Tuesday, January 22, 2008
i started late with the readings. but even though i have read the reading assignments i am lost. the way that the authors think and portray their thoughts are flabbergasting to me... i don't know how to separate the themes. i do understand what the purpose is though. i think that it is to adjust us to different ways of thought and usage of our clay. i think that the authors wanted to throw their readers into a complicated world, that we may or may not be used to... i think that the reading was to stretch our views and "understanding". the slaughter house pictures usually wouldnt have been "art" to me. i have never taken an art class, i have taken 2 years of ceramics. i threw clay on the wheel. i never had a painting class or drawing- maybe in like the 6th or 7th grade, but when i saw the photos of the slaughter house i thought "yea, that is art..." but i had a hard time understanding the authors purpose for the excrement displays.... i think that i am going to have to open myself to new ways of thinking and doing
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Thoughts on Base Materialism
Thoughts on Base Materialism:
The first reading took a bit to acclimate to the writing style of the authors, the stream of consciousness, forming ideas as a visual experience; or perhaps that's the way I read.
Even in the first reading I felt the spark of something known, questioned, explored - yes, these ponderings are very familiar to me, yet in the rush of daily activity, the societal fitting, I catch a glimpse of my constant questioning.
I love the disturbance this has created in my mind. This disturbance was demonstrated in the differences between my first piece of clay and the second, "the mess". The disturbance, although good, was still just another offshoot from my linear trajectory with which I have been operating from since conscious development. Ah, agitation, how does one get off a well grooved track?
The word '...materialism must "exclude all idealism" (which is a far more complicated job than it might seem) "heterogeneity" designates from the outset what is excluded by idealism (by the ego, capitalism, organized religion, and so on.) But above all, the term "heterology" has no philosophical antecedents with which it might be
confused,... .' Everything splits into two, even materialism.'
Exclude all idealism? Not to name, not to speak, not to think, not to move, for to do so would be to remain stuck on the track that is incessant in it's own movement forward to death of this body. Is death a destination? Only for the living unconscious.
Who's driving anyway? I must remain, on some level, riding the track line, but to free the self of all idealism, would that mean death or perhaps detachment - split in two, for everything to me is inherently a dichotomy.
'The formless matter that base materialism claims for itself resembles nothing, especially not what it should be, refusing to let itself be assimilated to any concept whatever, to any abstraction whatever. For base materialism, nature produces only unique monsters: there are no deviants in nature because there is nothing but deviation. Ideas are prisons; the idea of "human nature" is the largest of the prisons:in "each man, an animal" is "locked up...like a convict." '
The wild, indigenous self, imprisoned from the lack of questioning, from the acceptance of the norm, the status quo, which in itself has no existence. The norm is an example of an average, not a reality. Then what is reality? Is something real because I believe it to be so? And even with all our questioning, it seems that the quest for answers lead to more questions. There is no end nor a beginning, and what is the middle? Have I accepted the idea that this body starts at birth and ends at death and I make up the middle? Although I would like to think not, I have a body, therefore I have a mind, and I think so I am. What if the thoughts stop? Do I cease to exist? No, instead, I become more like a "human being" as opposed to a "human doing" and may possibly relate to the nature of becoming human. Picking at the lock which imprisons the wild indigenous nature of the whole self without ego.
The first reading took a bit to acclimate to the writing style of the authors, the stream of consciousness, forming ideas as a visual experience; or perhaps that's the way I read.
Even in the first reading I felt the spark of something known, questioned, explored - yes, these ponderings are very familiar to me, yet in the rush of daily activity, the societal fitting, I catch a glimpse of my constant questioning.
I love the disturbance this has created in my mind. This disturbance was demonstrated in the differences between my first piece of clay and the second, "the mess". The disturbance, although good, was still just another offshoot from my linear trajectory with which I have been operating from since conscious development. Ah, agitation, how does one get off a well grooved track?
The word '...materialism must "exclude all idealism" (which is a far more complicated job than it might seem) "heterogeneity" designates from the outset what is excluded by idealism (by the ego, capitalism, organized religion, and so on.) But above all, the term "heterology" has no philosophical antecedents with which it might be
confused,... .' Everything splits into two, even materialism.'
Exclude all idealism? Not to name, not to speak, not to think, not to move, for to do so would be to remain stuck on the track that is incessant in it's own movement forward to death of this body. Is death a destination? Only for the living unconscious.
Who's driving anyway? I must remain, on some level, riding the track line, but to free the self of all idealism, would that mean death or perhaps detachment - split in two, for everything to me is inherently a dichotomy.
'The formless matter that base materialism claims for itself resembles nothing, especially not what it should be, refusing to let itself be assimilated to any concept whatever, to any abstraction whatever. For base materialism, nature produces only unique monsters: there are no deviants in nature because there is nothing but deviation. Ideas are prisons; the idea of "human nature" is the largest of the prisons:in "each man, an animal" is "locked up...like a convict." '
The wild, indigenous self, imprisoned from the lack of questioning, from the acceptance of the norm, the status quo, which in itself has no existence. The norm is an example of an average, not a reality. Then what is reality? Is something real because I believe it to be so? And even with all our questioning, it seems that the quest for answers lead to more questions. There is no end nor a beginning, and what is the middle? Have I accepted the idea that this body starts at birth and ends at death and I make up the middle? Although I would like to think not, I have a body, therefore I have a mind, and I think so I am. What if the thoughts stop? Do I cease to exist? No, instead, I become more like a "human being" as opposed to a "human doing" and may possibly relate to the nature of becoming human. Picking at the lock which imprisons the wild indigenous nature of the whole self without ego.
Comparing shit, blood, and pubic area discharge to fine art only proves that these philosophers were simply trying to make poeple thing outside oF their current frame. That since much of the reading focused upon ideas introduced in the early part of the 20th century i immediately feel the material is dated and overworked. Everything has some form or another wether its waste or gold it bears importance and in one persons mind or another it would be considered sacred.
Its difficult for me to comprehend the idea of formless art forms, my brain is wired to view art and find meaning to the work that is evident. I could be wrong 100% of the time but i'm trying and that satisfies my desire. I think there is a fine line between art, philosophy and philosophy of art. When a Philosopher turns to art to describe a particular matter within his stream of ideas yet lacks the craft to produce quality works i find it somewhat annoying that it becomes titled as art. couldn't there be another means to describe it? Often times i would rather stare at my shit than theirs.
Its difficult for me to comprehend the idea of formless art forms, my brain is wired to view art and find meaning to the work that is evident. I could be wrong 100% of the time but i'm trying and that satisfies my desire. I think there is a fine line between art, philosophy and philosophy of art. When a Philosopher turns to art to describe a particular matter within his stream of ideas yet lacks the craft to produce quality works i find it somewhat annoying that it becomes titled as art. couldn't there be another means to describe it? Often times i would rather stare at my shit than theirs.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Blog 1: Base Materialism
I found the reading a little over my head, it was a bit confusing at first. Bastille in his discussion on base materialism seemed to jump around from idea to idea; I didn’t see much in the reading about how all of the ideas tied together. I would have liked to read Bastilles ideas directly, instead of through another writer to get more of a feel for his voice about the topic. However the discussion in class proved to clear up some passages I found challenging to comprehend on my own.
My thoughts on formlessness are that if everything has a form how can it ever be formless? Symbolically perhaps, but it will never truly be formless. You can show the form and document the process, the making, manipulating, and breaking down of the matter into a less formed mass. “it should resemble nothing, especially not what it should be” it should be “wholly other” or the opposite of what it should be. In this respect something becomes nothing. Is the other really the ideal form of matter?
How can matter be ruled apart or wholly other in form? Objects are only as important, as different, or as wholly other as society says they are. We name matter; we define it and give it form, whether concrete or symbolic. A certain value is placed in the How can anything truly be formless if it is still bound to our society. Can the matter truly ever break out of the shackles society places on it if the viewer is confined to it? No matter can ever truly be the ideal form of formless if a viewer is so confined by the limits are laws of the society they must live in.
Sacred to me or to everyone else?
Thus far I have felt rather overwhelmed by this class. Not by the work load or the abilities required to master the course, but the whole idea of challenging myself in an artistic sense. I have not taken an art class since 6th grade which was 11 years ago and even then I only dabbled in the artistic field. I like to write and I love music but the whole visual arts have always been intimidating to me. I am excited to be working with clay and discovering art, but for me it is just that, discovering art, not discovering art in a new way. Because my background in visual arts is virtually nonexistent I can not challenge my traditional art views as much as develop new art views.
That being said have been trying to challenge my traditional views of art and general ways of thinking. In our discussion on the sacred I was able to get into a deeper meaning for me. I kept thinking about what was sacred to me versus someone else or the greater society. The Idea that art can be anything to anyone, even something as socially unacceptable as excrement gives rise to a new style of thinking. I kept thinking of what I felt to be the most traditional sacred symbol, god. In our society a cross, the name Jesus, Christmas and the Bible are all sacred. Travel to many other corners of the world and Allah is the word with most sacred meaning. Is someone right or wrong? In my eyes no, it is simply the meaning that is most socially acceptable. I am not challenging religion or their beliefs, only saying that in different societies different things will be held as sacred. In this I began a list of things that are sacred to me instead of things which are sacred because society told me they are sacred. I find family, love, and companionship to be sacred. There are many variations of these concepts but if I am to develop an art piece that embodies the sacred I believe that it must hold these base ideas.
Now my challenge is to find a way to challenge myself to go into the abstract and untraditional art to find my interpretation of the sacred. I don't know what this looks like yet, but my work is most certainly going to be in finding a way to express these feelings in a way that challenges me and my traditional views of art(however limited my views may be.)
-Sean Phillips
That being said have been trying to challenge my traditional views of art and general ways of thinking. In our discussion on the sacred I was able to get into a deeper meaning for me. I kept thinking about what was sacred to me versus someone else or the greater society. The Idea that art can be anything to anyone, even something as socially unacceptable as excrement gives rise to a new style of thinking. I kept thinking of what I felt to be the most traditional sacred symbol, god. In our society a cross, the name Jesus, Christmas and the Bible are all sacred. Travel to many other corners of the world and Allah is the word with most sacred meaning. Is someone right or wrong? In my eyes no, it is simply the meaning that is most socially acceptable. I am not challenging religion or their beliefs, only saying that in different societies different things will be held as sacred. In this I began a list of things that are sacred to me instead of things which are sacred because society told me they are sacred. I find family, love, and companionship to be sacred. There are many variations of these concepts but if I am to develop an art piece that embodies the sacred I believe that it must hold these base ideas.
Now my challenge is to find a way to challenge myself to go into the abstract and untraditional art to find my interpretation of the sacred. I don't know what this looks like yet, but my work is most certainly going to be in finding a way to express these feelings in a way that challenges me and my traditional views of art(however limited my views may be.)
-Sean Phillips
The Sacred?
The Sacred – or-I thought this bus was going to Bend. Lets be honest – I came to this class thinking I’d learn the basics of how to do ceramics. So, for all of you who are art majors and have extensive experience in the field of ceramics, this may seem understandable. Our discussion Tuesday helped me understand how this article was created. I do have the feeling that I’m looking at something I’m holding at arms length and wondering …just wondering. Some statements in the article are a bit…lets just say—humorous for want of a better term. Consider this from the middle of page 54: “It is not possible to explore here Bataille’s completely idiosyncratic reading of Freud. However, it is significant to note that Bataille’s reading is rigorously antithetical to Breton’s, in large part because Bataille, unlike Breton, had actually undergone psychoanalysis (from 1925-29), which played an important role in freeing him from writers block.” Psychoanalysis – Clay?? Now the mind runs wild – is that the key to understanding this article – 4 years of psychoanalysis? Wonder if electroshock therapy would speed it up? It is disconcerting to know that (page 62): “Einstein was least inclined to follow Bataille to the end.” Given the choice who do you line up with: Mr. E=MC2 or a guy who spent 4 years on the couch? Is it possible that all these little buildings on the other side of Franklin are actually filed with couches and psychoanalysts saying: “See you next week, only 3 years left.”
I feel the ‘Sacred’ as a term. It’s hard to separate the term from a lifetime of feelings that are hardwired into a person. There are the formal things that are part of society: a place of worship, a court, and marriage. Then there are the internal sacreds, the things I place value on. At the core of this are the big ones: time, health, family. This appears to fly in the face of Bataille’s ideas, possibly because I haven’t spent 4 years on the couch. Bataille is quoted as say on page 52: “the that ‘sacred’ lends itself to confusion (because of its specialization in the present context. By sacred he means what is wholly other.” I really get the feeling he is riding a different train on a different track to a station with a different group of visitors.
I find that to try and create something that reflects the ‘sacred’ in my life, and not be specific would make it impossible. No wind blows in favor of a ship with no destination.
Enough for now.
I feel the ‘Sacred’ as a term. It’s hard to separate the term from a lifetime of feelings that are hardwired into a person. There are the formal things that are part of society: a place of worship, a court, and marriage. Then there are the internal sacreds, the things I place value on. At the core of this are the big ones: time, health, family. This appears to fly in the face of Bataille’s ideas, possibly because I haven’t spent 4 years on the couch. Bataille is quoted as say on page 52: “the that ‘sacred’ lends itself to confusion (because of its specialization in the present context. By sacred he means what is wholly other.” I really get the feeling he is riding a different train on a different track to a station with a different group of visitors.
I find that to try and create something that reflects the ‘sacred’ in my life, and not be specific would make it impossible. No wind blows in favor of a ship with no destination.
Enough for now.
PUTRESCENCE: 1646, from L. putrescentem (nom. putrescens), prp. of putrescere "grow rotten," inchoative of putrere "be rotten" (see putrid).
Post. My mind is unstable. I want to understand and appreciate what the author/s of "Formless" are attempting to say, but it is not in my power to do so. My lack of patience and my limited vocabulary would be the normal culprits of this kind of mind crime, but I feel like I am understanding what the book is trying to say or not say and I just don't like it very much. I feel like it's a mix between belief in a lack of absolutes and another philosophy having to do with experiencing life for ourselves and then also just trying to get people to wake up and think. That's fine. But. Everyone is doing it. (actually they are probably not, but they think they are) either way, this way of thinking is so popular especially in a university setting. Think for yourself! Don't let the ritual or the sacred or the taboo or the rules or the tradition dictate the way that you think about and experience life! You'll learn more and be a better person! I don't buy it. I can't even, according to this book, take the opposite stance of that and say that if everyone thinks for themselves then that will become the norm and the only way to break that will be to follow the old ways again. It's crap. All we can do is exist. It's fun to think about this stuff. It's fun to think about thinking. It's fun to think about learning how to be a new person and to understand things in new ways. maybe we do, but maybe we don't really change. I am still me. I am the same stupid crying kid that came out of my mom 21 years ago. "but look at how much you've learned and grown" is that because I am new? Is it new thinking; new ways of thinking being wanting knowing? Am I not yesterday Lance anymore? Is there a yesterday Lance? No. Do I change? No. Tomorrow does not exist. Yesterday does not exist. You exist. I exist. I'm not new. I'm not Old. I am. ME. The same goes for the way that I think. So screw wasting energy on trying.
A Quest For Truth
At first glance I was rather confused with the excrement obsession and the glorification of it. The reading talked about the homogeneity of popular art but the alternative - the idea that everything is the same level as shit also relies on homogeneity. Bataille really seemed to me to be a walking contradiction and I believe he felt himself to be as well. I do believe that is searching for "the sacred" contradiction is inevitable as one person cannot possibly define what is sacred to another. There can be no decided right or wrong for the whole, only for a group of similar minds. In the quest for the universal truth defined as "sacred" there is an impossible circle of contradictions and counterpoints. The truth is in a sense "formless". In this way I believe the quest for truth has become more sacred than the truth itself out of necessity. This idea led me to the theory that whatever someone holds sacred is what perpetuates their own survival.
Confessions about confusion
... and thoughts about base materialism.
I found the reading interesting, thought-provoking and inspiring, but also difficult, provoking and arguable.
Interesting: I haven't been thinking too much about the different 'values' of materials as it is described in the text. Of course, I look at gold as a 'higher' material than dirt, or at least, that was how I thought of it before. On the other hand, I find dirt, (especially worm piss) to be much more useful than gold, since I'm a big fan of composting. For me personally, I don't think I changed my views of material's individual values per se, but more in the direction of what could be looked upon as 'useful' materials in the process of making art. I think the examples used to illustrate the different uses of materials in the book, though, might not be quite what Bataille meant (?), since they all more or less play on the symbolic values they have, being the material they are, like Burri's use of burnt plastic (or maybe not ...) Anyway, it is good to be aware of the potential uses of different materials, though it can be hard to use whatever material you like, without putting some symbolic meaning in to it (intentional or unintentional) in terms of how the viewer sees your artwork. (More on that later ...)
Thought-provoking: Well, being reminded that "Even shit is pretty" has to be thought-provoking, and maybe also just provoking (if I understand these terms in the right way) ... I mean, what is 'pretty' anyway? Who defines what is 'pretty' or not? Does it have to be pretty? ... and so on, I guess.
Arguable: I'm not sure if I quite see where Bataille is going with his arguments when he refers to Freud and his own psychological history when he talks about base materialism. It is like he is trying to explain something concrete with something abstract, and that doesn't quite do it for me. (I mean, I can see that there is a hierarchy going on, and that it can be a good thing to get rid of that. On the other hand, II feel like the whole idea of the hierarchy is more or less constructed by Bataille, and thus has a greater theoretical interest than practical) So, base materialism is about declassifying, "lowering, and liberating from all ontological prisons", but to what? Just materials? No real value, symbolic value, or pretended value? If that was the thought, I would both say that that is impossible (they will always have some sort of value, especially in a symbolic way), but also an attempt to neutralize something that has a necessary and useful value in itself. It would be like saying that all colors should be the same, however you choose to use your color palette, they all mean the same. (Maybe not quite, but something like that ...)
So, I've only read this twice, and even though I feel like I get what they are talking about, the things they are talking about are often very deep and theoretical, so there are no easy answers to their questions (and I understand that we are not supposed to look for direct answers, but actually rather more questions to ask ...) Also, the fact that they are referring to other philosophers, like Freud, Marx, Hegel, Sade, and Breton, makes it kind of hard, since I don't have much specific knowledge of these people from before ... I do believe, though, that most of us today are 'enlightened' people that can reason on behalf of what we all ready know, with our own experiences in life, and that those experiences are much more valuable than anything else.
I found the reading interesting, thought-provoking and inspiring, but also difficult, provoking and arguable.
Interesting: I haven't been thinking too much about the different 'values' of materials as it is described in the text. Of course, I look at gold as a 'higher' material than dirt, or at least, that was how I thought of it before. On the other hand, I find dirt, (especially worm piss) to be much more useful than gold, since I'm a big fan of composting. For me personally, I don't think I changed my views of material's individual values per se, but more in the direction of what could be looked upon as 'useful' materials in the process of making art. I think the examples used to illustrate the different uses of materials in the book, though, might not be quite what Bataille meant (?), since they all more or less play on the symbolic values they have, being the material they are, like Burri's use of burnt plastic (or maybe not ...) Anyway, it is good to be aware of the potential uses of different materials, though it can be hard to use whatever material you like, without putting some symbolic meaning in to it (intentional or unintentional) in terms of how the viewer sees your artwork. (More on that later ...)
Thought-provoking: Well, being reminded that "Even shit is pretty" has to be thought-provoking, and maybe also just provoking (if I understand these terms in the right way) ... I mean, what is 'pretty' anyway? Who defines what is 'pretty' or not? Does it have to be pretty? ... and so on, I guess.
Arguable: I'm not sure if I quite see where Bataille is going with his arguments when he refers to Freud and his own psychological history when he talks about base materialism. It is like he is trying to explain something concrete with something abstract, and that doesn't quite do it for me. (I mean, I can see that there is a hierarchy going on, and that it can be a good thing to get rid of that. On the other hand, II feel like the whole idea of the hierarchy is more or less constructed by Bataille, and thus has a greater theoretical interest than practical) So, base materialism is about declassifying, "lowering, and liberating from all ontological prisons", but to what? Just materials? No real value, symbolic value, or pretended value? If that was the thought, I would both say that that is impossible (they will always have some sort of value, especially in a symbolic way), but also an attempt to neutralize something that has a necessary and useful value in itself. It would be like saying that all colors should be the same, however you choose to use your color palette, they all mean the same. (Maybe not quite, but something like that ...)
So, I've only read this twice, and even though I feel like I get what they are talking about, the things they are talking about are often very deep and theoretical, so there are no easy answers to their questions (and I understand that we are not supposed to look for direct answers, but actually rather more questions to ask ...) Also, the fact that they are referring to other philosophers, like Freud, Marx, Hegel, Sade, and Breton, makes it kind of hard, since I don't have much specific knowledge of these people from before ... I do believe, though, that most of us today are 'enlightened' people that can reason on behalf of what we all ready know, with our own experiences in life, and that those experiences are much more valuable than anything else.
--
Knut :)
I would like to say that the first two posts were enjoyable reads with interesting and though provoking ideas on both the idea of what is sacred and feedback from the reading. It was like I was reading poetry. Anyway, I myself was very confused by the questions and points in "Base Materialism." The approach to the article I found to be mostly negative and somewhat depressing, and I hate those kind of reads. So, my first reaction was: I am irritated, what is all this talk about excrement and what does it have to do with ceramics, and why am I reading this deep, intense article about a new way of thinking, experiencing, and approaching art when I don't even know the basics about ceramics? After we addressed the article in class on Tuesday and felt a lot less confused. Discussion is great, because everyone has something diffferent to bring to the table and people build off eachother's ideas.
We did not really address materialism and fetishism in discussion. It was something that seemed to stick out in my mind when I went back over the reading. Bois seemed to emphasize that present day culture has grown to place too much of an importance of materialistic "things," things that are tangible, even art. Almost like we are too needy or dependent on these things, where our perception and the way we process information is clouded and skewed by pre-set notions that we can't possibly have a new experience. At least in today's culture it would be very difficult. Like we hold onto these things so tightly, even a painting for example. We put a lot of time and effort into a painting, working to get a desired effect of look, even weeks. We are often instructed to wipe it down and start over again. And it's extremely difficult to let go. Every time it's a struggle. That is just one example, but I feel like he is talking about not holding onto these "things" that influence our thoughts, and do not allow for an entirely "free" new way of experiencing. I don't know if that made any sense, as it's difficult for me to put my thought processes into words.
We did not really address materialism and fetishism in discussion. It was something that seemed to stick out in my mind when I went back over the reading. Bois seemed to emphasize that present day culture has grown to place too much of an importance of materialistic "things," things that are tangible, even art. Almost like we are too needy or dependent on these things, where our perception and the way we process information is clouded and skewed by pre-set notions that we can't possibly have a new experience. At least in today's culture it would be very difficult. Like we hold onto these things so tightly, even a painting for example. We put a lot of time and effort into a painting, working to get a desired effect of look, even weeks. We are often instructed to wipe it down and start over again. And it's extremely difficult to let go. Every time it's a struggle. That is just one example, but I feel like he is talking about not holding onto these "things" that influence our thoughts, and do not allow for an entirely "free" new way of experiencing. I don't know if that made any sense, as it's difficult for me to put my thought processes into words.
Thought process/ break down
During the last class I took in what everybody was saying. I began to develop ideas for ‘the sacred’ trying to go about it through a Base Materialism way. The discussion involved a lot of input. Water, houses, gates, feelings… I started to day-dream a little bit of running in a 5 K race at Hayward field. My legs were bounding in a high cadence. Then the last three laps came and I pictured myself pulling ahead. I tried to image the feeling and drive that it takes to get through the pain. The Sacred hoped back into my head.
The sacred is different from one person to another, but if through the same experiences ‘the sacred’ can be shared. When all is gone and you need something to pull you back to life or spark your fire, the catalyst, where do you go or what do you use. Then I thought of hierarchy and how meaning plays apart. If you try to base your sacred off of a memory then it can be manipulated through time. When I think of my sacred, I try to break down the hierarchy of meaning and thought process. I guess I am being hypocritical. I think of my running and when I am in a race. Those last few hundred meters come and something other than your mind or body will get you across the tape, if you pushed yourself to personal limit, physical and mental. Then there is something deep down that explodes though your body, maybe it doesn’t make you run faster or accomplish anything great, but it still is there. When you have lowered your perspectives, broken down yourself, I think that is where the sacred lies. Its that spark that gets you going. Nobody can take it away. When everything else is gone, it remains.
Necessary, powerful, spark, within one… a burnt locked chest, a spark inside…
The sacred is different from one person to another, but if through the same experiences ‘the sacred’ can be shared. When all is gone and you need something to pull you back to life or spark your fire, the catalyst, where do you go or what do you use. Then I thought of hierarchy and how meaning plays apart. If you try to base your sacred off of a memory then it can be manipulated through time. When I think of my sacred, I try to break down the hierarchy of meaning and thought process. I guess I am being hypocritical. I think of my running and when I am in a race. Those last few hundred meters come and something other than your mind or body will get you across the tape, if you pushed yourself to personal limit, physical and mental. Then there is something deep down that explodes though your body, maybe it doesn’t make you run faster or accomplish anything great, but it still is there. When you have lowered your perspectives, broken down yourself, I think that is where the sacred lies. Its that spark that gets you going. Nobody can take it away. When everything else is gone, it remains.
Necessary, powerful, spark, within one… a burnt locked chest, a spark inside…
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Claymation
So, this was only an excercise to get me started to play with clay and learn more about the material ... I think another type of clay probably would have worked better for this kind of purpouse, though ... :)
Knut
Knut
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
