my knowledge, was not a poet certainly
expressed himself well in literature. He wrote many fables and notes
for future paintings which have literary power. He may have even
attempted to write a book set in the Middle East, based upon some of
his (apparently fictional) letters that have survived.
So while artists may not choose to express themselves verbally, there
are enough examples of artists (William Blake and Kahlil Gibran are
others that come to mind) sufficiently well in literature to be
understood. Some, like Michelangelo, were able to be true to the medium
of verse and express concepts that would not have found that precise
formulation in stone. The Baroque artist Bernini was also famed - in
his time - for the plays he wrote.
I have always been fascinated with artists who choose to express
themselves in different mediums. Composers like Richard Wagner or
Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, who combined both the written word
and the musical text to express a philosophical concept; or artists
such as Gustave Moreau who wrote lurid accompaniments to their
paintings. I have some of these on the computer as well.
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> > My main problem is time. I am actually doing some private work on
> > evolutionary algorithms for neural networks, which takes up most of
> the
> > time that I am not working, painting or having fun, so I don't have
> much
> > bandwidth!
>
> That's okay. Some of our discussions on this newsgroup are providing
> useful material for my project.
>
and then useful as well!
semantics is easy to program if you have sentences of the form 'you see
the x on the y', where you can plug in the appropriate objects, though
even in this simple case, you find much software that gets singular and
plural agreement wrong. If you wish to have a fuller language, you need
to crack a few much more complicated semantic nuts.
>
> This is where a straight-forward technical exercise becomes more
> creative ... The writer, who no longer has to spend his time in
> creating static descriptions of rooms, can now create vast tracts of
> forest, fields, cities, give them all various physical properties, and
> then let the entire world act itself as a simulation. He can enter the
> simulation and change things; or he can merely observe.
>
> This is the plan, any way!
>
>
> > Yes, I would agree with this point. It also applies to his prefaces,
> > even when you disagree with him, he still makes his point so
elegantly
> > and, as you say, forcefully, that you enjoy it all the same.
>
> George Bernard Shaw's writing is invested with the power of any well-
> developed technique. You do not have to find his message appealing to
> appreciate the mastery of his prose. Shaw used to be irritated at
> praise of his style, though. He used to say, "Praising my style is
like
> praising a man for his laconicism when he shouts 'Fire!' while his
> house is burning down." Or words to that effect!
>
than logical or reasonable, in his support of causes. I think that being
a redhead contributed to this considerably - as most redheads will
agree. He also thrived on a certain amount of deliberate perversity - as
his unfashionable bunny grub noshery indicates, to name just one.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> Come to think of it, Peter, I do have one piece of evidence to offer,
> albeit anecdotal. It pertains to music.
>
> One day I was riding in the car with German, and on the radio was a
> Carlos Santana piece. I had heard the name before, I had heard his
> music before, but I had never paid much attention to it, nor did I
> know much about him. The music got into one of those long, soaring
> Santana guitar solos...and I experienced a sensation up my spine..kind
> of like lightning, on a smaller scale. That really got my attention,
> and I asked who was playing the guitar. German told me, and then
> informed that he is known to be an advanced yogi (which I am not).
>
the music commuicated the experience to you. It is uncommon for music to
be representational in this way, so this would be an interesting
exception.
The problem with all such anecdotes is the problem of memory and
probability. Unless you can establish that you remember all the cases
where you had such a feeling without a musical connection, it is
difficult to be sure that it isn't a coincidence with no causal
connection to the music. Also, unless one knows how improbable such a
random coincidental connection is, one can't decide how likely it was
that it really was communication. I suppose that one experiment would be
to expose people to pieces of music, of which the one you mention is
one, and see how many report that it communicates in this way.
>
> I will try to keep this brief, as it looks like this thread is winding
> down. Here are my conclusions:
>
> 1. It is more significant to have sensations in the spine, in
> response to music, than it is to just have them on the surface of the
> skin (which is where I usually do).
>
It depends on what you consider 'significant'. You appear to be seeing
this music as a communication that induces a resonance in a body that is
tuned to receive it. If this could be replicated, then it would indeed
be interesting.
>
> 2. Whether or not he may have had some experience like enlightenment,
> he's definitely got something going on.
>
By your subjective experience, certainly, one would like to know what
other people feel too.
>
> 3. His music was comprehedable to me both normally and beyond
> normally.
>
By normally, you presumably mean 'without any special communication,
resonance or representation'.
>
> So, this is my answer to both your question - "What evidence is there"
> and to Iian's proposition of an experiment, because I think an
> experiment such as he proposes would need to have subjects able to
> sense the art both normally and synaesthetically. There.
>
This is an intersting and good answer, thank you.
I am not sure about the question of synaesthesia. Certainly there is
good evidence that it exists. However, as far as I have been able to
establish, it doesn't seem to be reliable. Some people may say that blue
feels sad, others that it feels happy. We also have the cultural
overlay, where to the Western mind, red is the colour of violence, blood
and so forth, while, toe the Chinese mind it is the colour of luck. So,
one would imagine that a Chinese synaesthesic would exhibit this,
presumably cultural, bias. I don't know how much work has been done on
this - if any.
Peter H.M. Brooks
tra...@pipeline.com wrote:
>
> >>
> >> I am wondering what kind of meditation technique
> >> you are thinking of. In fact, I would posit that is the same state
of
> >> consciousness that all forms of religous or shamanic practic are
> >> really aiming for - with varying degrees of success. Most get too
> >> bogged down in non-essential stuff.
> >>
> >Yes, I am familiar with the experience. However, most practicioners
of
> >various versions claim that their process is superior to all others
and
> >produces a 'really real'(TM) result. Vide the commercial TM (TM)
company
> >that has caused real injury to people by having them hop about in the
> >lotus position deluded into thinking that they are levitation -
risible
> >if it weren't so dangerous and wicked.
>
> Ah, I feared you may have been referring to the TM people. It's
> watered down hogwash, designed for the purpose of maintaining
> a group.
>
money from variations on this theme - quite a few of these frauds have
excaped to the west where they prey on the innocent. They were finding
it rather stony ground relative to the '60's, until the 'New Age' stuff
surfaced a few years ago and their girths have expanded accordingly.
>
> TM is not conventional by any means. Yes, what they do is dangerous
> and wicked, and I never give credence to anyone who claims
> that their method is superior to all others. That is a first class
> warning flag right there.
>
>
> My personal take on it is it's better to stay away from groups
> completely - humans still have that *groupthink* aspect that
> we haven't learned yet to overcome.
>
On the serious side, I agree with you, in the main, I only belong to the
Hemlock Society and have no interest in joining any other group.
tra...@pipeline.com
Yes, actually I would be interested in that. What I said before was
merely a sweeping generalization. I am not surprised - gifted people
often have abilities in more than one area.
Tracy
tra...@pipeline.com
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 08:34:05 GMT, Peter H.M. Brooks
<pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>That is interesting. I take it that you are suggesting that, somehow,
>the music commuicated the experience to you. It is uncommon for music to
>be representational in this way, so this would be an interesting
>exception.
>
>The problem with all such anecdotes is the problem of memory and
>probability. Unless you can establish that you remember all the cases
>where you had such a feeling without a musical connection, it is
>difficult to be sure that it isn't a coincidence with no causal
>connection to the music. Also, unless one knows how improbable such a
>random coincidental connection is, one can't decide how likely it was
>that it really was communication. I suppose that one experiment would be
>to expose people to pieces of music, of which the one you mention is
>one, and see how many report that it communicates in this way.
First, I only experieced it in that manner (in regards to my
experience in the car) that *one* time. As for the rest, I do not
have those sensations (on the skin) without music. Hasn't happened.
And it isn't all kinds of music....determining what kinds of music
cause that reaction is something I've been observing, just for myself,
for some time. I don't think I am so concerened about it being a
communication, as that I feel I had that experience because he is an
advance yogi, and that may have translated itself into his music.
I am merely musing on that as a possibility.
I have been at some intense concerts, even the Carmina Burana, a very
powerful piece, played by very accomplished musicians, and I have
never had the same experience as the one I had with a piece played by
one lone guitarist.
>>
>> I will try to keep this brief, as it looks like this thread is winding
>> down. Here are my conclusions:
>>
>> 1. It is more significant to have sensations in the spine, in
>> response to music, than it is to just have them on the surface of the
>> skin (which is where I usually do).
>>
>It depends on what you consider 'significant'. You appear to be seeing
>this music as a communication that induces a resonance in a body that is
>tuned to receive it. If this could be replicated, then it would indeed
>be interesting.
Hmm....I doubt that the music was created intentionally with that
purpose in mind...but I couldn't say for sure. My gut instinct about
it is that more likely, it was just a spontaneous thing. Research
would be good.
>> 2. Whether or not he may have had some experience like enlightenment,
>> he's definitely got something going on.
>>
>By your subjective experience, certainly, one would like to know what
>other people feel too.
Most definitely.
>>
>> 3. His music was comprehedable to me both normally and beyond
>> normally.
>>
>By normally, you presumably mean 'without any special communication,
>resonance or representation'.
Yes, by means of hearing it with the ears.
>>
>> So, this is my answer to both your question - "What evidence is there"
>> and to Iian's proposition of an experiment, because I think an
>> experiment such as he proposes would need to have subjects able to
>> sense the art both normally and synaesthetically. There.
>>
>This is an intersting and good answer, thank you.
>
>I am not sure about the question of synaesthesia. Certainly there is
>good evidence that it exists. However, as far as I have been able to
>establish, it doesn't seem to be reliable. Some people may say that blue
>feels sad, others that it feels happy. We also have the cultural
>overlay, where to the Western mind, red is the colour of violence, blood
>and so forth, while, toe the Chinese mind it is the colour of luck. So,
>one would imagine that a Chinese synaesthesic would exhibit this,
>presumably cultural, bias. I don't know how much work has been done on
>this - if any.
Well, you are right about that. Apparently it can manifest in many
different ways. Yes, cultural bias would be there. That never
seems to really worm its way out of people's thinking.
I would bet no research has been done, not by scientists.
Tracy
lake
because obviously there are degrees of consciousnees in art.
But right here I'm switching from the term "art" to the term
"painting", to avoid ambiguity. My point is that the virtues of good
painting are inherently immeasureable.
For a painter - let's take Rembrandt as an example - his
super-consciousness was developed in tandem with his skill. Through
long years of discipline the two became one, there is no separating
them. This doesn't happen automatically - it takes strong intention and
a lot of work. It's very similar to the religious disciplines that
Tracy speaks of, but is not exactly the same. Painting CAN BE a pathway
to super-consciousness, but is not NECCESSARILY so. Many,if not most
modern painters are at least trying for this, whether they admit it
publicly or not.
To answer your (somewhat ironic?) questions seriously: yes it is
possible to produce painting from a non-superconscious state, but not
good painting. It's a matter of degree. Is it possible for a
super-conscious painter to produce deliberately bad painting? I think
not. Or, if it is possible it would not be easy, and would be entirely
pointless. To go back to Rembrandt, could he have painted another
"Night Watch" after having done those late portraits? Certainly not.
lake
Yes, if it's undisciplined - which it was, for most of the acid-heads
of the sixties. But when consciousness expands according to a specific
structure, amazing things are possible.
Human potential is limited by consciousness, more than anything else.
Its edges are like a wall, or a gap, and art is probably our primary
means of "bridging" it.
lake
What I find really interesting though, is that Turner always stopped
JUST SHORT of making his work TOTALLY abstract. He always established a
certain reference-point of representation. Maybe that was what Ruskin
was clinging to, in order to justify the whole structure of his own
critique, not just of Turner, but of painting in general.
Instinctively, I feel sure that Turner must have "gone off the deep
end" in some smaller works, somewhere, producing pure abstracts. Just
to satisfy his own curiosity, if nothing else. But I doubt that Ruskin
was alone responsible for their supression. It was a concept WAY ahead
of its time, and would have only served to discredit Turner, had it
been revealed.
lake
al., the illusion of "individualism" in today's complex world is
becoming harder and harder to maintain.
It's becoming apparent that there is really no such thing as an
"individual", apart from the cultural/socio/religio/economic milieu in
which this individual finds his/her sustainence.
An "individual"of Ridyah in Saudi Arabia is not at all comparable to an
"individual" in Paris, France. We draw a parallel, or assume an
equivalency at our peril.
You say it's better to stay away from groups entirely, to avoid
"groupthink" - without ever considering that perhaps your own
"individualistic" ideas are a form of groupthink also? Maybe the fact
is that you just happened to have been born into a group sufficiently
large and powerful enough to have bred a generation that can afford to
ignore its own boundaries? Temporarily, of course.
Peter H.M. Brooks
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> To answer your (somewhat ironic?) questions seriously: yes it is
> possible to produce painting from a non-superconscious state, but not
> good painting. It's a matter of degree. Is it possible for a
> super-conscious painter to produce deliberately bad painting? I think
> not. Or, if it is possible it would not be easy, and would be entirely
> pointless. To go back to Rembrandt, could he have painted another
> "Night Watch" after having done those late portraits? Certainly not.
>
limiting - there are things that cannot be done in it.
It also is interesting that you say that a painting produced outside
this state cannot be good - are you sure that this isn't a circular
claim? Maybe you have a painting that you know was not produced in this
state and that you can, independently, show to be bad.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Yes, actually I would be interested in that. What I said before was
> merely a sweeping generalization. I am not surprised - gifted people
> often have abilities in more than one area.
Sweeping generalisations can be deliciously comic when overwrought. I
consider it a pious - some would say piteous - duty to inject at least
one moderately breezy generalisation into my daily communiques. It's a
rhetorical exercise not unlike gorilla chest-thumping and is
marvellously invigorating.
Getting back to the topic, though, there are more
artist-writers-composers out there then I let on in my last letter. It
was only this morning that I remembered E.T.A. Hoffman, a romantic
composer, artist and storyteller. There is a famous opera called "The
Tales of Hoffman" based - shockingly enough - on the tales of Hoffman.
It's a pity that his music isn't more well known these days. I haven't
even heard it, although it gets around. His artwork is just as obscure.
Other contenders for the Renaissance Man crown - it's a bit like
the Mister Universe of the intellect - would include William Morris who,
in the immortal words of a friendly correspondant, "was facile in just
about everything". Morris was a novellist, poet, designer, painter,
playwright and actor (according to Shaw). On a lesser level we might
include writers like Clark Ashton Smith or Lord Dunany who experimented
in nearly every literary form in existence, as well as dabbling in
sculpture and painting. Smith's sculpture is surprisingly primitive in
comparison to his lavishly wrought Decadent poetry; which suggests he
may find some modern-day admirers.
And, of course, I neglected to mention artists like Dante Gabriel
Rossetti and Edward Burne-Jones who wrote stories or poems as well as
fashioning paintings.
Then there are all those painters who were sculptors - and vice versa -
like Jean-Leon Gerome, Ferdinand Khnopff, Gian Lorenzo Bernini and some
obscure Italian artist called Michelangelo. There is a rumour going
around that Raphael also dabbled in sculpture, though I can't
substantiate it, only repeat it. We all know about Leonardo's forays
into that medium as well.
I posted yesterday to this newsgroup a number of writings by various
artists that you might find of interest. All of these were typed in by
me rather quickly, so please excuse any typographic errors, etc.
-- Iian
Peter H.M. Brooks
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Sweeping generalisations can be deliciously comic when overwrought. I
> consider it a pious - some would say piteous - duty to inject at least
> one moderately breezy generalisation into my daily communiques. It's a
> rhetorical exercise not unlike gorilla chest-thumping and is
> marvellously invigorating.
>
or over generalisations - and they do wonders for cobwebs.
>
> Getting back to the topic, though, there are more
> artist-writers-composers out there then I let on in my last letter. It
> was only this morning that I remembered E.T.A. Hoffman, a romantic
> composer, artist and storyteller. There is a famous opera called "The
> Tales of Hoffman" based - shockingly enough - on the tales of Hoffman.
> It's a pity that his music isn't more well known these days. I haven't
> even heard it, although it gets around. His artwork is just as
obscure.
>
on a performance of 'Tales of Hoffman'. The company is very good, and it
was a credible performance, but I am afraid that it didn't thrill me.
The philistine in me would have rather that they had put the effort into
a slightly less well performed 'Nabucco'.
>
> Other contenders for the Renaissance Man crown - it's a bit like
> the Mister Universe of the intellect - would include William Morris
who,
> in the immortal words of a friendly correspondant, "was facile in just
> about everything".
>
>
> I posted yesterday to this newsgroup a number of writings by various
> artists that you might find of interest. All of these were typed in by
> me rather quickly, so please excuse any typographic errors, etc.
>
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
As the brief fires of youth die in him, the ageing trendy conceives a
growing aversion to
feeling in all its forms. His fastidious distaste for kitsch becomes a
prudish fear of anything
that could - in the wrong hands - be turned into kitsch.
- Roger Scruton Aesthetics & Criticism
Lauri Levanto
>
> "As consciousness expands, its subsance dissipates"
lauri:
Isn't it more like
"As Ego expands, its substance dissipates"?
I'm not acquintaned with the mystics Tracym represents.
I can't speak for it.
lake:
> (...)Human potential is limited by consciousness, more than anything else.
> Its edges are like a wall, or a gap, and art is probably our primary
> means of "bridging" it.
>
> - Lake
lauri:
The bandwidth of human consciousness is very limited. My source
gives a figure of 16 bits/sec. (That is roughly 2 bauds if you compare
it with a modem).
The bandwidth of our senses is around 12 Mbits/s. ( In the range of
Ethernet)
All of that is procesed outside consciousness. ( Even outside the
Freudian unconsciousness).
We live most of our life without knowing it.
Mysticism is one attempt to tap the extraconscious resources of our
mental capacity.
Most of them have a common feature; with one mean or another to let your
mind
work limiting interference of the consciousness.
below are a couple of Deja referencies.
5. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi : Flow : The Psychology of Optimal Experience
author: Flow : The Psychology of Optimal Experience...
URL: www.bbebmobnto.az6.debbie.dothan.al.us/
6. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Finding Flow
URL: www.enlightenment.com/content/bookrevs/findflow.html
Zen and Motorcycle maintenance speaks of the same with quite different
terms.
Despite of the dubious hemisphere theory Betty Edwards book of drawing
deals much with
the same phenomenon.
Many of use surely know the feeling when 'it just happens'. Our best
works come out
surprisingly easily.
Tracym described it as 'higher level' of consciousness.
My understanding is that it is exactly the opposite 'a deeper level'.
We can cross it in a Tea Ceremony, motor cycle maintenance or artmaking.
Among many other ways. I selected examples where *non-verbal* thinking
is crucial, as our verbal range seems to be limited close to
consciousness.
Even there a poet pre-consciously selects words before using them.
Part of this extra-conscious mentality is trivial like rote-learning.
That is why it has been so long ignored in physiology.
Another part of it selects what parts of our obeservations, beeing and
acting
deserve to be presented to the consciousness.
- lauri
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> Many of use surely know the feeling when 'it just happens'. Our best
> works come out
> surprisingly easily.
>
> Tracym described it as 'higher level' of consciousness.
> My understanding is that it is exactly the opposite 'a deeper level'.
>
metaphors, when applied to something abstract like consciousness. The
marketing chaps working for 'guru's', TM or other cults obviously have
to get the punters in, so, claiming that it is 'higher consciousness' is
clearly a good ploy - particularly as it can't be disproved.
Anyway, it doesn't much matter if you label it 'high' (maybe a
metaphorical connection with being under the influence), 'low' or
'deep', as you say, what is important is what the state is, what it
results in, how it can be arrived at and, if one is interested, are
there different flavours of it.
As you say, everybody who has experienced it will know what it is.
Though the aetiology could be drugs, meditation, painting, starvation
('The doors of perception'), physical exertion, reading poetry, playing
chess, being at a Hitler youth/Billy Graham/Reclaim the streets/Stamp
Collectors rally, the result is similar. It would be interesting to know
which of the activities in the previous sentence never result in the
experience.
The really profound, earth shattering experience of altered
consciousness that leads to religious or other conversion has been
linked to temporal lobe siezures - again the aetiology of these siezures
can very.
What is interesting is that, 'Zen and the Art of motorcycle maintanence'
apart, almost the only area where this altered state is seen as
objectively productive, creative, and generative is when it is applied
to art.
So, is art simply the expression, the product of those (maybe 'lower')
forms of altered consciousness that require aesthetic expression?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
Alison A Raimes
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes
>That's right Raimsey, we're on the same wave-length here god help us.
Scary ;-)
>What I find really interesting though, is that Turner always stopped
>JUST SHORT of making his work TOTALLY abstract. He always established a
>certain reference-point of representation. Maybe that was what Ruskin
>was clinging to, in order to justify the whole structure of his own
>critique, not just of Turner, but of painting in general.
The documentation in the Tate research shows that Turner was as
influenced by Ruskin as much as most of the AbEx's were by Greenberg.
The stopping short was a compromise - the removal of all referential
content of his work would have created mayhem.
Its hard to imagine an artist's work being controlled by the power of
one person - but it happens to most at some stage of their career. It
can be comments by your mother or niece, or it can be because of what a
potential gallery owner has said in regard to your work. Whatever it is,
its called *playing to an audience*. Turner was guilty, I am guilty and
as Lucy Lippard constantly reminds us - nothing is going to change until
the artist has the strength to follow their heart and not their pockets.
>
>Instinctively, I feel sure that Turner must have "gone off the deep
>end" in some smaller works, somewhere, producing pure abstracts. Just
>to satisfy his own curiosity, if nothing else. But I doubt that Ruskin
>was alone responsible for their supression. It was a concept WAY ahead
>of its time, and would have only served to discredit Turner, had it
>been revealed.
How intuitive of you. I didn't know you were capable ;-)
Lauri Levanto
> > Many of use surely know the feeling when 'it just happens'. Our best
> > works come out
> > surprisingly easily.
> As you say,
lauri
NO, I didn't say *that*...
Peter
>everybody who has experienced it will know what it is.
> Though the aetiology could be drugs, meditation, painting, starvation
> ('The doors of perception'), physical exertion, reading poetry, playing
> chess, being at a Hitler youth/Billy Graham/Reclaim the streets/Stamp
> Collectors rally, the result is similar. It would be interesting to know
> which of the activities in the previous sentence never result in the
> experience.
lauri
I said the opposite, everybody has experienced it. It is not
emotionally manifest experience, it is simply that
all goes more smoothly.
- If you are playing basket ball, you simply know that this throw is
going in. If you happen to be drawing, the first line is right etc.
I try to explain: You are so deeply involved in doing something,
that you don't need to put effort into it.
Your example of bicycle riding is to the point (was it yours?).
Simple as that. The techniques how to deliberately access
this state of mind are variable.
You don't even notice it at the moment
- it is extraconscious process.
> The really profound, earth shattering experience of altered
> consciousness that leads to religious or other conversion has been
> linked to temporal lobe siezures - again the aetiology of these siezures
> can very.
The (religious in a wide meaning) experience of altered
consciousness is a remarkable but completely defferent phenomen.
It is more closely what I guess TracyM meant.
> So, is art simply the expression, the product of those (maybe 'lower')
> forms of altered consciousness that require aesthetic expression?
Music, artmaking, lovemaking are nonverbal and thus less
restricted by conscious efforts. These three also carry emotional weight
that helps, but is not necessary, in relieving the preassure of
conscious
intention.
- lauri
--
The fact that I abuse my office Email address does not imply
that my employer agrees with, or is aware of opinions expressed here.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> >everybody who has experienced it will know what it is.
> > Though the aetiology could be drugs, meditation, painting,
starvation
> > ('The doors of perception'), physical exertion, reading poetry,
playing
> > chess, being at a Hitler youth/Billy Graham/Reclaim the
streets/Stamp
> > Collectors rally, the result is similar. It would be interesting to
know
> > which of the activities in the previous sentence never result in the
> > experience.
>
> lauri
> I said the opposite, everybody has experienced it. It is not
> emotionally manifest experience, it is simply that
> all goes more smoothly.
>
>
> - If you are playing basket ball, you simply know that this throw is
> going in. If you happen to be drawing, the first line is right etc.
>
>
> I try to explain: You are so deeply involved in doing something,
> that you don't need to put effort into it.
> Your example of bicycle riding is to the point (was it yours?).
> Simple as that. The techniques how to deliberately access
> this state of mind are variable.
> You don't even notice it at the moment
> - it is extraconscious process.
>
though, to accepting that there was an altered state of consciousness.
If you ride a bicycle, you can, at the same time, think in a completely
normal conscious way, it isn't, in itself, a separate form of
consciousness. Unlike the state of absorbtion in painting, for example,
which would preclude doing complicated sums, for example.
>
> > The really profound, earth shattering experience of altered
> > consciousness that leads to religious or other conversion has been
> > linked to temporal lobe siezures - again the aetiology of these
siezures
> > can very.
> The (religious in a wide meaning) experience of altered
> consciousness is a remarkable but completely defferent phenomen.
> It is more closely what I guess TracyM meant.
>
that it is what was being spoken about in the painting of 'good art'.
>
> > So, is art simply the expression, the product of those (maybe
'lower')
> > forms of altered consciousness that require aesthetic expression?
>
> Music, artmaking, lovemaking are nonverbal and thus less
> restricted by conscious efforts. These three also carry emotional
weight
> that helps, but is not necessary, in relieving the preassure of
> conscious
> intention.
>
but I take your point. I think that sex involves a different level of
consciousness from the one that we have been discussing, but I would be
prepared to consider that further - it is just that the mechanism of
coitus is reasonably well known and I think follows different neural
pathways so is unlikely to be the same as the other feelings.
I would have thought that, in, say, an intricate architectural drawing,
conscious intent would be fairly cruical to the process at least at
times, and, such a drawing could be art.
tra...@pipeline.com
Thank you very much for the posts. I also look forward to reading
them at leisure.
On Wed, 28 Jun 2000 07:01:33 GMT, iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> Yes, actually I would be interested in that. What I said before was
>> merely a sweeping generalization. I am not surprised - gifted people
>> often have abilities in more than one area.
>
>Sweeping generalisations can be deliciously comic when overwrought. I
>consider it a pious - some would say piteous - duty to inject at least
>one moderately breezy generalisation into my daily communiques. It's a
>rhetorical exercise not unlike gorilla chest-thumping and is
>marvellously invigorating.
>
>Getting back to the topic, though, there are more
>artist-writers-composers out there then I let on in my last letter. It
>was only this morning that I remembered E.T.A. Hoffman, a romantic
>composer, artist and storyteller. There is a famous opera called "The
>Tales of Hoffman" based - shockingly enough - on the tales of Hoffman.
>It's a pity that his music isn't more well known these days. I haven't
>even heard it, although it gets around. His artwork is just as obscure.
>
>Other contenders for the Renaissance Man crown - it's a bit like
>the Mister Universe of the intellect - would include William Morris who,
>in the immortal words of a friendly correspondant, "was facile in just
>about everything". Morris was a novellist, poet, designer, painter,
>playwright and actor (according to Shaw). On a lesser level we might
>include writers like Clark Ashton Smith or Lord Dunany who experimented
>in nearly every literary form in existence, as well as dabbling in
>sculpture and painting. Smith's sculpture is surprisingly primitive in
>comparison to his lavishly wrought Decadent poetry; which suggests he
>may find some modern-day admirers.
>
>And, of course, I neglected to mention artists like Dante Gabriel
>Rossetti and Edward Burne-Jones who wrote stories or poems as well as
>fashioning paintings.
>
>Then there are all those painters who were sculptors - and vice versa -
>like Jean-Leon Gerome, Ferdinand Khnopff, Gian Lorenzo Bernini and some
>obscure Italian artist called Michelangelo.
I saw a documentary on Michaelangelo's life, some months ago - much
information was taken from his personal letters. Apparently he was a
sculptor first and foremost - and took up painting when the pope
requested him to paint the ceiling in a cathedral. The documentary
said he was reluctant to take it up, due to his lack of experience in
painting, but that the pope insisted, feeling he knew what he was
doing by asking Michelangelo to paint it. He had to have some art
training before that, though.
It was also said that he he once criticized the work of a fellow
artist, and that fellow artist broke his nose. That was taken
directly from a personal letter.
Tracy
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Thank you very much for the posts. I also look forward to reading
> them at leisure.
It was my pleasure to share the material. It's a bit tricky to find, and
I thought the newsgroup would find it interesting. It presents a side of
the masters not often seen.
> > [...] and some
> > obscure Italian artist called Michelangelo.
>
> I saw a documentary on Michaelangelo's life, some months ago - much
> information was taken from his personal letters.
While on the topic of the great Florentine, can anyone tell me whether
there are any first-class websites on Michelangelo? I've not bothered to
add him to the Renaissance Cafe - my art-gallery website - because I
just assumed that Michelangelo would be well covered elsewhere. Now I am
beginning to doubt that assumption. A few months ago I went hunting
about the search engines for any sites on Ingres. I came up with a
pitiful few that covered only his major works and presented tattered and
blotched scans. A real disappointment. This inspired me to start up my
own Ingres gallery which, while being far from complete, aims to supply
higher quality scanned images, and more of them.
Getting back to Michelangelo, though, if he hasn't yet cut a niche on
the net, I'd be very interested in setting up a page for him. I'd throw
in some of his poetry, letters, etc., but there's no real point in doing
this if somebody else has done it better.
So, folks, any good Michelangelo sites out there? And while you're at,
please submit any URLS for other great artists as well. I've been
disturbed at the lack of decent coverage on Leonardo da Vinci, although
the last time I checked seriously was last year. What about Rubens,
Raphael, Rembrandt, Rodin, Redon, Roubilliac, Raffaeli, Rousseau,
Rossetti, Ribera (I'm running out of 'R's here)?
Are the old masters well researched and cared for on the net?
> Apparently he was a
> sculptor first and foremost - and took up painting when the pope
> requested him to paint the ceiling in a cathedral.
I was under the impression - probably the wrong one - that Michelangelo
was commissioned to paint a fresco in competition with Leonardo da Vinci
in Florence, 1503 - 15045. Leonardo's attempt was to be the 'Battle of
Anghiari' .. and I think the Michelangelo fresco was the 'Battle at
Cascina'? I remember that the cartoon was lost - probably snipped up
into little bits by admiring groupies - and that our image of it was
preserved through an etching or drawing. The same applies to the
Leonardo fresco, except there the only section to survive was the
central battle scene (said to prefigure and inspire the Baroque, if
Ruben's copy is any guide). Michelangelo also produced a Tondo family
portrait - complete with nude bathers - and a scene with Christ being
disentombed. My rusty old brain tells me that all of this took place
before the Sistine Ceiling.
> The documentary
> said he was reluctant to take it up, due to his lack of experience in
> painting, but that the pope insisted, feeling he knew what he was
> doing by asking Michelangelo to paint it.
Lack of love for painting may be a better term for it. I remember that
he and Leonardo often argued about the supremacy of painting and
sculpture, Leonardo favouring the former and Michelangelo the latter.
Michelangelo's last letters attest to his change of viewpoint; that both
arts were fundamentally equal. At this early stage in his life, though,
he probably would not have wanted to paint. (Except for the 'Battle of
Cascina' where he was in direct competition with Leonardo.)
> He had to have some art training before that, though.
I think he was trained in Ghirlandaio's studio. Ghirlandaio was a
painter.
> It was also said that he he once criticized the work of a fellow
> artist, and that fellow artist broke his nose. That was taken
> directly from a personal letter.
I used to know his name, too .. perhaps .. Tommasini? Something starting
with a "T", I'm sure.
-- Iian
Lauri Levanto
> Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> >
> > - If you are playing basket ball, you simply know that this throw is
> > going in. If you happen to be drawing, the first line is right etc.
Peter
> Yes, this is a manifestation of a learned experience.
lauri
Tell me then, if it is a learned experience
Why it does not happen every time.
I remember one drawing class. I made effortlessly three
quick drawings that night. Among the best I have ever done.
Next week it did not work out at all. All I did
was clumsy attempts.
If it was only a learned experience, what did I forget
during that week?
Peter (...)
Unlike the state of absorbtion in painting, for example,
> which would preclude doing complicated sums, for example.
It is getting warmer. Absobtion in painting is a base of
common experience. There are two kinds of it, however.
You have drawn a subject and then you decide to alter the color
of the background. You carefully trace the delicate outline
with the new color. It requires deep concentration
(and delicate lerned hand-eye coordination experience),
but not absorbtion. It is a moment where slight distraction
may spoil everything.
Another time you are painting again. It is one of those moments
when you are really absorbed into work. You do not notice
that it has turned almost dark, the lunch is twelve hours overdue.
You have forgotten the nine contrasts of Itten as well as
any color theory. You pick two tubes and mix exactly the right hue.
You simply do not think colors or anything, you just paint.
This is far from rote learning,
on the contrary you are really inspires.
The latter is what I mean with deeper level of consciousnes.
It is a fundamentally different state of mind.
Peter
(...)
> I would have thought that, in, say, an intricate architectural drawing,
> conscious intent would be fairly cruical to the process at least at
> times, and, such a drawing could be art.
Thanks for a nice example. I was stunned when I saw how Gaudi
had drawn a mesh of weight distribution vectors inside the
intricace forms of Sagrada Familia
Calculating those vectors is a most conscious intellectual process,
while drawing the curvature of spires
- before calculations -
so that the vectors will fit in
is another thing.
Take Escher and Magritte. Both elaborate artistically
conscious intellectual topics. There is a certain stiffness
visible in their work. Compare it to Degas, he need not calculate
the balance of a ballerina.
- lauri
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> > > - If you are playing basket ball, you simply know that this throw
is
> > > going in. If you happen to be drawing, the first line is right
etc.
> Peter
> > Yes, this is a manifestation of a learned experience.
> lauri
> Tell me then, if it is a learned experience
> Why it does not happen every time.
>
state of consciousness, then it was clear that, if it was not altered,
you wouldn't have the experience. When you said it was more like riding
a bicycle, then, like other learned experiences, it would be the same
each time.
>
> I remember one drawing class. I made effortlessly three
> quick drawings that night. Among the best I have ever done.
> Next week it did not work out at all. All I did
> was clumsy attempts.
> If it was only a learned experience, what did I forget
> during that week?
>
riding a bicycle is. I agree that I have had exactly the experience you
report above, everything easy one day, hard work the next. Maybe it is
best explained by reference to the other well known mental state
'writer's block' or a varient of it.
>
> Peter (...)
> Unlike the state of absorbtion in painting, for example,
> > which would preclude doing complicated sums, for example.
>
> It is getting warmer. Absobtion in painting is a base of
> common experience. There are two kinds of it, however.
>
> You have drawn a subject and then you decide to alter the color
> of the background. You carefully trace the delicate outline
> with the new color. It requires deep concentration
> (and delicate lerned hand-eye coordination experience),
> but not absorbtion. It is a moment where slight distraction
> may spoil everything.
>
>
> Another time you are painting again. It is one of those moments
> when you are really absorbed into work. You do not notice
> that it has turned almost dark, the lunch is twelve hours overdue.
> You have forgotten the nine contrasts of Itten as well as
> any color theory. You pick two tubes and mix exactly the right hue.
> You simply do not think colors or anything, you just paint.
> This is far from rote learning,
> on the contrary you are really inspires.
>
- not just the learned experience bit.
>
> The latter is what I mean with deeper level of consciousnes.
> It is a fundamentally different state of mind.
>
one. Remember that, if you are absorbed in a brillian novel, you can
also lose track of time etc.. I agree, however, that what is different
about this state is that it is creative - you can see something that you
have painted in this state some days later and be deeply impressed by
some feathure (like the colour balance, as you say) that you were not
conscious of at the time.
>
> Peter
> (...)
> > I would have thought that, in, say, an intricate architectural
drawing,
> > conscious intent would be fairly cruical to the process at least at
> > times, and, such a drawing could be art.
>
> Thanks for a nice example. I was stunned when I saw how Gaudi
> had drawn a mesh of weight distribution vectors inside the
> intricace forms of Sagrada Familia
> Calculating those vectors is a most conscious intellectual process,
> while drawing the curvature of spires
> - before calculations -
> so that the vectors will fit in
> is another thing.
>
had discovered a reason for wanting to be alive in a couple of centuries
time - to see it complete.
>
> Take Escher and Magritte. Both elaborate artistically
> conscious intellectual topics. There is a certain stiffness
> visible in their work. Compare it to Degas, he need not calculate
> the balance of a ballerina.
>
sketch, in the state of mind that we have been discussing, he then
painted the final picture in a far more normally conscious state - hence
the stiff result.
With Escher, I am not so sure. I would imagine that, with the detail of
a woodcut, once you have the structure, you can enter the altered state
as you execute the detail. It would be nice to look up what he had to
say on the matter.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
Lauri Levanto
I selected the term deeper, as it refers to the area
of vast brain activity that preceeeds consciousness, which we
usually regard as the highest function.
The higher consciousness of TracyM on the other hand
refers to a state where you can see connections and dependencies
beyond the perceptual world. A friend of mine told a nice
experience:
He was laying on the grass on a dark summernight,
watching the moon slowly pass the treetops.
Suddenly he 'felt' that the moon was still and the
earth below was rotating.
In must be a magnificient feeling,
but of limited value ( I can do well with only
the rational information that the earth
rotates.) The mystical sensation adds little
if any to that.
meditation techniques concentrate on the latter,
while the control of the former would be much more
beneficial.
Thanks, Peter of helping me to clarify my thoughts.
I tried once to describe this to Erik, with no success.
- lauri
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> I selected the term deeper, as it refers to the area
> of vast brain activity that preceeeds consciousness, which we
> usually regard as the highest function.
>
was disposed of), which lies underneath consciousness.
>
> The higher consciousness of TracyM on the other hand
> refers to a state where you can see connections and dependencies
> beyond the perceptual world. A friend of mine told a nice
> experience:
>
>
> He was laying on the grass on a dark summernight,
> watching the moon slowly pass the treetops.
> Suddenly he 'felt' that the moon was still and the
> earth below was rotating.
>
often difficult to tell if you are moving, or if the train that you are
looking at is moving - sometimes it feels one way, sometimes the other,
you need to fix on some stationary object to decide the matter.
>
> In must be a magnificient feeling,
> but of limited value ( I can do well with only
> the rational information that the earth
> rotates.) The mystical sensation adds little
> if any to that.
>
pleasure, it must have some value (not the sole arbiter, even if murder
was pleasant it wouldn't justify it). However, if you are talking of
direct value to producing art, then, maybe not.
>
> meditation techniques concentrate on the latter,
> while the control of the former would be much more
> beneficial.
>
help exercise the other. I certainly find that the peace of mind that a
good meditative swim give me carries on to other situations, including
drawing.
>
> Thanks, Peter of helping me to clarify my thoughts.
> I tried once to describe this to Erik, with no success.
>
in some detail, even if it has been done before, you nearly always get
some new insight or, if you don't, you get a different view or a
different way of putting things.