Art
Rogers
My wife and I had a little spat a couple of weeks ago because she brought
home a nice framed print of a Manet (not Monet) painting, and I objected to
the thing. Wasn't immediately sure why I objected.
It is true that at that time I had just read something by Ron about how
"action" paintings seemed to have some sort of efficacy in connection with
sea-sickness. Also, in a later lecture, he talks about how thetan's suffer
from their own theta attributes, like motionlessness, for example. So, I
looked at that painting again and tried to figure out what I really didn't
like about it. Maybe it was the motionlessness?
Well, maybe it's just reactive. However, analytically, I came to some
conclusions about "Art."
Ron has defined Art, at least in one place, as "the quality of
communication." (That's all I remember about his Art series. And maybe what
I am about to say is redundant.) But it seems to me that if you bring the
comm formula into Art, you have to think about the duplication at effect of
what emanated from source. But, more than this, in Art particularly, you
might hope to see the "source" somewhere in the work. You know, see the
artist in the art. See the artist's soul in the art.
I think I am particularly focused on paintings right now, okay, so this may
or may not be THAT general a treatise on "Art."
Now, what that comes down to in my mind is simply this. There must be LIFE
in the painting. Life was the source of the painting, and it should be
reflected - somehow - in the painting.
The painting my wife brought home was a still life. In my dictionary, by
definition, a still life is of "lifeless" objects. And feeling very
satisfied with myself, I resolved in my mind that it was merely the fact
that it was a still life painting that was rubbing me the wrong way. You
know, still life actually equating to still death (lifelessness).
Also I felt rather smug, not to mention justified in my appreciation of the
"art" contained in comic books and Japanese cartoons. Very dynamic.
Violent perhaps, but at least lively.
Well, this smugness evaporated when I recently happened across a website set
up by someone I knew on the Briefing Course, Bob Grant. Now, as best I
know, Bob is still a scientologist in good standing - but I won't hold that
against him (hee hee). Anyway, bottom line, Bob has a number of still life
paintings up on his site (still somewhat under construction) but... they
contain "life." Oh, it may be just a "trick" (not really meaning to
discount it) of controlling the "light" in a picture, but either way,
there's some damn good paintings on display. I like THEM (and to hell with
Manet).
Now, I should warn those consummate and exaltedly supreme Art lovers - there
are no paintings of Shania Twain. (No paintings of her bust either.) But
apart from that, it's a lovely site.
The site address is: http://members.home.net/fineartstudios/
Lot of stimulating "Art education" at the same site.
Les C. Rogers.
Ted Crammer
> My wife and I had a little spat a couple of weeks ago because she brought
> home a nice framed print of a Manet (not Monet) painting, and I objected to
> the thing. Wasn't immediately sure why I objected.
>
> It is true that at that time I had just read something by Ron
[...]
You allowed Ron to 3P your relationship with your wife. Don't try to
'splain it; just ack it and move on.
--
Ted
Rogers
> You allowed Ron to 3P your relationship with your wife. Don't try to
> 'splain it; just ack it and move on.
Ted, are you "trying" to be funny?
Les.
AMI
It was hard enough for me to make out the pictures on the site you mentioned
that I don't have much of a response to them.
A friend of ours has a picture by a French impressionist whose name I
forget, of a wet evening in Paris, a view of a bridge to a cafe with its
lights on and so forth. The picture positively glows with life, as if a
being is there providing a window to a wet november evening in the twenties.
It is a stunning effect - quite literally - you tend to stand looking at it
with your mouth open or at least, I do.
Like good tomatoes or Scotch, you need to see a really good piece of art to
realize what all the fuss is about.
ami
Rogers
> It was hard enough for me to make out the pictures on the site you
mentioned
> that I don't have much of a response to them.
Hi AMI,
I agree, they are a bit on the little side and the first one seems to be on
an angle. I imagine Bob's gonna have to fix these things up a bit.
> A friend of ours has a picture by a French impressionist whose name I
> forget, of a wet evening in Paris, a view of a bridge to a cafe with its
> lights on and so forth. The picture positively glows with life, as if a
> being is there providing a window to a wet november evening in the
twenties.
Sounds like something I might appreciate.
It's funny though. I don't know if just, all of a sudden, I've just keyed
in a bunch of overts on Art, you know, out of the blue, but I've decided I'm
going to be more critical, nay harsh, on paintings. Well, it's just for my
own amusement, you know. Maybe I'm just gonna validate my own subjective
opinion more, that's all.
> It is a stunning effect - quite literally - you tend to stand looking at
it
> with your mouth open or at least, I do.
This happens to me when I get a Victoria's Secret catalog in the mail.
Les.