inquiry into bridging the gaps
ejudy
anthropology newsgroups yet my
brain is more playful than true
complete scientists.
There is a spectrum from
hard to soft sciences.
Chemistry is probably a
no-nonsense hard science where
there is a right and wrong answer.
Evolutionary-psychology or
any so called social science
are examples of soft sciences.
They have no right and wrong and
new terms spring up right and left.
Yet artists
have similarities to scientists.
I wonder if this could be an interesting
route to pursue in an inquiry into the nature
of the role or function of the artist in society.
Or who we are and what we are doing.
Maybe art is a synthesis or bridge between religion and science?
Between the human interior and exterior world?
But there is always an element of the
personal and an element of the nonpersonal.
These things fascinate me. I guess i think gaining
conscious awareness is possible and may be useful
to bring about growth and change in people's art.
That would seem to put more power into the hands
and mind of the artist and that
power could be considered a tool or skill.
Where have these questions shown up before?
One teacher i had made the point that maybe one can go overboard
on the intellectual inquiry and one might do better
to let the art process itself lead the inquiry.
So he would simply say "go make pots"
(he was a ceramic teacher).
Or you could say just go paint every day,
just go paint. Whenever you hit a dead end ,
just go paint.
So what's happening when the art leads?
Is that the unconscious dancing with the
little smaller conscious self? Is that
the dance which the artist needs to learn?
When a martial artist learns his/her tools
its a very very slow breaking down of the movements
to understand the base to setup a good foundation.
Then the idea is to increase the speed and "forget"
the elements. Eventually the goal is to become
the tools and lose the distinction between
who one is and what one has learned.
And in so doing the idea is automatic
response of the individual to the problems
encountered as a person in the world in terms
of the system of movement one has learned
without being encumbered by the memory of
aquiring the learning. This is symbolized
by the old black belt turning gray and eventually
turning back towards the original white.
I think being an artist has a similar goal.
To what extent do we know how
we have indoctrinated ourselves
in a certain style of learning?
Can we have more awareness of this
so we can have more ability to grow and expand
our ability? IOW, to pick and choose
our own indoctrinations. It might be
scarey cuz i think you have to position
yourself on the periferies of the immersed society
to do this effectively. Sort of losing one's
family or ethnicity to gain an understanding
of the bigger picture of who we are and
where we come from and where we can go
as opposed to where we are blindly heading.
An objective perspective of sorts.
That does parallel science to a certain extent.
Is that a useful?
I think it is.
SOmeone here mentioned that i need to learn the language
you guys are talking in this forum if i am
going to be able to communicate in discussions.
To a greater or lessor extent this is probably
a reasonable expectation. Yet this is not science.
The harder the science the more specific the language
as you are there talking about yes and no issues.
The ways i personally have developed to verbalize
how my thoughts on making art talk inside my head
are probably valid. Some people will be greatly encumbered
or enhanced by their learned conceptual tools and jargon.
I am afraid these developed styles tend to role off of me
and i forget the terms. So i make up my own.
But communication is the idea. SO there is probably
a way to bridge the gap. Maybe its nonverbal art?
Heck i don't know.
But its fun to think about anyway.
ejudy
hudson
ej...@my-deja.com (ejudy) wrote:
> Chemistry is probably a no-nonsense hard science where
> there is a right and wrong answer.
Chemistry is a study of nature. If you break the rules, nature can kill
you. In contrast, art doesn't kill no matter how nauseating it may be
at times.
Fundamentally, both science and art are problem-solving endeavours.
> Maybe art is a synthesis or bridge between religion and science?
When I studied art, the teaching staff noted that many students had
prior science or religious training and art was becoming very much
cross-discipline.
> SOmeone here mentioned that i need to learn the language
> you guys are talking in this forum if i am
> going to be able to communicate in discussions.
There is a glossary of the formal considerations of colour and design
but if you want to speak about art, talk about art in your own words.
Don't mimic chic artspeak because it is only fashion. And, don't
counterfeit your own work.
JSGranger
Are you familiar with the writings of Levi Strauss? I think yuo might relate
to his work.
JSGranger
>> >Maybe art is a synthesis or bridge between religion and science?]
>
>> Are you familiar with the writings of Levi Strauss? I think yuo might
>relate
>> to his work.
>
>mathematician before he turned to the study of anthropology.
>
>-- dkra
what is the relevance of that? do you think it helped him to think logically?
Lauri Levanto
Hi ejudy,
your posting was one of the most interesting
in this group for a long time.
It is a long one, but I quote it all.
I have inserted some comments in between.
>Subject: inquiry into bridging the gaps
>Date: 18 Jan 2002 11:20:54 -0800
>From: ej...@my-deja.com (ejudy)
>I have been hanging out in
>anthropology newsgroups yet my
>brain is more playful than true
>complete scientists.
>There is a spectrum from
>hard to soft sciences.
>Chemistry is probably a
>no-nonsense hard science where
>there is a right and wrong answer.
>Evolutionary-psychology or
>any so called social science
>are examples of soft sciences.
>They have no right and wrong and
>new terms spring up right and left.
>Yet artists
>have similarities to scientists.
>I wonder if this could be an interesting
>route to pursue in an inquiry into the nature
>of the role or function of the artist in society.
>Or who we are and what we are doing.
Here you have a lot of questions put together.
The role or function of the artist in society is
varied itself. Some are draftsmen, producing
commodities - paintings - in the market. Others are
prophets, sermoning doom over the artsyfartsy.
Then there are narcists, deeply involved
to self-expression.
>Maybe art is a synthesis or bridge between religion and science?
>Between the human interior and exterior world?
>But there is always an element of the
>personal and an element of the nonpersonal.
I would use terms personal and interpersonal.
Most often art is very personal involvement,
but an artwork needs to have some interpersonal
if it is to be understood by somebody else.
It is private and common experience at the same time.
>These things fascinate me. I guess i think gaining
>conscious awareness is possible and may be useful
>to bring about growth and change in people's art.
>That would seem to put more power into the hands
>and mind of the artist and that
>power could be considered a tool or skill.
Conscious awareness about what you appreciate in
others works is good.
Conscious, intellectual awareness of your own working
may be a double-bladed sword.
>Where have these questions shown up before?
Not very often, but a few years ago even here
was some good discussion. You might deja-search
signatures like g*rd*n, Erik A Mattila, Mark Webber.
>One teacher i had made the point that maybe one can go overboard
>on the intellectual inquiry and one might do better
>to let the art process itself lead the inquiry.
>So he would simply say "go make pots"
>(he was a ceramic teacher).
>Or you could say just go paint every day,
>just go paint. Whenever you hit a dead end ,
>just go paint.
There are too few intellectual artists (Esher, Magritte).
Too much intellectual effort may block you,
lead to cool and impersonal style.
To think, to understand, cannot itself harm.
There is a certain element of "flow" in good work.
I often have a special feeling when the clay takes over
and molds my thinking.
>So what's happening when the art leads?
>Is that the unconscious dancing with the
>little smaller conscious self? Is that
>the dance which the artist needs to learn?
I'm very carefull with the word unconscious.
It has the Freudian ballast, so well illustrated by Dali.
Our consciousnes is very limited.
It has a bandwidth of ca. 18 bits/sec, while
our brains operate in the megabit range.
Most of what we do consciously is very much
subconscious. That was beatifully told in your example
of martial arts.
>When a martial artist learns his/her tools
>its a very very slow breaking down of the movements
>to understand the base to setup a good foundation.
>Then the idea is to increase the speed and "forget"
>the elements. Eventually the goal is to become
>the tools and lose the distinction between
>who one is and what one has learned.
>And in so doing the idea is automatic
>response of the individual to the problems
>encountered as a person in the world in terms
>of the system of movement one has learned
>without being encumbered by the memory of
>aquiring the learning. This is symbolized
>by the old black belt turning gray and eventually
>turning back towards the original white.
The evolutionary psychology tells that in our minds
there is an amphibian kernel, frogs brain
that is interested only in staying alive.
Around it is a mammalian strata with more learning
and means for alternative strategies.
The outmost cortical layer then has abstract tools
for thinking and decision making.
It is the most versatile, and slowest way to
do things.
>I think being an artist has a similar goal.
>To what extent do we know how
>we have indoctrinated ourselves
>in a certain style of learning?
Erik Mattila once said that art is whatever we have learned
to regard as art. We know very little
about this indoctrination.
>Can we have more awareness of this
>so we can have more ability to grow and expand
our ability?
Are you now asking to expand your cortical ability
or the subconscious domain of the martial artist.
>IOW, to pick and choose
>our own indoctrinations.
How to choose, as we do not know what we do not know.
Our life experience is more or less given.
We learn from things intended and more often from the unintended.
>It might be
>scarey cuz i think you have to position
>yourself on the periferies of the immersed society
>to do this effectively.
You have to step out of prejudices, but stay close
enough to see the effects of those prejudices.
>Sort of losing one's
>family or ethnicity to gain an understanding
>of the bigger picture of who we are and
>where we come from and where we can go
>as opposed to where we are blindly heading.
A family or minority background may be a stong
asset in seeing what is not selfevident but customary.
I have long wanted to meet a Japanese psychologist
who could see through the western commonplaces.
>An objective perspective of sorts.
>That does parallel science to a certain extent.
>Is that a useful?
Your term parallel science I do not know.
Sounds scary as alternative medicine.
A wider perspective, yes, but is it more objective.
Intellectuals make selcom good politicians.
They have a wider pespective but less chance to be understood.
>I think it is.
>SOmeone here mentioned that i need to learn the language
>you guys are talking in this forum if i am
>going to be able to communicate in discussions.
Your posting is an example of lively and clear communication.
>To a greater or lessor extent this is probably
>a reasonable expectation. Yet this is not science.
>The harder the science the more specific the language
>as you are there talking about yes and no issues.
(The physicists are irritated butare not mislead when
laymen interchange mass and weight.
Psychologists and especially artist have nothing but
strict terms to grab, as the subject is elusive.)
The jargon is a measure for street credibility,
to tell who belons to us and who is out.
>The ways i personally have developed to verbalize
>how my thoughts on making art talk inside my head
>are probably valid. Some people will be greatly encumbered
>or enhanced by their learned conceptual tools and jargon.
>I am afraid these developed styles tend to role off of me
>and i forget the terms. So i make up my own.
>But communication is the idea. SO there is probably
>a way to bridge the gap. Maybe its nonverbal art?
Heck i don't know.
But its fun to think about anyway.
ejudy
*******
From:
hudson <hud...@telus.net>
>Fundamentally, both science and art are problem-solving endeavours.
ejudy
>> Maybe art is a synthesis or bridge between religion and science?
hudson
>When I studied art, the teaching staff noted that many students had
>prior science or religious training and art was becoming very much
>cross-discipline.
Contemporary art is nothing but a cross-discipline.
The overrating of novelty has expanded the turf
and eroded the borders. Whatever lies outside
of art, like a shark carcass, is novelty to
contemporary esthticians.
Thank you ejudy,
for your refreshing posting.
Reading you makes me hear
the calcification rattle
in the gears of my brain.
-lauri
ejudy
I'll try to look him up. Thanks.
I think whatever you put your mind to really
do for at least a period of time
sort of beats down recognisable trails forever more
despite the overgrowth. ;-)
ejudy
ps. sorry if i am absent for a while.
What did arnold say so nicely?
"i'll be back"
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
I agree: there is this relationship between art (painting sculpture etc) and
science. If you loosely define art as making images that mimic reality then
art has historically served the illustrative needs of both science and
religion.
If you define religion loosely as a system of values then it is easier to
see the relationship between religion and cultural values. Different
religions based upon varying values each claiming superiority over the
other. That gives way to the pluralistic idea that we should live together
but not kill each other - which is another value / religion.
The artist is part of society and in our western society is subject to
existence within a pluralistic community of artists. Yes some of the artists
in this news group have at times wished another dead because of value
conflicts - but that reflects the pluralistic world.
That in essence makes artists members of a pluralistic sub-culture
reflecting the norms of the main culture.
I will further argue that if we were a bunch of basket weavers there would
be arguments over types of baskets being superior to other types of baskets
etc. Mainly because the values within the culture defines people
interactions .
take care: keith
ejudy <ej...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:46e43451.02011...@posting.google.com...
hudson
> I will further argue that if we were a bunch of basket weavers there would
> be arguments over types of baskets being superior to other types of baskets
> etc. Mainly because the values within the culture defines people
> interactions .
It's a rat race no matter where you turn.
Here's something for inquiring minds to read:
http://mondodomani.org/dialegesthai/apl01.htm
The Relation between Perception and Reality in Science
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
take care: keith
hudson <hud...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:hudsonw-77A63E...@clgrps11.telusplanet.net...
hudson
(snip)
>
> SOmeone here mentioned that i need to learn the language
> you guys are talking in this forum if i am
> going to be able to communicate in discussions.
> To a greater or lessor extent this is probably
> a reasonable expectation. Yet this is not science.
> The harder the science the more specific the language
> as you are there talking about yes and no issues.
> The ways i personally have developed to verbalize
> how my thoughts on making art talk inside my head
> are probably valid. Some people will be greatly encumbered
> or enhanced by their learned conceptual tools and jargon.
> I am afraid these developed styles tend to role off of me
> and i forget the terms. So i make up my own.
> But communication is the idea. SO there is probably
> a way to bridge the gap. Maybe its nonverbal art?
A friend who is active and successful in grant applications has observed
that review panels expect applicants to use a specific language that
will help the reviewers to understand artists' intents and also to help
them to wade through hundreds of documents in timely order.
Applicants who have success tend to know how to use buzz words like
"marginal", "semiotics", "simalacrum", etc. Of course, it helps to know
something about the concepts lest the panel requests a live interview.
Writing for grant applications required a brevity and concision that
contrasts the more personal style of an artist's statement.
A friend who taught in the UK always preferred students speak about
their artwork in their own words so they would not parrot shopworn
phrases. I am reminded of an instructor who critiqued a particularly
turgid figure drawing I made and he said, "It makes me waaaaant to
PUUUUUKE!" Then he pitched backwards onto the model's mattress mortally
wounded. Hmmmm, I queried, "You mean to say you don't like the drawing?"
No matter the situation, it is important to express your ideas clearly.