|
Post by Reefs on Sept 4, 2013 10:52:05 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 11:09:16 GMT -5
Yes, and the attention of 7 billion peeps is firmly fixed on the 'not looking at anything' but on the conceiving of everything... It's fixed on not 'seeing', and not perceiving what is directly happening in each moment... Smart guy that U.G.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2013 11:31:17 GMT -5
I'm not crazy about UG, but in this quote he is spot on. Looking at the world like the lens of a camera is quite different than the kind of looking most people engage in. I often tell peeps that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a photograph of a chair because the camera only sees "what is." The intellect, however, functions like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and distinguishes "objects" only by imagining sets of abstract boundaries. We do not see a chair; we imagine a chair.
|
|
|
Post by freejoy on Sept 4, 2013 12:18:51 GMT -5
The camera is a camera.
Don't think about it being a camera and it's still a camera. You can call it anything but it's still a camera with a different name. Don't give it a name and it's still a camera.
Ask any enlightened person is a dallor bill a dallor bill, they still see dallor bills. It's okay as they are not attached to them and they can't help themselves.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 12:36:30 GMT -5
I'm not crazy about UG, but in this quote he is spot on. Looking at the world like the lens of a camera is quite different than the kind of looking most people engage in. I often tell peeps that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a photograph of a chair because the camera only sees "what is." The intellect, however, functions like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and distinguishes "objects" only by imagining sets of abstract boundaries. We do not see a chair; we imagine a chair. Objectification is so ingrained, and the arising of it so subtle ... I'm reminded of this. On the other hand, people are like this: One hint of the truth and they'll keep turning back toward it, even if just to hiss!
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Sept 4, 2013 12:51:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2013 15:37:54 GMT -5
Oh, that's one of my favorite works of dadaism! I took a print of that photograph, bought a real pipe that looks exactly like it, and had it framed under glass. Beneath the pipe I had these words inscribed, "This is ALSO not a pipe." Ha ha! I used to take both the print and the framed pipe with me to presentations I gave at a local university. It was easy to get students to see that the painting of a pipe is not a pipe (by asking them to smoke it), but it was not so easy to get them to see that the pipe was also not a pipe. The surrealist artists must have had a lot of fun! More than twenty years ago the Art Institute in Chicago held a surrealism retrospective that I visited. They brought in lots of the classic pieces of art from that movement including "Rainy Taxi" by Salvadore Dali (a model A Ford with two mannequins in the backseat making out with water pouring onto them through a gap in the roof of the car), the "melting clocks," the fur-covered bowl and spoon, the locomotive coming out of a fireplace by Duchamp, sculptures by Arp, and dozens of other similar well-known works. A buddy and I were standing in line to get into the exhibit and behind us were two extremely well-dressed and sophisticated-looking ladies. One woman said to the other, "Now, who was this dada fellow and is any of his work in the exhibit?" My buddy and I looked at each other, grinned, and then had to look away to keep ourselves under control.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 4, 2013 15:57:46 GMT -5
Oh, that's one of my favorite works of dadaism! I took a print of that photograph, bought a real pipe that looks exactly like it, and had it framed under glass. Beneath the pipe I had these words inscribed, "This is ALSO not a pipe." Ha ha! I used to take both the print and the framed pipe with me to presentations I gave at a local university. It was easy to get students to see that the painting of a pipe is not a pipe (by asking them to smoke it), but it was not so easy to get them to see that the pipe was also not a pipe. The surrealist artists must have had a lot of fun! More than twenty years ago the Art Institute in Chicago held a surrealism retrospective that I visited. They brought in lots of the classic pieces of art from that movement including "Rainy Taxi" by Salvadore Dali (a model A Ford with two mannequins in the backseat making out with water pouring onto them through a gap in the roof of the car), the "melting clocks," the fur-covered bowl and spoon, the locomotive coming out of a fireplace by Duchamp, sculptures by Arp, and dozens of other similar well-known works. A buddy and I were standing in line to get into the exhibit and behind us were two extremely well-dressed and sophisticated-looking ladies. One woman said to the other, "Now, who was this dada fellow and is any of his work in the exhibit?" My buddy and I looked at each other, grinned, and then had to look away to keep ourselves under control. Surrealism/dadaism is like minding on crack. I'm surprised that you like it. You're wrong about the pipe btw. Both yours and Magritte's. The painting is titled "La trahison des images". The point is not that the image is deceiving, instead the point is that you're deceived when you think that the image is deceiving you, you are the one betraying the image. Do you really think that a guy like Magritte would have considered it worthy of an artwork to proclaim that images are not the thing they depict? You have to give him a bit more credit than that.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Sept 4, 2013 16:43:20 GMT -5
Oh, that's one of my favorite works of dadaism! I took a print of that photograph, bought a real pipe that looks exactly like it, and had it framed under glass. Beneath the pipe I had these words inscribed, "This is ALSO not a pipe." Ha ha! I used to take both the print and the framed pipe with me to presentations I gave at a local university. It was easy to get students to see that the painting of a pipe is not a pipe (by asking them to smoke it), but it was not so easy to get them to see that the pipe was also not a pipe. The surrealist artists must have had a lot of fun! More than twenty years ago the Art Institute in Chicago held a surrealism retrospective that I visited. They brought in lots of the classic pieces of art from that movement including "Rainy Taxi" by Salvadore Dali (a model A Ford with two mannequins in the backseat making out with water pouring onto them through a gap in the roof of the car), the "melting clocks," the fur-covered bowl and spoon, the locomotive coming out of a fireplace by Duchamp, sculptures by Arp, and dozens of other similar well-known works. A buddy and I were standing in line to get into the exhibit and behind us were two extremely well-dressed and sophisticated-looking ladies. One woman said to the other, "Now, who was this dada fellow and is any of his work in the exhibit?" My buddy and I looked at each other, grinned, and then had to look away to keep ourselves under control. Surrealism/dadaism is like minding on crack. I'm surprised that you like it. You're wrong about the pipe btw. Both yours and Magritte's. The painting is titled "La trahison des images". The point is not that the image is deceiving, instead the point is that you're deceived when you think that the image is deceiving you, you are the one betraying the image. Do you really think that a guy like Magritte would have considered it worthy of an artwork to proclaim that images are not the thing they depict? You have to give him a bit more credit than that. Please explain some more... that sentence read in my head like a twisty pretzel.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2013 9:29:02 GMT -5
Yes, and the attention of 7 billion peeps is firmly fixed on the 'not looking at anything' but on the conceiving of everything... Speculation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2013 9:38:43 GMT -5
I'm not crazy about UG, but in this quote he is spot on. Looking at the world like the lens of a camera is quite different than the kind of looking most people engage in. I often tell peeps that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take a photograph of a chair because the camera only sees "what is." The intellect, however, functions like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and distinguishes "objects" only by imagining sets of abstract boundaries. We do not see a chair; we imagine a chair. Yes, U.G. describes it well. The seeing stays 'untouched'.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 5, 2013 9:45:32 GMT -5
The camera is a camera. Don't think about it being a camera and it's still a camera. You can call it anything but it's still a camera with a different name. Don't give it a name and it's still a camera. Ask any enlightened person is a dallor bill a dallor bill, they still see dallor bills. It's okay as they are not attached to them and they can't help themselves. No, Steve. If you see a camera then the seen is not 'untouched' anymore. There are mental finger prints on it, it has already lost it's magic and has become something profane.
|
|
|
Post by freejoy on Sept 5, 2013 13:07:38 GMT -5
The camera is a camera. Don't think about it being a camera and it's still a camera. You can call it anything but it's still a camera with a different name. Don't give it a name and it's still a camera. Ask any enlightened person is a dallor bill a dallor bill, they still see dallor bills. It's okay as they are not attached to them and they can't help themselves. No, Steve. If you see a camera then the seen is not 'untouched' anymore. There are mental finger prints on it, it has already lost it's magic and has become something profane. Maybe so but I don't experince it that way. I see a picture of a pipe. I know or believe we are all connected.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 6, 2013 2:09:25 GMT -5
No, Steve. If you see a camera then the seen is not 'untouched' anymore. There are mental finger prints on it, it has already lost it's magic and has become something profane. Maybe so but I don't experince it that way. I see a picture of a pipe. I know or believe we are all connected. Seeing a picture of a pipe happens in the world of the known and leaves no room for awe and real beauty. What U.G. was describing there is more some kind of realm of the unknown. Unknown, however, doesn't mean not having it seen before like something new or something you haven't been able to categorize before and can't find words for it. It's entirely possible to look at a dirty worn out shoe you've been wearing for years and be struck with awe by the indescribable beauty of it. Now, this sense of awe and real beauty isn't really happening in the unknown either since the awe and beauty are pointing to something familiar, something shared, something universal, something that makes it self-evident that what is seen there is the real deal. 'We are all connected' or 'oneness' are terms and phrases that try to capture exactly that, although very misleading if analyzed intellectually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2013 3:04:33 GMT -5
|
|