|
| Thread: To Read |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted August 31, 2013 11:12 PM |
|
|
To Read
Lately, I've been thinking I invest less and less time into reading than I used to. With hundreds of movies and TV serials available on the internet within the reach of a click, that's kind of natural I guess, a day is only 24 hours. But something tells me it's not just about that, it's also about a feeling of satiety. A very misplaced satiety that says "hey, you've read ten times of what regular people read in a life time already at this age, you've earned the right to be lazy about it." I consider it misplaced because of two things. First of all, back in the old days, I wouldn't get lazy about it because to read was, mostly, sheer fun. Second of all, it sharpened my skepticism and my ability to rediscover things. That second part is important because just like a pianist can't say "well, I practiced for 20 years, I can let it go now" a mind who wants to discover perspectives can't claim he's had enough of them. The paradox is, the more perspectives you learn, you also witness more BS during the process and it kind of turns you into a person who is fed up. You want to explore less because it involves interacting with people who does not explore at all. I'm not sure if this is not a rationalization, however, I don't experience it like that.
Do you guys (the ones who already had it in the first place) still have an appetite to learn more about everything? The fresh feeling of taking nothing for granted? Can that feeling endure a life time or do we simply get old and bored?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 11:52 PM |
|
|
I think is about a center of interest more than having universal learning appetite. For example, any book of science, or economy, or even philosophy (Kant or Engels styles) is boring me to death, but I am able to forget myself with a Raphael paintings album for hours, or spend days in the woods reading Keats again and again. When I had my right hand paralyzed for 12 years I lost any interest for art in general and became lazy, grumpy and asocial, then burnt all my books and musical scores.
Which tends to suggest that our interest and curiosity are active if we are able of giving something back after synthesis, at least in my case. However, there are also a few capital encounters, the backbone of what we are or what we feel, and this regardless our mood or misery. Herman Hesse, Nietzsche, Keats, or Bach or Beethoven in music, are the supplies I need each everyday, in order to keep my life caliber healthy.
artu said:
A very misplaced satiety that says "hey, you've read ten times of what regular people read in a life time already at this age, you've earned the right to be lazy about it."
The problem is not how much we stock in, but how much we give back as a result of synthesis. You may have read 1000 books, but how many you wrote? Where is your place in history if you die today? Because the history does not remember the encyclopedias guys, but the creative ones. So I believe that on universal scale, you can never rest, a place in history books is very hard to obtain. And if we don't get one, then we are nothing, zero.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 31, 2013 11:59 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 00:02, 01 Sep 2013.
|
Quote:
Which tends to suggest that our interest and curiosity are active if we are able of giving something back after synthesis
That's a very strong motivation indeed, I used to read like a whale while I was writing myself.
Quote:
I think is about a center of interest more than having universal learning appetite.
Well, I'm not talking about becoming an expert on everything (which is practically impossible anyway) but narrowing down your spectrum is also not a good idea. Somebody who reads European history will also have a much broader perspective on European classical music, why it evolved the way it did. You can not deeply comprehend Nietszche if you know nothing about Ancient Greece or the cartesian logic Descartes presented that he objects to. It's basically endless, which used to feel very good.
Quote:
Where is your place in history if you die today? Because the history does not remember the encyclopedias guys, but the creative ones
Well, in the long term, everybody will be forgotten. I think creativity is a prize in itself, not a tool to be remembered. But I know what you mean.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 12:13 AM |
|
|
Surprisingly, in art, the cultural range and knowledge you have is not affecting your creativity. It MAY inspire it, but there is nothing sure about. You may know everything about music or painting, be able to talk hours about, understand them perfectly, then paint/play like a amoeba, without any feeling or skill.
I saw fortunate examples of exceptionally cultivated people being able to communicate emotions but also a bunch of them emptier than a bugged wog chest. I saw complete dumb people creating immortal art works, then super intelligent people hypnotizing crew until lethal boredom. So there is no rule, if we agree that comprehend something to the point you can talk about is not same as sense the reasons behind its creation.
The day when we will break through creativity mysteries will be the day when each of us will be given the tools to achieve immortality. Still very far away.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 12:21 AM |
|
|
Painting, music... These are more open fields to "ignorant geniuses" in a way. I would rather say, they are not ignorant but unable to express analytically what they comprehend. Otherwise, we would have Mozarts from tribes in jungles.
Philosophy, literature... Intellectual investment is significantly important.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 01:06 AM |
|
|
Indeed, literature and philosophy require perfect mastering of the "words" language, other arts as painting or music have a different language. What I tried to say was that the quantity stocked is not as important as the quality of the synthesis you are able to create from cognitive processes.
About ignorant geniuses, I am not so sure they are ignorant. The knowledge can be defined in various ways. On one side we have Hawkins talking about everything with such self-assurance, on the other side we have Keats down-pouring 1000 verses about how he is able to hear the autumn slowly demising the life's sparkles. Each one has access to a different cognitive process.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 01:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
About ignorant geniuses, I am not so sure they are ignorant.
That's just what I said.
When we come to Keats, let's take this for example:
Like Nature's patient, sleepless Eremite,
The moving waters at their priestlike task
Unlike a piano concerto we can't simply just sit down and listen, to be able to understand this, we must know what an Eremite is. Now, this was just two lines, how about this:
APOLLO
WHICH of the fairest three
To-day will ride with me?
My steeds are all pawing at the threshold of the morn:
Which of the fairest three
To-day will ride with me
Across the gold Autumn's whole Kingdom of corn?
THE GRACES all answer
I will, I - I - I
young Apollo let me fly
Along with thee,
I will- I, I, I,
The many wonders see
I - I - I - I
And thy lyre shall never have a slackened string:
I, I, I, I,
Thro' the golden day will sing.
Apollo is the god of sun, his "golden arrows" were sun rays. But we don't have the summer here, it's the gold Autumn (yellow leaves), why is the Kingdom written with a capitol K, who are the fairest three, it must refer to something from the Greek mythology since it is Apollo, the story I am instantly reminded of is this:
The Greek goddess of discord, Eris, became disgruntled after she was excluded from the wedding of Peleus and Thetis. In retaliation, she tossed a golden apple inscribed Kallisti ('For the most beautiful one'), into the wedding party. Three goddesses claimed the apple: Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite. Paris of Troy was appointed to select the recipient. After being bribed by both Hera and Athena, Aphrodite tempted him with the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen of Sparta. He awarded the apple to Aphrodite, thus indirectly causing the Trojan War.
But does it add up? Not really. So, do I hear the music in this poem by Keats, yes, I do. But, am I literally able to decode his references, no. I must study if I really want to understand.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 02:09 AM |
|
|
Greek mythology was the first thing people learned in school before XX century, due to the fact that big part of the literature or epic poems used it as reference. Is not like Keats here asks us to learn Darwin or Diderot's encyclopedia.
After reading your conclusion, the analogy with a piano concerto is rushed. To understand classical art to the point to comment it, you also need references, as you pointed out for Keats. Music is not only something to be listened, is a whole self sufficient and untranslatable language which requires us to know at least the syntax. Considering it as only an auditive delivered message is leading to enormities as comparing Bach to Quincy Jones or others of same level. I mean, once you know how to read it and posses the references, you are able to distinguish the superfluous -created to entertain- from the essential, created to metamorphose the listener.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 02:33 AM |
|
|
|
Good point. Let me rephrase it like this then, if you make someone who has never heard classical music in his life listen to Wagner, he won't understand it. (Same goes for Quincy Jones though). Actually, the reason I'm using Wagner as an example is the famous scene in Apocalypse Now, where they use Wagner to scare Vietnamese villagers. However, in literature, especially if it's aged, there is also the need to know "encyclopedic" material. It's true, someone fairly educated from the 19th century would recognize Keat's references much quicker than us, some of the stuff that would take extra education now, would only take average education back then. Still, the "education of the ear" happens relatively quicker because music can travel beyond cultures easier than literature. If we were to count Bach lovers and Goethe lovers around the world, Bach lovers would win by far.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 08:47 AM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
After reading your conclusion, the analogy with a piano concerto is rushed. To understand classical art to the point to comment it, you also need references, as you pointed out for Keats. Music is not only something to be listened, is a whole self sufficient and untranslatable language which requires us to know at least the syntax. Considering it as only an auditive delivered message is leading to enormities as comparing Bach to Quincy Jones or others of same level. I mean, once you know how to read it and posses the references, you are able to distinguish the superfluous -created to entertain- from the essential, created to metamorphose the listener.
Sal, that's elitist, pseudo-intellectual hogwash. You do noz understand art, inclusing music, poetry and literature GENERALLY with your intellectual mind. There IS that stuff that comes over the intellect, but there is the stuff also that grabs you directly by the gut, and oftentimes, analyzing the why and how will not only tell you something about the art, but also about yourself.
Comparing radically different approaches to something, makes no sense: can you, for example, compare say, Keats with Bill Watterson (if that mame doesn't sound familiar, he's the inventor of Calvin and Hobbes)?
You may prefer one over the other, but that's not a measure of quality, it's just a question of one grabbing you more or by something more important to you than the other, but that's it.
EVERY confrontation with art may in some way change you, depending mostly on YOU, once the artist has what it takes.
Also, every individual has a very powerful tool to write history, and that's having children - the most basic and at the same time original creative process and in its essence as an act underlying all creativity. That and what's necessary for the creation.
Now, reading. artu.
Reasing is just one form of learning (or being entertained). In the end, knowledge for knowledge's sake is unsatisfactory, because there is no end to it and a lot if questionable (can't take for absolutely granted). Meaning, that a lot of reading takes place to learn (of) other and different perspectives and takes in things to put yourself on a somewhat broader foundation.
If you are "lazy" then, it's maybe that you long for taking (a part) of what you've learned so far and make something with it? I mean, sometimes you just want to "sum up" things, "conclude" something and start with something new?
|
|
Biobob
Famous Hero
the Bobler
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 09:35 AM |
|
|
Well, I have only just turned 18, and by that don't really fit into this topic, but I still think I have to give a statement on this.
I have grown up in a family, in which arts in general were thought as th e "non plus ultra". As such, I started to play the piano at the age of 6 and read "advanced" books at ages others read their short pictured stories. Well, I later discovered that I was not really fond of playing the pieces my teacher meant me to play and completely stopped progress at the age of 12 (I didn't have much in my repertoire anyway), however, at the age of 15 I searched out the scores for Scott Joplins Maple leaf rag and learned it in less then two weeks. After I had played some more of these ragtimes, it began to lose its challenge to me, and I turned to classical music. Nowadays, I have made huge progress and love mostly music that proposes a "challenge", while most others bore me.
Now, the same thing applies to reading. Now, after the last year, I finally have the freedom of having all my time for myself. Now I mostly read scientific stuff, because lately I found for myself reading normal novels was a bit of a waste of time (I could have spent my time better...), while reading scientific articles and books, I discover so many things about nature I didn't know before. Still, earlier books are still great to read (be it to just know them)...
What my point really is, I think as long as someone is holding us back with the things we do (like in school), we generate a lack of motivation to do other stuff. Also, as soon as someone has, for example, read most important literature, his interest in it goes down (this is what I described as "challenges"). Of course, there are some who just read for the sake of reading, but most people I know only read books of their niveau or higher. At a certain stage, a great barrier is sprung over, and from this point, the sole person begins to contribute itself (starting to write, starting to compose) to that topic.
To answer artu's question, I think you took this barrier a long time ago (since you stated to already have written), and by that lost interest in some of the other literature there is. We all seek new challenges to complete, if we can't find them, we lose motivation.
Greets, Biobob
____________
Maps
The Mapmaker's Thread
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 01:15 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
There IS that stuff that comes over the intellect, but there is the stuff also that grabs you directly by the gut,
True and not true. What is "the gut"? Does it require working it out over time or the "gut" you have when born may be sufficient to give you an understanding of let's say a Bach Cantata?
Consider an experiment: you have 1000 people ready for a test, you give them two albums. One is Louvre advertising, with all the art works represented, the other is some well known comics, let's say Superman. Without knowing the syntax of painting, how many of them will spend more than 3 seconds on the Louvre one? Probably none, here the guts do not help, but the intellect, your culture and your educated curiosity.
Your problem is that you think that only listening to music gives you the right to comment about, in general. But if you don't know how to read it and never spent years to study it, you are in same position as one listening to two different languages he does not know. He will probably find chinese more attractive than japanese, auditive speaking, but he has no clue what is behind, the ultimate meaning. Is just a matter of instinct for him.
So all you can do is to say "this sounds more appealing to me".
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 02:46 PM |
|
|
YOUR problem is, that you rate things without actually knowing what you rate and why you rate.
Because it would seem that you have a strange idea what art is all about. It does not first and foremost have to be understood, it should be ENJOYED first and foremost, and it is definitely possible to enjoy art without understanding it. (I use the word "enjoy" in a very broad sense - art may have a disturbing effect as well; if it "stays with you", if it keeps your attention in some way, it will give you something, because you will learn something, when you
That is comparable with human relations - you do not have to spell out everything in detail to reach an "understanding", that may work on a very different level.)
In fact, it's actually the other way round - if you have to STUDY something extensively, before it grabs you, then something is wrong and you should turn to things that grab you immediately.
I also think that your example is wrong. I don't think that everyone will put a Louvre catalogue away - on the contrary: the Superman comic will be somewhat boring for everyone not having some basic knowledge about this; the catalogue, on the other hand, will simply show a couple of paintings, that work on a completely different level than a comic, which is kind of like reading a cartoon movie that comes in single pictures. You will need to follow the story and let you take in by it, while the painting is simply inducing kind of an impression - that you may follow up by studying and trying to "grasp" - or not.
Since you mentioned Bach. You probably know that Bach made music to worship god and for edification of the spirit. It's more or less .., prayer. In a very broad sense a Bach Cantate is comparable to a Gospel (song). A Baroque Gospel, but a Gospel nonetheless.
I don't have the impression that you are a religious guy or share Bach's beliefs, so "understanding" is somewhat problematic: can you really understand a love song, when you don't believe in love?
Of course there IS a level of understanding involved when you are confronted with art that comes from a different time or culture - although I think it's not understanding but an open "mind" or better "spirit" that is needed: culture and so on may have been different, but humans are humans, no matter what.
*I* think, that a religious contemporary person will find easier access to Bach than a non-religious intellectual stuyying baroque music. And since it's about ENJOYING first and foremost that's enough.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 06:34 PM |
|
|
|
There are levels of understanding (high) art. There is a deeper, intellectual level which can come after the enjoyment but there is also a prior level which is required for enjoyment. A person completely alien to classical music wont be able to understand what he ears even at the basic level of enjoyment. It has been tried, during the 1930's the radios started broadcasting classical music to Anatolian villages and most villagers complained and even declared that they find the sounds disturbing. So when you say it is here to enjoy first, it doesnt mean much, because to be able to enjoy something you must be able to understand it at least at some adequate level.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 07:11 PM |
|
|
Artu is right. All known cultures have music, and all cultures expect their members to be able to be able to make sense of their music by making music or listening to it. We explore musicality as a fundamental human capacity. We investigate the full range of musical behavior from private listening to interacting with others, whether in expert performance or just having fun. Music is not just sound: it is dynamic pattern in embodied minds, movement, and social interactions; it is shaped by biology and the cultures that we inhabit. To understand Bach you don't need to be religious, but you need to understand music, as technical language. Without being able to follow distinctly the 6-7 different voices playing at same moment, you will just get a very superficial synthesis and you will get lost after a few minutes. Once you can follow the counterpoint, then you have to identify the tonal collisions, and breath in and out in same rhythm. Once you can breath in/out and match the music blood swelling its veins, then you can finally relax and watch out for its spiritual message, as there are no more technical barriers prohibiting you to access to.
Most people insert a Bach CD and will listen for 10 minutes, a work which lasts 2 hours, then they say they have an idea what's about. When you will be able to sit down, listen it until the end without moving away once and feel its natural flowing similar to a 2 hours captivating movie, then your concentration and art comprehension reached a new level.
When you say "art is accessible to everyone", there is nothing more wrong. There are levels of art, as there are levels in every science, and every art is, before everything, a science which requires long years of practice and reflection.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 07:48 PM |
|
|
Nothing could be more wrong than that.
Art is as old as humans are. It's something completely different from science (that you have to study to understand).
As opposed to that acience is quite young.
As I said, the only time when science comes into play is when it somes to understand the art of an alien culture - and even then it's not because it wouldn't be understandable, but because it's too strange. If paintings or pictures are too strange ot morally questionable, if music is too loud, arrhythmic and so on, when words are too direct or too hurtful.
That's normal. A CULTURE that is alien, also has alien art, that is difficult to understand or appreciate for everyone not part of that culture.
Elitism in art is basically a form of racism: it sorts people into two classes: those who study and understand art - and the silly, uneducated masses who are uncultivated, unrefined and primtive. And it sorts ARTISTS into classes.
I don't like racism.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 07:59 PM |
|
|
Nowadays whenever a discussion about any Art, I always find myself looking deep inside the notion of Art
I think our inner-nature (or Spirit) needs a close look and on two-levels; one is our "shared-spark" and I believe we all have this, and the other is the "unique", our own image/drive of personal creativity & imagination that we derive/glean from the "whole of "known-human-expression" (known to us) and that each soul collects and models to craft their own spirit, life or being. (a sort of Wogification) <L> So, our life is always a collection.
<imo> During our lifetime we collect images and expressions that we value; if we're fortunate, sometimes some are kept that came from main sources that we do not value or are likely told not to value but most ideas and creativity that we embrace we discover on our own. Just like we would do with a personal collection of music, movies or Game-Maps, we collect what we choose from the collective because each choice has something akin to our unique spirit. I don't mean to say we are seeking flattery, maybe here and there, that's true but usually the something we absorb can just feel-right or we decide IS right.
i.e. I read a book by a famous man and it was proclaimed a treasure trove of deep knowledge but for me, it was a serious drag to read. I could not finish his book, my youth & current-me said then...no way. Our age and experience always impact our perceptions of what we encounter on our Trip; I know this because I've shelved other books when I was not impressed but after many years had passed, I gave some another go and at that later date they became different treasure troves for me.
If we keep in mind that we are truly hunter-gatherers when it comes to our own unique Spirit-quest, then it makes sense I discarded that "old-treasure" since I was a very young man at the time. (not an absolute) However, I should add; I did pick-up one "Gem" from that 1st visit, so my reading time was not wasted. In fact, the Idea I grabbed was a vital one and it shaped my entire being for the next 30 years and on to this moment.
Another example; Once upon a time I blindly hated "Dickens" and anything old and valued by older adults. Decades passed and a couple of years back I bought a collection of plays created from his best-known works. I liked what I then saw and thought it good. However a couple years later, for the first time in my life, I was/am fascinated by the art of character depictions and only now understand why Dickens is still famous; he was an absolute genius when inventing people inside his stories.
For me, Art is all about vast forms & expressions. To my mind, anything created is Art. In an age where the" idea of a craftsman" has been almost obiterated; the glimpse of that passion & need has not; it still is found deep inside our individuality because our imaginations are important and play a vital role in Life. Whenever discussions arise and the debate begins about Art, it's always like arguing with family, because in a way...we are. <L>
PS I've not posted any of this for the current posters, I just thought I'd share an old-man's opinion for the ones that still have a long journey ahead.
Cheers
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 08:08 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:09, 01 Sep 2013.
|
JollyJoker said:
Elitism in art is basically a form of racism: it sorts people into two classes: those who study and understand art - and the silly, uneducated masses who are uncultivated, unrefined and primtive. And it sorts ARTISTS into classes.
I don't like racism.
First of all, there is a significant difference between elitism and racism, your race is something you cant change while, especially in today's conditions, anybody can train themselves to understand art better. I am not an elitist, I like both simple stuff and high art. But I know there is a difference between Mozart and Be- Bop-A-Lula just like there is a difference between Tolstoy and Spider-Man. This post-modern notion of everything being TOTALLY relative is very wrong.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 08:15 PM |
|
|
Listening to Beatles does not require learning anything, as their technical level of creating art is close to people listening. Understanding paintings of some old grotto does not require any knowledge, reading Harry Potter does not require any high culture neither. Those ARE accessible to everyone which already had some brain basic training, in school or family environment. This is basic art level.
Now, literature is also art, at same level as music, paintings, sculpture. Would you say that reading "Also sprach Zarathustra" is accessible to everyone? Or maybe it does require a lot of reading and training before? Because a book IS art. If you have no idea about painting technicals, how would you argue about Mona Lisa being a more important artwork than let' say Pisano's works? Both look nice and are well done.
If you have no idea about music technicals, how can you argue about what it virtuosity and what's not? Because each instrument has its own technical specificities, and one thing which could require very high virtuosity and ability at piano, is a piece of cake at violin (for example, quick repeating same note). So when you said (in other thread) that x guitar player is a virtuoso because he is improvising glissando's up and down, you are limited by your technical level or understanding. A glissando requires one single brain command then execute the act. Playing all notes within that glissando range means 40+ centralized commands + 40 different actions. This is virtuosity, a glissando everyone can make, playing 40 notes in 1 second not.
About elitism: everything requires elitism if you want to break barriers. Remaining at everyone's comprehension level is promoting the mediocrity. It is up to art spectators to sustain an effort and reach the creator's level, not vice versa.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2013 08:37 PM |
|
|
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
Elitism in art is basically a form of racism: it sorts people into two classes: those who study and understand art - and the silly, uneducated masses who are uncultivated, unrefined and primtive. And it sorts ARTISTS into classes.
I don't like racism.
First of all, there is a significant difference between elitism and racism, your race is something you cant change while, especially in today's conditions, anybody can train themselves to understand art better. I am not an elitist, I like both simple stuff and high art. But I know there is a difference between Mozart and Be- Bop-A-Lula just like there is a difference between Tolstoy and Spider-Man. This post-modern notion of everything being TOTALLY relative is very wrong.
As long as zou caannot scientifically define that "difference" you have no point.
|
| |
|
|
