Didn't read the James Elkins book, sounds like you are going to quote it in your thesis, so know it well. Cully tried to skin me for quoting from Return of the Real....the gray book with the little fly in the corner. Oh, well.
it's like this. Elkins posits some line like, "...in sense the object has eyes, and when your eyes are on it, its gaze is coming at you." ( a bit more than that but..) and since your eyes "really" can't see since they are just liquid filled pouches with nerves connected to the brain, so it's really the "minds eye" that sees, postulates further that seeing is really thinking. By Asking what is "seeing" (a thing/word/action) that is an enigma and can be explained in many ways. Not the literal science of it, but the philosophical take. AND since the real reason I like to draw the way I do and the subjects I do is it's mindless, yet still is controlled. I don't have to think (it feels as if), yet I make decisions all throughout. I seem to be un-attracted to abstract art but the drawings I make hover towards that. I use simple marks, yet in the end it becomes a complex structure when layered PAINSTAKINGLY! It just seems easy, yet it isn't. That to me is a sign I am on to something. Where it is a struggle but never seems like work. it hard but it's so easy. I scribble or make dots, and if one out of 10 viewers says "wow" or double takes or gets their nose up to it, I have succeeded. SOoooo to attempt to add legitimacy to "my take" on my work- I wondered why I can stare at a bunch or tree tops or sand and start to draw it in a very tedious manner and always be behind, and always be on the verge of not getting it done, and yet still, when I finally get to sit down and draw, it's mindless, I get lost in the work- changing pens, stepping back adding more, spinning drawing around, changing pens, tightening marks, loosening marks, move from place to place, adding marks, beginning to imagine the composition, I can't even imagine the composition on the other big one because I tossed the photo and just decided to do something else. I am thinking of something (a view of a forest from above- the canopy) but with no reference I am just riding the mindless walk, taking breaks to change pens, and look for a hint of the composition as values start to emerge. Then the pen selection becomes more critical-
The explanation I have found is Kant's one particular take on the sublime (he had a few for different circumstances) That describes my drawings (the patterns, layers, duality, process) on many levels, describes the chaos of thought (the distracted mind that rolls through tangent thoughts like a rolodex-which get you in trouble everywhere but at the drawing table in my case) some theoretical theorizing from James Elkins on "seeing" that I use to pinpoint the moment that the sublime happens for me. In the viewing and thus contemplating (can't be helped because the mind is really what sees, remember?) the object-object inspires conversation like, "how do I draw sand? Really just the daydream that happens, when I seriously ponder things, if it's a great "ponder" then no matter how off course I go in pondering something it always fills my attention, and gets my attention. When somehing can do that, there is a possibility the sublime could be found. That same "daydream quality I get in the process of drawing I do, so in a sense I am overcome by the sublime, get a sublime feeling from the process, and ultimately create a drawing that falls short of the sublime for me visually. That is explained by the uniqueness of the sublime experience. (thats my take) Like fingerprints or DNA the individual sublime experience is unique and one-off. We could both be looking at the same thing, both experiencing the sublime, and both agreeing on 100 reasons why it was sublime. but there will always be a 101st reason they differ. not negating the sublimity, as the differing reasons are both valid yet unique experiences of the individual, making them unique. And Kant's sublime was ultimately based on judgement, which is the mind, which is relative to the owner of said mind. So While the sublime nature of something can be agreed upon, exactly what makes that up cannot ever fully be, in my opinion. Duality. The same but different.... See it's a very confusing thing, kind of coming full circle, by taking a few ideas from these two guys, I am slowly figuring a way to explain what it is I am doing. I still believe in what I said when you were here. It is just those things are getting distilled and reduced. Just because their isn't as much water in the pan, doesn't mean there wasn't water! And by this long rambling tome you see why I was seeking an ear to say this stuff and actually hear what it is I am saying.
.... and to add: that possibly I could, I suppose, find the sublime in my finished drawing, but I imagine for that particular event (seeing, imagining, recreating), any sublimity would be merely an echo of the true sublime that inspired it. For the viewer though, having a unique first time experience, the chances (I hope) increase exponentially.
We had Josh in for a "visiting artist" critique. It was a nice twist. He gives ou his views on your work based on taste, then gives a formal look, tells you what is working for him and why, and conversely what is not working for him and why. Simple, too the point, and very helpful. I do believe the more grueling crit is as needed, but its like a drink of cold water after the first stage of a marathon. refreshing, much needed, re-energizing.
well I finally am able to post. What I wanted to say is that there is always a struggle between pain and pleasure making these the pillars to life and our decisions. Since pain and pleasure is the gap you are trying to work between I found this interesting
I also wonder about memory and its role in the sublime. I remember things in a much grander state than what they really ever were which adds to my feelings of the sublime when recalling that action, event or whatever. So how does memory play into or with our notions of the sublime? is the sublime really only in our heads? or is it a real experience? just a thought
also i recently listened to an audio book called the creative fire, kind of a self help for artists, but really it is about the science behind the creative process. it was actually pretty good at times, and she(the author) made a great point to say that sometimes as an artist you have bad teachers who stifle creativity and choke the fun and discovery out of you. she went on to say that all creative beings are driven by s sublime notion when creating and that is why they do it.
"So how does memory play into or with our notions of the sublime? is the sublime really only in our heads? or is it a real experience?".... Hmmmm.... Nice thought. I imagine both. But in the end it's all in the mind, therefore subjective. Which seems to make it a leap of faith. If you understand on some level sublimity, then who can absolutely refute any claims of it? I mean, someone could try and knock you off your belief you had a sublime experience, but actually to refute it seems sketchy at best. Maybe they could rock your faith or belief and have you second guess what you saw, felt or thought, but in the end.... if it was a sublime experience to you: It was a sublime experience to you. That simple-yet not....
...and isn;t a "real" experience all in our heads? Since two folks could have the same "real" experience and ultimately experience it completely different... one having a purely sublime experience while the other is bored and indifferent. So maybe it all is in our heads, at least any value we place on the "experience". Otherwise it's just simple actions with no real bearing. That is until we each uniquely process it and regurgitate it uniquely. Each experience unique... each take unique.... from the indifferent to the supreme they are all unique and ultimately special (pronounce 'spacial' in hillbilly)
Skrimp..... What is the experience that triggers us to create or do what we do. I've been trying to dig deep in my mind/memories and recall the influence that has led me to want to work with "pieces" of materials and to consistently work with conglomerates and groupings. In your thesis will you talk about yourself and a bit about the obsessive nature your drawing take, or will it be a dissertation on the sublime? You reference your childhood alot in crits, and I feel it is important to expose your self and inner mental workings oin the thesis, when you do that no one can call you out and say your wrong. Skrimp.. ihts wiut fur dhunner
Didn't read the James Elkins book, sounds like you are going to quote it in your thesis, so know it well. Cully tried to skin me for quoting from Return of the Real....the gray book with the little fly in the corner. Oh, well.
ReplyDeleteit's like this. Elkins posits some line like, "...in sense the object has eyes, and when your eyes are on it, its gaze is coming at you." ( a bit more than that but..) and since your eyes "really" can't see since they are just liquid filled pouches with nerves connected to the brain, so it's really the "minds eye" that sees, postulates further that seeing is really thinking. By Asking what is "seeing" (a thing/word/action) that is an enigma and can be explained in many ways. Not the literal science of it, but the philosophical take. AND since the real reason I like to draw the way I do and the subjects I do is it's mindless, yet still is controlled. I don't have to think (it feels as if), yet I make decisions all throughout. I seem to be un-attracted to abstract art but the drawings I make hover towards that. I use simple marks, yet in the end it becomes a complex structure when layered PAINSTAKINGLY! It just seems easy, yet it isn't. That to me is a sign I am on to something. Where it is a struggle but never seems like work. it hard but it's so easy. I scribble or make dots, and if one out of 10 viewers says "wow" or double takes or gets their nose up to it, I have succeeded. SOoooo to attempt to add legitimacy to "my take" on my work- I wondered why I can stare at a bunch or tree tops or sand and start to draw it in a very tedious manner and always be behind, and always be on the verge of not getting it done, and yet still, when I finally get to sit down and draw, it's mindless, I get lost in the work- changing pens, stepping back adding more, spinning drawing around, changing pens, tightening marks, loosening marks, move from place to place, adding marks, beginning to imagine the composition, I can't even imagine the composition on the other big one because I tossed the photo and just decided to do something else. I am thinking of something (a view of a forest from above- the canopy) but with no reference I am just riding the mindless walk, taking breaks to change pens, and look for a hint of the composition as values start to emerge. Then the pen selection becomes more critical-
ReplyDeleteThe explanation I have found is Kant's one particular take on the sublime (he had a few for different circumstances) That describes my drawings (the patterns, layers, duality, process) on many levels, describes the chaos of thought (the distracted mind that rolls through tangent thoughts like a rolodex-which get you in trouble everywhere but at the drawing table in my case) some theoretical theorizing from James Elkins on "seeing" that I use to pinpoint the moment that the sublime happens for me. In the viewing and thus contemplating (can't be helped because the mind is really what sees, remember?) the object-object inspires conversation like, "how do I draw sand? Really just the daydream that happens, when I seriously ponder things, if it's a great "ponder" then no matter how off course I go in pondering something it always fills my attention, and gets my attention. When somehing can do that, there is a possibility the sublime could be found. That same "daydream quality I get in the process of drawing I do, so in a sense I am overcome by the sublime, get a sublime feeling from the process, and ultimately create a drawing that falls short of the sublime for me visually. That is explained by the uniqueness of the sublime experience. (thats my take) Like fingerprints or DNA the individual sublime experience is unique and one-off. We could both be looking at the same thing, both experiencing the sublime, and both agreeing on 100 reasons why it was sublime. but there will always be a 101st reason they differ. not negating the sublimity, as the differing reasons are both valid yet unique experiences of the individual, making them unique. And Kant's sublime was ultimately based on judgement, which is the mind, which is relative to the owner of said mind. So While the sublime nature of something can be agreed upon, exactly what makes that up cannot ever fully be, in my opinion. Duality. The same but different.... See it's a very confusing thing, kind of coming full circle, by taking a few ideas from these two guys, I am slowly figuring a way to explain what it is I am doing. I still believe in what I said when you were here. It is just those things are getting distilled and reduced. Just because their isn't as much water in the pan, doesn't mean there wasn't water! And by this long rambling tome you see why I was seeking an ear to say this stuff and actually hear what it is I am saying.
ReplyDelete.... and to add: that possibly I could, I suppose, find the sublime in my finished drawing, but I imagine for that particular event (seeing, imagining, recreating), any sublimity would be merely an echo of the true sublime that inspired it. For the viewer though, having a unique first time experience, the chances (I hope) increase exponentially.
ReplyDeleteWe had Josh in for a "visiting artist" critique. It was a nice twist. He gives ou his views on your work based on taste, then gives a formal look, tells you what is working for him and why, and conversely what is not working for him and why. Simple, too the point, and very helpful. I do believe the more grueling crit is as needed, but its like a drink of cold water after the first stage of a marathon. refreshing, much needed, re-energizing.
ReplyDeleteSeth Roby? Art Commentary? Life commentary? Commentary?
ReplyDeletehmmmm?
ReplyDeletewell I finally am able to post. What I wanted to say is that there is always a struggle between pain and pleasure making these the pillars to life and our decisions. Since pain and pleasure is the gap you are trying to work between I found this interesting
ReplyDeleteI also wonder about memory and its role in the sublime. I remember things in a much grander state than what they really ever were which adds to my feelings of the sublime when recalling that action, event or whatever. So how does memory play into or with our notions of the sublime? is the sublime really only in our heads? or is it a real experience? just a thought
ReplyDeletealso i recently listened to an audio book called the creative fire, kind of a self help for artists, but really it is about the science behind the creative process. it was actually pretty good at times, and she(the author) made a great point to say that sometimes as an artist you have bad teachers who stifle creativity and choke the fun and discovery out of you. she went on to say that all creative beings are driven by s sublime notion when creating and that is why they do it.
ReplyDelete"So how does memory play into or with our notions of the sublime? is the sublime really only in our heads? or is it a real experience?".... Hmmmm.... Nice thought. I imagine both. But in the end it's all in the mind, therefore subjective. Which seems to make it a leap of faith. If you understand on some level sublimity, then who can absolutely refute any claims of it? I mean, someone could try and knock you off your belief you had a sublime experience, but actually to refute it seems sketchy at best. Maybe they could rock your faith or belief and have you second guess what you saw, felt or thought, but in the end.... if it was a sublime experience to you: It was a sublime experience to you. That simple-yet not....
ReplyDelete...and isn;t a "real" experience all in our heads? Since two folks could have the same "real" experience and ultimately experience it completely different... one having a purely sublime experience while the other is bored and indifferent. So maybe it all is in our heads, at least any value we place on the "experience". Otherwise it's just simple actions with no real bearing. That is until we each uniquely process it and regurgitate it uniquely. Each experience unique... each take unique.... from the indifferent to the supreme they are all unique and ultimately special (pronounce 'spacial' in hillbilly)
ReplyDeleteSkrimp..... What is the experience that triggers us to create or do what we do. I've been trying to dig deep in my mind/memories and recall the influence that has led me to want to work with "pieces" of materials and to consistently work with conglomerates and groupings. In your thesis will you talk about yourself and a bit about the obsessive nature your drawing take, or will it be a dissertation on the sublime? You reference your childhood alot in crits, and I feel it is important to expose your self and inner mental workings oin the thesis, when you do that no one can call you out and say your wrong. Skrimp.. ihts wiut fur dhunner
ReplyDelete