Art is the Representation of Heroic Suffering

Joined
Sep 6, 2019
Messages
93
Likes
71
An artist, by his very nature, is someone who dies, in order to express himself, through technique. This is, of course, often misused. The first to be called this were the middle class charlatans, speculative, and bogusly rebellious. But the concept itself is something worth considering. Art is not so much the selfish accumulation of wealth, as it is the selfless mimicry of Elohim, who, in yearning for emotion amidst the boredom, invented suffering. An art of pure pain is an art representative of man. Flaubert imagines he has analysed man, in representing him through the repetition of easy platitudes, when in fact man is defined through some emotionally charged style. When we represent pain, we can imagine the actuality of being, in contrast to the aetherial boredom, which is infinitely attractive. Beauty is the opposite of art, but neither is it speculative, dysgenic, art. It is not a coin, but a dice. The sages imagine there are lofty, paedomystic forms in the aether, brought down to this earth as some kind of arbitrary tool, when in reality Elohim's clique are a hall of marble cripples, deformed children, daemon, djinn, succubi, and imp, and were true emotion called down upon this earth, true art, true poiesis, we would gloriously suffer, in a great tower of flaming blue holocausts, like a samurai marching forward, through a shower of arrows.
 

page61

PI Member
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
1,396
Likes
1,286
Location
Eire
An artist, by his very nature, is someone who dies, in order to express himself, through technique. This is, of course, often misused. The first to be called this were the middle class charlatans, speculative, and bogusly rebellious. But the concept itself is something worth considering. Art is not so much the selfish accumulation of wealth, as it is the selfless mimicry of Elohim, who, in yearning for emotion amidst the boredom, invented suffering. An art of pure pain is an art representative of man. Flaubert imagines he has analysed man, in representing him through the repetition of easy platitudes, when in fact man is defined through some emotionally charged style. When we represent pain, we can imagine the actuality of being, in contrast to the aetherial boredom, which is infinitely attractive. Beauty is the opposite of art, but neither is it speculative, dysgenic, art. It is not a coin, but a dice. The sages imagine there are lofty, paedomystic forms in the aether, brought down to this earth as some kind of arbitrary tool, when in reality Elohim's clique are a hall of marble cripples, deformed children, daemon, djinn, succubi, and imp, and were true emotion called down upon this earth, true art, true poiesis, we would gloriously suffer, in a great tower of flaming blue holocausts, like a samurai marching forward, through a shower of arrows.

Any chance of dumbing it down for the likes of myself ? I do not mean this in a derogatory way but what are you actually trying to say?
 

page61

PI Member
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
1,396
Likes
1,286
Location
Eire
Depends on what you consider to be art

True.

I think the main difference is talent . When you look at someone like Dali , there is no doubt he is talented.Even if you do not like his art, you would still have to admit he was talented (or Gala was).
However someone like Jackson Pollock or Damien Hirst are (in my opinion) talentless because someone had to "Tell"us that they were good then go on to interpret and intellectualize their work .
Take the series of paintings Hirst did involving dripping paint onto a wheel which is rotating .. as a kid ithink we did something similar in playschool . It was random and had nothing to do with talent.

Is art automatically good if fools are prepared to part with very large sums of cash ? That does not sound right
 

jpc

PI Member
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
1,618
Likes
2,110
You can suffer heroically trying to interpret some of the latest artistic offering's.
Hirst comes to mind.
 
Top Bottom