Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Art and the Challenge of Change

Expand Messages
  • Nina
    Hi, Bobby and Freyja, ... Freyja s link reminded me of the practice of Active Imagination (Carl Jung). Letting go to dialogue with whatever rises to the
    Message 1 of 6 , May 31, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi, Bobby and Freyja,

      Freyja:
      > > http://www.processarts.com/pages/reviews/artcle_cg.html
      > >
      > > Art and the Challenge of Change
      > > By Stewart Cubley

      Bobby:
      > Art as therapy? No painting as therapy.
      > Why not music compostition, or dance
      > choreography, or theater, or literature?
      >
      > Why not set up ways that the public
      > can dance its way into oblivion
      > without learning structure?
      >
      > For four years at University I studied
      > exactly what this guy is saying. For
      > 24 years I taught a specialized way of
      > perceiving and painting with color
      > ( which I learned after university)
      > and I believe that people want more
      > structure in their instruction of art.
      > It just needs to be verifiable structure.
      >
      > His analogies to the human condition
      > seem good to me but I don't think
      > they are dependent on letting go
      > in the way he suggests.

      Freyja's link reminded me of the practice of Active Imagination (Carl
      Jung). Letting go to dialogue with whatever rises to the surface,
      while retaining alert awareness necessary for dialogue (rather than
      full absorption in the fantasy), seems to be an essential component
      of what Cubley and Jung advocate as practices. Dreamwork, art,
      painting, dancing, psychiatric counseling, even teaching yoga, art,
      or having conversation with others may be seen as the by-products of
      this creative process.

      http://www.mageist.net/imagine.html
      http://www.innerself.com/Behavior_Modification/active.htm

      Bobby, have you ever wondered why people want more "structure" in
      their instruction of art? Have you found a good answer? Maybe you
      were speaking of progressive learning of techniques?

      It's hard not to have structure, to be dependent on one's own latent
      facilities. How nice it is to go into a class and learn a technique
      that has a desirable outcome. When it comes to recognizing and
      manifesting latent creative abilities, that can be a struggle until
      an 'inside line' is found.

      Structure emerges as a natural course. Fantasy actually has very
      specific rules of engagement. This is part of the reason why, when
      working with others to develop their ability to actively work with
      their imagination (something Melody and I have discussed before - as
      regards hypnosis and healing work), it is wise not to try to wrest
      their particular language of imagination from them... it is better
      to 'speak their language'.

      This is not to say there is no merit or value in learning technique.
      I would argue, however, that technique is not structure. The
      structure of expression rises from within (whether we recognize it or
      not), technique is a manner of expression of this structure.

      That said, Bobby, I can understand where you're coming from as
      regards teaching/learning. It's something of a catch-22, isn't it?
      You and I realize that the 'inspiration' is there, but people come
      because they have a different understanding of 'inspiration'. I ran
      into it with teaching architecture and now I'm running into it
      teaching yoga. In some ways, it's a business proposition. People pay
      for and return for a consistent experience. What's your view on this?

      Nina
    • texasbg2000
      ... (Carl ... of ... Hi Nina: It is true, these techniques have been around a long time. ... No it is not technique that is needed but the parameters of what
      Message 2 of 6 , May 31, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
        <murrkis@y...> wrote:
        > Hi, Bobby and Freyja,
        >
        > Freyja:
        > > > http://www.processarts.com/pages/reviews/artcle_cg.html
        > > >
        > > > Art and the Challenge of Change
        > > > By Stewart Cubley
        >
        > Bobby:
        > > Art as therapy? No painting as therapy.
        > > Why not music compostition, or dance
        > > choreography, or theater, or literature?
        > >
        > > Why not set up ways that the public
        > > can dance its way into oblivion
        > > without learning structure?
        > >
        > > For four years at University I studied
        > > exactly what this guy is saying. For
        > > 24 years I taught a specialized way of
        > > perceiving and painting with color
        > > ( which I learned after university)
        > > and I believe that people want more
        > > structure in their instruction of art.
        > > It just needs to be verifiable structure.
        > >
        > > His analogies to the human condition
        > > seem good to me but I don't think
        > > they are dependent on letting go
        > > in the way he suggests.
        >
        > Freyja's link reminded me of the practice of Active Imagination
        (Carl
        > Jung). Letting go to dialogue with whatever rises to the surface,
        > while retaining alert awareness necessary for dialogue (rather than
        > full absorption in the fantasy), seems to be an essential component
        > of what Cubley and Jung advocate as practices. Dreamwork, art,
        > painting, dancing, psychiatric counseling, even teaching yoga, art,
        > or having conversation with others may be seen as the by-products
        of
        > this creative process.


        Hi Nina:

        It is true, these techniques have been around a long time.

        >
        > http://www.mageist.net/imagine.html
        > http://www.innerself.com/Behavior_Modification/active.htm
        >
        > Bobby, have you ever wondered why people want more "structure" in
        > their instruction of art? Have you found a good answer? Maybe you
        > were speaking of progressive learning of techniques?


        No it is not technique that is needed but the parameters of what is
        possible or not possible. Structure means something that is built.
        One thing on the next, starting with verifiable criteria and
        extrapolating and proving for oneself.

        >
        > It's hard not to have structure, to be dependent on one's own
        latent
        > facilities. How nice it is to go into a class and learn a technique
        > that has a desirable outcome. When it comes to recognizing and
        > manifesting latent creative abilities, that can be a struggle until
        > an 'inside line' is found.

        This has to be learned in addition to the structure not instead of it.

        >
        > Structure emerges as a natural course. Fantasy actually has very
        > specific rules of engagement. This is part of the reason why, when
        > working with others to develop their ability to actively work with
        > their imagination (something Melody and I have discussed before -
        as
        > regards hypnosis and healing work), it is wise not to try to wrest
        > their particular language of imagination from them... it is better
        > to 'speak their language'.

        Teaching is always a matter of working with the individual.

        >
        > This is not to say there is no merit or value in learning
        technique.
        > I would argue, however, that technique is not structure. The
        > structure of expression rises from within (whether we recognize it
        or
        > not), technique is a manner of expression of this structure.
        >
        > That said, Bobby, I can understand where you're coming from as
        > regards teaching/learning. It's something of a catch-22, isn't it?
        > You and I realize that the 'inspiration' is there, but people come
        > because they have a different understanding of 'inspiration'. I ran
        > into it with teaching architecture and now I'm running into it
        > teaching yoga. In some ways, it's a business proposition. People
        pay
        > for and return for a consistent experience. What's your view on
        this?

        Inspiration is a constant, Finding out what blocks it is the trick.
        It is worth money to people.
        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
        --------------------------------------
        I think the real question can be stated as a pro and con. The
        proposition:

        Structure limits Creativity.

        I say no, and take the con position. Take the dancer who learns the
        parameters of bodily motion. An immense structure of empirical
        knowledge. Then when the beat takes the body and the inner melody
        reacts, the soul is released to perform with additional elements not
        able to be accessed by the person who just gets up and becomes
        abandoned to the music. The satisfaction and expression is much
        greater.

        >
        > Nina

        Love
        Bobby G.
      • Nina
        ... Bobby, would you mind defining what exactly it is you refer to when you use the word structure ? What in your craft is structure? What is technique? Give
        Message 3 of 6 , May 31, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > > Freyja:
          > > > > http://www.processarts.com/pages/reviews/artcle_cg.html
          > > > >
          > > > > Art and the Challenge of Change
          > > > > By Stewart Cubley
          > >
          > > Bobby:
          > > > Art as therapy? No painting as therapy.
          > > > Why not music compostition, or dance
          > > > choreography, or theater, or literature?
          > > >
          > > > Why not set up ways that the public
          > > > can dance its way into oblivion
          > > > without learning structure?
          > > >
          > > > For four years at University I studied
          > > > exactly what this guy is saying. For
          > > > 24 years I taught a specialized way of
          > > > perceiving and painting with color
          > > > ( which I learned after university)
          > > > and I believe that people want more
          > > > structure in their instruction of art.
          > > > It just needs to be verifiable structure.
          > > >
          > > > His analogies to the human condition
          > > > seem good to me but I don't think
          > > > they are dependent on letting go
          > > > in the way he suggests.

          Nina:
          > > Freyja's link reminded me of the practice
          > > of Active Imagination (Carl Jung). Letting go
          > > to dialogue with whatever rises to the surface,
          > > while retaining alert awareness necessary for
          > > dialogue (rather than full absorption in the
          > > fantasy), seems to be an essential component
          > > of what Cubley and Jung advocate as practices.
          > > Dreamwork, art, painting, dancing, psychiatric
          > > counseling, even teaching yoga, art, or having
          > > conversation with others may be seen as the
          > > by-products of this creative process.

          > > Bobby, have you ever wondered why people
          > > want more "structure" in their instruction
          > > of art? Have you found a good answer? Maybe you
          > > were speaking of progressive learning of techniques?

          Bobby:
          > No it is not technique that is needed but the
          > parameters of what is possible or not possible.
          > Structure means something that is built.
          > One thing on the next, starting with verifiable
          > criteria and extrapolating and proving for oneself.

          Nina:
          > > It's hard not to have structure, to be
          > > dependent on one's own latent facilities. How
          > > nice it is to go into a class and learn a technique
          > > that has a desirable outcome. When it comes to
          > > recognizing and manifesting latent creative
          > > abilities, that can be a struggle until an
          > > 'inside line' is found.

          Bobby:
          > This has to be learned in addition to the
          > structure not instead of it.

          Bobby, would you mind defining what
          exactly it is you refer to when you use
          the word 'structure'? What in your craft
          is structure? What is technique? Give
          specific examples, please.

          Nina:
          > > Structure emerges as a natural course.
          > > Fantasy actually has very specific rules
          > > of engagement. This is part of the reason
          > > why, when working with others to develop
          > > their ability to actively work with their
          > > imagination (something Melody and I have
          > > discussed before - as regards hypnosis
          > > and healing work), it is wise not to try
          > > to wrest their particular language of
          > > imagination from them... it is better
          > > to 'speak their language'.

          Bobby:
          > Teaching is always a matter of
          > working with the individual.

          > > This is not to say there is no
          > > merit or value in learning technique.
          > >
          > > I would argue, however, that technique
          > > is not structure. The structure of expression
          > > rises from within (whether we recognize it
          > > or not), technique is a manner of expression
          > > of this structure.

          Bobby:
          > I think the real question can be stated as a
          > pro and con. The proposition:
          >
          > Structure limits Creativity.
          >
          > I say no, and take the con position. Take
          > the dancer who learns the parameters of bodily
          > motion. An immense structure of empirical
          > knowledge. Then when the beat takes the body
          > and the inner melody reacts, the soul is released
          > to perform with additional elements not able
          > to be accessed by the person who just gets up
          > and becomes abandoned to the music. The
          > satisfaction and expression is much greater.

          Hmm, I agree here, Bobby, that structure
          promotes creativity, but I think, perhaps,
          where we differ is that I see the structure
          rising from within and you see structure as
          something a person learns. Probably, we are
          both correct.

          Or maybe our conversation is in the stars.
          Just before reading your reply to my post,
          I read my horoscope:

          "Something's gotten into you today, NINA.
          An iconoclastic imp inside you is determined
          to tear down every convention existing,
          especially in the art world. Why are you
          so furious with orthodoxy? Did you dream
          that an imitator stole one of your ideas
          and made a fortune with it? If you were
          an art critic, we could expect you to sing
          the praises of the vanguard today."

          LOL. Hey, Diana, what is it about these
          uncanny horoscopes? Sheesh!

          so long,
          Nina
        • texasbg2000
          ... Hi Nina: Good question. You sing better if you know how to form the sounds and that is a structure of knowledge. In painting a portrait achieving an
          Message 4 of 6 , May 31, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "Nina"
            <murrkis@y...> wrote:
            >
            > Bobby, would you mind defining what
            > exactly it is you refer to when you use
            > the word 'structure'? What in your craft
            > is structure? What is technique? Give
            > specific examples, please.
            > Or maybe our conversation is in the stars.
            > Just before reading your reply to my post,
            > I read my horoscope:


            Hi Nina:

            Good question. You sing better if you know how to form the sounds
            and that is a structure of knowledge. In painting a portrait
            achieving an accurate complexion color requires some knowlege of how
            to preceive color.

            The basic technique of how to evolve in perceiving color comes from
            the knowledge that:

            'black in the sunlight is lighter than white in the shadow'.

            Visual art is a series of leaps by past artists teaching us to see
            better. The Impressionists taught people to look for relationships
            when they see and shook up the art world by depicting light in a way
            it had not been done.

            It is interesting to me that at the same time as the Impressionists,
            the Existentialists discovered that the relationship of man to nature
            was the fly in the ointment of philosophy up to that point.

            And then Einstein shook up the smug world of physicists with
            the 'Theory of Relativity'.

            But who knows about Impressionists and color relativity? I meet very
            few. I guess this is why I brought up Mr. Chubby's well documented
            and exercised methods in the way I did. They are fine.

            But something I see as important is ignored and that is presented in
            its stead as art instead of art therapy.

            Sorry to be so strident. My teacher died trying to tell these things
            to people that would not listen. I probably will too.

            Love
            Bobby G.

            >
            > "Something's gotten into you today, NINA.
            > An iconoclastic imp inside you is determined
            > to tear down every convention existing,
            > especially in the art world. Why are you
            > so furious with orthodoxy? Did you dream
            > that an imitator stole one of your ideas
            > and made a fortune with it? If you were
            > an art critic, we could expect you to sing
            > the praises of the vanguard today."
            >
            > LOL. Hey, Diana, what is it about these
            > uncanny horoscopes? Sheesh!
            >
            > so long,
            > Nina
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.