about painting and it's techniques involved
inadream
This text is about painting .
first:I think every artist who creates a work of art of cultural value has a
thorough understanding of the use of the materials he or she uses.Wether
it's Rembrandt or De Kooning.
I think that a young painter ,someone who is in his twenties (like I am, I'm
26 now) has to go through a struggle to make out which artistic identity
he/she has. Which place in art-history this time will have when it comes to
the art of painting. I read and heard a lot of people say "painting is
dead".
There you go, when you are beginning as a painter !
The arguments for the art of painting losing it's importance or relevance
is -to the people who say it's dead- that it's a medieval art-form not
appropriate to use in this era as a contemporary artform. The main mistake
that they make -I think- is that images that apply to the definition of art-
whatever definition that may be; can never compete with the instant
sensations of images of for example reality-TV or what's happening in the
news.
Art is not real. It's by definition "art"-ificial.
When it comes to the point that art wants to compete with these
reality-phenomena art loses what could make it special.
Art has the ability to create elevating experiences , to transform a place
or a moment in an experience of beauty, understanding and wonder ; art isn't
true but it can be truthful. Although it isn't real it can show an aspect of
reality that you never experienced before.
A painter is a poet- i believe- he/she creates from an empty canvas an
experience of color and space and material from a vision that's not
documenting the world we live in but his/her vision interprets that world
and re-creates it in a new universe of experiences that went through the
soul rather than through the recording eyes.
That's why I think the art of painting could well go through a new
renaissance in the near future. no-one can tell ,of course.
All the people that say that the place of painting has been taken by new
media like video, photography, film; I say they are absolutely right but to
a certain extent. these are new important media. but these persons too
easily forget that painting ressurected as an art-form so many times.
The main problem with the art of painting - I think - is not the 'modern
revolution' or the education-system.
It's a question of mentality.
With the 'modern revolution' came a whole disorientated view of art-history
as it were. We're now beginning to explore the neglected artists of the
nineteenth century for example. Modern art being forbidden in World war II
gave modern art a political correct image, which paved the way for an even
more distorted view of 'important' moments in the history of modern art.
Everything that could be associated with the 'academic' painting in 19th
century Paris was suspect.
Now i think that the modern heritage has been the cause for more boring
works of art than that were ever made in the complete era of the nineteenth
century. I have nothing against modern art neither do I have something
against the classics from which the 'academic' movement emerged.
I think that painters need to modernise their view on the medium and
art-history. Art-history is not static but it's constantly changing. Every
five years a new view on Rembrandt emerges when you look closely to the
books written about him. In the early eighties he was portrayed as an
ass-hole(Gary Schwartz), in the midst eighties he was portrayed as a
business-man(Svetlana Alpers), and now a poetic reaction on that kind of
portrayal one can see in the most recent book about him(Ernst van de
Wetering).
I think that modern art was important but not as cultural important as that
it is considered on the whole. I think for example that Walt Disney should
be considered a great artist, but I don't see Mickey Mouse mentioned in my
copy of honour/Fleming. I think that the visual invention of WINDOWS and
it's effect on image-making is important but I don't see it mentioned in any
essay on contemporary art.
Art needs a new structure; a new mind-set from which it can grow into a new
renaissance. The structure and strategies of the computer for example is -i
think- the key to a new era in painting. The interpretations of these
structures are personal i think. But think of the many renaissance and
baroque paintings that have a resemblance in structure, when you compare
them to the images created with a computer. Therefore I believe in the
future of painting as a medium.
We have to get rid of the naive stereotyping of art-historic events. I think
we have to accept the complexity of things. Many things developing parrallel
to each other rather than a thin line from one innovation/artist to another.
thanks for reading this text, I hope it helps other artists to define their
artistic identity.
greetings,
peter
"a painting is finished when a painter has put his intentions in
it"-Rembrandt
Larry Seiler
> Art is not real. It's by definition "art"-ificial.
interesting ideas.
I have thought some of this through about art, as an artist, but in dealing
with other philosophical matters. I think a problem for us has been our
cultural shift in how we explore the world. The period of Enlightment
brought us from a "religious" perspective into a "scientific." Not to say
science was not flourishing in religion, for the idea of an ordered
creation gave rational thinkers the idea that such order then could be
found, discovered, observed and experiment with.
Yet...over the many decades, an idea has predominantly settled upon the
cultural mindset and is so ingrained or enculturated that it affects our
perceptions and that necessary process we go through in ascribing value and
priority. That idea is that "only what can be proven true is necessarily
true." Science has positioned itself to be the overseer of this idea. Yet
has this statement, "only what can be proven true is true" itself been
proven to be true?
There are some key issues at the very core of our being that creates a
vacuum or void coupled with the enculturation of our more "scientific" or
rational thinking. That issue is that we are haunted to explore the idea
that life YET has meaning, yet has purpose, that beauty and ugliness
exist.....for in our being exists such notions. We cannot account for the
"why" of such notions existing, for science has no proofs of such. Science
cannot prove meaning or purpose, or beauty. Yet as artists, our inner most
being explodes to affirm indeed it does.
So I think much of the debates that have been going on here is a product of
our enculturation of the necessity to have evidences. I'm not saying that
is all bad. I am trying to look for "evidences" myself when I attempt to
understand this. So we seem to have a need to need evidences that art to
be called art bear certain "particulars".....as though science unable to
offer such proofs, we could by the power of our persuasion, arguments and
constant relentless "come-backs" prove more able.
I think I have grown. I, being predominantly a realist painter, had my
years of being bitter because of the emphasis and disparity of art
professors in the 70's that in trying to break our conformities to explore
and bend to their ideas necessarily had to conform in order to be
identified at having been freed. A great attacking of one's person and
what one valued as personal had left a great many young budding artists
hurting.
It confirmed in me the resolve to endure and dig in even more, and I have
grown artistically, but it has taken 20 years or more to come to peaceful
terms and see this more rationally. I now enjoy seeing diversity in
galleries and museums. I enjoy looking at a direction another artist goes,
and I am glad not everyone shares the same vision. I wish the public was
better educated, and this is saying something since I was a public high
school art teacher for eight years. If they were more able to discern the
"whys" of their liking or not liking a work of art in artistic terms, then
less sham filled glitzy marketing ploys would be pandering to sway opinion
to their retail spaces...thus perhaps there would be less and less
stampeding over the passions of other artists encouraging us to see the
world differently and paint differently.
Thus...in my opinion...artists that find enough time to simply attack other
styles continuously, are doing so from the enculturation of their rational
scientific age that must see "proofs" must have control groups, observe,
test. The arts are free from the sciences other than our need for good
chemical properties of pigments! I prefer that we keep it that way. As
such, spiritual needs and beliefs are also free from scientific
methodology.....and perhaps is why many artists are into some spiritual
pursuit and do so uninhibited, for to exist as an artist they needed
unconsciously to break away from the meanderings of a scientific rational
world that would shackle and bind their creativity anyway!
I myself am a Christian.....and an artist. In the not too distant past, I
made personal efforts in recognizing the root of bitterness...I had to
place blame where it belonged, and made some apologies to contemporary
artists in general for the years I hated such work. I do so again and wish
to encourage you well, for WE ALL endure with a great many challenges to
exist, to have a voice in a mediocre society that rewards and applauds
passive conformity. Peace......
Larry Seiler
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
Bob C
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> Yet...over the many decades, an idea has predominantly settled upon the
> cultural mindset and is so ingrained or enculturated that it affects our
> perceptions and that necessary process we go through in ascribing value and
> priority. That idea is that "only what can be proven true is necessarily
> true." Science has positioned itself to be the overseer of this idea. Yet
> has this statement, "only what can be proven true is true" itself been
> proven to be true?
>
This is a common misconception among people without scientific
background. It would be much more accurate from the scientific point of
view to say that, as regards real world phenomena, some things can be
demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty to be true, some
things can be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty to be
false, some things lie somewhere in between, and some things we just
don't have any objective way of demonstrating any degree of certainty
one way or the other.
Religion, for instance, tends to fall into that last category. Most
religious explanations are such that they can be made to be consistent
with any real world observation. This being the case, there is no way
for science to be able to assign any probability at all to whether it is
true or false. Nor should religion care what science has to say since it
can always claim divine intervention in creating the observations on
which science is based.
The only case where something can be absolutely proven to be true is in
systems of our own creating. We can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 is
absolutely true, because it's a concept that exists in a limited world
of other concepts which are entirely of our own definition. What cannot
be proven, however, is that this same system of mathematics would exist
regardless of our own culture or the structure of our minds. In other
words, suppose a system of math were created by a species on the other
side of the universe which doesn't even appear as life as we know it.
Would this system of math be the same as ours? I personally think so,
but there are those who would argue otherwise.
Substitute art for math and you have a variation of arguments which I've
seen pursued in this newsgroup. Like math, does there exist some
universal definitions of beauty that can be objectively measured? Or can
we at least find objective measurements of beauty based on the
physiological bases of human perception and thought?
I would like to think that we'll never be able to describe human
behavior entirely through a reductionist analysis of our physical
components. Is this an objective analysis on my part or just a
psychological desire to feel unique? In any case, our knowledge at the
present time is so limited, I think the prudent course is to assume that
there is a spiritual side of life that simply defies scientific
explanation.
I find that people who constantly try to seek out and uphold the truths
of things which have no objective measurement tend to spend all of their
time simply bitching about things they don't like. And the only thing
which comes from this bitching is that everyone else knows how much they
don't like the thing. Which is pretty useless information for everyone
else to have. It really seems to offend people's sense of justice if
they don't have the opportunity to sufficiently debase anything which
they believe is getting undeserved praise. Criticism of flaws should
really be limited to that which increases our understanding and helps us
to better appreciate those things which are successes. I don't see the
point in any other approach.
- Bob C.
Andrew Werby
In article <6kpbdm$6...@newsops.execpc.com>, "Larry Seiler"
<lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
The arts are free from the sciences other than our need for good
> chemical properties of pigments! I prefer that we keep it that way. As
> such, spiritual needs and beliefs are also free from scientific
> methodology.....and perhaps is why many artists are into some spiritual
> pursuit and do so uninhibited, for to exist as an artist they needed
> unconsciously to break away from the meanderings of a scientific rational
> world that would shackle and bind their creativity anyway!
[I'd like to see more, not less, science in art. In an age when science is
unfolding new worlds of vast beauty, to ignore it is to bury ones head in
the sand. As well as revealing hitherto unknown structures on the macro and
micro scales, science has given us tools of magic power with which to come
to terms with them, magnifying our powers of expression in ways hitherto only
dreamed of. While artists certainly have the right to linger in any stylistic
niche that feels good to them, and to dabble in whatever form of sprituality
that gives them comfort; blaming science for inhibiting our creativity is
blaming the world for ones own shortcomings. Science has given us a lot- spurn
its gifts if you must, but don't curse the giver.]
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
Useful Resources, Technical Tips, and Art in Various Media
Larry Seiler
>
> This is a common misconception among people without scientific
> background. It would be much more accurate from the scientific point of
> view to say that, as regards real world phenomena, some things can be
> demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty to be true, some
> things can be demonstrated with a reasonable degree of certainty to be
> false, some things lie somewhere in between, and some things we just
> don't have any objective way of demonstrating any degree of certainty
> one way or the other.
and even law is obligated when contrary data arises or theory to relook at
former ideas, it is obligated to....yet, I think because we are inclined to
think things defensively in the rational, areas that defy that tend to be
refuted or scorned. This is nothing set in concrete, as I'm basically
thinking out loud.....but I wonder if some of our rejection of art we don't
consider art doesn't have this need for understanding the specific "order"
of things rooted in the influences of a scientific age.
>
> Religion, for instance, tends to fall into that last category. Most
> religious explanations are such that they can be made to be consistent
> with any real world observation. This being the case, there is no way
> for science to be able to assign any probability at all to whether it is
> true or false. Nor should religion care what science has to say since it
> can always claim divine intervention in creating the observations on
> which science is based.
agreed......
>
> The only case where something can be absolutely proven to be true is in
> systems of our own creating.
and that assumes that system of our creation is without flaws....as though
we could have the transcendence to know, huh? Yet, we must have a base to
understand our world and move in and out from. I think the rough edges
here on arts groups though is because a time has come to re-evaluate
"absolutes" concerning the arts. If the arts are somewhat like
religion....then science cannot really have anything to say about
it.....and maybe we need recognize that some of our "rational" concerns
about what is art may have other reasons we have such strong feelings.
Maybe we can begin to have a more charitable more kind hearted reaction to
that which is different. Again.....just thinking out loud!
> We can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 is
> absolutely true, because it's a concept that exists in a limited world
> of other concepts which are entirely of our own definition. What cannot
> be proven, however, is that this same system of mathematics would exist
> regardless of our own culture or the structure of our minds. In other
> words, suppose a system of math were created by a species on the other
> side of the universe which doesn't even appear as life as we know it.
> Would this system of math be the same as ours? I personally think so,
> but there are those who would argue otherwise.
because a true truth is universal and not the sole domain or property of
self-interest groups or "species"....it is discovered, not created. So
again, I would agree with you on ths point as well.
>
> Substitute art for math and you have a variation of arguments which I've
> seen pursued in this newsgroup. Like math, does there exist some
> universal definitions of beauty that can be objectively measured? Or can
> we at least find objective measurements of beauty based on the
> physiological bases of human perception and thought?
since so many factors may be involved.....like the possibility that art is
so personal to one's perspective on life in general, it being hard to
narrow down simply means that we whom are artists need to be more
charitable even to what we don't personally like......
I think there are in various styles more particulars that in consensus can
be agreed upon. It may be something like the argument that the black
community had in suggesting college entrance exams were unfair for they
took into consideration only what the world appeared like through a white
majority's eyes. Language may need to take into consideration fundamental
differences.
I for one have lived half my life in the quiet northwoods of
Wisconsin...always near ponds, lakes, streams....charged by whitetail bucks
several times, tangled with bears. For me, a drive into Minneapolis or
Chicago is unnerving. So much stimuli demanding attention of the senses.
Lights, billboards, neon....all screaming, "look at me!" "look at me over
here!" For me, my means of ascribing order in my work perhaps represents
how I sense order in my natural life and surroundings, but the disorder
that appears in some artist's work....the harsh lines, contrast of
colors...abstract, etc., may represent more the ordered chaos of the bigger
city. I think we might arrive at some ideas of beauty....some that we
might nearly all agree upon, but it seems so subjective that for some to
take such a harsh stance and feel justified in quick retort and snappy put
downs seems awfully.....well, uncompassionate and lacking in empathy.
>
> I would like to think that we'll never be able to describe human
> behavior entirely through a reductionist analysis of our physical
> components.
you are probably right.....and as such, we cannot necessarily describe work
as worthy in a cut-and-dry manner.
> Is this an objective analysis on my part or just a
> psychological desire to feel unique? In any case, our knowledge at the
> present time is so limited, I think the prudent course is to assume that
> there is a spiritual side of life that simply defies scientific
> explanation.
agreed.....
>
> I find that people who constantly try to seek out and uphold the truths
> of things which have no objective measurement tend to spend all of their
> time simply bitching about things they don't like. And the only thing
> which comes from this bitching is that everyone else knows how much they
> don't like the thing.
...and I think that particularly tragic for artists, for that inner
struggle to discover our world, our identity...resisting the world long
enough to sort things through, should make us more empathetic, patient, and
nurturing.
> Which is pretty useless information for everyone
> else to have. It really seems to offend people's sense of justice if
> they don't have the opportunity to sufficiently debase anything which
> they believe is getting undeserved praise.
I understand....but I think a person's honest investigation and inquiry
isn't a thing that should be trampled upon either. To see something as
different is understandable. To say I don't like it, or it has nothing for
me...well and proper. But to be hostile....well, I know full well the
memory of that hostility in me, and now I am shamed to think of it. I
prefer what I prefer, but I share a common interest in others that also
pursue to discover what they will prefer. You know....you need to judge
one restaurant's hamburger to another's hamburger.....but you should
compare seafood entrees to the same. So...support the freedom of inquiry,
I think the success of an abstract work needs be thought of in that
context....and that person seeking to be successful in realism in that
context, etc; Is it because we are all competing for that rare patron's
dollar, that we sense we must come at such odds?
I don't necessarily enjoy a bad hamburger, but it helps me appreciate the
next day something more agreeable to my taste.
> Criticism of flaws should
> really be limited to that which increases our understanding and helps us
> to better appreciate those things which are successes. I don't see the
> point in any other approach.
I agree.....we are all as active artists seeking to grow, and assumptions
that we can make absolute determinents of all other efforts kinda suggests
an arrogancy or assumed transcedence.
Perhaps we resent attention going to something we perceive takes less
endurance or growth time to receive accolade. Perhaps less aerobic
endurance is necessary to reach for shot put records, but the latter
deserves and receives their due recognition. The arts are a form of
celebration of life. Let's cultivate thankful hearts....that are quick to
praise.
peace.....!
Larry
Larry Seiler
> [I'd like to see more, not less, science in art. In an age when science
is
> unfolding new worlds of vast beauty, to ignore it is to bury ones head in
> the sand.
I understand that science can make more or newer discoveries, and that is
not the aspect of science I am talking about. I think "burying heads" in
the sand depends more upon the worldview one ascribes to which enculturates
their perspective and view. People of science also can have blinders on
their eyes...or have tunnel vision because of assumptions.
One reason the arts struggle in the public school area is that not even
other faculty members have an understanding of the value of the arts.
Theirs are the "academic" courses where art is an unnecessary elective kids
can learn to make pretty pictures. To correct that, art classes have taken
on another direction from "art making" to using curriculum to make future
promising citizens in the "global village." The point being art has had to
try and show itself relevant to an age groomed or enculturated to think
only on "rational" terms...or convergently. Creativity on the other hand
thinks divergently and transfers to critical problem solving with
synthesis. Restraints of rational convergent thinking alone is stifling to
the genius and potential of the arts.
Science is only a tool.....and can be beneficial. It is what has happened
to us as a culture that has for so long valued thinking on terms of only
what can be "proven" as having relevence that I am speaking of here. The
arts can value by having new thoughts and ideas available.....so long as we
can approach such discoveries from the freedom that the arts require. I
hope you see the difference I'm trying to make.
I see art as fulfilling a fundamental role and need that we as human beings
need. A need that science has not been able to prove. It has entered the
philosophic domain, and the religious domain. That is we explode and emit
the idea that human beings have dignity..meaning, that life has
purpose...etc; Perhaps the ability to shift thinking and know when science
is beneficial, but where the enculturation of such has bound us up or
shackled our thinking. I find it odd, for example.....to see athiests
attack the need of people to be religious, but in essence many of us are
artists for some of the same reasons others are religious. While proofs
are demanded of a relgious people.....no such proofs are necessarily
demanded of why we artists live as though life had meaning. No one
approaches us generally and demands, "prove it!" Our very work as artists
seems to be ample proof enough.
It is not pure science alone that I am speaking of, or the benefits of it.
Just the enculturation of those that over time have lost a sense of their
human'ness....whom shouldd enjoy and celebrate life rather than slip into
cynicism and meaninglessness. I hope that clarifies.
> blaming science for inhibiting our creativity is
> blaming the world for ones own shortcomings. Science has given us a lot-
spurn
> its gifts if you must, but don't curse the giver.]
Again....as a tool...science itself is pure and amoral......BUT moral
creatures use and define such tools. I am not "blaming" but trying to
assess, or think out loud some of the advantages of the arts. I think we
many artists sense a "pulse" to life. A joy. Our workings breathe
celebration of such in the midst of a hostile cynical world. That is not
to say there aren't cynical artists.
I'm speaking more of "acrued enculturation" because of the object of our
"passions" which in this case may be science as a postmodern generation.
I'm not advocating regret for the pureness of investigation and
method...but trying to understand where that enculturation potentially robs
us from entertaining thoughts of what "cannot be" because science has been
unable to verify. The arts need access freely to what "cannot be!" It is
the domain of imagination and the exercise of exploration.
peace.....
Larry
jha...@om.com.au
In article <6kppor$j...@newsops.execpc.com>,
"death is the mother of beauty"
... at the instant of departure they tell me everything begins to take on new
ascetic qualities - even light poles and billboards, hated uncles and spoilt
children, black web pages and animated giffs ... they all become swept up
and clutched to the breast as dear, dear memories.
John Hagan
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Larry Seiler
> Hi Larry
> "death is the mother of beauty"
> ... at the instant of departure they tell me everything begins to take on
new
> ascetic qualities - even light poles and billboards, hated uncles and
spoilt
> children, black web pages and animated giffs ... they all become swept up
> and clutched to the breast as dear, dear memories.
> John Hagan
Interesting.....and I suppose so true. Makes me feel sad, appreciation and
knindesses must wait until we're clinging to life itself. Maybe my death
came earlier....or anticipation of. Thanks for sharing.....
Larry
Philip Ayers
In article <6kpbdm$6...@newsops.execpc.com>, "Larry Seiler"
<lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
: > > Art is not real. It's by definition "art"-ificial.
: >
: >
: > interesting ideas.
: >
: > I have thought some of this through about art, as an artist, but in dealing
: > with other philosophical matters. I think a problem for us has been our
: > cultural shift in how we explore the world. The period of Enlightment
: > brought us from a "religious" perspective into a "scientific." Not to say
: > science was not flourishing in religion, for the idea of an ordered
: > creation gave rational thinkers the idea that such order then could be
: > found, discovered, observed and experiment with.
: > Yet...over the many decades, an idea has predominantly settled upon the
: > cultural mindset and is so ingrained or enculturated that it affects our
: > perceptions and that necessary process we go through in ascribing value and
: > true." Science has positioned itself to be the overseer of this idea. Yet
: > proven to be true?
: >
: > There are some key issues at the very core of our being that creates a
: > vacuum or void coupled with the enculturation of our more "scientific" or
: > rational thinking. That issue is that we are haunted to explore the idea
: > that life YET has meaning, yet has purpose, that beauty and ugliness
: > exist.....for in our being exists such notions. We cannot account for the
: > "why" of such notions existing, for science has no proofs of such. Science
: > cannot prove meaning or purpose, or beauty. Yet as artists, our inner most
: > being explodes to affirm indeed it does.
: >
: > So I think much of the debates that have been going on here is a product of
: > our enculturation of the necessity to have evidences. I'm not saying that
: > is all bad. I am trying to look for "evidences" myself when I attempt to
: > understand this. So we seem to have a need to need evidences that art to
: > be called art bear certain "particulars".....as though science unable to
: > offer such proofs, we could by the power of our persuasion, arguments and
: > constant relentless "come-backs" prove more able.
: >
: > I think I have grown. I, being predominantly a realist painter, had my
: > years of being bitter because of the emphasis and disparity of art
: > professors in the 70's that in trying to break our conformities to explore
: > unconsciously to break away from the meanderings of a scientific rational
: > world that would shackle and bind their creativity anyway!
: >
: > made personal efforts in recognizing the root of bitterness...I had to
: > place blame where it belonged, and made some apologies to contemporary
: > artists in general for the years I hated such work. I do so again and wish
: > to encourage you well, for WE ALL endure with a great many challenges to
: > exist, to have a voice in a mediocre society that rewards and applauds
: > passive conformity. Peace......
: >
: > Larry Seiler
: > http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
Larry-
I listened to what you say, but alas, saying is easy.
It's the making that's hard.
You are an illustrator. ....and as such be happy, for you don't have the
burden of history to carry.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mdeli
(Philip Ayers) wrote:
Larry Seiler wrote:
>:> The period of Enlightment
>: > brought us from a "religious" perspective into a "scientific." Not to say
>: > science was not flourishing in religion,
It wasn't. Religion is based on the testimony about someone who claims
revelation, science is based on rationality and evidence.
>:> snip---- That idea is that "only what can be proven true is necessarily
>: > true."
We believe in truth and falsehoods on the basis of evidence where that
is possible.
>: > I myself am a Christian.....and an artist. In the not too distant past, I
>: > made personal efforts in recognizing the root of bitterness...I had to
>: > place blame where it belonged, and made some apologies to contemporary
>: > artists in general for the years I hated such work. I do so again and wish
>: > to encourage you well, for WE ALL endure with a great many challenges to
>: > exist, to have a voice in a mediocre society that rewards and applauds
>: > passive conformity. Peace......
>: >
>: >
>: > http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
>
>Larry-
>
> I listened to what you say, but alas, saying is easy.
>It's the making that's hard.
>You are an illustrator. ....and as such be happy, for you don't have the
>burden of history to carry.
And you are a very patronizing illustrator.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
Bob C wrote:
> ---snip--- some things we just
>don't have any objective way of demonstrating any degree of certainty
>one way or the other.
>
Religious statements are assumed by believers to be absolutely true.
Many are testable. Most on a probabilistic level are highly
improbable.
>Most
>religious explanations are such that they can be made to be consistent
>with any real world observation. This being the case,
Nonsense. Try Adam and Eve for starters.
>The only case where something can be absolutely proven to be true is in
>systems of our own creating. We can demonstrate that 1 + 1 = 2 is
>absolutely true,
Wrong. It is assumed to be true because (roughly speaking) of the
internal consistency that such assumptions demonstrate.
>I would like to think that we'll never be able to describe human
>behavior entirely through a reductionist analysis of our physical
>components. Is this an objective analysis on my part or just a
>psychological desire to feel unique? In any case, our knowledge at the
>present time is so limited, I think the prudent course is to assume that
>there is a spiritual side of life that simply defies scientific
>explanation.
Fine, but if that is so you can never know anything about it and can
only say you think it exists.
>I find that people who constantly try to seek out and uphold the truths
>of things which have no objective measurement tend to spend all of their
>time simply bitching about things they don't like.
By this brand of cockeyed reasoning it is also consistent to say that
people who say they like something are also just "bitching."
>And the only thing
>which comes from this bitching is that everyone else knows how much they
>don't like the thing. Which is pretty useless information for everyone
>else to have.
Useless information? One of the reasons people made medical
discoveries is because they bitch about their ailments.
> It really seems to offend people's sense of justice if
>they don't have the opportunity to sufficiently debase anything which
>they believe is getting undeserved praise. Criticism of flaws should
>really be limited to that which increases our understanding and helps us
>to better appreciate those things which are successes. I don't see the
>point in any other approach.
Right Bob and that is why I criticize Modern Art.
Larry Seiler
mdeli.
>
> It wasn't. Religion is based on the testimony about someone who claims
> revelation, science is based on rationality and evidence.
Science...religion.....philosophy...psychology...sociology....history...poli
tics...biology...
these are all the constructs that compose a worldview and the four major
worldviews being Secular Humanism, Cosmic Humanism, Leninism/Marxism, and
the Biblical.
In the search for meaning and purpose the religious construct forms a
separate ideology in each worldview. That sense of meaning may include
denial of its own necessity whilst seeking to debate and overthrow another.
Science itself to be true science has a methodolgy to observe,
experiement, test, collect data, and then determine if no contradictory
data exists to write it as theory or finally law. Even then the laws of
science are subject to change if future contradiction surfaces with
probability enough to challenge old ideas. Science as such is not
absolute. Yet somehow an idea that only science is able to prove what is
objectively real or true came into being. No one has proven the idea that
"only what science proves is objectively true is true."
Thus, other areas exist to explore truth where science by its own nature
must remain silent. However, there has been a violation of pure science in
secularism by suggesting that science can prove as "fact" what cannot be
proven by scientific method. That strongly suggests that philosophically
and religiously such false statements about science became necessary to
promote its agenda as a worldview.
I'm speaking of course of origins. No one can go back in time to observe
random molecules (molecules which came from where?) in a vast universe
(existing how?) that just happen to exist at the same point in time which
defeating all odds came together. Also somehow in a primordal soup
hundreds of amino acids all existing by random chance happenings come
together with their instructions for operations (the knowing how to
instruct also coming by how?) to properly form a single cell. This single
cell is a minature city. Darwin had no such knowledge of this fact in his
day since the electron microscope was not yet invented. The simple cell
isn't simple.
The point is....no data was collected, no observation...no experimentation
possible, no control groups, therefore by all proper procedures no
practical theory or law......yet, there are a couple worldviews which state
evolution's religious side- MACROevolution, as fact. Microevolution or
small adaptations within like species has been proven by scientific method,
and the ignorance of the masses by enlarge having heard "evolution is a
proven fact" assume that this must include all of evolution. The masses do
not know the two sides of evolution even exist, and that only one is has
been proven scientifically.
Here we see clearly demonstrated that scientists themselves are products of
enculturation and members knowingly or unknowlingly of a worldview premise.
These scientists exist and operate their life's work within their
particular worldview. They look at the world through the lenses of their
enculturation.
Science is a tool.....and it is wrong to assume that science is this or
that. One must look at the bigger picture of worldview thinking. We are
all searching for truth. Ultimately, each worldview constructs an opinion
of what makes a right right and a wrong wrong. Thus ethics and apologetics
are major issues. Primarily, the majority of the worldview positions are
determined by relativism and the status quo of majority opinion. Whereas
one worldview believes in universals as determined by a necessary
existence, (that is an existence that cannot "not" be), that as the
Uncaused Cause brought all things into being. That worldview has its
position of science with its own many scientists that operate with the
tools of scientific method. There are those/many within this worldview
that ALSO error in calling creationism "science" and therefore are not able
rightly to call its origins ideas "fact" for the same reason as scientists
of secularism.
This happens because the individual's worldview ideas overshadow simple
statements of investigation.
If we believe Carl Sagan, then the sciences began in Greece, however the
big explosion of investigation of science came during the enlightenment
period. Men of science in that day yet predominantly had a religious faith
in a special creation and Creator.....and as such believed the world was
ordered. Such ordering was believed capable to reveal design and
understanding of how things work. Thus in this day, the new freedom from
religious restriction threw off powers that be which held men back (a
religious tyranny), but unlike we would like to think of them did not
necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water....that is, many still
held a belief in a Creator.
Many religious persons are intelligent people that are by nature of
enculturation themselves skeptical. They desire an answer to a spiritual
vacuum or void, but not at the assassination of reason. They search for
evidences and look to archaelogy, history, language and communication of
translation of ancient texts, the SCIENCES, etc; I reject your notion that
religion is handicapped and that only science possesses the rational. Such
a position says more about the worldview that influences you than as an
actual statement about science.
The fact that secularism overlooks lack of evidence and true scientific
method to ascertain still what will be presented as "fact" for the sake of
persuasion and political positioning in the marketplace of ideas proves the
religious nature of its agenda and less about science as a tool.
Yes....science as a simple tool searches for evidence. It is not the only
tool of reason or rationalism. It is not the only 'ology or 'ism longing
for and searching for evidence.
The religious nature of secularism and Leninism/Marxism suggests to believe
in knowing that which cannot be known by the nature of our finite
dependency, and that is that no necessary Uncause Cause exists. It is a
religious philosophy that depends more upon faith than its tool of science
to prove, because science can say nothing apart from what it can prove
scientifically.
It is interesting to note that but for a few small demarcations much exists
in similarity between sorcery and science. The sorcerer seeks to
understand the forces or "spirits" of nature such that by
practice/procedure such forces may be harnessed to do one's bidding. The
scientist seeks to understand the forces of nature such that by proper
procedure such forces might be controlled or used for good.
That science is only a tool of ALL worldviews, accessible in all worldviews
is clearly demonstrated in observing that after secular humanism as a
worldview successfully brought a Post Christian Postmodern world "rational"
people enculturated by secularism did not remain worshipping at the altars
of secularism's science. Such elimination of the influence of the Biblical
worldview freed people up, but not as secularism anticipated. The freedom
brought new voids and vacuum. Those nasty questions arose which asked
things like, "Well then, now do I have a purpose in life?" "What is
meaning....does life have meaning?" "How did I get here, and how did my
world get here?"
The secularist and Leninist/Marxist wants people to be courageous and face
the grave not asking such questions, and try to use science to say it isn't
necessary. However, such persons are operating out of their worldview's
tools of philosophy when making such appeals. Science is silent in making
such appeals. Something Pagan Sagan never quite grasped in his drive for a
new social engineering.
Still.....even after decades of new enculturation, the freedom from a
Biblical worldview did not create faithful followers for the secular
worldview. Modern man has a vacuum, and the freedom has opened the door to
new inquiries. The greater appeal in searching for their humanity and an
idea of dignity and meaning is coming more from the influence of the Cosmic
Humanist worldview. A surging forth into areas some could call
neopaganism.
Paganism is not born necessarily in uncivilized culture, but happens more
frequently when a civilized culture rejects its devotion to a single deity.
The void or vacuum that requires new answers to old questions of meaning
and purpose, of existence, gives way to new superstition and myth making.
Since science exists in each worldview, and can say nothing more than what
it can...religion and philosophy, as well as history and biology come
together to merge and work collectively to reason and see if "evidences"
don't point to other possibilities.
As such, we have secularist scientifically enculturated rational people
today seeking, for example, in feminism to rekindled ancient women's
worship of the goddess, of new agers the Gaia Spirit, of Native American
Father Sky, Mother Earth, and Sister Waters....etc; by enlarge this
movement rejects the very notion of true truth where such knowledge
threatens diversity and tolerance....where truth would potentially divide
and create forms of bigotry and discrimination. Thus almost a resentment
toward secularism. The sweet irony is how quickly people so influenced
into shedding off a Biblical worldview so quickly abandoned the "science"
is god notion of the secularists.
As such Mdeli.....you would be wise to understand the times and see how
even your harsh stance on what is "good" art and what is not will quickly
make you a relic. You threaten the cohesive potential of the encroaching
global village that seeks especially thru the arts that spirit of empathy
that sees difference as a point not for confrontation but for intrigue and
respect. The enculturation of the last 20 years has produced a new
generation of people that simply will not be bullied to accept what they
see as "tunnel" vision concerning definitions of good and bad. The global
community has widened its doors and broadened the criteria to assess such
subjective statements about excellence. European ideas of tradition and
excellence in art is restrictive and not global in perspective.
I for one reject your idea with all that I have written here that religious
people are simply those that naively follow "revelation".....and that
science exists as if it were itself a worldview and therefore only the
proper authority to lay claim to evidence. All intelligent people seek
evidences to support their worldview ideas...and each scientist must be
investigated to which worldview they ascribe to to understand the "bent"
they will put upon their tools of science. Then we can anticipate when
they will attempt to state what cannot be scientifically stated and know
why they feel it necessary to state such.
I will tell you one thing about this generation if you are willing to
listen, that will do far more for you than your abrupt and bullish nature,
as I have observed for some great length of time the reaction to your
posts. There is an old proverb that says, "kindness makes a person
attractive" When you respond to people the way you do, their worldview
enculturation makes it difficult for them to even "bother" to consider in
full what you are trying to say. They have been sensitized to be
empathetic and more impassioned for people different from themselves...and
enculturated to automatically reject any man that appears arrogant,
abrasive, and discriminating. Best learn to mix a little honey with your
words!
Larry
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you, but in you that matters" (author unknown)
kag...@ecr.net
I've tried to say this a couple of times in my posting, but do not
find the right words easily. This is good for all. Thanks.
"One too often focuses so much on their own pain, that they do not see
the pain they cause to others."
k : )
On 7 Jun 1998 14:25:54 GMT, "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
(Sorry to delete most of your post)
>. . . There is an old proverb that says, "kindness makes a person
mdeli
On 7 Jun 1998 14:25:54 GMT, "Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote.
>>
>> It wasn't. Religion is based on the testimony about someone who claims
>> revelation, science is based on rationality and evidence.
>
>
>Science...religion.....philosophy...psychology...sociology....history...poli
>tics...biology...
>these are all the constructs that compose a worldview and the four major
>worldviews being Secular Humanism, Cosmic Humanism, Leninism/Marxism, and
>the Biblical.
The Bible isn't any more a world view than twenty other testaments.
None of which agree with another.
> Even then the laws of
>science are subject to change if future contradiction surfaces with
>probability enough to challenge old ideas.
---unlike religious views which are encased in theological concrete.
>Science as such is not
>absolute. Yet somehow an idea that only science is able to prove what is
>objectively real or true came into being. No one has proven the idea that
>"only what science proves is objectively true is true."
Yet all religions claim objective truth on the basis of testimony
rather than evidence.
>
> However, there has been a violation of pure science in
>secularism by suggesting that science can prove as "fact" what cannot be
>proven by scientific method. That strongly suggests that philosophically
>and religiously such false statements about science became necessary to
>promote its agenda as a worldview.
? not clear.
>Science is a tool.....and it is wrong to assume that science is this or
>that. One must look at the bigger picture of worldview thinking. We are
>all searching for truth.
Artists aren't searching for truth. Art has almost nothing to do with
truth.
> Ultimately, each worldview constructs an opinion
>of what makes a right right and a wrong wrong.
Science doesn't address this.
>Thus ethics and apologetics
>are major issues. Primarily, the majority of the worldview positions are
>determined by relativism and the status quo of majority opinion.
In other words the earth used to be flat and is only now round.
>but unlike we would like to think of them did not
>necessarily throw the baby out with the bath water....that is, many still
>held a belief in a Creator.
Which one?
> I reject your notion that
>religion is handicapped and that only science possesses the rational.
Man can be rational. Science is a product of that rationality.
>The religious nature of secularism and Leninism/Marxism suggests to believe
>in knowing that which cannot be known by the nature of our finite
>dependency, and that is that no necessary Uncause Cause exists.
Secularism isn't a religion. Unlike religion it rejects the existence
of the supernatural. It also rejects the dogmatism of Leninism/Marxism
along with all dogmatic views. Secularism believes in free speech and
free inquiry.
>It is a
>religious philosophy that depends more upon faith than its tool of science
>to prove, because science can say nothing apart from what it can prove
>scientifically.
Religion derives its beliefs in absolute truths on the basis of
written testaments not evidence and claims to have knowledge of
supernatural causes.
>It is interesting to note that but for a few small demarcations much exists
>in similarity between sorcery and science.
Perhaps to you.
> The sorcerer seeks to
>understand the forces or "spirits" of nature such that by
>practice/procedure such forces may be harnessed to do one's bidding.
Sounds more like religion. Science hasn't detected any spirits.
> The
>scientist seeks to understand the forces of nature such that by proper
>procedure such forces might be controlled or used for good.
>
Science doesn't speak about what is good.
> Those nasty questions arose which asked
>things like, "Well then, now do I have a purpose in life?" "What is
>meaning....does life have meaning?" "How did I get here, and how did my
>world get here?"
>
>The secularist and Leninist/Marxist wants people to be courageous and face
>the grave not asking such questions, and try to use science to say it isn't
>necessary.
Anyone can ask these questions. As to meaning and purpose of life;
the fact is that religions don't answer these question in any way
beyond wishful thinking. How I and the world got here are amenable to
scientific inquiry and have in part been answered,
As science advances religions retreats.
Larry Seiler
You know, Mani....you enjoy positioning yourself to be an expert in all
fields. I feel comfortable to let our words lie where they are to be
judged by others as things said. I have said my piece and knew even before
you would reply what to expect, because you have your enculturation as well
and therefore are predictable.
I suggest you do more homework on worldview thinking.
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"It's not what happens to you that matters, but
what happens in you!" (author unknown)
> Artists aren't searching for truth. Art has almost nothing to do with
> truth.
hahahahha....heeeheheheee....okay Mani....okay....whatever you say. No one
here is searching for anything, huh? No one longing for
meaning.....purpose. No one drawing from life's experience and summary to
express visually. Hahahaha.....<shaking head>, okay....sure!
and...if truth is not the issue......what is the substance that blows the
sail of your incessant need to make the sum of all your argumentation.
Hahahaa......this <shaking head again>.... well, never mind!
;^)
Larry
mdeli
"Larry Seiler" wrote:
>You know, Mani....you enjoy positioning yourself to be an expert in all
>fields.
This is the sort of holier than thou patronizing stuff the self
righteous say when they are irritated because they can do little more
then beg the question.
> I feel comfortable to let our words lie where they are to be
>judged by others as things said. I have said my piece and knew even before
>you would reply what to expect, because you have your encapsulation as well
>and therefore are predictable.
>
>I suggest you do more homework on worldview thinking.
I suggest you start thinking after you read both sides of the
argument. You can find these in many of the religion conferences here.
>> Artists aren't searching for truth. Art has almost nothing to do with
>> truth.
>
>hahahahha....heeeheheheee....okay Mani....okay....whatever you say. No one
>here is searching for anything, huh?
>No one longing for
>meaning.....purpose. No one drawing from life's experience and summary to
>express visually. Hahahaha.....<shaking head>, okay....sure!
>and...if truth is not the issue......what is the substance that blows the
>sail of your incessant need to make the sum of all your argumentation.
>Hahahaa......this <shaking head again>.... well, never mind!
I said that truth is not an issue in art. If you think it is just tell
us how after your head stops shaking..
Lauri Levanto
mdeli wrote:
>
> "Larry Seiler" wrote:
>
> >You know, Mani....you enjoy positioning yourself to be an expert in all
> >fields.
>
> This is the sort of holier than thou patronizing stuff the self
Larry,
This posting is two days overdue. I am sorry to be too late.
After those flame wars, I read with pleasure that,
when not cornered, Mani posted some sensitive analysis.
And now you Larry, open a flame war again.
We all know what is Mani's mission. He has taken an extreme
position, like Marilyn at the opposite end.
The art world needs both.
After a few months of reading I have located
most of the regular writers on the art map.
My suggestion is:
We agree about a new acronym in the subject "TUS"
(The usual stuff) the continue with new points of view.
- lauri
- lauri
Larry Seiler
Ahh....I've learned to let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.
I've said my piece. No flame war is necessary, and Mani has a right to his
opinion...I certainly would argue that as well.
I believe there is room in this world for me to have an opinion as well,
and the right for others that may wish to read it to do so. Not too many
years ago....I was a bitter realist. Now I'm just a realist that exists in
a growing sea of diversity and interests about me. My bitterness slowly
eroded as I realized real people with souls of their own exist to create
art different from mine.
There is something to be said though for those that also "prefer" the
skills Mani talks about, yet can encourage others to experience their own
development. Sometimes truth is obscure, and one can live to pursue a
direction without needing to state universally what comes as a worldview
preference in reality. Such knowing means we can extend grace to those
different from ourselves. Again...."kindness makes a person attractive"
I appreciate your desire for "peace making"....a good trait to have.
peace.......
Larry
--
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
Marilyn
Believe me I am not an extremist, when I disagree with Mani,
when he says Picasso had no talent, Matisse can't draw,
etc.
That is not an "extreme" position. Furthermore, I really don't
believe in opposition. It strengthens the opponent. I believe
in balance. Better stick with the idealogues if you are looking
for extremes.
Marilyn
Lauri Levanto
Marilyn wrote:
>
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
(old stuff snipped)
> > We all know what is Mani's mission. He has taken an extreme
> > position, like Marilyn at the opposite end.
> > The art world needs both.
> Believe me I am not an extremist, when I disagree with Mani,
I do not believe you.
Your statement "Picasso's failure is an oxymoron"
sounds extreme to me
In a less inflamed context I can see your tolerance
- lauri
Marilyn
You misinterpret the quip. And a quip is not a statement of fact,
truth or opinion, it is just a remark.
Picasso was a successful artist, surely you don't dispute that he
was a success in his own life time. Sure he had individual failures
but over all history bears out his success.
Marilyn