The urge for sharing

[bjorb]

Hi Ysus

[quote author= Ysus]Now I must say this: the sott picture oft the day is definitely not an example of objective art. These pictures are usually political cartoons and I understand them to bring home to us the insanity and hypocrisy of the world arena and therefore give us more of a chance see the world we live in more objectively.[/quote]

If it spreads objectivity, be it films, pictures, graffiti, cartoons etc. You can call it as such. But to be more precise. Objective cartoons is more fitting.


[quote author= Ysus]As one example of soulful art, Gurdjieff cites the paintings of Leonardo da Vinci; as another he refers to the Taj Mahal. Both constitute objective works of art.[/quote]

But why? I am not really familiar enough with those works. Obviously Gurdjieff had its reasons.



[quote author= Ysus]Your perception that I am attached to my expressions is rather true, though, and it does bother me and it might well obstructing my Work-ability.[/quote]

I wanted to make clear in what way art can help us in our progress or stall us. I thought that it could be helpful, considering the aim of this forum. Maybe I should have had explained myself better.

- Concerning your art. I didn't made any conclusion. Personal/ individual art is personal. Do we create art to learn more about ourselves? Or is to enforce our Ego?

Gurdjieff recognized this also and goes further:

The situation regarding individual works of art is more complex, in that tangible artworks almost inevitably embody both subjective and objective elements. Given this reality, each is relatively valuable artistically according to the level of understanding it represents.

despite the forcefulness with which Gurdjieff distinguishes conscious and unconscious art, he readily acknowledges that these antithetical categories exist largely on a theoretical level.

Theoretical level because nobody has absolute clarity of our world, his/her own programs or the programs of others. But that doesn’t mean that we should subjectivity reign supreme. Objectivity is always the aim.

 

[Ysus]

Hi bjorn

If it spreads objectivity, be it films, pictures, graffiti, cartoons etc. You can call it as such. But to be more precise. Objective cartoons is more fitting.

I understand what you are saying and don't want to become unnecessarily quibbly. Just so much: You see, I have spent so much time around the idea of cartooning that I dare say cartooning and objectivity kind of "bite" each others. A cartoon is by its very nature (if nature is the word) subjective (it overdraws, it distorts, it blows everything out of all proportion to make its point etc.) even if objectivity is the aim, which is certainly the case for the sott picture and me too i am trying to arrive at more objectivity, otherwise I wouldn't be here on this forum.

But why? I am not really familiar enough with those works. Obviously Gurdjieff had its reasons.

I don't know either. From what I heard it has something to do with it being mathematically very precise and nothing left to chance. Completely beyond me.

- Concerning your art. I didn't made any conclusion. Personal/ individual art is personal. Do we create art to learn more about ourselves? Or is to enforce our Ego?

I felt the need to explore all sorts of “narcissisms” and take them to their extreme in order to understand myself/others/the zeitgeist better. A bit like homoeopathic therapy: treating narcissism with narcissism (trusting that the process won’t in fact amplify rather than dismantle at least some of it).

Hard, almost impossible, to be one's own judge. The braggy as well as the unnecessarily mean side of ego need to be kept in check (I have elabolated on that very point exhaustively over the years).

The curious thing about putting one's ideas into form is: they start to have a life of their own (if and when set free by the creator). So even if the creator him/herself has enforced his/her ego, some of the art/cartoons/fairytales may still have a chance to touch upon something in a more mature/objective recipient.

I agree and respect that objectivity is our aim here.

I will have to see how to continue.

Thanks again for your input, bjorn.

 

[bjorb]

[quote author= Ysus]A cartoon is by its very nature (if nature is the word) subjective (it overdraws, it distorts, it blows everything out of all proportion to make its point etc.)[/quote]

I think that what you meant is that those associations are by definition not realistic/serious so it cannot convey a serious message. Which objective messages are in the end.

It all depends how it can be best received by the public I think. You can also say since people expect funny things from cartoons that they are more easily drawn to the pictures. Which can turn out favorable. People rather ignore realistic drawings I believe or at least they don't get the same attention as cartoons do.



[quote author= Ysus]I don't know either. From what I heard it has something to do with it being mathematically very precise and nothing left to chance. Completely beyond me.[/quote]

Same here, completely beyond me. I wouldn’t even know where to start.


[quote author= Ysus]The curious thing about putting one's ideas into form is: they start to have a life of their own (if and when set free by the creator). So even if the creator him/herself has enforced his/her ego, some of the art/cartoons/fairytales may still have a chance to touch upon something in a more mature/objective recipient.[/quote]

It can indeed go with mixed intentions . Personal art is even more complex. It may appear completely subjective but what if it represents someone's growth of understanding for that particular moment? Difficult if not impossible to tell. But so long if there is progress. The art wilt show it eventually I think

 

[Alana]

I like your conversation here about art, self-expression and communication through art

I too felt many times that it might be better and easier to express myself through art than with words. I sometimes have all these impressions about things that are happening and then I open my mouth and words come out that don't come close to expressing said impressions. But if I tried to create an art form through which to express myself, I might be satisfied that it expresses my impressions more accurately. But I am not confident that the person I try to communicate with will understand my pictorial language.

I know because I tried to communicate this way myself in the past too, and because in my work other people tried to communicate through their art with me. My perception of their work was always clouded by my own interpretation of the symbols and colors they used. Only a lot of questions and a lot of verbal wording later I could See what the person was saying through their art. This experience taught me that I had to learn, through trying again and again, to use words in oral or written form to express my impressions as best as possible so that I have true communication with the person near me, since then we would be talking the same language (to a greatest extent with words than using images and symbols). I will always be a big believer in using art as therapy or for personal expression, but I'll know that I will have to use a whole bunch of words to explain/translate it to somebody else who would want to know what it means to me, what I am expressing through it.

I hope the above makes sense, still working on putting thoughts/impressions into understandable words.

 

[Ysus]

[quote author= Ysus]A cartoon is by its very nature (if nature is the word) subjective (it overdraws, it distorts, it blows everything out of all proportion to make its point etc.)

I think that what you meant is that those associations are by definition not realistic/serious so it cannot convey a serious message. Which objective messages are in the end.

[/quote] Well, the message can be very serious but since there is more playfulness with cartoons there is also more room (read: danger) for missunderstandings. Humour is a delicate tool but it can also work wonders. OSIT

It all depends how it can be best received by the public I think. You can also say since people expect funny things from cartoons that they are more easily drawn to the pictures. Which can turn out favorable. People rather ignore realistic drawings I believe or at least they don't get the same attention as cartoons do.

Yes. The child in us gets curious.

[quote author= Ysus]The curious thing about putting one's ideas into form is: they start to have a life of their own (if and when set free by the creator). So even if the creator him/herself has enforced his/her ego, some of the art/cartoons/fairytales may still have a chance to touch upon something in a more mature/objective recipient.[/quote]

It can indeed go with mixed intentions . Personal art is even more complex. It may appear completely subjective but what if it represents someone's growth of understanding for that particular moment? Difficult if not impossible to tell. But so long if there is progress. The art wilt show it eventually I think

Complex indeed and what is put into form can also change (e.g.when viewed with a bit of distance or viewed different people) and show patterns, repetitions and processes rather than "this moment". Also what is put into form may not represent the chronological progress of a person. Some stuff may already be lived through and put into form with hindsight… Phew.

 

[Ysus]

I like your conversation here about art, self-expression and communication through art

I too felt many times that it might be better and easier to express myself through art than with words. I sometimes have all these impressions about things that are happening and then I open my mouth and words come out that don't come close to expressing said impressions. But if I tried to create an art form through which to express myself, I might be satisfied that it expresses my impressions more accurately. But I am not confident that the person I try to communicate with will understand my pictorial language.

I know because I tried to communicate this way myself in the past too, and because in my work other people tried to communicate through their art with me. My perception of their work was always clouded by my own interpretation of the symbols and colors they used. Only a lot of questions and a lot of verbal wording later I could See what the person was saying through their art. This experience taught me that I had to learn, through trying again and again, to use words in oral or written form to express my impressions as best as possible so that I have true communication with the person near me, since then we would be talking the same language (to a greatest extent with words than using images and symbols). I will always be a big believer in using art as therapy or for personal expression, but I'll know that I will have to use a whole bunch of words to explain/translate it to somebody else who would want to know what it means to me, what I am expressing through it.

I hope the above makes sense, still working on putting thoughts/impressions into understandable words.

Makes sense

I appreciate your voice as a person and professional, Alana. You know from years of experience and exposure

Agreed, verbal language is often needed to clarify visuals – they can’t always stand on their own. For myself I find the same holds true for the verbal on its own (except for some poetry), at least when it comes to exploring and capturing emotion.

Another way of putting something across is to have series of visuals exploring the same aspect/theme from different angles/vantage points to aid clearer communication.

Straight/direct language I often find difficult in terms of making sure the others know I come from a space of kindness (despite the sometimes a bit full on content). When a seeming harshness sets in (to make a point) and there is no distance (e.g. the distance one gets when one says explicitly one is just illustrating) an exchange quickly becomes too fighty and, for my liking, far too competitive. I then either shrink back/evade or become cold, uninviting and arrogant.

However, words are also very close to me (I studied Applied Linguistics) and I use verbal language (perhaps even more than any other tool) as a very integrated part of my visuals and to make them more personal/emotionally accessible I use mainly fountain pens or gold paint.

The words are not so linear, not so finished, not so final sounding and the writing is a bit ungainly, wobbly, unimpressive looking. Sometimes gisty, sometimes leaving it to the observer to make up their own mind (well, they do that anyway; I guess .

I would also like to explain at this point: what I call more “solid texts” (this very post being an example) take me inordinate amounts of time and energy to formulate. This has taken me about 4 hours so far (and that’s not counting the notes I took beforehand). My first post in this thread and what I call the introduction (dense and obsessive, I know) took me about 2 months. No kidding. That is also a reason why I haven’t seriously started posting on this forum. It takes everything out of me and the texts themselves don’t even say all that much.

Now my visuals/illustrations are a different story altogether: they usually happen fast and reach further (or so I think).

I hope I will get to post a few more examples in good time.


(Attachment: My cape of New Hope - "felt" and sewn in 2011)

 

[Ysus]

I recently rediscovered a drawing from 2016 or 17 together with a piece of drawing from the same time period. The little creature with the flippers is a character I invented more than a decade ago and I have been using it to illustrate many of my processes. Her name is Pegasusy (half donkey and half swan) and I guess she is the “lilt” (the light hearted hopefaith) of my more serious work.

The piece of sewing I called “Pegasusy’s lotus stargate”. Im sharing these two fragments here since I find it curious how something can take on a completely different meaning than originally intended.

Additionally, I am sharing my MärlyCartoon (fairytale cartoon) version of the "third man theme" with you today: yes, no and situation.

Uplifting resurrection day, everyone.