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.... ;)

Jussi
 

So, what do you think ?

Are you crazy too ?

Rick

Rick, maybe we're all crazy, or maybe we're all not crazy.

We go for regular trips to places to collect rocks.

Beach rocks, river rocks, volcanic rocks. One time we went on holidays up to a gemstone area in northern NSW, and we collected so many rocks, and particularly thunder eggs, that my wife and two of the kids came home by train.

Now that's crazy.

Mate of mine took his family up to place called Mullaley. Farm holiday. The farm incorporated the site of an old gold mining village, long gone the village, but he found the old village rubbish tip and spent his holiday digging up bottles. His kids came home by train too.

Gathering these sort of things makes you feel good when you find them, and then you put them somewhere around the house, and you feel good every time you see them.

My two desk paperweights are rocks. One is a piece of water worn agate, the other is a piece of water worn bloodstone. I use them like worry beads, and they remind me of the circumstances of their finding. They make me feel good.

So whether its a fetish thing , or just a memory key, one way or another these things have a positive effect on our lives.

Crazy?

Yeah maybe.

But crazy smart.

Yes, mate .
I have a thousand things I have collected or found that appeal to me and bring great memories and pleasure .

Very few of these go into my fetish box .
These few that are in it, are somehow quite different from the others .

So maybe I've drifted us off topic a bit .

Funny how thin the veneer of modern enlightenment actually is sometimes...., at least in my case .
I don't think I'm alone .

Anyway, back on topic . :o

Rick, I'm inclined to think that all of this is most definitely on topic.

My original question in Post # 1 to this thread was:-

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.

Yes, certainly we've tended to focus on art, and collecting as opposed to pure appreciation seems to have dominated the thoughts of most of us, but these last few postsare, I feel, getting close to the heart of the matter:-

for one reason or another a "thing" can make us feel good.


It might be because it stirs a memory, it might because it opens the door to the steppes of Central Asia, it might because it transports us to a beach somewhere on the other side of the world, it might be because it makes us feel safe.

Whatever the reason might be there is a link between the "thing" and something that is happening in our mind, and that link has a positive effect.

I reckon we're on topic.

Funny, you know; many will not show their Pusakas nor even their kerises on this site .

I would never share pictures of the contents of my fetish box .
Beside being off-topic I feel they would be diminished somehow by doing so .

Call me whatever you like . :shrug:

Somehow it seems like more than appreciation; more elemental .

Yeah, I reckon that's a part of it:-

things that one identifies as a part of oneself should remain unique unto oneself

I feel that its OK if we allow close friends to see and handle our keris, but I cannot bring myself to post pics of my personal pieces for the world to see.

Appreciation

Elemental.

The two ideas are probably related, and if we talk "elemental" we can move away from the purely human.

Here in Oz we have a bird called a bower bird. It builds a bower out of grasses and twigs and strips of cloth etc, in which it dances to attract a mate; this bird has an obsession with all things blue, and it decorates its bower with anything blue that it can find.

Don't tell me that bird doesn't appreciate the colour blue. A link between the blue thing and what is happening in the bird's mind, even though it might be driven by inheritance.

As for names, I used to know bloke who would say:- " you can call me anything you like --- just make sure you smile when you say ba***rd"

:)

You need to ask? ;)

http://brians-mnm-wiki.wikispaces.co...allpapers1.jpg


Maybe it is so that the so labelled "crazy" amongst us actually are the healthiest? Anyway, I very much agree with what Mr. Bill Marsh has put forth a few posting before only that I would like to change the words "great Art" with "what we identify with enjoyment". – Why? Because I personally feel that the usual associations we get from the word "Art" exclude most of what we identify with enjoyment but not the other way around.

Stones and rocks? Sure. – I usually have one in the front pocket of my jeans. At the writing of this I have two, one in each pocket – the usual good luck stone and its more recent back up :p

No fair, now you guys are talking rock collections. I moved out of my parents place well over 30 years ago, they still ask me when I am going to get my collection of rocks out of their old shed. Like you Alan, i was involved in collecting rocks from lots of interesting places in New South Wales and Queensland, and I too have a lot of thunder eggs (an enclosed generally star shaped agate for those not familiar with the term). I spent a lot of my youth poking around old mine dumps, creek beds and cliff faces. And for Rick, David and Jussi, my favourite form of exercise is hiking up mountains. Where I live they are not like the Alps, only rising up to 1400 metres but there are hundreds and hundreds of them. Mind you some of them you have to hike for 3 days to get to the bottom so that you can walk to the top. Each one I walk up, I have to collect a small stone from the top. Otherwise I wasn't there. Fetish is a pretty good word for it really.
DrD

You sound a bit like me Dr.

I've got some really good stones.

I mean really powerful stones, like from Candi Sukuh and Candi Panataran. And thats apart from from the 4.5 tons I have from various other locations. Just can't walk away from a good rock. Got my eye on one up near Abercrombie Caves. Its buried in a creek bed, and involves a steep 500 yard carry to get it to a vehicle. Looks like it weighs about 250-300 pounds. That's going to take some ingenuity.

Jussi, the reason I included "art" along with "objects" was because I wanted people to consider things like the performing arts. I considered "enjoyment" and "satisfaction" and a few other ways of phrasing the idea I had, but when I went that way I just couldn't get away from food, sex and drugs. I put a lot of time into phrasing that idea.