tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post8605907931272693381..comments2024-03-28T13:34:12.139-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: THE DUMBEST TIJUANA BIBLE I EVER SAWDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger76125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-24833951372121643322016-10-28T11:15:48.115-04:002016-10-28T11:15:48.115-04:00I guess that makes two of us.I guess that makes two of us.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-22002237324009226392016-10-28T02:31:14.202-04:002016-10-28T02:31:14.202-04:00kev ferrara-
Maybe the problem is that you haven...kev ferrara- <br /><br />Maybe the problem is that you haven't been exposed to the distinction between communication and language.Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-55928248701279189762016-10-27T17:17:12.032-04:002016-10-27T17:17:12.032-04:00Yes. Synaptic transmission, fruit fly courtship, a...<b>Yes. Synaptic transmission, fruit fly courtship, a baby's smile - these are communicative events. Writing about them is a manifestation of language.</b> <br /><br />A baby's smile represents its emotion. It isn't actually the emotion. So it is metaphoric according to your definition. <br /><br />A female fruit fly's pheromone output represents her willingness to mate. It isn't actually her willingness to mate. So it is metaphoric according to your definition. <br /><br />A synaptic transmission, if it constitutes a thought, is a more direct manifestation of language than writing. kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-91303579598900469652016-10-27T16:15:05.726-04:002016-10-27T16:15:05.726-04:00Kev I checked out Hernandezs other work and you...Kev I checked out Hernandezs other work and you're right this isn't a parody it all looks like this same shit. How come he wins all the awards? He's really popular.<br /><br />JSL Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-37978529631765782172016-10-27T15:43:17.071-04:002016-10-27T15:43:17.071-04:00kev ferrara -
Yes. Synaptic transmission, fruit ...kev ferrara - <br /><br />Yes. Synaptic transmission, fruit fly courtship, a baby's smile - these are communicative events. Writing about them is a manifestation of language. Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-81586310831523978282016-10-27T15:12:59.853-04:002016-10-27T15:12:59.853-04:00Once the ability to understand stuff in terms of o...<b>Once the ability to understand stuff in terms of other stuff arose, communication gradually became language.</b><br /><br />Are you saying that there is a difference between communication and language? That there is communication that is not linguistic? Or not "metaphoric" (in the broad sense in which you are using it)?<br /><br /><br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-89314108363423251922016-10-27T13:41:17.701-04:002016-10-27T13:41:17.701-04:00kev ferrara -
A rock ptarmigan in winter plumage...kev ferrara - <br /><br />A rock ptarmigan in winter plumage landing on a patch of snow instead of a rocky field sees the difference between the black rocks and the white snow. <br />You, "noting diametrical oppositions, say the absolute contrast of black and white", are doing something entirely different. You are performing mental acrobatics (with)in language. (Note: I wanted to write "zero-gravity field" here, but choose not to as it would mess up the metaphor).<br /><br />Once the ability to understand stuff in terms of other stuff arose, communication gradually became language. Now we're stuck in it.<br /><br />Maybe I should add that, pragmatically speaking, what I'm saying is irrelevant. Contemplating the possibility of one's self being nothing more than a metaphorical point of reference within a language field doesn't magically save me from death and taxes. But, like Crumb's cartoon version of The Book of Genesis, it can revitalize dead metaphors.Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-50909202661545798922016-10-27T12:10:05.847-04:002016-10-27T12:10:05.847-04:00i can only assume that the book is an attempt at c...<b>i can only assume that the book is an attempt at camp parody of porn conventions, and therefore the stilted dialogue, bad acting and stock sexual positions are deliberate and supposed to be funny. </b><br /><br />This would be a plausible explanation if you had never seen any of Hernandez's other work. It's all like that.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-77118483124348804792016-10-27T12:00:54.617-04:002016-10-27T12:00:54.617-04:00I understand metaphorical thinking to be the act o...<b>I understand metaphorical thinking to be the act of comprehending something in terms of something else, that's all. </b><br /><br />So noting diametrical oppositions, say the absolute contrast of black and white, is now a metaphor? So antonym is a synonym for synonym?kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-56844448907341029882016-10-27T05:07:21.872-04:002016-10-27T05:07:21.872-04:00one of the main purposes of satire is to send up t...one of the main purposes of satire is to send up the absurdities of the thing being satirised, however, Hernandez doesn't seem to be doing this in Garden of The Flesh. it appears that the Bible gets off pretty lightly and is really only used as a setting for a porn scenario. <br /><br />i can only assume that the book is an attempt at camp parody of porn conventions, and therefore the stilted dialogue, bad acting and stock sexual positions are deliberate and supposed to be funny. <br /><br />of course, if you're going to parody such an easy target as porn-acting you'd better have something rewarding up your sleeve to make it all worthwhile, say for instance... some sort of psychological insight into human nature, or at the very least, some great jokes. otherwise the end result will be a complete waste of time. Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-51995982702597384742016-10-27T04:41:49.743-04:002016-10-27T04:41:49.743-04:00First, I am not speaking from a strict philosophic...First, I am not speaking from a strict philosophical position here. I approach these matters in the way one would in a essay, not a treatise. <br /><br />I understand metaphorical thinking to be the act of comprehending something in terms of something else, that's all. Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-37256384593945410842016-10-26T17:49:00.592-04:002016-10-26T17:49:00.592-04:00If predicate, process and consequence were not so,...If predicate, process and consequence were not so, even the components of thought would be unable to interact to produce meaning.<br /><br />Also, to assert all cognition is metaphoric is simply wrong. Metaphor is only one kind of relation.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-49171800293541409672016-10-26T15:57:00.984-04:002016-10-26T15:57:00.984-04:00kev ferrara -
It was merely a follow up to your s...kev ferrara - <br />It was merely a follow up to your seemingly non-committed "existence is the only predicate we have". A poor jest. <br /><br />"you haven't been exposed to the distinction between what actually exists (noumenon) and what is "real" to us in our experience (phenomenon)."<br /><br />Well, I haven't been touched by God, if that's what you mean. I am however, vaguely aware of the philosophical tradition you're more likely referring to. <br /> <br />Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-79424479719186196172016-10-26T15:07:27.295-04:002016-10-26T15:07:27.295-04:00language exists.
By saying "language exists&...<b>language exists.</b><br /><br />By saying "language exists" you are declaring a phenomena to be a noumena. So you are thoroughly contradicting yourself. A strange loop indeed.<br /><br />Maybe the problem is that you haven't been exposed to the distinction between what actually exists (noumenon) and what is "real" to us in our experience (phenomenon). kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-64556488089066579612016-10-26T13:57:05.176-04:002016-10-26T13:57:05.176-04:00kev ferrara -
Well, I can agree to this: language...kev ferrara - <br />Well, I can agree to this: language exists. An we are all safe within that knowledge.Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-6701372492561344922016-10-26T12:39:45.920-04:002016-10-26T12:39:45.920-04:00I doubt I understand your argument
Language never...<b>I doubt I understand your argument</b><br /><br />Language never touches what actually exists. Yet existence is the only predicate we have for any aspect of experience. You may doubt the accuracy of all interpretations, even all sensations, but you cannot doubt predicate, or cause as existent. Which then entails you accept the idea of process, and then effect or consequence as existent. Predicate, process and consequence all entail each other and are inextricably tied up with all, thoroughly suffusing experience, including all mental experience. We are all safe in this knowledge.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-786423650200282402016-10-26T05:26:44.519-04:002016-10-26T05:26:44.519-04:00David Apatoff -
Yes, isn't it strange how th...David Apatoff - <br /><br />Yes, isn't it strange how the self-aware animal yearns for the loss of self? I suppose I believe that this too is a consequence of that analogous aspect of our language which allows us to suppose that this language itself pales in comparison with what it is not. <br /><br />Like King Midas, we cannot help ourselves from engaging with the world. And thereby turning everything we process into metaphor.<br />Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-79534066586460492392016-10-26T03:37:26.187-04:002016-10-26T03:37:26.187-04:00David:
If there was not some ontological basis in...David:<br /><br />If there was not some ontological basis in the relations governing aesthetics, in other words; specifiable effects innately within works of plastic expression, an artist struggling with their picture would not be able to recognise the moment when they had finally 'got it right'.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-46445613567168960662016-10-26T03:31:33.839-04:002016-10-26T03:31:33.839-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.chris bennetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02088693067960235141noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-50695901151774609992016-10-25T22:51:02.268-04:002016-10-25T22:51:02.268-04:00Kev Ferrara-- That's ridiculous. The paneling...Kev Ferrara-- That's ridiculous. The paneling is mahogany. David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-65033701432988284822016-10-25T21:42:00.861-04:002016-10-25T21:42:00.861-04:00there was a time when I looked very, very hard (.....<b>there was a time when I looked very, very hard (...) I wouldn't dispute that science and aesthetics are both about relations, but the former is about relations between liquids, solids and gases, while the latter is about relations between emotions, magic, lust and pride.</b><br /><br />Yes, and there was a time when I studied The Law very, very hard. And found out it was all about the relations between egomania, bulk xeroxing, precedent, and dark oak paneling.<br /><br />kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-86649214322725436692016-10-25T20:49:50.689-04:002016-10-25T20:49:50.689-04:00Clayton Hollifeld-- I agree that Crumb didn't ...Clayton Hollifeld-- I agree that Crumb didn't bring anything new to the story of Genesis. I suspect he loves to draw all the time, and chose a story that would enable him to do a whole lot of conventional drawings. But his imagination was apparently in hibernation the whole time. One interesting lesson I take away from this book is that Crumb's subversive, offbeat imagination is a huge part of his success as an artist. When we see his drawing skills stripped bare in a conventional situation, Crumb is really very unremarkable.<br /><br />On the other hand, I have to disagree with your point that "Genesis doesn't really lend itself to visual interpretation as well as some of the other parts of the Bible. Looking at Michelangelo's or Rembrandt's success with Genesis, I don't think the fault is in the text. I confess I didn't even know about the Wolverton Book of Revelations. Thanks for the referral.<br /><br />Kev Ferrara-- I can't say that I was looking this week, but there was a time when I looked very, very hard and even read a few of the millions of great thinkers who tried to formalize a suite of helpful linguistic constrictions for aesthetics in the centuries before I came along.<br /><br />I wouldn't dispute that science and aesthetics are both about relations, but the former is about relations between liquids, solids and gases, while the latter is about relations between emotions, magic, lust and pride. I'm not saying there isn't some overlap (for example, there are liquids involved in lust or in emotions) but not enough to come up with the reliable system we've been talking about.<br /><br />Øyvind Lauvdahl-- I agree that we are swimming in language, and that language shapes our thoughts in ways that it's difficult for us to appreciate fully. At the same time, haven't we all been to a place where we leave language behind? Returning to our subject of Biblical art about sex, I'd say that sacred awe and hot sex are, at their essence, monosyllabic experiences where mere eloquence (either in vocabulary or in technical drawing skill) has few favors to bestow. Language is waiting respectfully for us outside, holding our coat.<br /><br />Tom-- I suppose the idea of duality is a thought. I mean, it's at least a thought; it's difficult to say whether it corresponds to something in the "real world." I don't believe it's a thought that we would naturally gravitate to for amusement. If we have feelings of alienation from others or society, our thoughts about the great schism are our way of coming to grips with it. If we fall in the cracks between theory and practice, or between mind and body, are we making that up, or is our mind struggling to comes to gripwit the world? <br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-12963507278456138282016-10-25T17:48:28.324-04:002016-10-25T17:48:28.324-04:00Tom -
I did not know that.
kev ferrara -
I dou...Tom - <br />I did not know that. <br /><br />kev ferrara -<br />I doubt I understand your argument, but...Are you proposing evolution as a uniting principle between knowledge and being? As in knowledge being a consequence of language, which is a consequence of evolution, which again is an attribute of being? <br /><br />As I understand it (which I probably do not), the theory of evolution does in no way qualify our (human) language as somehow properly representational. Evolutionary speaking, we were not bound to happen. Nor are we bound to continue evolving. And -if- our ability to think, reason, and communicate metaphorically -is- fatally flawed, we might just as well naturally not be able to know it. <br />Øyvind Lauvdahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01560444595186654411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-64696890893646327072016-10-25T13:40:24.329-04:002016-10-25T13:40:24.329-04:00Even statements that concern knowledge beyond lang...<b>Even statements that concern knowledge beyond language are little more than Strange Loops to me, I'm afraid.</b><br /><br />Evolution is not a linguistic process, its consequences not symbolic. For the survival of all organisms is conducted on a wholly physical basis. <br /> kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-30213532035824300052016-10-25T06:01:28.341-04:002016-10-25T06:01:28.341-04:00That's an old zen story Oyvind,
Where is the ...That's an old zen story Oyvind,<br /><br />Where is the great ocean of life the fish asked?<br />You are swimming in it repliers the other fish.<br /><br />David wrote<br />"Whether it's the duality of yin and yang in eastern taosim or the western dichotomy between the Dionysian and Appollonian ways of looking at the world, the break between body and soul, theory and practice, illusion and reality, reason and intuition, etc. etc. seems omnipresent. It's not clear to me that the world would be a better place if we could shed this duality."<br /><br />Isn't the idea of duality a thought? And thought isn't permanent. One thought enters your mind and it is soon replaced by another thought. It's like a TV screen, the screen is always there while the shows are constantly changing. The mistake is thinking the shows are the screen.<br /><br /><br />Another zen expression that drives this point home is, " don't mistake the finger for the moon."Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.com