I believe the answer is in your "deviant compulsion". It can be compelled by the force that is Love, but it is deviated or twisted from the "patient and kind" that we recognize as the way of Love.
peace & Love On Jul 10, 7:50 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > Is it really love in those cases, Lee, or something more along the > lines of deviant compulsion? Both examples would certainly fall > outside of the "love is patient, love is kind..." definition. > > I think that love and beauty have much in common, as they move us in > spirit, or to higher consciousness. > > On Jul 10, 5:12 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Surly any type of love is a beautiful thing? Umm unless it is > > peadophilic love, or love of violence. Okay okay scracth that one, > > bad Idea. > > > Yeah Dipu what do you mean? > > > On 10 July, 00:15, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > International communication can be very difficult. Can you please > > > explain how your reply to Molly's post is relevant?? > > > > You are replying to a post that poses pertinent wording about beauty > > > and concept but which excludes any reference to love. > > > > So what do you mean by "any type of love"?? > > > > Please explain. > > > > On Jul 9, 2:16 pm, dipu banerjee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > any type of love > > > > > On 7/10/09, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Boring beauty. Quiet a concept. Can beauty be boring? > > > > > > On Jul 9, 9:03 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Einstein and others drew relativity from obscure experiments to > > > > > > glean > > > > > > the size of molecules and the movement of pollen grains in solution. > > > > > > Beauty tends to fit with experiment and eventual communication > > > > > > beyond > > > > > > the almost non-verbal beholder's eye. It may well bore most people > > > > > > and end up being taught in school chemistry. > > > > > > > On 8 July, 20:23, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Perhaps another case of beauty being in the eye of the beholder. > > > > > > > Music of a particular artist may require relativity of taste. > > > > > > > Music > > > > > > > as an art form, absolutely beautiful. There are a hell of alot of > > > > > > > people who found Jackson's work beautiful, as evidenced in > > > > > > > hundreds of > > > > > > > thousands, if not millions of people all over the world dancing > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > singing his music after he died. How many people in your lifetime > > > > > > > could evoke such a global response, opinion aside. > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 3:57 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ian really, the Caravaggio comparison is pertinent but only in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > context of that era and Jackson in this era. Equally they > > > > > > > > crossed > > > > > the > > > > > > > > line, creating a frenzy of mind boggling spectacle. I must say > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > your comment "Michael Jackson produced a lot of popular > > > > > > > > PRODUCT, but > > > > > > > > very little art." is indeed a consequence of tunnel vision. Of > > > > > course > > > > > > > > if you can produce evidence of another artist that issued such > > > > > > > > extraordinary talent preceding that of Jackson, I, as well as > > > > > > > > others, > > > > > > > > would concede to your view. I personally have no interest, > > > > > > > > never > > > > > had, > > > > > > > > in the Jackson attraction. I am only motivated by your lack of > > > > > > > > recognition of the innovation, regardless of the underlying > > > > > > > > product > > > > > > > > value, of such motivation in artistic influence as well as the > > > > > > > > perks > > > > > > > > within the industry (for the sharks). Art is something of a > > > > > > > > misnomer > > > > > > > > in that people will and are paying thousands of dollars for > > > > > > > > contemporary "Graffiti" art, which for me as an artist styled in > > > > > > > > Renaissance period art view as pure "garbage". So in that > > > > > > > > sense, > > > > > your > > > > > > > > view of Micheal Jackson as less than an art form is reflective > > > > > > > > of > > > > > your > > > > > > > > lack of understanding what "art" is all about. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 8, 2:19 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 2009/7/7 frantheman <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > Behind all the weirdness (perhaps even perversion) and > > > > > > > > > > the disgusting commercial hype surrounding his death, that > > > > > > > > > > was > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > Michael Jackson was at his best. There have been other > > > > > > > > > > similar > > > > > > > > > > artistic wonders throughout history - Caravaggio comes to > > > > > > > > > > mind. > > > > > > > > > > Did you just compare Michael Jackson to Caravaggio? :) > > > > > > > > > > Whilst I think there is much artistic merit in music, I think > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > almost > > > > > > > > > always missing from the mainstream. Michael Jackson produced > > > > > > > > > a lot > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > popular PRODUCT, but very little art. He also understood, for > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > time, how to > > > > > > > > > market that product as good as anyone. This was made > > > > > > > > > remarkably > > > > > easier by > > > > > > > > > the team of people around him. The album 'Thriller', whilst a > > > > > > > > > good > > > > > album, > > > > > > > > > initially looked to have only been a minor hit for him. The > > > > > > > > > first > > > > > single, > > > > > > > > > 'The Girl Is Mine', did okay, but didn't set the world on > > > > > > > > > fire. > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > over the next three years Jackson marketed the hell out of > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > album. He > > > > > > > > > bled it dry, releasing nine songs from it. And of course, that > > > > > $500,000 > > > > > > > > > video (which he did not choreograph, by the way) was a stroke > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > marketing > > > > > > > > > genius. > > > > > > > > > > To call Michael Jackson an artist deeply devalues the word. I > > > > > > > > > don't > > > > > just say > > > > > > > > > that because I am a music snob (I freely admit I am and that > > > > > > > > > it is > > > > > a factor > > > > > > > > > here). I think the roles of the musician and artist are almost > > > > > always in a > > > > > > > > > state of conflict; such is the nature of a creative person > > > > > > > > > peddling > > > > > > > > > commodities (CDs, etc) and being subjected to commercial > > > > > > > > > pressure. > > > > > However, > > > > > > > > > I think the continuing decline of the music industry's > > > > > > > > > business > > > > > model -- > > > > > > > > > coupled with the reduced cost of home recording -- is a great > > > > > > > > > thing > > > > > for the > > > > > > > > > "art" in music to take a more prominent role. > > > > > > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
