where does your art come from?

"One does not discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time." - Andre Gide

A reader William asked an excellent question in a comment. As not everyone reads the comments section, here it is and my response below:

"An observation on the fast.

References to the rich variety of visual and literary artists seemed to have been removed and replaced by contemplations of popular movies. What are we or should we be fasting from when we decide to fast?"

Posted by: William | Jul 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM

My response:

Fair point, William. The fast hasn't started yet. Saturday. [Or Sunday, or Monday depending on what works best for you. I'll write on topic for over a week to catch everyone that wants to participate in real-time.] But I'd include other people's art and works too in that fast. It's just for a week!

Isaac Newton had nearly two years self-study when Cambridge closed down because of the plague; Buckminster Fuller took a 2-year vow of SILENCE to purge other people's concepts out of his mind; Bob Dylan after a motorcycle accident went into the Big Pink house, went within to compose/develop his own style without the popular 60's music surrounding him, hounding him. Just a few examples of going within. Like Terence McKenna said "Create your own road show."

I was curious about popular media lately, especially popular films since that seems to be the way the zeitgeist and programmed symbols are coming through these days. Even paintings contain much of the same symbology as I'm noting in popular media.

I was curious where these influences are coming from. Is it really "us" deep within, our own inspiration, are we channels for the Source? - or are we merely being programmed by the media and their masters to be THEIR channels (and robots)?

I've been noticing that in cities, artists have been making art for other artists...poets go to the readings, artists go to the gallery openings. Everything starts to look like the same. It could all be in Juxtapoz next issue.

Truthfully, I'm not into writing that much these days. I'm working on an installation idea. But even I need to do some purging of other peep's concepts, media inundation, etc.to do something fresh, and really like an INITIATION for me and the viewers. "Vincent Van Gogh gave the most demanding definition of painting. It was a process of initiation. He had to make visible that which could not be seen without painting." - "Van Gogh: The Passionate Eye"

I have a few posts on Van Gogh, James Turrell up my sleeve coming up too. Hang in there...

p.s. The fast might make more sense watching this short video, "Reclaim Your Mind". (Personally, highly don't recommend McKenna's other vid's regarding 2012 and psy- drugs).

"Don't watch TV. Don't read magazines. Don't even listen to NPR. Create your own roadshow." - Terence McKenna

p.p.s. I've watched way too many popular films lately (not typical for me). I made specific references to Wall-E, The Matrix, and Truman Show because they have some worthwhile messages about deprogramming in them. Though even they are double-edged.

More specifics of the media fast Saturday. Anything that you consume and look towards as an intermediary for your information and imagination is fair game.

Comments

[Mira]

Where does art come from?

What an excellent question!

If we want to go to the source I would say it comes from sex.

Sacred sex that is.

It comes from women when they are aware of their transcendental existence and when they are able to transform
a purely material act into something higher - art, if you will.

[xausus]

"Where does art come from?"
Nature makes its own art (modern-science approved) - we tap into nature to bring out its art, subjectively. Art shifts the focus onto simple things by putting un-simple things into context. This spawns pattern, symmetry, irony, ambiguity, etc - all the aesthetics. For example, if you think about movies with a big twist at the end, it's the suspension of knowledge that yields a powerful response from us. I don't mean to deprive the arts, I'm just trying to reconcile them with science.

I think this contempt against media forms in society to improves one's awareness, but it does not try to recognize a root to the problem. That is why William was probably asking his question. People focus on the immaterial because it is an objective course. They might figure: there is mostly action in reality, while there is mostly reaction in imagination. We need both to some extent, and so art and science become intertwined. Acting in imagination is a rebellious mentality to the world, though it might make progress in and of oneself. William is the only one who can answer his question.

[xausus]

Typo: I meant to say "People focus on the material because it is more of an objective course."

[xausus]

I don't usually read these overtly sentimental blogs (or write on them), so no offense intended here. I did enjoy these recent entries though, since I dabble in this kind of melodious contemplation every so often. Like just now I came to this fascinating image of simplicity...I will share my general insight (for participation points):

Background: Say we believe in One. For all its reasons, our knowledge of One seems dualistic. The most profound analogies in science include mirror reflections, binocular vision (2 vergences), [quantum, chaos & relativity theories], and a lot of neuroscience, for examples. Spiritual people say 'Source' and 'God', while science people say 'Energy' and 'Light' - same things. In trying to find order and simplicity, they all come down to a paradox, or an illusion of duality. It's a simplified version of the true One - a spectrum to our eyes. This speculation is based on holistic understanding.

Now, the question is why do things seem dualistic? It goes to the nature of our creation/evolution...Our natural logic is truly a distinction between [true and not true], rather than [true and false] at its roots. In spiritual terms, you probably know that a [Love-Hate] duality is truly a [Love-with-its-back-turned] scenario. Unity is known in the form of these fundamental distinctions. This implies that our true nature as human beings came from One. This brings us to the classic male-female duality. This is a big clue in uncovering our nature because sex/intercourse is a very strong analogy. Orthodoxy views the male as the first human being followed by the female. However they both came to be, it was from the separation of One into two. I believe that split is what caused an inherent dualistic quality into our nature. I use the term 'paradox' accordingly in philosophy. I believe this type of sexism is a fundamental concept to understanding nature. We learn a lot from the general discrepancies we see between males and females. But back to the analogy...when a male and a female have intercourse, they are uniting together to connect their souls. That is part of why sex is the most profound and strongest experience known to man or woman.

You can say that sex is always on a guy's mind, but know that it's for a reason. When we unite in flesh, lingam in yoni, it brings us full circle as close as possible to One - the place of no paradox. I believe that feeling is ultimately where our expression of art/meaning comes from - that simple paradox.

"Where does your art come from?"
To put it in one word: Love.

Perhaps it's too simple and imaginative for an answer, but you did ask for one. It's just one of infinite routes to get that answer too. Truth in my heart is how it is at this moment alone. Thanks for the prior inspiration.