Sculpting"on my mind"
Kim Eifrid
something other than website squabbling. I am seeing alot work referred by
these postings that show alot of "realistic" work. Some of it reveals a
great talent and the creator has all right to feel proud to show it. Yet I
wanted the group to know that I have had alot of fulfillment as my work took
on a more expressive, abstract look. I did some time modeling a "perfect"
figure, capturing a realistic ear, and proportion. I don't regret it for it
gave me the basis to know what I can do with what I see. Abstract is not a
cop-out. Look at a Piccasso or Mattisse sculpture. What about Brancusi? A
simple oval form for the head or a lean tall bird form. (Time magazine
sculpture of the Century) And what's with Henry Moore; does he have a hole
in his head?
I challenge everyone do an exercise I did in a class. look at a model or
sketch one, get a block of clay, put on a blindfold, and do it. You might be
surprised how your mind-to-hand expresses itself.
WoN ereH
Do you seriously believe the sculptors on this group cannot or have not ever
made abstract work? I have no doubt all have at one time or another. When one
first picks up a lump of clay, the first inclination is to squash it, squish
it, see what happens, what forms emerge. Aside from life casting, all
sculpted work deviates from realism to greater or lesser extent. Though Henry
Moore added very realistic hands and feet to his figures in his late years, it
looked ridiculous because he stuck them on his large stylized figures, never
having the courage to deviate from the style that made him famous. Picasso was
not a true abstract artist either. Everything he did used the figure, or some
real object, as the subject.
Debra
Battersby
> I challenge everyone do an exercise I did in a class. look at a model or
> sketch one, get a block of clay, put on a blindfold, and do it.
Kim, isn't that how all "art" is done these days?? Things that sell.
> What about Brancusi? A simple oval form for the head or a
> lean tall bird form. (Time magazine sculpture of the Century)
Sad.
I like some of it. (Not Brancusi, Piccasso or Mattisse).
Really sad.
"realistic" work. Yeah.
Battersby.
--
T. M. Battersby, stuccoist.
http://www.battersbyornamental.com
tbatt...@satx.rr.com
Kim Eifrid wrote
Kim Eifrid
written at a level that sells to a greater public, an actor quits because
he's not paid enough, creativity is a child's play, and art is only made to
sell.
"Battersby" <tbatt...@satx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NNmE8.85753$9F5.4...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
Kromkowski
Let's consider music. From archeological evidence, there is a case to be made,
that the earliest forms of music were imitative of nature. For example, flutes
tending to reproduce bird tonalities. This kind of music could certainly be
said to be "realistic"
What would we say is better or more interesting, the "musik concrete" which
uses actual realistic sounds from around us or "abstract" music where the
elements of pitch, rhythm, tone, timbre are organized to create tunes and
themes (i.e. that what today is most universally recognizable as music). It
seems to me the latter is the choice although there can be plenty of "failure"
of purpose even in "abstract" music.
To my way of thinking (without any personal offense to Dan S or any one else),
I think lifecasting or the incredible effort to "perfectly" model is not the
most advanced use of artistic talent. (Don't let this view make you believe
that I favor the current state of quality of art. Much, much too high a crap
quotient.)
If so called "realistic" art is a pinacle, then why hasn't sculpture never
really embraced three-dimension representation of still life. Where are the
really great and persistant sculptures of bowls of fruits and fish on the
platter. Why do so called "peformance" artists try to glom onto sculpture
(when they should be discovering and learn about the artistic traditions of
plays, mimes, court jesters, and cinema) but interior decorators aren't by and
large claiming to be part of the sculptural tradition.
Whether, the ultimate object, is "recognizable" directly as something known
(thing, person, animal, vegitable) or "not recognizable directly", the
function of good and great scupltors should be to select, organize, and arrange
the elements of our milieu (volume, form, line, texture, color, etc.) in such a
way as to make the viewer stop and have a contemplative moment and be willing
to come back again and again for the contemplative moment. This, in my view,
is the function of all art of whatever species -- that which creates a
contemplative moment is beauty (this is not the same as pretty or necessarily
pleasing) and beauty is truth.
When the function of the artist is "to merely create something 'recognizable'
", however perfectly, the function has now been switched from the correct
function -- to create beauty or the opportunity for the contemplative moment.
Form follows function. "Realism" is a pretty good trick to get the view to
stop, but too often the contemplative moment becomes not about the object but
about the artist's capacity to "reproduce reality". The contemplative moment
is lost because because I don't need to look at a reproduction of a beautiful
women, I can just look at my wife or the object is not the producer of the
contemplative moment but the process is. But the beautiful object that is not
"realistic" has no counter-part in the world, so the contemplative moment
either comes from the object or not. And as to the process creating the
contemplative moment; well, then the artist should have video-taped or filmed
it and that can be the art. (Consider, the contemplative moments that happen
when people at a craft show watch the artisans making the stuff.)
I suppose the above could have been better organized and proofread., but heck
this
is the internet.
Kromkowski
http://members.aol.com/kromkowski/
JOHN ROWLANDS
between good (creating what you like doing) and evil (hard cash).
What I would like to know is how to do both! perhaps I will try the
'blindfold'
Kim Eifrid <el...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:abtkf7$19g$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Battersby
> I suppose the above could have been better organized and proofread.,
> but heck this is the internet.
Internet, or anywhere, real good reading from here Kk. Well put.
> I think lifecasting or the incredible effort to "perfectly" model
> is not the most advanced use of artistic talent.
Not sure if it's true or not, but I've heard that Rodin only did one
lifesized piece. Accused of lifecasting, all his work from that point on was
scaled up or down. Dan's lifecasting work incorporates art (as defined in
the paragraph following), as opposed to simply placing the material into the
mold.
> Whether, the ultimate object, is "recognizable" directly as something
known
> (thing, person, animal, vegitable) or "not recognizable directly", the
> function of good and great scupltors should be to select, organize, and
arrange
> the elements of our milieu (volume, form, line, texture, color, etc.) in
such a
> way as to make the viewer stop and have a contemplative moment and be
willing
> to come back again and again for the contemplative moment. This, in my
view,
> is the function of all art of whatever species -- that which creates a
> contemplative moment is beauty (this is not the same as pretty or
necessarily
> pleasing) and beauty is truth.
That one paragraph pretty much sums it up.
> Much, much too high a crap quotient.)
I'm gonna be using that one.
Battersby.
--
T. M. Battersby, stuccoist.
http://www.battersbyornamental.com
tbatt...@satx.rr.com
Kromkowski wrote
Sculptingman
> most advanced use of artistic talent.
> really embraced three-dimension representation of still life.
>Where are the really great and persistant sculptures of bowls of
fruits
>and fish on the platter.
I don't think "realistic" sculptors are usually attempting to model
reality "perfectly". I think they are trying to convey something about
being human, about the human form, or movement, gesture, expression,
about the experience of people as people that abstract art is
inadequate to capture.
This is not to say that realism is superior to abstract, rather, I
would maintain that each different form of art has evolved from the
need to find ways to express ideas that realism itself is inadequate
to capture.
Each different realm of expression has its own territory of eloquence.
While you certainly can look at your wife to see a beautiful woman,
you still have favorite pictures of her, don't you? You keep them
because each photo captures something special, some mood or look or
moment that the picture allows you to keep forever; to hold those
moments, those feelings in contemplation without the rush of events
moving you and your wife to other notions. Pictures allow you to
re-visit those moments, like when she had that certain expression on
her face that you see from time to time, but that is so beautiful and
fleeting, that you cherish the fact that you can hold it in your hand,
held still for all time.
By the same token- how many pictures of fruit bowls do you have in
your album? Probably none, because the photo album is about your
relationships and human experiences- not about how fruit looks on
film.
You don't see still life done as sculpture because still life painting
is specifically about capturing light and color and the representation
of dimensional volume on a flat plane using just light and color.
Sculpture realizes volume directly- so there is no real need for
"still life" in sculpture.
In sculpture- I can make the balance of a figure in motion a different
kind of still life- one focused on different aspects of the subject,
and differnt challenges for the artist.
The striving for a more accurate portayal is partly an exercise in
virtuosity, but it also serves a very real purpose. There is nothing
people look at as much as other people; nothing we are more interested
in, and nothing we have a more comprehensive visual understanding of,
than people.
Poorly done figure work sticks out like a sore thmb and distracts the
viewer from the artist's purpose in creating the figure.
When the figure is well done, when it looks correct, when nothing
"sticks out" to the eye of the viewer, then the limitations of the
medium and awareness of the "made"ness of the sculpture evaporates and
the viewer is left with just the nuance of the figure. It is at this
place where the sculptor can focus the viewer's eye on the thing he or
she wants to be seen, the core of the work and its humanity.
It must be said here that there is a huge difference between creating
artwork for the joy of doing it or for one's own purposes and
creating artwork that you want other people to find important,
meaningful, and beautiful.
Whenever you attempt to sell your art you are hoping that someone else
will deem it worth owning, And that generates a marketplace.
A marketplace of goods, or ideas, or art, is driven by the tastes and
appetites of the buyers.
Your success at selling art is in direct proportion to your art's
conveying something that the buyer wants to "hear" or is in agreement
with once he "hears" it..
That is it. That's the whole game. quit bemoaning that people won't
buy good art. Some people will. You just have to get your art in front
of them.
And then, if they don't buy it-
well it could be because they don't "understand" it.
Or it could be that its the wrong crowd.
Or it could be simply because your not very good at conveying what you
are trying to convey to the folks you are trying to convey it to..
Or it could be that there simply aren't enough in agreement with your
art to make a living out of it.
And don't forget the role of celebrity in selling art- perhaps you
simply haven't been written up enough to get the crowd you're after to
want what you make.
No matter how you analyze it- artist's complaining that important art
doesn't sell is like a hooker complaining that the Johns don't love
her for the person she really is. Are you selling it or not?
If you are selling it, then understand that the buyer has a right to
want it before he buys. I may not like it, and I certainly don't want
to MAKE it, but the velvet Elvis crowd has every right to like what
they please.
Christopher
PS --Beauty is not truth. Beauty is a beast.
Kromkowski
(Sculptingman) writes:
>That is it. That's the whole game. quit bemoaning that people won't
>buy good art.
I never said that.
Kromkowski
>There is nothing
>people look at as much as other people;
except sunsets, flowers, the sea, the sky, landscape and if you're like my 20
month old son -- vehicles and machines!
Kromkowski
>It must be said here that there is a huge difference between creating
>artwork for the joy of doing it or for one's own purposes and
>creating artwork that you want other people to find important,
>meaningful, and beautiful.
Good artwork is not personal. The joy in making is a whole different thing
from the actual art.
WoN ereH
story, that are therefore interchangeable random, anonymous forms -- as art,
doesn't make it art any more than a toilet seat is art. Call it art if it
makes you feel better, but it still is best seen under your buttocks. An
elephant can create abstracts forms with a paint bucket and his trunk.
DG
Dan S
Of things that are ...
And of things that are not
-Pythagoras
Plato says, People will always prefer seeing the image of a person over the
image of a thing (or a no-thing, I'm sure)
Great abstract art is all the harder because of that, if still true. It can
induce joy and simple pleasure.
Dan
eclectic
"WoN ereH" <won...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020521231305...@mb-dh.aol.com...
I'm just picking up this thread in pieces, so forgive me if I'm off base.
It seems that the last century went through a clash of views about
what art is or should be, (perhaps in every century). Isn't it that
artists who express themselves in abstract forms, be it drawing, painting,
sculpture etc., are using their visual language for a different purpose?
What may seem like "random shapes" being used may really
be very disciplined choices.
As artists we all make countless choices what to include/exclude in our
work, refinement of image or process etc. It seems that artists who
express themselves with abstract imagery are taking this editing process
to the max. to focus our view on something they find aesthetically
meaningful. That abstract works may seem simply worthless might reflect
that we just don't understand this visual language or the artists' intent.
Regards.
Kromkowski
(WoN ereH) writes:
1. Random would suggest total lack of artistic intent and choice?
2. How do you explain instrumental music? Which is for the most part totally
abstract.
3. An elephant really can't "create" anything. Create is a pretty significant
word to use.
4. The creation of art involves the creation of a specific symbolic form. (All
art not just visual art.) The artwork (of whatever kind) is then the "symbol"
for "that which attempts to create a compelling moment of contemplation in
viewers/experiencers". The experiencers of art as well as the creator of the
artwork must obviously therefore be capable of symbolic thought* as a symbol is
involved. Elephants can't do symbolic thought; hence, they ain't doing art.
* Don't care to redredge thread about whether symbolic thought = language vs.
my view tha symbolic thought includes but is not limited to language as one
species of symbolic thought -- mathematics, logic, and art being other forms of
symbolic thought. Sculptingman and I already went round the horn on that one.
JDK
Kromkowski
<arch...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Plato says, People will always prefer seeing the image of a person over the
>image of a thing (or a no-thing, I'm sure)
>Great abstract art is all the harder because of that, if still true. It can
>induce joy and simple pleasure.
>Dan
The preference for the image of a person is also why such "recognizable" art
can be subverted to other non-art functions -- propoganda, eroticism,
advertising.
JDK
Kim Eifrid
collaborated and took an oval form and made a large hole in it but..... they
didn't. Interesting though that when I look at "art" it's not as a quiz to
identify but to seek the feeling and expression. Granted, it is hard with
some abstract yet taxidermy really doesn't turn me on.
Leave the elephants alone. What kind of painting would you do if you were
caged up?
"Anything becomes art as a result of the impregnation of ordinary reality
with the significance of created form."
Book quote: The Language of Vision, Jamake Highwater
KE
"WoN ereH" <won...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020521231305...@mb-dh.aol.com...
WoN ereH
>> elephant can create abstracts forms with a paint bucket and his trunk.
>> DG
Kim wrote:>Wouldn't it be something if I told you that Brancusi and Henry Moore
>collaborated and took an oval form and made a large hole in it but..... they
>didn't. Interesting though that when I look at "art" it's not as a quiz to
>identify but to seek the feeling and expression. Granted, it is hard with
>some abstract yet taxidermy really doesn't turn me on.
>Leave the elephants alone. What kind of painting would you do if you were
>caged up?
Well, FYI, elephants are actually considered very good abstract artists, and
some make quite a nice chunk of change at it thankyou very much.
Check out:
http://www.artbyelephants.com/how.html
http://www.teensizzle.com/sizzle6/elephant.htm
http://dreamasia.com/art.htm
and lots more on google
Sculptingman
>
> >It must be said here that there is a huge difference between creating
> >artwork for the joy of doing it or for one's own purposes and
> >creating artwork that you want other people to find important,
> >meaningful, and beautiful.
>
> Good artwork is not personal. The joy in making is a whole different
> thing from the actual art.
Sorry, K, you already lost that argument- you are the only one here
who believes that art is not personal. Of course, that is your
personal belief.
(yeah, yeah, stop "dredging")
I have to back you up on the elephants, tho-
Animals do not make art because they are not symbolising their
experience. Symbolising one's experience would be an act of personal
expression and communication. (--oops!, sorry, sorry)
However- they DO create. A dog taking a dump has created a pile of
crap- it simply can never rise to the level of art ( unlike when some
hugh-falutin New York City artists take a dump)
Except maybe with cats- sometimes when they take a dump in your shoe,
it DOES symbolise something...
I gotta say, K, that the second half of my last post in this thread
was not aimed at anything you said- simply at the overall tendency of
many posters to whine about the difficulty of selling art.
If you want money for your art- then you are a commercial artist and
the only differences between fine art galleries and the K'mart knick
knacks aisle is target demographic and price points, all pretenses and
posturing notwithstanding.
Right now, however, I personally feel like I gotta get back to
expressing some of my symbolic thoughts in another medium...
(dang! sorry again...)
Christopher
PS- K, please don't take any of this personally.
(dang!)
Linda
> > thing from the actual art.
>
> Sorry, K, you already lost that argument- you are the only one here
> who believes that art is not personal. Of course, that is your
> personal belief.
K might not be the only one who believes that art is not personal. I'm not
sure I would have said it exactly that way, but I think the meaning is the
same. I would say that good art transcends the person. Bad art on the
other hand is totally personal -- it is when our little egos get tied up the
making of 'art' and we do art for another reason, such as money.
Just my two cents worth.
Linda
WoN ereH
their
>experience.
Perhaps, or perhaps you underestimate elephants. Those that work with them
notice a difference in the artistic *expression* between elephants that have
been raised in peace and calm, and those that have seen much pain and
suffering.
DG
Kromkowski
> I think they are trying to convey something about
>being human, about the human form, or movement, gesture, expression,
>about the experience of people as people that abstract art is
>inadequate to capture.
I understand that, but I personally feel that sometimes the wrong media is
used. For example, if you want to convey something about being human --
literature (poetry, plays, short stories, novels, essays) is a much better
vehicle. If you want to convey something about movement, gesture, expression
-- I think that dance and acting (either on the stage or in cinema) is better.
As to conveying something about the human form -- well, way too often this is
cover for misogny and pruruient objectification.
Finally, conveying something about those thing you mentioned does not
necessarily lead to art or good art. A sociological or pyschological study
"conveys something" about being human (maybe even something important) but its
intent is not to create "a compelling contemplative moment in the
viewer/receiver of the the work".
Kromkowski
>-Beauty is not truth. Beauty is a beast.
I totally disagree.
Kromkowski
>By the same token- how many pictures of fruit bowls do you have in
>your album? Probably none, because the photo album is about your
>relationships and human experiences- not about how fruit looks on
>film.
I don't do a lot of photography, but what I do have does include still life's
(often arrangement of food or things that I find visually interesting. Don't
really have photo albums.
Sculptingman
I think you are confusing neurosis with communication- essentially,
art is a method of communicating ideas from one individual to another
or many others. Animals in captivity display "cribbing" behaviors,
too- repetitious and often self destructive activities without
purpose-
They are not saying something about their situations- they are
suffering mental deterioration. Because WE see EVERYTHING
symbolically, it is easy to assume that the cribbing behaivor is
"telling us" about the animals suffering. It is. But it is not the
animal telling us because the animal is not doing so with intent.
Just because you can "train" an animal to play with paint with
incentives, does not imply that they are communicating artistically.
(and, when locked in a small pen with nothing to do- just something to
do can be incentive enough)
If so, they would do it spontaneously without incentive, and their
fellow speciesmates would respond in kind.
I am not suggesting that animals do not communicate- they all do- they
even communicate symbolically- a prariedog yelp is a symbol for
danger.
They all communicate distress and other emotional states very well
However- real language ( which includes art, K) requires an AWARENESS
that symbols are being used- the conscious creation by the individual
of the symbology needed to express a complex thought.
This awareness is most evident in art- and there are no examples of
animals spontaneously generating art.
Our recent abstract expressionist tradition has newly created the
anthropomorphic opportunity to see the scibblings of elephants as art,
to try and read into these scribblings meaning they do not actually
have. These kind of discussions did not occur when art was exclusively
representational
We categorize certain abstract shapes and lines as showing "agitation"
in human artistic expression - but to suggest that similar shapes from
elephants have the same meaning is absurdly anthropomorphic. To an
elephant they might be the restful and comforting shapes of twigs and
grasses...if the elephant was an artist.
More likely is that human abstract expressionism is closer to the
purely animalistic form of essentially emotional communication.
And Linda:
Anyone who thinks they transcend the personal is fooling themselves
with the belief that the world has an objective reality that they can
know.
If your art really did transcend the personal- then why would You
personally need to create it?
Are you moved by art?
That's personal.
With no persons to appreciate it, what is art other than random
matter?
Art is created BY persons, to be experienced by persons AS ART- its
only and entire function is personal.
Everything you ever have thought or will think, feel, taste, see, hear
and believe is a personal experience. Your entire concept of the world
around you is entirely your own and unrelated to anyone else's- except
thru the communication of their individual and personal thoughts.
When you die, everything you have learned and felt will disappear from
the world except those thoughts you communicated to other persons. And
your art, should it survive you, will be nothing more than the
lingering echo of your long dead voice, saying to others something you
once thought.
And when the last person, the last conscious mind in this universe is
gone- all the art ever created will be nothing and mean nothing
because no one will be there to experience it personally .
Christopher
Sculptingman
The sages have long taught that one can live and act in an egoless
fashion.
This does not mean that what you do and feel is not personal. It
simply means that you have a wider sense of self than your own
physical needs and desires. The egoless sage sees others as "self".
Ego is a perjorative term as American's use it and an analytical one
as Freud used it.
The creation of art is usually not an egoic experience.
The promoting of it always is.
Making money at it is not egoic if you don't care that no one knows
you made it.
In most ways- it is the commercial artists that I know that have the
least ego involvment with what they do. Its just a job that they
happen to like, making pretty things.
Christopher
Sculptingman
> >being human, about the human form, or movement, gesture,
> >expression, about the experience of people as people that abstract
> >art is inadequate to capture.
>
> I understand that, but I personally feel that sometimes the wrong media
> is used. For example, if you want to convey something about being
> human -- literature (poetry, plays, short stories, novels, essays) is a
> much better vehicle.
This is your somewhat limited view, not mine. How can literature
convey anything but a DESCRIPTION of the experience of SEEING a
person.
A sculpture can BE the experience of seeing a person and the sculptor
can control completely what is seen.
This is the essence of figurative art.
Besides- who are to to say an artist uses the wrong media?
Perhaps you simply do not comprehend what the figurative artist is
conveying and therefore see no value in it...
If I don't understand French, then a French copy of Les Miserables
might as well be toilet paper.
>If you want to convey something about movement, gesture, expression
> -- I think that dance and acting (either on the stage or in cinema) is
>better.
Only if you want the viewer to see the dance - if you want the viewer
to see the figure as it exists in mid leap, held still for your oft
cited moment of contemplation, then you either have to freeze frame
the flat image on the film- or make a sculpture that one can walk
around and experience from all sides.
Humans already experience all real human forms as moving and transient
all the time. The sculpture allows the fleeting present moment to be
held indefinitely.
>
> As to conveying something about the human form -- well, way too often
>this is
> cover for misogny and pruruient objectification.
Now you are moralizing- one man's prurient objectification is another
mans pornography, -er, I mean- figurative art.
The notion that images of women- even overtly sexual images, are
always misogynist is ridiculous.
Men can not help liking the way a woman is shaped- it is hardwired
into their brains for the purpose of species survival- to suggest that
this is some kind of sin is the worst kind of nonsense.
Pornography doesn't kill people, K, religious and political
extremists do.
Prurient imagery of women is no more or less of a fantasy for men than
Prince Charming and the white horse is for women.
They are not images of what they loathe, rather, images of what they
long for. The first art ever made are all images of ample women and
edible animals- things the caveman coveted, things he desired for his
survival and procreation. Things he craved that were hard to come by.
You can say that men make sex objects of women and that women make
success objects of men- if you choose to imply that there is something
wrong with it,
OR- you can simply recognize that evolution has dictated what excites
us all and that both men and women fantasize about what they probably
can't have enough of.
And it largely does no harm to either.
does not
> necessarily lead to art or good art. A sociological or pyschological study
> "conveys something" about being human (maybe even something important) but its
> intent is not to create "a compelling contemplative moment in the
> viewer/receiver of the the work".
K- I promise you that anyone writing anything is hoping that the
reader will derive a "compelling contemplative moment" from his or her
efforts. I know I hope you will from mine. (but then, I include
writing as a form of art)
You seem to have a very narrow definition of what you call art, and a
narrower one still of what you call good art.
I have a simpler one. Good art moves people. This is something that
the vast bulk of abstract and conceptual art has failed to do very
well.
For every Vietnam Veterans memorial there are a dozen eyesores that
the community cries to have dismantled.
As artists we can indulge a somewhat more refined and educated
appreciation of what makes art good or bad, but then, as artists, we
don't buy a lot of art.
In the final analysis- it is what "non-artists" think of our art that
will cause it to persist or fade.
Christopher
Sculptingman
I totally know that you do-
I am also totally yanking your chain..
get it? beauty and the beast?
It is true that a China Airlines 747- one that I have ridden on many
times- flew on just last week, and full of stewardesses that I smiled
kindly at- crashed into the sea yesterday. It is true they were all
killed.
Explain to me how this truth is equivalent to beauty.
Christopher
Sculptingman
> >By the same token- how many pictures of fruit bowls do you have in
> >your album? Probably none, because the photo album is about your
> >relationships and human experiences- not about how fruit looks on
> >film.
>
> I don't do a lot of photography, but what I do have does include still life's
> (often arrangement of food or things that I find visually interesting. Don't
> really have photo albums.
...You have taken pictures of fruit... but none of people you know and
love....
This explains so very much about your attitude toward figurative art.
In fact I think you are dissembling here-
I am sure you have pictures of the woman you love-( the actual point
of the paragraph that you excerpted part of) and I hope they mean
more to you than those of the fruit.
The point being that people use different media to capture and convey
different content.
I will make abstract art when the point I want to make is abstract-
but I also sometimes use a figurative work to make an abstract point.
Oddly enough- it is mostly the exclusively abstract artists who fail
to see the abstract content in a figurative work.
My own figure work is mostly about the difference between what is real
and what we choose to see- and what that tells us about our perception
of everything else.
But some people only see the pretty figure.
Christopher
WoN ereH
>incentives, does not imply that they are communicating artistically.
>(and, when locked in a small pen with nothing to do- just something to
>do can be incentive enough)
>If so, they would do it spontaneously without incentive, and their
>fellow speciesmates would respond in kind.
Yes, elephants DO scribble in the sand when they are just playing around. This
is why it occurred to someone to see if they would also paint. They were not
trained to paint particular things per se. That would be mimickry. They were
trained on how to use a brush. Each elephant has their own unique style!
Many animals, including several species of monkeys, elephants and dolphins, do
indeed have the intelligence of a 3 to 4 year old. .Four year old humans can
show great mental adeptness, if not higher reasoning. Likewise, art of that
age child tends to be predominantly abstract.
.
DG
Linda
> Anyone who thinks they transcend the personal is fooling themselves
> with the belief that the world has an objective reality that they can
> know.....
> And when the last person, the last conscious mind in this universe is
> gone- all the art ever created will be nothing and mean nothing
> because no one will be there to experience it personally .
What you say is all good and true from the Western philosophical traditions.
However from any of the many mystical traditions, including Buddhism,
reality is a higher level of consciousness (the Universe) which is non-dual
and not personal, but which can be understood, ie when one attains
enlightenment. The ego, which is not inherently 'bad', is entirely
personal. It is that which seperates us from all other creatures and the
Universe. When creating something such as 'art', if the art comes from the
ego, then it is personal, and more often than not is not very good 'art'.
But when an artist creates real art, he allows the Universe to speak thru
him and his ego is minimally involved. (I say minimally because while we
are a manifestation of the Universe, the Universe uses our history to create
the art. For example, as I have virtually no training in Chinese, the
Universe is not going to suddenly have me do Chinese calligraphy. This is
not to say that if I were to do any great art that this art would ONLY be
the product of my personal history.) Thus, when the last human dies, art
will still exist, still speak, because the Universe or reality (or <cringe>
God) will still exist.
Hmm, this is going beyond my two cents worth -- I think I'm upto 4 cents on
the meter.
Linda
Linda
"Sculptingman" wrote :
> The creation of art is usually not an egoic experience.
I guess I'm lost as to why you say art is personal if it is not an egotistic
experience? If the ego is not synonymous with the person, then what is the
ego?
I really get the feeling we are saying basically the same thing, except we
are allowing certain words to divide us.
Linda
Sculptingman
>around.
When I pee in the dirt it makes a scribble, too...
If I do it unthinkingly or mindlessly- is the pattern created art?
Elephant scribbles could also be a cribbing behavior, Debra.
The key test is whether or not, once an elephant has scribbled
something, other elephants come over to look at it?
Do they comment on it with their own scibbles for the first elephant
to come over and see?
If not- then they are not communicating anything- they are simply
fidgeting.
This is one problem with abstarct art, there is no filter between
nonsense and real sense. Anything CAN be art so we are looking for
everything to BE art.
Christopher
Sculptingman
> "Sculptingman" wrote :
>
> > The creation of art is usually not an egoic experience.
>
> I guess I'm lost as to why you say art is personal if it is not an egotistic
> experience? If the ego is not synonymous with the person, then what is
>the ego?
Ego is the conscious appreciation of self.
Id is the unconscious appreciation of self.
The fact that you are hungry and crave food is a function of the id.
The fact that you know you are hungry and know what food you want is a
function of the ego.
That would be the western analysis.
The eastern analysis would be that ego is the celf centered delusion
that you are a separate entitiy from other conscious entities.
And the term egotistic is the most perjorative of them all-
Egotism is to think only of one's self and one's own needs.
However- none of this implies that ego is synonymous with the person.
In all definitions, ego is a function- an activity or belief.
In eastern spiritual tradition, the path to enlightenment requires the
realization that you are not the individual you have been led to
believe you are. That you relinquish the ego to find a true self.
You are not what you think- you are the point of origin of what you
think and personhood has nothing to do with what you believe about
yourself.
You are not the voice in your head. You are the observing
consciousness that is hearing the voice in your head.
Stop your mind in mid sentence and REALIZE that you already know what
you were about to think.
Either way- when I say that the creation of art is usually not egoic I
mean to say what I think you believe.
That is, that when I am doing my best work it is like I am not even
there;
I am not thinking of me, my needs, my hungers; only the form.
Sometimes I "come to myself" after a long session and am completely
surprised and delighted by what I have made.
However- even tho the act of creation is not necessarily an egoic
expercise, what I create is still personal to me- I am making it for
my own reasons and to express my own thoughts.
And my wanting others to appreciate it is certainly egoic.
Christopher
Sculptingman
> "Sculptingman" wrote :
>
> > Anyone who thinks they transcend the personal is fooling themselves
> > with the belief that the world has an objective reality that they can
> > know.....
> > And when the last person, the last conscious mind in this universe is
> > gone- all the art ever created will be nothing and mean nothing
> > because no one will be there to experience it personally .
>
> What you say is all good and true from the Western philosophical traditions.
> However from any of the many mystical traditions, including Buddhism,
> reality is a higher level of consciousness (the Universe) which is
>non-dual
> and not personal, but which can be understood, ie when one attains
> enlightenment.
ceasing of trying to understand- the desire to understand the
unfathomable is just another form of suffering. And all eastern
philosophies dwell entirely in duality- indeed, although they propose
a unified whole to reality- they also reveal that consciousness can
not percieve reality except in terms of duality. The fact that the
dualism is illusory is an enlightened awareness only, never a
perception.
In the eastern view, your perceptions tell you more about the nature
of consciousness than they do about any purported objective reality.
>The ego, which is not inherently 'bad', is entirely
> personal. It is that which seperates us from all other creatures and the
> Universe. When creating something such as 'art', if the art comes from
>the
> ego, then it is personal, and more often than not is not very good 'art'.
> But when an artist creates real art, he allows the Universe to speak thru
> him and his ego is minimally involved. (I say minimally because while
>we
> are a manifestation of the Universe, the Universe uses our history to create
> the art. For example, as I have virtually no training in Chinese, the
> Universe is not going to suddenly have me do Chinese calligraphy. This is
> not to say that if I were to do any great art that this art would ONLY be
> the product of my personal history.) Thus, when the last human dies, art
> will still exist, still speak, because the Universe or reality (or <cringe>
> God) will still exist.
>
> Linda
You have evidence in support of this belief?
Firstly, you assume that animals have no ego and that this separates
us from them.
Gorillas taught sign language lie without being shown how. And they
understand that their face in a mirror is their own face. This means
that they have a sense of self and that is the definition of ego.
But gorillas do not sign a story as metaphor- therefore, do not create
poetry.
I would argue (as I have, sorry again, K) that the creation of art
alone is the single factor separating man from animal. I include under
the umbrella of art all human symbolic communication, literature,
music, math, etc.
Secondly:
as a taoist- (oddly, writing this in a hotel in China) I have to say
that I see the universal soul you suggest as the ultimate in being
personal, rather than the contrary, and that our desire to communicate
with other people thru art is largely an attempt to lift the veil that
separates us.
While I personally believe that reality itself is merely a function of
conscious observation- that this universe is conscious and we are
manifestations of that consciousness, I must also admit that I have no
reason to believe that this phenomenon will persist despite the end of
the universe, or even persist after the universe become too cold and
diffuse to support conscious life.
I have found nothing in Buddism or Taoist that suggests consciousness
is eternal.
Christopher
WoN ereH
>If I do it unthinkingly or mindlessly- is the pattern created art?
Yet you said a couple posts back, "That is, that when I am doing my best work
it is like I am not even
there."
Hmmmm.....
DG
Sculptingman
incidental can be art without the element of conscious intent.
But I will clarify this.
I differentiate between mindlessness and egolessness.
When I am creating art, I have intent always. I have control. I am
acting purposely to an end. The fact that I sometimes lose track of
ego- of the conventional notion of self because I am absorbed in the
intent, the form, or the tactile feedback, does not affect the fact
that I am doing what I am doing knowingly.
...I retain mindfulness .
The true personal self is the observing point of consciousness- the
origin of all thought- not WHAT I think and particularly not what I
think of myself.
This is what is meant in eastern traditions by "egolessness"- not that
you cease to be a person- just that you cease to identify your
personhood with what you are thinking or doing or how you appear or
sound.
In Buddhism, It is only when you give up the ego that you achieve true
"mindfulness" in the zen sense of
being here now, Won Ereh.
Christopher
Kromkowski
(Sculptingman) writes:
>Explain to me how this truth is equivalent to beauty.
Ever heard of "tragedy".
Kromkowski
>However- real language ( which includes art, K)
I suppose we'll have to briefly go around again. I think the heart of our
disagreement is that you use the word "language" in a rather generic and common
kind of way. Language, the way I use it, is more specific, because it may be
broken down into component symbols which have meaning but the artwork (of
whatever species) cannot be so reduced to constituative parts, and therefore,
unlike language which is a collection, is a unity. Hence, art like language
for you becomes:
Artist communicating something (which one may decode from knowing parts) to
Recipient.
I, on the other hand, see it more like this.
Artist makes Symbol. Symbol (as a unity) enables Recipient to have
contemplative moment in which the Symbol stands for Beauty/Truth (or some part
thereof).
Kromkowski
>I would argue (as I have, sorry again, K) that the creation of art
>alone is the single factor separating man from animal. I include under
>the umbrella of art all human symbolic communication, literature,
>music, math, etc.
Were pretty close, except that you are using words in a kind of sloppy way.
Symbol thought is what separates us from animals, at least.
But, for example, this particular post is an example of symbolic thought and of
language, but it is not Art. It's just language. It has parts -- words which
in and of themselves have meaning -- are symbols. But the artworks parts --
line, form, volume, color, tone, rhythm, melody, theme, whatever depending on
species of art, don't have actual meaning. Only the unity of the art work has
the meaning and is symbolic thought. Do you really thing mathematics is art.
It can certainly be artistic but I don't think it serving the same kind of
symbol thought.
WoN ereH
>incidental can be art without the element of conscious intent.
>But I will clarify this.
>I differentiate between mindlessness and egolessness.
>When I am creating art, I have intent always. I have control. I am
>acting purposely to an end. The fact that I sometimes lose track of
>ego- of the conventional notion of self because I am absorbed in the
>intent, the form, or the tactile feedback, does not affect the fact
>that I am doing what I am doing knowingly.
>...I retain mindfulness .
>The true personal self is the observing point of consciousness- the
>origin of all thought- not WHAT I think and particularly not what I
>think of myself.
>This is what is meant in eastern traditions by "egolessness"- not that
>you cease to be a person- just that you cease to identify your
>personhood with what you are thinking or doing or how you appear or
>sound.
>In Buddhism, It is only when you give up the ego that you achieve true
>"mindfulness" in the zen sense of
>being here now, Won Ereh.
Though I have found simply being in the Here Now the way to truly experience
life, more esoteric Buddhist/Zen precepts, though noble, are still symptoms of
varying degrees of mind control or alteration, not mystical experience. For
instance, the part of the brain that is responsible for feeling grounded
becomes inactivated in some forms of meditation, accounting for the feeling of
unity with the universe.
I too like to distract the noisy part of my brain when sculpting to allow the
refelexive part of my brain to react freely and unencumbered by such evolved
brain functions as doubt, hesitation, and conceit - in synchronicity with
dextrous hands. Of course, is took my human understanding to learn these now
reflexive skills. Animals have a much more limited amount of understanding it
is true, but they do have some, combined with in some cases even greater
dexterity.
The modern definition of the word ego is *self*. Freudian psychoanalytic theory
of *ego* *id* and the like are considered rather dated terminology in modern
psychology.
DG
Sculptingman
> of *ego* *id* and the like are considered rather dated terminology in modern
> psychology.
>
> DG
agree with this bit.
Id and ego are still used in modern psycology to mean exactly the same
mental phenomena s as when Freud coined them- modern shrinks have
simply replaced Freud's explanations of them with a more brain
chemistry oriented explanation of them.
And changed the name of Id to "subconscious".
But I still find the original notion of the id far more experimentally
defensible than the Expanded "powers" of the subconscious.
And the modern definition of ego you refer to is a western
colloquialism based entirely upon Freud's definition.
Philosophies of Eastern origin discriminate between Western colloquial
notions of self- and a deeper understanding of the difference between
what we think we are and what we truely are.
I would maintain that there is a subtle but real difference between
Self and Ego.
Self is the underlying consciousness, and ego the superimposed
identity, so to speak.
Christopher
WoN ereH
>agree with this bit.
>Id and ego are still used in modern psycology to mean exactly the same
>mental phenomena s as when Freud coined them- modern shrinks have
>simply replaced Freud's explanations of them with a more brain
>chemistry oriented explanation of them.
>And changed the name of Id to "subconscious".
No doubt Freud is the father of psychology, but I believe psychology has
evolved a bit further than just calling the id the subconscious. :) Funny,
many psychologists are still stubborn about the biochemical nature of the mind,
having not had the opportunity to prescribe medicine, they insist therapy still
has merit. It's been shown that mental conditions that don't need medicine
clear up on their own or that talking to a friend is as good or better than
therapy. I had a friend who was in therapy for years and slowly self
destructed. One prescription would have saved her much trouble. It's all in
the chemistry!
>But I still find the original notion of the id far more experimentally
>defensible than the Expanded "powers" of the subconscious.
Well, the brain has evolved to consciously handle only fragments of information
at a time. The subconscious is doing all the work. It throws the conscious a
few bones to make it think it knows what's going on, but the *conscious* mind
will make even the most absurd version of reality make sense rather than resort
to actually thinking. :))
>And the modern definition of ego you refer to is a western
>colloquialism based entirely upon Freud's definition.
>Philosophies of Eastern origin discriminate between Western colloquial
>notions of self- and a deeper understanding of the difference between
>what we think we are and what we truely are.
What we are and what we TRUELY are? Oh, sounds impressive. But still is
wishful thinking. At least thinking I suppose. ;)
>I would maintain that there is a subtle but real difference between
>Self and Ego.
>Self is the underlying consciousness, and ego the superimposed
>identity, so to speak.
One might like to believe there is this identity per se, but the identity you
speak of is just the pre-programmed, robotic part of the person. The true
person, the Buddha as it were, would be born anew every minute, no preconceived
identity to contend with. Though again, the brain wasn't designed to work like
this, the more it can do on automatic, without *thinking anew*, the better it
likes it. Why sculpting feels so natural, so smooth, so buzzing right along...
DG
Sculptingman
> evolved a bit further than just calling the id the subconscious. :) Funny,
> many psychologists are still stubborn about the biochemical nature of the mind,
> having not had the opportunity to prescribe medicine, they insist therapy still
> has merit. It's been shown that mental conditions that don't need medicine
> clear up on their own or that talking to a friend is as good or better than
> therapy. I had a friend who was in therapy for years and slowly self
> destructed. One prescription would have saved her much trouble. It's all in
> the chemistry!
I agree that Psychology is a ponsy scheme that fosters dependence- i
disagree that the brain is entirely chemistry- its also topology of
synapse- and topology of synapse can only be changed by THOUGHT.
Besides, our feeble understanding of the nuance of this chemistry
makes Psychiatry about as effective as the bloodletting of the 17th
century.
>
> >But I still find the original notion of the id far more experimentally
> >defensible than the Expanded "powers" of the subconscious.
>
> Well, the brain has evolved to consciously handle only fragments of information
> at a time. The subconscious is doing all the work. It throws the conscious a
> few bones to make it think it knows what's going on, but the *conscious* mind
> will make even the most absurd version of reality make sense rather than resort
> to actually thinking. :))
Sorry,, Debra, but there has not been one iota of controled testing
that suggests that the "subconscious" as you describe it actually
exists.
For example the infamous powers of "subliminal advertising" which were
proven to be nonsense in the late 70s- if you do not consciously
apprehend something- then for you it never happened and has no effect.
all suggestion requires conscious volition.
Also the recent de-bunking of so called "recovered" memories
suppressed by the subconscious.
The modern concept of the subconscious is based entirely upon shrink's
unwillingness to accept that their patients lie to them about what
they reallly know, really remember and why they really do what they
do.
All real double blind studies reval that people know what the hell
they are doing and why- sometimes they just don't want to admit it,
even to themselves.
>
> >I would maintain that there is a subtle but real difference between
> >Self and Ego.
> >Self is the underlying consciousness, and ego the superimposed
> >identity, so to speak.
>
> One might like to believe there is this identity per se, but the identity you
> speak of is just the pre-programmed, robotic part of the person. The true
> person, the Buddha as it were, would be born anew every minute, no preconceived
> identity to contend with.
Essentially my argument.
Though again, the brain wasn't designed to work like
> this, the more it can do on automatic, without *thinking anew*, the better it
> likes it. Why sculpting feels so natural, so smooth, so buzzing right along...
>
I agree, Debra- but lump Thinking in its entirety in with things we do
on automatic.
Its consciousness that is made anew, only, each moment.
Christopher
WoN ereH
>I agree that Psychology is a ponsy scheme that fosters dependence- i
>disagree that the brain is entirely chemistry- its also topology of
>synapse- and topology of synapse can only be changed by THOUGHT.
>Besides, our feeble understanding of the nuance of this chemistry
>makes Psychiatry about as effective as the bloodletting of the 17th
>century.
Ponsy scheme is an interesting way of putting it. <g> Though I assume you are
exaggerating a bit there on the bloodletting Chris. Psychiatry has come some
way in treating at least the symptoms of same very nasty mental illnesses.
Gotta at least give the ol' biochemists credit for that. I.e. even if they
don't know why serotonin works, at least they figured out it does do something.
>Sorry,, Debra, but there has not been one iota of controled testing
>that suggests that the "subconscious" as you describe it actually
>exists.
>For example the infamous powers of "subliminal advertising" which were
>proven to be nonsense in the late 70s- if you do not consciously
>apprehend something- then for you it never happened and has no effect.
>all suggestion requires conscious volition.
>Also the recent de-bunking of so called "recovered" memories
>suppressed by the subconscious.
>The modern concept of the subconscious is based entirely upon shrink's
>unwillingness to accept that their patients lie to them about what
>they reallly know, really remember and why they really do what they
>do.
>All real double blind studies reval that people know what the hell
>they are doing and why- sometimes they just don't want to admit it,
>even to themselves.
I'm talking about all the stuff in the brain that is not *conscious*. Call it
subconscious, the storage racks, the cranial library, what have you, but the
herenow brain can only use bits of information at a time. The rest is kept out
of consciousness. Memories, what you ate for breakfast yesterday, the name of
that person you think you recognize, and so on ad infinitum. Even though all
that information is not consciously available, it still exists.
As for*recovered* memories, of course those exist. I recall things from time
to time that have been in cold storage for years! Sometimes I have to put in a
request for information and don't get the answer back from headspace librarian
for days. You of all people should know that *studies*, double blind or
otherwise, must be taken with a grain of salt. For every study there are
usually a number of studies that contradict it.
As for the latter, that people know what they're doing, but sometimes don't
want to admit it even to themselves, how to you suppose they manage that? They
are in denial. On some *level* they may know, they just can't or won't
*consciously* acknowledge it, to protect the *ego*.
>> One might like to believe there is this identity per se, but the identity
you
>> speak of is just the pre-programmed, robotic part of the person. The true
>> person, the Buddha as it were, would be born anew every minute, no
preconceived
>> identity to contend with.
>Essentially my argument.
See, we can agree on something! :)
>Its consciousness that is made anew, only, each moment.
Except that most people are robotic. And robots can't think anew, they can
only process old information. It is the artist that creates new meaning from
bits and pieces of ideas, asthetic and otherwise. (Yea artists!) Most people
accept what they were told in kindergarten and never manage to waver very far
from it. Speaking of artists, do you findt it true Chinese factories copy
American works, or is the paranoia not justified? Do they really surf the web
looking for ideas worth stealing? Makes sense that they would, though it seems
the things coming out of that area are not exactly what one would call cutting
edge design, unless a foreign designer is working with them.
DG
Sculptingman
> exaggerating a bit there on the bloodletting Chris. Psychiatry has come some
> way in treating at least the symptoms of same very nasty mental illnesses.
> Gotta at least give the ol' biochemists credit for that. I.e. even if they
> don't know why serotonin works, at least they figured out it does do something.
Psychiatry and Psychology (the field in general- not to condem the
efforts of those few actual scientists) fail to qualify as science
because they seldom do proper double blind studies to prove the
efficacy or even legitimacy of their postulates. They just dope folks
up and call it useful. Depression medication and ritalin have become
major industries without a single sred of evidence that they are
needed therapies or even that the conditions they treat are in any way
dysfunctions.
> I'm talking about all the stuff in the brain that is not *conscious*. Call it
> subconscious, the storage racks, the cranial library, what have you, but the
> herenow brain can only use bits of information at a time. The rest is kept out
> of consciousness. Memories, what you ate for breakfast yesterday, the name of
> that person you think you recognize, and so on ad infinitum. Even though all
> that information is not consciously available, it still exists.
I agree with this completely- but that is not what the Psychs refer to
as the subconscious- The subconscious in modern parlance is a
nebulous quasi-consciousness that we are generally not aware of but
that is capable of "suppression" of memories to "protect" us and of
altering our waking behaivor for "reasons" of its own.
There is not one study that confirms the existence of such a faculty
and all anecdotal evidence is far better explained by people simply
lying to evade responsibility for their actions.
> As for*recovered* memories, of course those exist. I recall things from time
> to time that have been in cold storage for years! Sometimes I have to put in a
> request for information and don't get the answer back from headspace librarian
> for days.
Again, you are kibbutzing- you know full well that the term
"recovered memory" refers to the hypnotic or theraputic prior to the
therapy. Memory has been proven to be plastic and easily manipulated
and therapists have been sued nationwide for this form of popular
quackery.
You of all people should know that *studies*, double blind or
> otherwise, must be taken with a grain of salt. For every study there are
> usually a number of studies that contradict it.
Untrue- you mistake the media's inability to understand and accurately
report scientific studies with the actual results of studies and you
throw in a dose of statistical manipulation as well, such as when a
government agency claims to having their funding "cut" but 50% when
what they actually mean is that their automatic funding INCREASE has
been cut by 50%.
> As for the latter, that people know what they're doing, but sometimes don't
> want to admit it even to themselves, how to you suppose they manage that? They
> are in denial. On some *level* they may know, they just can't or won't
> *consciously* acknowledge it, to protect the *ego*.
I disagree- people love to fool themselves and latch firmly onto any
idea that will absolve them of responsibility and "repressed"
memories, subconsious volition and "denial" are nothing more than an
unwillingness to admit the truth to OTHERS. Each conscious person
generally knows why they do what they do and what they are doing. They
usually always remember the horrible things that happen to them (
except, sometimes, for those experiences involving trauma to the
brain) and anything they do not consciously recall is lost to the
point of any "recovery" being highly suspect.
And, of course, everything they do know and remember is only what they
actually paid conscious attention to when it happened and filtered by
their own beliefs and preconceptions.
>
> >> One might like to believe there is this identity per se, but the identity
> you
> >> speak of is just the pre-programmed, robotic part of the person. The true
> >> person, the Buddha as it were, would be born anew every minute, no
> preconceived
> >> identity to contend with.
>
> >Essentially my argument.
Mine, too- that the traditional idea of self is not the actual
conscious self, but rather the mistake of identification with the
organic processes of the brain.
> See, we can agree on something! :)
Despite the verbal gymnastics- we have agreed all along, Debra.
But thank you and the others for the fun- here in China I appreciate
the chance to actually converse.
Christopher
Dan S
...must..buy ..finest..materials...
It's "Ponzi scheme"
and "kibbitzing"