Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Nature and anti-art

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 03:38:43 PM
When people are trying to scientifically quantify something that does not really correspond to numbers in a natural way (like a personality) the first thing to do is break the thing down into as few distinct aspects as possible. The Jungians chose 4 in this case, because they did not see fit to further break down the aspects of a personality. I consider it a little clunky, as I have met other INTJ, INTP, and INFJ types that hardly act the same or exhibit the same traits that we would normally consider "personality".

This is a better way to look at things, as far as I'm concerned. Highly recommend this book if you can find it. Still rooted pretty deeply in Jungian thought but instead of giving you four types of four aspects, they give you four personalities altogether and let you figure out which one or two or maybe even three yours resembles.

http://www.amazon.com/Styles-Thinking-Strategies-Questions-Decisions/dp/0385157630


Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 10:41:57 PM

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 11:37:13 PM
The best art seems to take inspiration from nature in its various forms (the natural environment, space, headspace etc). To me it would have been better to try to imagine what the ant colony looks like rather than acquire a mold that destroys it in the process. It destroys the mystery.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 16, 2013, 11:42:27 PM
Quote
It destroys the mystery.

Maybe you would be happier to poke out your eyes and spend the rest of your life unseeing. You would be destroying fewer mysteries that way.

But of course, we both know, that's not the case.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 17, 2013, 12:04:38 AM
Quote
It destroys the mystery.

Maybe you would be happier to poke out your eyes and spend the rest of your life unseeing. You would be destroying fewer mysteries that way.

But of course, we both know, that's not the case.

Sometimes less is more. Can you believe, the prettiest girl that ever did see was blind? It was as though her soul hadn't been exposed to all the toxic shit of this world. My problem on the other hand is seeing too much.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 17, 2013, 12:40:15 AM
That's an interesting avenue. As I get older, my eyes become worse and worse. But each time I get new glasses, I always find they are too sharp, and the ugliness of the humanosphere comes crashing in. I generally go back to my old, slightly blurry glasses. The lack of clarity softens the edges. Things aren't quite as repellent.
Maybe there's a reason, other than ageing hardware, that makes our eyes blur over time.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 17, 2013, 01:07:04 AM
Re: the anthill,

I'm somewhere in between Wild and yourself.

Taken as art, it's like the variety of so called 'ambient' music which is nothing but recordings of natural sounds (with a few token synth pads thrown in here and there). It's parallel in visual art might be the 'readymades' of Marcel Duchamp - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readymades_of_Marcel_Duchamp - just with more 'natural' samples.

Taking it as animal archeology, or behavioural ecology or something, as opposed to art, seems more fitting to me. It's a way of marking and observing the wonderful abilities of ants.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 17, 2013, 04:58:54 AM
Now THIS guy is a true synthesist.

Both views are adequate per person.

It all depends on how much you *want* to know. If mystery is more beautiful, then stay away from exposure. If you're a person like myself, rip the beautiful thing wide open, explore every crevice and niche, and walk away a different person.

But, do keep in mind, this is not about "art". Art is garbage, art is worthless, art is inconsequential. Look at the purity of the form. Look at the shape, the angles, the dimensions, the dimensionality. Look and perceive, *then* judge.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 18, 2013, 05:09:20 AM
Maybe there's a reason, other than ageing hardware, that makes our eyes blur over time.

I think it's from staring at the sun too much.

Or not enough, I can't remember.


My father has hereditary blindness. He sees much more than most people do.

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 19, 2013, 03:10:35 AM
I'm not understanding what you are trying to express there.



Re: Nature and anti-art
December 20, 2013, 03:25:32 PM


... looks awfully similar to...


Re: Nature and anti-art
December 20, 2013, 03:26:42 PM
Once again, we can appreciate technology for allowing us a glimpse into the real-beyond-real.

http://www.supiri.com/space/top-10-greatest-space-photographs-using-hubble-telescope/

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 20, 2013, 03:58:07 PM
Make something clear for me dead last: How much of those photographs is computer generated? The colors, the shapes, how much?

And what about the chart with the shell and the triangle below the green fractal vegetable: How can I learn more about it?

You say you're an occultist, can you recommend me some books on the occult, esoteric and about patterns of nature and mathematics???

Re: Nature and anti-art
December 20, 2013, 04:03:51 PM
The chart is the graphed form of the golden ratio.