--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@...> wrote: > > Interesting...I've worked with several jazz artists who, > when in the midst of their most intense improvisational > flights, feel as if "they" stopped authoring the improv > and something else was playing though them...that they > had become a conduit for something else.
I hear this frequently from writers as well. This experience among creative artists is the basis of the "Muse" notion. (A client of mine and I joke that his communications from his Muse are occasionally blocked by static; and when I edit the material, she communicates with me to fill in what she couldn't get through to him.) But what Barry's asking about is whether a Muse-type experience would enable a painter to paint a portrait without looking at the canvas. Of course, touch-typing is an absurd attempt at a parallel to "disprove" the notion of supernatural intervention in the artistic process. You might conceivably compare touch-typing to a musician improvising without watching his/her hands, but that just doesn't translate to painting. I seriously doubt, moreover, whether any of Barry's artist friends would tell him they could paint a portrait without looking at the canvas. Some types of drawing could be done that way, but not a painted portrait, especially not in Varma's realistic, academic style. So do I think Divine Mother was painting the portrait of King George? No. My guess is that the story is apocryphal, or significantly exaggerated. > I'd have to gather them up but there are similar statements from musicians > such as John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins and Charles Lloyd, not that you these > observations are limited to tenor sax players only. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > A friend of mine who maintains a mailing list of... > > uh...Newagey people recently posted this story: > > > > Raja Ravi Varma was a great devotee of Parashakti, > > the Divine Mother. He was asked to paint the portrait > > of King George. While doing so, King George noticed > > that Raja Ravi Varma didn't take his eyes off his > > subject while his hand painted. King George asked > > "Why don't you look at the canvas?" Raja Ravi Varma > > replied, "If I would look at the canvas, She would > > stop painting." > > > > Reactions ranged from "Wow, really?" to "u r correct... > > divine stops working when we start" to "whoaaaa" to > > "this proves the existence of the Divine Mother." > > > > If I were to ask this group of people, "How many of > > you typed your replies without having to glance at > > the keyboard?", what do you think the reply would be? > > Is touch typing "proof" of the existence of the > > Divine Mother? If they had no need to look at the > > keyboard when replying, does this mean that the > > Divine Mother typed their replies? > > > > I guess my point, if I have one, is that people who > > have a Woo Woo view of the universe are able to see > > Woo Woo in anything. I've hung with artists for years, > > and know easily half a dozen of them who don't need > > to look at what they're drawing to render it perfectly. > > Not once has it occurred to me to think that someone > > or something else was doing the drawing for them, no > > more than it occurs to me to think "Someone or some- > > thing else is thinking my thoughts when I type them > > without looking at the keyboard." > > > > I think that this is a classic example of "drawing > > bullseyes around arrows;" that is, starting with a > > premise and interpreting anything one sees as valid- > > ation of that premise. What do you think? Was Raja > > Ravi Varma doing his own painting using an artist's > > version of "touch typing," or was someone or some- > > thing else doing the painting for him? I think the > > responses here would be revealing. > > >
