Salon des Refusés discussion

The Art Thread

Comments Showing 1-20 of 20 (20 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Rosana (new)

Rosana I am starting a thread to post about art, or visits to art galleries, museums, exhibitions, performances, etc...

My reason to start it though is because I need to share with people that would appreciate it that I saw (took part) the Tino Seghal’s “experimental art” at the Guggenheim in NY 3 days ago.

I will let the guy in this blog explain the thing to you all, as he does it well:

Apparently this “show” has been very controversial. Some people have reacted very badly at the fact that most of the Guggenheim’s permanent collection has been taken away, and demanded their money back. Personally I loved it. My experience was much like the one from the guy who wrote the blog. I knew nothing about it, and I am still surprised at how deeply I enjoyed this experience. I also wonder that the space of the Guggenheim’s rotunda added to this experience of “deepening” of the exchange, as the spiral does mirror the evolving of the conversation we start first with a child, then a teenager, then a middle aged and finally an older person. I thought it was a great integration of architecture into the expression of an idea (if I make sense).

Probably it is one of those instances that “you” had to be there to appreciate it. But I feel excited by the questions that it generate: what is art?, is an dialogue/exchange art?, what art forms are there in front of us?...

I also saw the Biennial at the Whitney. Highlights for me were the “flowers” by Charles Ray and a piece entitled Minotaur by Canadian artist Aurel Schmidt . It must say something about me that the pieces I liked the most were the ones that had something childish and magical about them.

And I am almost forgot to tell about another piece at the Guggenheim that enthralled me. Memory by the sculptor Anish Kapoor.

to look into the void made by the absence of light into the sculpture was tantalizing.

message 2: by Andy (new)

Andy | 42 comments Hi Capitu,
What a neat experience! Thanks for posting about it...
So you were visiting NYC and happened upon what sounds like a really different kind of art experience... I love it!

Speaking of the "what is art?" question, I've been trying to catalog "fictional artists"... as in artists that exist in books or in tv shows and movies... it seems like a simple enough exercise, but I find it surprisingly hard...

For instance, in the movie Synechdoche NY, Philip Seymour Hoffman and his wife are both fictional artists...

And in the TV show Northern Exposure, Chris Stevens and Ed are both fictional artists...

I have found that many artists have a hard time or dislike discussing "process" but many do express ideas of art process within the art itself, if that makes sense LOL.

I'm curious to know what kinds of conversations you had with the different people in the Guggenheim exhibit?

message 3: by Rosana (last edited Mar 09, 2010 07:27AM) (new)

Rosana Hi there, Andy.

The project at the Guggenheim was called “Progress”, and when the children first approached people their question was always: What do you think is progress? The conversation then could take any turn, and my guess is that if we were to talk to the “performers” taking part, they would say that many, many different conversations took place. And I went through the process twice, as I wanted to experience it again.

Now, what kind of conversations I had? They were not in any way life defining conversations, but they were not trite either. With a 35 year old male we compared my experience of living in a small community with his research on plebiscites and community participation on political issues. With a 68 year old former university teacher, who at some point had a relationship with a Brazilian woman, we talked about the subtle differences of racism and classicism so present on Brazilian society and how it compared to relationships of class and race in the USA. With a male, probably around 20 to 24 years old, we talked about the definition of progress, and how has taken too long for humanity to take the environmental impact of technological advances into consideration in our definition of progress. With an older man, whom I never learned his background or age, we talked about what it meant to be “an adult” and how the definition of adulthood or the sense of when we become adults varies between males and females.

The conversation at times seemed to flow going from one person to the next, but at times were a bit disconnect and felt like had jumped somewhere completely new.

The experience of walking back through the rotunda was also quite interesting, as different people seemed more engaged than others, but I could not avoid thinking about how much creative energy was happening at that moment.

I think I am naturally drawn to this exchange of ideas. I love words and verbalizing thoughts. I am an extrovert and actually form thought as I talk. The experience may not have had as much impact in an introvert, or someone not comfortable with such exchanges.

message 4: by Rosana (new)

Rosana As for fictional artists, I came up with these books:

In The French Lieutenant’s Woman there is a painter Sarah goes to work for at the end of the book, but I cannot think of his name

The Children’s Book by A.S Byatt, Phillip Warren is talented porcelain maker, and apprentice to Bennedict Fludd, a genious but very temperamental artist.

The Underpainter by Jane Urquhart has Austin Fraser, a painter who would like to “erase” his past

The Stone Carvers also by Jane Urquhart has stone sculptors Joseph Becker and his grand-daughter Klara

The Passion of Artemisia by Susan Vreeland is a fictional account based on the life of real painter Artemisia Gentileschi – if it counts.

Then, in the same way, Vermeer is a character in the fictional account of the painting of Girl with Pearl Earrings by Tracy Chevalier.

From the Cunning Man by Robert Davies, Pansy Freake Todhunter who I don’t remember for sure if she is a painter or sculptor.

This is it for now. I will see if I remember any others.

message 5: by Andy (new)

Andy | 42 comments Capitu wrote: "The experience of walking back through the rotunda was also quite interesting, as different people seemed more engaged than others, but I could not avoid thinking about how much creative energy was happening at that moment.


Yes I know what you mean. I'm working on a school project where I recorded some interviews. Now I am listening to the interviews and taking notes on them. I am a very fast typer, and I'm not transcribing the interviews word for word, but sometimes I can't keep up with the ideas that have come up in the conversation. It's funny that so much can be covered so quickly just in conversation... That is why I have played around with doing collaborative writing exercises... Imagine if a person's creative writing could more closely mimic free flowing conversation where the words tend to flow very naturally... Probably part of the fun of discussion forums like this one LOL and letters and email, etc...
Also, I believe sometime in the future I am going to try to organize a writer's "life drawing" group where we can have two people role play a scenario while the others in the group write sketches of the scene, kind of like painters might work from a model... It's probably how some theater, television, film stories are created... through improvisation, role playing, etc...

Capitu wrote: "
The Passion of Artemisia by Susan Vreeland is a fictional account based on the life of real painter Artemisia Gentileschi – if it counts.

Then, in the same way, Vermeer is a character in the fictional account of the painting of Girl with Pearl Earrings by Tracy Chevalier."

Wow, great list! And I'm glad you brought up the stories that are told of "real life" artists... I think with famous people, known names, we do tend to develop stories about them that are partly true/partly false... But even our stories of our intimates may be partly true/partly false as well... I would add Il Postino the fictionalized account of Pablo Nerudo exiled in Italy...

I became interested in fictional artists as a way to explore the different cultural narratives that exist about art. Particularly among writers, there are some very narrow ideas of why people might practice an art form...

message 6: by Rosana (new)

Rosana What an interesting project, Andy. I have to say that I always feel a bit biased when I hear about writers co-operating, but maybe I should just get over my bias. Who says that writing has to be a “lone” project? And the idea of a group describing a scene, as painters are told to paint the same model is a wonderful idea.

Now, I had understood that you were asking for graphic artists, and did not include writers in fiction, so I have more to add to your list (you caught my interest and I spent the day searching my memory)

In The Hours by Michael Cunningham, there is the suicidal poet, whom I cannot find the name anywhere.

Then, in a book I have wanted to read forever, Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov, there is the poet John Shade. (maybe people in here would like to read this with me sometime?)

On fictional accounts of historical artists, a young and troubled Leonard DaVinci is portrayed in Pilgrim by Timothy Findley (Jung is a character in it too).

Arthur & George by Julian Barnes has “Arthur Conan Doyle” in it.

I have not read yet, by The Master by Tolm Coibin is a fictional account of the life of Henry James.

There, maybe now I will be able to sleep tonight.

message 7: by Andy (last edited Mar 09, 2010 07:53PM) (new)

Andy | 42 comments Goodness, Capitu, you are good at this game! :)

I have somewhat of a list, but I like yours much better...LOL

Capitu: I have to say that I always feel a bit biased when I hear about writers co-operating, but maybe I should just get over my bias. Who says that writing has to be a “lone” project?

I don't think anything particularly readable will come out of most of the collaborations I've participated in... And most books are indeed written by single authors...

but in my case the process of collaboration was fantastic in most instances

I agree that most of writing is done by a single person, but there is still a great deal of collaboration in some ways...

if an author is into publishing, there will be some discussion with the business people (editors, publishers, etc)...

There will likely be some dialogue with early readers...

There will be the echoes of feedback from earlier pieces of writing...

Also, I think for many writers, there is an imagined collaboration... Many writers, Ted Kooser, for instance, recommends having a person in mind when one is writing, an ideal audience member...

Also, when revising writing, it is common practice to try to look at the piece with fresh eyes, as an audience member would see it... revision is often a process of an author imagining herself to be both audience member and writer...

I read a biography of Julia Child and apparently, when she was learning French cooking, before ever thinking of having a TV show, she would imagine an audience in her kitchen watching her cook, and she would imagine how she would describe her cooking to them...

I remember when I was a kid playing basketball by myself in the driveway, I would sometimes imagine an audience watching and cheering after I sunk the game winning basket at the buzzer...

Children also invent imaginary friends...

So I guess I'm trying to say that even if an author doesn't collaborate specifically with another person, it seems the author is interacting with memories or previous collaborations...

On the other hand, I suppose entire books, even books written by just one author, could be considered collaborations in the same way that this conversation is perhaps a collaboration. Does it matter that our posts aren't as long as whole books?

Well I don't know if there is any logic holding up here LOL... I think I'm stretching the definition of -collaboration- in a silly way... I also have a hap hazard collection of statements from artists about the purposes of art...

PS I would like to read Pale Fire with you but I'm afraid I won't be able to read it until middle of may or even august :(

message 8: by Andy (new)

Andy | 42 comments I think it's funny how many different purposes people have identified for doing art... I think you'd get very different answers if you asked cognitive psychologists...

"The purpose of art is to lay bare the questions that have been hidden by the answers." --James Baldwin (1924-1987)

Alain Arias-Misson – Belgian-born thinker, artist, writer, and sculptor:
“The purpose of art is not a rarified intellectual distillate – it is life, intensified, brilliant life"

Carl Andre – American minimalist sculptor and poet:
“Art is an intersection of many human needs.”

Marc Chagall – Russian-born French painter and stained glass artist:
“Art seems to me to be a state of soul more than anything else.”

Paul Cezanne – French impressionist painter:
“Art is harmony parallel with nature.”

The object of art is to give life a shape. (Jean Anouilh)

Art has no other purpose than to brush aside... the conventional and accepted generalities, in short everything that veils reality from us, in order to bring us face to face with reality itself. (Henri Bergson)

Our primordial purpose is to respond to the impulsion from within to solve the mystery of our individual existence, to find and be the authentic Self that is, has been and ever shall be. (Dr. Michael Beckwith)

If art takes up much of the artist's time, then it makes sense that she/he be "lost" in the euphoria of creating. Isn't that one of our ultimate purposes in life? (Harley Brown)

"The purpose of art is to impart the sensation of things as they are perceived and not as they are known. The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important." (Shklovsky, "Art as Technique", 12) ~In other words, art presents things in a new, unfamiliar light by way of formal manipulation. This is what is artful about art.

Poetry is concerned with using with abusing, with
losing with wanting, with denying with avoiding with
adoring with replacing the noun. It is doing that always doing that, doing that and doing nothing but that. Poetry is doing nothing but using losing refusing and pleasing and betraying and caressing nouns.
-Gertrude Stein

To know that one does not write for the other, to know that these things I am going to write will never cause me to be loved by the one I love (the other), to know that writing compensates for nothing, subliminates nothing, that it is precisely there where you are not—this is the beginning of
-Roland Barthes

Moreover, representational artists claim to engage in a "conversation" with the viewers of their works, whereas nonrepresentational artists prefer to "converse" with their materials or canvases.
Karen Sullivan

message 9: by Rosana (new)

Rosana Oh, Andy, what a great selection of quotes. I hope you don’t mind me copying it and keeping it.

I too have a quote I found some time ago and kept because it summarized my own feelings about art – or seeing art in museums anyway (the quote refers to paintings, but I think it also express my feelings on reading somewhat).

“...these (encounters with art pieces) often occur only in passing in the course of day-to-day work in the gallery, one cannot avoid feeling that one is walking through a field of forces. One moves among works that are different sensory and aesthetic auras and evoke different harmonies, moods, temperaments, and currents of energy, depending on their presentation and surroundings – much like musical chords. This immediate experience of art, without distortion, the opportunity to glimpse even the most fleeting image of its evocative power, was one of the main reasons why I chose to spend decades of my life working in the world of the museum.” Christian Von Holst

Then, because you quoted Gertrud Stein, she is a fictional character - and so is Ho Chi Minh - in The Book of Salt by Monique Truong. (yes, I am becoming a bit obsessive with this game!)

And, in a very metha-linguistic twist, she is the writer and a character in The Biography of Alice B. Toklas (now I am giving it up!)

message 10: by Rosana (new)

Rosana Andy, I hope I am not putting words in your mouth, so correct me if I am wrong, but I sense you are looking into ways in which art, or the process of creating art, is “an exchange”. Be it between writer and publisher, or writer and his memories, or readers (even imaginary readers/audience) ?

I am asking because I have been in a somewhat different musing about art. It is not that my “trip” is incompatible with yours, actually it comes very close, but I have been asking myself what is this creative force that we seem to tap in when we are able to generate this exchange? Or that we sense that was taped in when we read or observe a painting/work of art?
Is it akin of Plato’s Forms, which he claim existed before and independent of our own perception? Or is it a product of the human mind, as if at times we did reached it, through thought, art creation or “exchange/dialogue”?

Am I making sense here? Feel free to disregard this post completely if it does not make sense.

message 11: by Candy (new)

Candy | 338 comments ooh I am enjoying these posts here very much.

(Capitu...Pale Fire is a book I would be interested in reading...say maybe end of April or so? )

Wow, those were some fairly complex quotes about art and writing Andy.

I am fairly opinionated on this topic ha ha...and I also feel that sometimes people overplay or complicate art making...which for me is a very natural part of human evolution.

Our hand eye coordination, evolved with language and storytelling and human babies being so dependent on human caregivers , unlike other animals.

Art is play.

Humans are an animal that uses play to communicate long after childhood.

In this way Capitu as you almost apologize for like art that is "childish and magical"...I don't think there is any decent hard-working art that isn't such.

I also wannt to suggest a gentle wording...perhaps a language block...instead of "childish" could I suggest you may have meant "childlike". Childish in many English circles is an insult means "immature" or "sophomoric". I may be wrong here...but I suspect you meant childlike.

I thijnk I would have enjoyed the Guggenhiem exhibit. First, I want to clear up a weird thing though. I've been to the Guggenheim about 20 times. It's very nature for exhibits is to empty out the building for solo shows. It's not unusual to have the building almost empty of it's permanent collection for an exhibit. The permanent collection is often recycled and moved around. When I was last at the Guggie (as I like to call it) it was a solo show of Louise Bourgouise and no other art was in the building. Mind you there was a lot of HER art...


You know something...the word "progress" is one I don't ever use. I struck it out of my bvoaculary as a young woman. I do not believe in progress at all.

Humans evolutionary adaptations emerged thousands of years ago.Although we may use cars and different materials to tell stories and make objects than we did 100,000 years ago, the evolutionary adaptations and our bodies and imperatives ar the very same. This is why a painting or object made 400 years ago or 20,000 years ago has resonance for us today.

We laid flowers in burial spots thousands of years ago. Flowers are beautiful to every culture and every economic or class social construct. Beauty is as natural and universal as making a living, making a family, making a story or making art. Experimenting with chaos and format has also been a very human activity...whether it's having a conversation defined as art at the Guggie or experimenting with colours of soil to paint hunting stories in preliterate communities in caves.

message 12: by Candy (last edited Mar 10, 2010 05:11PM) (new)

Candy | 338 comments I would highly recommend the PBS program on beauty.

Flowers are very interesting because they are beautiful and colourful in order to attract birds and insects. We share an interest in beauty with insects! Beauty is an aspect of evolutionary adaptations!

Studying this relationship to beauty might give us an insight into the value of "bad art" or transgressive art or art that is "ugly". Or more fittingly..."what is art"

Here are a few clips from YouTube:

message 13: by Andy (last edited Mar 10, 2010 07:44PM) (new)

Andy | 42 comments Candy I like most what you have to say about people experimenting with chaos and format...

Regarding beauty, it raises the idea that people might create beauty because it brings pleasure...

Like communion or relation or understanding between people can feel pleasurable as Capitu was saying. But actually, Capitu, I'm like you in that the idea of specifically exchanging ideas is not the penultimate reason for creation... Here's something that drives me crazy, a quote from another internet place (I can't believe somebody actually wrote this):
...all poetry has to specifically convey meaning by way of emotion...

What I was trying to get at is how the social aspect of a creative exercise works to draw out something different in us than would be drawn out if there was no social aspect...

And in the case of writing, even if a person writes volumes of poetry and sticks them in a trunk and never shows them to anybody, they are still interacting with other people... even if another person isn't in the room or even if there isn't another person on another computer to read something they wrote... the trail of the words is a physical connection to other people...

Conventional wisdom suggests that people speak language, but there is an idea that language speaks through people... The language was here first for all of us alive today and it will be here after us and we do receive it and it does shape us and even assert itself upon us and compel us to certain actions in some instances... For instance, my brother and his fiance are getting married partly because there is no longer any word in our language to describe their relationship... they have been together ten years... it is ridiculous to use boyfriend/girlfriend ... partner has connotations that they don't like ... so they will marry and then they get the words husband/wife

That is a cultural narrative asserting itself upon the person... perhaps that is

When daydreaming about what might happen in the future, perhaps you are channeling cultural narratives that existed before you in some way, with your own experience making it just a bit more personalized to yourself...

Do you think that might be similar to a Platonic form?

Yes I am interested in the exchange element, but I know what you mean about creative force. There are other ways of conceptualizing art that don't seem to have as much to do with exchange, like doing housework or trimming a bonzai tree in a certain way... it just feels right to make it so... a poet might write a poem because he wants to live in a world where that poem exists...

except in the case of creation there are certain physical tools to draw on: the chaos of memory, cognition, intuition, etc

message 14: by Rosana (new)

Rosana Wow, there is so much here in these posts I have to go by parts.

First: i would love to read Pale Fire with you guys, but i am feeling overwhelmed with books and life right now. Andy suggested the month of May. That actually is workable for me. What do you think?

Now, back to art.

Candy you nailed in the head my trouble to simply take art as playful. “Childlike” is certainly the better way to describe it, but “childish” comes from this place in me that assumes that art should be political engaged, and contain a narrative that encompasses social issues, or at least an attempt to “greater knowledge”. I am trying to search in myself where does this comes from, and I believe it was from me coming of age in the 70’s, 80’s under a military dictatorship in Brazil. Art was political engagement! And art that was not politically engaged was not art!

Thanks for reminding me of the playfulness of art.

Andy, I actually know very little about Plato’s ideas of forms, but I keep bumping into it in different places (this book I am reading by Carol Armstrong just mentioned it), and I am thinking I should try and learn about it more deeply. But my understanding is that Plato though that the concept of Beauty or Justice preceded human understating. Simply, that the notion of pure Beauty (to give one example of “form”) existed in itself.

Well, if this is true, then what I am wondering is that “the creative force” does exist too before human understanding. And that this “creative force” is at the seed of any art form, be it writing, or painting, or dancing.

Your example, Andy, of language precluding the human action does reflect very well what I am trying to say here. By the way, what a great example, even if it seems tragic to have to “fit” into language.

But, then Candy, if I got your post right, you seem to be saying that “art” is more simple than that. That its seed is playfulness!

I think that playfulness is one way of taping into the creative process, but not the only one. And as Andy points out, it is possible to tap into it in a solitary way, as in his example of trimming a bonsai tree.

But, I am still trying to define this “creative force/process” without much luck.

message 15: by Candy (last edited Mar 11, 2010 07:47AM) (new)

Candy | 338 comments Whosh...just in these two posts of yours Andy and a lot to catchup on. I don't want to lose any one train of I shall struggle to respond....

Art is play.

And it is as valuable for survival as all our other evolutionary adaptations.

Art can also be what the quotes Andy posted says it is too...although I would say those are heady "salespitchs" to keep art "meaningful" to the era they were written. Art is a force of marketing and has money and power associated into several social contructs for different societie. Andy's quotes are powerful but they also come from establishing art's place in society.

I am not concerned with establsihing its stature...I accept it's stature (and I also take inspiration for quotes and wisdom of others)

Art is a cosmic reset button.

Art has a lot in common with plants that humans use to alter consciousness.

Let me say this in another manner...

Art's potential for altering consciousness, as a cosmic reset button, can manifest as giving a viewer a sense of community and aiding in seeing oneself within a community. Look at art as a spectrum....To another end of a spectrum art can produce a sense of alienation too.

So...the "creative force" is connected to our interest in altering consciousness. This is aptly described a s a "force" because it appears humans really are interested in altering consciousness. Coffee, cigarettes, tea, chocolate, herbs, spices. exercise, meditation rapture...these are all examples of our history of interest in altering consciousness.

Art is much more similar to a cup of coffee than to philosophy!

This alteration can be seen as existing from one extreme to another by incorporating the community and by showcasing the communities negative and positive effects.

In ancient art it's popularity was in embracing the community beliefs. In industrial and contemporary societies art tends to suggest alienation, communion, irreverence, politics, power...

Capitu, Brazil is not the only country to associate art with political struggees. We've seen the same thing in Canada where may many art grants seemed to be given if someone wrote an artists statement about how their art might impact "feminism" "gay rights" "gender" "race" etc etc. In the last 60 years in the americas this trend in art is quite overwhelmig.

Meanwhile...if we look at the sudden accomplishments of the Abstract Expressionists...ther support and popularity arose after the Second World War.

U.S. not only won the world war...they needed to prove that they were the supieor force of power...but cultural power is also significant. Europe had been the powerhouse of art for centuries. U.S. was not posh culturally. To really win world dominance U.S. needed to win the cultural creative war too!!!

There were about 10-11 artists who rose to fame after the second world war. They were all abstract expressionists and supported by the crtics and the rich people of the U.S. We might look back and see...these artists were "used" to win a cultural war.

And I think they knew least half of them died violently by "car accidents" or suicide. I believe they always wondered if their art was art in it's own right acceptted or part of a cultural government struggle.

Immediately after the Second World War...the cultural center of the world moved from Europe to the United States....completing world dominance.

message 16: by Candy (last edited Mar 11, 2010 07:44AM) (new)

Candy | 338 comments Andy said Regarding beauty, it raises the idea that people might create beauty because it brings pleasure...

Yes yes, but I believe this is an evolutionary imperative. Beauty brings life. Life for the bees and birds who drink the nectar of the beautiful flowers. The flowers also benefit because the birds inadvertantly catch pollen on their feathers and seds and spread life.

Art serves a life-affirming urge in all humans.

Part of our function is to add layers of meaning to life. It's something humans "do".

Pleasure is connected to survival. It is a surval tool. And so is art.

I know this opinion isn't philosophical...but this is because I believe art is a natural and human activity. We do add layers of meaning with our interest in analysis...say the delightful Roland Barthes. Barthes makes art sound very profound. but for me...its true profoundness lies in its it natural emergence connected (and spearate?) to langauge and preliterate life.

Storytelling (art, music, novels paintings, sculpture, drama/comedy) is a survival tool. Philosophy is also a survival tool.

And its birth and power comes from "play". Play is an evolutionary adapted form of life and survival.

Baby animals play...kittens and cats play...foxes play...human babie s and children play.

Play and human immagination are critical to our life-affirming survival as a species.

message 17: by Candy (new)

Candy | 338 comments Here is a list compiled of "The Social History of Art"...

And here are two links about the person who created this social history of art:


message 18: by Candy (new)

Candy | 338 comments I'm really sorry to post so many thoughts in one go...but during the reading of The French Leuitenants Woman I found a section which might be of interest regarding making characters making fiction. I think this suits our discussion about art too...the author of the novel often steps into the novel and talks about "writing" and such...

Who is Sarah?

Out of what shadows does she come?

Chapter 13

I do not know. This story I am telling is all imagination. These characters I create never existed outside my own mind. If I have pretended until now to know my characters' minds and innermost thoughts, it is because I am writing in (just as I have assumed some of the vocabulary and "voice" of) a convention universally accepted at the time of my story: that the novelist stands next to God.He may not know all, yet he tries to pretend that he does. But I live in the age of Alain Robbe-Grillet and Roland Barthes: if this is a novel, it cannot be a novel in the modern sense of the word..

Perhaps you suppose that a novelist has only to pull the right strings and his puppets will behave in a lifelike manner; and produce on request analysis of their motives and intentionss. Certainly I intended at this stage (CHAPTER THIRTEEN-UNFOLDING OF SARAH"S TRUE STATE OF MIND) to tell all- or all that matters.

Only one same reason s shared by all of us (novelists) : we wish to create worlds as real as, but other than the world that is.

Or was. That is why we cannot plan. We know a world is not an organism, not a machine. We also know that a genuinely created world must be independent of its creator; a planned world (a world that fully reveals its planning) is a dead world. It is only when characters and events begin to disobey us that they begin to live.

message 19: by Andy (new)

Andy | 42 comments Art is play; art is a cup of coffee; I like these metaphors Candy!

Regarding the creative force... There is another way of conceptualizing art: the pen in the hand of the artist resembles the stylus on a seismograph... The earth vibrates and it shakes the stylus, the stylus makes ink marks on a piece of paper and we have a record of the vibration...

One can imagine an artist to be like a seismograph... All the energy vibrating around him ultimately moves his arm and he makes ink marks on paper... His own energy and processing apparatus just focuses it in a specific way... Even the marks that a seismograph makes are essentially "stylized" the up and down up and down marks are not a "true picture" of the directionality of the earth's vibration... the earth's vibrations are channeled by the seismograph into a form that is understandable to the people looking at it...

I have more to say on politics/art but will have to wait for later... Good morning!

message 20: by Candy (last edited Mar 18, 2010 07:13AM) (new)

Candy | 338 comments Hi all, I am not at home, helping family/friend who is under the thats why I'm awol. Will be on my own computer soon and then catch up...cheers...

back to top