From a hiss of static,
One of most often forgot aspects of surrealism is that great care and attention must be applied to delicate detail. Dali was a meticulous craftsman, and so is Peter.
Peter and The Hare,
Now it is my contention that it is possible to create literal magic in language. Language has always been central to abracadbra incantations and to prayer, even simple ullulates endlessly repeated. Magic may not be the creation of something from nothing, it may be the revelation of the already existent, a rearrangement of the senses that allows one to see something in a more fundamental way. That is the basic function of the image, metaphor or whatever, but if one posits that there is more to life than the simply obvious, it may also be the central principle of aesthetic unity, the anonomatapoiec moment, which is awful longwinded way of mumbling in the dark that ebby contains literal magic in language.
plug pulled…
13 responses so far ↓
Narnie // February 24, 2008 at 10:08 am
(((((((((((((((((thank you))))))))))))))))
completely potty wasn’t he? but fabulously so… and what a gem, a wonderful acerbic contrast from Gala but how she loved him so…
Bob // February 24, 2008 at 12:35 pm
As much as it might appear sycophantic to do so, I agree with your contention that it is possible to create magic in (and with) language. If it were not, I doubt we’d have found it useful all these millenia.
johemmant // February 24, 2008 at 5:56 pm
all wonderful especially the idea of magic in words, yes, yes I say.
gingatao! // February 24, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Your welcome, Narnie, now what did he paint really, just himself, Gala, and a landscape, a theme and a context, is there more?
That’s an interesting thought, Bob. There is magic in its utility, or it’s utility is evidence of its magic. You got the point right there, to what purpose, thanks, big fella.
Me too, Jo, off we go, woohoo,
Narnie // February 24, 2008 at 8:52 pm
That’s up to you to decide. Interpretation can only ever be personal and introspective, hence enhaaancing the art. It might lead to a boisterous discussion over sausage and mash down the pub but it certainly wouldn’t be advantageous to the tactics of scrabble.
gingatao! // February 25, 2008 at 7:36 am
Oh, that’s a pity. I was hoping for some kind of discussion about the way in which art intersects with the wider world, a general methodology, that jointly we could construct an aesthetic from the ground up. Oh well, scrabble might work better for that anyway. Sometimes the strangest things happen on a scrabble board.
Narnie // February 25, 2008 at 8:26 am
You set up the board then and I will blither on about art being everywhere, in everyone, in every which way. How even the most straightforward of circumstances can be interpreted as the most beautiful because of the consistency and smooth flow of them… how even the way that gravy oozes over the butter mash, glistening in all its silky glory was placed there by the chef, with no thought to the aesthetic but with natural instinct as to what would please us… the general methodology, in my opinion, is summed up with that gravy. It is instinct. Instinct is what creates art.
Narnie // February 25, 2008 at 8:26 am
and instinct is what makes people appreciate it - no matter how unwittingly.
gingatao! // February 25, 2008 at 8:33 am
Yummy, instinct can create art, an essential ingredient I would agree, and in its appreciation. And in your description of the gravy you have pointed out that an aesthetic is not necessary in the creation or appreciation, but a general theory of art may help us to understand the world better. Why, for instance, are some paintings great masterpieces and others good only for hanging over the bar, oh and could you pass the wor chester shire sauce, please,
Narnie // February 25, 2008 at 8:43 am
Its the grab the balls thing. That is my general theory on art. The problem is, there is very little creative that is happening now because we are all so spoilt by the instant gratification we get from internet, books, tv - pretty much everything. People are more blasé about the astounding because they are convinced that the next astounding is only around the corner. So you need to grab them by the balls with unique OR you have to be the best OR the most marketable - OR maybe its just the depressing combination of all three? (You have some gravy on your chin.)
gingatao! // February 25, 2008 at 9:12 am
Everytime you say that, which is quite often nowadays, “by the..thingys” I wince, that is why I have gravy on my chin. That is to say, your words contain an emotional energy, they store it, like a battery, as it were, and when they are read, that energy is released. Art, magic, same thing. One of the differences between the masterpiece and the hack job, is the amount of energy stored, but also its particular (as you say, unique), nature. With both, the painting has an effect that changes the way the viewer sees the world for ever. Hence, literally changes the world. Is there any dessert?
Narnie // February 25, 2008 at 9:46 am
Yes, sorry, getting into character - trying to finish that chapter is driving me insane. But anyway - the whole point about art that changes the world is branding… and you’re not going to like this… but branding is the only way that art becomes successful. Worcesteshireerire sauce, for instance is an instantly recognisable product even though no-one can pronounce it and only men like it. It has found a place in our hearts. People would quite happily put a pen and ink drawing of the sauce in their kitchen because it evokes an emotion. They will never ever change that label because to do so would be to castrate their market. The same can be said of all the big branded artists - Dali, Monet, Warhol, Dickens, Shakespeare even… so does it become a choice between evolving constantly as an artist and expanding, or finding a method and sticking to it in order to change the world? I might have jam roly-poly. oh, and you dropped a vowel on the floor.
Paul // March 24, 2008 at 11:17 am
I come back to this discussion Narnie and see that we were in complete agreement throughout, the notion of an artist without an audience is ridiculous, the whole thing is in the interaction, otherwise there is no point,
Leave a Comment