In terms of utilizing the human form, this sense of the aggragate of individuality needs something more subtle - as the blatant would not do [for instance, having different 'races' to show individuality, something which could only work if the respective stereotypes are not true to type, and that the relationships between the individuals shown be as if among self-interested beings respecting same with others]... the difficulty also lies in not having the works being in any manner or fashion propaganda works, but as showings of metaphoric themes... for instance, in showing a community, there would be seen diversity in such individual notions as one's property arrangement, as opposed to a uniformity as so often seen in such viaualizations - there would still be seen a community, but it would then be seen as an aggragate of individuals, not as a tribal conglomeration... that it would be seen as mutual benefits among those shown, then would also be seeing the community as a spiritual flourishing of the individuals.....
the spiritual visualizer
- Name: visioneerwindows
- Location: Tampa, Florida, United States
Monday, December 18, 2006
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
As mentioned some writings ago, the essence of the highest form of the visual arts - arts in general, really - is that of the use of metaphoric relationships... this can also be utilized as the metaphor itself as analogy for the human - especially in terms of still lifes... in such manner, the attributes of being human can be explored and built on, to the extent of being able to include this metaphoring within works which actually display concrete examplings of humans, thus utilizing the within still life metaphor as a turn point in which to be able to attribute the same to the humans displayed.... consequently then, aggregates can be shown without the work and not have confusion of them as being tribal in nature - provided, of course, the within still life is consistant with the proscribed theme/titling wherein are shown the concretes of humans... in the still lifes, diversity can be noted via use of obviously different species [as seen, for instance, in "Critical Mass" - which while may not be nominally considered as still life, yet is 'stilled life' and so fits in]...
Friday, December 01, 2006
A most often overlooked - done so because is never given conscious consideration - aspect of visualizing the world is that of the problem of paternalization.... for one, it is not given thought to that it is an aspect of tribalism, that individualism forbids paternalistic notions, recognising that it is on a one to one basis of conducting relationships - and that a grouping of individuals is not a tribe, but an aggregate and as such retains the individualists within as entities on their own even as they associate with their fellow individuals... this, however, affects how the spiritual visualizing of the world can be seen and in turn interpreted... it is one thing, for instance, to show a number of individuals interacting among themselves in a spirt of co-operation - and quite another to consider this as a commune relationship, when in fact it is nothing of the kind, as - despite the mythos - communes are not to human flourishing, and as such are inimical to the wellbeing of humans... this commune notion includes that of any tribalistic aspect, as they all are of the same, fundamentally - and that, of course, includes any paternalistic worldviews [even as it first seems this is contradicted by the history of mankind]... note the key word here - flourishing..... it is certainly true there is survivability here, but that does not translate into flourishing, in particularly the human qua human, only to some at the expense of others [indeed, the vast majority of others].... how, then, to present the viewing such that mis-understanding does not take place, that the spiritual visualizing is what it is, an individualist worldview - what, then is the means of presentation to achieving this provides much food for thought.....