At 03:55 AM 9/26/2007, you wrote:
>Hi Marsha,
>
>can an artist's work be any good if the intention behind it is driven by the
>$?
>I don't think so, but in some cases yes. And of course artist's have to make
>a living.
>
>$ is obviously not so important for you and that must afford you a rare
>freedom of mind.
>
>I only ever sold one painting, a commissioned portrait; so $ is not so
>important for me either.
>Still I could not give them away, unless it was one that I didn't value but
>in that case I'd probably paint over it.
>
>Many years ago when I was in the Gurdjieff 'work' I remember reading in one
>of their revered books that people must pay otherwise they won't value what
>they've gained, and I think there is some truth in that. Of course there is
>payment in kind but that's even better.
>
>You mentioned intuition, I recently did a painting where I deliberately
>tried not to think or plan as I worked, that is virtually impossible to do
>but at least you can hold the intention; the result was quite interesting
>but now I know I can knock them off like that any time I question it's
>value. The great part of my experience in the world insists that there is no
>value (in that painting) because there was no consideration. But a growing
>part of me (I hope) says that really that is a perfectly valid way to work.
>Also, I taught Alexander Technique in the past and a continual problem I had
>when working on people was that I should not charge them because I was not
>'doing' anything for them - this is difficult to explain unless you have
>some experience of the Alexander Technique which is about 'non doing'.
>
>Changing winds, the only evidence of life?
>
>
>Regards
>
>-Peter
Greetings Peter,
I read this post, and I didn't know how to respond. I don't think
that giving paintings away, without $ involved, in any way diminishes
painting them or the paintings. There must be a gazillion ways to
experience and express value. I already know the experience of $,
and I'm interested in alternative experiences. I have heard of the
Alexander Technique and Gurdjieff, but don't know much about
them. It is the painting process, 'just painting', that is my
teacher. I can see a similarity between painting and life. I think
there is something gained and something lost in all experience, and
mostly it has nothing to do with money. Painting is shifting my
vision between what I know, what I see and what is happening. The
actual paintings are mere shadows of 'working it out'. I don't want
to cling to the shadows. And if there is a chance that they might
bring even a tiny bit of pleasure, or whatever, to someone else, that
seems a gift for me.
Again this has all been birthed from some intuitional place, and is
very hard to talk about. Changing wind seems a perfect analogy
because you cannot grasp the wind. All these words seem too
much. It is this, but it is not this.
Maybe nine years ago, I was discussing with Merlin (my shrink) about,
'The deepest question in philosophy is 'Why shouldn't I kill
myself?'' I liked his reply, which was "Because there are lessons
to learn, and gifts to give." Painting is my lessons to learn and my
gifts to give. It is so simple.
Simply,
Marsha
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
