|
Post by jhananda on Dec 20, 2010 17:09:54 GMT -5
I am inclined to agree with Ekhard Tolle when he says, "the majority, mainstream, of society that considers itself 'normal', is what we are calling totally insane." And, you provided many excellent examples of who insane western thinking continues to be.
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 21, 2010 17:11:38 GMT -5
Jeffrey, I was listening to a 1996 interview between Michael Silverblatt and David Foster Wallace today (Wallace committed suicide in 1998 from depression), where Wallace is talking about how there is no outlet or place even in contemporary fiction where it is possible to talk about spiritual values, you know, without just seeming like a flake of some kind. He doesn't say it quite like that, but in his mammoth novel "Infinite Jest", he mentions how part of the plot revolves around addiction and recovery, and AA meetings, which he mentions is one of the few places in American society where people are actually permitted to talk about 'spiritual' feelings in a way that is like a dialogue. Now I'm not saying this is anything extraordinary, but it struck me that while art is about transmuting an experience of the divine into some formal icon of one sort or another, the artist themselves have no one to talk to about these things, are from the perspective of society under enormous pressure to produce work that satisfies a certain expectation about how art functions. I think what I am trying to say, is I want to find a way to open dialogue between artists, people who are spiritually inclined by are always misguided or have incomplete or wacky ways of thinking about it. I am still struck by your guidelines for becoming a contemplative on the GWV, and wonder, how do we bring people together to discuss the sorts of problems that society is facing and that artists struggle to articulate in fancy co-modifiable formats. I dont mean it to sound like art can be replaced by some kind of do-it-yourself self help contemplative guide and feel full filled by that, but maybe at least I myself would like to say that this is the path I follow as a contemplative, it comes from Jeff Brooks, and if you are going to be an artist, then you as a person, can continue to get your work done through your addictions or compulsive ego driven need to be validated, or you can find a deeper balance between leading a 'life' that allows the art to be an instrument that is more in balance with what we are calling 'sanity'. Which in turn is a more complete and fulfilling example to others to, in addition of being a fan of someone's work, would also admire them as an exemplary human being who values more then his or her own 'success' and ego gratification that follows. I dont know if that makes any sense, i just know that political world that I would have to enter to go back into leading an artistic career, is one where I simply want to know immediately the value of someones 'work' by not only the work, but also by what factors influence the direction and choices they make to lead their life.
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 21, 2010 17:14:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Dec 21, 2010 18:13:13 GMT -5
Well, good points, Don, I suppose this forum is an attempt at providing one of those places where people can talk about their spiritual experiences.
True, AA offers people a place to talk about whatever the want regarding the 12 steps, and the 12th step is the spiritual experience; however, I find AA and its founders have been reyified by their present day following, so there is little interest in evolving recovery beyond the rather naive origins of AA.
I am attempting to start a contemplative recovery school that goes well beyond AA, this forum is part of that effort, but as you can see, it is just the few of use for right now.
Sure artists could develop a school of contemplative artists who have spiritual experiences. We could call it "neo-transcendentalism," or "ecstatic and charismatic art movement." What do you think?
Best, Jeffrey
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 22, 2010 19:27:13 GMT -5
Jeffrey, I wonder if you could resolve a rather long standing issue I have had on art, and that is what exactly is the task of art? Why do we have it, and what is it for?
Who are we calling artists and what role
Creativity seems an essential aspect of life, "we are all artists" is an old cliche, but only old since the last century. Is art taking over the role of religion from previous centuries? And is this task simply creating more neurotics because although I agree that art can provide altered states of consciousness, when the author then goes and commits suicide, we have to conclude that with all his/her talent, and 'wonderful' legacy of work, that they didn't solve the problem that they were supposedly claiming to have had some 'access' to through the 'vehicle' of their art. Is the problem suffering? And does art, or can art alleviate suffering permanently? In a world (a future world) where everyone is an artist - acknowledged, validated, and understood as such - and art is the product of simply 'being', where 'being' is art, would we not have arrived at the same point that the 'contemplative' is aiming for?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Dec 23, 2010 16:05:34 GMT -5
Hello Don, art and music are essentially highly personal acts that originate as solo activities. So, essentially the “purpose” of art, music, poetry, etc. is a vehicle of intimate personal expression of thoughts, ideas, experiences and feelings, and generally is not focused at an audience. It is only later that the artist is “discovered,” and a desire to exhibit and preserve the art is expressed by its audience, which has commercial implications.
Therefore an artist is anyone who is drawn to express intimate personal thoughts, ideas, experiences and feelings, in some medium, such as the spoken word, visual art, music, poetry, dance, etc.; and does not require recognition from anyone as an expression of art, nor does that expression require a commercial component or value to anyone other than the artist. For instance at least some of the prehistoric cave paintings, such as in Lascaux, France that date back 10s of thousands of years, appear to have been created for the artist only. Therefore "we are all artists," because everyone is drawn to express their intimate personal thoughts, ideas, experiences and feelings, in some medium, whether it is in doodling, snapshots, telling stories, jokes, singing music, etc.
Since art is an intimate personal expression of thoughts, ideas, experiences and feelings; then it is essentially contemplative. However, not all artists or contemplatives are successful at alleviate their suffering permanently. It is only those who develop facility with attaining daily the first four stages of contemplation, which Siddhartha Gautama called “jhana,” who come to alleviate their suffering permanently.
Love to all, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 24, 2010 17:12:37 GMT -5
Jeffrey, I very much like, and appreciate, your well thought out reply, it is interesting to me that you don't mention anything about an 'esthetic' component, or 'beauty', as most people would normally associate art to be about. As Samuel Beckett replied when asked why he writes (when he seems to be telling us that there is no 'point' to it), that it is "for reasons unknown, and unknowable, that I cannot remain silent." Also you mention about how 'audience' is really not a factor when considering the question 'what is art'? I agree, and I think that is by no means an obvious observation, the paintings of Lascaux are an excellent example, you also say that 'doodling', and other activities not 'intended' to be viewed as 'art', that humans engage in, such as humming to oneself, or recognizing certain patterns that emerge in a particular environment, 'auto-composing' a piece of music, and so on. It seems to me that these types of 'self-organizing behaviors arise more frequently, and of course with less 'personal' involvement, or "interference" if you will, when we enter the altered states, and carry them with us into our daily activities. Maybe just generally we experience a higher level of creativity and personal fulfillment at the same time when it is associated with the states. States which many artists claim to eneter when working on/with art. Remaining in the states becomes the most pleasurable experience in itself. And engaging with others, for example in forms of 'chamber music', or any sort of interpersonal exchange, can often heighten, or bring us even deeper into an absorption state. Again your comments Jeffrey about audience are intriguing, because a comment I have made in the past about music that I like, or that interests me, is that which appears to not care if you listen, as if it were being played for itself, and no-one else. It is true of much early music, and I am thinking of renaissance viol music which was basically written for amateur musicians and to be played in the comfort of a home amongst friends, not for an audience. And the music sounds like that! A very soft interior quality to the music, music that was not intended to be put into the dialectal relationship of observer and observed, audience and subject, analysis and criticism, showmanship, meeting some external demands placed upon it. One question I have, then, it would seem to be a problem, if we are all artists, how to approach the question of what is 'good' art, or even, is it still possible to distinguish between, good and 'great' art? How does the question of 'value' enter the picture?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Dec 25, 2010 9:06:26 GMT -5
Yes, I agree, some artists report entering states they find a most pleasurable experience when creating art. When I create art I too enter such states. And, I find these states consistent with the mystic’s description of contemplation (samadhi, fanna, loca, loc).
I find renaissance viol music very comforting. When I listen to music, it is often this kind of music. On this subject, have you seen the movie “Tous le matins du monde?”
Placing value upon art and choosing what is 'good' art, is a personal choice, and is irrelevant to the personal, subjective use of art by the artist. Whoever, I recognize that artists would like to make a living with their art. But, if they are truly making art as a subjective experience, then the sale of their art should never dictate their subject, medium, or execution.
Love and happy holidays to all,
Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 25, 2010 16:28:03 GMT -5
Yes, in fact I play the bass Viol! I loved that music so much that I learned it as a second instrument, but only played as an amateur. I gave my viol to a student recently who plays cello as a second instrument. Yes, I am quite overwhelmed by the beauty and strangeness of that music, William Lawes is my favorite renaissance viol composer, for the French baroque of course Marin Marais and St Colombe. Going back a little further I also particularly love the late 14thcentury, the Huelgas Ensemble performing some of the best recordings I know. Wonderful music for this season, here's some links: www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nlq69pmADo&feature=related(I know no other music that 'breaths' the way this music does, is part of the the french performance practice, 'breathtaking!') www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMoRPxLdSQ0&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ_FAwg9aT8&feature=related(How did the renaissance lute ever give way to the modern guitar? Its such a fantastic instrument, even to look at! I'm blown away by Jordi Savalls musicianship and how he can keep his group in such perfect tuning, amazing) William Lawes www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-j8pVOVfdowww.youtube.com/watch?v=MMJTn7Qe7MA&feature=relatedAnd some late 14th Century Music: www.youtube.com/watch?v=whYXwUBEPV4&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=cGoQ7yN1wBE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=MShLMdjItu0&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Dec 27, 2010 16:36:27 GMT -5
Thanks, Don, for the excellent links. I came down with the flu Christmas day, so I only just got out today, and I listened to all of your links. There is certainly something very contemplative about renaissance music, but there is also something very melancholy about it as well. I find the Gregorian Chant to also have this blend of the contemplative and melancholy
Love to all, Jeffrey
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 27, 2010 18:47:13 GMT -5
One significant reason is the use of modes, the medieval modes and scales as the basis of composing musical lines. During the renaissance and the advent of 3D perspective with Brunelleschi's Dome in Florence, we find also the rise, or emergence of diatonic tonality, which always has the effect of guiding, directing, and sometimes pushing the listener in emotional narratives that the modes of medieval music simply do not. The modes are 2D, there is no 'center', as in tonality, so there is often the feeling of a free meandering quality to the music that you simply dont get from the early baroque onwards until the 20th century. The use of modes re-emerged in the 20th century in many forms of new music, for this very quality that it has. Satie is a good example, one of the earliest examples, where at the peak of romanticism here we have Satie writing these 'flat', very bland, yet beautiful quiet pieces in utter contrast to the world happening around him. Hildegard von Bingen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen) was supposedly a mystic and composer, during the middle ages, and wrote some very marvelous music, here are a few samples: www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9yLENbXHdE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=9eFPJa95qQE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv3CDYpkrSw&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=taanHO13WXE&feature=relatedwww.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Sj3blczB8&NR=1www.youtube.com/watch?v=taanHO13WXE&feature=related
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 27, 2010 18:59:40 GMT -5
I have to say, I'm more a fan of polyphonic music, still using the modes, this piece by Nicolas Gombert from the renaissance is wonderful live, and you get these wonderful dissonances, where the music seems to 'tangle' for brief moments, very strange to our sensibility, but i love it (turn this one up a bit louder!): www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWs6kcgS1WoIn this vein of music we get alot of 'giant' multi voice pieces, Tallis 40 part spem in alium the most famous, again astounding heard live, but this is a great recording with the Huelgas Ensemble: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncsqIe-S-Fg
|
|
|
Post by don on Dec 27, 2010 19:05:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Dec 28, 2010 17:06:28 GMT -5
Thank-you Don, for sharing more links to excellent music. I have favorited most of them. Yes, I am familiar with Hildegard of Bingen, and find here a mystic worthy of study by aspiring mystics.
Love to all, Jeffrey
|
|
|
Post by Don on Dec 30, 2010 12:47:41 GMT -5
My pleasure Jeffrey, Hildegard sounds interesting, I hadn't actually read very much about her, but am certainly familiar with her music. I just read about her on Wikapedia, where they mention that she is most noted for her various 'visions' of 'light'. I am guessing from these editorial descriptions that we would be encountering the same sort of 'translation' problems that you find with translating the Buddhist scriptures. I would need to read her actually writing of course, but as simple 'visions of light' of various kinds, it sounds like she was entering various altered states of consciousness, which for me I would also liken them to states of 'lightness' or I would prefer states of 'clarity' of vision. I simply see things more clearly, when in 2nd and most certainly 3rd Jhana I am entering non-dual states where I feel no sense of separation between myself and others, a very certain 'lightness' or 'emptiness' is also characteristic. She would have 'interpreted' these states through the lens of Christian mysticism, which I am not familiar with. I still have not read St John of the Cross or Teresa of Avila.
Back to the issue of art and audience, I was just reading the profile of someone I knew long ago, who now writes about himself as one of Canada's 'leading composers'. The pictures and awards, the self promotion, it just turns my guts inside, I can't picture myself so blatantly self promoting, it hurts, it feels dishonest, even when I consider myself a better composer than he! Relative notions, he is not bad, but what you said about the act of making art, as an activity, is highly personal, but then when it enters a community of other art works, it takes on a life of its own, it makes different statements for different people, and it is this sense of dialogue that I believe is what is connected to the issue of 'recognition' in my own view. Creating art, is like coming into dialogue with ourselves, and then that work enters into other forms of dialogue as it is heard a 'co-created' with other 'listener's' experience of that work. Why do people need to be 'a leading artist' of a country, I don't see him that way, who does he think he is fooling? Leading who? Leading what? Like the pied piper leading us all astray. Or like you mentioned Jeffrey, that only a true mystic can bring another to mysticism, all others, the self-proclaimed 'leaders' do nothing but deceive themselves and others while receiving the grants and awards, recognition, and the sense of 'full-filling' a career path? These are the fake priests, the ones who have not yet seen through there own delusion. I read interviews with him, and come away with nothing, a description of his current big 'opera' project, garbage. I could go on but will pause here...
Happy new year to all, best, Don
|
|