Greetings Mr. Maisey,

I was not implying to marketing or advertising per se but what lies beneath it. - Yes, advertising tries to exploit the phenomena we are talking about by riding on top of it hoping to catch the wave (and building them from scratch) so to speak but the phenomena we are addressing is born within - not something that can be put forth from outside unless there is a craving already.

We humans want to go further and achieve our goals of which the highest is happiness (self-actualization). We become happy by advancing towards our goals. What ever might be associated with happiness thus becomes a vehicle that could take us towards it. Buying and money per se have absolutely nothing to do with it except that they have become the norm to get them vehicles which one uses to close with what one identifies as the bringer of oneness I. happiness. This is why a fake Vermeer is not OK. If it were one would willingly accept redemption.

Would one willingly choose a fake God on his side?

No. This is why we accept to sacrifice (pay) a lot for the original but become angered if deceived. - Whilst both the original and fake might appear similar in appearance it is only the original which has the power to bring us closer to oneness / happiness.

In my opinion the story per se is therefore not it.

It is the values embedded within and evoked by the story that are it. The story is merely a vehicle to get to the source which paradoxically or not lies within our very own value system and the preconception formed by it. We humans are, by nature, social predators. Thus there is "always" a social element in everything we do whether the act itself be of a social nature or not. An act done in seclusion of, say in ones own study room, has therefore a "social element" in it as it as it is the lack of the social elements that make´s the act (ritual) special for the performer of it. Thus, say for example a collector of kerises may feel genuine oneness I. happiness when he is performing his monthly ritual of oiling his ORIGINAL kerises.

The act (here oiling) thus becomes a physical manifestation - a ritual if you will - of the pursuit of self-actualization I. happiness by coming closer with - choose - and what one deems as "it". It has been said that a "man is the image of God". By closing and advancing what one feels is "true", "original" and "right" one becomes closer to oneness I. being happy by performing them "divine" acts.

What these acts are or what vehicles are used is mere surface level noise. What is important is what values we attach to these acts and vehicles, why and how this happens, how do we "label" new things of either belonging or not belonging (separating) to the same camp with what we deem "worthy" and "good", how do we come up with what is "good" etc?


Because both audiences recognized the authenticity and divinity of the performance. The zeros in the physical manifestation of these acknowledgments is irrelevant.


That indeed is a good question.

Jussi, I respect the effort and thought has gone into your posts, however, I feel that you might be moving perhaps level or two in advance of the purely personal appreciation of an object, and that is what we are directing our attention to.

What is happening when we encounter, rather than when we acquire, or feel a need to acquire.

The propaganda/marketing/ societally influenced logic can certainly work for the individual who has been exposed to it, but how do we understand the influence of the object itself in the absence of these influences?

I started collecting "things" after married and with kids! :)
From precious stones and knives, all of them I always wanted to know the details on how to identify the material I collected.
With knives, I'm interested to know the material used and what's the difference / advantages with other materials - so I collect a few different type of sword with different type of material -and also tried to make knife as well.

Now, with the keris - the same cycle as well, I do not start with buying all old / antique keris on the market because I personally believe 90% (normally I would say 99% :D ) the keris on the market are recent make. (this is purely personal opinion). The old keris I'm referring to is before 1800. Even early in 1900, I believe people already make "created" old keris as well. How many people in the old days have keris made for them with kinatah on it? I believe in the old days, the keris (as a pusaka) only made by order and shown to close relative only. Other keris (as a tourist keris - nowadays) also plenty during that era.

I like keris from art and the time spent to make one. I personally like to know more about the material first, asked the maker how he made and what material they used, choose the warangka/pendok material or design, etc. Try to introduce some new material and see the difference. All this experience, I can not get if I bought old keris.

I collect keris if I have the "feel" that I like it, the model, pamor, "feel" when handling the keris, it does not matter if new or old - as long as within my "knowledge" of keris at that time... ;) I even buy a keris (was told old) but I know it recent made... as long as I like it... simple

cheers..

Thanks for these further contributions Emanuel and Rasjid.

I think we are building towards some sort of an understanding of our motivations to collect.

However, I would like to very gently make one point:-

the subject of the thread is "appreciation", and the question I raised was this:-

"I would welcome the thoughts of others on the link between the appreciation of art and objects and the maintenance of sanity in a world that is rapidly decreasing in size at the same time that it is equally rapidly increasing in ordinariness."

We are drifting ever closer to an answer to a different question, which involves the motivations or reasons for collecting.

Perhaps we collect because we have an appreciation of something, but I wonder what is the link between that appreciation and our individual feelings?

If we consider this question, then a further question arises which concerns the the origin of the appreciation.

Possibly the appreciation of the object could generate a desire to acquire a number of those objects, thus we become collectors.

So, the function of "collecting" is several steps further along the path than the point at which it began.

We do not need to collect anything, to have an appreciation of that thing, but the feeling of appreciation still has its effect upon us.

This is the matter I would like to address.

I see it as having two parts:-

1) --- origin of appreciation

2) --- effect of appreciation upon us as individuals.

I'm taking a leave of absence at this point, in order to attend to some personal matters. I will be very interested to see any further thoughts on this matter.

The Keris in the pawn shop
 

when I was about 16, going to school in Switzerland, roughly in 1958, I saw a movie that changed my life. It was “the seven samurai”, and although I had had, as a child, a childish fascination with swords, I immediately “got into” Japanese swords.

Years later, as a senior in high school in Manhattan, I was in an archery loft on 86th St. and I happened to look across the street. There, above Lowe's 80 6th St., Theatre, I saw people practicing kendo, which for those of you who don't know (I'm sure all of you know, but I mention it anyway) is a Japanese martial art based on the Japanese sword.

From there, it was collecting Japanese swords, and a lot of time passed. The swords that I handled, and practiced Iai-do with, always had an energy about them that I liked.

About 20 years ago I started finding out about keris, and especially all the “magical” aspects of them. Since I already had a pretty good grounding in metallurgy, I could really appreciate the artistic energy that went into making them, and the occult energy that they held.

One day, I went by a pawn shop, and when I went in I noticed some keris on the wall. I asked to see them, and one of them really jumped out at me. I have shown that keris here on this forum, and it is one with a handle in the shape of Petruk, one of the sons of Semar. the keris is quite fine, beautiful painting on the wrangka, but what especially impressed me was the energy.

I obsessed on that keris, especially after I had a very intense dream in which I and that keris had a very interesting exchange of energy.

I offered the shopkeeper a price, which he did not accept. I raised it until finally he sold it to me.

I'm a musician, and a few different times I have worn that keris on stage. Alan has seen photographs of it, and has commented that it's possible that it may have belonged to a performer, perhaps a Dalang.

I also have to tell you that sometimes, like right now, certain pieces in my collection ask me to oil them. I feel that if I don't get up right away and put oil on them, they won't have the kind of energy that they should have. Or maybe they'll feel neglected, and pout when I next go to see them.

Since then, I have collected a few keris. I don't have a large collection, and I have other nice things in it including some moghul pieces and some nice wootz daggers. I also have very “down home” pieces, such as primitive farm implements and “using” knives. I always like to feel the energy in a piece, and I won't buy it unless I get a really “good hit” from it. Lately I bought a little kukri that probably belonged to some farmer. I paid less than $20 for it, and when I got it it was obvious that it was made by a smith for real use. I'll probably publish photographs of it sometime soon, and although it's nothing fancy I really like it for its no-nonsense energy.

So yes, I did buy the story. Without the story, there is really no collecting. My teacher, Ali Akbar Khan, was the greatest musician of the last century in India, and pretty much everything that he taught had a story. I like stories. I'm a pretty good storyteller myself.

Alan, I want to thank you for starting this thread. I find it interesting and fascinating to hear everybody's take on the subject, and I hope that I answered your question without wandering too far from the subject.

I CAN'T BREAK ANY NEW GROUND HERE BUT WILL TRY AND EXPLAIN MY PERSONEL ATTRACTION AND INTREST AND MY REASONS FOR IT. THE PERSONALITY I WAS BORN WITH HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE INTERESTED IN MOST EVERYTHING AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY OBSERVANT. I STARTED WITH BUGS AND HAD A COLLECTION OF SORTS WHEN I WAS TWO YEARS OLD.
MY INTREST IS DRAWN BY CURIOSITY OF ANYTHING NEW, DIFFERENT OR UNUSUAL. ANY NEW THING IS NEVER ORDINARY UNTIL YOU ARE AROUND MANY FOR A LONG TIME AND SOME THINGS SUCH AS THE KERIS NEVER BECOME ORDINARY. MY INTRESTS ARE MANY AND I AM LIKE A BUTTERFLY GOING QUICKLY FROM ONE FLOWER TO THE NEXT. MY INTRESTS IN SUCH THINGS AS KERIS REMAIN BUT TIME AND OTHER THINGS TAKE ME AWAY UNTIL I RETURN AGAIN.
THERE IS A MUCH GREATER LIKELYHOOD OF CHILDREN RAISED IN A KERIS CULTURE BECOMING INTERESTED IN THEM. BUT I THINK THE NORM IN THAT CULTURE IS TO FOLLOW THE TRADITIONAL USES AND CEREMONIES RELATED TO THE KERIS. TO COLLECT LOTS OF KERIS BECAUSE YOU LIKE THEM WOULD PROBABLY BE UNUSUAL IN THEIR SOCIETY AND OF COURSE ONLY THE WEALTHY COULD AFFORD TO COLLECT MANY.
I READ SOME ADVENTURE BOOKS WHERE THE KERIS WAS MENTIONED WHEN I WAS A YOUNG BOY AND SAW MY FIRST KERIS IN THE 1960'S. IT WAS SOMETHING NEW AND EXOTIC AND THE PRICE WAS FIVE DOLLARS SO I BOUGHT IT. IT WAS NOT A GREAT SPECIMIN BUT THE PATTERNS IN THE BLADE AND THE BELIEF THAT ALL KERIS BLADES WERE MADE FROM METEOR IRON MADE IT VERY INTERESTING AND ATTRACTIVE TO ME.
THIS MADE ME LOOK FOR INFORMATION AND I FOUND A LIMITED AMOUNT AT THE LIBRARY BUT LEARNED MORE FROM AN OLD COLLECTOR AND DEALER WHO HAD ACTUALLY TRAVELED THE WORLD AND FOUGHT IN THE WAR. HE HAD A LOT OF KNOWLEGE AND TOLD GREAT STORIES EVEN THOUGH WHAT HE HAD FOR SALE WAS WAY OUT OF MY PRICE RANGE AT THE TIME. I ALWAYS LOOKED FORWARD TO VISITING WITH HIM TWICE A YEAR AT THE LOCAL GUN SHOW.
I PREFER A WEAPON THAT HAS BEEN OWNED AND USED BY A PERSON IN THE CULTURE FROM WHICH IT COMES. THESE KERIS HAVE A HISTORY AND STORY THAT GOES WITH THEM EVEN THOUGH WE MAY NOT KNOW IT. I LOOK AT THE WEAR AND PATINA AND PONDER THE STORY AND HISTORY, I ALSO APPRECIATE THE WORKMANSHIP AND THE PATTERNS AND BEAUTY IN THE BLADE AND THE WOOD. I CAN STAND AND LOOK AT THE PATTERNS IN A GOOD VAN GOUGH PAINTING AND CAN DO THE SAME WITH A COMPLICATED SWIRLING PATTERN IN A KERIS BLADE.
PERHAPS WE ALL HAVE A NEED TO STUDY AND LEARN WHICH LEADS US TO OUR VARIED INTRESTS. WHILE SOME MAY ONLY COLLECT THE KNOWLEGE OTHERS OF US NEED THE ACTUAL OBJECTS TO STRENGTHEN AND ENRICH THE LEARNING PROCESS. SOME OF US GET ENJOYMENT SHAREING WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED AND OTHERS GAURD THEIR KNOWLEGE JELOUSLY. EACH TO HIS OWN :shrug:
SOMETHING NEW AND UNUSUAL WILL ATTRACT MORE INTEREST THAN SOMETHING COMMON AND ORDINARY.

WAYS AND REASONS TO COLLECT.
1. A GREAT EMPU HAS PASSED AWAY AND THEREFORE NO MORE KERIS OR FITTINGS WILL BE MADE BY HIM. THIS WILL MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE AS AN INVESTMENT FOR SOME AND OTHERS WILL WISH TO HAVE ONE FOR SENIMENTAL REASONS OR PERHAPS SPIRITUAL REASONS AS THE KERIS WOULD HAVE THE SPECIAL POWERS THAT EMPU WAS KNOWN TO PUT INTO HIS WORK.
2. THE MYSTIQUE OR POWER ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAKER OR THE FAMOUS OWNERS OR FAMILY OR PERHAPS OF SOME GREAT BATTLE OR DEED. A KERIS CAN NOT GAIN FAME WITHOUT THE GREAT DEEDS OF THE OWNER.
3. SOME MAY START COLLECTING BECAUSE THEY SEE SOMEONES COLLECTION. IT MAY BE BECAUSE THEY WISH TO COMPETE WITH THEM AND OUT DO THEM OR JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE FACINATED BY THE KERIS AND THE STORIES.

I DON'T COLLECT BECAUSE OF FADS AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN INDEPENDENT AND WENT MY OWN WAY WEATHER IT WAS POPULAR OR NOT. THIS HAS SERVED ME WELL AGAINST SALES AND PROMOTION AS I BUY WHAT I LIKE NOT WHAT THEY SAY I SHOULD BUY. AND I WILL JUST AS QUICKLY BUY A NEW KERIS IF THE QUALITY AND PRICE ARE GOOD AS I WILL BUY AN OLD ONE.

While we may be urged to appreciate works of art objectively, I'm not sure in truth anything is really appreciated objectively. Anything meant to be appreciated for its aesthetic content is received subjectively; we've been socialized since birth in the ways in which we respond to things. A painting by Vermeer or Picasso or Cai Guo-Qiang is beautiful or moving because we have been socialized to perceive it that way, and respond to it in that manner, although of course as humans we do not all react in the same manner.

Hence, the story is important. It may be the story the creator of the object intended, or didn't intend, or a completely separate story we bring to the object. Perhaps it doesn't matter. Once an object enters the world it becomes the property of the world, and open to multiple readings.

Traditionally collectors have collected and appreciated objects for all sorts of reasons. Traditional Chinese literati collected paintings, poems, and rubbings of ancient stele not only for perceived intrinsic beauty, but also because it was something one did as literati, just as you also painted and wrote poetry. It was also a form of recreation, in which you and your friends would get together, have a drink, and appreciate some items from your collection. (In that regard, this forum serves a similar purpose, but without the alcoholic beverages)

Victorian English collected for a number of reasons; the expanding English empire gave them access to many more things. Partly collecting was a demonstration of their reach and power across the globe, but they also had great curiosity for things (orchids, rhododendrons), a burgeoning interest in science (insects, birds, fossils, minerals), and many other motivations that don't come currently to mind.

As an occasional collector of keris who grew up in relatively mainstream American culture, there were a great many things to prompt an interest, some of which has been mentioned by others. Novels and stories, from Conrad to Robert Louis Stevenson to Tolkein; interest in knights, pirates, South Seas adventures; modern incarnations such as Dungeons & Dragons, etc.

I first came across keris several years ago, during a trip to Singapore with my wife to visit in-laws. My brother-in-law had a beautiful old keris tajong he was holding for a Malay friend, who was living abroad for work. At the instruction of the friend, he kept it in a cabinet near the entrance to his flat, with the hilt facing the door; according to his friend, this would help protect him and his family. This certainly caught my attention; not so much that I viewed the keris in any way as magical, but that someone had crafted it at some point in time with that belief, and others continued to possess it with the same belief. In the world we currently live in, where the vast majority of objects that surround us are produced somewhat indifferently in factories, and are identical from piece to piece, the keris is remarkable for this contrast.

Perhaps most importantly, for me, the keris is meant to be held. In this regard it is unlike so many other things that one could collect. The hulu is designed for one's hand, and the weight and form of the blade to be properly handled by that hand. The heft of a keris in one's hand provides a kind of tactile pleasure unequaled by any other collectible object I can think of. And the range of weights and fits of keris, from light and (relatively) delicate cotengs and keris selit, to large Bugis and Balinese blades, only makes that distinction from other objects even greater.

Would appreciation not have its root in how we value things? We appreciate an object because we assign a high value to it. We would never appreciate anything that we feel is useless, cheap or not beautiful - in effect anything that is of no worth to us.

If we appreciate something, perhaps we would do more to affirm that value we see in the object. That could include collecting, protecting, singing praises, consuming, ensure the continued transmission of that object, etc etc.

Then going back to question of why do we value things - how about evolutionary effects? If something we appreciate is good for us and helps us survive, then, wouldn't a well-honed sense of understanding what is good for us help us survive better? With much of the human race no longer concerned with finding food on a day-to-day basis, and with the new 'unnatural' pressures arising from our social circumstance, perhaps that sense of appreciation has moved from basic necessities to more unusual things like art and kerises. Things that help us handle modern life better.

Perhaps the world is becoming so literal and visual, and the mysterious world is no longer that mysterious, we appreciate objects that help us feel that sense of mystery and wonder; something that allows us to hold on to the hope that the world is more than it seems; there are more possibilities; I can break out of this tired and shrinking world!!! This is something that helps us bear with our present world.

This . ^^^^
Hammer; meet nail . ;)

I can go along with the idea:
“Collecting is an instinctual behaviour and is genetically fixed.”

You can enumerate several reasons why someone collected:

-it gives respect and appreciation
-pleasure, sensory pleasure and aesthetic pleasure
-the excitement of the search for specific things and the hunt for more
-a combination of passion and pleasure
-greed, some collectors simply want more and more
-trade or investment funds, just for financial gain
-distinguish you, profiling, collecting art shows good taste
-attention and respect, image building prestige, ambition,

Add something to your collection works as a kind of antidepressant:
your body will reward you with a brief shot happiness.

Collection is also rewarded by a social component:
that of community life. (As in this forum).
A collector with a nice keris can make no impression on his neighbour, but he can during a keris-meeting. (Or the neighbour must also be a keris collector :D )

But the question still remains: Why collect a keris ? And not an other form of artwork?
Why I bought as a child at a flea market among a thousand other things a keris? Or perhaps was it because the seller had a good story? And I also bought a story with emotion? :shrug:

I have unfortunately no answer. I live in Europe and have no keris culture but I'm still interested in the keris, appreciate the craftsmanship, respect the culture. Therefore I believe that it is a form of instinct. :confused:

I think many of us may accumulate other works of art or something else beside only the keris .

In the past I, like David, was a bottle digger .
That was almost more of a sport than a hobby . ;)

Original marine art is another of my interests; ties in nicely with the whole draw of the keris for me as does my interest in Asian art .
When I enjoy these I can plug in to that peaceful place .

You could almost call it a form of self-medication .

Well, it seems as if during the past week, nobody has had any further thoughts on the matter under discussion here.

Perhaps we have exhausted the subject.

I've read through all of the posts more than a few times, and the message that I am getting seems to come down to this:-

1) --- our appreciation of anything can never take place except against the background of previous experience

2) --- this previous experience creates a matrix that we use either consciously or sub-consciously to evaluate the subject of our appreciation

3) --- the way in which the item that we evaluate is appreciated has an effect upon our emotional state

4) --- the effect upon our emotional state is beneficial to our overall well-being.

If this is so, then it is certain that we can never evaluate, nor consider an object in a purely subjective fashion. We are, if you will, unavoidably locked into evaluation of the object against everything that has previously entered our experience. We may try to be subjective, but our subjectivity is inevitably expressed in an objective fashion.

In other words, we're all hooked on "the story".

As I think is clear from the postings to this thread, that "story" is a little bit different for each of us.

But what is the purpose of this arguably self delusionary process?

Maybe Rick has summed it up very precisely as "self medication".

Does anybody have any further thoughts on this matter?

G'day Alan,

It's good to have you back.

A few thoughts came to my mind.

Humans use heuristics to help them make decisions in reasonably short time without having to analyze everything from scratch; otherwise, life would be non-functionable. Joshua Bell getting $32 in the streets could be because people may have associated street baskers with mediocre skills and hence not even pay attention to his playing. Or simply because people on the streets are going somewhere and don't have time to stop and listen. In contrast, going to a concert hall and paying big bucks to hear a musician play probably suggests that the musician is fantastic. Of course, in a concert hall situation, we are talking about selling to a crowd that is already sold on the product, and they are there specifically to hear the musician play. As to why people are willing to pay so much to listen to Joshua Bell, I don't think it's purely the story, but because he has achieved a very high level of skills that the vast majority of people cannot achieve. That high level of skill has allowed him to provide some form of pleasure (which can be acquired) to the rest of the others. Pleasure, evolutionarily speaking, comes as a positive feedback to something that is 'good' for our existence, whether it is material or not.

Princess Diana and George Clooney's clothes could have been highly valued because of their immense popularity. People like them for a variety of reasons like them having good-looks, great personalities, rich, etc. These are traits that everyone is desirous of because they are advantageous to living a better life. The affinity arising from our liking of these traits could have resulted in us wanting to be with them or like them, and the closest thing we could get is something closely associated with them - their clothes. At the bottom of all this, again I reckon, lies that sense of what is 'good' for us.

I'm also thinking about the phenomenon of why some island cultures appreciate fat women, while others appreciate waif-like models. I thought the former could be associated with survival logic (fatter = able to survive leaner periods, provide more resources to babies), while the latter could be because thinness in rich society is associated with glamour, wealth, the aesthetics of good looks, etc, which again, I would tie back to the evolutionary sense of what is 'good' for us in order to survive. Between the fat, the thin and the musician, the common thread could be that if I am ahead of the curve, I could probably do better in life than the rest of the laggards.

I think human beings have been a a bit of an evolutionary quirk in that we have come so far in so short a time. Our inbuilt evolutionary responses may have been warped by the "unnatural environment" that we have built, resulting in all these seemingly senseless responses, including to art and the Keris.

G'day Kai Wee.

Well mate, you've just given a very easily understood proof that we do indeed always buy the story.

You've said that you don't think its purely "the story", but most especially in the Josh Bell comment you have demonstrated admirably that it is.

When I'm talking about the "the story", I'm thinking of it in the broadest possible terms, and most often that story has been composed by ourselves, and the material that has been drawn upon for its composition is all of our previous experience.

Diamonds.

Wonderful as a store of wealth, inseparable from the idea of romantic love, indestructible, uncorrupted by time, the ultimate prestige signal.

Was it always so?

Nope.

The relative value and popularity of diamonds has increased along with increased supply. The reverse of what we might expect.

It is really only since the late 19th century that diamonds have moved into the prestigious position they now occupy, and this has been due almost solely to the magnificent management of the diamond trade by De Beers.

De Beers have managed to invent and manage the entire diamond mystique and its associated values.

In fact, they have sold a story to the world.

So, if we consider a diamond, any diamond, we cannot but consider it against our lifetime exposure to the position of the diamond in our modern culture.

We simply cannot escape our past, and it is our past that creates for us the measure against which we appreciate anything.

When we get down to the level where we are actually engaged in the appreciation of something, what we know about that something undoubtedly influences our feelings of appreciation. As Laowang has said:-


"Anything meant to be appreciated for its aesthetic content is received subjectively; we've been socialized since birth in the ways in which we respond to things."


We see an unknown painting in Salvation Army Store. Its unsigned. A childlike representation of badly proportioned sunflowers. Is it maybe OK for the guestroom? No, I don't think so. A bit on the crude side.

Headline in the following week's Sydney Morning Herald:-

"Lost Van Gogh Discovered in Suburban Salvation Army Store"

Well --- you win some, you lose some.

Maybe if we'd been exposed to the right story at some time in our past, we would have recognized it as Van Gogh too.

That story, or if you wish, experience, and the knowledge or opinion that it generates influences everything in our lives that follows.

Greetings,

I´ll be adding something at a later time :)

Jussi

G'day Alan,

I agree that aesthetics is received subjectively, but if we go far back enough, I always believe that there is a reason behind why that aesthetics is appreciated more than others. A bad violin player will never be able to sell his 'story' for a sustained period of time. A deeply flawed diamond cannot be sold as top of class. Just like a cheap Madurese Muda keris can never pass off to be a top class keris.

In as much as we choose to appreciate something subjectively, it cannot be just the story. It must be accompanied by a quality that makes it relatively hard to acquire/achieve.

I do think that we can take this theory too far. Van Gogh is Van Gogh for many reasons. I do not enjoy a Van Gogh painting simply because the established art world has determined he was one of the greatest painters that ever lived. If this were the case i would also enjoy Pollock and Albers and a great number of other artists that the establishment deems worthy and collectable artists. In fact i find those artists not at all to my liking and i don't know what the hype about them is all about. But if i were to see an unsigned Van Gogh in a junk store i would probably buy it on it's own merits because i like Van Gogh's style and i would therefore probably like the unsigned painting. I would buy it because i like it, not because i know it is a Van Gogh. I will admit though that if i were to then find out it was indeed Van Gogh i would consider it of greater value to me. But it probably would change were i decided to hang it. :)
In the case of Joshua Bell, personally i do not associate buskers necessarily with mediocre talent. But there is a great difference between taking your act to the streets and having an audience come to a specific venue. The people on the street didn't ask for the performance, they may not have the time for it, they may not like the particular genre of music, they may not be particularly well off financially, etc. Those who chose to go to the theatre event, on the other hand, know what they want and what they expect. The acoustics will be perfect, there will be orchestra accompaniment, the seats will be comfortable, the social environment will be high, etc.
If i were a fan and caught the performance on the street i would be just as appreciative, maybe more so because i don't necessarily have the money for the expensive theatre tickets.
This isn't to say that my tastes aren't purely subjective, because they are. I just don't think that for me personally that they are driven by the same standards of establishment acceptance as they are for some.
An excellent film that addresses some of these issues might be Orson Welles last film "F is for Fake". It deals a lot with the ideas of forgeries and fakes and how differently people relate to an object when the forgery is discovered. Famous art forger Elmyr de Hory is featured in the film, a man who forged his way into many of the world's greatest art galleries. Frankly i would love to own a de Hory (or any forgers work) if it were a beautiful and well painted image, though i would also like to know that it isn't "the real thing" as well. I appreciate art not based upon the name attached to it, but whether or not it appeals to my subjective eye. :)

I just read this sentence a second time, and I'm wondering if "the story" is equivalent to experience and knowledge, then everything in this world revolves around 'a story'. If that is the definition, then it would seem that by definition, the question in discussion can have no other answer. :)

Alan wrote:
"When I'm talking about the "the story", I'm thinking of it in the broadest possible terms, and most often that story has been composed by ourselves, and the material that has been drawn upon for its composition is all of our previous experience."



I think The Story is universal and is being quickly forgotten in our brave new techno - world ; the council fire and spear have disappeared .

So, maybe I'm going too far afield in posting this link; I couldn't get all the way through the book back in '69 as it is a challenging read .

http://edj.net/mc2012/mill1.htm

Well, i don't know if i am going too far afield either, but i have discovered that you can watch "F is for Fake" on youtube in 10 minute at a time segments and suggest that it may well inform this conversation on the appreciation of art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9zZNFzrvAA

Kai Wee, you have precisely identified the point I have been trying to make.

I have not been trying to establish how or why we appreciate the various arts, but rather, the factors that are at play in our own minds when we involve ourselves in some way in one form of art or another, and the effects upon us of that involvement.

I am using the word "involvement", because it could be purchase, or viewing, or listening or anything at all that requires us to become involved in the art work.

The "story" is always present, and it has been composed from all our previous experience.

Thus, we never, ever can appreciate a work of art in the absence of that story, because it is our experience that provides the tools (mental) by which we measure the work.

The fellow who rejected the "lost van Gogh" for his guest room lacked a story. He had not been exposed to van Gogh, could not recognise the style, had nothing by which to measure it, and labeled it as just a bit too primitive for his taste.

David has outlined for us his own position in respect of van Gogh, and this style. David is a mature, perceptive and educated man with a broad appreciation of art. It is simply not possible that he could reach his age with no exposure to van Gogh. That exposure has created David's "story". His experience, and this experience has resulted in the generation of a liking for the work of van Gogh. Thus, if he sees something in a similar style he will still like it, whether it is by van Gogh or not.

David's return to the Josh Bell example is, I feel, precisely accurate as a demonstration of the way in which the "story" affects the perception. In the right place at the right time we have one expectation and a matching perception. In a different place at a different time the expectation differs as does the perception.

Each of us has our own story, and that story is what directs our expectation, perception, and ultimately our appreciation.


Incidentally, I'm very partial to van Gogh's work; when I raise my eyes above the top of my computer monitor I see "Starry Night" hanging on the wall.

However, my taste has not always been thus. Forty years ago I had a very great dislike of all post impressionists, it is only as I have become older that my tastes have changed and I now can see things that I could not see when I was younger. I now have a different story to the one I had some years back.


I do not believe there is any "right" answer, or equally any "wrong" answer to this subject under discussion. What interests me is the perhaps different ways in which each of us may consider this question.

Just curious if anyone bothered to check out the film "F is for Fake" that i linked to and if they thought it informed this conversation any? :shrug: :)

I admire Orson Welles abowe all, this particular film is in my collection. I know it for four years now, the problematic was very clear and familiar to me (in my level of understanding) as I saw it for the first time.

Yes David, I did take note of the film.

Watching a full length movie on a computer screen is not an option for me, not even in 10 minute bites.

However I have read all that I can find about the film. Based upon what I have read, but not seen, and am probably unlikely to see, I do have some difficulty in trying to understand how the matters dealt with in this film could assist in aiding an understanding of what is happening in the mind of somebody when they become involved in the reception of artistic endeavour.

Actually, "artistic endeavour" narrows things too much. My original phrase was "---the appreciation of art and objects---", and this is precisely what I mean. The appreciation can be of anything at all that pushes the right button:- some form of fine art, matchbox cars, old woodworking tools, beach pebbles--- anything at all that strikes a chord in the soul and creates some sort of special feeling.

From the beginning of this thread I have been trying to understand how other people feel when they involve themselves the act of appreciation, and if possible, if they recognise what started them on this path of appreciation of a particular thing.

I know that the thread has wandered all over the place and has certainly not stayed anywhere near the path I might have liked it to take, but that's the nature of these sorts of discussions, they tend to create a life of their own.

But I think the important thing is this:- there is no right and no wrong in anything that anybody may care to post to this thread. Its not an exercise in finding a correct answer, because there is no correct answer. I see this an attempt to understand ourselves, not an attempt to understand the act of appreciation.

Although, having said that , I feel that an understanding of how and why we appreciate something may assist in a better understanding of ourselves.

Coming back to the film, could you precis what it is about this film that you think could assist with our discussion here?

I think that perhaps the comments posted to this thread have shown that the way in which we react to something is a product of our previous experience. That previous experience constitutes the "story" that we always carry with us. When we encounter something that fits the pleasure generating model we carry in our subconscious, we engage in the act of appreciation. Pretty much as Rick has put it:- "self- medication".

I think that's probably about the way I see it at the moment, but I'd welcome further comments that could throw a new or different light onto the subject.

Good thread, many answers.

Another question: What is Beauty? Art? Why do we pay large amounts of money for old wood and metal? Joshua Bell's patrons pay huge amounts of money in sold-out performances to hear a great violinist? A rare bottle of wine?

"Conrad syndrome?" "Silk Road Syndrome?" Some even take it as far as the "Stendhal Syndrome." How about the "Stranger in a Strange Land Syndrome?"

Why? What do we get out of it?

Because Art, with a capital "A", whether visual, auditory, gustatory, perhaps olfactory gives us a special feeling. A 'feeling' that goes beyond mere kinesthetics. A feeling in the "gutski wutskies"- the solar plexus that for a moment takes us beyond the physical, the mundane.

When Handel composed "The Messiah" he said it was "like having his fingers plugged into God." --- "plugged into God." Think about that.

Back to "Stranger in a Strange Land Syndrome." Though we enjoy the physical plane, do any of us feel it is really our home? Or are we drawn to something beyond? And does great art, a keris, a painting, a fetish have a connection for us, a visceral connection to that Source?

And maybe, do we connect to that "Source" through art that was created by someone who, like Handel, was connected when he, or she created it? And that "art" transcends language, religion -- all the tags we like to hang on it?

Because that "Source" that we reach for is beyond our five senses and our nearest "sense" is that visceral sense that gives us Joy. And folks, we ARE addicted to Joy! An addict will do what it takes.

The rest of this justification is just our conscious mind trying to make sense of this. It really can't, but it tries. Words like "Investment" "Value" etc, come to mind. But then we have to ask "Why?" Why does a piece of wood, a canvas and oil, have value? Because it reaches out to us. Mentally we say, "It connects us with Joyful memories, the past, etc." The Silk Road Syndrome? Sure, but it goes far beyond that if we let it.

Perhaps a keris really IS a conduit. Think about that, 'a conduit.' "Art as Conduit"!;)

To me, great art is something that grabs you every time you relax enough to bond with it and I see something different every time, every day.

But I must take time to relax and focus and en-Joy. Otherwise I am like the people who walk right by Joshua Bell playing magnificent music in a subway.

And folks, more and more, I am taking the time to stop and smell the roses.

[QUOTE=Bill Marsh]Good thread, many answers.

Another question: What is Beauty? Art? .....
I agree ...100%

Well Alan, it is a bit difficult to explain why i find this film pertinent without you having actually seen any of it, but the film very much deals with what drives the appreciation of art and the concept of fakes vs. "the real thing" and how various people deal with this concept when appreciating art. Elymer de Hory claims that their are supposed "Matisse", "Modigliani" and "Renoir" in museum collections around the world that are actually his creations, that receive praise based upon their perceived authenticity. This seems to very much be something that is in line with this current conversation. :shrug:

Thanks for that response, David.

Yes, ideally I should watch this film, but I doubt that I'll find it in the local video stores --- however, I'll try.

The idea of forgeries drawing favourable critical comment certainly does give some indication of the way in which the human mind works in its relationship to art. I referred to this in my Han van Meegeren comment. The van Meegeren case is possibly the best documented of this type of case, and I personally find it very edifying.

This sort of thing, whether de Hory or van Meegeren, is I feel a good example of the "story" in action:-

our experience has told us that a Rembrandt, Matisse, Modigliani or whatever is great art, so of course, when we are in the presence of such great art, we would need to place ourselves outside the herd to look critically at that great art and decide for ourselves that it was not quite as great as the "big men" had declared it to be.

it is human nature to follow the opinions of the mob, and mob opinion is formed by mob leaders.

As I have already said:- we cannot escape the story; we always carry it with us.

This theme is certainly a part of this discussion, however, my original idea --- which I seem not to have been able to convey very clearly --- was more directed at the effect of things on our feelings.

A "thing" might be a work of art, but it might also be a shell, a pebble, a pair of sunglasses, in fact almost anything that functions as a key to unlock a part of our subconscious and generate an emotion.

This is perhaps where our appreciation of an object enters consideration. We might return again and again to appreciate that object because of its effect upon our emotions. To facilitate easy return to the object, we try to provide easy access to the object, so we collect it.

Possibly. Well, in any case this is about where my thoughts on the matter are at the moment.

To diverge a little from this central theme.

Not so long ago a book was published that uses as the major part of its content the keris in a collection that is generally acknowledged as being an important collection, and the proprietors of that collection as being knowledgeable in the field of keris. A large number of the keris pictured in that book are not correctly represented, in the case of one particular current era keris, authorship is absolutely incorrect. But 99.9% of the people who look at those images of keris do not know this, indeed, cannot possibly know it. So the deception stands. This same scenario occurs again and again in books published on keris, and only a very, very few people are able to detect the inaccuracies. Thus keris knowledge is irreparably corrupted. This is what happens in our own little field of interest. How much greater is the corruption in the broader field?

I have made this comment to try to illustrate that we are all subject to the opinions of others, and those opinions form a part of our individual stories, ie, experience.

Yes, the dreaded "Expert" .

David, et al,

The film is also available from Netflix in it's entirety as a streaming video that can be watched on TV screen if you have streaming capabilities.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/F_for_F...9?trkid=191776

Sounds quite interesting. Anne and I plan to watch it tomorrow night. Will get back to this thread after we watch it.

Did not enjoy the film. Meandering monologues. Mostly about Clifford Irving and Elmyr de Hory, possibly one of the greatest art forgers of the 20th century. Fortunately "fast forward" skips over boring parts.

Somewhat germane to this discussion as to how much and how often art is more a matter of an "expert's" opinion, whether that opinion is intentionally duplicitous, erroneous or accurate -- but I think the film adds little to the discussion about how great art deeply affects us and gives joy in a visceral sense. To me, this is much more important than an "expert's" opinion.

Sorry you didn't like the film Bill. Personally i find no boring parts to skip over, but to each their own, eh? :)
People both appreciate and acquire art for a multitude of reasons. Often enough, for some (though i like to think i am at least somewhat immune to it), the gateway to what they believe to be good art is greatly influenced by the stories spun by the "experts". But i believe it is probably impossible to determine just how much sway the opinions of the experts actual has on our own appreciation of art. What gives us "joy in a visceral sense" does not develop in a vacuum. Certain much of the art and music we enjoy so much would be virtually unknown to us if it were not brought to light and touted by the "experts". For me the questions raised in the film over how much the "experts" nod to an piece of art effects it's valuation by society is in fact very germane to this topic.

Glad that you liked the film, David. I think that I was just looking for something else. I did like the woman in the short dress. :D

Certainly we do not develop in a vacuum, and certainly we are influenced by experts. A big question is who are the experts? Is the supposed expert in his arena?

The artist has the inspiration and the expert/critic tries to describe it.

Agreed, that the artist needs to have a degree of technical skill. How to hold the brush, how to mix the paint, - or how to put notes on a staff for a particular instrument, etc, but then it is the artist who brings the inspiration to life, who manifests the inspiration here for the rest of us to experience. Not necessarily the expert.

The point I am trying to make is that I feel great art has roots in something beyond what we normally see. Great Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder and it can be a pebble, or a leaf, or a sunset. But something that transports me.

Primitive cultures often have no written language. Their language is in their art. Their history is in their art. But make no mistake, in many, if not most, if not all, primitive cultures, the pieces we consider "art" were not considered "art" by the so-called primitive people who made them. Not at all. Not something to hang on the wall and "decorate" their homes or caves!

These pieces were working tools. Tools that protected them from malevolent spirits. Gave them fertility for crops, animals and themselves. Helped them understand and maintain their place in their cosmos. Pieces that dug deep into the roots of consciousness.

And they still dig deep, when we are quiet enough to let them influence us. Then we may see a man in a keris. We may feel -- though we do not have the slightest understanding of the thoughts of the people who made and used these objects -- we may feel that common wordless bond of understanding that we interpret as "Great Art."

Wordless and visceral.

I suggest that experts can certainly open a door, but it is us who decide to go through it, us who decide to spend money and time on old bits of wood, metal, ivory, etc, because these pieces give us joy. They transport us beyond the mundane.

Perhaps this is the difference in an "someone who acquires" and a "connoisseur."

Ultimately as a friend once said, it is us who have to live with the piece.

X+Y=Z and Z > Q (we prefer Z to Q)

Where

Q: state of existence "devoid" of enjoyment (here "Z")
X: something we associate as a "bearer" of enjoyment
Y: a ritual act of "connecting" (I. acquisition, listening)

Z = self-medication with enjoyment.

The hippies knew...! :D Anyone recognize Mr. Maisey?

http://www.ilmc.com/20/images/storie...es/hippies.jpg


:D :D :D


Thanks,

J.

Ahem, I attended Woodstock .

:D

http://s3.amazonaws.com/hottopic_sho...Woodstock1.jpg




All the fun aside... Whaddya think about hte X+Y=Z?

Is it that simple?


Thanks,

J.

I'm not quite sure Jussi; but it seems to equate . :)

Does anyone beside me have a collection of small, found, disparate objects that they keep together for good luck ?





No ?

















Okay then, I'm crazy . :o

Yes.

To both, mate.

But then we're all crazy --- aren't we?

I've got collections on collections, and to compound matters, my wife is no better.

Javanese village jewellery, kacip, gemstones, vases, porcelain, art glass, pocket knives, watches, coins, ivory carvings --- I could go on and on.

But these things all cost money.

The stuff that doesn't cost money can be just as much fun:- river stones, beach stones, bush rock, drift wood, hollow logs with orchids growing in them, natural bonsais taken from cliffs or holes in creek rock shelves, unusual bits and pieces from around old buildings & etc & etc & etc.

And right down at level one Jussi's equation undoubtedly applies to all these things.

Human beings do not usually repeat behaviour that brings distress.

They do repeat behaviour that brings pleasure.

But the mechanism of the mind that joins the "thing" and the feeling of pleasure can and does have have a multitude of variation.

Thanks Alan,

As a 21st Century man ; I have to admit; yes, I keep a fetish collection; most are found objects, stones or minerals from many different places I have been .

They all represent something special to me that (believe it or not) I believe enhance and empower my life at some subconcious level .

If they did not; I wouldn't have chosen or found them; nor they, me . ;)



Yes, I'm crazy . :cool:

Well call be crazy as well.... ;)