Nothing is Real -- Pass the Enlightenment
Nikolaus Maack
surrealists that all is illusion. Perhaps the reason I'm having
trouble is because I insist on phrasing this by saying "Nothing is
real."
The response I get is the typical, "If nothing exists, why don't you
jump off a cliff, or eat hot coals for breakfast, or bathe in onion
juice? If all things are equally unreal, then why don't you drive a
pickle to work?"
A friend of mine hammered this idea into my skull: All is perception,
all perception is flawed, what you want to see is what you see, spend
the rest of your life encountering each experience like it never
happened before, cuz it didn't.
I'd imagine a surrealist would comprehend such an approach. After
all, the idea of surrealism, it would seem, is to use art to "liberate
the imagination". Surrealism strives to comprehend the self and its
position in reality through use of psychoanalysis and automatic
action. Liberating the imagination causes the barrier between me and
the universe to be thinned until it ceases to exist.
Doesn't this sound suspiciously like surrealists are chasing
"enlightenment", using specific tools they hold dear? It does to me.
I wonder if all artists are struggling towards perfect expression, and
therefore, enlightenment. I feel this in my own work. I obsess over
faces, and I draw them, paint them, make collages of them, and work at
them until my eyes hurt. I stop for a while, then I start up again.
With each work, I feel that I am approaching something GRAND. It's
not the idea that with each painting I become a better artist, but
that with each painting I approach a truer version of that which I am
trying to express.
Some "pure vision" of the world is inside of me and I want to catch it
on paper. I can get close approximations of my "dream", but always,
always fall short. So I do it over and over again. Usually I forget
why I paint, what vision it is I'm chasing, and just do the work for
the sake of the work.
Sounds like a monk chasing enlightenment to me. But perhaps all
activity is a chasing of enlightenment?
Nik
---
Don't just hate me for my writing.
Also hate me for my painting.
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Bill Bridget
> The response I get is the typical, "If nothing exists, why don't you
> jump off a cliff, or eat hot coals for breakfast, or bathe in onion
> juice? If all things are equally unreal, then why don't you drive a
> pickle to work?"
Surrealism should be liberating: the freedom to depict eating hot coals
for breakfast, followed by a leisurely pickle-drive off the cliff to
work. Heigh-ho. Your "friends" are imaginatively impoverished.
Ned Ludd
<bbri...@mail.cha.bellsouth.net> writes:
Nikolaus Maack wrote:
> The response I get is the typical, "If nothing exists, why don't
> you jump off a cliff, or eat hot coals for breakfast, or bathe
> in onion juice? If all things are equally unreal, then why don't
> you drive a pickle to work?"
Bill:
> Surrealism should be liberating: the freedom to depict eating hot
> coals for breakfast, followed by a leisurely pickle-drive off the
> cliff to work. Heigh-ho. Your "friends" are imaginatively
> impoverished.
>
Yes, art stopped being merely a representation of reality in 1916.
Art is an element, an actor, in reality beyond its simple position
as an owned thing.
You may "use art to liberate the imagination", but you can also
use imagination to liberate art - the simple act of pointing to
something and declaring it art is as fundamental an act of creation
as slopping paint on canvas. The 'readymade' art of our machine
culture is limitless. (And often quite beautiful.)
Ned
Brandon J. Freels
> For some reason I'm finding it very difficult to convince certain
surrealists that all is
perception, all
> perception is flawed, what you want to see is what you see, spend the
rest of your life > encountering each experience like it never happened
before, cuz it didn't.
All perception is not flawed. If all perception was "flawed" you would be
assuming that their is a "right" way to view reality, and therefore all
would not be an illusion for there would be that "right" way. Understand? I
believe it would be more correct to say that all perception is an interplay
between the interior subjective world (personal interpretation), and the
exterior objective world (the material world).
> I wonder if all artists are struggling towards perfect expression, and
> therefore, enlightenment. I feel this in my own work.
Unfortunately, most artists mistake repression for expression.
Nikolaus Maack
"Brandon J. Freels" (fre...@teleport.com) writes:
> All perception is not flawed. If all perception was "flawed" you would be
> assuming that their is a "right" way to view reality, and therefore all
> would not be an illusion for there would be that "right" way.
You're so "objective" and "rational" in your thinking it makes me
depressed. I believe the truly snide, uppety way of insulting you would
be to call your thinking "Western".
All perception is flawed. There is a right way to perceive the illusion
that is reality. That there is a right way does not take away the fact
that it is an illusion. Why should it? If I recognize a hologram as being
a hologram, does it disappear?
> I
> believe it would be more correct to say that all perception is an interplay
> between the interior subjective world (personal interpretation), and the
> exterior objective world (the material world).
I agree entirely with the above, except there is no objective reality.
There is an interplay between my own mind, and itself. My mind is
objective reality. So is yours. All things are intermeshed in a vast
undividable one.
This is one of the ideas behind "Eastern" philosophy. It's an idea worth
playing with now and then, or possibly every day. Check it out.
> Unfortunately, most artists mistake repression for expression.
I often mistake clouds for melba toast, and I'm all the better for it.
Nik
--
"And I thought, 'Well, how much more bizarre can you get, the Queen of
England sacrificing children?' And, she said, when the blood started to
flow, they shape-shifted into reptiles."
-- David Icke, SuperKook
Nikolaus Maack
Bill Bridget (bbri...@mail.cha.bellsouth.net) writes:
> Surrealism should be liberating: the freedom to depict eating hot coals
> for breakfast, followed by a leisurely pickle-drive off the cliff to
> work. Heigh-ho. Your "friends" are imaginatively impoverished.
Far too many people seem to be hung up on pleasing "objective reality", as
though it were some God we all must kowtow to. I often hear, in their
words, a sort of bitter conformity. They say things like, "We must work
and eat and do all these things, there's no avoiding it," and I get the
impression they'd really like to avoid it.
I'm the one who denies objective reality, and I enjoy doing these things.
Which one of us needs help?
A quote often tossed around is:
"Reality is that which, when we stop believing in it, it doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick said this. Except what most rationalists are unaware of is
that Dick was convinced that nothing falls into this category. Everything
can be made to go away. In the area of divinity, all things are equally
true. There's room for an infinite number of Gods.
I want a pickle car.
Nikolaus Maack
Ned Ludd (ned...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> You may "use art to liberate the imagination", but you can also
> use imagination to liberate art - the simple act of pointing to
> something and declaring it art is as fundamental an act of creation
> as slopping paint on canvas. The 'readymade' art of our machine
> culture is limitless. (And often quite beautiful.)
Sitting next to me on the table is a piece I like to call "Stained
Microwave Dinner Box Filled with Snotty Kleenex and Some Saranwrap Sitting
Near a Box of Dental Floss and a Fork". I'm very proud of it. Do not
offer me a huge some of money for it, because I couldn't bear to part with
it.
Oddly enough, almost all my behavior results in art work. Yesterday, for
example, I spent a long time working on "Pile of Dirty Clothing Lying on a
Bedroom Floor Next to Unread Newspapers and an Unmade Futon". I also
created "New Shoes Nestled in a Cardboard Box Atop a Plastic Bag" and
"Plastic 'Second Cup' Drinking Vessell Inside a 'Best Bunnies' Hallmark
Coffee Mug".
I am very prolific.
Fredrock
>
> Ned Ludd (ned...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> > You may "use art to liberate the imagination", but you can also
> > use imagination to liberate art - the simple act of pointing to
> > something and declaring it art is as fundamental an act of creation
> > as slopping paint on canvas. The 'readymade' art of our machine
> > culture is limitless. (And often quite beautiful.)
>
> Sitting next to me on the table is a piece I like to call "Stained
> Microwave Dinner Box Filled with Snotty Kleenex and Some Saranwrap Sitting
> Near a Box of Dental Floss and a Fork". I'm very proud of it. Do not
> offer me a huge some of money for it, because I couldn't bear to part with
> it.
>
> Oddly enough, almost all my behavior results in art work. Yesterday, for
> example, I spent a long time working on "Pile of Dirty Clothing Lying on a
> Bedroom Floor Next to Unread Newspapers and an Unmade Futon". I also
> created "New Shoes Nestled in a Cardboard Box Atop a Plastic Bag" and
> "Plastic 'Second Cup' Drinking Vessell Inside a 'Best Bunnies' Hallmark
> Coffee Mug".
>
> I am very prolific.
>
> Nik
And I just shat a masterpiece. (BTW, who said that originally?)
Meanshile, the "monk chasing enlightenment" will probably never catch
it, and *wanting* a pickle car won't get you to work.
Buddhism is not an artistic manifesto; surrealism is not the burning
bush. But feel free to sample generously from both if it helps your
art, your outlook, or your checking account balance.
Fred
Ned Ludd
(Nikolaus Maack) writes:
>
>Ned Ludd (ned...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> You may "use art to liberate the imagination", but you can also
> use imagination to liberate art - the simple act of pointing to
> something and declaring it art is as fundamental an act of creation
> as slopping paint on canvas. The 'readymade' art of our machine
> culture is limitless. (And often quite beautiful.)
Nik:
> Sitting next to me on the table is a piece I like to call "Stained
> Microwave Dinner Box Filled with Snotty Kleenex and Some Saranwrap
> Sitting Near a Box of Dental Floss and a Fork". I'm very proud of
> it. Do not offer me a huge some of money for it, because I couldn't
> bear to part with it.
>
You just see the snotty Kleenex and dental floss, you don't see
the art.
> Oddly enough, almost all my behavior results in art work. Yesterday,
> for example, I spent a long time working on "Pile of Dirty Clothing
> Lying on a Bedroom Floor Next to Unread Newspapers and an Unmade
> Futon". I also created "New Shoes Nestled in a Cardboard Box Atop
> a Plastic Bag" and "Plastic 'Second Cup' Drinking Vessell Inside a
> 'Best Bunnies' Hallmark Coffee Mug".
You just see the dirty clothing and unread newspapers, you don't
see the art.
> I am very prolific.
>
For a blind man.
Ned
Ned Ludd
<fke...@eyeREMOVEscape.com> writes:
Nik M. wrote:
>> I am very prolific.
Fred:
> And I just shat a masterpiece. (BTW, who said that originally?)
>
Stavros. Gotta be Stavros.
> Meanshile, the "monk chasing enlightenment" will probably never
> catch it, and *wanting* a pickle car won't get you to work.
But if you wanted it badly enough it might drive you to work.
> Buddhism is not an artistic manifesto; surrealism is not the burning
> bush. But feel free to sample generously from both if it helps your
> art, your outlook, or your checking account balance.
>
Yeah, this guy doesn't leave much room for emptiness.
Ned
Nikolaus Maack
Ned Ludd (ned...@ix.netcom.com) writes:
> You just see the snotty Kleenex and dental floss, you don't see
> the art.
> see the art.
Actually, Ned, I wasn't being sarcastic in the slightest. I *do* see the
art. I am a firm believer that life *is* art, and art *is* life, and that
a plate left on a kitchen table from last night's dinner can be as
meaningful as any canvas.
Brandon J. Freels
> All perception is flawed. There is a right way to perceive the illusion
> that is reality. That there is a right way does not take away the fact
> that it is an illusion. Why should it? If I recognize a hologram as
being
> a hologram, does it disappear?
I have a problem with your strict idealism.
Reality is the interplay between the interior and exterior. It is a clash of
the objective and subjective, but it is not an illusion. It is there. It
exists. What "right" do I have to say that it doesn't? Why deny what I have
experienced? Generally speaking, the problem with "western" thought is it
denies the subjective [interior world] by claiming it is an illusion.
Generally speaking, the problem with "eastern" thought is that it denies the
objective [exterior world] by claiming it is an illusion. These two worlds
both exists, and a true picture of reality cannot reject either one as an
illusion, but must display them both simultaneously. This idea is not new to
those well read in Surrealism. Complete SURREALITY is the unification of
these two worlds.
Ned Ludd
<fre...@teleport.com> writes:
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> All perception is flawed. There is a right way to perceive the
> illusion that is reality. That there is a right way does not
> take away the fact that it is an illusion. Why should it? If
> I recognize a hologram as being a hologram, does it disappear?
Brandon:
> Reality is the interplay between the interior and exterior.
> It is a clash of the objective and subjective, but it is not
> an illusion. It is there. It exists. What "right" do I have
> to say that it doesn't?
>
Because you created every attribute of it.
> Why deny what I have experienced?
Because you experienced it as something separate from you
that was relevant to you.
> Generally speaking, the problem with "western" thought is it
> denies the subjective [interior world] by claiming it is an
> illusion. Generally speaking, the problem with "eastern"
> thought is that it denies the objective [exterior world] by
> claiming it is an illusion. These two worlds both exist,
> and a true picture of reality cannot reject either one as
> an illusion, but must display them both simultaneously.
Because God told you so? Why not just as easily say, "Neither
of these two worlds exist, and a true picture of reality cannot
accept either one as real, and must not display either."
Neither what I said nor what you said are right. I have been
instructed to inform you of the following:
------------------------------------------------------------
If we are entangled in the mess of distinguishing the real
from the fake, we don't learn the lesson it carries. - TC
------------------------------------------------------------
I especially like the phrase "the lesson IT carries".
> This idea is not new to those well read in Surrealism. Complete
> SURREALITY is the unification of these two worlds.
>
When all things have returned to the one, what does the one
return to?
Ned
Wally Chapman
<smip>
> When all things have returned to the one, what does the one
> return to?
Peewaukee, probably. Or maybe Pismo.
--
Wally
"To crooked eyes, truth may wear a wry face." - Gandalf
High Priestess Rosey
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>> When all things have returned to the one, what does the one
>> return to?
>Peewaukee, probably. Or maybe Pismo.
Definitely Pewaukee!
Speaking of which, Trinlay gave Weasel directions to my house. She
accidently sent *him* to Pewaukee too! This is getting to be a trend.
Don't anyone follow Trinlay's directions!
High Priestess Rosey