the sublime
Peter
Alison: The sublime, I think, has to do with the divine. With
transcending. Question is what. What do we transcend? Ah, that
eternal search for something beyond us, our attempts at painting that
which IS NOT, could they have something to do with the state of the
world? I mean this: we know there's a profound gap between the world
of men--I mean men--and their genocides and holocausts, and the rest of
the people, those individuals who neither kill, nor maim, nor rape. And
when we say 'the world', we usually refer to the bastards. Witness
Camus and his revolt against the ever recurring injustices. Yet the
'world' is also the planet. And that is the only manifestation of the
divine I understand. Ok. Now, if the planet were nurtured instead of
tortured and consumed--the Minoan civilization is an example of that
possibility, and it was run by the goddess--would we not find
transcendence on the earth? That is what possesses me these days: a
way to find peace and joy among the cannibals. The earth is our divine
place, i think, and the source of the sublime. Genocide and injustice
are the aberrations. I find that I must deal with them, eliminate them
from my heart and mind, in order to celebrate the planet, and possibly
grasp ITS heart and mind. Peter.
peter nelson
Peter wrote in message <3732E7...@together.net>...
So was all this Allison's or was there some point in the above
"paragraph" where her comments ended and yours began?
have you ever considered the possible benefits on typographical
conventions such as quote-marks, paragraph structure, indentations,
white space, etc, in your postings?
FWIW, Minoan civilization is not well understood since it is very ancient
(Bronze age) and we know almost nothing about how they were governed,
what their myths were, etc. The notion that they were less warlike seems
be a result of geographical luck - since they were not connected to the
mainland they were spared the expense and other problems of
needing to maintain a large standing army to fend off the constant
invasions from neighbors.
I also question your claim that, "Genocide and injustice are the
aberrations." They may have been aberrations during hunter-gatherer
societies when there wasn't so much competition for resources,
but ever since agrarian society established itself in the world they
have been common.
I think one problem people have when they read about Hitler
or Serbian ethnic cleansing, etc, is that they say "that's inhuman!".
This is a psycholological distancing technique, a form of self
delusion. The reality is that massive violence against our fellows
is VERY human and the sooner we accept that as part of our
nature the sooner we can come to grips with it. As long as
we keep telling ourselves its an aberration we're like an alcoholic
who denies he has a drinking problem.
---peter
A.A. Raimes
writes
>Alison: The sublime, I think, has to do with the divine. With
>transcending. Question is what. What do we transcend?
Peter: you and I have discussed this many times before and I think one
of the main problems is once again semantics. The word *divine*, like
*sublime*, may be non-translatable across the centuries. The same
concern as we were discussing on 'philcamus' regarding the translating
of Camus' work where the problem emerges even from translating across
contemporary cultures. The word *divine* and its connotations with God
no longer has a spiritual place for many in today's Western society.
Western society had to make God into a human being in order to
comprehend him and in doing so changed the entire course of religion.
Remember my remarks on the translation of the Bible on the list
yesterday ?
> Ah, that
>eternal search for something beyond us, our attempts at painting that
>which IS NOT, could they have something to do with the state of the
>world? I mean this: we know there's a profound gap between the world
>of men--I mean men--and their genocides and holocausts, and the rest of
>the people, those individuals who neither kill, nor maim, nor rape. And
>when we say 'the world', we usually refer to the bastards.
Yes we do. So *we* does not then include *us* when we speak of the
world. I think this may be where the connection with *this* world ends
for many - where we no longer feel unity and harmony or comfort in the
unknown.
> Witness
>Camus and his revolt against the ever recurring injustices. Yet the
>'world' is also the planet. And that is the only manifestation of the
>divine I understand. Ok. Now, if the planet were nurtured instead of
>tortured and consumed--the Minoan civilization is an example of that
>possibility, and it was run by the goddess--would we not find
>transcendence on the earth?
Again, the word *goddess* for anyone who has not studied Minoan
mythology, instantly rings alarm bells. See the dilemma ? A goddess is a
myth ... yes ? then in today's society we no longer have a place for
myths. Understand ? A goddess, instead of being an *idea* that helps us
to become a part of the universe, has become associated with the glamour
of Hollywood - a human being placed on a pedestal and of which *we*
become in awe of. But a human. Yes ?
>That is what possesses me these days: a
>way to find peace and joy among the cannibals. The earth is our divine
>place, i think, and the source of the sublime. Genocide and injustice
>are the aberrations. I find that I must deal with them, eliminate them
>from my heart and mind, in order to celebrate the planet, and possibly
>grasp ITS heart and mind. Peter.
Exactly ! and no doubt this is where the idea has been germinated from.
The *sublime* was, as I have discussed with Mark, a feeling of awe in
the face of the cosmos. Perhaps then we are no longer able to have this
feeling ? *we* being as you perceive. That the sublime has now been
satisfied by artificial produced experiences. What then can the 21st
century sublime experience be ? I see a different type of *awe* - one
which entails a microscopic detailed investigation into the sublime.
Make any sense ? The focus, the direction of energy into one activity -
in our case painting - like a mirror reflecting light onto wood.
Now: Got any good scallop recipes ??
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
A.A. Raimes
<pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>So was all this Allison's or was there some point in the above
>"paragraph" where her comments ended and yours began?
>have you ever considered the possible benefits on typographical
>conventions such as quote-marks, paragraph structure, indentations,
>white space, etc, in your postings?
This was Peter's first post to a newsgroup - perhaps you could give a
bit of slack before starting your typically condescending attack on
every new poster to this newsgroup ? I seem to remember you launching
one on me. The post refers to the discussion I was having with Mark on
the Baudrillard thread - please feel free to make a contribution ... or
not.
I will let Peter answer the rest of your post as he obviously knows a
lot more about Minoan mythology than you.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> transcending. Question is what. What do we transcend?
You've got some high-class problems.
> Ah, that
> eternal search for something beyond us, our attempts at painting that
> which IS NOT, could they have something to do with the state of the
> world?
Is that like the state of New York?
> I mean this: we know there's a profound gap between the world
> of men--I mean men--and their genocides and holocausts, and the rest of
> the people, those individuals who neither kill, nor maim, nor rape.
The primary difference between these two groups is several weeks without
lunch.
> And
> when we say 'the world', we usually refer to the bastards.
Whatever.
> Witness
> Camus and his revolt against the ever recurring injustices.
Whatever.
> Yet the
> 'world' is also the planet. And that is the only manifestation of the
> divine I understand. Ok. Now, if the planet were nurtured instead of
> tortured and consumed--the Minoan civilization is an example of that
> possibility, and it was run by the goddess--would we not find
> transcendence on the earth?
Oh, you know that for a fact, eh? Methinks you should lighten up
on the psychoactives a bit.
> That is what possesses me these days: a
> way to find peace and joy among the cannibals.
Well, I'm sure if you could find some cannibals, they would also
like for you to be found in piece(s).
> The earth is our divine
> place, i think, and the source of the sublime.
Well, there is a lot of slime... I'm not sure about s(ub)lime.
> Genocide and injustice
> are the aberrations.
Horseshit. The vast majority of us would kill someone else without
remorse under many circumstances. Consider how easliy the liberal-in-
chief kills people in yugoslavia and spends the afternoon golfing.
> I find that I must deal with them, eliminate them
> from my heart and mind, in order to celebrate the planet, and possibly
> grasp ITS heart and mind. Peter.
I'd say the thing you might want to get a little better grasp on is reality.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <7gur15$cr4$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>, peter nelson
> <pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>
> >So was all this Allison's or was there some point in the above
> >"paragraph" where her comments ended and yours began?
> >have you ever considered the possible benefits on typographical
> >conventions such as quote-marks, paragraph structure, indentations,
> >white space, etc, in your postings?
>
> This was Peter's first post to a newsgroup - perhaps you could give a
> bit of slack before starting your typically condescending attack on
> every new poster to this newsgroup ? I seem to remember you launching
> one on me. The post refers to the discussion I was having with Mark on
> the Baudrillard thread - please feel free to make a contribution ... or
> not.
>
> I will let Peter answer the rest of your post as he obviously knows a
> lot more about Minoan mythology than you.
"Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the crystal
shops in Sedona.
A.A. Raimes
writes
>
>"Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
>a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the crystal
>shops in Sedona.
And I suggest you make sure you know more about people before you fire
your pathetic and superior opinions at everyone. This is where I log off
now - you can all play your games without me
A.A. Raimes
writes
>I'd say the thing you might want to get a little better grasp on is reality.
One thing is for sure - if this represents reality then I would rather
transcend it. So much concentrated anger causes forest fires.
Peter: I apologise for making you think that maybe there was group of
decent folks here in which to discuss our concerns - I was definitely
wrong - I think you have a much better vision on human nature than I. we
will continue our discourse in private.
Alison
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Did you hear about the cannibal who 'passed' his brother in the forrest?
Erik Mattila
Larry Seiler
> transcending. Question is what. What do we transcend?
There is definitely a sense of recording, for example in paint, the simple
truth of existing beauty. To explore the "essence" of that within a
tranquil scene to discover the "ah HAH!" By the "ah-HAH!" I mean that
aesthetic "thing" that grabbed our eye, our senses and passions to say from
the very beginning "wow, this MUST be painted!" The challenge of capturing
for which the lesser experienced or inattentive artist can lose being
weighed down by inessentials such as noticing details that were unnoticed
before.
For me experiencing and painting the "sublime"....is a process of working
in isolation, seeing and experiencing a habitual contemplative
disengagement from the mayhem of that called the "real world", sensing a
sanity and higher order from which mankind has been disconnected. It is a
means in touching the transcendent to receive...to get....such that serving
others or giving becomes agreeable, even desireable because one has been
satisfied. One's cup has been made full.
Others I believe can touch this sense of the transcendent or that which is
bigger than themselves....that exists beyond their own transient momentary
existence without defining or understanding that transcendent to be a
"Being", but for me there is a deeper connection believing this
transcendence to originate in such a Being. Especially as an artist. It
is similar to standing in front of a painting of Rembrandts and copying
what you see. The instructor may have little to say, but a hundred hours
into the painting you begin to see something of genuis that Rembrandt did,
and it is as if he were there sharing with you. You find yourself at one
point saying, "SOOoooo..that's how you did that! Amazing. You were simply
and incredibly brilliant!" A voice whispering back, "thank you!"
For me....painting outdoors gives me that sense of something in common with
the Creator of all things, and breakthroughs or insights brings a slight
knodding of the head realizing something that others never bother to
consider. Something that attentiveness brings to understand. Like wooing
a beautiful woman, lavishing time upon her...honoring her among all others,
she shares intimate things raising you to a level others not so privileged
will experience.
Driving down the road after a session of painting.....colors are more
vibrant than ever. You touch a whispering romancing sense of knowing. You
sense the great loss, a poverty of others driving by having no
acknowledgement at all.
One definition of sublime...is to elevate to a higher or more dignified
level.
I believe recognizing beauty that is hidden, and bringing it to the
attention of others that take things for granted honors the transcendent.
It is also a sense of servanthood. While others are busy trying to draw
attention to themselves claiming to create something original, something
new....painting the sublime from the perspective of such appears useless,
appears wasteful in that others have already done the same.
Well....many men have made love to their women over eons of time...but many
of us would not wish to abandon that because of its commonness. Though it
has been done before, there are things to discover in the intimacy of a
woman's love, of relationship. It is not always what your art does for
others, but sometimes what making art does for oneself as well, and I'm not
speaking of money or ego.
Part of what people miss in this "real world" is the notion that life has
dignity, has meaning....and they chase after drums that beat with sounds
defining success. More money....legacy.....the spotlight. I have found
after many many years of painting, after having experienced some attention,
etc., that pursuing excellence for the sake of gaining "success" as the
world understands it will in time create a hollow void or vacuum....and now
for me excellence is a way of expressing my love for life...for God, not
measured by the world's ideas. The sublime for me becomes a lifestyle. It
becomes a means to engage and celebrate life, to manifest joy and
habitualize honor.
That others might wish to purchase a work of mine is a welcome means to
provide for my own, but I cannot help but feel sorrow for those attempting
to buy a piece of solitude to reflect upon in their busy lives, framed upon
a wall, knowing nothing of the whispers, the secrets, the joys. Striving
to experience peace and sanity in soundbytes.
To me....touching the sublime...experiencing the transcendent....and
practicing joy and celebration through an artistic lifestyle is liberating
and freeing. It reduces my "need" upon others and things to supply joy.
Religiously, I don't go to church to "get".....for I have already been made
full and satisfied. I go to honor and recognize my smallness in lieu of
the Sovereign Uncaused Cause. I go to give.
Think about it for a minute though. It all seems to be about feeding, or
getting fed, and the world seems to be a mass confusion of spiritual mouths
surging about trying to consume...trying to get...with very few givers.
Knowing and understanding this. Knowing peace...and the joy of responding
creatively to it, that to me is understanding and living the sublime.
peace,
Larry
Larry Seiler
artist's web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
WetCanvas Artists page-
http://www.wetcanvas.com/Gallery/S/Larry_Seiler/index.html
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."
George Bernard Shaw
Larry Seiler
> no longer has a spiritual place for many in today's Western society.
> Western society had to make God into a human being in order to
> comprehend him and in doing so changed the entire course of religion.
I like what you say here. It goes along with what I try to tell people
when I see religion as man's attempt to find meaning/God, and my worldview
belief of God reaching down to reveal Himself thus transcending man's
routine of myth making. That He did so IMHO does indeed change the course
of religion. I won't argue further upon it as that would be senseless and
typical for those having been compartmentalized under my faith by their own
ignorance and the culture at large....obscurring the very grace they would
hope to be seen.
However....if an artist has a genuine personal experience that for him/her
supplants this experience and belief, the least we can do is appreciate it
as that person's genuine position. We may not agree *shrug* but certainly
we can be cordial. As I have suggested in my longer post, that which is
transcendent is sensed by people/artists that would define the experience
by their own particular worldviews and yet be sublime. Still...that one
expresses it as "divine" may have value for some readers that can relate or
would like to.
I wish more of us, myself included...could value one another's experience
and contributions without the fear of reaction and rejection. Red looks
red on a nontheist's canvas...and that canvas of the person of faith.
Peace.....
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <3732E7...@together.net>, Peter <taur...@together.net>
> writes
> >Alison: The sublime, I think, has to do with the divine. With
> >transcending. Question is what. What do we transcend?
>
> of the main problems is once again semantics. The word *divine*, like
> *sublime*, may be non-translatable across the centuries. The same
> concern as we were discussing on 'philcamus' regarding the translating
> of Camus' work where the problem emerges even from translating across
> no longer has a spiritual place for many in today's Western society.
> Western society had to make God into a human being in order to
> comprehend him and in doing so changed the entire course of religion.
> yesterday ?
I'll admit that I got confused over the term 'sublime.' Maybe it should be
capitalized if it references art history. My understanding of "Sublime" as
in A.H. is the paintings of Caspar Frederich et al (Germany) and the 19th
century manifestation if the U.S. It there also a British manifestation (I
wouldn't be surprised, I just can't remember.)
I think your definition below agrees with what I've learned, i.e. the
spectacle of nature creating the emotion of awe. Interestingly, the German
version usually eliminates the human presence, except for artifact, such as
Frederich's ruins. But much of the German Sublime I have looked at has no
'human presence' at all. The USAians, however, seemed to always include the
human, even it is a tiny speck of a figure(s) confronting the overwhelming
spectacle of nature.
So what is the relation of 'Color Field' to 'Sublime?' I can sense a
relationship between the US Sublime and Newmans paintings. I think the zips
function in the composition like the tiny human specks do -- but that is
really conjectural. But in my mind the two types of painting function in a
similar way. But is this just the power of suggestion. (Studying Art History
will have its impact on how one views painting).
What I find intriguing is to think about the "Sublime' in the context of
surrealism. This leads me to think about how that experience of awe is a
human emotion, which spills out into pyschoanalytic theory etc. Is the
'Sublime' a species of proto-surrealism?
But then it gets complicated since Dali uses the term 'sublime' in an entirely
different way, in speaking about surrealsim. I think basically he says
'subliminal' as in 'unconscious content.'
>
> > Ah, that
> >eternal search for something beyond us, our attempts at painting that
> >which IS NOT, could they have something to do with the state of the
> >world? I mean this: we know there's a profound gap between the world
> >of men--I mean men--and their genocides and holocausts, and the rest of
> >the people, those individuals who neither kill, nor maim, nor rape. And
> >when we say 'the world', we usually refer to the bastards.
>
> Yes we do. So *we* does not then include *us* when we speak of the
> world. I think this may be where the connection with *this* world ends
> for many - where we no longer feel unity and harmony or comfort in the
> unknown.
>
> > Witness
> >Camus and his revolt against the ever recurring injustices. Yet the
> >'world' is also the planet. And that is the only manifestation of the
> >divine I understand. Ok. Now, if the planet were nurtured instead of
> >tortured and consumed--the Minoan civilization is an example of that
> >possibility, and it was run by the goddess--would we not find
> >transcendence on the earth?
>
> Again, the word *goddess* for anyone who has not studied Minoan
> mythology, instantly rings alarm bells. See the dilemma ? A goddess is a
> myth ... yes ? then in today's society we no longer have a place for
> myths. Understand ? A goddess, instead of being an *idea* that helps us
> to become a part of the universe, has become associated with the glamour
> of Hollywood - a human being placed on a pedestal and of which *we*
> become in awe of. But a human. Yes ?
I think in today's society myth thrives, Alison. When I first read Barthes
"Mythologies' I thought he was talking about something different than
"Mythology" as Joseph Campbell would say, but I've come to realize that
Barthes was talking about the same thing. The semiotic explanation of 'myth'
is somewhat dry and technical, true, and it robs myth of its charm. But then
again, "The Brain of Einstein," "Soapsuds and Detergents," and all that
'mean' and 'functin' in the same way as Gigamesh, Castor and Pollux, and all
that. Following that, the thread between Kore and Greta Garbo may be very
real, in cultural terms.
>
> >That is what possesses me these days: a
> >way to find peace and joy among the cannibals. The earth is our divine
> >place, i think, and the source of the sublime. Genocide and injustice
> >are the aberrations. I find that I must deal with them, eliminate them
> >from my heart and mind, in order to celebrate the planet, and possibly
> >grasp ITS heart and mind. Peter.
>
> Exactly ! and no doubt this is where the idea has been germinated from.
> The *sublime* was, as I have discussed with Mark, a feeling of awe in
> the face of the cosmos. Perhaps then we are no longer able to have this
> feeling ? *we* being as you perceive. That the sublime has now been
> satisfied by artificial produced experiences. What then can the 21st
> century sublime experience be ? I see a different type of *awe* - one
> which entails a microscopic detailed investigation into the sublime.
> Make any sense ? The focus, the direction of energy into one activity -
> in our case painting - like a mirror reflecting light onto wood.
>
In my mind a detailed investigation into 'awe' would produce a description of
a human emotion which would tend to trivialize its significance. I've always
like to go to the stormy surf and experience that feeling of personal
insignificance in the shadow of raging nature. I don't know why this is so
pleasurable and personally significant. I think if I scrutinized it I would
uncover all sorts of fruedianisms that I would be uncomfortable with and
would tend to diminish the experience.
What this reminds me of is Sisyphus, which has cropped up here from time to
time. I got so tired of the cliche value of the Sisphus one time that I began
to wonder what 'crime' S had committed that would earn him the eternal
punishment of futility (I wonder if Camus addresses this?). At any rate it
turns out that Sisyphus was hiding behind a bush on an island when Zeus came
along and took his way with a local maiden. But Sisyphus wasn't punished for
his voyeruism -- he was punished for trying to tell others about what he had
witnessed. And the punishment was eternal futility. So should we try to
unravel and scrutinize the 'sublime' or the 'devine,' or content ourselves to
simply indulge in it without trying to rationalize it to others? (It probably
wouldn't make a difference what we decided, since the punishment of eternal
futility is posited as an absolute that is beyond the grasp of reason. It's
like explaining magic, if we are successful it is no longer magic.)
Even more interesting is the historical Sisyphus, I believe a King of Argos.
What he tried to do was restore the Matriarchy, but his court rebelled against
him and he subsequently lost all his regal power. The relation of that to the
myth is quite fascinating. Is the message 'you can't fight City Hall?"
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> wrote:
>
> Driving down the road after a session of painting.....colors are more
> vibrant than ever. You touch a whispering romancing sense of knowing. You
> sense the great loss, a poverty of others driving by having no
> acknowledgement at all.
I think it was quite by accident that I discovered orange. Everytime I
attempted to render a hill side covered with trees if fell far short of the
mark. When I looked at the hill side (or mountain side) and then at my
painting, what was lacking was what I could only describe as a greasiness - a
greasy qulaity to the green. I can't remember it it was specks of color (I
had been scrutinizing Delacroix at the time) or a glaze, but when I added
orange the woods suddenly came alive in a remarkable way.
But what really amazed me was that I couldn't see the orange before this
small triumph. Afterwards, I always see it -- I mean in a sense that I can
touch the orange. It's there, in the sense that any color is'there'. I
thought how capricious vision is -- how much we take for granted and never
question. It's almost impossible to think that we don't see a color that is
actually there (even if we want to take the physicist's words about light
rays and spectrums to hear). So why aren't there college courses like "Seeing
101?" Is it teachable?
I think yes. One book I looked at on landscape painting -- a 'corney'
Watson- Guptil How To book, mentioned putting yellow ocre into the blue of
the sky. I don't think I would have ever imagined that on my own, but as it
turned out it's quite wonderful, especially if you want to make a lead sky,
heavy -- a sky that pushes you down on the ground.
Very nice post, Larry
Glenn Geist
>
>And I suggest you make sure you know more about people before you fire
>your pathetic and superior opinions at everyone. This is where I log off
>now - you can all play your games without me
>
I would hate to see another group fall to the sociopath vandals -
There's sort of a Gresham's law of Newsgroups - bad people drive good
people out. Don't let it happen.
Glenn
Larry Seiler
<37344f63...@news.earthlink.net>...
> I would hate to see another group fall to the sociopath vandals -
> There's sort of a Gresham's law of Newsgroups - bad people drive good
> people out. Don't let it happen.
>
> Glenn
I agree Glenn....about 1- 1 1/2 years ago I was putting my two cents in the
various issues on this newsgroup. It mattered not what one's opinion was,
or how intelligently or eloquently it was stated. Reasoning doesn't move
people from their positions here, for there are very few true seekers.
There are far more people with motives "needing" to impress for whatever
vexing impoverished reasons.
What I have found though is that if one refrains from such banterings,
people here that are "working" artists have much more to offer. Insights
from their habits of working as artists in isolation. I am disciplining
myself to keep my discussions to a minimum as that which does not directly
deal with art making, technical applications, vision...etc; seasoning
speech with grace. I see what you are saying, and hope as do you that good
people do not leave. I think we simply have to ignore the bad.
I have this feeling that if all the people on this newsgroup were to meet
in person that a much different tone would take place. A more festive and
polite atmosphere, because I think a keyboard and monitor allows for more
the uncivil unsocial inklings in people to come out. Let's face
it...consideration and politeness may not happen until the threat of a fist
actually coming out of the monitor screen and punching 'em in the mouth can
happen!
peace,
Peter Nelson
A.A. Raimes wrote in message ...
>In article <7gur15$cr4$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>, peter nelson
><pne...@ultranet.com> writes
>
>>So was all this Allison's or was there some point in the above
>>"paragraph" where her comments ended and yours began?
>>have you ever considered the possible benefits on typographical
>>conventions such as quote-marks, paragraph structure, indentations,
>>white space, etc, in your postings?
>
>This was Peter's first post to a newsgroup - perhaps
>you could give a bit of slack before starting your
>typically condescending attack on every new poster
> to this newsgroup ?
What matters is whether my comments are valid. Did
his lack of typographical conventions make it hard to
gauge who was being quoted?
>I will let Peter answer the rest of your post as he
> bviously knows a lot more about Minoan mythology
> than you.
Then he must also know more than the history books
because the reality is that very little is known about the
claims he made beyond speculation.
---peter
Peter Nelson
>However....if an artist has a genuine personal experience
>that for him/her supplants this experience and belief, the
>least we can do is appreciate it as that person's genuine
>position. We may not agree *shrug* but certainly we
>can be cordial.
Well, as one of the targets of the claims of non-cordiality,
I'd like to point out that I never took him to task for his
"personal experience" - only for his factual and historical
claims (and his confusing typography).
---peter
Larry Seiler
> I'd like to point out that I never took him to task for his
> "personal experience" - only for his factual and historical
> claims (and his confusing typography).
>
> ---peter
Well......you obviously felt the need. Integrity would cause you to follow
through. We obviously can't all be alike, nor have our experiences brought
us to the same juncture in the road. Our world would be very boring if
that were the case. That we would learn to make our point and be satisfied
with that is all that could hoped to be expected. If you feel strongly
about an issue yet value others that agree or do not, etc., such will yet
be evident to all. Don't be offended by me Peter. Do what you feel you
need to, and may we all learn and grow from our end of it.
peace...
Larry
A.A. Raimes
<plne...@mediaone.net> writes
>
>What matters is whether my comments are valid. Did
>his lack of typographical conventions make it hard to
>gauge who was being quoted?
No, sir. What matters is the aggressive and superior tone that you take
with every new poster. Who is to say that your perfection on
typographical matters and your cold objective attitude is superior to
the subjective, passionate and emotional responses of other artists ? or
whether or not your vast knowledge of all of history fulfils every
criteria that you feel the right to shoot down someone you have
absolutely no knowledge of. Why can an artist not display passion
without being targeted as some sort of inferior being based on their
writing style ?
Peter made no claims and he wasn't quoting anyone but himself - he
offered his own subjective response to how he deals with this world
based on his life's experiences and interests - which was part of the
thread on the *sublime* that was underway. I personally would have liked
to be able to discuss that issue with him.
A.A. Raimes
<lse...@execpc.com> writes
>Glenn Geist <grg...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
><37344f63...@news.earthlink.net>...
>
>> I would hate to see another group fall to the sociopath vandals -
>> There's sort of a Gresham's law of Newsgroups - bad people drive good
>> people out. Don't let it happen.
>>
>> Glenn
>
>I agree Glenn....about 1- 1 1/2 years ago I was putting my two cents in the
>various issues on this newsgroup. It mattered not what one's opinion was,
>or how intelligently or eloquently it was stated. Reasoning doesn't move
>people from their positions here, for there are very few true seekers.
>There are far more people with motives "needing" to impress for whatever
>vexing impoverished reasons.
Glenn and Larry: I thought a lot about this and you are of course both
right. What really hits me are the indiscriminate attacks on unknown
individuals, who, often being first time posters, could easily be
intimidated and therefore not respond again. That is exclusion of the
highest order - the sort of thing that has prevented the peripheral
countries from participating in mainstream modernity by the insistent
hegemonic structure of this world. I deplore it and I will continue to
fight it.
Both Larry and Erik have made excellent responds to something that forms
the basis of my entire work. It is probably the most important issue for
me - and the good thing that has come out of this, for me, is to remind
me that recently I lost my focus and that now is the time to do
something about it. Thank you Larry !
With that in mind I will return in a few days and respond - if they will
allow me. In the meantime I have much work to do.
Best regards.
Alison A Raimes
Solo Exhibition
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
Exhibition now extended through June
as part of Peterborough's *Imagine* group exhibition
commencing 25th May.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <7gvj2n$u89$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >I'd say the thing you might want to get a little better grasp on is
reality.
>
> One thing is for sure - if this represents reality then I would rather
> transcend it.
Wouldn't we all... unfortunately, reality is often harsh.
> So much concentrated anger causes forest fires.
Anger? I've never seen the guy before and there certainly wasn't
anything in his post to make anyone "angry".
>
> Peter: I apologise for making you think that maybe there was group of
> decent folks here in which to discuss our concerns - I was definitely
> wrong - I think you have a much better vision on human nature than I.
When you post something and you only want people who agree with you to
followup on your post, you should make a note of it at the top.
Of course, that isn't really a discussion then, is it? If Peter is
so delicate as to not be able to tolerate unbiased responses to his
posts, usenet is probably not a good place for him to open a
"discussion."
> we
> will continue our discourse in private.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> > > Alison Raimes writes on the sublime.
(...)
> >
> Chrome,
> Did you hear about the cannibal who 'passed' his brother in the
forrest?
No. :P
Pretty funny, though.
peter nelson
><plne...@mediaone.net> writes
>
>>
>>What matters is whether my comments are valid. Did
>>his lack of typographical conventions make it hard to
>>gauge who was being quoted?
>
>No, sir. What matters is the aggressive and superior tone that you take
>with every new poster. Who is to say that your perfection on
>typographical matters and your cold objective attitude is superior to
>the subjective, passionate and emotional responses of other artists ?
That's for others to judge. Obviously *I* think it's superior because
that's the style I choose. Don't forget that Peter the Sublime thinks
that his paragraphless style is superior because that's what HE
chooses to inflict on us. People are perfectly free to criticize my
posting style (as you are doing!) or the clarity with which I express
my views.
> or whether or not your vast knowledge of all of history fulfils every
>criteria that you feel the right to shoot down someone you have
>absolutely no knowledge of.
How is knowledge of him relevant? We're not talking about him;
we're talking about his ideas. If he claimed that Napoleon won
the battle of Waterloo would a better understanding of who he is or
where he's coming from somehow rectify that?
> Why can an artist not
display passion
>without being targeted as some sort of inferior being based on their
>writing style ?
I couldn't tell if it was his passion or yours being displayed. He
started by saying "Alison Raimes writes on the sublime" and
then has a paragraph about the sublime.
>Peter made no claims and he wasn't quoting anyone but himself - he
>offered his own subjective response to how he deals with this world
>based on his life's experiences and interests - which was part of the
>thread on the *sublime* that was underway. I personally would have liked
>to be able to discuss that issue with him.
And what's stopping you? If he wants to "transcend", if he wants
to "find peace and joy among the cannibals" he can start by accepting
the idea that not all the canibals will agree with him.
When we put our ideas on display here we must expect some response.
Posting ideas here and not expecting some criticism is like hanging
your paintings in a museum or gallery and not expecting some art
critic to critique them.
---peter
Glenn Geist
Somehow, although I think you're right, I can't help arguing - perhaps
it's follishness or ego or vain hope, or even an addiction.
As long as it doesn't get too nasty, Everyone needs his ideas
challenged and even if minds don't get changed, they get exercised.
>I agree Glenn....about 1- 1 1/2 years ago I was putting my two cents in the
>various issues on this newsgroup. It mattered not what one's opinion was,
>or how intelligently or eloquently it was stated. Reasoning doesn't move
>people from their positions here, for there are very few true seekers.
>There are far more people with motives "needing" to impress for whatever
>vexing impoverished reasons.
>
>What I have found though is that if one refrains from such banterings,
>people here that are "working" artists have much more to offer. Insights
>from their habits of working as artists in isolation. I am disciplining
>myself to keep my discussions to a minimum as that which does not directly
>deal with art making, technical applications, vision...etc; seasoning
>speech with grace. I see what you are saying, and hope as do you that good
>people do not leave. I think we simply have to ignore the bad.
>
>I have this feeling that if all the people on this newsgroup were to meet
>in person that a much different tone would take place. A more festive and
>polite atmosphere, because I think a keyboard and monitor allows for more
>the uncivil unsocial inklings in people to come out. Let's face
>it...consideration and politeness may not happen until the threat of a fist
>actually coming out of the monitor screen and punching 'em in the mouth can
>happen!
>peace,
>
A.A. Raimes
<lse...@execpc.com> writes
>Think about it for a minute though. It all seems to be about feeding, or
>getting fed, and the world seems to be a mass confusion of spiritual mouths
>surging about trying to consume...trying to get...with very few givers.
>Knowing and understanding this. Knowing peace...and the joy of responding
>creatively to it, that to me is understanding and living the sublime.
Larry: there is nothing I could, or would want, to add to your post. You
managed to convey your thoughts much more eloquently than I ever could -
I thank you.
Kind regards.
A.A. Raimes
>I'll admit that I got confused over the term 'sublime.' Maybe it should be
>capitalized if it references art history. My understanding of "Sublime" as
>in A.H. is the paintings of Caspar Frederich et al (Germany) and the 19th
>century manifestation if the U.S. It there also a British manifestation (I
>wouldn't be surprised, I just can't remember.)
Erik: Turner is the British manifestation of the 19th century *sublime*.
>
>I think your definition below agrees with what I've learned, i.e. the
>spectacle of nature creating the emotion of awe. Interestingly, the German
>version usually eliminates the human presence, except for artifact, such as
>Frederich's ruins. But much of the German Sublime I have looked at has no
>'human presence' at all. The USAians, however, seemed to always include the
>human, even it is a tiny speck of a figure(s) confronting the overwhelming
>spectacle of nature.
The sublime aesthetic experience seems to have evolved from the Dutch
landscape paintings of the 17th century - I would suggest that the
philosopher Spinoza had an immense influence here. A major questioning
of the Bible and the rigid dogmas and rituals of Christianity by Spinoza
began to change perceptions on the possibilities of religion. The idea
of monism gave artists the fuel to consider harmony where man and nature
became one - where nature (or the *divine* as some will call it) is
*god*. The idea then that *God* is not a human materialism of something
beyond our comprehension but an encompassing of an entire experience
called *nature*. For the artist to render this idea it often meant
including a figure or something that would link nature and man - Turner
used ships. This, I believe, is where it started to go wrong - in the
sense that the *sublime* experience (in this sense) is not one that can
be rendered materialistically.
>
>So what is the relation of 'Color Field' to 'Sublime?' I can sense a
>relationship between the US Sublime and Newmans paintings. I think the zips
>function in the composition like the tiny human specks do -- but that is
>really conjectural. But in my mind the two types of painting function in a
>similar way. But is this just the power of suggestion. (Studying Art History
>will have its impact on how one views painting).
20th century artists have attempted to convey the experience through
vastness and colour just as you illustrate above. The idea of being
engrossed in a sea of colour is, I am sure, an intention of giving the
experience of the *sublime*. For me, the Colour Field Painters failed in
this - including Rothko, who was committed - because it is simulated
experience just as the screen at the IMAX cinemas or a ride on a roller
coaster are. One cannot enforce an idea on a people whose perceptions of
existence are so dominated by artificial concepts such as *money* and
*fame* - where the idea of nature is restricted, for many, to weekend
country recreational pursuits. I think Rothko was very aware of this.
For me: the *sublime* experience is the actual process of producing the
work - within the confines of the studio which provides an *oasis* from
the reality of life. It is a concentration.
>
>What I find intriguing is to think about the "Sublime' in the context of
>surrealism. This leads me to think about how that experience of awe is a
>human emotion, which spills out into pyschoanalytic theory etc. Is the
>'Sublime' a species of proto-surrealism?
>
>But then it gets complicated since Dali uses the term 'sublime' in an entirely
>different way, in speaking about surrealsim. I think basically he says
>'subliminal' as in 'unconscious content.'
I believe that the *sublime* is a religious experience - in the widest
sense of the word - and that surrealism attempted to artificially
introduce it into their manifesto. Surrealism, for me, is part of
adolescence - masturbation (or surrealism) is something all should
experience - a state of simulated circumstances that do not even
parallel the *real experience.
>
>I think in today's society myth thrives, Alison. When I first read Barthes
>"Mythologies'
Consider then the ideas of Baudrillard here, Erik. Myth's were not
*made* - they were ways of helping humans to understand the *unknown* -
to bring man and the gods (or nature, or the divine) together. Today we
*make* myths - we are aware of the intense influence that mythology has
had on history and today we are attempting to artificially introduce
mythology. We are writing history in advance.
>In my mind a detailed investigation into 'awe' would produce a description of
>a human emotion which would tend to trivialize its significance. I've always
>like to go to the stormy surf and experience that feeling of personal
>insignificance in the shadow of raging nature. I don't know why this is so
>pleasurable and personally significant. I think if I scrutinized it I would
>uncover all sorts of fruedianisms that I would be uncomfortable with and
>would tend to diminish the experience.
Under those considerations do you then think it is possible for an
artist to create the *sublime* experience ?
>
>What this reminds me of is Sisyphus, which has cropped up here from time to
>time.
>So should we try to
>unravel and scrutinize the 'sublime' or the 'devine,' or content ourselves to
>simply indulge in it without trying to rationalize it to others? (It probably
>wouldn't make a difference what we decided, since the punishment of eternal
>futility is posited as an absolute that is beyond the grasp of reason. It's
>like explaining magic, if we are successful it is no longer magic.)
>
That would depend on whether or not you are content to roll the rock
because it would relieve the boredom of existence or because you want to
be able to *laugh in the face of the gods* and be happy doing it.
Freedom can only exist in the mind.
>Even more interesting is the historical Sisyphus, I believe a King of Argos.
>What he tried to do was restore the Matriarchy, but his court rebelled against
>him and he subsequently lost all his regal power. The relation of that to the
>myth is quite fascinating. Is the message 'you can't fight City Hall?"
The message, as in all myths, must be *your* interpretation - no one can
tell you a meaning for any myth - that is the idea of a myth.
Thanks for bearing with me Erik - had a busy week with the show going up
and all that stuff, so my thinking head is a bit tattered. I did
appreciate the time you put into your answer though. Both you and Larry
have helped me to start developing my ideas for my thesis - which I
fully intend to have researched before I start my MFA next September. I
appreciate it.
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May - (th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <7gvja9$udg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >
> >"Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
> >a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the
crystal
> >shops in Sedona.
>
> your pathetic and superior opinions at everyone.
The issue is not one of my "pathetic and superior opinion" of someone,
it's one of historical fact.
"History," as they say, is written by the side that wins. "Mythology"
substantially less accurate.
What was being put forth as "historical," would be hard-pressed to
qualify as "mythology".
> This is where I log off
> now - you can all play your games without me
One sign of a reasonably mature personality is the ability to deal
with differing personalities, customs, and opinions.
If you can't manage the above, you're probably better off logging out.
A.A. Raimes
writes
>> >"Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
>> >a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the
>crystal
>> >shops in Sedona.
>>
>> And I suggest you make sure you know more about people before you fire
>> your pathetic and superior opinions at everyone.
>
>The issue is not one of my "pathetic and superior opinion" of someone,
>it's one of historical fact.
So, its a historical fact that the poster spends his time in *crystal
shops in Sedona* ? where do you spend your time *Burningchrome* ? if I
suggested to this group it was in the porn shops in Soho would that be
considered as a historical fact also ? *think* before you suggest is my
only suggestion.
>
>"History," as they say, is written by the side that wins. "Mythology"
>substantially less accurate.
*As they say* .... who ?? who is this *they* ? I expect more of you than
this.
>
>What was being put forth as "historical," would be hard-pressed to
>qualify as "mythology".
Mythology is a set of ideas to materialise that which is beyond our
comprehension. If you read the Bible as a history book rather than a set
of mythologies then you deprive yourself of some vital philosophies. If
you read the Bible as only mythology then you deprive yourself of some
important histories. History and mythology may not be the same but they
exist side by side and should be considered that way - they are
unquestionably related.
>
>> This is where I log off
>> now - you can all play your games without me
>
>ne sign of a reasonably mature personality is the ability to deal
>with differing personalities, customs, and opinions.
>
>If you can't manage the above, you're probably better off logging out.
LOL. That coming from you ! Maybe you would like me to take lessons
from your own *mature* way in dealing with personalities, customs and
opinions ??? Do you want me to illustrate with examples to remind
everyone how good you are at this or would you just like to take a look
at your attack on 'Peter the sublime' ?
*Burningchrome*, despite my respect for your political views, which I
have read with great interest on and off list, in the above field you
are nothing but a bigot. I presume that is why you skulk behind a
pseudonym. Too bad for you.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <7hc9k8$bbh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >> >"Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he
spend
> >> >a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the
> >crystal
> >> >shops in Sedona.
> >>
> >> And I suggest you make sure you know more about people before you
fire
> >> your pathetic and superior opinions at everyone.
> >
> >The issue is not one of my "pathetic and superior opinion" of
someone,
> >it's one of historical fact.
>
> So, its a historical fact that the poster spends his time in *crystal
> shops in Sedona* ?
You seem to have a burr under your saddle...
The above was a suggestion. The historical fact part was his conjecture
regarding mineoan society.
Much of what he was promulgating can be found in "New Age" stores (e.g.,
crystal shops in Sedona).
He has the right to believe what it is he wishes. He doesn't have the
right to say what he wishes without dissent.
> where do you spend your time *Burningchrome* ?
Where I choose.
> if I
> suggested to this group it was in the porn shops in Soho would that be
> considered as a historical fact also ?
:P Why do you believe I would care?
> *think* before you suggest is my
> only suggestion.
>
> >
> >"History," as they say, is written by the side that wins.
"Mythology"
> >substantially less accurate.
>
> *As they say* .... who ?? who is this *they* ? I expect more of you
than
> this.
The phrase is old and in common usage on both sides of the Atlantic.
Feel free to look it up. It's also true.
> >
> >What was being put forth as "historical," would be hard-pressed to
> >qualify as "mythology".
>
> Mythology is a set of ideas to materialise that which is beyond our
> comprehension.
You must have a different dictionary than do I... unless you consider
"fictional characters" to be beyond "our comprehension"?
> If you read the Bible as a history book rather than a set
> of mythologies then you deprive yourself of some vital philosophies.
If
> you read the Bible as only mythology then you deprive yourself of some
> important histories. History and mythology may not be the same but
they
> exist side by side and should be considered that way - they are
> unquestionably related.
Red herring.
>
> >
> >> This is where I log off
> >> now - you can all play your games without me
> >
> >ne sign of a reasonably mature personality is the ability to deal
> >with differing personalities, customs, and opinions.
> >
> >If you can't manage the above, you're probably better off logging
out.
>
> LOL. That coming from you ! Maybe you would like me to take lessons
> from your own *mature* way in dealing with personalities, customs and
> opinions ???
I seem to be dealing with it better than are you.
> Do you want me to illustrate with examples to remind
> everyone how good you are at this or would you just like to take a
look
> at your attack on 'Peter the sublime' ?
Like everyone else, Peter-the-sublime can say what he wishes. He
should expect comments that he might not agree with.
>
> *Burningchrome*, despite my respect for your political views, which I
> have read with great interest on and off list, in the above field you
> are nothing but a bigot.
You failed to mention racist, homophobe, hitler, gun-lover, etc.
Normally, they are also included.
> I presume that is why you skulk behind a
> pseudonym. Too bad for you.
My use of a nom de plume seems to bother a lot of people. So bet it.
> Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
> 9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
> 26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
> Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
>
> Exhibition now extended through June
> as part of Peterborough's *Imagine* group exhibition
> commencing 25th May.
>
>
A.A. Raimes
writes
>The phrase is old and in common usage on both sides of the Atlantic.
>Feel free to look it up. It's also true.
I am really surprised to see you saying something like this. It isn't
like you to accept a phrase that is old as a rule because *they* say so.
What *they* say ... whoever *they* are .... starts with one person
saying something and then a dozen personal versions of it and another
dozen and another. Only one word has to be changed to alter the entire
meaning and it happens in History and Mythology alike. The historians
are just as likely to manipulate the truth by exclusion. Why don't you
look up the first country to abolish slavery in the history books and
let me know how many different versions you come up with. As for
sayings, who will ever know in what context original sayings were said
or meant other than the person who said it - refer here to Spinoza.
As to our understanding of mythology I do believe we have a different
interpretation. Here is what the Collins English Dictionary says:
MYTH n 1 (a) : a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age,
usually of how natural phenomena or social customs came into existence.
(b) same as mythology (1. myths collectively, esp. those associated with
a particular culture or person. 2. a body of stories about a person,
institution 3. the study of myths)
2 (a) an idea or explanation which is widely held but untrue or
unproved: i.e.. The myth that the USA is a classless society (b) a
person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproved: i.e. The Loch
Ness monster is a myth
You said:
"Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the
crystal shops in Sedona.
I believe that myths reflect the culture in which they are created and
are a vital part of piecing together history.
In the case of the Minoan civilisation the historical clues are more in
the art of that era than the texts. Excavations have uncovered
architecture, pottery, sculpture and wall paintings which have helped
historians to piece together the nature of the civilisation. Amongst
those are the figurines of two types of female forms seen both in the
marble sculptures and the carvings found in the tombs. The most evident
finding in Minoan art is that there was little or no inhibition or
introspective in displaying the female form. They indicate a rich
civilisation already half humanist where the evidence was already on
mankind rather than on the gods. Whether or not the human figure is
intended to be divine or immortal is an unanswered question and
archaeologists continue to search for those vital texts that might
reveal the answers. The evidence still remains that the culture did,
above all, *nurture* the planet and the conclusions on this have been
reached by the experts on studying the symbolism in the art. It was a
very good example of the *sublime* in terms of relating the experience
of 'unity with nature', which is basically what the dialogue is about.
How on earth you can consider the Bible to be a red herring in a
discussion on history and mythology is beyond me - a perfect example of
how the two are very much related and you dismiss it as irrelevant.
Dismissing is becoming a habit of yours isn't it ?
Larry Seiler
> Somehow, although I think you're right, I can't help arguing - perhaps
> it's follishness or ego or vain hope, or even an addiction.
> As long as it doesn't get too nasty, Everyone needs his ideas
> challenged and even if minds don't get changed, they get exercised.
haha...I guess so....
then again...plastic surgery is big now too as people order up a different
nose, collagen implants, erasing of wrinkles, etc., because it is easier
than learning "how" to accept themselves the way they are. After
awhile...you simply tire of trying to please others or of the labor to be
understood. If people didn't see pounds shed or muscle masses firmed,
built and contoured.....they would question after a time why the continued
visits to the gym? Exercise for the purpose of effecting change is one
thing....exercise for the sake of exercise, well that seems to be another.
Regardless....as long as you got the energy bud, go for it, ....me....I'm
startin' to drag my feet......!
perhaps I am a worse sign.....a result of cynicism, a casualty.
;^)
peace....
Larry
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> In article <7hen6q$961$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >The phrase is old and in common usage on both sides of the Atlantic.
> >Feel free to look it up. It's also true.
>
> I am really surprised to see you saying something like this.
That it's true?
> It isn't
> like you to accept a phrase that is old as a rule because *they* say
so.
> What *they* say ... whoever *they* are .... starts with one person
> saying something and then a dozen personal versions of it and another
> dozen and another. Only one word has to be changed to alter the entire
> meaning and it happens in History and Mythology alike.
Whatever.
> The historians
> are just as likely to manipulate the truth by exclusion. Why don't you
> look up the first country to abolish slavery in the history books and
> let me know how many different versions you come up with.
Whatever.
> As for
> sayings, who will ever know in what context original sayings were said
> or meant other than the person who said it - refer here to Spinoza.
>
> As to our understanding of mythology I do believe we have a different
> interpretation. Here is what the Collins English Dictionary says:
>
> MYTH n 1 (a) : a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age,
> usually of how natural phenomena or social customs came into
existence.
> (b) same as mythology (1. myths collectively, esp. those associated
with
> a particular culture or person. 2. a body of stories about a person,
> institution 3. the study of myths)
> 2 (a) an idea or explanation which is widely held but untrue
or
> unproved: i.e.. The myth that the USA is a classless society (b) a
> person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproved: i.e. The
Loch
> Ness monster is a myth
>
> You said:
> "Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
> a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the
> crystal shops in Sedona.
Whatever.
>
> I believe that myths reflect the culture in which they are created and
> are a vital part of piecing together history.
You can believe whatever you wish. You're allowd.
>
> In the case of the Minoan civilisation the historical clues are more
in
> the art of that era than the texts. Excavations have uncovered
> architecture, pottery, sculpture and wall paintings which have helped
> historians to piece together the nature of the civilisation.
True.
> Amongst
> those are the figurines of two types of female forms seen both in the
> marble sculptures and the carvings found in the tombs. The most
evident
> finding in Minoan art is that there was little or no inhibition or
> introspective in displaying the female form. They indicate a rich
> civilisation already half humanist where the evidence was already on
> mankind rather than on the gods. Whether or not the human figure is
> intended to be divine or immortal is an unanswered question and
> archaeologists continue to search for those vital texts that might
> reveal the answers. The evidence still remains that the culture did,
> above all, *nurture* the planet and the conclusions on this have been
> reached by the experts on studying the symbolism in the art. It was a
> very good example of the *sublime* in terms of relating the experience
> of 'unity with nature', which is basically what the dialogue is about.
>
> How on earth you can consider the Bible to be a red herring in a
> discussion on history and mythology is beyond me - a perfect example
of
> how the two are very much related and you dismiss it as irrelevant.
> Dismissing is becoming a habit of yours isn't it ?
Whatever.
If peter-the-sublime doesn't like someone commenting on his opinions,
he shouldn't post.
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> In article <7hen6q$961$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, burnin...@my-dejanews.com
> writes
>
> >The phrase is old and in common usage on both sides of the Atlantic.
> >Feel free to look it up. It's also true.
> I am really surprised to see you saying something like this. It isn't
> like you to accept a phrase that is old as a rule because *they* say so.
> What *they* say ... whoever *they* are .... starts with one person
> saying something and then a dozen personal versions of it and another
> dozen and another. Only one word has to be changed to alter the entire
> meaning and it happens in History and Mythology alike. The historians
> are just as likely to manipulate the truth by exclusion. Why don't you
> look up the first country to abolish slavery in the history books and
> let me know how many different versions you come up with. As for
> sayings, who will ever know in what context original sayings were said
> or meant other than the person who said it - refer here to Spinoza.
>
> As to our understanding of mythology I do believe we have a different
> interpretation. Here is what the Collins English Dictionary says:
>
> MYTH n 1 (a) : a story about superhuman beings of an earlier age,
> usually of how natural phenomena or social customs came into existence.
> (b) same as mythology (1. myths collectively, esp. those associated with
> a particular culture or person. 2. a body of stories about a person,
> institution 3. the study of myths)
> 2 (a) an idea or explanation which is widely held but untrue or
> unproved: i.e.. The myth that the USA is a classless society (b) a
> person or thing whose existence is fictional or unproved: i.e. The Loch
> Ness monster is a myth
>
> You said:
> "Mythology" and historical are often unrelated. I'd suggest he spend
> a bit more time in a National Geographic and a little less in the
> crystal shops in Sedona.
>
> I believe that myths reflect the culture in which they are created and
> are a vital part of piecing together history.
=== Good point here Alison. For example, the employment of Native oral
traditions and myths as historical references to establish land claims in
the modern courts of law......
> In the case of the Minoan civilisation the historical clues are more in
> the art of that era than the texts. Excavations have uncovered
> architecture, pottery, sculpture and wall paintings which have helped
> historians to piece together the nature of the civilisation. Amongst
> those are the figurines of two types of female forms seen both in the
> marble sculptures and the carvings found in the tombs. The most evident
> finding in Minoan art is that there was little or no inhibition or
> introspective in displaying the female form. They indicate a rich
> civilisation already half humanist where the evidence was already on
> mankind rather than on the gods. Whether or not the human figure is
> intended to be divine or immortal is an unanswered question and
> archaeologists continue to search for those vital texts that might
> reveal the answers. The evidence still remains that the culture did,
> above all, *nurture* the planet and the conclusions on this have been
> reached by the experts on studying the symbolism in the art. It was a
> very good example of the *sublime* in terms of relating the experience
> of 'unity with nature', which is basically what the dialogue is about.
=== More speculative, symbolic analysis frequently depends on the
perspectives of the analyst. Archaeoloy is suggestive at best, never
conclusive with respect to `interpretations'......
> How on earth you can consider the Bible to be a red herring in a
> discussion on history and mythology is beyond me - a perfect example of
> how the two are very much related
=== The bible is both history and myth, not only to the Jewish people, but
to all the European, American, and Latin American peoples (as well as
African, Oceanic, etc.) as well.....Enjoyed your post.
a bientot, A.
A.A. Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>=== Good point here Alison. For example, the employment of Native oral
>traditions and myths as historical references to establish land claims in
>the modern courts of law......
Hadn't thought of that Ariane. Interesting. Do you know of any cases
where this has been successful ?
>=== More speculative, symbolic analysis frequently depends on the
>perspectives of the analyst. Archaeoloy is suggestive at best, never
>conclusive with respect to `interpretations'......
Probably one of the most important observations to anyone who is
interested in history or mythology of any sort. This sort of analysis
can *only* be speculative because it comes from those who exist outside
of the culture or age. I constantly refer to the Bible to illustrate
this. One cannot help but wonder how much of the original message was
manipulated and misconstrued in the hands of those whose job it was to
transfer the language across cultures. It takes but one word to alter
the entire concept of a sentence - are we then to trust that the
translators did a hundred percent perfect job ? Transfer then this idea
to art, (which is where I was trying to lead with the *sublime* thread),
and it is possible to see how impossible it is to truly understand the
intentions of artists whose work belongs in an age or culture to which
we have only speculative knowledge. If this has any basis then it is not
possible for the idea of the *aesthetic sublime* to be within the
understanding of the late 20th century mind ... without speculating on
how the 17/18/19th century mind worked. 21st century art will no doubt
be documented so well that it will be a much easier job for those in
future centuries to analyse the intentions. Maybe.
>=== The bible is both history and myth, not only to the Jewish people, but
>to all the European, American, and Latin American peoples (as well as
>African, Oceanic, etc.) as well.....Enjoyed your post.
>
>a bientot, A.
>
Always nice to have a response from someone intelligent Ariane - I
enjoyed yours too.
Cheers, Alison.
Glenn Geist
>One sign of a reasonably mature personality is the ability to deal
>with differing personalities, customs, and opinions.
>
Thou has said it! And the ability to 'deal with' is not defined as
the reliance upon mockery, abuse and personal insult, or the lynch mob
would be a group of very mature people.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>
>I believe that the *sublime* is a religious experience - in the widest
>sense of the word - and that surrealism attempted to artificially
>introduce it into their manifesto. Surrealism, for me, is part of
>adolescence - masturbation (or surrealism) is something all should
>experience -
But too much Dali' will make you grow hair on your palms
>a state of simulated circumstances that do not even
>parallel the *real experience.
Can't you say that about nearly all art?
>Freedom can only exist in the mind.
>
Which of course is a condition of the Universe. . . <s>
>The message, as in all myths, must be *your* interpretation - no one can
>tell you a meaning for any myth - that is the idea of a myth.
Yet religion - that oldest profession - consists exactly of doing
that: writing, interpreting and enforcing the power of myth. But
that's for another group. Do you extend the message to art? That
one's own interpretation is formost and not to be dictated by critics?
>
Glenn
A.A. Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>But too much Dali' will make you grow hair on your palms
Ha ha ! seriously though - we teach Dali at high school level in UK and
after that he is a no no - try including him at college or university
level and you will be gunned down. Last year we took the 16 - 18 yr old
kids from the school I was teaching in to Barcelona (a nightmare
experience) - and a day trip to the Dali exhibition. The kids thought
him *great* fun but I didn't observe a single reference to him in the
work on our return - compared to say Miro, Picasso and Tapies. His work,
to me, is similar to Damien Hirst ... fraudulent and shallow.
>
>>a state of simulated circumstances that do not even
>>parallel the *real experience.
>
>Can't you say that about nearly all art?
I can go with that - in fact if you read the rest of my posts in this
thread I think you will find that I am actually investigating this quite
thoroughly. Of course all human activity is self-satisfying -
masturbation and art included.
>
>
>>Freedom can only exist in the mind.
>>
>Which of course is a condition of the Universe. . . <s>
The mind or freedom ???? <s>
>
>
>>The message, as in all myths, must be *your* interpretation - no one can
>>tell you a meaning for any myth - that is the idea of a myth.
>
>Yet religion - that oldest profession - consists exactly of doing
>that: writing, interpreting and enforcing the power of myth. But
>that's for another group. Do you extend the message to art? That
>one's own interpretation is formost and not to be dictated by critics?
>>
>Glenn
If we are to investigate the sublime experience then religion must be
included in this discussion. In regards to your last question the first
question I would ask you is: *do* art critics dictate ? They certainly
don't to me - they offer me something to consider and I am able to
accept it or reject it in relation to my own judgement. I enjoy reading
art criticism and critics certainly don't concern me - though as yet I
haven't had a bad write up ... its early days though <s> But if a
critic is able to influence your own interpretation then maybe it is not
the critic that should be criticised.
Regards.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
Marcus Bramble
> In article <373c6cae...@news.earthlink.net>, Glenn Geist
> <grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>
Can I just look at his work until I need glasses?
--
Marcus Bramble III
*I have nothing to say, and I am saying it* -- John Cage
mdeli
Glenn Geist wrote:
>>But too much Dali' will make you grow hair on your palms
Too little Dali results in abstract run-of-the-mill drivel like
Alison's. Check her web site.
>
>Ha ha ! seriously though - we teach Dali at high school level in UK and
>after that he is a no no - try including him at college or university
>level and you will be gunned down.
I'm sure you're the one with the gun. Of course one can tell by the
results on your web-site. Looks like you also shot yourself.
> His work,
>to me, is similar to Damien Hirst ... fraudulent and shallow.
>
To someone who draws as badly as you and paints Abstract furniture
store colored splats with the help of a bit of schmier, any work
exhibiting skill in draftsmanship is a repulsive no-no.
Glad your back among the artzy fartzies. Lets hope you're avoiding my
messages as promised and practicing a strong regimen of self imposed
ignorance. Enjoy looking at the x's..
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Glenn Geist
>In article <373c6cae...@news.earthlink.net>, Glenn Geist
><grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>>But too much Dali' will make you grow hair on your palms
>
>Ha ha ! seriously though - we teach Dali at high school level in UK and
>after that he is a no no - try including him at college or university
>level and you will be gunned down. Last year we took the 16 - 18 yr old
>kids from the school I was teaching in to Barcelona (a nightmare
>experience) - and a day trip to the Dali exhibition. The kids thought
>him *great* fun but I didn't observe a single reference to him in the
>work on our return - compared to say Miro, Picasso and Tapies. His work,
>to me, is similar to Damien Hirst ... fraudulent and shallow.
>
I've been to the Dali Museum in St Petersburg, Florida and I did
enjoy it - he certainly was posessed of a skill but you may be right -
like some other artists, he's too tangled up in his own hype and
propaganda to be seen clearly. I don't know what to think of him.
>>
>>>a state of simulated circumstances that do not even
>>>parallel the *real experience.
>>
>>Can't you say that about nearly all art?
>
>I can go with that - in fact if you read the rest of my posts in this
>thread I think you will find that I am actually investigating this quite
>thoroughly. Of course all human activity is self-satisfying -
>masturbation and art included.
>>
I quite agree.
>>
>>>Freedom can only exist in the mind.
>>>
>>Which of course is a condition of the Universe. . . <s>
>
>The mind or freedom ???? <s>
>>
One and the same!
>>
>>>The message, as in all myths, must be *your* interpretation - no one can
>>>tell you a meaning for any myth - that is the idea of a myth.
>>
>>Yet religion - that oldest profession - consists exactly of doing
>>that: writing, interpreting and enforcing the power of myth. But
>>that's for another group. Do you extend the message to art? That
>>one's own interpretation is formost and not to be dictated by critics?
>>>
>>Glenn
>
>If we are to investigate the sublime experience then religion must be
>included in this discussion. In regards to your last question the first
>question I would ask you is: *do* art critics dictate ? They certainly
>don't to me - they offer me something to consider and I am able to
>accept it or reject it in relation to my own judgement. I enjoy reading
>art criticism and critics certainly don't concern me - though as yet I
>haven't had a bad write up ... its early days though <s> But if a
>critic is able to influence your own interpretation then maybe it is not
>the critic that should be criticised.
>
>Regards.
I was really poking organized religion, not art critics - the latter
do dictate, but they have substantiall less readership and power.
I don't really mind a critic offering information, pointing out
someone I don't know about - to me that's the role of the critic:
someone to discuss art and artists with, not someone who hypes art or
who calls me an idiot for not agreeing with the hype. It's tempting
to lump all critics together, but it's not fair.
Glenn
>
>Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
>
> 9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
Alison A Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>I've been to the Dali Museum in St Petersburg, Florida and I did
>enjoy it - he certainly was posessed of a skill but you may be right -
>like some other artists, he's too tangled up in his own hype and
>propaganda to be seen clearly. I don't know what to think of him.
Was the museum full of those bizarre *constructions* ? I don't remember
that much about the museum in Figueras because it was so boring that I
went off sketching and wishing I had stayed in Barcelona. I do, however,
remember all those *clever* optical illusions ... which just reminded me
he was actually not an artist but a magician. The work he did between
1929 and 1939 deserves applause for technical skill - the stuff we see
on posters and greetings cards which mass produces so well - but after
that he seems to have fallen into that good old myth of proving madness
as a necessary credential to be a *real* artist. Richard Dadd played a
similar game to Dali, only Dadd was able to come back into reality and
thus maintain his integrity, while Dali's desperation for attention
sadly warped his own focus. I think Dali comes to grief because he was
so obsessed with communicating the *concrete irrational subject* that
instead of developing as an artist, his energy went into
sensationalising the legend of anguished artist. As an artist he's a
fraud.
Ariane
On Sun, 16 May 1999, Glenn Geist wrote:
> "A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>
> >Ha ha ! seriously though - we teach Dali at high school level in UK and
> >after that he is a no no - try including him at college or university
> >level and you will be gunned down. Last year we took the 16 - 18 yr old
> >kids from the school I was teaching in to Barcelona (a nightmare
> >experience) - and a day trip to the Dali exhibition. The kids thought
> >him *great* fun but I didn't observe a single reference to him in the
> >work on our return - compared to say Miro, Picasso and Tapies. His work,
> >to me, is similar to Damien Hirst ... fraudulent and shallow.
=== That's really interesting. I've always liked Dali, and admired his
work as an example of good technique. But I never really bought into the
surrealism, his content, what was actually on the canvas. It reminded me
of those glam rockers guitarists in the 80's, Satriani, Malmsteen....these
guys could play, hard and fast, but their songs were just excuses for them
to show off how heavy and how fast they could lay down their
licks.....Like Dali, the work was just an excuse to show off good
technique, and to me (and evidently to others) this is shallow and
unconvincing when considered as art.
ciao,
A.
Ariane
On Fri, 14 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.10.990513...@alcor.concordia.ca>
> , Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>
> >=== Good point here Alison. For example, the employment of Native oral
> >traditions and myths as historical references to establish land claims in
> >the modern courts of law......
>
> Hadn't thought of that Ariane. Interesting. Do you know of any cases
> where this has been successful ?
=== In British Columbia amongst the Dunne-za. I've heard tell of others
in Canada but I'm afraid that I can match you for depth of knowledge when
asked for offhand information!! In any event, oral tradition is
admissible as evidence in court here in Canada. However, this is mediated
by `experts' (the anthros.) and its worth is up to the judge in the
end.....
> >=== More speculative, symbolic analysis frequently depends on the
> >perspectives of the analyst. Archaeoloy is suggestive at best, never
> >conclusive with respect to `interpretations'......
>
> Probably one of the most important observations to anyone who is
> interested in history or mythology of any sort. This sort of analysis
> can *only* be speculative because it comes from those who exist outside
> of the culture or age. I constantly refer to the Bible to illustrate
> this. One cannot help but wonder how much of the original message was
> manipulated and misconstrued in the hands of those whose job it was to
> transfer the language across cultures. It takes but one word to alter
> the entire concept of a sentence - are we then to trust that the
> translators did a hundred percent perfect job ? Transfer then this idea
> to art, (which is where I was trying to lead with the *sublime* thread),
> and it is possible to see how impossible it is to truly understand the
> intentions of artists whose work belongs in an age or culture to which
> we have only speculative knowledge. If this has any basis then it is not
> possible for the idea of the *aesthetic sublime* to be within the
> understanding of the late 20th century mind ... without speculating on
> how the 17/18/19th century mind worked.
=== Well, yes and no. It is perhaps true that we can never know what the
`aesthetic sublime' meant for past minds, but it is also perhaps equally
true that we are capable of a similar experience or interpretation of this
experience without knowing that is is indeed the `aesthetic sublime' of
old.
> 21st century art will no doubt
> be documented so well that it will be a much easier job for those in
> future centuries to analyse the intentions. Maybe.
=== Well, I wouldn't give the analysts so much credit. They'll mutter and
prophecy one way or the other, of that we can be sure. But as to the
intentions? I mean what can we ever really know about the intentions or
experiences of Picasso, Matisse, Miro, etc.? And what would this
`knowledge' really bring to bear on the impact of their works anyway?
a bientot,
A.
Glenn Geist
paintings except for two or three sculptures. There was certainly
enough fraud in the marketing of his work - the lawsuits and arrests
continue even today. Again, the ferocious hype, misrepresention,
fraud and forgery associated with Dali are unparallelled in history. (
you should read Lee Catterall's book) It's hard to see past that, but
he *is about the most commonly recognized 20th century painter in the
world. those tawdry clocks alone will outlast the pyramids. <s>
Glenn
a bientot
Ariane
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.10.990517...@alcor.concordia.ca>
> , Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>
> >=== In British Columbia amongst the Dunne-za. I've heard tell of others
> >in Canada but I'm afraid that I can match you for depth of knowledge when
> >asked for offhand information!!
>
> Whoops ! sorry about that one ... someone in our studios said she was
> off to Chile and ended up with three lever files and two boxes full of
> research material ! Well it seems such a waste of four years work not to
> pass it on to someone ....
==== !!!!!!! Big typo! "I'm afraid that I can't match you....." was
what it should have read. I turned a compliment into a self-indulgent
ego-fest. What would we do without 't eh?
> >In any event, oral tradition is
> >admissible as evidence in court here in Canada. However, this is mediated
> >by `experts' (the anthros.) and its worth is up to the judge in the
> >end.....
>
> I just don't know nearly enough about Canada I am ashamed to say and I
> feel it is way past time to do something about that.
=== Come for a visit. You'd love Montreal's arts scene and Quebec City's
romance. Then off to the Rockies and West Coast for one of the most
breathtaking natural spectacles ever to be experienced. If you don't do
landscapes, you will on that trip!! Don't go to Toronto though. Very
business, and you might bump into Mani de Li!!!
> >=== Well, yes and no. It is perhaps true that we can never know what the
> >`aesthetic sublime' meant for past minds, but it is also perhaps equally
> >true that we are capable of a similar experience or interpretation of this
> >experience without knowing that is is indeed the `aesthetic sublime' of
> >old.
>
> That's it ! I think Larry did the best job on this one. For me, I see it
> more as looking through a microscope now - that the awe of vastness and
> the unknown are so common place now that the experience is no longer of
> *being one with the universe*. That may be why so many people take to
> meditation now. Perhaps now we need to scrutinise and concentrate vision
> on detail ? That is what my work is about these days.
=== That's quite interesting. However, I do think that the `extroverted'
mystical experience (to coin WT Stace's term) is still possible.
Especially out in the great outdoors....Come to think of it, I tend to
essentialize in my works, actually, to move away from the details
toward a `oneness'!!! Art's funny like that......
> Cheers !
>
> Alison A Raimes
a bientot,
A.
Alison A Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>I will have to look into Dadd - but no, the Florida nuseum was all
>paintings except for two or three sculptures. There was certainly
>enough fraud in the marketing of his work - the lawsuits and arrests
>continue even today. Again, the ferocious hype, misrepresention,
>fraud and forgery associated with Dali are unparallelled in history. (
>you should read Lee Catterall's book) It's hard to see past that, but
>he *is about the most commonly recognized 20th century painter in the
>world
No, no .... only in America is he recognised as the most *common*
In Figueras it was like a stage set ... for a Monty Python clip, which I
suppose at a stretch could be called *art* ... loosely.
>. those tawdry clocks alone will outlast the pyramids. <s>
Yeah ??? I guess American history is VERY different to ours !
>
>Glenn
>
>a bientot
Alison
a beer or two
Alison A Raimes
>=== In British Columbia amongst the Dunne-za. I've heard tell of others
>in Canada but I'm afraid that I can match you for depth of knowledge when
>asked for offhand information!!
Whoops ! sorry about that one ... someone in our studios said she was
off to Chile and ended up with three lever files and two boxes full of
research material ! Well it seems such a waste of four years work not to
pass it on to someone ....
>In any event, oral tradition is
>admissible as evidence in court here in Canada. However, this is mediated
>by `experts' (the anthros.) and its worth is up to the judge in the
>end.....
I just don't know nearly enough about Canada I am ashamed to say and I
feel it is way past time to do something about that.
>
>=== Well, yes and no. It is perhaps true that we can never know what the
>`aesthetic sublime' meant for past minds, but it is also perhaps equally
>true that we are capable of a similar experience or interpretation of this
>experience without knowing that is is indeed the `aesthetic sublime' of
>old.
That's it ! I think Larry did the best job on this one. For me, I see it
more as looking through a microscope now - that the awe of vastness and
the unknown are so common place now that the experience is no longer of
*being one with the universe*. That may be why so many people take to
meditation now. Perhaps now we need to scrutinise and concentrate vision
on detail ? That is what my work is about these days.
>=== Well, I wouldn't give the analysts so much credit. They'll mutter and
>prophecy one way or the other, of that we can be sure. But as to the
>intentions? I mean what can we ever really know about the intentions or
>experiences of Picasso, Matisse, Miro, etc.? And what would this
>`knowledge' really bring to bear on the impact of their works anyway?
>
Well those analysts have to make a living don't they ! You are of course
very right about the intention of the artist only ever being known by
them ... and I think most artists are very aware of that.
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
Alison A Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>==== !!!!!!! Big typo! "I'm afraid that I can't match you....." was
>what it should have read. I turned a compliment into a self-indulgent
>ego-fest. What would we do without 't eh?
>
What's is even funnier is I read it as *can't* and felt guilty for
spurting off !! ... didn't even notice the typo !!!!!
>=== Come for a visit. You'd love Montreal's arts scene and Quebec City's
>romance. Then off to the Rockies and West Coast for one of the most
>breathtaking natural spectacles ever to be experienced. If you don't do
>landscapes, you will on that trip!! Don't go to Toronto though. Very
>business, and you might bump into Mani de Li!!!
>
Might just take you up on that one day - I have many friends in Canada,
including, unfortunately, Toronto (still, got his address now so can
make wide detours). The British art critic William Feaver seems to be
having a lot to do with Canadian art, so have had some exposure through
his talks/writings. I once started a trip from the Bahamas to Great
Lakes on a yacht going inland USA on the Intracoastal ... got as far as
Virginia until the *captain* did a bunk and left me with a boat I
couldn't move and no money ! The owners were from Toronto ... so a lot
of avoiding to do then !
I spend a lot of time sketching/painting in the Lake District in England
- way up in the mountains looking down on the lakes and the incredibly
changing weather - it taught me to work very fast and spontaneously and
capture the changes. Can't imagine what the one you speak of would do to
me ... same as the Chilean Andes and the Atacama desert I guess. Maybe I
can win a travel award !
a beerortwo !
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Marilyn
Besides that, it has a very active visual arts scene,
interesting galleries showing every genre. Look around
for galleries near the the Art Gallery of Ontario,
check out their huge Chinatown.
Stay off the 401, & out of the Eaton's Centre.
Then get back to Montreal where real life happens.
M.
Glenn Geist
>In article <3740531f...@news.earthlink.net>, Glenn Geist
><grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>>I will have to look into Dadd - but no, the Florida nuseum was all
>>paintings except for two or three sculptures. There was certainly
>>enough fraud in the marketing of his work - the lawsuits and arrests
>>continue even today. Again, the ferocious hype, misrepresention,
>>fraud and forgery associated with Dali are unparallelled in history. (
>>you should read Lee Catterall's book) It's hard to see past that, but
>>he *is about the most commonly recognized 20th century painter in the
>>world
>
>No, no .... only in America is he recognised as the most *common*
>
America - the world - same thing, no? <BG>
>In Figueras it was like a stage set ... for a Monty Python clip, which I
>suppose at a stretch could be called *art* ... loosely.
>
Actually I liked some of the Monty Python "art" Reminded a bit of
Richard Lindner.
>>. those tawdry clocks alone will outlast the pyramids. <s>
>
>Yeah ??? I guess American history is VERY different to ours !
I was bein facaetious, but yes, we have a changeable history and it
changes every day.
>>
>>Glenn
>>
>>a bientot
>
>Alison
>
>a beer or two
Glenn
A born toad.
Glenn Geist
I do know what you mean I had hopes of hearing some intelligent
discussion here - I don't know why I'm still expecting it.
Glenn
>
>Larry
Glenn Geist
>Toronto is safe, I don't think Mani lives there.
Rats - I sent the boys there for nothing
>
>Besides that, it has a very active visual arts scene,
>interesting galleries showing every genre. Look around
>for galleries near the the Art Gallery of Ontario,
>check out their huge Chinatown.
True - it's worth the trip just for that.
Glenn
Ariane
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> Toronto is safe, I don't think Mani lives there.
=== No, my mistake. His publisher does.....
> Besides that, it has a very active visual arts scene,
> interesting galleries showing every genre. Look around
> for galleries near the the Art Gallery of Ontario,
> check out their huge Chinatown.
> Stay off the 401, & out of the Eaton's Centre.
> Then get back to Montreal where real life happens.
=== !!! No truer words have been spoken on the subject!
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> , Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>
> >==== !!!!!!! Big typo! "I'm afraid that I can't match you....." was
> >what it should have read. I turned a compliment into a self-indulgent
> >ego-fest. What would we do without 't eh?
> What's is even funnier is I read it as *can't* and felt guilty for
> spurting off !! ... didn't even notice the typo !!!!!
=== No, no, spurt away amigo.....
> >=== Come for a visit. You'd love Montreal's arts scene and Quebec City's
> >romance. Then off to the Rockies and West Coast for one of the most
> >breathtaking natural spectacles ever to be experienced. If you don't do
> >landscapes, you will on that trip!! Don't go to Toronto though. Very
> >business, and you might bump into Mani de Li!!!
> Might just take you up on that one day - I have many friends in Canada,
> including, unfortunately, Toronto (still, got his address now so can
> make wide detours).
=== !!! Well, if you do end up there by accident or something, I'm sure
you'll enjoy yourself nonetheless. There's quite a bit of work there to
see......
> The British art critic William Feaver seems to be
> having a lot to do with Canadian art, so have had some exposure through
> his talks/writings.
=== What aspect? The native works from BC or elsewhere? Inuit art? The
Group of Seven? Emily Carr?.....
I'm partial to native art these days. Also like the stuff being done in
Quebec. Very diverse with a strong European flavour.
> I once started a trip from the Bahamas to Great
> Lakes on a yacht going inland USA on the Intracoastal ... got as far as
> Virginia until the *captain* did a bunk and left me with a boat I
> couldn't move and no money !
=== ! He split on you? What a creep. Great story though!
> The owners were from Toronto ... so a lot
> of avoiding to do then !
!
> I spend a lot of time sketching/painting in the Lake District in
> England - way up in the mountains looking down on the lakes and the
> incredibly changing weather - it taught me to work very fast and
> spontaneously and capture the changes.
=== Landscapes are very improvisational like that. I'm not so good at
the quick improvisational thing. But I'm only `more practice' away from
getting to the point where I'm satisfied. I tend to make sketches,
or watercolours for the studio. My studio is my apartment so I suppose I
tend to work a lot at home. Anyway, England is a landscape artist's dream
no? Maybe its all the changes. Mountain climates tend to be
temperamental like that. The North is like that as well, so vast, and so
alive. Its like a ten thousand mile high cathedral.....
> Can't imagine what the one you
> speak of would do to me ...
=== At the worst, annoy you I suspect.
> same as the Chilean Andes and the Atacama
> desert I guess. Maybe I can win a travel award !
>
> a beerortwo !
> Alison
=== Or have a damn good time trying....Make it Smithwick's for me....
ciao,
A.
mdeli
>Was the museum full of those bizarre *constructions* ? I don't remember
>that much about the museum in Figueras because it was so boring that I
>went off sketching and wishing I had stayed in Barcelona.
Were they as bad as the crap on your web site?
> I do, however,
>remember all those *clever* optical illusions ... which just reminded me
>he was actually not an artist but a magician.
If you wiped off the liquid you spilled on your paintings you could be
called a janitor.
> The work he did between
>1929 and 1939 deserves applause for technical skill - the stuff we see
>on posters and greetings cards which mass produces so well
Unlike your stuff which looks like art school garbage no matter how
you look at it.
>I think Dali comes to grief
Wealth, fame, and representation in most every major museum in spite
of constant critical derision. The only artist artzy fartzy curators
can't seem to keep off their territory.
> because he was
>so obsessed with communicating the *concrete irrational subject* that
>instead of developing as an artist, his energy went into
>sensationalising the legend of anguished artist. As an artist he's a
>fraud.
For someone obsessed with nothing who has no technical or any other
skill, I suggest you are among the last to judge fraud.