Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Nature and anti-art

Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 03:31:19 PM
When humans create art, there is all kinds of argument.

Generally, it is agreed that creation of art means rearranging natural or artificial materials into an aesthetically pleasing configuration (Van Gogh). Sometimes, the configuration is representative, and the art means something beyond the obviously pleasing aesthetic (Burzum).

Art can be beautiful, but art is not beauty, neither is beauty art. In fact, nothing is beauty, but beauty is everywhere.

I find most beauty in natural configurations. These configurations are anti-art because they arise strictly out of necessity, rather than from sentient whims of cognizance. This could be called anti-art, because it is created in the opposite way that art is created. Still, that beauty is recognizable in such raw and inhuman forms, is something to be celebrated.

Share some natural anti-art?

http://digg.com/video/what-you-get-when-you-pour-molten-aluminum-into-an-ant-hill

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 03:39:57 PM
And then here are anti-art forms even more mysterious because they are not created by living entities at all!

http://www.natureknows.org/2013/11/amazing-macro-photography-of-individual.html

Snowflakes are six-sided because hydrogen atoms bond together at just such a specific angle that the fundamental crystals formed from water are hexagonal plates. Thanks to this initial configuration, the rest of the crystal develops like a fractal, while always retaining those same angles that gave rise to the hexagon! Someone familiar with the occult meaning of numbers might see that there is an obvious reason for there being six sides to this beautiful little paragon of physical magnificence.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 06:28:58 PM
I predict your personality-type as INTP, Dead Last. You're a regular scientist.
Do you actually see beauty in what you look at, or is it only about what you understand about how it works?
I'm a little irritated by your talking about snow. I love snow. And there isn't any here. Everybody else has feet of it. Even bloody Egypt has it.
But I don't have ANY!

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 06:59:40 PM
What type of person looks at an anthill and thinks: This needs aluminum! ?

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 07:51:05 PM
What type of person looks at an anthill and thinks: This needs aluminum! ?

An artist!   8)

I predict your personality-type as INTP, Dead Last. You're a regular scientist.
Do you actually see beauty in what you look at, or is it only about what you understand about how it works?
I'm a little irritated by your talking about snow. I love snow. And there isn't any here. Everybody else has feet of it. Even bloody Egypt has it.
But I don't have ANY!

Good guess; last time I took a test I was very high IN and slight preference for Thinking over Feeling and very slight preference for Judging over Perceiving. In the more recent schools of thought based off of Jung's work, I'm a "synthesist" type, defined by my driving need to merge evident opposites into a new "synthesized" idea. That is a better description of how I make decisions and react to situations. Unfortunately (or not) it makes me "hard to get along with" because I'm "inconsistent". Getting along with people is very overrated, however.

I'm sorry for you lack of snow. In the midwest US, we've had a decent amount over the last week. My little Honda is front-wheel drive but lightweight and therefore quite a rush to drive over all the ice. I plan on going to a state park in the next week here to do a couple miles of trails while the snow is still around. It is lovely stuff.

Regarding beauty; I see it, hear it, and feel it, and that's all I know. I see snow, and I think, that is beautiful. I read about the reason for snowflakes growing as six-sided shapes, and I think, that is beautiful. That's why I became an occultist, rather than a spiritualist or a scientist.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 08:00:28 PM
Art elevates, it does not deconstruct.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 08:06:49 PM
Art elevates, it does not deconstruct.

Hmm, I bet a lot of artists would disagree with that requirement. Then again, you could be saying that the destruction of the anthill is equivalent to deconstruction. I would disagree with that personally. Any time you create art (just like any time you create *anything*) you must destroy something else. Creation and destruction are just a transitioning of forms. Just drawing a sketch in my notebook destroys my pencil. Hail Entropy.

Then again (again), you could be saying something totally different. That's often enough the case.

Anyway, the point of sharing the anthill video was nothing about art; it was just to show a natural *form*; that is, the shape of the tunnels beneath the ground, hidden from human eyes. Maybe the person who poured aluminum into it considered what he was doing "art", but I don't think it is, anymore than the person who used a high-definition camera to capture snowflakes at extreme detail was making "art".

Natural forms are anti-art, because creatures don't create them. Rather, they just occur, more or less inexplicably.

All I'm doing is appreciating the pure forms of these things. Shapes, angles, dimensions, colors, those are things that don't need created, they just need to be seen.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 08:19:05 PM
In my view, deconstruction is a value judgment on the value-less observation of destruction. I label the aluminum adventure as deconstruction because it reduced an organic construction to an ugly exhibit of human megalomania.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 10:46:16 PM
It's too bad you see it that way. What you perceive may well be the case; the creator of this "art" did sell the metal cast on his website. But it's unfortunate that you can't experience the fascination of seeing in actual dimensions what the shape of an ants' colony is. It is something that is otherwise hidden from human eyes, and we should be thankful for a chance to view this special shape.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 15, 2013, 11:01:34 PM
I'm always suspicious when being told what to be grateful for - and it wasn't the colony I was ungrateful towards.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 12:25:39 AM
What can I say? I'm a shady character; you would do well to be suspicious of me.

Though I do agree that it is silly for me to tell people what they should and should not appreciate. I would be sad, though, if no one else felt the fascination that I did, when observing these forms.

Speaking of, let's have another example of anti-art to look at.

http://altering-perspectives.com/2013/11/fractal-patterns-nature-found-google-earth.html

This form is a special one because it is actually a pattern that you can easily find repeated across many natural forms. Technically, a fractal is a mathematical form, but most of us know how closely mathematics and natural forms are linked (sometimes it seems almost magical, am I right?). This particular pattern is formed on a grand scale, and we are able to observe it thanks to technology that brought us rockets, cameras, satellite orbit, and electronic telecommunication; that's why I chose to link this one specifically. But, we can see this pattern form up-close and personally by checking out the blood vessels in our eyes, or the limbs on a tree (and now is a good time to do it, so long as you're dealing with American winter; trees are nude and ripe for inspection). When spring rolls around again (or, if you are in a warm climate right now that lacks deciduous trees), take a look at some of the leaf forms, and see if anything like the fractal pattern appears in their veins and shapes.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 01:12:37 AM
Surely you knew The Earth was a big eyeball?


Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 01:45:05 AM
WTF!?!?!?! That is not art, that is destroying an ant hill and getting a mold out of it that resembles nothing nor does evoke any picture in your head.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 03:51:45 AM
WTF!?!?!?! That is not art, that is destroying an ant hill and getting a mold out of it that resembles nothing nor does evoke any picture in your head.

You are right! "F" for reading comprehension.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 06:43:55 AM
I predict your personality-type as INTP, Dead Last. You're a regular scientist.
Do you actually see beauty in what you look at, or is it only about what you understand about how it works?
I'm a little irritated by your talking about snow. I love snow. And there isn't any here. Everybody else has feet of it. Even bloody Egypt has it.
But I don't have ANY!

Good guess; last time I took a test I was very high IN and slight preference for Thinking over Feeling and very slight preference for Judging over Perceiving.

I score the same. I'm Ni>Fi. The J/P axis makes no sense to me in terms of Jung.

While we're vaguely on the topic of numerology, Typology has a lot of it. Why are there 2/4/8/16 in Jung? What's with all these dichotomies? And then enneagram is 3/9/27, what's with all them trichotomies? Could we make a 5 pointed personality system, like the 5 pillars of health or defense? What about mixing 2 and 3 together like astrology does?