I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some...

31st August 2011
Source: cuckoocuckoo
43 notes
Richard Feynman, Vivva La Vivvo (via cocknbull)

vruz: it’s an old conception of the artist descending from Parnassus, lowering himself (back then, the artist was always a he, no women allowed) to the level of the poor uneducated masses that is tied to a blessing from the heavens, just like monarchs once were. that notion of what it means to be an artist is unsustainable now everyone can have access to the necessary information, knowledge and techniques. this notion has undergone massive changes of form, but Richard Wagner’s romantic idea of the blessed artist hero being spoiled by a mortal woman is still with us, Yoko Ono was to John Lennon what Elsa was to Lohengrin, even though Elsa was a princess Lohengrin was so much better. or when John Coltrane quite literally ascended to his attic to talk to god (during an LSD trip) and compose A Love Supreme, in perfect isolation from his wife for three days. (apparently, about the time resurrections take… ) At least Coltrane was sanctified in return for his deferential treatment of deities.

women fought for their right to become actual human beings, and anyone with sufficient interest can become an artist now, so some new artificial division must be created to separate the “artist” from the riff-raff. now instead of getting a heavenly blessing from god or his representatives, the “artist” can just buy this instant recognition from a corporation, or the academy. (a different form of institutional corporatism)

I think there’s many more technology users than actual artists. Whilst I love democratisation of technology, there’s a pernicious middle class sense of entitlement to some sort of heightened position above the ignorant populace, which happens merely through the act of purchasing objects, or time networking in certain scenes.

I think there’s a different way to find meaning in art in our times, and we can do far better than people of the 19th century did.
Permalink
Tweet this

Ode on a Flower Richard Feynman Science truth

A QUOTE

I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. And he says, “You see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think he’s kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure…also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are…why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.

Reblogged from Put on the gold hats!

united colours of vruz

31st August 2011