Respect
Moderators: Morphic, Blue Angel, The Fallen Ones
Oh, but religion doesn't have to be like that. In fact, since it's a purely arbitrary umbrella term for an infinite amount of things, practices, beliefs, systems, etc etc etc, it can mean more or less anything . . .Marduk wrote:Its not religious; inner beings are mysterious.
No sacrificing, no salutes, no-one else.
No Rules, nobady to tell what to.
However, I was refering to its possible Latin roots, to tie or to re-tie, to reconnect or reestablish; to relate or to restore relation and the possibility to relate; that's why I thought "living" could be seen as necessarily religious, or religion as meaningless when not in relation to "living", the two terms inscribed within each other - I'd see "life" as a relation, or a process of relations and relating, and co-dependence more than anything else (btw, "living" as I use it has got nothing to with Vatican's "civilization of life", of course )
remember what the doorknob said
I'm not sure if I understand you. But if what I believe you're saying is what you believe you're saying, not only do I very, very much agree, but perhaps we, out-we-ing ourselves - and each other - of ourselves for a split second, just have demonstrated what I saw as religion . . .Marduk wrote:Yes squishy, you are right, if you tie being yourself out of
ourself; allways you are out; tied. Re-ligion.
Uni-verse. Other hand, never understood, my own bubble;
never really communicate.
It's good to blow bubbles and as at least as good to burst them.
remember what the doorknob said
- Lord Mureth
- Nephilim
- Posts: 2726
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm
- Contact:
Back to the original point of this thread. I've said a few things on here in the past without thinking (I'm sure we all have)... but when you meet the family of the person you've said these things about, you suddenly begin to realise that you're talking about a fellow human being... and begin to feel rather bad about past stupidity. It's taught me a lesson, anyhoo.
that comendable that you are open about something like that, a lot of people are too egotistical for such personal insite and reflection.
I think that is true for most people that its easier to be more negative toward someone/something when your not familiar with them/it.
I am warped in that I tend to be the other way - curious or optomistic with what I am not familiar and as I become familiar I become much more negative and critical.
Mabee it because the closer I am the more I care. I'm especialy that way with people. I think mabee it gives the impression that my intention is to be unkind when it is the opposite. Either that or I tend to criticise very insecure and sensitive people mabee I just like picking on everything
but realy I guess it depends on the situation if there is something to be critical about.
I think that is true for most people that its easier to be more negative toward someone/something when your not familiar with them/it.
I am warped in that I tend to be the other way - curious or optomistic with what I am not familiar and as I become familiar I become much more negative and critical.
Mabee it because the closer I am the more I care. I'm especialy that way with people. I think mabee it gives the impression that my intention is to be unkind when it is the opposite. Either that or I tend to criticise very insecure and sensitive people mabee I just like picking on everything
but realy I guess it depends on the situation if there is something to be critical about.
- Lord Mureth
- Nephilim
- Posts: 2726
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm
- Contact:
It's not so much a lack of ego on my part, (I'm weird in that I'm a 50/50 mix of fairly low self esteem and massive ego! )... it's more of a conscience thing. I guess I was guilty of slagging off the person, rather than their art; which is against my own rules.
Still don't like the art though But that's just my subjective taste, innit; and is not a reflection on the person.
Still don't like the art though But that's just my subjective taste, innit; and is not a reflection on the person.
you make a good point , its one thing to slag a persons art another the person themselves. Except mabee if they deserve it.
A persons art generally reflects the person, and if one were to find someones art offensive I guess it would stand to reason you would feel negative toward the person as well for creating it. But again its all a matter of context I suppose.
Thats why I don't think its unreasonable for people to want to know more about an artist if your interested in their work or why they created it. For instance I realy wouldn't want to buy or support the art of someone who has something unsavory about them. On the other side, if I found some artwork questionable I might want to know why they created and what they realy meant to say by it.
as far as my ego comment , it just seems like there are so many people that find great pain in admitting they could be wrong about anything. Call me jaded.
A persons art generally reflects the person, and if one were to find someones art offensive I guess it would stand to reason you would feel negative toward the person as well for creating it. But again its all a matter of context I suppose.
Thats why I don't think its unreasonable for people to want to know more about an artist if your interested in their work or why they created it. For instance I realy wouldn't want to buy or support the art of someone who has something unsavory about them. On the other side, if I found some artwork questionable I might want to know why they created and what they realy meant to say by it.
as far as my ego comment , it just seems like there are so many people that find great pain in admitting they could be wrong about anything. Call me jaded.
I wouldn't say so. Or rather I think that the reflection thing yo're referring to is only a part of the many-faceted "truth" here - and a suppositional part, of course.Bau wrote:A persons art generally reflects the person
I'd say that the two - life and art - may be somehow related, one co-creating the other, but in an infinite number of ways. There's been artistic movements and individual artists who said that art is always in distinct opposition to life; there's been those who said thet they're one and the same; and there's been an endless train of intermediary possibilities, too. Why should I say one of these approaches is in general better than others? How does the fact that Saint-John Perse was a high rank diplomat relate to his visionary poetry? Wallace Stevens worked all his life in insurance; how to relate such a fact to his poems - whether those of his "dandy phase", or the later, humanly austere ones?
It is very much relevant, I guess, that so many artists resort to noms de plume, and try to kill once and for all all those biographical quests whose landscape is their art.
And then there's the obvious question about life - whose stories will you believe, in other words, and why? A delicate matter, too. Was Eliot really that Jew-hating, right-wing misogynist obssessed with the idea of High Monoculture, or was he a heroic figure trying to break free from the tyranny he himself had earlier legitimized?
remember what the doorknob said
well thats why I used terms like 'generally' and 'in context' because though someone might create art about something horrible, it doesn't mean they are supporting it , it is usually the opposite. But it is still an expression of how they see something. I guess why to me it is not unreasonable to want to know an artist reason or interpretation of their own art.
UnderstoodBau wrote:well thats why I used terms like 'generally' and 'in context' because though someone might create art about something horrible, it doesn't mean they are supporting it , it is usually the opposite. But it is still an expression of how they see something. I guess why to me it is not unreasonable to want to know an artist reason or interpretation of their own art.
remember what the doorknob said
[quote="Bau"]you make a good point , its one thing to slag a persons art another the person themselves. Except mabee if they deserve it. [quote="Bau"]
Though, unfortunately, this class composed in 90% of parasites known as "critics" don't see the difference…
[quote="Bau"]A persons art generally reflects the person, and if one were to find someones art offensive I guess it would stand to reason you would feel negative toward the person as well for creating it. But again its all a matter of context I suppose. [quote="Bau"]
On this one, never underetimate the power of conformity. That states that "those artist types are not like you an I normal folks". If necessary, try to look for any flaws that might justify this assumption, which has been hammered mostly by movies (think "The Doors", for instance) promoting mediocrity.
And no, I don't mean that artists are beyond mediocrity in their daily life. Even Shakespeare had to use the fcuking toilet like the rest of us. I'm talking bout perception.
Reminds me of a wine-fuelled dinner with four mates, all published writers, two f them having gotten literary prizes. One might though we went high on meaningful literary discussion when we wholeheartedly talked bollocks the whole evening !
[quote="Bau"]Thats why I don't think its unreasonable for people to want to know more about an artist if your interested in their work or why they created it. For instance I realy wouldn't want to buy or support the art of someone who has something unsavory about them. On the other side, if I found some artwork questionable I might want to know why they created and what they realy meant to say by it.[quote="Bau"]
Yes, that's where I draw the line. An artist does not have to reveal more than he wants, but sometimes, if they give you the clues, it can be fascinating. When one of my favourite writers and mate at the time finally opened up in an interview, tired of wild assumptions, and it gave me great insight in some of his themes. Namely, I guess I'll never forget the evening Brit writer (and all over great person I point out, one of those real gentlemen that gives Britishness a good name) Stephen Laws explained me why he wrote some parts on his novel and what it meant for him. Fascinating !
Oh, and I agree with your last comment. When painting "Guernica", did Goya endorsed slaughter ? Fcuk no. I remember the numerous controversies around the music we like, from :wumpscut: to London After Midnight, having to justify themselves… Obviously, in our age of increasing conformity demand, everything has to be upfront without anything underlying.
[quote="Bau"]as far as my ego comment , it just seems like there are so many people that find great pain in admitting they could be wrong about anything. Call me jaded.[quote]
As you can guess, it's beyond me… I like standing duly corrected because it meant I've learned something. I don't know if admitting being wrong is a strength or a weakness (and frankly, I don't give a fcuk), but it's still better than the popular game of putting the blame on someone else, anyone…
Though, unfortunately, this class composed in 90% of parasites known as "critics" don't see the difference…
[quote="Bau"]A persons art generally reflects the person, and if one were to find someones art offensive I guess it would stand to reason you would feel negative toward the person as well for creating it. But again its all a matter of context I suppose. [quote="Bau"]
On this one, never underetimate the power of conformity. That states that "those artist types are not like you an I normal folks". If necessary, try to look for any flaws that might justify this assumption, which has been hammered mostly by movies (think "The Doors", for instance) promoting mediocrity.
And no, I don't mean that artists are beyond mediocrity in their daily life. Even Shakespeare had to use the fcuking toilet like the rest of us. I'm talking bout perception.
Reminds me of a wine-fuelled dinner with four mates, all published writers, two f them having gotten literary prizes. One might though we went high on meaningful literary discussion when we wholeheartedly talked bollocks the whole evening !
[quote="Bau"]Thats why I don't think its unreasonable for people to want to know more about an artist if your interested in their work or why they created it. For instance I realy wouldn't want to buy or support the art of someone who has something unsavory about them. On the other side, if I found some artwork questionable I might want to know why they created and what they realy meant to say by it.[quote="Bau"]
Yes, that's where I draw the line. An artist does not have to reveal more than he wants, but sometimes, if they give you the clues, it can be fascinating. When one of my favourite writers and mate at the time finally opened up in an interview, tired of wild assumptions, and it gave me great insight in some of his themes. Namely, I guess I'll never forget the evening Brit writer (and all over great person I point out, one of those real gentlemen that gives Britishness a good name) Stephen Laws explained me why he wrote some parts on his novel and what it meant for him. Fascinating !
Oh, and I agree with your last comment. When painting "Guernica", did Goya endorsed slaughter ? Fcuk no. I remember the numerous controversies around the music we like, from :wumpscut: to London After Midnight, having to justify themselves… Obviously, in our age of increasing conformity demand, everything has to be upfront without anything underlying.
[quote="Bau"]as far as my ego comment , it just seems like there are so many people that find great pain in admitting they could be wrong about anything. Call me jaded.[quote]
As you can guess, it's beyond me… I like standing duly corrected because it meant I've learned something. I don't know if admitting being wrong is a strength or a weakness (and frankly, I don't give a fcuk), but it's still better than the popular game of putting the blame on someone else, anyone…
Fundraiser. You know, it's like Hellraiser, but without the Cenobites, the blood and all that.
IN NOMINE NEMO !
IN NOMINE NEMO !
- Lord Mureth
- Nephilim
- Posts: 2726
- Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:02 pm
- Contact:
Marduk wrote:Some people try to dare more; often they are called artists.
To get to inside skin of sadist, never says they want it.
But, like method actors; it´s part of usual regocnition.
To get inside normal global warming/financial meltdown.
get a point of view. Every communication/relationship can
be stated as concentration camp.
Be a prisoner, citizen or guard, officer; there have to be
a dealer. Fenceguards in Auswitz are said to be most humans.
Saw and did the inevitable; served both paths.
Self-hate and despair for sins of past? Or try remind everybody
and hope they dont have learned feelings?
Fence is mostly in beliefs.
yeah right,
Some people try to dare more; often they are called artists.
I like this line
but I'm afraid I didn't quite understand the rest of your post...
though it reminds me of a poem I just read recently about personal walls and prisons....
which of course come in different types.
is this what you were refering to?
fences like these are mostly in ones beliefs? That may be true. Question is , are the beliefs wrong? again it may depend on the context.
- wild bill buttock
- Nephilim
- Posts: 2571
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:00 pm
- Contact:
Oh here we go again, more bleeding heart "artists".
If an "Artist" chooses to put his "art" into the public domain he/she has to expect more people not to like it than will actually like it, and no matter how many times the artist or whoever tells them to like it because of *Insert reason*, chances are they still won't like it.
Likewise when an artist becomes a professional, their job is to entertain. They become product exactly the same as a tin of beans. If you add a lump of dog shit to your recipe for beans , no one is gonna buy them are they? (apart from maybe some Germans).
If an "Artist" chooses to put his "art" into the public domain he/she has to expect more people not to like it than will actually like it, and no matter how many times the artist or whoever tells them to like it because of *Insert reason*, chances are they still won't like it.
Likewise when an artist becomes a professional, their job is to entertain. They become product exactly the same as a tin of beans. If you add a lump of dog shit to your recipe for beans , no one is gonna buy them are they? (apart from maybe some Germans).
..and my ccok's a bloater
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/TheDarkRoomUK
http://www.facebook.com/ClubDawnrazor
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/TheDarkRoomUK
http://www.facebook.com/ClubDawnrazor
Here I agree wholeheartedlywild bill buttock wrote:Oh here we go again, more bleeding heart "artists".
If an "Artist" chooses to put his "art" into the public domain he/she has to expect more people not to like it than will actually like it, and no matter how many times the artist or whoever tells them to like it because of *Insert reason*, chances are they still won't like it.
And here I think you're talking perfect bollockswild bill buttock wrote:Likewise when an artist becomes a professional, their job is to entertain. They become product exactly the same as a tin of beans. If you add a lump of dog shit to your recipe for beans , no one is gonna buy them are they? (apart from maybe some Germans).
Btw, I don't think that artists are any kind of an elite, that they're chosen or cursed, that they are more sensitive or less sensible than anyone else, or in any substantial way different from a regular joe.
remember what the doorknob said
- wild bill buttock
- Nephilim
- Posts: 2571
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:00 pm
- Contact:
If as an ordinary Joe, you were to do your job poorly or in a way that no-one wanted to buy that which you are selling, then you'd soon starve I'm afraid, and it's no good blame-ing it on the consumer for being wrong.squishy wrote:And here I think you're talking perfect bollockswild bill buttock wrote:Likewise when an artist becomes a professional, their job is to entertain. They become product exactly the same as a tin of beans. If you add a lump of dog shit to your recipe for beans , no one is gonna buy them are they? (apart from maybe some Germans).
Btw, I don't think that artists are any kind of an elite, that they're chosen or cursed, that they are more sensitive or less sensible than anyone else, or in any substantial way different from a regular joe.
Don't get me wrong without the maverick artists we'd be cursed with the terminally mundane but unfortunately society in general doesn't see it that way, they want something safe and will only join the revolution after the victory is won. Apathy is the greatest ally of capatalism.
..and my ccok's a bloater
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/TheDarkRoomUK
http://www.facebook.com/ClubDawnrazor
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=logo#!/TheDarkRoomUK
http://www.facebook.com/ClubDawnrazor