MODERN ART: DESTRUCTION OF MEANING ?
Noumenon
A problem arises from claiming that everything is art.
When people see that canvas with a single colored line
drawn down the middle, they'll question what it is. Art
is not any old thing put on a pedestal.
Art has meaning.
It recreates reality, so it is recognizable.
It expresses what the artist believes is important.
It expresses his metaphysical value-judgment.
It is important because it expresses something.
Today's "art" does not express anything. It is not a
recreation of reality. It is unrecognizable and
pointless. To obscure these facts, the new "artists"
must change the definition of 'meaning'. They do this
in two ways.
The first method by which the new "artists" attempt
to destroy meaning is by adopting and promoting an
irrational epistemology. They attempt to subvert
reason by promoting emotions as the method of gaining
knowledge.
"Art" is claimed to directly stimulate emotions
bypassing one's mind. This is why it is not
surprising to hear the phrase "I can just feel the
colors on this painting"[1] in a modern art museum.
It is claimed that art has no cognitive role.
The second method by which they attempt to destroy
meaning is by applying it to a different aspect of art.
When it is said that art has meaning, its proper sense
is that the work of art directly expresses a meaning.
The content itself has meaning, and is directly
perceivable. A statue, for instance, can show man a
heroic and healthy, or cowardly and sickly. The
meaning can be grasped by just observing the statue and
recognizing the features that are being expressed.
The new "artists" apply meaning in a different way.
They describe the alleged meaning of why the "artist"
created it. They try to attach a "meaning" that is not
expressed by the work. They might say an all-black
canvass shows a resentment for life. Or maybe they'll
claim it shows fear of being too intimate. Regardless,
they attempt to obfuscate the fact that their work has
no objective meaning. They try to attach a "meaning" to
the "art", invalidating the idea that art really must
express something if it is art.
---
(1) - An unidentified docent at
the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art
(text source = http://63.198.222.74 )
------------------------
Voila!
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
christian tangoe
posting.
Ill try however just to stick to the headline and a short comment:
There was througout the 80´ties a growing "postmodern" movement, that
claimed that "there would be no common history, no meaningfull
meaning", and thus - in art - everything should be "open" in terms of
meaning, no real attitude or political statement should be expressed.
This is changing I feel drastically at the moment. It has not reached
the establishment and the museums yet, but it will.
Art, that makes a stand, that is debate-making or political will
become hot.
This can be seen as a market-reaction against the tons of "bad"
decorative art, that "infects" the market, threatning to "devalue" the
real art - real art understood as something created for a higher
purpose than just making a few bucks down the road.
Chr. tangoe
I paint what I see, what we all see...but there is more to it.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>This can be seen as a market-reaction against the tons of "bad"
>decorative art, that "infects" the market, threatning to "devalue" the
>real art - real art understood as something created for a higher
>purpose than just making a few bucks down the road.
>
Name three higher purposes.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
keith o'connor
a means of getting children to express themselves without inhibition. An
opinion did not require any type of pre analysis before its utterance.
Uninformed opinions have the same value as well thought out opinions.
The child received marks for class participation no matter how silly the
comment. The thoughtful child was left behind. Such is life in the
classroom.
Merge this idea that all opinions are equal to the post modernist idea that
nothing is sacred and therefor all things are questionable and you have the
current situation.
I don't like the idea that all opinions are equal, nor do I like the idea
that some ideas cannot be questioned because they are sacred. Yes to some
art is any old thing put on a pedestal and you will never change that.
In the long run it may be the only way the separate cultures on our planet
can move forward and merge into a single universal culture.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:3F1207EF...@Concentric.Net...
Erik A. Mattila
> Child centred education used the concept that anyone can have an opinion as
> a means of getting children to express themselves without inhibition. An
> opinion did not require any type of pre analysis before its utterance.
> Uninformed opinions have the same value as well thought out opinions.
In my opinion, all roads lead back to Mark Twain, my Guru. "George
Washington was a remarkable man. I talked to him once...at his funeral.
Some said he was dead, some said he wasn't. I said nothing. I had no
opinion. It was none of my business."
> The child received marks for class participation no matter how silly the
> comment. The thoughtful child was left behind. Such is life in the
> classroom.
The great equalizer. So our political philosophy has it's down side
"All men are created equal." (What's the Canadian counterpart to this?).
But I think this is what has affected Art schools - the "right to art"
was interpreted as a civil right, so "aesthetic judgement" was
eliminated from the curriculum. That left us with formalism, of course,
but also the idea that a work of art needs to have an internal logic
that is independent of aesthetic bias. My question is, in relation to
your thread topic, does this play out to a lack of meaning? Personally,
I don't think so - but it has left artists with a parametric "artists
problem" of trying to eliminate meaning, or trying to "head meaning off
at the pass". It's an impossible task with great merit. As Gorbechev
said "True communism is impossible to attain, but we should nevertheless
strive for it."
> Merge this idea that all opinions are equal to the post modernist idea that
> nothing is sacred and therefor all things are questionable and you have the
> current situation.
That's the 64K question, in my opinion. Panofsky gave us the term
"disjunction" in his art theory, meaning a rupture in tradition where
one side of the rupture doesn't resemble the other in any way - or any
resemblance is only superficial because the the meaning behind the
iconolgy is totally different.
But isn't your use of "nothing is sacred" saying "anti-hegonemy" in so
many words? Like "the death of the author" means that the text has it's
own power independent of the artist's intent.
> I don't like the idea that all opinions are equal, nor do I like the idea
> that some ideas cannot be questioned because they are sacred. Yes to some
> art is any old thing put on a pedestal and you will never change that.
Fortunately there is no real authority compelling you to like these
things or compelling you practice them. That's what amazes me about
some of the posts on this NG - the utter willingness to shackle oneself
with arbitrary authority. But it's understandable and has to do with
personalty type, I think. But I think the individual is free to so
shackle themselves at will - it's when that particular hegemon is pushed
into the public sphere that my alarms go off. Let's keep Stalin and
Hitler buried, I say.
> In the long run it may be the only way the separate cultures on our planet
> can move forward and merge into a single universal culture.
You mean like G-8 and it's underbelly, al Qaeda? But seriously, I don't
see a trend towards a super-culture, the binding tendency of mass media
notwithstanding. It seems that each cultural event generates it's
antithesis. Groups (or maybe "gangs" is the better term) have a tendency
of wanting to distinguish themselves, and the more the super-culture
gloss spreads the more compelling the need for distinction becomes.
Come to think of it, I think my first sentence in this paragraph was
serious.
But here's something I would like your opinion on, Tinman. It has to do
with the "personalty types" mentioned above. I stumbled across some
essays by Reanna Brooks:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/130534_focusecond13.html
This is fascinating stuff to me. What do you think? I've always wanted
to sharpen my analytical skills in narrative analysis, so this is why
I'm interested in Brook's work. Of course I'm also fascinating how so
many can buy into the flood of lies coming from the Bush Administration.
Taking care, Erik
Marc Sabatella
> It recreates reality, so it is recognizable.
That isn't the definition of art; it is a description of a certain
subset of art - representational art.
> Art has meaning.
> ...
> It expresses what the artist believes is important.
> It expresses his metaphysical value-judgment.
> It is important because it expresses something.
These statements - also just personal opinions on your part, and not
actually part of the definition of art - can be just as true of abstract
art as representational art. What is, after all, the "meaning" or
"importance" of a painting of a bowl of fruit? Personally, I think
"meaning" is overrated.
> Today's "art" does not express anything. It is not a
> recreation of reality. It is unrecognizable
Apparently you have seen only a small amount of today's art.
> and
> pointless.
Just because *you* are incapable of seeing a point does not mean there
is not one.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
The Outside Shore
Music, art, & educational materials:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Noumenon
I believe I referred to source of text of this posting.
It was taken from other web-site.
> (text source = http://63.198.222.74 )
keith o'connor
I just took a quick look at Brooks and saved the page for later review.
In Canada they used to use the words queer / homosexual etc., against their
political opponents - doesn't work any more - now its the word racist - its
used to destroy anyone who gets in their way.
We also have the Quebec language police who have taken an English speaking
man's property and are going to auction it off to pay a $60,000.00 fine for
using the English language on his store sign in the province of Quebec.
You have bush power and we have the French power - black power - green
power - etc.
Some Canadians want the Americans to save us from our own federal
government.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F133913...@oco.net...
keith o'connor
Just remembered that I wrote a series of poems which explore the dark side
of Canadian history. All countries have a dark side except Canadians try to
make themselves look nice.
Its a series of six poems using selected events to cover almost 100 years of
history.
http://www.tinmangallery.com/poems/WPoem0DramaticStoryPoems.html
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F133913...@oco.net...
Roadside Artist
expressed in your original post is wrong. There is no "attack" involved in
stating a fact.
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:3F12F116...@Concentric.Net...
Alison A Raimes
particular conceptual framework in order to provide a focal
point for our thought processes. This allows us to locate meaning
within the work of art.
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
"Noumenon" <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:3F1207EF...@Concentric.Net...
Seagull Manager
"Alison A Raimes" <artl...@ontel.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
news:3f15...@212.67.96.135...
> We use the term *Art* to describe objects or events placed in a
> particular conceptual framework in order to provide a focal
> point for our thought processes. This allows us to locate meaning
> within the work of art.
>
> Alison A Raimes
> http://raimes.com
You are presenting an opinion that is held only by a minority as if it were
uncontested fact.
Are you always so dogmatic?
Alison A Raimes
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:bf34r5$i65$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> You are presenting an opinion that is held only by a minority as if it
were
> uncontested fact.
>
> Are you always so dogmatic?
Oh fuck ... I forgot the intellectual level of participants here. Don't you
have a dolly to play with?
Please note: everything I say/write is purely my opinion - contestable and
welcomed by intelligent response. Those with the intellectual level of a
seagull or their manager need not apply.
goodbye.
Flying_Naked_People
I would like to comment. But I am scared of you.
> goodbye.
>
Seagull Manager
"Alison A Raimes" <artl...@ontel.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote in message
news:3f15...@212.67.96.135...
>
> wrote in message news:bf34r5$i65$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> > You are presenting an opinion that is held only by a minority as if it
> were
> > uncontested fact.
> >
> > Are you always so dogmatic?
>
> Oh fuck ... I forgot the intellectual level of participants here. Don't
you
> have a dolly to play with?
The intellectual level of your post was not too high now, was it? (Or
perhaps you think it was!)
> Please note: everything I say/write is purely my opinion - contestable and
> welcomed by intelligent response.
Since I don't know you, your opinions as such are not interesting to me
unless they are (a) new, or (b) backed up by new evidence or argument.
Opinions without either features (a) or (b) are inherently boring when they
come out of the blue, and they make the person expressing them look like a
dogmatist or a parrot.
> Those with the intellectual level of a
> seagull or their manager need not apply.
That's a shame. I was going to ask you what you think of Thomas Leddy's
article "Red Dust" (British Journal of Aesthetics, April 2001), summing up
the debate between Joseph Margolis and Arthur Danto. Presumably you disagree
both with Margolis and with Leddy that Danto's version of the Institutional
Theory - at least - is untenable. Do you have an alternative defence of
Danto's theory that works better than Danto's own, or is your belief that
the Institutional Theory is not dead as a doornail simply a matter of faith?
>
> goodbye.
Cheerio. Have fun, wherever you go.
Noumenon
>
> We use the term *Art* to describe objects or events placed in a
> particular conceptual framework in order to provide a focal
> point for our thought processes. This allows us to locate meaning
> within the work of art.
placed by whom?
If it is done by artists, but can not be recognized
and understood by spectators -
then it's hardly of any value.
Art (impregnated with concepts that remain invisible
and uncovered) has very little meaning as far as those
concepts are concerned.
Seagull Manager
"Alison A Raimes" <alison...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f6243c1f.03071...@posting.google.com...
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@nospamthanksbecauseisayso.demon.co.uk>
wrote in message news:<bf4f2t$iri$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...>
> > The intellectual level of your post was not too high now, was it? (Or
> >
> > Since I don't know you, your opinions as such are not interesting to me
> > unless they are (a) new, or (b) backed up by new evidence or argument.
> > Opinions without either features (a) or (b) are inherently boring when
they
> > come out of the blue, and they make the person expressing them look like
a
> > dogmatist or a parrot.
>
> then your posting is somewhat contradictory, isn't it?
No, it isn't. All I know about you is the opinions you express, and the way
you support (or fail to support) those opinions. That's enough to suggest
that you may have a dogmatic and authoritarian personality.
> And as you are
> not interested in me other than to flame, then why would I, or anyone
> else, waste their time?
I have no interest in flaming you, but I am interested in challenging
dubious unsupported opinions.
> You project your own fascist voice onto others
> and then expect them to bow to you! get real! You get treated the way
> yo treat others.
You have a cheek calling me a fascist.
> I've been on rec.arse.find for five years (for your information) and
> in the past was a major contributor to the debating system here.
I've seen some of your older exchanges. You are notoriously aggressive, but
not exceptionally well-informed.
> Until
> a jerk or two like you got their teeth into me and I started to play
> rather than focus on what is important to me.
Jerk? You're the jerk.
> Occasionally now, I drop
> here in the hope of a a good debate and to find new members for
> Artlives http://artlives.org.uk - and occasionally it works - most
> often it doesn't and I go elsewhere like AestheticsL or the Lyotard
> list. The last time I was here, I met a Swedish artist and
> theoretician - who posted a complex article on Derrida.
No doubt you have great fun with your Lyotard and your Derrida, and
regularly wallow in their punning, sophistical nonsense to your heart's
content. Complication is not equal to intelligence, and verbal pyrotechnics
are not equal to wisdom.
> Lauri and I
> were the only two people who embraced his post in an intelligent way.
Hahaha. Arrogant twerp.
> How many people here
> can start to discuss contemporary art that they only ever experience
> through the media? how many went to Documenta last year, or the Venice
> Bienalle this year? or Munich, Berlin, Brussels or Amsterdam. How many
> visit the alternative spaces in East London, or Chelsea in New York?
> Not many, I'll warrant - but everyone here is an expert.
I've no idea. I see most things.
Flying_Naked_People
alison...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> > Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
> > > We use the term *Art* to describe objects or events placed in a
> > > particular conceptual framework in order to provide a focal
> > > point for our thought processes. This allows us to locate meaning
> > > within the work of art.
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
news:<vhb95jp...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > I would like to comment. But I am scared of you.
>
> BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>
>
Dear Frightening One,
I'll have you know that I *can* appreciate your definition of art. The act of
finding meaning happens in all *good* art whether the artist intended the
meaning or not. This happens in abstract or realism, even those inbetween.
It's a wonderful discovery.
ThatisallIsweartoGod.
Alison A Raimes
> placed by whom?
> If it is done by artists, but can not be recognized
> and understood by spectators -
> then it's hardly of any value.
>
> Art (impregnated with concepts that remain invisible
> and uncovered) has very little meaning as far as those
> concepts are concerned.
Art is placed into a conceptual framework in that it is presented to
an audience for evaluation.
Value to whom? Value is a measurement the individual places on
something - so it can only ever be a matter of opinion which is
influenced by attitudes. What may not be of value to you, may be of
value to me. For instance, some of the most challenging art may demand
me to start peeling layers in order to delve deepe - both into my mind
and the mind of the artist. It may, inadvertedly, effect the way I
think in front of art in the future and it may effect the way I work
in the future too. That would be its value to me and it may be that I
have something useful to say to the artist in response also.
Alison A Raimes
> If it is done by artists, but can not be recognized
> and understood by spectators -
> then it's hardly of any value.
>
> Art (impregnated with concepts that remain invisible
> and uncovered) has very little meaning as far as those
> concepts are concerned.
Meaning is what a good translation preserves. But always influenced by
cognitive faculties. For instance, in French 'Ou sont les neiges d'antan'
literally *means* 'Where are the snows of yesteryear?' and figuratively
means 'nothing lasts'. In other words, meaning is what a person intends to
communicate and his/her ability to do so relies on the receiver being able
to interpret. Thus, if the intended were to communicate to a mass audience,
it would have to use universal language. Signals and symbols such as the
white flag to mean truce have non-linguistic conventional meaning that is
universally understood. And so do many road signs.
In 20th century Philosophy of Meaning, a sentence is what one understands by
it - as opposed to the technical structure of it. Understanding a sentence
is knowing how to use it - knowing how to verify it and when to assert it,
or being able to think with it and use it in inferences and practical
reasoning.
The artist has traditionally adopted signs and symbols within their work to
convey meaning. However, the audience that one would have expected - the
universal audience - has never developed. The signs and symbols of modernist
and indeed postmodernist art are aimed at informed audiences rather than the
mass audience. The alienation that so many complain of in front of modernist
art reflects an inability to interpret and that has often been used by
artists to claim a higher intellectual level in art than purely graphics. As
Bill Viola said in a recent interview with Karen Raney (UEL) in 2000: "the
basis of image making is shifting from the visual to the conceptual. The
material basis of the image is no longer founded on the behaviour of light;
it is based on the behaviour of thought."
For Duchamp, there can be no art without the spectator. He identified the
inability of the artist to judge their own work and the necessity of what he
described as an *aesthetic osmosis* (The Creative Act 1957, Art News 56, no
4) as the way of transferring the responsibility of meaning to the viewer.
"In the creative act" he said, "the artist goes from intention to
realization through a chain of totally subjective reactions." The constant
struggle for the artist between *intent* and realization* which results in
the *unexpressed but intended* and the *unintentionally expressed* - the
"art coeffficient" as Duchamp named it. Thus, the artist provides only a raw
state for the viewer to refine. Out of inert matter, an object is produced
for evaluation and is weighed on an aesthetic scale.
So for Duchamp, art without viewer is impossible. The urinal that we have
become so familiar with symbolises not so much a defiance of the institute
and academy, but as much an implication of the power of the audience.
The complaint of the distance between artist and audience in much of
modernist art centred around the inability of the mass audience to interpret
the language of modernity - it had become too specialised - and perhaps
deliberately so as art moved from graphics to concept. The alienation of the
public may well have been truly beneficial to the progress of art though.
When has there ever been a more vibrant environment than controversy for
debate and dialogue? It raises a number of huge questions about the meaning
of art - some of which we will no doubt banter back and forth here,
particularly in terms of the audience today.
I leave you with one final thought on this. In the 20th century, it became
the norm for the audience to practice emotivism in response to art. Today we
see it in the mass media, the art critics, and indeed in the general public.
The viewer's attitude towards the object being evaluated, is based on moral
judgements - the object is approved or disapproved of depending on the
appraiser's attitude. In fact, this has become one of the important points
in the debate on the postmodern sublime, which is now central to the
postmodern aesthetics.
Alison A Raimes
news:ovQRa.127$Ai3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Put another way:-
> Modernist art does not appeal to a mass audience and is not
> intended to.
> It is a set of coded messages from one "intellectual" to another.
That could be a possibility to consider. Modernist Art shifted the
engagement of the artist from the social and political to the aesthetic. The
submission to the demands of the medium, as Greenberg said. Yet it still
held onto traditions of art.
If you are going to argue High Art versus Low Art by setting up conditions
for art to be or not to be, then you are buying into an elitist scheme
yourself ... but I see that from your later comments. So yes, Modernist Art
could be seen as an intellectually exclusive zone under the conditions you
describe. However, it is not. One could learn the language quite easily if
one wanted to - just as you would if you were a mathemetician doing
logistics. Is there a reason why art should not be an intellectual pursuit?
But then again, when has it ever been any different in art? Did the
peasants of the day understand what was being painted? Do you think the
masses that stream through the National Galleries around the world are able
to translate the signs and symbols used across the centuries in art? Or do
they need a docent or a pamphlet to lead him through and explain the
meaning?
>
> > As Bill Viola said in a recent interview with Karen Raney
> > (UEL) in
> > 2000: "the basis of image making is shifting from the visual to the
> > conceptual. The material basis of the image is no longer founded on
> > the behaviour of light; it is based on the behaviour of thought."
>
> How can an image be made without it's basis being visual?
> Visual Art is just that. Visual.
> If you want to change from visual to conceptual then try poetry or
> literature.
Is that your doctrine? or one that has been installed in you? I know it was
jammed down my throat as an undergraduate and then janked out as a post
graduate freeing me to see and think in ways that I didn't know possible.
Crossing disciplines is not a crime! By moving into other areas of the
arts - or into philosophy, science, architecture or even literature, it is
possible that artists will open up their ideas and imagination beyond the
traditional boundaries that have restricted development. Installation art,
performance art and digital art are just some examples of the opening up of
art across disciplines. Are you dismissing them all?
Viola's statement is self explanatory. You are just being lazy and you
certainly don't need me to explain the increasing shift from mere imitation
and representation to philosophically based conceptual work. Incidentally,
this information is not hidden - there has never been a time in art where so
much literature is available on contemporary art so I cannot accept the idea
of alienation myself.
>
> > The alienation of the public
> > may well have been truly beneficial to the progress of art though.
> > When has there ever been a more vibrant environment than controversy
> > for debate and dialogue? It raises a number of huge questions about
> > the meaning of art - some of which we will no doubt banter back and
> > forth here,particularly in terms of the audience today.
>
> As an artist - instead of posing this question (it's been done before) try
> to supply an answer.
>
Ah yes, you want answers. Most people do. I do not. I want the journey of
the enquiry. I want to hear other people's views and ideas - to open up my
horizons and be tested and challenged in all that I think and do as an
artist and as a viewer. I have ideas - and sometimes they will be attacked
as dogmatic by those who feel threatened - other times they will be
challenged in a dialogue which will inform and develop. So why not pose the
questions and not seek the answers? Some questions can never be answered.
> Some of us don't feel the question has any basis other than to try to
> force into art that which is non-art.
Who is this *some of us* - could you be more specific? the *us* I belong to
is a large community of contemporary artists from all over the world -
something around 50,000 living and working in London - and I have never
heard anyone complain of feeling threatened or forced into anything. Never
has there been a period in art where the artist has been more free.
Non-art? You sound like you are a prisoner of art being held against your
will and forced to look at things you don't like! Amusing, but silly. There
is nothing to *save* in art - it is thriving and growing and developing at a
rate that has never been experienced before. And making millions of people
very happy.
> So how did people judge art before the 20th century?
> As you said,
> >However, the audience that one would have expected -
> > the universal audience - has never developed.
You are not serious with that question, are you? When do you want me to
refer to? The 1st century when Longinus was speaking of art as a
transcendental medium? or the Church paintings of the 14th Century which
forced Christian doctrines into society? or perhaps the bourgeois portraits
of the 17th Century representing the wealthy for the opressed to worship?
Who was judging the art then? certainly not the masses. The critic and the
audience, as we know it, did not emerge until the start of modernity (around
the mid 18th Century). Judging art is a product of it. The viewer has also
gained freedom.
Flying_Naked_People
In article <3f17...@212.67.96.135>, artl...@onetel.net.uk says...
> Thur <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> news:ovQRa.127$Ai3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> > How can an image be made without it's basis being visual?
> > Visual Art is just that. Visual.
> > If you want to change from visual to conceptual then try poetry or
> > literature.
>
> Is that your doctrine? or one that has been installed in you? I know it was
> jammed down my throat as an undergraduate and then janked out as a post
> graduate freeing me to see and think in ways that I didn't know possible.
> Crossing disciplines is not a crime! By moving into other areas of the
> arts - or into philosophy, science, architecture or even literature, it is
> possible that artists will open up their ideas and imagination beyond the
> traditional boundaries that have restricted development. Installation art,
> performance art and digital art are just some examples of the opening up of
> art across disciplines.
But installation art, performance art, and digital art are visual, like Thur
said.
> Viola's statement is self explanatory. You are just being lazy and you
> certainly don't need me to explain the increasing shift from mere imitation
> and representation to philosophically based conceptual work. Incidentally,
> this information is not hidden - there has never been a time in art where so
> much literature is available on contemporary art so I cannot accept the idea
> of alienation myself.
I take Viola's statement to mean, "the basis of image making is shifting from
recognizable images to the
non-recognizable images. "
> Ah yes, you want answers. Most people do. I do not. I want the journey of
> the enquiry. I want to hear other people's views and ideas - to open up my
> horizons and be tested and challenged in all that I think and do as an
> artist and as a viewer. I have ideas - and sometimes they will be attacked
> as dogmatic by those who feel threatened - other times they will be
> challenged in a dialogue which will inform and develop.
Why do you believe people feel threatened? I sense anger, frustration, and/or
disgust in people - but certainly not a feeling of being threatened.
> So why not pose the
> questions and not seek the answers? Some questions can never be answered.
Then why ask questions? Or, why learn? Or, why challenge... or, why develop
beyond what we are?
> Who was judging the art then? certainly not the masses. The critic and the
> audience, as we know it, did not emerge until the start of modernity (around
> the mid 18th Century).
Huh?? I've seen references that point to Plato.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Can jump in here?
>
> > So why not pose the
> > questions and not seek the answers? Some questions can never be
answered.
>
> Then why ask questions? Or, why learn? Or, why challenge... or, why
develop
> beyond what we are?
>
journey, answers are impossible if you have deluded yourself into thinking
that you have arrived.
The pleasure of life is all in the journey. After all, life is nothing but a
journey. All arrivals, all termini, all ultimate understaindings and all
absolute complaicancy are deaths. Some are prepared to die early, some are
prepared to delude themselves into thinking that their statis is life. If
that is sufficient for them who are we to contradict them? We can only pity
them. It would be wrong of us to smash their comfortable worlds - after all
isn't the 'happiness' of the smiling fool in the insane asylum something to
be both pitied and envied at the same time?
Yes, a life without progress can be a happy enough one, most of the world is
filled with people who have no other option how can we be contemptuous of
them?
If we are lucky enough to be one of the few who can see our own
imperfections, errors and fallings short of our own ideals then we can
strive towards the higher, and more fundamental happiness that others cannot
even dream of. As members of that elite it ill befits us to be contemptuous
of those who can never hope to achieve it.
Yes, indeed, the day you stop learning, the day you cease to see your
errors, the day you feel that there are no more questions is the day you
die. All that is left is a moving corpse.
Sorry, that was a bit heartfelt! I'll go quietly on to enjoy learning from
my next mistake - learning the trumpet has been for me a hugely valuable
humbling experience, I long for more of the same, it, like all true learning
gives such deeply sweet delight.
--
Yes, Peter was always an anarchist - he was an anarchist from the day he was
born - RCB, Harbour House, Cape Town 12th July 2003
Erik A. Mattila
> Lemmings are alive too. They are happy. They are self-satisfied.
> Their life is one long progress.
> No-one asks if they should think again whether it is a good idea
> to jump over the cliff, in case they are condemned as "moving corpses".
> Thur
Ha! Nonsense! Everyone knows that they are suicidal little neurotics!
One of god's nastier tricks - creating hamster-like furballs that
multiply like rabbits while suffering from agoraphobia. The cliffs are
just icing on the whole nefarious scheme.
Erik :-)
Neil Maxwell
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Ha! Nonsense! Everyone knows that they are suicidal little neurotics!
>One of god's nastier tricks - creating hamster-like furballs that
>multiply like rabbits while suffering from agoraphobia. The cliffs are
>just icing on the whole nefarious scheme.
For those who believe in a homocentric god, lemmings are clearly a
combination of education and amusement for humans; a scampering
life-lesson, as it were.
How many other real creatures are so well known across multiple
cultures when so few people have ever actually seen them? Leeches,
maybe. I rest my case. :-D
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> When you look out of your rail carriage, or whatever method
> of transport your analogy desires, you are confronted with
> the conundrum :- if the objects and landscape are moving
> across the window, then is the train moving or is the landscape
> moving?
> When you say that you are on a journey, it is necessary to know where
> you are going, lest you are deceiving yourself that you are not going
> anywhere, and the apparently static people are actually there before
> you, and are moving on.
>
> Furthermore, because you have convinced yourself that you are moving,
> it is necessary to know whether you are going forwards, and upwards,
> rather than the opposite.
> In a scenario that you describe, all seekers after truth will be carving
> out their own paths to understanding, rather than gathering together
> and declaring the journey to be the one true path.
> What I observe is the latter.
> One of my arguments is that the current (last 120 years or so) direction
> of art has degenerated.
> > As members of that elite it ill befits us to be contemptuous
> > of those who can never hope to achieve it.
>
No, it wasn't. What makes you think that it was?
>
> > Yes, indeed, the day you stop learning, the day you cease to see your
> > errors, the day you feel that there are no more questions is the day you
> > die. All that is left is a moving corpse.
>
> stream is wrong, and has none of the positive advantages you seem
> to be claiming for yourself.
>
Actually I claim nothing for myself in the post - that is your assumption.
>
> Where is your evidence that people who disagree with you do not ask
> questions, and are "a moving corpse."?
>
None - I make no such assertion.
>
> As a matter of fact I often ask questions when I am in the company of
> those who might be able to answer. Many of them have been asked
> to this newsgroup. I seek as many answers as I can get, but they seem
> (many of them) to be unanswerable.
>
What's the problem? Indeed many questions don't have answers, some will
never have them. Keep on asking, though!
>
> Lemmings are alive too. They are happy. They are self-satisfied.
> Their life is one long progress.
> No-one asks if they should think again whether it is a good idea
> to jump over the cliff, in case they are condemned as "moving corpses".
>
answer to know.
--
The happiest people on earth are those few fortunates who seem to be in a
state of mild, stable hypomania. - David Horrobin 'The Madness of Adam and
Eve' (How schizophrenia shaped humanity)
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F18616D...@oco.net...
stupid, one, just make sure that you don't join hands with him.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:kooghvc32iiff22il...@4ax.com...
indeed be a rather nasty insult to leeches.
Noumenon
> That could be a possibility to consider. Modernist Art shifted the
> engagement of the artist from the social and political to the aesthetic.
Modernist art never did any such thing.
In fact, modernist art contrived to shift such "engagement"
hopelessly far and completely away from any aesthetics.
In certain ways modernist art, as it is, DESCTROYED conventional
aesthtics in perception of many poorly educated people; but,
despite brave claims, it did not offer anything instead.
(Except never-ending talk about "art" itself, of course).
ART (and artists producing it) was never so close to aesthetics
(and far away from politics) as it was in Ancient Greece.
Talking about novelties, new perception (new approach), depth
(intellectual), new aestehtics (?!), concepts (more meaningful
than ever), freedom (spiritual), etc. of MODERNIST ART
is ONLY a cheap casuistry
that may enchant and besot only relatively undeveloped,
quasi-intelluctual crowd.
<sigh>
Alison A Raimes
> But installation art, performance art, and digital art are visual, like Thur
> said.
They all dip into disciplines that are not necessarily visual.
> I take Viola's statement to mean, "the basis of image making is shifting from
> recognizable images to the
> non-recognizable images. "
Read it again.
> Why do you believe people feel threatened? I sense anger, frustration, and/or
> disgust in people - but certainly not a feeling of being threatened.
Just read some of the posts here - I was responding to someone who
clearly feels threatened as he used the word *force*.
> Then why ask questions? Or, why learn? Or, why challenge... or, why develop
> beyond what we are?
why not kill yourself?
> Huh?? I've seen references that point to Plato.
me too - but we both know that we are talking of a specific period in
art here.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> I suppose that you are claiming to be part of an elite?
> Contemptuous?
> I wish you well in your quest to achieve a better understanding
> of your world.
> You might get there better with some humility.
>
Don't mistake false humility for the real thing! Yes, many people, quite
rightly, aspire to be part of certain elites and I am fortunate to have been
in some of them. It is false humility to pretend that something like that is
not the case.
> > >
> > Actually I claim nothing for myself in the post - that is your
assumption.
> > >
>
your
> > > > errors, the day you feel that there are no more questions is the day
> you
> > > > die. All that is left is a moving corpse.
>
> I think that to be clear, you should have said that you did not claim
> anything for yourself.
>
My position isn't relevant to the point, actually. I'm surprised that you
don't recognise the description as apt of some people - no matter, if it
doesn't gel with you then ignore it.
>
> >>> Keep on asking, though!
> Well here's a few.
> If art in general can be said to reflect the society it has sprung from,
> then
> what does the last 120 years or so's art say to you?
>
Can art be said to reflect the society? Always?
>
> A good number of art historians champion several phases in art.
> E.g. The Renaissance, and the Classical Age in Greece.
>
Obviously. Historians have to see patterns or impose them to make sense of
such a vast amount of information.
>
> How do you place the last 120 years worth of art on the same context?
> Put more simply, are we living in a great era where our works will be
> glorified by generations to come, or will it quickly be forgotten as an
> embarrassment?
> I think I have explained fully what my judgement is.
>
I think that you lump too much under the same category. Art is still,
fortunately, very diverse, despite the current orthodox lauding of
decorative pieces as art there is plenty of genuinely good art to be found -
you just have to look.
The marxists like to view history as some sort of machine and believe in
historical inevitability - with this belief they then have to force fit
reality into their model. This distorts things rather badly.
Trivially a painting of a portable telephone would place the picture in the
past twenty years or so, but apart from that sort of reflection much of the
rest is artificial.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> I admit to a historian's view on art.
> The feeling I get from many sources, including this ng,
> is an adolescent assumption that today's art is the
> most important, and works produced by earlier generations
> is of no significance.
>
Really? It hasn't appeared that way to me.
>
> > I think that you lump too much under the same category. Art is still,
> > fortunately, very diverse, despite the current orthodox lauding of
> > decorative pieces as art there is plenty of genuinely good art to be
> found -
> > you just have to look.
>
> and art that is of a much higher quality.
> But I was referring to the bulk of what is being held up as good art,
> generating
> incomes, and reselling at higher prices, and that which is hung in
> galleries.
>
It is a mistake to judge from the common, from the vulgar, from the masses.
Just look at democracy, it's clear that the majority is often if not usually
wrong.
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> > Just look at democracy, it's clear that the majority is often if not
> usually
> > wrong.
> At least we can have another go after a few years.
> > It is a mistake to judge from the common, from the vulgar, from the
> masses.
> After "elitism" too.
>
You haven't been brainwashed into thinking that elitism is a dirty word have
you, poor lad? Would you rather be operated on by an elite surgeon or by a
road sweeper?
>
>
> Judging art is not a vulgar action, but a very, very choosy process.
>
What a peculiar tautology Clearly judging anything is a matter of choice, it
wouldn't be judging otherwise. Choice can, like judgement, be vulgar,
however, no matter what process it uses.
These are really quite simple facts!
>
> However, I am prone to make comments that may be overheard by
> gallery officials who seem to look very grumpy when I try to make sense
> of their abstract paintings.
>
Gallery officials are probably just looking bored - watching over paintings
all day is not a very exciting job - rather than concerned about comments
from the public. Look harder next time and make sure you aren't confusing
boredom with grumpy - you are confused about other things and it is quite an
easy mistake to make.
>
> Does that make me part of the vulgar common masses?
> :-)
>
Maybe - you should know.
--
Judges are known for making extreme antediluvian remarks from time to time,
their being dressed as Ark stevedores only encourages this anachronistic
playing to the gallery.- recommendations on judical attire
Flying_Naked_People
develop
> > beyond what we are?
>
> why not kill yourself?
Cause I want to answer the questions I have.
> > Huh?? I've seen references that point to Plato.
>
> me too - but we both know that we are talking of a specific period in
> art here.
Modernism. The part you snipped?
Flying_Naked_People
(I saved them to my harddrive for later comment).
But I'm more concerned with "waking the dead", or how to "deal" with them in
their current state, or if everything else fails, how to recognize them spot
on and how avoid further interaction.
In article <bfaq93$mpf$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, pe...@new.co.za says...
> Subject: Re: MODERN ART: DESTRUCTION OF MEANING ?
> From: "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
>
>
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl> wrote in message
> news:vhho75r...@corp.supernews.com...
> > In article <bfam90$kd4$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, pe...@new.co.za says...
> > > They don't require sympathy - they feel quite content being dead.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Do you have any Answers? Solutions? Ideas? (I'm serious).
> >
> > And if you can suggest a book, please know that I prefer reading material
> > published between the 1950's and the 1970's... by (physically) dead
> writers.
> >
> Now, that's a question! Presumably you mean ideas on how to avoid such
> stagnation. I don't think that there is a self-help book on the subject and
> if there were I don't think that I would either read it or recommend it.
>
> I can mention some things that have kept my delight in life alive - though
> they are not intended as recommendations, just pointers:
>
> - Have a serious illness, one that you only just survive (I tried black
> water fever [the terminal stage of malaria] and a deep vein thrombosis).
> Knowing that you live only because of luck and first rate and intensive
> doctoring gives a nice sharp edge to life. Sadly it is difficult to keep the
> edge for more than a few months after the event, but you can try. I see
> every day as an unexpected, undeserved and unlikely part of the third life
> that I shouldn't be having - I am not, after all, a cat.
>
> - Get married. It's a great way not only to improve your level of happiness,
> but also to learn about yourself, not always the pleasant bits. It certainly
> expands the mind.
>
> - Study something different. In my case, after my brother's death, I started
> to study philosophy since he had been a philosopher. You can't go wrong with
> that field for exciting and stimulating thought, but there are many other
> fields that can be a great stimulus. I have long been interested in
> sociobiology (evolutionary psychology) that helps us understand who we are
> as humans. History is a bit depressing but interesting. Some people find
> learning a new language stretches the brain in the right direction for them.
>
> - Take up a new hobby. As I said, my most recent hobby is learning to play
> the trumpet. When you start exploring a new field you start to realise just
> how little you knew about it before. Training the muscle memory is also
> different from training the more cerebral parts.
>
> - Take psychotropic drugs. I'm not suggesting every day, or even more than
> once or twice, but Aldous Huxley in 'Heaven and Hell' and the 'Doors of
> Perception' [from whence the name of the pop group 'The Doors', examines the
> subject in some detail and is in favour of the results. It isn't recommended
> to have acid trips unless you are a very integrated person with not much
> history of madness in the family who is in a happy state of mind, but, in
> those circumstances it can be a memorable and fruitful experience.
>
> - Have somebody very close to you die. This can't be arranged to order and
> is extremely unpleasant. It does, however, give you an opportunity for
> serious self-examination and psychic development.
>
> - Cook. Cooking is not just an art and not just a science. It combines both
> and, if embarked upon properly, is completely involving. You can cook
> something different every day, explore different cultures through their
> cuisine and, most exciting, go out on the edge and make mistakes from which
> you learn. If you don't produce a meal that has gone wrong from time to time
> then you aren't trying. Cookery books make engaging reading as well, the
> more you cook the more interesting they are as you can visualise the likely
> result. There are many excellent cookery books (Jane Grigson produced some
> wonderfully informative and witty ones, Robert Carrier some nicely practical
> ones and, of course, there is Mrs. Beeton [first catch your hare]), the two
> that I have found most useful have been Larousse Gastronomique and its
> companion Curnonski. Curnonski's life is an inspiration and his receipts
> amazing - his salmon cutlets in anchovy butter are an amazingly successful
> combination.
>
> - Draw more. I don't see drawing as just capturing a scene or a person, nor
> just as practice to improve - nor even a test of composition and style -
> though it is, of course, all of these. I find drawing a meditation and a
> method of intense contemplation of reality. After I have drawn for an hour
> or so in a new location I rise stiff and in need of a break because of the
> intensity of the process, but the feeling of delight stays for ages, and
> even years later I can return to the scene in my mind's eye and enjoy it all
> over again.
>
> - Write. It doesn't much matter how or what, but the process of clarifying
> your ideas on pretty well anything by writing them down is a useful adjunct
> to thought.
>
> - Move countries. If you find youself depressed or moribund there are few
> more valuable things to do. If you live in another country for a few years,
> three at least I'd recommend, then you will find your life enriched in ways
> you didn't consider possible. That isn't to say that it isn't a bugger to
> actually do it, the hassle is amazing and the adjustment takes longer than
> you expect. Once you have, though, you'll wonder how anybody copes with such
> a limited view of life that living in one country leaves you with. Holidays
> abroad don't, by the way, count.
>
> So, there's a little list, if you like lists it might appeal. There are many
> things left out - picnics, bbqs and dinner parties with interesting people,
> games of scrabble, chess or balderdash ditto, visiting unusual and different
> places (I loved Albania, Samarkand, Kars, Kahmir and Bobo Dioulasso most,
> but I look forward to exploring Australia, New Zealand and the far east more
> in the future), even going to court to fight traffic fines can be an
> uplifting and life enhancing experience!
Alison A Raimes
new book _Art In Question_ where you can find the full transcript of the
interview. In response to Karen's question
"So the visual image stands for that relationship between surface appearnace
and the deeper reality. That's why it is so fascinating to us?"
Viola expands thus:
"That's why it is absolutely fascinating. It has the same ontological
status that an angel has. The Greek word for an angel means 'messenger' in
English. It is the intermediate between the spiritual domain and the
physical world. That is why images have such a special power.
Images (in the broadest sense of the term) can be visual, verbal, musical,
gestural, conceptual. They can be painted, sculpted, sung, spoken, danced or
whatever, but it is the connection and ultimately the common identity
between the external image and the imagination, the imaging capacity of
human beings, that is at the heart of all creativity. That's why art has
always been considered dangerous, because artists have the ability to put
something in the form of an image, to create something that never existed
before.
Images have always been recognized for their transformative powers, which
is a new concept for us, coming out of the literal, rational mode where
texts and records are not supposed to change. It is a new idea that images
don't represent things. They are not static elements in a lexicon. They are
living beings that are transforming and changing - in contemporary
techological terms 'morphing' - into all sorts of thing. That is disturbing
for the older generation, and very invigorating for the younger generation."
I highly recommend Karen's book. She is very well informed and asks
pertinent questions at all opportunities. I really enjoyed studying Critical
Concepts under her.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Thanks Peter, for taking the time to write these eyebrow raising
suggestions.
>
I'm sure that the eyebrows will recover! They have certainly all worked for
me. It reminds me of the Monty Python sketch of the psychiatrist who makes
appauling suggestions to his patient then reassures the patient that he had
done exactly that himself so it is 'perfectly normal'.
>
> But I'm more concerned with "waking the dead", or how to "deal" with them
in
> their current state, or if everything else fails, how to recognize them
spot
> on and how avoid further interaction.
>
To see the alive you just have to look in their eyes, the dead have dead
eyes - for really lively ones look at Mira Sorvino in 'Triumph of Love' a
most enjoyable film, but most noticable in my memory for those brilliantly
alive eyes.
Actually spotting the unhappy ones is quite easy, but not to a formula.
Remember Tolstoy's quote: 'All happy families resemble one another, each
unhappy family is unhappy in its own way'. People are a bit like that too.
Some unhappy people can't help it, they are simply unlucky - in particular
those with no sense of humour can never, as far as I have been able to see,
be happy, tragic for them, but there it is.
On usenet you can't see the eyes and have to infer what people are like from
what they post. Unprovoked aggression, extreme dogmatism (coupled with an
inability to discuss and learn from discussion), a rigidity of world
outlook - well, we all know these symptoms!
You could do worse than read up about the enneagram. It is a fascinating
window through which to see people. Once you have identified somebody's type
then you can see if they are giving in to their compulsions or acting
against them - if the former then they are unlikely to be happy.
Pessimists are seldom happy, they don't really want to be - after all if
they end up happy then their pessimism is mistaken. Eyore is a good model of
a pessimist, all to him is thistles and not very good ones at that. General
floccinaucinihilipilification is something few pessimists can avoid so it is
quite a good indicator - not an unmistakable sign though since some things
are indeed worthless.
Deceitful people are seldom happy either. You can tell them easily, they are
suspicious of other people's motives (with good reason, they know that their
own motives are suspect) and insist on using phrases that amount to
variations on: 'to be honest'.
How to avoid them is simple. Live an Epicurean life and keep bores out.
How to ressurect them is rather more difficult. ECT has worked in some
cases, some can be transformed, temporarily at anyrate, by falling in love -
even miserable people can attract other miserable people, an indication of
the strength of the sex drive. You could recommend suicide, making the
actual situation formal, so to speak, but this would be unwise as it would
leave the planet severely depopulated - and we do need a fair number of
zombies to keep the wheels turning, a world full of happy people is unlikely
to be a deeply efficient one. To read about this effect there is an
excellent short story by E.M. Forster in 'The Life to Come and Other
Stories' [a book I'd highly recommend as extremely entertaining], called
'What Does it Matter? A Morality'.
Andrew Werby
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:bf9qpq$53r$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> news:zwYRa.458$Ai3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> Their life is one long progress.
> No-one asks if they should think again whether it is a good idea
> to jump over the cliff, in case they are condemned as "moving corpses".
>
That's nice for them - no doubt the are happy lemmings, but I await your
answer to know.
[Lemmings, like artists, have better things to do than provide us with an
object lesson in self-destructiveness. Contrary to myth, they don't hurl
themselves off cliffs in mass-suicidal frenzies. If you saw it in a nature
documentary, it was faked - the documentarians actually chased them over the
brink. (See Snopes, the Urban Legend site although this would be a rural
legend, I suppose.... )http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
If there's a lesson in this, it's about being the victim of others'
expectations. ]
Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com
Erik A. Mattila
Good one, Andy. I had thought that it was true, but only in times of
population explosions. But I'm not surprised...
My ex-brother-in-law got a job with Disney just after he graduated with
a cinema degree from USC. His assignment was filming on the "Hurricane"
documentary, and he traveled to the Carribean for the shoot (they had to
wait for months for a suitable hurriane to film). But one sequences
showing the snakes migrating in the hurricane was filmed at a snake farm
in Florida, and he showed me the production stills. One guy was holding
a hose with a sprinkler head on it (the driving rain) and two or three
others were taking snakes out of their boxes and throwing them into the
spray.
Another one he told me about that was pretty funny was a diver being
attacked by a shark. It was a dead shark. Some other divers were "out
of frame" and would try to throw the shark, like a spear, at the victim
diver. It took them two or three days to get the shot right, all during
which the shark cadever was decomposing more and more each hour. At one
point one of the spear throwers accidently shoved his hand up the dead
sharks anus as he was making the thrust.
One of the guys he worked with was an old Disney hand with a lot of
tales. The one I remember came from the Disney nature classic "The
Living Desert." It was the mating dance of the Scorpions. The way they
did it was set up a large aquarium with a desert "diorama" and place two
scorpions (unsexed - how would they know?) in opposite corners. The two
insects wandred around and bumped into one another a few times,
exploring their new environment. But the film footage was edited,
turned backwards, enlarged, reduced, and mixed-up (there were three
cameras filming) and orchestrated into the mating dance of the scorpion.
Erik
>
>
Flying_Naked_People
> To read about this effect there is an
> excellent short story by E.M. Forster in 'The Life to Come and Other
> Stories' [a book I'd highly recommend as extremely entertaining], called
> 'What Does it Matter? A Morality'.
>
>
Another good post. I'll definitly check out this book!
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:uGjSa.101829$H17.31467@sccrnsc02...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:bf9qpq$53r$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > "Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> > news:zwYRa.458$Ai3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> > Lemmings are alive too. They are happy. They are self-satisfied.
> > Their life is one long progress.
> > No-one asks if they should think again whether it is a good idea
> > to jump over the cliff, in case they are condemned as "moving corpses".
> >
> That's nice for them - no doubt the are happy lemmings, but I await your
> answer to know.
>
anything about lemmings, Thur did.
>
> [Lemmings, like artists, have better things to do than provide us with an
> object lesson in self-destructiveness. Contrary to myth, they don't hurl
> themselves off cliffs in mass-suicidal frenzies. If you saw it in a nature
> documentary, it was faked - the documentarians actually chased them over
the
> brink. (See Snopes, the Urban Legend site although this would be a rural
> legend, I suppose.... )http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm
>
> If there's a lesson in this, it's about being the victim of others'
> expectations. ]
>
probably the case are a result of peer reviewed and repeatable research.
Peter H.M. Brooks
almost all the stories involve homosexuality fairly directly and might have
got him into trouble when alive. For sheer naughty delight I'd say that the
Obelisk is one of the best in the book.
Erik A. Mattila
> It is well worth while - it was published posthumously, mainly because
> almost all the stories involve homosexuality fairly directly and might have
> got him into trouble when alive. For sheer naughty delight I'd say that the
> Obelisk is one of the best in the book.
Speaking of authors, did you ever read ZA's own Eugene Marais? "Soul
of the White Ant" - "Soul of the Ape". I read these years and years
ago, and I was strongly impressed. Marais has been cited by some as
"the father of animal behaviorism." (There's always got to be a father,
you know.)
One thing that stuck in my memory was his observations of the Chacma
troop he was studying imbibing in a local psychotropic plant late each
afternoon. He launched into quite a few paragraphs about an affliction
of the higher primates, some sort of "early evening depression." To
compensate, us apes have a pharmacy of substances to abuse to overcome
the blues. I remember Marais citing the evening "cocktail hour" as
evidence.
Some years later I read a biography on Marais, which mentioned that he
was addicted to opiates - easily obtainable since his day job was as a
Medical Doctor. So his high primate depression theory may have been a
bit of an alibi. He had a standing offer to rid any house of termites,
on the condition that he be allowed to study the colony for a period of
days before killing the queen. Opiates may have played a role here, for
as I understand it he would spend three or four days and nights under a
house doing his research. He would poke broom sticks into the holes to
calculate where the queen's chamber was locate, and very carefull shave
the wood with a razor until he could peer into the chamber. He was
driven by a curiosity on how the queen was moved from one chamber to a
new, larger chamber that would accomodate her growth (18" or so max.)
He died not knowing - one of the great mysteries of nature as far as I
understand. His books are marvelous, in my opinion.
Erik
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3F1A44C0...@oco.net...
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> > It is well worth while - it was published posthumously, mainly because
> > almost all the stories involve homosexuality fairly directly and might
have
> > got him into trouble when alive. For sheer naughty delight I'd say that
the
> > Obelisk is one of the best in the book.
>
> Speaking of authors, did you ever read ZA's own Eugene Marais? "Soul
> of the White Ant" - "Soul of the Ape". I read these years and years
> ago, and I was strongly impressed. Marais has been cited by some as
> "the father of animal behaviorism." (There's always got to be a father,
> you know.)
>
were unmissable.
>
> One thing that stuck in my memory was his observations of the Chacma
> troop he was studying imbibing in a local psychotropic plant late each
> afternoon. He launched into quite a few paragraphs about an affliction
> of the higher primates, some sort of "early evening depression." To
> compensate, us apes have a pharmacy of substances to abuse to overcome
> the blues. I remember Marais citing the evening "cocktail hour" as
> evidence.
>
my best between around 16:00 to 18:00 - knowing that, though, enables me to
compensate by tucking into a good book or periodical at that time and
avoiding company. Of course, if it is a weekend evening, then a cocktail
enables company to be enjoyed at that time.
>
> Some years later I read a biography on Marais, which mentioned that he
> was addicted to opiates - easily obtainable since his day job was as a
> Medical Doctor. So his high primate depression theory may have been a
> bit of an alibi. He had a standing offer to rid any house of termites,
> on the condition that he be allowed to study the colony for a period of
> days before killing the queen. Opiates may have played a role here, for
> as I understand it he would spend three or four days and nights under a
> house doing his research. He would poke broom sticks into the holes to
> calculate where the queen's chamber was locate, and very carefull shave
> the wood with a razor until he could peer into the chamber. He was
> driven by a curiosity on how the queen was moved from one chamber to a
> new, larger chamber that would accomodate her growth (18" or so max.)
> He died not knowing - one of the great mysteries of nature as far as I
> understand. His books are marvelous, in my opinion.
>
research - thank goodness that there are such people! The largest termite
queen I have seen was the size of a small sausage, about four inches long
and just under an inch in diameter - still an amazing size compared to the
termites generally.
I have met one of his descendants a few times, he also has problems with
sanity but, sadly, is unlikely to write anything that excites very much.
Gud Nabor
>One of the guys he worked with was an old Disney hand with a lot of
>tales. The one I remember came from the Disney nature classic "The
>Living Desert." It was the mating dance of the Scorpions. The way they
>did it was set up a large aquarium with a desert "diorama" and place two
>scorpions (unsexed - how would they know?) in opposite corners. The two
>insects wandred around and bumped into one another a few times,
>exploring their new environment. But the film footage was edited,
>turned backwards, enlarged, reduced, and mixed-up (there were three
>cameras filming) and orchestrated into the mating dance of the scorpion.
>
>Erik
Well, being an old "desert rat" myself most of
my life, I can tell tales that will leave you
doubting my veracity too! Having seen the "Living
Desert" film several times, I never found it to
be untruthful in general, in spite of the obvious
need to manipulate some scenes in order to make
filming them possible. I seem to recall having
seen a documentary that showed how Disney's staff
did all the filming.
As for mass migrations, I've witnessed on more
than one occasion the migration of thousands of
tarantulas. In each instance it was as I was
driving in a vehicle somewhere in the area. To
claim the pavement was 'black with them' would
not be too much of a stretch. And then there
was the time desert tortoises were mass-migrating!
You couldn't miss them all without finding an
alternate route, and in that region there is no
close-by alternate route. So here we go, "Crunch
Crunch Crunch?!"
Erik A. Mattila
Indeedy do. I didn't see it myself, but a friend told me about his
adventure on the stretch of road between Yuma (San Luis Rio Colorado)
and Los Vidrios (a little town in the Pinecate area of Sonora). Or was
it between Los Vidrios and Sonoita - now can't remember. Anyway, he was
on his way to San Blás in the middle of the night, and the highway got
slishey and lit up with millions of green emeralds. He stopped his car,
and started to step out, when his wife grabbed him and shouted "Look!"
There they were, the tens of thousands tarantulas crawling around on the
warm pavement.
But, at the same spot, I was driving on my way to Puerto Peñasco one
night, and the road got slishy, and I slowed down to see tens of
thousands of toads on the warm road. Awesome. We proceded (what could
you do?) and it only felt safe to drive about 35mph. But at the end of
the toads Owls started bouncing on our windshield. I must have hit 25
or so. They were feeding on the toads.
That's a wonderful area, btw. Pinecate...declared a bio-reserve by the
Mexican Government a few years back, part of the Northern Gulf
bio-reserve program organized to protect several endangered spieces -
the Vaquita dolphin, the giant Totuava (a 400lb. sea trout) - but not
toads and tarantulas, apparently.
Erik
>
>
>
>
Gud Nabor
>That's a wonderful area, btw. Pinecate...declared a bio-reserve by the
>Mexican Government a few years back, part of the Northern Gulf
>bio-reserve program organized to protect several endangered spieces -
>the Vaquita dolphin, the giant Totuava (a 400lb. sea trout) - but not
>toads and tarantulas, apparently.
>
>Erik
There is a very popular preserve near me
on the Rio Grande watershed. BOSQUE DEL APACHE.
How's that for an 'original' name for it. It's
mostly a bird sanctuary and can be an amazing
place to visit, depending on the season. One
can see hordes of water birds of various odd
sorts, including wintering endangered species
(whooping cranes, etc), but there never seems to be
a shortage of 'Sandhill Cranes' and egrets
regardless of the time of year.