Comments on: Whitman on art: it’s about world building http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html a multi-disciplinary dialog Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:38:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Petite Grâce http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13848 Petite Grâce Wed, 25 Apr 2007 19:35:48 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13848 On the subject of "internal coherence", my guess is that "in-co-henrence" is so hard to accept that one will "manipulate" every possible given data to "make it fitt and get back to coherence. To Brigit's suggestion of a possible "internal coherence purposely violated". At the source of such question I sense fear. Fear is never a good adviser... Just drop the nonsense and walk the "open road"! Can you consider being simply ex-cluded ? Can you accept someone is simply ot addressing you but themsevles ? Self enquiry, exhibited, is common fact and even celebrated fact, since freud, his daughter and many more after them. Can you keep unchanged the perception of someone not a-knowledging you and leaving al-one ? "NOT ACKNOWLEDGING YOU AND LEAVING YOU ALONE" Would this not be a good and attractive title for a "modern" exhibition? Don"t you think? Since I am mainly driven by trust, I trust you/we know you/we are not alone and do not need "everyone" to "make sense to your senses" (including brain activity), forever allert and carefully choosing your company and friends! Sorry for the internal coherence thing but equally valid is we are indeed alone and solitude. Back to the class room everybody! Graziella. On the subject of “internal coherence”, my guess is that “in-co-henrence” is so hard to accept that one will “manipulate” every possible given data to “make it fitt and get back to coherence.

To Brigit’s suggestion of a possible “internal coherence purposely violated”.

At the source of such question I sense fear. Fear is never a good adviser…
Just drop the nonsense and walk the “open road”!

Can you consider being simply ex-cluded ?
Can you accept someone is simply ot addressing you but themsevles ?
Self enquiry, exhibited, is common fact and even celebrated fact, since freud, his daughter and many more after them.

Can you keep unchanged the perception of someone not a-knowledging you and leaving
al-one ?

“NOT ACKNOWLEDGING YOU AND LEAVING YOU ALONE”
Would this not be a good and attractive title for a “modern” exhibition?
Don”t you think?

Since I am mainly driven by trust,
I trust you/we know you/we are not alone and do not need “everyone” to “make sense to your senses” (including brain activity),
forever allert and carefully choosing your company and friends!

Sorry for the internal coherence thing but equally valid is we are indeed alone and solitude.

Back to the class room everybody!

Graziella.

]]> By: Petite Grâce http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13845 Petite Grâce Wed, 25 Apr 2007 18:36:38 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13845 I dare, without formal permission to go on with a pseudo, just for the Google tracks. Petite Grâce stands for Graziella Curreli, lately post 8 and 9 of this discussion. What a releaf! I have the proper quote and it is from Aristoles: " When your talents and the needs of the world cross, lies your calling." Much more luminous than my memory of it! The experience of meeting this statement again can be translated with words like "joy", "freedom" and "responsibility"! To Karl, post 11: you ask and what I retain from your question is the word "doing". There is no "doing" as far I understand, there is the grace of a "crossing". You can only "prepare" ("talents")... Only the effort can be "yours", not the outcome or, to use a metaphore, picture yourself as a bulb ever busy trying to control electricity ! To Sunil Gangadhan, post 15: Thanks for the very last words of your post. I am most touched by you capacity to sense and convey your perceptions of Jeronimous Bosch's work. This guy, never talked about himself... He only talked about "you" and, his "you" is valid because it is a "us". Further on, I would like to introduce an idea which I believe can be important for clarity, without, given free from the aim of being "understood" (the Babel tower being a tragedy we can't avoid. Bruggel painted his vision of it about 6 times, if I am correct). Just offering something as limpidly as possible: I think, the needs of the worlds are not to be sized/understood by success (the breath of the crowd) yet they do not exclude success either. Inner vison and/or inspiration prevail(s). Read Goehte, Walt Whitman; see Bosch, Brughel; Touch the stone of a Cathedral... Any "I" is "Us"... May you be intentional here and read in the dictionary the meaning of the word "Muse". An "artist"? Perhaps... Yes... Because... No...Unless... With much appreciation, Petite Grâce. I dare, without formal permission to go on with a pseudo, just for the Google tracks.

Petite Grâce stands for Graziella Curreli, lately post 8 and 9 of this discussion.

What a releaf! I have the proper quote and it is from Aristoles:

” When your talents and the needs of the world cross, lies your calling.”

Much more luminous than my memory of it!
The experience of meeting this statement again can be translated with words like “joy”, “freedom” and “responsibility”!

To Karl, post 11:
you ask and what I retain from your question is the word “doing”.
There is no “doing” as far I understand, there is the grace of a “crossing”.

You can only “prepare” (”talents”)…

Only the effort can be “yours”, not the outcome or, to use a metaphore,
picture yourself as a bulb ever busy trying to control electricity !

To Sunil Gangadhan, post 15:
Thanks for the very last words of your post.
I am most touched by you capacity to sense and convey your perceptions of Jeronimous Bosch’s work.

This guy, never talked about himself… He only talked about “you” and,
his “you” is valid because it is a “us”.

Further on, I would like to introduce an idea which I believe can be important for clarity, without, given free from the aim of being “understood”
(the Babel tower being a tragedy we can’t avoid. Bruggel painted his vision of it about 6 times, if I am correct).
Just offering something as limpidly as possible:
I think, the needs of the worlds are not to be sized/understood by success (the breath of the crowd) yet they do not exclude success either.

Inner vison and/or inspiration prevail(s).
Read Goehte, Walt Whitman; see Bosch, Brughel; Touch the stone of a Cathedral…
Any “I” is “Us”…

May you be intentional here and read in the dictionary the meaning of the word “Muse”.

An “artist”?
Perhaps…
Yes… Because…
No…Unless…

With much appreciation,
Petite Grâce.

]]> By: Rex http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13835 Rex Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:51:18 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13835 One of the benefits of blogging is that doing so rather forces one to say exactly what one means in ways that cannot be misinterpreted; ether that, or one is purposely vague in order to stimulate questions or stir things up. The latter being a tiresomely sophomoric pursuit, I choose the former, but I am guilty, nevertheless of being a bit vague. What I meant to say was that it seems to be impossible to <i>not</i> have internal coherence when one is even a little skilled, so any following statement about resemblance or non resemblance to external realities is non sequituer. One of the benefits of blogging is that doing so rather forces one to say exactly what one means in ways that cannot be misinterpreted; ether that, or one is purposely vague in order to stimulate questions or stir things up. The latter being a tiresomely sophomoric pursuit, I choose the former, but I am guilty, nevertheless of being a bit vague.

What I meant to say was that it seems to be impossible to not have internal coherence when one is even a little skilled, so any following statement about resemblance or non resemblance to external realities is non sequituer.

]]> By: birgit http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13831 birgit Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:16:05 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13831 Rex, You are right with respect to the painting of a Danish artist that I saw last week (my comment 7 above). The left side was much better developed than the right side. Rex,

You are right with respect to the painting of a Danish artist that I saw last week (my comment 7 above). The left side was much better developed than the right side.

]]> By: Rex http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13826 Rex Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:37:49 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13826 Birgit, The only way I see internal coherence violated is by poor technique, so it seems to be a statement in which the conclusion does not logically proceed from the premise. Birgit,

The only way I see internal coherence violated is by poor technique, so it seems to be a statement in which the conclusion does not logically proceed from the premise.

]]> By: birgit http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13801 birgit Wed, 25 Apr 2007 11:20:31 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13801 Can anyone think of a work of art in which internal coherence is purposely violated? Is Leslie's Kitty in Picasso's 'Guernica' an example? Or her Kitty in Goya's picture? Can anyone think of a work of art in which internal coherence is purposely violated?

Is Leslie’s Kitty in Picasso’s ‘Guernica’ an example? Or her Kitty in Goya’s picture?

]]> By: Sunil Gangadharan http://artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13779 Sunil Gangadharan Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:33:58 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/04/whitman-on-art-its-about-world-building.html#comment-13779 Karl, For me, works of art create their own worlds when it is a body of work on a related theme. Arthur brings out a very important point here with respect to internal coherence - a quintessentially important aspect of related works of art - I guess this is what curators aim to achieve when they develop shows around a theme and museums hope to develop when to put related artworks helping achieve dialogue between the pieces... A single artwork by itself very rarely creates its own world (unless of course you are talking about Hieronymus Bosch ;-). Karl,
For me, works of art create their own worlds when it is a body of work on a related theme. Arthur brings out a very important point here with respect to internal coherence - a quintessentially important aspect of related works of art - I guess this is what curators aim to achieve when they develop shows around a theme and museums hope to develop when to put related artworks helping achieve dialogue between the pieces… A single artwork by itself very rarely creates its own world (unless of course you are talking about Hieronymus Bosch ;-).

]]>