Positive Dissociation?

[Laura]

I've seen a few - very few - modern pieces that are appealing because of graceful form and pleasing color.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

I've seen a few - very few - modern pieces that are appealing because of graceful form and pleasing color.

Pleasing form and color and depiction of real subjects is not entirely dead!!! Here are some examples of drawings of a contemporary artist that one of my face book friends "liked":

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2010085&id=1408360891

For me, especially these:

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2010085&id=1408360891#!/photo.php?pid=30238775&id=1408360891&ref=fbx_album

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2010085&id=1408360891#!/photo.php?pid=30082803&id=1408360891&ref=fbx_album

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2010085&id=1408360891#!/photo.php?pid=30259680&id=1408360891&ref=fbx_album

Excuse me if these links don't work. I am not entirely sure how linking to facebook works. One might have to be already logged in to see them.

 

[Galaxia2002]

Wow! That was an eye opener!
Thank you for those links Laura.

Yes, indeed!!! Just few days ago I talked with my colleague about such a modern art and after discussion I felt little "primitive" because I never could feel anything or anything what attracts me in that. Now I'm glad that my instincts were good!

I also felt nothing good when I saw such "art". I really enjoyed that articles, I was sleep in that respect. I realize that we are invaded for this OP's kind of art, so empty of soul as their creators. If Illion had depicted the art of the underground fraternity I suspect it will be like this kind of modern art. ;)

 

[WhiteBear]

I have this on my bedroom wall...it's the only real "art" I have...

The gargoyle turning to flesh and leaping out after the beauty of the bubble, one hand over his heart....but the bubble will burst, and he will fall to his death...for me, it reflects a fear of "letting go", but also reminds me daily to work on that.

 

[Gimpy]

Wow! That was an eye opener!
Thank you for those links Laura.

Yes, it's Ponerology in the art field. Extend it to fashion, fads, music, etc, and you have a picture of a society that is being deliberately trashed.

Those articles sum up, exactly, why I never went into a career in art. My parents were furious about this for along time. My Dad in particular thought I was wasting my talent, and he refused to believe me when I told him that no one wanted any of my art unless it was shocking, contained nudity, or was just plain ugly.

The last time he pushed me about the subject, I told him to go do it himself. And he did, only to quit in disgust. He never brought it up again.

I may send these links to him, but may have to sleep on it a while. I don't want to send them with an "I told you so" tone.

 

[Alana]

I may send these links to him, but may have to sleep on it a while. I don't want to send them with an "I told you so" tone.

You don't have to. It can be a tone more like " OMG, dad! Look what happened to art!" ... fwiw.

 

[Buddy]

To me, great art is 'Great' when elements of the natural world are painted in such a way as to convey impressions of something else (in the natural world) that can't be seen, but can be intuited.

Sorta' like how Van Gogh captured the effects of a temperature inversion just above the ground in the painting "Starry Night" (before anyone knew what the effect was).

_http://www.vangoghgallery.com/catalog/Painting/508/Starry-Night.html

 

[Alma.Innovadora]

Amazing!

“their group interest lies in undermining visual art, for they can’t compete with it. Even deeper group interest is to undermine Christianity, their main enemy.”

"Now everything already created. the primary law of art is that everything already created" said a teacher, "nobody can create anything new". Certainly, if a person is filled of this, it is impossible to create. And with the advancement of design programs for a mind like that, anyone is an artist today. And I that thought that show the ugly truth about the war or draw a woman "very attractive" was part of "art" and was contributing more to this art. I had an incredible internal struggle! definitely a bad use of energy for my body, the mind. "We show the real" and shows more of the same: Andres Serrano, Chris Ofili, Grayson Perry, Carolee Schneemann, Vito Acconci, etc.

No wonder I did not feel anything for this kind of art (except for the art of Leonardo D.) I do not express anything. But incredibly, little by little I was entering that circle (a hard program). Things that can not see easily, because "Art means (My free)emotion, (My free)feeling, something to be admired". Any expression of self for more illogical or aberrant that be to those different prospective to the persons, like the creation, view from here in differents ways, is art (the fun lessons).

 

[stellar]

The movie "What Dreams May Come" with Robyn Williams.

It came out years ago on VHS video ( how time flies) and since I had since it (and many times over) it always draws me toward recapitulation.

It made me question why I did what I did in my past; what could I have done differently and how would I do it next time if I were in the same situation.Why do I think the way I do and so on and on.

Of course this was years before I came across Laura's site and writings but I was searching in that general direction for The Truth about everything.Then one of my sons said to look into Laura's site and the rest is history and here I am.

One part of the movie in particular that stayed with mi was the 'melting tree' and brought to mind 'as above so below'.

Anyhow I would highly recommend it. Oh, and "Patch Adams" too, also with Robyn Williams (yes, a bit of a fan of his acting talents ;)).

 

[Buddy]

Anyhow I would highly recommend it. Oh, and "Patch Adams" too, also with Robyn Williams (yes, a bit of a fan of his acting talents ;)).

Same here. And I've got another movie for you, if you haven't seen it.

First, I was reminded of something I read, once, by an author who was writing on the subject of 'ADD'. He was explaining the different ways some children work through that visceral need for a feeling of aliveness.

On the one end of the spectrum there are those who are very quiet - sometimes called introverted or 'space cadets'. To meet their need to 'feel alive', they escape into a fantasy world.

On the other end, there are the ones labeled hyperactive. To meet their need to 'feel alive', they act out physically.

As the story goes, both of these 'ends' meet in the middle, responding well to high-stimulation classrooms and environments. When the external world is sufficiently interesting that they "know they're alive," the hyperactive ones no longer act out, and the space-cadet ones no longer escape into fantasy.

This is true whether it's an engrossing movie or a teacher who's mastered that Robin Williams style so brilliantly demonstrated in the movie "Dead Poet's Society."

Have you seen that one? :)

 

[stellar]

Anyhow I would highly recommend it. Oh, and "Patch Adams" too, also with Robyn Williams (yes, a bit of a fan of his acting talents ;)).

Same here. And I've got another movie for you, if you haven't seen it.

First, I was reminded of something I read, once, by an author who was writing on the subject of 'ADD'. He was explaining the different ways some children work through that visceral need for a feeling of aliveness.

On the one end of the spectrum there are those who are very quiet - sometimes called introverted or 'space cadets'. To meet their need to 'feel alive', they escape into a fantasy world.

On the other end, there are the ones labeled hyperactive. To meet their need to 'feel alive', they act out physically.

As the story goes, both of these 'ends' meet in the middle, responding well to high-stimulation classrooms and environments. When the external world is sufficiently interesting that they "know they're alive," the hyperactive ones no longer act out, and the space-cadet ones no longer escape into fantasy.

This is true whether it's an engrossing movie or a teacher who's mastered that Robin Williams style so brilliantly demonstrated in the movie "Dead Poet's Society."

Have you seen that one? :)

Ah yes I remember that one. Thanks for reminding me. Definitely worth a rerun real soon,

 

[Meager1]

So, if you think about dissociating in this way, what kinds of movies,
shows, games, fantasies, reading material, etc, would you consider
positive?

Not sure how positive it would be considered or even if there is any dissociation involved in it, but I still enjoy watching the older TV shows, not for the program or even the acting, but for the hair and make up.

The hair and makeup " artists" for the movie and television industry have always fascinated me especially the ones from the 60-70`s.
They were especially artistic!

They had a way of "making up" an actor to visually display certain ideologies that was fascinating.
The Walton's and Star Trek had some really good hair and make up artists.

For instance a Walton would do a scene of some righteousness or another and the next shot would be a profile with a lovely little cross combed so subtly into the actors "hair do" that hardly anyone ever noticed it, but it must have taken a real artist to put it there.
A scene with Captain Kirk in a fist fight with some evil doer would end with the captain torn and bruised but with a dusty cross upon his cheek!
I use to laugh and say "is that suppose to be subtle" to whom ever was watching with me, but they would just look at me and say huh?
So yeah, I guess it was!

You don`t see that particular kind of handiwork so much anymore in the newer programing, the art now seems to center around bullet holes and blood more then the real art, like it used to be.
Anyway, the point being, I`m not sure if it would it be positive to watch an old show just to spot the hair and make up "visuals" though I always thought it was fun to see it and wondered if the actor even knew that they were a living canvas for these ideologies, or if they only knew they were sent to hair or make up for the next scene.

 

[Tigersoap]

I have read this article from the Art renewal center and I thought it was interesting as it does agree with many things said here previously.

I quoted some parts only as the article is quite long so if you're interested the link is at the bottom (sorry if this was linked or discussed previously I may have missed it.)

Let me state in the strongest possible terms that the art history textbooks since the middle of this century are filled with nothing but distortions, half truths and out and out lies in their description of this era. They have failed in their responsibility as historians to report the truth of what occurred as objectively as possible. These texts amount to no less than propaganda brochures for modern art.

Then, the other critical cause was the consideration of powerful economic reasons for dealers to wholeheartedly espouse this new modernist ethic. If you were an Alma-Tadema or Bouguereau dealer, you had a list of a hundred clients wanting to buy their work. But their technique permitted them to only paint one canvas every 3 to 8 weeks, so you stood biting your nails waiting for each canvas that you knew was sold long before it was completed. Modernists, however, could often complete a single canvas each and every day. Some did even more than that. This was certainly true with all of the biggest names. Whether we are speaking of Picasso, Modrian, Matisse or de Kooning. Many of their works could be completed in a couple of days or a couple of hours. Their dealers now had an enormous supply to meet whatever demand they could generate. They had high motivation to prove that these paintings were not only as valuable as the prior generation's, but that they were even better. And when the money pouring in from this consummate con game, they were able to buy themselves historians, writers and critics, who happily developed complex, convoluted arguments to justify their philosophical positions.

Incredible fortunes were made from all of this. Incredible fortunes are still at risk invested in these works.

...Modernism endeavors to outrage, insult and defile human feelings (i.e., sentiment) and to belittle and dismiss any expression of our sense of passion and beauty as just no more than mere sentiment, and in the next breath want us to think their work is passionate and beautiful. In 1964 the Metropolitan Museum in New York, was offered one of Frederick Church's greatest masterpieces of landscape painting for a mere $30,000. They dismissed the offer with the comment that they don't buy picture postcards. It was put down specifically due to its appeal to sentiment. Today, the Met has dozens of such works on permanent display in the 19th Century American wing. All the great 19th century masterpieces that depict universal human emotions of any kind are denigrated and lumped together as only appealing to petty human sentiment. However, it's not just sentiment that was dismissed as worthless, but the depicting of all human emotions.

I'm not saying that there aren't any paintings that are maudlin and overly sentimental from the 19th century, but the modernists dismiss them all out of hand, whether bad and silly or inspired and brilliant.

...Our 20th century has marked a period that celebrated the bizarre, the novel and the outrageous for its own sake. The defining parameter of greatness to Modernism is "has it ever been done before," "is it totally original where there is no derivation from any former schools of art," "does it outrage," "does it expand the definition of what can be called art?" I propose to you today that if everything is art then nothing is art. If I call a table a chair have I expanded the definition of the word table? Would this make me brilliant? If I call a hat a shirt have I expanded the definition of hat? If I call a nail a hammer, have I expanded the definition of the word nail? Am I now a genius? If I call screeching car wheels great music have I expanded the definition of music?

Or in reality have I perpetrated a fraud on the people who wanted to buy tables, hats, nails and music and instead got chairs, shirts, hammers and a headache.

Modernists have not expanded the definition of art at all. What they have done is attempted to destroy art, created icons that represent this destruction, and then called these icons the thing that they have destroyed i.e. works of art. A urinal or an empty canvas, hung on the wall of a museum, are especially pure examples of this. They are not works of art but symbols of the victory of the Huns, who have sacked the bastions and forums of our culture. It would be like saying that the Roman Forum today is far greater architecture than it was when all the buildings and streets were intact....

...The thing here that really is interesting, is not their art at all, but the statement it makes about the nature of our species - that so many seemingly intelligent people have been so easily snookered by the tongue twisting, convoluted, illogic of modernist rhetoric. Clearly for many people it is more important to feel that they are some part of an elitist in-group that is endowed with the special ability to see brilliance where most people see nothing and are afraid to say so. Since most people aren't devoted or educated in fine art, they have successfully intimidated the bulk of humanity into cowering away in silence, feeling foolish for their inability to understand. By having successfully gained control of the institutions of higher learning and the major museums of the world, they have been able to perpetuate their fiction under the guise and force of their power and credentials. The average person shrinks away from believing the reality of their own senses in the face of seemingly overwhelming numbers of people in this 20th century "establishment" who authoritatively dictate what is great art and what they should be seeing.

Modern and post-modern art is nihilistic and anti-human. It denigrates humanity along with our hopes, dreams, desires and the real world in which we live. All reference to any of these things is forbidden in the canonistic halls of modernist ideology. We can see that their hallowed halls are a hollow shell, a vacuous vacant vault that locks their devotees away from life and humanity, while stripping mankind of his dignity. It ultimately bores the overwhelming majority of it's would be audience who can find nothing with which to relate....

...If someone with intelligence takes the time to understand advanced mathematics and physics, computer science, or biogenetics, there is something there to understand. If you take the time to understand Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Colorfield, Pop-art, Op-art etc. you will find clever con game perpetrated by a sophisticated gang of public relations experts that figured out a great tactic to make millions.

The underlying philosophy is totally without merit, and amounts to nothing more than a misuse of language, which is sufficiently complex as to be usable in the wrong hands to justify nearly anything. If you read their discussions of what makes a Rothko or a de Kooning or Jackson Pollock painting great, you discover an enigma wrapped in a paradox and embedded in a quandary. With looping cadences of illogical chaotic thought, usually vocalized by individuals with flowery credentials next to their name, the average listeners, who lacks self-confidence in their understanding of the arts and are intimidated by their inability to understand, usually meekly backs away. Or they protect themselves by proclaiming that they do fully understand, so that they too may feel part of the anointed. The effect of "prestige suggestion" could never be seen more clearly. Many of us here have said it countless times before, but apparently it needs to be said yet again....

source: _http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/ArtScam/artscam.php

 

[seek10]

I have read this article from the Art renewal center and I thought it was interesting as it does agree with many things said here previously.

I quoted some parts only as the article is quite long so if you're interested the link is at the bottom (sorry if this was linked or discussed previously I may have missed it.)

Let me state in the strongest possible terms that the art history textbooks since the middle of this century are filled with nothing but distortions, half truths and out and out lies in their description of this era. They have failed in their responsibility as historians to report the truth of what occurred as objectively as possible. These texts amount to no less than propaganda brochures for modern art.

Just like any other ponerisation, this is another field that got ponerized. At my work in Corporations, I see nicely painted walls with the some paintings with costly beautiful frames. they spend lot of money on them. But the impression I get from watching is simple scribble with brushes or trash . No layers of natural beauty or subtle impressions of meanings/layers of meaning. If I observe little more it will be opposite . feel sick of it. I wonder how they can consistently select that crap . There must be some other consulting agency who must have created the guidelines and these companies take these consulting services expertise in selecting the crap.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

I just read this in a fourth way book (Explorations in Active Mentation by Keith Buzzell). The author has also written a book about the effects of TV on brain development (haven't read that one). In a chapter on Gurdjieff and hypnosis, Buzzell points out that besides commenting on the evils of being 'hypnotized' and the evil uses of hypnotism and control, Gurdjieff also thought that hypnotism was one of the things that could genuinely help people to develop. He gives some examples:

For example, in a potentially transformative or therapeutic hypnotic circumstance, the subject may be presented with a myth, allegory, or parable which portrays a young person struggling and finally defeating a vicious monster that has been wreaking havoc in the young person's country. The multiple images of struggle, persistence, spontaneity and selflessness may be irresolvable for the waking consciousness (many of them being contrary to personal survival). However, the subconsciousness (including the emotional center) may be strongly influenced by these resonant qualities, (e.g., of struggle, persistence, service to other) and an affirmation-in-image is strengthened and/or assigned to the self. This emotional image or feeling may then be called upon from emotional memory to assist the subject in an analogous real life event. This type of hypnosis is an example of the powerful and positive effect of a transformative or therapeutically oriented approach to our suggestibility. ...

Similarly, but in a negative or controlling circumstance, the image on a TV screen may be of a gun battle between FBI agents and drug runners, or of a sexually explicit event taking place between a nearly nude male and female. These images are, potentially, carriers of an active force [i.e., the hypnotic influence] and, if the subject watching the screen is in a passive-acceptant mode, the images can penetrate, via the waking consciousness (our senses of vision and hearing), into the subconsciousness of the moving-center (its emotional subcenter). In these instances, it is possible that a strong emotional/sexual reaction is provoked, including a physiological reaction which is unreal (imaginary or fantasy-based) in the context of the real time situation of the subject. (The subject is NOT holding and firing a gun; is NOT in a personal interaction with the opposite sex.)

So according to Buzzell's scheme, positive dissociation affects the emotional center (i.e., true emotions, which are always relational in nature, and founded in mammalian life - nurture, family roles, play, respectful communication, etc.). Negative or controlling dissociation is more associated with the moving center (i.e., survival-based emotions/sensations/impulses). The former views people as true 'others', while the latter views them as objects relating to survival (food, sex, aggression).