tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post1210118957423030672..comments2024-03-28T22:57:07.128-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: CROQUET, SEX AND CONCEPTUAL ARTDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-25768365765053215192020-02-12T11:43:25.304-05:002020-02-12T11:43:25.304-05:00Been a long time since I commented on here David. ...Been a long time since I commented on here David. Thanks for this post, got me thinking.Matthew Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06954050440829792514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-5008995712602343282020-02-11T12:27:56.031-05:002020-02-11T12:27:56.031-05:00Kev
Thank you for the clarification on what you m...Kev<br /><br />Thank you for the clarification on what you meant by the 'Poem of Life'.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-40987784329091533562020-02-10T11:45:40.136-05:002020-02-10T11:45:40.136-05:00Laurence wrote,
"There seems to be confusion...Laurence wrote,<br /><br />"There seems to be confusion (in this comment section and the wider world) between what I'll call the 'LITERARY CONTENT' - i.e. what the title refers to, what the subject matter 'means', what 'meaning' a particular artwork has to you and whoever you discuss it with... "<br /><br />Philip Rawson goes into great detail on your point in his book Drawing. He describes how a drawing topic has two aspects. He writes." first is the TENOR, which is what promotes the extension of forms into space; second is the special meaning enclosed in the topic, which may not be an obvious direct product of the tenor though it may be "hung on' it."<br /><br />He goes on to say the true topic of an artwork does not lie in the merely given "subject," but lies more deeply implicit in how that subject is developed. To go back to David's example of Veronose's painting of The Feast in the House of Levi, Rawson writes what the church truly found offensive was his"..world-affriming luxuriance," style, which was really the topic of the painting and which the church felt conflicted with their notion of the subject of the Last Supper .<br /><br /><br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-84256777415925575092020-02-10T11:24:41.241-05:002020-02-10T11:24:41.241-05:00Chris,
By "Poem of Life" I mean that we...Chris,<br /><br />By "Poem of Life" I mean that we experience subjectively... that we only have five senses... and these few senses only take in certain kinds of vibrations or sensations within circumscribed ranges... that we have limited awareness which we tend to focus to the exclusion of much else... and so the brain is always interpolating and generalizing -- forming our worlds -- from incomplete information.<br /><br />Titles... <br /><br />I love some paintings so much that just thinking of the title of the painting gives me a warm feeling. N.C. Wyeth's paintings: 'Crystal Depths' 'Marriage by Capture' 'Winter' 'Ore Wagon' 'Arizona Nights' 'The Giant'... But as I'm looking at any of those paintings, the title vanishes. Again, the title is functioning like a call number, just like any word is like a call number to the idea it is a sign for. If we get caught up in the words, we aren't experiencing the thought for all its worth.<br /><br />Laurence, <br /><br />Aesthetic forces and feelings are directly coerced movements in the mind. They are caused by relationships set up in the Art that require imaginative closure. They are not static things that can be named in any way that makes sense in the academic English Lit world; those kinds of minds don't have the vocabulary. This is why the meaning of the artwork is what it does to the viewer; NOT what the viewer notices or thinks it is about. Anything about the artwork that is not Aesthetic in this experiential way is <i>necessarily</i> literary content. <br /><br />As soon as we start 'talking about Art' we fall into the traps of words as the primary mode of interpretation. The word 'subject' nudges us into the world of words. The word 'content' nudges us into the world of words. The challenge is to think wholly pictorially about wholly pictorial work. English is simply too linear for the job. kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-74377710856606587202020-02-10T04:32:11.465-05:002020-02-10T04:32:11.465-05:00Very well explained and informative blog click her...Very well explained and informative blog click here for <br /><a href="https://truecarecounselling.com/psychologist-in-noida/" rel="nofollow"> Best psychologist in Noida </a> dial on our counselling number 070654 17417 to get counselling appointment<br />alice marvelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-74382795851117713242020-02-10T04:08:12.815-05:002020-02-10T04:08:12.815-05:00David, let me put it this way; I can't think o...<br />David, let me put it this way; I can't think of a single favourite painting of mine where the title (or meaning) has been an influence on my liking the painting, or has altered my idea of the 'quality' of the painting, but i accept i may be an anomaly in this regard, and maybe i focus too much on form alone, and disregard 'narrative meaning'. I can think of instances where i loved the painting (formally) but thought the idea (narrative meaning) was puerile. I can also think of cartoons where the title is crucial to understanding the point of the picture. But I can't think of any instance where the narrative meaning was so powerful that it 'raised the quality' (your phrase) of a weak painting or illustration. Bad drawing and painting is always bad drawing and bad painting to me. I can't un-see it, or transform it into something well done. <br /><br />There seems to be confusion (in this comment section and the wider world) between what I'll call the 'LITERARY CONTENT' - i.e. what the title refers to, what the subject matter 'means', what 'meaning' a particular artwork has to you and whoever you discuss it with... <br /><br />... and the depicted 'SUBJECT MATTER' that is integral to the actual visual FORM of the work - i.e. what the image is actually OF and how that has been realised visually and technically. Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-44218382145789284952020-02-10T03:02:00.916-05:002020-02-10T03:02:00.916-05:00Kev,
I would certainly agree with that. My musing...Kev,<br /><br />I would certainly agree with that. My musings on this memory topic are speculations about why human beings find poetry to be inextricably connected to experiential truth (with particular regard to pictures).<br /><br />Thank you for the confirmation BTW. I'll have to think about whether I agree with the idea that life is a poem lived. :) chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-85714052325382889612020-02-09T21:05:23.220-05:002020-02-09T21:05:23.220-05:00Chris,
Yes the "still photo" memories a...Chris,<br /><br />Yes the "still photo" memories are functioning as symbols. Whereas the recordings are more documentary. (But there's a problem saying that because, really, we live a poem and so we can only record poems in memory.)<br /><br />I think linguistic images and musical 'images' have strong similarities to visual images, but with differences based on the way the mediums work. Poetry is poetry. <br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-60765674624906791202020-02-09T17:26:05.162-05:002020-02-09T17:26:05.162-05:00Kev,
I like your distinction between 'Running...Kev,<br /><br />I like your distinction between 'Running a Recording' of a past moment and 'Running a Model of that moment.' Just to be clear that I understand what you mean about how we symbolize experience; are you saying the distillation of experience as a memory image is the symbolizing function of the mind at work? If so, would you agree that the image symbol's functioning in aesthetic communication differs from that of the linguistic or musical arts because of its intimate connection with the brain's efficiency with regard to memory?chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-77459047835526983222020-02-09T08:46:39.805-05:002020-02-09T08:46:39.805-05:00Laurence John wrote: "No, it makes no differe...Laurence John wrote: "No, it makes no difference to my appreciation. Reverse the question: are you unable to appreciate Beethoven's 5th Symphony because it doesn't have a suggestive title ?"<br /><br />No, but I don't think that's the reverse of my question. If a composer chooses to give me a clue in a title (such as Aaron Copeland's Rodeo or Benjamin Britten's Ceremony of Carols) I am interested in what he or she has to say, despite the fact that words are a different medium than musical notes. However, if a composer chooses not to give me a clue (for example, by just numbering a symphony as the 5th) that doesn't prevent me from appreciating the notes; I'm completely agnostic. I accept whatever mode of communication the artist intends and that I am capable of comprehending. I don't reject the words an artist offers because they're per se impure (although if the music is inadequate to begin with, or the words are poorly chosen and reduce the quality of the music, then they would be a poor artistic choice). David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30226186082009576392020-02-08T13:59:34.253-05:002020-02-08T13:59:34.253-05:00Chris,
I would distinguish between 'Running a...Chris,<br /><br />I would distinguish between 'Running a Recording' of a past moment and 'Running a Model of that moment.' I find that when I make an effort to run a memory, I can tell I am re-constructing it; it feels dogmatic and I feel I am interpolating between still frames. Whereas if a memory comes to me unbidden when I am relaxed, it is much fuller, more vivid and natural and full of fluent sensation; sounds, movement, emotion.<br /><br />I agree there is a deep affinity for symbol in the mind. Symbol seems like the shorthand way we deal with complexes of sensual forces we've experience; so as to turn them into an easily-memorable intellectual currency we can model the world with. And so, when we humans encounter symbols in the world; it piques our interest because we associate symbols with the idea 'here is meaning!' (And this leads us to accept symbols as truth statements more readily than we should.)<br /><br />The way we symbolize experience, though, attaches experience (sensual meaning) to symbol (shorthand); the sensual meaning being the actual truth value (and thus justification) of the symbol. I think what makes images 'Images' is a similar matching of sensual meaning to symbol; as I've explained previously. And that is why Images are so memorable and powerful as works of Art.<br /><br />When we try to reconstruct memories as a model, however, it's like we are trying to create, on the fly, a photo-real work of cinema art in the mind. This is a monumental task. Making an actual Imagistic work of art is already very difficult and requires a lot of time and poetic thought, consideration, daydreaming, knowledge, and research. And because we can build an Image thought by thought, each thought staying put on paper or canvas as we work on the next one, we can partition the work into manageable bits. <br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-9443384563490581322020-02-08T04:21:22.322-05:002020-02-08T04:21:22.322-05:00Kev,
This could of course be something entirely t...Kev,<br /><br />This could of course be something entirely to do with my own mental make-up, but from what I can tell I'm made the same as others. I'll try to be a little more specific on the point I was making:<br /><br />Yes, like you, my memories often move, but I sense this movement to be just a subtle fabrication extrapolated upon its 'start point'; the core memory image which appears to possess more fidelity than what happens before or after. In other words I see this static image as the 'truth' of my memory (as unreliable as that may be) which quickly decays as I temporally project each side of it - like the scent of a rose is to the rose itself.<br /><br />Which leads me to believe that (perhaps) because this 'start point' image feels closest to the truth of personal memory we innately behold all images as a sort of talisman of truth in general.<br /><br />Thus I am not saying that all images are a species of memory. I'm proposing that the role of the static image in our recollection of past experience is the reason pictures, because of their conditional likeness to this process, possess a unique potency in the means by which they evoke fantasy in relation to truth. chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24633413815378542982020-02-06T22:12:04.646-05:002020-02-06T22:12:04.646-05:00Good arguments, Laurence.
I always liked the way...Good arguments, Laurence. <br /><br />I always liked the way Rockwell’s painting titled<a href="https://www.providencejournal.com/storyimage/PJ/20140612/ENTERTAINMENT/306129898/AR/0/AR-306129898.jpg" rel="nofollow">’Adventurers’</a> unified the title with the art. A deceptive amount of work went into making this design work and 'look easy.'<br /><br />Chris,<br /><br />My memories often move, they aren't still as you seem to be suggesting. Or maybe I am misunderstanding you. I also don't see images as a species of memory, necessarily. More like things that seem like memory because they depend so heavily on the imagination participating in and completing the effects.<br /><br />There an interesting parallel between what makes images memorable and what makes experiences memorable. John Dewey, in Art is Experience, spoke of Experience as being thematic, and so rhythmic, in the sense of self-resonant (at least as I understand him.) This resonates I think with John McKee's point, that when life is as cleanly soaked with meaning as good art, it feels like you're having a religious experience.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-19775066080760114932020-02-06T17:20:09.050-05:002020-02-06T17:20:09.050-05:00David: "does that mean words that are integra...David: "does that mean words that are integrated into a painting (...) don't create a problem for you? <br /><br />Exactly, although I'm not a huge fan of collage-y, pop-arty pictures in general, with or without integrated / painted words. I do like what Wayne White did with words in pictures; placing funny and surreal phrases into popular prints as if they're monuments placed within the realistic space. <br /><br />https://i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/da/de/3ddadea4b0be0e143df8166ffee7ca63.jpg<br /><br /><br />David: "And while we're at it, does the title of a Symphony (such as "ode to Joy") add to your appreciation, despite the fact that it is in words rather than musical notes?"<br /><br />No, it makes no difference to my appreciation. Reverse the question: are you unable to appreciate Beethoven's 5th Symphony because it doesn't have a suggestive title ? Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-74675938949526887832020-02-06T16:06:59.986-05:002020-02-06T16:06:59.986-05:00Laurence John wrote: "The words in the sympho...Laurence John wrote: "The words in the symphony are sung. They're integrated into the melodic line."<br /><br />OK, so does that mean words that are integrated into a painting--for example, colored, stenciled words like those of Larry Rivers or Jasper Johns, words lettered for artistic effect, like those of Claes Oldenburg, or words incorporated into the drawing like those of Saul Steinberg, don't create a problem for you? And while we're at it, does the title of a Symphony (such as "ode to Joy") add to your appreciation, despite the fact that it is in words rather than musical notes?<br /><br />Richard wrote: "While great atrocities were committed by societies attempting to regain lost grandeur, or who believe one culture superior to others, so too were the world’s Renaissances created that way.... When the European Renaissance recognized the importance of the Greeks, they were making value judgements about which culture they believed to be superior."<br /><br />Of course it's a dangerous business trying to explain how a Renaissance came about. There are a thousand theories. Lewis Mumford suggests that the invention of soap led to the Italian Renaissance because once bodies didn't smell so bad, people began shifting their focus from the next world to this one, creating oil paint to capture the nuances of newly attractive human flesh, painting nudes, and developing an interest in the secular sciences.<br /><br />I don't claim to know the magic formula for growing a Renaissance, but it seems to me they all grew from mongrel origins. It wasn't enough that the Italians admired ancient Greece. The ancient Romans and medieval civilizations admired the Greeks, too--so much that they believed civilization had been on a decline ever since that golden era, a decline which would only end with the second coming of Christ. As far as I know, the Italian Renaissance stemmed from the cross pollination of ancient Greek culture (as preserved and interpreted by Islam and spread to Italy by Islamic traders and merchants) with biblical culture, set free by a secular governing philosophy that permitted empirical science. It was not enough to think the Greeks were superior David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-61206244255416459812020-02-05T11:51:18.474-05:002020-02-05T11:51:18.474-05:00David wrote
"When you do that rigorously you ...David wrote<br />"When you do that rigorously you quickly find yourself in the existential void (without even being sure that you have a "self" to be there)." LOL! I like it.<br /><br />I understand what you are saying, but just for fun, who is aware of the thinking? To quote Tolle again, when Jean-Paul Sartre, " looked at Descartes’ statement ” I think, therefore I am” very deeply and suddenly realized, in his own words, “The consciousness that says ‘I am’ is not the consciousness that thinks.”<br /><br />It seems "intelligibility," has a lot to do with order. A beginning artist doesn't start questioning his assumptions about reality until he starts to make a picture. As Renoir said 'You come to nature with all your theories, and she knocks them all flat.' To be able to produce a good picture or sketch etc, one has definitely done some unraveling of life's surface intelligibility. <br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-70041844842438695592020-02-05T04:06:03.802-05:002020-02-05T04:06:03.802-05:00David: "Does anybody believe that Beethoven&#...David: "Does anybody believe that Beethoven's addition of words to the musical notes in his 9th symphony destroyed its unity?"<br /><br />The words in the symphony are sung. They're integrated into the melodic line. They aren't a written description in a pamphlet handed out to the audience, about how to understand the piece (most English audiences don't even understand the sung words, but it doesn't diminish the power of the music). <br /><br />Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-41494176082632199322020-02-05T01:36:32.708-05:002020-02-05T01:36:32.708-05:00Tom-- I should've been more precise. I didn&#...Tom-- I should've been more precise. I didn't mean that Descartes's use of words and formal logic got us closer to "all" truth. I agree that there are multiple truths out there, that spiritual truths can be rich and rewarding, that people do "feel so alive when they are in the flow." <br /><br />My point was only that when it comes to epistemology in particular --what we can truly know and what we can't-- art is not as effective an investigative tool. We were discussing "intelligibility" and I said Descartes was more effective at "unraveling life's surface intelligibility" because he applied a first-class mind to ruthlessly throwing out all the things we intuitively take for granted as we walk through life every day-- everything we view as "reality" but that we can't really know for sure. When you do that rigorously you quickly find yourself in the existential void (without even being sure that you have a "self" to be there). David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-84581245035479091572020-02-04T21:58:54.252-05:002020-02-04T21:58:54.252-05:00“For centuries while the west was living in relati...<b>“For centuries while the west was living in relatively backward conditions China believed it was the most advanced civilization in the world.”</b><br /><br />The fact that you can recognize that the western world was backwards and that China was more advanced, undermines your argument from the outset.<br /><br />China was the height of civilization for a long time. As was the Islamic empire. The Persians. The Romans, Greeks, Israelites, Egyptians, Babylonians, all in their own cultural moments. <br /><br />But so too were the Austrians, Italians, the French, the English in their cultural moments.<br />The term “Relativity”, used accurately, shouldn’t mean that cultures cannot be compared. <br /><br />Quite the opposite – it should mean that we can only weigh the level of advancement of cultures by comparison. No civilization is objectively enlightened, but civilizations can be comparatively more or less advanced particularly when measured in a single way – the English play is superior to the Italian, and the Italian sculpture is superior to the English.<br /><br />To continue picking on Australian Aborigines, if you transported 19th century Australian Aboriginals to 17,000 BC Lascaux they would have a serious claim to the title of most advanced people in the world. Transport them to Ancient Egypt, and they do not. That's real relativity.<br /><br /><b>“it seems that so many of history's greatest atrocities are justified by groups resentful because they've slipped from their "rightful" place at the height of culture. Islamic terrorists are out for revenge for the fall of the Islamic empire; Nazis wanted revenge”</b><br /><br />While great atrocities were committed by societies attempting to regain lost grandeur, or who believe one culture superior to others, so too were the world’s Renaissances created that way.<br /><br />The Nazis were <i>correct</i> that something had been lost since the heights of Austrian culture, and <i>wrong</i> in how they attempted to recreate it. We can make those value statements, we can differentiate between those cultures, because (surprise, surprise) cultural relativism is intellectually void. It is the very fact that culture is not relative that we can damn Nazi philosophy. I would be scared to live in a world where cultural relativism is taken so literally that we could not.<br /><br />When the European Renaissance recognized the importance of the Greeks, they were making value judgements about which culture they believed to be superior. <br /><br />In their case, they determined that Ancient Greek culture was superior to their own Medieval Catholic culture. Thank God they were not cultural relativists. Recognizing superior cultures doesn’t always look inwards – many times it looked out as the Koreans now do with Beethoven, as most of the world has with Western art. As it was right for English to recognize the superiority of the Ancient Greeks, it is right for the Chinese to recognize the superiority of Rubens.<br /><br />That doesn’t mean Europeans are better people as many cultural relativists project, betraying their own buried racism. It just means that if you look at who had the highest recent cultural moment, it is the Western Europeans. <br /><br /><b>“Today, I see white nationalists supporting a grotesque caricature of a human being in the hope that he will restore their fading culture.”</b><br /><br />Believing that Trump will restore Western culture is obviously preposterous. I have not seen him make the slightest gesture to rebuild our Symphonies, representational public statues, Classical Art Museums, Western Literature departments, use of Latin in public, and the rest. But that would have no place here anyway, White Americans don’t have an ethnic claim to make for the land of the United States.<br /><br />But if there were a Prime Minister who had a reasonable argument for why he or she could restore a culturally British Renaissance in Britain, I would be all for it. In doing so, that Prime Minister would make a lot of enemies with people who don’t think British culture should rule Britain.<br /><br />Richardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-91916760317409287412020-02-04T21:18:49.867-05:002020-02-04T21:18:49.867-05:00David,
I like this response a lot. I think it imp...David,<br /><br />I like this response a lot. I think it implies we are thinking along the same lines. Namely that all the artforms share the same principles at bottom, including unity.<br /><br />There's some big differences between 'continuity' and 'images' in terms of what constitutes their respective unities.<br /><br />In continuity, the unity is the narrative flow; and any event that appears along the sequential route, so long as it helps tell the story and continues the tone of the story, is fair play. This is why the word balloons must be designed onto the page. Because they are <i>events</i> just as well as a face is an event, or a sound effect is, or an action gesture is. <br /><br />And this designed reading flow <i>is itself aesthetic</i>. That is, the flow takes us around the page in order, from event to subsequent event, without us realizing were are being led just so. (Toth was the absolute master at this. Whereas Carmine Infantino in his 1960s Flash work often resorted to arrows and fingers -- surface symbols -- to guide us.) And this is how good comic book work holds unity even though switching between word and picture. Because the real art is in the selection and sequencing of narrative events (not in the sequencing of either words or pictures.)<br /><br />On cartoons... It is widely understood that humor is allowed to break any principle, rule, dogma, or convention it sees fit. Including unity. Which is why Groucho can talk to the audience and Blazing Saddles can end on a studio lot.<br /><br />Yet Cartoons (that do not follow the continuity model discussed above) do have a kind of convention of unity; simple association by proximity of toon and tag just below. And the font used on the tag is always smartly deadpan and not too stiff. It is very important that the font not break the tone of the cartoon.<br /><br />It is interesting to note that when Phil Hale or Nicholas Uribe interpose some flat graphic element into their work, the work immediately becomes comic. It would seem that humor not only tends toward artistic unity-breaking, but artistic unity-breaking also tends toward humor. <br /><br />With musical theater, the complexity of the enterprise has naturally led to enumerable unities. That there is a narrative through line, that melody and lyric merge into song, that song always serves narrative, that the same actors speaking also sing, that song occurs when words are not enough to express the feelings of the characters, that a single stage is used, that the sets share tone with each other and the music and the story, etc.<br /><br />Some artforms are pure rather than complex. Classical music is very self sufficient. So much so that, if you were listening to a classical music station and Beethoven's 6th was on and halfway through the DJ steps in to tell you the title, you'd be rightly annoyed. Or what if you are watching a Fosse number on television and suddenly the title of the dance flashes on the screen while it is going on. Well, that would be dumb and distracting, because unity was broken for no reason. Same as if you were in a theater watching a tense suspense film, and the guy behind you leans forward and whispers in your ear "that's the bad guy." Images are the same way. <br /><br />Of course, not all illustration are images. But images that function as images, don't need titles except incidentally as 'call numbers.'<br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-70181843241495861742020-02-04T21:08:25.916-05:002020-02-04T21:08:25.916-05:00David wrote,
"Art is not a useful tool for t...<br />David wrote,<br /><br />"Art is not a useful tool for that type of mission. Only thoughts expressed through carefully chosen words, applied with the precision of a scalpel, relentlessly following the principles of formal logic, could get us a little closer to truth." <br /><br />Really why do people feel so alive when they are in the flow?<br /><br />“Be empty of all mental content, of all imagination and effort, and the very absence of obstacles will cause reality to rush in.” – Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj.<br /><br />Or to quote Eckhardt Tolle<br /><br />“The philosopher Descartes believed he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: "I think, therefore I am." He had, in fact, given expression to the most basic error: to equate thinking with Being and identity with thinking. The compulsive thinker, which means almost everyone, lives in a state of apparent separateness, in an insanely complex world of continuous problems and conflict, a world that reflects the ever-increasing fragmentation of the mind.”Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-16666873995578740422020-02-04T20:03:53.347-05:002020-02-04T20:03:53.347-05:00Wes and Kev Ferrara-- I have no quarrel with Kev&#...Wes and Kev Ferrara-- I have no quarrel with Kev's overly long but nevertheless elegant paean to the importance of unity in art. I just don't understand why he thinks it's impossible for words and images to form an artistically unified whole. Art successfully combines disparate elements all the time, and sometimes emphasizes those differences for the purposes of creating creative tension or contrast. We see it all the time, for example in the way that Unruh, Ciardiello and Cuneo take a pen and ink drawing and add a soft puddle of watercolor. Does juxtaposing high contrast with soft, borderless elements destroy the "unity" of the image? No-- at least, not in a way that undermines its artistic quality. Does anybody believe that Beethoven's addition of words to the musical notes in his 9th symphony destroyed its unity? I'm sure Gilbert & Sullivan or Rodgers & Hammerstein feel just as strongly about unity as Kev does, and yet they don't hesitate to combine words with music. When Eric Fischl or Phil Hale paints a painting mostly in a 3D representational style, but then interposes flat, 2 dimensional shapes and spatters, that affects the unity of the image, but not in a bad way. I suppose my problem is, I don't understand the dictate... errr, I mean principle... that says the only element that cannot be stirred into a mixed media image is words.<br /><br />I understand that Kev has a favorite kind of art, where certain select elements are hermetically and wordlessly sealed in a covalent bond. That's fine. But does anybody still question that Steinberg's pictures are art and that they combine both words and images in a visually and intellectually "unified" whole?David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-16394755871989513942020-02-04T19:25:31.226-05:002020-02-04T19:25:31.226-05:00Richard-- The issue of who represents "the he...Richard-- The issue of who represents "the height of culture" is a lot more complex than whether Korean pianists love to play Beethoven. For centuries while the west was living in relatively backward conditions China believed it was the most advanced civilization in the world. That's what the "Sino-Barbarian dichotomy" (Hua-Yi) was about, as well as the sino-centrism of the Hans, and zhonghua minzu. And for centuries the Islamic empire credibly believed that it was the height of culture. <br /><br />I don't begrudge anyone their cultural pride, but it seems that so many of history's greatest atrocities are justified by groups resentful because they've slipped from their "rightful" place at the height of culture. Islamic terrorists are out for revenge for the fall of the Islamic empire; Nazis wanted revenge because the superior German culture was shamed by non-aryans at Versailles; China wants "the great rejuvenation of the Chinese people" to the empire which was, for over a thousand years, "the height of culture." Somehow, everyone is certain their culture belongs on top and they feel entitled to use any means necessary to achieve that end. Today, I see white nationalists supporting a grotesque caricature of a human being in the hope that he will restore their fading culture. Nothing seems to justify bad behavior like a sense of lost entitlement.<br /><br />Tom wrote: "art works take their form for many different reason. A picture that is meant to be contemplated at leisure will take on a different emphasis than a poster that is going to be view quickly." <br /><br />I agree. The art of video games goes by in a flash, and is not meant to be studied at leisure, but that doesn't prevent it from having its own aesthetic.<br /><br />As for Descartes, I wasn't referring to his mathematical work so much as his famous cogito ergo sum. Descartes set out to understand whether it is possible for us to really, truly know anything-- whether we could ever be assured that we exist, whether we can ever be certain that we aren't seeing a mirage. Art is not a useful tool for that type of mission. Only thoughts expressed through carefully chosen words, applied with the precision of a scalpel, relentlessly following the principles of formal logic, could get us a little closer to truth. <br /><br />David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-52171654906782270992020-02-04T09:45:08.563-05:002020-02-04T09:45:08.563-05:00The main distinction there would be the experience...<b>The main distinction there would be the experience of it, the extrinsic quality.</b><br /><br />Again this goes to the question of the different phases of the Art experience.<br /><br />The first phase is the aesthetic phase, when everything the art has to offer just hits us all at once and one goes into what is called "Aesthetic Arrest." During this first phase the forces one feels causes us to understand the sensual meanings in relation to the narrative or subject. We are all similarly stunned into this uncontrollable data upload, so to speak. <br /><br />Unless the work isn't affecting us aesthetically, which means either the work isn't artful, or we either aren't in the mood for aesthetic experience or we frankly lack the capacity to feel aesthetic expressions.<br /><br />This brings us to the matter of "normal distributions" of human sensitivity. We cannot make an art theory based on outliers who might be either hypersensitive to aesthetic information (those people who cry at the color red) or those who are utterly anaesthetic (those people who feel nothing when they look at art, and have never understood why anybody might be interested in it.<br /><br />In the normal distribution, most people react pretty much the same to the Art <i>in the first encounter</i> with a work. And this stands to reason because the artwork does not change depending on who looks at it and human beings' sensory apparatus are all pretty much alike. <br /><br />Now, in later phases of the art experience, after we are no longer "arrested" by the aesthetic upload, experience can diverge wildly. kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-21722687939132114482020-02-04T01:36:36.502-05:002020-02-04T01:36:36.502-05:00@ Kev Ferrara
I agree there are some given intrin...@ Kev Ferrara<br /><br />I agree there are some given intrinsic qualities from a common sense ontology. However The quantifiable differences of a scourching fire and and water is much different than a canvas with a thin layer of pigment and another canvas with thin layer of pigment. The main distinction there would be the experience of it, the extrinsic quality. Like you say about how to best read art is feel it, and be with it. I think this is something that is lost in the dicussion. That art as oppose to engineering is not to calculate and record an intrinsic quality, it's actrually all about human expression and expereience being recorded on a piece of canvas.OscarRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00583713585448049063noreply@blogger.com