Akiane, Child Prodigy

Post questions or suggestions here.
Foresta Gump

I always wanted the title Dr.

Post by Foresta Gump » Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:01 am

I had no right to use the Dr. title, three posts above, when signing out, please accept my apologies.

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory » Thu Oct 20, 2005 10:55 pm

MKFaizi wrote:Thanks for the Mark Arden site. Definitely, you can get a lot from that site.
You're the one that gave it to me. Don't you remember when you posted it to the list?
Yes, you are impressed by technical ability. I am, too. When I was in art school, I was amazed by the technical ability of some people to render a person's face or other things in perfect replication. I am certainly not saying such ability is a bad thing.
Yeah, I think technical ability is a fine thing, especially for a child to develop. When a person is pushing their abilities then at least it gives them a sense of finitude and a chance to become dissatisfied with themselves. I don't know if Akaine will get to that point, since she's already at the top for artists her age, but I figure there's a chance she could. But maybe being a child prodigy makes it all the more difficult since a prodigy has no one to compete with, so they just stagnate in smugness.

But, on the whole, it is a given that an artist will have talent. Just like it is given that a guitarist will have talent.
I guess it depends on where you draw the line. I've known very few guitarists that I would consider "talented". Just knowing how to play guitar doesn't make someone talented. Many people think Jerry Garcia is such a great guitarist, but when I listen to him I just hear a hack.

There are thousands of talented people who can paint an exact two dimensional replica of an apple or a person. I lived next door for many years with a woman who possessed that sort of talent. But she did not have an a thought in her head. Pretty well brainless. All she cared about was men -- women to you.
You betray your womanishness with this comment. It's easy to write everybody off with no regard for them as individuals. I could go around assuming that everyone is a hopelessly unenlightened fool and I would be right over 99.99% of the time just going by the odds. It's a lot harder when you start considering their individual qualities and try to take any potential they may have into account. I would think Akaine has the potential within herself to be a sage or at least a demisage, but taking her sheltered environment into account and the feminist agenda she pushes with her art I admit the odds are heavily against that possibility.

But, damn, she could paint. According to you, you would be impressed by her ability, even though she was brainless and would have loved to get in your pants. Are you so easily seduced?
Are you? You said you were impressed with technical ability....so did she get in your pants???

Anyway, I may enjoy seeing extreme talent and make rash judgements because of it, but what can I say? I'm not a perfect person. I did notice the flowiness of her work, but I figured she's only ten and she could outgrow it. I wasn't thinking of sheer pervasiveness of feminism, and if that wasn't a factor then I think the odds would be very good of her outgrowing it. I think a spiritual sense for such a young child is very unusual, which makes me think that she's had some experience with altered states, but maybe that's not as developmentally significant as I think it is.

What is talent without a brain?
I don't think it's been demonstrated that she doesn't have a brain. I mean she's only ten! You can't expect someone to have too much of a brain at ten. For a ten year old, she has a very good control of the English language and seems to have some capacity for higher abstraction, which leads me to think she has a brain. But I admit if she gets her moral standards from Oprah then there's not much chance of her developing any brain that she might have.

I do not think that anyone mentioned on the Artchive was brainless.
Okay, we're talking about the most popular artists ever. It's like the Billboard Top 1000 of artists. I don't know much about art, but do you really think that every single one of those artists was intelligent? The chances are about zip, I'd say. I was looking at a list of the top selling albums of all time and of course, Thriller is up near the top. You mean to tell me that Michael Jackson has a brain?

Ok, comparing high art to popular music isn't quite the same but the one thing they do have in common is that a lot of people have to accept a work for it to become popular. Are high art fans as a whole really that much more intelligent than popular music fans, because you're not only asserting that the artists are intelligent but that the whole community surrounding it is intelligent enough to decide which artists are the best. And what are the most common types of paintings in that archive? It looks to me like portraits and Christian paintings. It doesn't seem to me like it would take much intelligence to come up with those types of subjects.

I do not think that art can ever approach philosophy but the premise is similar. The idea of art is one of mental evolution; investigation; interest in the mind. Technical ability is beside the point.
You're clearly enunciating your own philosophy of art here, but it would be completely fanciful to say that all artists have the same artistic goals as you and megalomaniac to say that they should.

I admire Andrew Wyeth's depicition of a depraved woman. A photograph could not have done that. Amazing. Part technical skill and part intense desire to portray human depravity -- which is quite common.

I cannot say that this little girl's paintings compare with these small genius painters.
Well, what's the difference between Wyeth's depraved woman and Akaine's depraved black woman? I mean, I don't see what makes painting a feeling particularly intelligent. It looks more like a matter of luck to me. I would think the most intelligent painter would be able to nail a different emotion in one shot every single time, but looking at what little of Wyeth's works are on that site, it looks like he tried to paint the same sense of depravity in every painting, he just happened to get it just right in that one. I would think intelligence would be able to overcome the process of trial and error.

I am impressed by abilility. I think this little girl has ability. I think my son's thirteen year old guitarist friend has ability.

I know that many a thirteen year old kid could dazzle you with a painterly rendition of a Snickers wrapper. According to you, you would be impressed.
No, according to you! Read these last two paragraphs again!

I think that is kind of an insult to Vermeer or Michaelangelo or Van Dyke or Eakins or Manet or Courbet or Bacon or Bosch.
Heh, I'm sure. If these artists are insulted by the opinion of someone who knows nothing about art, then that's not a very good testament to the quality of their intelligence. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

I do not believe that an artist is a pet. This girl is a pet. Her rendition of her blow dried Prince of Piece impresses you. I cannot imagine how you can compare her poster art to Rembrandt, et.al.
Why not? Am I encroaching on your religious sensibilities towards art or something?

My guess is that she will end up being a housewife or teacher. Because her youthful efforts are being exploited by adults, her mental development is bound to be stunted.
It will be interesting to see where she ends up.
So, how can people on Genius even begin to praise this girl as genius?
Well, she might not come to embody genius but I think it's obvious that she has come in contact with genius at some point. Call me romantic but I think the fact that it still happens once in awhile is a good thing. I actually don't even see the point of denying that it happened and saying that she has nothing of value whatsoever inside her. I would think it would be more illuminating to contrast the fact that she had it and threw it away if she were to make a career out of art. To just go "bah!" turns you into little more than an art critic.

I think her case perfectly illustrates idiocy. Kind of pathetic that "Genius" can be so easily impressed.
Not as pathetic as someone who puts down everything indiscriminately without even considering it! I mean, how hard is that? I was well aware of the risk of looking like an ass on the Genius Forum, but you know, sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet for the sake of higher knowledge.

Causes me to wonder, considering the shallowness, whether any discussion is worthwhile here.
Well if your idea of depth is art criticism, then I obviously couldn't help you even if I wanted to. Which I don't.

I mean, I could just post some painting of a candy bar or Jesus and you all would be impressed.

Amazing it could be that easy.

Suckers.
Yeah, bend over, I'll show you sucker with a Snickers bar and a jar of Dippity-Do.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:08 am

Matt,

I am extremely tired and I doubt that I can muster whatever stuff to argue with you. You are plainly in a very argumentive mood -- must be hormonal.

Hope that you will get your period soon.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:51 am

Not as pathetic as someone who puts down everything indiscriminately without even considering it! I mean, how hard is that? I was well aware of the risk of looking like an ass on the Genius Forum, but you know, sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet for the sake of higher knowledge.
Obviously, I did consider the little girl's efforts and I looked at the web site closely -- even looking at the close up pictures of her paintings. I took the time to discriminate thoughtfully.

I do not consider her work to be on a par with any sort of genius -- not even painterly genius. She has ability and I acknowledged that. I wrote that, if she was my child, I would allow her to develop in private -- not on the Oprah show and not along with selling her paintings in a very cheap way on the internet. I think that is exploitation on the JonBenet Ramsey level. Stupid me, I would be encouraging her to think -- to be an individual -- in the way that I encourage my own kids and other kids. I would encourage her painting habits but, believe me, I would also tell her that her Jesus looks like a shampoo ad. Not in a mean way. Not even in a critical way. Just as a matter of fact. I think it is normal for a ten year old girl to romanticize men. I would encourage her to look closer.

So far, she has been encouraged to paint starry-eyed portraits. She is being told that she is a genius. She doesn't know any better. She believes her mother and father. She believes that she is special. She believes that she is something great.

I think that is delusional. I would not place a child intentionally in a delusional state.

I still think that she will end up as a doctor's wife or something. She has not hit the twelve year old puberty stage yet.

Kids often do everything a parent expects until they hit puberty.

I have been fortunate that my kids never did anything that I ever wanted them to do. Therefore, it was not a total shock when they hit puberty and started acting like the individuals I have always known them to be.

Other parents I know have a great deal of difficulty when their kids hit fourteen or fifteen or sixteen. I have been fortunate that way because my daughter began stealing my car when she was twelve. Broke me in to reality early on. I feel that I have been blessed because I gave birth to such strong individuals. Wild stallions.

Matt, you must know that I have not put this girl down indiscriminately. I have not put her down at all. I think she has great ability. Kind of like many girls have great pitching ability at ten or eleven years old but drop out of the game once puberty hits. Not my daughter. I am talking about other girls I have known since they were very young. Excellent athletes. But none of them continued in their sport past the age of twelve. The ones that end up playing in high school are somewhat retarded in their development. Robotic.

Boys, too.

I think you are offended that I have expressed an opinion that does not align with your opinion. I have no desire to lash out in anger at you or anyone else. I think it is swell that you think this girl will end up getting close to genius. I cannot predict the future. You may be riight.

I would love to agree with you but I can't.

She is one step above Star Magazine. That is not an indiscriminate put down. Her parents are selling prints on canvas at a minimum of one thousand five hundred dollars. I think that is shameless and I think that the girl will likely rebel against their "dreams" and get pregnant at an early age or get married and have kids when she is twenty.

I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:24 pm

Well, what's the difference between Wyeth's depraved woman and Akaine's depraved black woman? I mean, I don't see what makes painting a feeling particularly intelligent. It looks more like a matter of luck to me. I would think the most intelligent painter would be able to nail a different emotion in one shot every single time, but looking at what little of Wyeth's works are on that site, it looks like he tried to paint the same sense of depravity in every painting, he just happened to get it just right in that one. I would think intelligence would be able to overcome the process of trial and error.
I did not think that Arkiane's portrait of the black woman was a painting of a depraved woman. To me, it look like her usual starry-eyed portraiture. Romantic.

Depravity or the recognition of it is not an emotion. It is an observation. Wyeth's observation was impeccable.

As for nailing something every time -- as I mentioned before, the purpose of fine art is mental development. Even Jesus did not nail it every time. David Quinn and Kevin Solway have undergone development and maturing -- philosophically. Kevin did not write "Poison for the Heart" when he was ten. Weininger was beyond puberty. Nietzsche went through development of his thought as did Kierkegaard and all philosophers.

I don't think that Wyeth necessarily nailed that particular woman's depravity. In that particular portrait, he nailed depravity in general. His one acute observation.

I don't think Arkiane comes close to this. Her work is very pretty. No observation. She is painting Barbie dolls. She is deluded.

The touting of her genius is hype. I think that she could be a fine illustrator in the line of Maxfield Parrish or Norman Rockwell.

There is nothing wrong with that. But it is not genius -- not even artistic genius.

Faizi

User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Post by Blair » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:28 pm

I would say she is several steps above Star Magazine. Her painting is exceptional in visual technique (but obviously lacking in insight), whether for a 10 year old or an adult.

There is no doubt she is being exploited for financial purposes by her parents though, and that is a horrifying reflection of how convoluted and soulless capitalistic society is.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:48 pm

You accuse me of having religious principles in art.

I have a fair knowledge of art and artists. I have lived that life.

Have you no taste or principles in philosophy? Do you consider Norman Vincent Peale to have been a great philosopher?

I doubt it.

Since that is doubtful, why should I -- by the same token -- consider fluff to be art?

Fine art -- not commercial art or illustration -- is the study of life. At its best, it is a move toward greater genius or enlightenment. It is not about painting a pretty picture. Though it is my opinion that it cannot do it, it is at least a stab toward the heart of truth.

You can lash out at me emotionally all that you want -- while accusing me of being womanish -- but I know the difference between fluff and a vital attempt at some sort of truth -- even if, by comparison, it is a paltry attempt.

Given her web site where her art is for sale in a diminished and commercial fashion, I think this girl is being led toward commercial art or illustration. If she ever made it to a fine art school -- given her ability, she could -- anyone can -- I think she would be so whittled down, that she would get married in a hurry.

Completely understandable.

Faizi

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Fri Oct 21, 2005 2:49 pm

the purpose of fine art is mental development.

Why?

zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Post by zarathustra » Fri Oct 21, 2005 4:00 pm

high art...genius dialogue, ad nauseum, festering ennui, fucking puke. Don't say it, do it, if you can't do it - shut up...let me hear your songs, your music. One thing we ARTISTS know is this: critics are scum, who like to dress their cheaply rented flesh in fine garments ( rhetoric)...but 'monkeys in silk are monkeys no less'...I'll bet most of you wouldn't have a fucking clue about the elements of classical literary art. dahh...test for child prodigy/geniuses:

poetics: in terms of versification explain the difference between the rhythmic elements of a classical sonnet, a french villanelle and a rondeau (type 11), and then write one...

(failing all this, how about a discussion on the latest creative endevours regarding post-quantum physics, and its relationship to contrapunctual music.... Anyone interested in dissecting the divine?)

if you can't, I'll teach you...if you've got the MUSE, you'll learn quick, if you're a genius you probably already know, if you're just another turkey, you'll retreat, head up your own arse, into cynicism, or silence, or seek solace ( i.e. warmth, security, herd confort ) from those as unfortunate as yourself.

by the way, I love this website, I'm having so much fun! I mean, it's not every day you get to meet so many jew-dao-christian-atheist worthys under one roof...talk about a fox in a chicken pen....wow.....dahhhhhhhhhhhh!! This is better than a
cheap flight on lysergic acid diethylamide.....woshhh...

and a big kiss for foresta gumpa......


a poem for sevens and toast: dark spirits in the kingdoms of the dead>


poet to poet:
we live inside
that forever charted
everywhere and nowhere
kingdom of the heart
the abode of beauty truth grace
but outside we also face,
on our journey through
these kingdoms
of the dead,
like ol' diogenes
serching with his light
for someone with whom to break
and share our bread...


something for the ladies....

her moistened body
gently pressed
her heart beating
against mine...

below a splendid night
shimmering with stars
that trembled in our souls
and filled our eyes
their truthful lights
suspended in a graceful
ebony of silence...zinggg!!!





ok, now I wait for your roaring indifference, or deep cuts from your knives......























written by lightening for your edification

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Oct 22, 2005 12:45 pm

Jamesh,

Ultimately, why else would you do it? Why else would you paint?

On another thread, there is discussion of the ennui of playing the same music over and over again. The same is true of painting or sculpture.

Once you reach some sort of consciousness, the only reason to continue doing the same thing would be for the money, for the ego gratification in a very cheap way or because you are stupid. Many visual artists get stuck thinking they are some sorts of gods. Some get past that and manage to make some accurate observations.

Like musicians, however, they are not willing to get past the medium. They cling to brushes or guitars as though they are Jesus.

Faizi

zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

ignorance is bliss

Post by zarathustra » Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:57 pm

'the purpose of fine art is mental development....' ha!ha!ha! hey there mr van gogh, put that fucking ear back on! hey mozart stop fucking your best friend's 14 year old daughter! hey mr t.s. elliot stop bashing your wife and your head against the wall! hey dylan thomas stop drinking yourself to death! the list is endless....do you mean by 'mental development' - moral development? the ability to perhaps grasp rarified concepts and translate them into art? into knowledge? perhaps you mean the artist's ability to take fucking bourgeois etiquette into the realms of genius? god help us all!

MKFaizi - you were born in the wrong century. As a musician, a physicist and a poet, I think I'm qualified enough to make
a few observations here. in physics, music and poetry, you don't "go beyond' but 'into' - i.e. into yourself. the instruments you use are but a means to an end which enables you to illuminate a little aspect of the great 'mystery' we call life, to touch it's essence in yourself and make it audible or visible to others. we do this not to celebrate our knowledge of this wonderful mystery, but our sense of wonder - of not knowing. in other words, my dears, for the true artists of this century ignorance=bliss. this is the meaning of post-post modernism.we have not only dispensed with 'god', 'the devine', 'the ultimate' and whatever else has been 'attached' to the mystery... oh yeah, we've also dispensed with meaning and non-meaning. we simply don't know....as far as aesthetics are concerned, they now 'grow' out of the journey itself, the struggle to ironically, find meaning where there is none. there is something beautiful, something tragic about this process, which epitomizes the human drama itself. as the genius poet rainer maria rilke once wrote: 'Wer wenn ich schriee, horte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen.'..translation: who if I cry would hear me among the angelic orders? Today, art IS the cry...a cry that is pregnant with hope because it is so hopeless. so now we begin to realize, as artists, the futility of condemning others in the past. we enbrace them, we feel compassion for them, we empathise, even if we don't agree...because their universes were different to ours...this is liberating stuff, the stuff bridges are built of...by banishing the fucking devine to the dustbin of history we liberate ourselves - we liberate humanity.


written by lightening for youe edification

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Sat Oct 22, 2005 2:03 pm

Okay, we're talking about the most popular artists ever. It's like the Billboard Top 1000 of artists. I don't know much about art, but do you really think that every single one of those artists was intelligent? The chances are about zip, I'd say. I was looking at a list of the top selling albums of all time and of course, Thriller is up near the top. You mean to
tell me that Michael Jackson has a brain?
Why do you want me to tell you that Michael Jackson has a brain? I don't think Mike is all that bad, really. Just fucked up in a rather miserable way. All that plastic surgery. Tsk. Tsk. I always thought that he was innocent of molesting children. I do think he is a freak.

Mike is moving to Bahrain -- just off Saudi Arabia.
Ok, comparing high art to popular music isn't quite the same but the one thing they do have in common is that a lot of people have to accept a work for it to become popular. Are high art fans as a whole really that much more intelligent than popular music fans, because you're not only asserting that the artists are intelligent but that the whole community surrounding it is intelligent enough to decide which artists are the best. And what are the most common types of paintings in that archive? It looks to me like portraits and Christian paintings. It doesn't seem to me like it would take much intelligence to come up with those types of subjects.


Van Gogh is, according to you, one of these top ten artists. Yet, in his time, he was not popular. In fact, he was abhorred. Average people have never heard of Courbet or Vameer or Manet. There are art snots who have heard of them and pay lip service to them -- like philosophy snoots give lip service to Schopehauer or Spinoza or Kant.

Even if you do not agree with him and even if philosophy in the purest sense has moved well beyond Kant. do you not think that Kant may have made, at least, a negative contribution to thought?

I don't think that arty people are so intelligent. Art -- like music and philosophy -- is apart from its followers. I do think there is some merit in longevity. David, though he had a lasting impact, was close minded and rigid. Yet, he holds his place in history, as a mark toward the evolution of modern art.

Zappa took from Stravinsky. Was Stravinsky a bad composer? Should Zappa have developed in a vacuum?

Nietzsche took from Schopenhauer and Spinoza. Should Nietzsche have developed in a vaccum?

Quinn took from Solway.

I can say with certainty that all of the artists on the Arden site are influential -- not just among the collectors and gallery owners -- but among artists. You cannot have expressionisn without classicism. You cannot have impressionsim without having realism; nor the abstract without the recognizable.

There would not be Solway without Weininger -- or, if there was no Weininger, it would be necessary to create him.

So, then, are those who recognize Weininger from history unintelligent?

History is a tapestry. You pick and choose the separate threads from which you develop. That is discrimination.

As for the little girl, I still say that she will likely become a housewife or something on that level.

I hope not.

I would be glad to be wrong.

Faizi

zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Post by zarathustra » Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:29 pm

intelligence and genius, as history has shown, have often never been ruled by morality, ethics, empathy or compassion and in many cases have manifest through their opposites.... I mean even to the most dogmatic christian, the devil himself is vastly intelligent, and was once described by aquinas as 'evil genius...'

oh yeah, buy the way, I absolutely detest your middleclass holyer-than-thou, snotty-nosed elitism, which does not, as you so smuggly delude yourself, place you on a petestal above the ordinary rungs of humanity, but somewhere under a pile of dog shit. I hope the little girl has children and has a rewarding, happy and fruitful life....she may even decide to keep painting. dahhh!!!


written by lightening for your edification

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:19 pm

Zara wrote:by banishing the fucking devine to the dustbin of history we liberate ourselves - we liberate humanity.
Sounds to me like more nihilist drivel from another of Nietzsche's last henchmen. Have you ever studied Nietzsche, I wonder, or are you just playing it by ear? He was not advocating as such the death of the Christian God, or any still functional god, he was describing the slow century wide murder and burial of a god by the unconscious masses and warned for what had to come in its wake: a humanity which even more outspoken than ever before is constantly 'liberating' itself from life itself, burying itself in its own drivel. The last, postmodern, postmortem human, disconnected, lost, godless as well as powerless.

There might be still too much 'artist' in you left to understand how you're only adding to the pile while dressing it up as philosophy or art.

zarathustra
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:56 pm
Location: Australia

Post by zarathustra » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:40 am

hey dieburt, it's obvious by your comments that you know little about nietzsche, and nothing about me. yes, I have read nietzsche, the lot, and I'm not that impressed. I think he was a fucking genius fruitcake. he was unfortunately, like us all, a product of his time. i also think he was a fucking nazi ( geneology of morals ): the blue-eyed blond beast, the value of eugenics, the horrible jews ( will to power ): 'beyond good and evil' (indifference): the domination of the strong over the weak, 'thus spake zarathustra': the 'heroic' dictator...his best work and least known: the birth of tragedy from the spirit of music: this one I can relate to...also 'twilight of the idols' this also has some relevance for me....a nihilist, as I understand it, is a person who rejects all values.that's not me. nor am I an atheist, strictly speaking, I just don't know...it's all a mystery to me....logically speaking, in an age of unprecedented scientific development and unprecedented injustice and inequality, by hanging a 'sign' on the mystery and calling it god, the divine, the ultimate is just plain fucking stupid. there is simply no way of knowing.these primative, archaic signs no longer serve humanity and have failed to keep up with our evolution. I mean look at the current signs and what flows from them into the world. Islamism, judaism, christanity, hinduism, buddhism, all belong in the fucking tip....hogwash, my friend, pure hogwash...these bizzare creeds have done and are doing immeasurable damage to the minds of men and to human society...although, I'll admit that seven to eight hundred years ago they may have had some relevance.....


hey,have you ever looked up into the sky on a clear night, at the constellations that swirl above.here is real beauty,real
mystery...why are we 'moved' by such sites, is it because we say to ourselves 'wow, it's not really a mystery at all cause god made it? '...or are we moved because of the sheer wonder of it - because it is THERE and we don't know why...I'm not presenting any truth of life here, I/we are simply making an observation, being totally 'in the moment'....in which there are no signs.we are not in denial of life, but fully embracing it.such an understanding does not lead to a rejection of logic and reason but to their deepening, it also enriches the heart...








written by lightening for your edification

sevens
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:24 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Supermen

Post by sevens » Sun Oct 23, 2005 2:50 am

What power doth lightening hold, if it fails to etch a connection between our neighbor, and the divine? No, not some divine - their divine -- our divine. Great deducers, what is flight, if not for the greater good of humanity? Where are we to find our renewable resources? Is it not in the friction? Is it not in the fruit?

And if some should not see, what then? No matter. There will be eyes that thirst for electric light. In this age, we can influence - with just our happiness, and our silence.

The 'evil genius' of the devil - is humanity's own unconscious genius. For humanity to survive, it needs rarified lightening, and a radical calm. Light that has learned from the dead gods, has made love with Nature.

Birth is only waiting for time.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Oct 23, 2005 3:29 am

Zara, while I disagree about your conception of Nietzsche's overall work, it doesn't seem worth to debate it with you. There's however something in your post that could be interesting to ask you about:
zarathustra wrote:... nor am I an atheist, strictly speaking, I just don't know...it's all a mystery to me....logically speaking, in an age of unprecedented scientific development and unprecedented injustice and inequality, by hanging a 'sign' on the mystery and calling it god, the divine, the ultimate is just plain fucking stupid. there is simply no way of knowing.
So what do we really know, you think? Is there anything you think we are able to 'hang signs' on, or is it only the bigger topics you object to? Language by its very nature is a placing of signs and making observations, any kind of knowledge actually, already is a form of giving meaning and relative valuing. Where do you exactly suggest to stop and where is that marker based on?
these primative, archaic signs no longer serve humanity and have failed to keep up with our evolution.
Compared to which modern signs? Are there any replacements that have developed to serve us? Could you name a few?
i'm not presenting any truth of life here, I/we are simply making an observation, being totally 'in the moment'....in which there are no signs.we are not in denial of life, but fully embracing it.such an understanding does not lead to a rejection of logic and reason but to their deepening, it also enriches the heart...
Aha, mysticism after all! But if such understanding leads to a deepening of logic and reason, it will also deepen the expression of those in language and signs? If not, why?

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:23 am

Why in the world do you think Nietzsche is a Nazi or anti-semetic? His sister and brother in law were anti-semetic. Nietzsche considered anti-semetism to be the height of ignorance.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:00 am

Zara,

Except for your overblown language, I think that you put across the idea that I was trying to express when I said mental development. You said something along the lines of using whatever medium or instrument to touch the essence of the mystery of life. While that is rather romantic language, it is pretty much what I meant.

Not all painters may be entirely conscious of that attempt but many are -- even fucked up painters and poets. Conversely, many are just assholes.

To me, painting -- in the purest sense -- is investigation and a study of life. Even an emotional dwarf who cuts off his ear or who beats his wife is capable of some introspective study.

As in the discussion of music on another thread, a painter or musician who is truly interested in philosophy would stop painting or playing music. Once you touch on that thing that is intriguing, there is no reason to keep digging for it through art or music. You can address it head on.

Art is akin to science in that one may want to understand light or photosynthesis or form.

But scientists, like artists, fail to get beyond the study of things and into the infinite.

If you can word this better than myself -- with an economy of words -- I hope that you will oblige us.

Thanks.

Faizi

User avatar
Matt Gregory
Posts: 1537
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:40 am
Location: United States

Post by Matt Gregory » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:17 pm

MKFaizi wrote:I think you are offended that I have expressed an opinion that does not align with your opinion.
I don't know anything about art, so I haven't even formed an opinion. I admit to being argumentative, but I wasn't doing that to defend my opinion. Obviously, that's a not very good way to defend oneself. I was really just asking you about your opinion.

I don't have an opinion about art. Whenever I read some critique about a work of art I can't help but feel disappointed by how shallow it is.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:19 am

Art critiques are mostly shallow, Matt. I am certainly not an art critic. You do not have to know anything about art to discern phoniness and gratuitousness and exploitation and cheap mentality.

The little girl is being cheapened by her parents. Of course, she has good ability. Just like some little girls are beautiful and their parents put them in beauty pageants or some little boys are good at algebra from a very young age and are placed in advanced math classes and are considered to be "stars."

I just hate to see her so called art being sold as "great works of genius" for exorbiant prices -- prints stretched on canvas. What is that teaching her?

It is teaching her to to be a "big eyes on velvet" artist. A sleezebag. A purveyor of cheapness. If she was a genius -- even a kid genius -- she would rebel against that. I don't think she will ever do so.

Too timid. Too eaten up with romantic images of religion.

Faizi

b
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:22 am
Contact:

prodigy

Post by b » Mon Dec 26, 2005 5:37 pm

It is teaching her to to be a "big eyes on velvet" artist. A sleezebag. A purveyor of cheapness. If she was a genius -- even a kid genius -- she would rebel against that. I don't think she will ever do so.
Please excuse me if I sound a bit boxy, I'm new to the forum.

I saw the site some time ago, and was intrigued by the level of precocious technical ability. There are a couple of paintings that strike me as barely touching conceptual thinking, but I think it's correct that the attention she's gotten is her greatest stifling.

Just to give the point...

I was an art prodigy as well, perhaps about 3 years behind her in general ability, but I was also doing scupture and mixed media as well from an early age. I "rebelled against it" when I was 12, because I got the sense I was being "Blind Tom-ed". I also burned out on illustration that was strickly to entertain and show off craftsmanship. I was asked to write a poem about the school I was attending and I said "I can't do propaganda".




What I suspect is that she's going to burn out like a lot of young prodigies with that profound of a skill. She may also have great difficulty adjusting to the lack of attention she'll get from about the age of 16 onward, when other developing artists start to match her skill and it becomes meaningless in the eyes of the world.

On a broader scale, William James Sidis comes into mind, although I think his own talents far outweighed that of a skilled painter.

LooF
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 4:43 am

Post by LooF » Mon Dec 26, 2005 6:34 pm

--

it's all about how early of a brain you teach things to

and how much capacity the brain has in the end

Post Reply