DIETROLOGY
The Anatomy Of A Response
I was wondering about what to write. Swithering between yet another rant against Helvetica Culture; against idiotic mixed capitalisation in song, movie and book titles; or else taking a deserved swipe at the bokeworthy new mustn't haves known as jeggings.
Or indeed another admiring update on the Somali pirates.
It's all a bit obsessive. As if it were enough to be merely obsessed. As if that were sufficient explanation, as if that's just how something is.
But when you stop and ask yourself the question what is it about the thing you obsess over that creates that special intense response, you have to search deep down for some kind of answer that isn't just a rewording of the obsession, or a glib legitimising I-think superstition. Not in order to justify or rationalise, not to be right or wrong. But to fulfil a curiosity about what lies behind: transparent concessions that are clearly in operation with this and other strong emotional responses.
Once again things are not what they seem.
obsession
obsession begins with the identification of a symbolic representation of an unconscious value we always held - once identified, the symbols start appearing everywhere because we're now actively looking for them; these values lie hidden behind the illusion of identity, which is why they're so difficult to express in words
disappointment
linguistically speaking, we become disappointed in or with an exernal someone or something, as if it were outside our control, and likewise we experience it as if we were passive agents; in fact, disappointment can only be something we've personally planned for through a set of expectations that fail to be fulfilled
impulsiveness
what appears to be impulsive (like a purchase, or a kiss, or saying the wrong thing, or a punch) is in fact illusory: it is planned unconsciously by us well in advance of its happening - its apparent suddenness is the moment of entering an unprepared conscious awareness
attraction
in language we refer to being attracted towards someone or something, as if it were an active process - however, unlike disappointment, attraction is something that happens to us, passively; it's a process in which we have no choice despite the illusion that we are somehow active participants
DIETROLOGY 8
DIETROLOGY 7
DIETROLOGY 6
Showing posts with label transparent concession. Show all posts
Showing posts with label transparent concession. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
DIETROLOGY 6
DIETROLOGY
Poker Face
No limit hold'em poker's extraordinary surge in popularity was partly triggered by the 2004 NHL lock-out which resulted in TV sports channels having hours of empty time to fill. At the same time the game was becoming a very lucrative internet business, allowing cheap and fast readily-available games around the clock. And important, in the world of gambling (online and live), was the ability to play against other humans rather than against a distrusted casino, with all their guaranteed mathematical edge.
As a TV spectacle, since there's so little to see beyond the dodgy baseball caps and shades, poker would have been cripplingly soporific were it not for the innovation of the lipstick camera, a cunning way for the viewers to see the players' hole cards. Thus, the fascinating inner psychological world of body language and emotional response, that's so alluring to the game's participants, is beautifully contextualised. So essentially, for us the viewers, a delicious transparent concession becomes visible; a privilege to which the players themselves are, naturally, denied.
And it's this denial of meaningful information, other than who's winning and losing, that's an integral part of the appeal for the players themselves. Because it allows them to hold on to their most cherished superstitions about themselves and others. See, poker isn't what it at first seems to be: it's not a card game. It's a people game founded on probabilistic outcomes based on severely incomplete data.
It's rather similar to the attractive delusions us guys (typically) have about our alleged skills in the bedroom, or say, behind the wheel of a car. They're beliefs that, reassuringly, can't be challenged because neither we nor anyone else are permitted meaningful means of contrast, comparison, or calibration. It's a perfect breeding ground for zealously exaggerated I-thinks, and when added to the rushes and thrills to be had from gambling and Lady Luck, poker becomes all too irresistible.
DIETROLOGY 5
DIETROLOGY 4
DIETROLOGY 3
Poker Face
No limit hold'em poker's extraordinary surge in popularity was partly triggered by the 2004 NHL lock-out which resulted in TV sports channels having hours of empty time to fill. At the same time the game was becoming a very lucrative internet business, allowing cheap and fast readily-available games around the clock. And important, in the world of gambling (online and live), was the ability to play against other humans rather than against a distrusted casino, with all their guaranteed mathematical edge.
As a TV spectacle, since there's so little to see beyond the dodgy baseball caps and shades, poker would have been cripplingly soporific were it not for the innovation of the lipstick camera, a cunning way for the viewers to see the players' hole cards. Thus, the fascinating inner psychological world of body language and emotional response, that's so alluring to the game's participants, is beautifully contextualised. So essentially, for us the viewers, a delicious transparent concession becomes visible; a privilege to which the players themselves are, naturally, denied.
And it's this denial of meaningful information, other than who's winning and losing, that's an integral part of the appeal for the players themselves. Because it allows them to hold on to their most cherished superstitions about themselves and others. See, poker isn't what it at first seems to be: it's not a card game. It's a people game founded on probabilistic outcomes based on severely incomplete data.
It's rather similar to the attractive delusions us guys (typically) have about our alleged skills in the bedroom, or say, behind the wheel of a car. They're beliefs that, reassuringly, can't be challenged because neither we nor anyone else are permitted meaningful means of contrast, comparison, or calibration. It's a perfect breeding ground for zealously exaggerated I-thinks, and when added to the rushes and thrills to be had from gambling and Lady Luck, poker becomes all too irresistible.
DIETROLOGY 5
DIETROLOGY 4
DIETROLOGY 3
Thursday, January 22, 2009
SIGNAL TO NOISE 6
VI : Apheresis
Beyond the topic of intent, earlier I referred to the blank frames that adults intuitively and typically incorporate into photography and painting. This, I believe, is a direct result of social pressures imposed upon us most noticeably in early adolescence. In fact, I prefer the term within my model of consciousness 'the tide of environment' (I never could resist an aquatic metaphor), if only because it also encompasses the powerful influence of, say, the physiology of buildings and spaces, amongst other things. I also referred to that infuriating can't-do won't-do attitude, which, within the same model, I see as borne of the illusion of identity (something I've written a lot about) and further reinforced and exacerbated by a broken system of education.
What's clear is that Congo and young children don't suffer from these obstructions or obstacles within their artistic endeavour, therefore even with the bestest most purest intent in the whole world, these issues can be critical for achieving objectively the most successful results. We can't go back to being a child, nor can we become like Congo; while these behavioural influences are so potent, so embedded in our conscious, it is useless to attempt resistance by denial or by some kind of belief in freedom of choice.
As I see it, there are two other paths open: the first being to incorporate the element of randomisation, particularly through collaboration, through working in groups. The chaotisation of input has the alchemical potential for results far greater than the sum of the individual parts. However, success is entirely dependent upon chance - and that likelihood is very slight indeed. The second path is for there to be obstructions to the obstructions. This can take many forms, some riskier to the artist's health and welfare than others: isolation, drugs, asceticism, madness, tragedy, or even the predetermination of special rules (the Dogma series of films is a good example of the latter).
continue to part 7 (final)
Beyond the topic of intent, earlier I referred to the blank frames that adults intuitively and typically incorporate into photography and painting. This, I believe, is a direct result of social pressures imposed upon us most noticeably in early adolescence. In fact, I prefer the term within my model of consciousness 'the tide of environment' (I never could resist an aquatic metaphor), if only because it also encompasses the powerful influence of, say, the physiology of buildings and spaces, amongst other things. I also referred to that infuriating can't-do won't-do attitude, which, within the same model, I see as borne of the illusion of identity (something I've written a lot about) and further reinforced and exacerbated by a broken system of education.
What's clear is that Congo and young children don't suffer from these obstructions or obstacles within their artistic endeavour, therefore even with the bestest most purest intent in the whole world, these issues can be critical for achieving objectively the most successful results. We can't go back to being a child, nor can we become like Congo; while these behavioural influences are so potent, so embedded in our conscious, it is useless to attempt resistance by denial or by some kind of belief in freedom of choice.
As I see it, there are two other paths open: the first being to incorporate the element of randomisation, particularly through collaboration, through working in groups. The chaotisation of input has the alchemical potential for results far greater than the sum of the individual parts. However, success is entirely dependent upon chance - and that likelihood is very slight indeed. The second path is for there to be obstructions to the obstructions. This can take many forms, some riskier to the artist's health and welfare than others: isolation, drugs, asceticism, madness, tragedy, or even the predetermination of special rules (the Dogma series of films is a good example of the latter).
continue to part 7 (final)
Monday, January 19, 2009
SIGNAL TO NOISE 5
V : Intents And Purposes
'Chimp loves yes adores his Chimp paints and Chimp brushes with all his Chimp heart and Chimp soul and any Thing or any Human that gets in Chimp way really fucking piss Chimp off!'
Congo
When someone is so passionate, cares so much about what they make, for the simple act of making it, the results will inevitably resonate with significance. And it's then and only then that factors such as technique, or applied transparent concessions, can be considered. This is because all output is primarily filtered through the prism of intent (compare Stanislavski's stage term super-objective). That's why it's so important to ask oneself what intent does The Invisible Man (i.e. the artist) have?
Common themes of impure intent (representing the vast majority of adult human creativity):
- I do it for money (for greed, to pay bills, for drugs/booze, for my family, for other projects)
- I do it for the celebrity
- I do it to be like someone else
- I do it to help me get laid
- I do it because others pressure me
- I do it for attention
- I do it as a way of compensating (for shyness, for having been bullied, for lack of success, for revenge)
- I don't know what else to do with my life
- I do it to be liked
All these examples are compromised to hell because the focus is towards some thing outwith the art itself. Ars non artis. Conversely, artists whose intent is one of devotion to a god, an ideal or belief system, a lover or a hero, are not. The focus in this latter group requires the same degree of passion, commitment, and sacrifice for the art itself as Congo's does, and sometimes even more. I'll be blunt, the vast majority of human artistic intent is utterly and irredeemably untrustworthy. I don't give a damn how well-produced, glossy, limited edition, catchy, professional, proficient (or not) it is, because those qualities are secondary to what counts. Congo's wonderful soulful work beats all that crap hands down. That's why artistic geniuses are inimitable, because the epigones imitate the visible parts that don't matter. That's why scratchy lo-fi recordings of Robert Johnson will comprehensively blow away almost any latter-day blues guitarist, good and bad. Other examples are surely already occurring to you.
It's worth adding that intent isn't static and can radically change throughout an artist's life. It's all too common for initial integrity of purpose to be soon and forever corrupted.
continue to part 6
'Chimp loves yes adores his Chimp paints and Chimp brushes with all his Chimp heart and Chimp soul and any Thing or any Human that gets in Chimp way really fucking piss Chimp off!'
Congo
When someone is so passionate, cares so much about what they make, for the simple act of making it, the results will inevitably resonate with significance. And it's then and only then that factors such as technique, or applied transparent concessions, can be considered. This is because all output is primarily filtered through the prism of intent (compare Stanislavski's stage term super-objective). That's why it's so important to ask oneself what intent does The Invisible Man (i.e. the artist) have?
Common themes of impure intent (representing the vast majority of adult human creativity):
- I do it for money (for greed, to pay bills, for drugs/booze, for my family, for other projects)
- I do it for the celebrity
- I do it to be like someone else
- I do it to help me get laid
- I do it because others pressure me
- I do it for attention
- I do it as a way of compensating (for shyness, for having been bullied, for lack of success, for revenge)
- I don't know what else to do with my life
- I do it to be liked
All these examples are compromised to hell because the focus is towards some thing outwith the art itself. Ars non artis. Conversely, artists whose intent is one of devotion to a god, an ideal or belief system, a lover or a hero, are not. The focus in this latter group requires the same degree of passion, commitment, and sacrifice for the art itself as Congo's does, and sometimes even more. I'll be blunt, the vast majority of human artistic intent is utterly and irredeemably untrustworthy. I don't give a damn how well-produced, glossy, limited edition, catchy, professional, proficient (or not) it is, because those qualities are secondary to what counts. Congo's wonderful soulful work beats all that crap hands down. That's why artistic geniuses are inimitable, because the epigones imitate the visible parts that don't matter. That's why scratchy lo-fi recordings of Robert Johnson will comprehensively blow away almost any latter-day blues guitarist, good and bad. Other examples are surely already occurring to you.
It's worth adding that intent isn't static and can radically change throughout an artist's life. It's all too common for initial integrity of purpose to be soon and forever corrupted.
continue to part 6
Sunday, January 18, 2009
SIGNAL TO NOISE 4
IV : The Invisible Man
As it is with charisma, it's hard to describe that which can't be seen, but I've got a nice fictional analogy. Experiencing a painting, a poem, a piece of music, a stage performance, is like being in a room with Griffin (H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man) - what you are able to discern is but the circumstantially tangible evidence of a presence which can't be seen directly: moving objects, creaking floorboards, breath on the back of your neck, and so on. Thus, the artwork is only the visible manifestation of everything that the artist represents, nearly all of which we can't see yet do nevertheless perceive. The inspirations and influences, the practising and rehearsing, the learning, the hopes, the daydreams, the regrets, the relationships, factors both deliberate and accidental. The allure of a biography is a distorted view through the keyhole into this otherwise unseen world.
Further to this, there's what I've previously described as transparent concession, a concept that has critically significant artistic potential. For example, in between acts of a stage play, why shouldn't an actor take off his sweaty costume and have a fag (or cocaine) break? Or, he could, as Stanislavski would wish, stay in character. The audience can't see what's going on backstage, so what's the big deal? Because, just like Griffin's presence in the room, the audience really does feel that which is invisible, powerfully enough for it to make a big difference.
Time now to return to what our adorable Congo the Chimp has that, as I see it, makes his work objectively superior to that of the vast majority of those that would call themselves artists. And it's also invisible.
continue to part 5
As it is with charisma, it's hard to describe that which can't be seen, but I've got a nice fictional analogy. Experiencing a painting, a poem, a piece of music, a stage performance, is like being in a room with Griffin (H.G. Wells' The Invisible Man) - what you are able to discern is but the circumstantially tangible evidence of a presence which can't be seen directly: moving objects, creaking floorboards, breath on the back of your neck, and so on. Thus, the artwork is only the visible manifestation of everything that the artist represents, nearly all of which we can't see yet do nevertheless perceive. The inspirations and influences, the practising and rehearsing, the learning, the hopes, the daydreams, the regrets, the relationships, factors both deliberate and accidental. The allure of a biography is a distorted view through the keyhole into this otherwise unseen world.
Further to this, there's what I've previously described as transparent concession, a concept that has critically significant artistic potential. For example, in between acts of a stage play, why shouldn't an actor take off his sweaty costume and have a fag (or cocaine) break? Or, he could, as Stanislavski would wish, stay in character. The audience can't see what's going on backstage, so what's the big deal? Because, just like Griffin's presence in the room, the audience really does feel that which is invisible, powerfully enough for it to make a big difference.
Time now to return to what our adorable Congo the Chimp has that, as I see it, makes his work objectively superior to that of the vast majority of those that would call themselves artists. And it's also invisible.
continue to part 5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
