Yeah, I suppose great art means "no reasonable doubt" or the cliche, "suspension of disbelief."
I want to go back to Geoff and Cheerskep's search for the attributes about talent and gift. Here's a sloppy off-the cuff outlook and guessing. I suspect that highly creative artists (as distinguished from non-poetic creators like engineers and CEOs) have a brain quirk, some glitch in their neural pathways that lead them to think a bit differently from those who don't have the "defect". Further, these individuals may have suffered emotional trauma as infants or children, effectively hampering their ability to process and express genuine well-being. Since learning and growing up to function well in a society assumes a "well-being" these people don't learn the same way and may develop differing brain "circuits" for dealing with the stream of experience, opening them to odd or strange assessments. Is this a form of madness? Maybe so, but if the person is productively creative, then a type of actual sublimation enables a new "sense of well being" that can be shared and aids societal belonging. The creative artist finds well being through sublimation. The difference between the pure and total subjectivity of madness and the odd subjectivity of the artist is that for the artist the real world of actuality is always the guide to creativity. No matter how novel the fantasy of subjectivity, it relies on actuality and is always far simpler than even the most mundane real thing. When I paint an abstract shape that looks like 250 things (say) it is only different from one specific look-alike real thing in its simplicity and generality. Any make-believe is a simplification of actuality. (And any consciousness is a make-believe of the raw stream of actual experience of a real world) Creative artists usually don't fully realize their "gift" or talent because it seems quite normal to them. Even if we restrict ourselves to gift/talent as having special facility -- and I think it goes well beyond that -- the creative artist may not understand that his/her facility is difficult or impossible for others to attain. I think it's best to think of the creative gift/talent as a sort of apparatus, a machinery or set of tools. Artists tend to develop an apparatus (medium, etc.) that enables them to fumble around the hidden and protected innermost self, recognizing its need for "well-being" and symbolizing it in the form that apparatus enables. The obsessional work and "never-give-up" arrogance (an "I'll show you!" attitude that aims to prove that the traumatized or "oddball" and thus rejected self is worthy of well being and societal affection) are indicative of the artist's need to create over and over. The "hard work" is not regretted, but is the necessary labor of sublimation, to release a symbol of the now worthy self (and one which constitutes a surrogate for others, the essence of societal approval and societal well-being). When the marble rolls through the creative person's brain, it follows different pathways than those rutted by the societal habits of learning, interpreting, concluding, etc. WC --- On Sat, 1/3/09, armando baeza <[email protected]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 3:52 PM > How fuzzy may "beyond all reasonable doubt be in > art"? > mando > > On Jan 3, 2009, at 1:30 PM, William Conger wrote: > > > That is also why the rule is "legal truth = > beyond all reasonable > > doubt" > > WC > > > > --- On Sat, 1/3/09, GEOFF CREALOCK > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> From: GEOFF CREALOCK > <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs > >> To: [email protected] > >> Date: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 10:10 AM > >> Michael: I don't understand that the courts > are happy to > >> leave it to the > >> jury to sort through all the information. It seems > to me > >> that witnesses are > >> asked to be careful, if not scrupulous, in what > they > >> report. I agree that, > >> in the end, the jury (or judge) comes to a > conclusion about > >> the "truth" but > >> the hope is that it is based on each witness' > best > >> efforts to be truthful. > >> Which is it? You assume an either-or answer here. > Persons > >> differ. For some, > >> one answer may apply; for some the other. > >> Geoff C > >> > >> > >>> From: Michael Brady > <[email protected]> > >>> Reply-To: [email protected] > >>> To: [email protected] > >>> Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs) > >>> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 10:00:20 -0500 > >>> > >>> On Dec 31, 2008, at 3:57 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK > wrote: > >>> > >>>> "... All memories are fiction" I > wonder > >> if you would feel constrained if > >>>> you were required to "tell the truth, > the > >> whole truth, and nothing but > >>>> the truth". > >>> > >>> The truthfulness you allude to is a legal > concept. A > >> crucial part of this > >>> use of "truth" is that it can be > verified, or > >> at least subjected to tests > >>> of its veracity. Please note that in court, > when > >> testimony is given and > >>> evidence adduced, all of the testimony and > much of the > >> evidence consist of > >>> representations, which are fictions, they are > >> representation and reports > >>> and replicas of some thing or event. The > crime scene > >> photographs, the eye > >>> witness's description, the 911 tape > recording, > >> etc., all of them > >>> constitute parts of a total view of the crime > being > >> prosecuted. After they > >>> are presented, they are then tested. It is in > the > >> testing that the truth > >>> of the representations are verified or > disproved. The > >> truth tests > >>> determine for the jury whether the evidence > is > >> reliable. That's the truth > >>> of the matter. > >>> > >>>> Presumably one fiction is as good, or > better than > >> another. > >>> > >>> > >>> Which is it? <g> > >>> > >>> > >>> | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > >>> Michael Brady > >>> [email protected]
