26 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBurns is speaking lf sex
But pleasures are like poppies spread,
You seize the flow'r, its bloom is shed;
Or like the snow falls in the river,
A moment white - then melts for ever;
Or like the Borealis race,
That flit ere you can point their place;
Or like the Rainbow's lovely form
Evanishing amid the storm. -
R.Burns
indeed cat dude, remember the 'tail', of Tam ...[text shortened]... happens if
you drink too much whiskey and chase after young women sporting short skirts!
26 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by DowardNo, he is speaking of the transient nature of pleasure, there is no sex mentioned in the quotation, to do so, is to debase its beauty and elegance. The mares tail, which gets pulled off at the end, is a humorous phallic symbol.
Burns is speaking lf sex
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by rwingettMany ancient civilizations had stae artiists and whatever they created was for all to enjoy freely. I like this idea
To be merely functional is not enough. As long art is commodified for sale then it is symptomatic of a pathological alienation. An 'art' which is made for daily use, or for non-commercial purposes, by people who do not specialize as 'artists', can be part of a non-alienated life.
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by rwingettyes but it still remains art, this is the point. I agree that the merit of an artists 'worth', cannot be measured in monetary terms, for what passes in museums and galleries as art is nothing of the sort. Whether the commercialisation of art is symptomatic of 'pathological alienation', i cannot say, its a term that needs to be defined, for us to grasp its import.
To be merely functional is not enough. As long art is commodified for sale then it is symptomatic of a pathological alienation. An 'art' which is made for daily use, or for non-commercial purposes, by people who do not specialize as 'artists', can be part of a non-alienated life.
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe term 'art' is used exclusively by alienated cultures. The very term itself is an alienating one, as it implies that 'art' is to be created by specialist 'artists', and is not a process that is normally open to everyone. Divisions of labor, specialization, and the development of so called "experts" give rise to a situation where the majority of people are alienated from the creative life of society. A more holistic culture, where 'art' has not been isolated into a specialization, where the creative process remains an intrinsic part of the rhythm of daily life, would not have a specialized word like 'art.' In such a culture, 'art' would not be thought of as 'art.'
yes but it still remains art, this is the point. I agree that the merit of an artists 'worth', cannot be measured in monetary terms, for what passes in museums and galleries as art is nothing of the sort. Whether the commercialisation of art is symptomatic of 'pathological alienation', i cannot say, its a term that needs to be defined, for us to grasp its import.
26 Mar 11
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettbut it is true, some persons have no concept of what is either artistic nor tasteful, nor are they 'gifted', with the ability to produce that which is artistic or tasteful, yet it passes every year in degree shows at art schools, as just that, its a nonsense.
The term 'art' is used exclusively by alienated cultures. The very term itself is an alienating one, as it implies that 'art' is to be created by specialist 'artists', and is not a process that is normally open to everyone. Divisions of labor, specialization, and the development of so called "experts" give rise to a situation where the majority of people ar ized word like 'art.' In such a culture, 'art' would not be thought of as 'art.'
Here in Scotland, we have an artist, Jack Vitriani, who is a self taught painter, who paints the most contrived and shallow images you can imagine, perhaps you have seen his work, people dining on beeches with waiters and violinists on hand other stuff. He is loathed by the art establishment, yet the public love his, i wont say art, but paintings. Thus whether an alienation has occurred does not really matter, because the public themselves, irrespective of what those who are supposedly, initiated into the intricacies of 'art', tell us, have made their own choice.
Art is not a mundane thing, the artist even less so, never the less, one cannot act as if the gift of being able to, draw, pain, sculpt, conceptualise, whatever, was not received, and thus this is where to me alienation occurs, for the artist forgets his talent and takes on delusions that it is he himself, rather than the gift which he has received that is responsible.
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSome persons have no concept of what is 'artistic' and 'tasteful' because such notions have been beaten out of them by a society that is busy molding alienated specialists. Art is isolated from daily life and left to the professional artist caste, while everyone else need only have an ephemeral contact with it.
but it is true, some persons have no concept of what is either artistic nor tasteful, nor are they 'gifted', with the ability to produce that which is artistic or tasteful, yet it passes every year in degree shows at art schools, as just that, its a nonsense.
Here in Scotland, we have an artist, Jack Vitriani, who is a self taught painter, who ...[text shortened]... sions that it is he himself, rather than the gift which he has received that is responsible.
The fact is that all children are born artists. The majority of them are subsequently taught that their artistic contributions are of no merit unless they can be commercialized into objects for sale. Their natural artistic ability subsequently atrophies.
I reject, utterly, your conception of art as something to be left to a specialized class who have been inexplicably gifted by a nebulous muse. What vile rot. Art should be available to everyone. Everyone has an innate ability to create 'art'. We should foster this ability rather than trying to shame them out of it while making it the proprietary activity of specialists.
26 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettsorry but i disagree, it is not the forte of everyone! Even the ancient Celts recognised this and assigned magical status to the metal worker, the jewellery maker etc Yes everyone can be creative, yes everyone can express themselves, but that does not necessitate that what is produced is either tasteful, nor artistic. I suspect your own loathing (who can blame you when a painting is bought up at the cost of a hospital wing to be hidden away in some private collection), of capitalism and its exploiting mechanisms has tainted your point of view, but this does not detract from the fact, that some persons have a 'gift', which cannot be taught, nor explained, in any other terms. It does not mean that other persons are not gifted in some other way, nor does it mean that others are of any less worth. The true artist recognises that it is his talent that is at work, something which he himself has received, not him personally.
Some persons have no concept of what is 'artistic' and 'tasteful' because such notions have been beaten out of them by a society that is busy molding alienated specialists. Art is isolated from daily life and left to the professional artist caste, while everyone else need only have an ephemeral contact with it.
The fact is that all children are born art an trying to shame them out of it while making it the proprietary activity of specialists.
Who are you trying to prove to that you are made of Gold and cant be sold - Jimi Hendrix - Are you experienced
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou'd have to go back further than the miserable Celts to get to what I'm talking about. Primitive cultures, without permanent divisions of labor, specialization and elaborate hierarchies, have no professional artisan class. 'Art' has not been stripped out of daily life and relegated to an artisan caste. It remains an integral part of what people do in their daily lives and isn't thought of as being a separate thing.
sorry but i disagree, it is not the forte of everyone! Even the ancient Celts recognised this and assigned magical status to the metal worker, the jewellery maker etc Yes everyone can be creative, yes everyone can express themselves, but that does not necessitate that what is produced is either tasteful, nor artistic. I suspect your own loathing (w ...[text shortened]... or which he himself has received, not him personally.
We are stardust and we are golden! 😛
Your argument wants to venture no further than the alienating confines of western gallery culture, while I am in the process of taking art back to its pre-civilized, unmediated and unalienated roots. The 'artwork' of such people is woven into the tapestry of daily life and expresses itself simply. Alienated, 'civilized' cultures, with their divisions of labor and their hierarchies, have isolated art from daily life. It subsequently becomes more rarefied and increasingly complex. The most alienated societies produce the 'grandest' works of art.
26 Mar 11
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettSurely there are differing levels of understanding, are there not? for example unless one understands the concepts behind cubism, the paintings may appear interesting, but will not make much sense for there is intellectual content as well. The same with Pop art or any other movement. Who are the custodians of this understanding? Those who profess to be initiated into it, is it not the case? Those who profess to know what is tasteful and artistic. Why must you go back in time, what will you find, cave paintings and hand prints on walls, aboriginal dream time paintings, African masks and decorative patters, well so be it, but i tell you truly even there, you will find that the artists is revered as a magical entity, gifted and set apart from other mortals by virtue of his gift.
You'd have to go back further than the miserable Celts to get to what I'm talking about. Primitive cultures, without permanent divisions of labor, specialization and elaborate hierarchies, have no professional artisan class. 'Art' has not been stripped out of daily life and relegated to an artisan caste. It remains an integral part of what people do in thei creasingly complex. The most alienated societies produce the 'grandest' works of art.
You should visit Moscow one day, i heard they have frescoes on the metro and chandeliers as well. Is this type of grand art alienated from the common man and the exclusive right of the artisan class? You been in America too long my friend, you need to feel real socialism, Glasgow is the city for you!
26 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe artwork of alienated cultures have their own vocabulary, yes. I am not denying that. One can appreciate the internal logic of a cubist painting, for example. But what such artwork represents, at its base level, is an attempt to bridge the gap between mankind's alienated state and his primordial innocence. It is an attempt to reconnect with the direct, unmediated experience of life before it became diluted with reified symbolic thought. Mankind's artistic output is a reflection of his current state of alienation. The grander the artwork, the greater the alienation he is seeking to overcome. A holistic, pre-civilized culture had no need to express themselves in such ways. Their artwork was a simple and expressed as an integral part of daily life. It wasn't a lofty and detached examination of that life.
Surely there are differing levels of understanding, are there not? for example unless one understands the concepts behind cubism, the paintings may appear interesting, but will not make much sense for there is intellectual content as well. The same with Pop art or any other movement. Who are the custodians of this understanding? Those who profess ...[text shortened]... een in America too long my friend, you need to feel real socialism, Glasgow is the city for you!
27 Mar 11
Originally posted by rwingettYes,Wants and Needs are two different things.But humans are greedy, too.Hence,the happy man's shirt is --to mix metaphors -- is not everybody's cup of tea. The greedy humans try to find happiness in accumulation of things.But every lofty philosophy and almost every religion emphasizes that Happiness consists in simple living. Maslow was simply describing the hierarchy of Wants as seen in human society. You sounded quite a bit religious there when you stated that the path to happiness is through minimizing those artificial wants. A case of an atheist sounding like a theist ? Or a rephrasing of " From each according to his ability and to each according to his wants" ?
And the path to happiness is through minimizing those artificial wants. The striving after "satisfying" jobs, wealth and social status are the source of all unhappiness. Art and philosophy are the mere byproducts of an increasingly alienated society.
Why do you downplay philosophy and art when the human societies have been enjoying them for thousands of years ?
27 Mar 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoHuman societies got along just fine without them for tens of thousands of years. The great majority of human history has been lived without his higher art forms, his philosophy, and his advanced technology. None of them are indicators of 'progress', but, rather, are indicators of mankind's increased alienation from his natural surroundings, and, ultimately, from himself. Mankind is not naturally greedy. He is taught to be greedy by a society which fosters ever-increasing artificial desires that it is unable to satiate. Our vaunted 'civilization' has thus created a great many more ills than it has allegedly cured. As our rampant consumer culture poisons our environment and dehumanizes us, it will eventually be the death of us all. Art and philosophy are not unrelated to that process. They are 'coping mechanisms' for an increasingly alienated and pathological society.
Yes,Wants and Needs are two different things.But humans are greedy, too.Hence,the happy man's shirt is --to mix metaphors -- is not everybody's cup of tea. The greedy humans try to find happiness in accumulation of things.But every lofty philosophy and almost every religion emphasizes that Happiness consists in simple living. Maslow was simply describing ...[text shortened]... philosophy and art when the human societies have been enjoying them for thousands of years ?