the spiritual visualizer

2010-07-26T18:03:00.000-07:00

In visualizing pride, what kinds of criteria be used, and in what manner most effectively - without becoming a leitmotif of selective bias, a form of polemics, of propagandizing pollyannisticness instead of adhering to the requisites of the 'selective re-presentation' which honesty demands? For one, it can of course emphasize the positive - not that decay is not all around as a particle of life, but that it is, like pain itself, of minor importance to the living, let alone the flourishing...

2009-09-12T13:09:00.001-07:00

One way to best see how to spiritually visualize pride is to utilize its opposite - humility, the vice most often claimed as a virtue... bourne out of a worldview which emphasized submission to authority, a worldview which supported human domestication [otherwise known as slavery], it is little wonder humility has been touted as a virtue for millenia - even as in fact it is inimical to the well-being of human flourishing... humility is defined as 'the quality of having a low estimate of one's importance, worthiness, or merits; marked by the absence of self-assertion or self-exaltation'.... it is the willingness to be imperfect, which means the indifference to moral values and to oneself - self-abnegation - the antithesis of morality... it is, as such, a profoundly anti- human mentality, and as such inimical to the achievement of self-esteem and to, as consequence, a commitment to self- improvement [because self-improvement requires self-esteem] - humility is the conviction that one is doomed to deficiency, which is disabling because it undermines a person's motivation to seek to act as should, to create a false break between a 'could' and an 'ought ' to be... as such, then, the results would be to 'why bother', since the end would seem be an assured failure... this is as can be seen, hardly a means of survival as a human, far less than a flourishing - and the opposite of any human spiritual visualizing...

2009-08-29T19:20:00.000-07:00

How, then, does a spiritual visualizer show this? in what manner is this exemplified in renderings?

2009-08-21T14:07:00.000-07:00

Knowing one's own value is a necessity in order to maintain one's own life... because a person is a being whose life consists of making choices of one's actions, it is an imperative that a fundamental positive view of of the self is there to be accepted in order to be able to take the kinds of actions that would effectively advance the flourishing and well-being of that one's life... in other words, it is that a person is a being of 'self-made soul', that creates the need of making that soul WELL - not haphazardly or piecemeal, but integratively to that well-being... after all, every action that a person takes, beyond whatever effects it may or may not have in the external world, it adds to that person's self image - there is knowing the consequences to having possibly taken another choice, and whether or not the chosing was rational or not... there is also the learning over the course of time that that person's life depends on those actions taken, that there is a responsibility involved in those choices, with potentially enormous impact on successes and failures regarding achieving happiness or frustration... thus developing the sense that one can rely on oneself to make good choices is a necessity to advancing the flourishing - such knowledge is the base on which self-esteem arises... thus this knowing, this pride, is necessary to acquiring this extremely valuable value of self-esteem...

2009-08-18T17:23:00.000-07:00

Pride, for most persons, is not considered as a virtue... indeed, it has been demonized to mean as much the same as undue boastfulness, or a narcissistic attitude of oneself... but pride is an actioning of self-esteem, and whatever feeling one gets is a by-product of a person abiding by that virtue... a proud person sets high standards for the self, and as such conscientiously strives to meet them - in this case, the other virtues, especially the prime one of rationality, of acting by principled thought, of being dedicated to not only doing the best, but of striving to make that best ever better, a continual spiral upward to greater flourishing as a human... a recognition that a person is that person's own highest value, that of any achievements open, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of one's own character - which in turn is the product of the premises held, the making in effect of 'the self-made soul'....

How, then, does this pertain to the spiritual visualizer?

2009-08-12T15:43:00.000-07:00

While, as mentioned, productiveness does not require that one makes money from productive endeavors, work does, properly, need to be the central purpose... Indeed, considered properly, that work - the renderings by the artist - should be THE principle form that the 'pursuit of happiness' takes... this is especially important to an artist as spiritual visualizer, no less then for others... it is not a case of simply being an element of the good life - IT NEEDS BE THE CENTRAL ELEMENT...

Why?

To begin with, a central purpose is the long-range goal that ought to be the basic or primary claim on a person's time, energy, and resources...properly, all the other goals are not only secondary but they should be integrated to the central purpose - pursued as compliment, not distractions... the issue is the necessity of being an integrated being - something which humans have to learn, and have to choose the specific anchor as it were on which to tie the rest as flying buttresses to help hold and enlarge the purposefulness... without a central purpose, a person would not be able to know how valuable anything is in relationship to that person...

This is something most artists intuit or sense, but unfortunately rarely consciously grasp and understand... there is recognised the 'compulsion' as it were to render, but all too often its placement as the center from which all else radiates is mitigated by a belief other factors need take greater presence... the consequences are often devastating - fewer works, less thought given to the works done or contemplated on, and more emphasis on visceral means to choosing subject material - and this is just the art itself... without a central purpose, actions are more susceptible to being determined by emotions - with the consequence of not seeing compelling reasons to stay with a particular rendering, for instance, when it becomes difficult, tedious, or even just mildly unpleasant... if an artist lacks a clear primary objective, there will seem to be no grounds for evaluating the benefits that might be derived from various other activities - greater insight to the rendering in progress perhaps, or derivative variations from the central themes of the work, and so forth...

However, if the artist, in the role of being a spiritual visualizer, grasps that the doing of art is the central purpose and has embraced that, then by contrast, there is a reason for doing various things and a basis for deciding which things are worth the doing... as such, that central purpose involving being the artist can provide motivation throughout the artist's life, anchoring the lesser purposes on a relative scale, thus enhancing the life being lived... this is so even when the monetary rewards are not such that remuneration is sufficient on its own to allow full-time concentration...

2009-08-03T13:03:00.000-07:00

There are two more virtues yet to be dealt with - Purposefulness has one, Productivity... and Self-Esteem has one - Pride... how do these be involved with being a spiritual visualizer?

To begin with, Productivity is the virtue of acting to sustain oneself without being at the expense of others... a life without purpose is not a life, but a depraved existence... purpose is the infrastructure for living, the framework that allows one to take charge of one's life... productiveness is rationality put into practice... it is "the recognition of the fact," according to Rand, "that productive work is the process by which man's mind sustains his life, the process that sets man free of the necessity to adjust himself to his background, as all animals do, and gives him the power to adjust his background to himself"... how does this pertain to being a spiritual visualizer?

Productiveness is the adjustment of nature to man, and as such, to visualize this is the task of a spiritual visualizer - to show the practical consequences of using the mind, of taking the materials of reality and utilizing them to the betterment of humans, adjusting, as said, the background to the being... the spiritualness involved is in the showing of the flourishing consequences of taking those materials...

There is also the fact of the artist - rendering is the productiveness of the artist, the expressing of the artist's spiritual visualizing, the showing of the values held by the artist, and the practicality of the showing... in this regard, the artist is also as an entrepreneur, for the practicality of rendering is more than the mere creating, but the marketing of it, the making a living at it - not as a 'necessary evil [if it is necessary, it cannot be evil, for necessity is life enhancing and evil is life destroying or debilitating] but as a responsibility of the self to survive as a human in the chosen means of profession, being an artist, a successful artist... the marketing involved is the means of showing to others the importance of what is shown - a re-affirmation value to the viewer worth keeping and contemplating on as a means of refueling oneself, of having a concrete example to periodically turn to re-energize the self in whatever other endeavors are undertaken... the marketing, thus, is the practicalizing of the virtue of independence for the artist...

Does this mean monetary remuneration always comes to the productive artist? no, because while the basic reason a person needs be productive is to meet the needs for material values, and normally this is thru trade as means of payment for the work - this is not always the case... money is not the only type of material value, and not all work that creates material value is well compensated in the market... thus a person may need be making the money at a less productive, relatively undemanding job, in order to enable the more rewarding and challenging and productive work - in this case being that of the artist... this is often, perhaps especially so, when the artist as creator has blazed a new direction in creating, showing work which requires more conscious attention to being appreciated, or appeals to a more selective set of viewers... this does not detract from it being productive work, only that the burden of being able to achieve the creating may be harder than otherwise, a situation which, to the creator having the success of the creating, is, relatively speaking, small and unimportant... it is the doing, the creating, the visualizing which is the productive and thus the important - and in that regard, the success of being...

2008-12-23T19:25:00.000-08:00

It needs be kept in mind that ethics is a normative science, and that it has two applications - the personal and the social... the personal is the realm of aesthetics, and ideally it means one is a spiritual visualizer, showing the possibilities of the virtues as it applies to the person - and as it applies to the social, interacting with other individuals... in practice, this is the specialization of the artist, whether the visual artist who paints, the sculptor who presents images in 3-D, or the author, who literates the visualization...

2008-10-02T16:35:00.000-07:00

At first glance, it does seem most these virtues are repeating themselves, in effect saying the same thing over and over... in a sense this is true - and yet, each is viewing this from a different emphasis or perspective, making the case more solid in effect as a consequence... that which is, is, and that which is not - is not, and not to be concerned with, as it is false.... and this is hard to consider doing in an age in which the fantasy has long been given tokening as means of excusing virtues...

But - the end result will be an integrating of the person, the artist, to better visualize the nature of the spiritual, and to give rational meaning to the multitude of the material... and in light of keeping all in context, this principling will be more likely to be achieved as continued efforts keep at it...

2008-04-28T22:24:00.000-07:00

This does not, however, mean using art as a 'social means', as such no longer then is art [in the contemplative] but propaganda, not matter how dandified the propaganda be... Goya's soldiers shooting was not fine art but a form of propaganda, recording of an even [some time after the fact] to push a political belief in a time before photography... this is not to suggest there is no legitimacy for propaganda, only that it is not in fine art, but another division of aesthetics - just as a pamplet decrying these injustices is not literature [in the sense of fiction]......

2008-03-23T17:17:00.000-07:00

Justice is defined as the application of rationality to the evaluation and treatment of other individuals. This means that "....one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit" [Rand]. How does this apply to being a spiritual visualizer?

To begin with, consider that the concept of justice is the basis of the Trader Principle - "The symbol of all relationships among men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is THE TRADER..." It is the person who lives by values, not by loot, who is a trader, both in matter and spirit... "A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved..." It is the recognition that for humans, reality is a sum-plus world and that one's gain in the voluntary exchange, be it of matter or spirit or parts of both, is a gain for all parties to the exchange.

To an artist, a spiritual visualizer, this means that what is of inportance enough to show needs be of benefit to both the artist and his/her viewers - such that there becomes an exchange of values not only in terms of the artworks for the remuneration but in terms of the contemplative ideas shown in those works, ideas which should show instrumental observations of human activity which, crystallized with the created works, exemplify a catalyst for further advancement in activities and thoughts.....

2007-12-11T14:28:00.000-08:00

If the virtue of honesty means that "...one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner', then intellectual honesty means one must always take ideas seriously - and that in turn means to live by, to practice, any idea one accepts as true... by inference, it also means to discard the ideas seen as not true... in the pursuit of knowledge, this means recognising that knowledge is a means to an end and that end is practicalizing it - for that is the purpose of acquiring the knowledge - to the furtherance of one's own wellbeing, one's flourishing... to the spiritual visualizer, this means that in the showing, one must adhere to what is or could be - the logical projections of the possible, as far as the imagination of the visualizer can show... this also means, conversely, that one must never show the known to be impossible - the fantasy - for to do so is to sanction the non-real as of having importance and in some manner holding sway over reality... that is why there is a distinction between fantasizing and imaginating - and that only in utilizing the latter is one holding to honesty as a spiritual visualizer, of assigning value to that which is and which could possibly be.... anything less would be injustice....

2007-09-09T19:36:00.000-07:00

"Honesty is the recognition that one cannot fake existence...", just as integrity is the recognition one cannot fake one's consciousness....... they go hand in hand, as is always the case in being an integrated person...... never attempting to faking reality means that one should remove from consideration, as much as possible, under the context of what at the time is known, all implication to fantasy - speculation of the possible, however, is different, for such is in the realm of fiction, a presenting of life 'as it could and ought to be'...... it is in keeping to this, within the four sides of the universe which is the visualizer's arena of showing, that the most scrupulous adherence to reality - to being honest - is most important.... and it is within the realm of the theming, which is the backbone of holding these all together, that the most creativity of possibilities can be rendered and made full use of - but only if adhering to the reasoning faculty...... dealing, for instance, with angels or unicorns or banchees, invoking strong emotions among the ignorants, does nothing to imparting understanding of the nature of being human and the requirements to being able to flourish and as such is a form of dishonesty, of claiming that which is not in the realm of the possible.....

This is in keeping to mind that the unreal is unreal and as such can have no value... why? because the objectivity of values means that in dealing with adherence to reality, values are facts - a thing will be objectively valuable to a person because it is in a life enhancing, human flourishing relationship to the person.... life enhancing means that it adheres to facts of reality, which are the means of enhancing - and as such are viable values... honesty, being the recognition that one cannot fake values, that one cannot pretend something is of value if it is objectively not, then is the deliberate principled renounciation of any pretending, that pretence cannot change anything, that evasions or distortions or misrepresentations do not alter the inviolability of reality - it is the recognition that ONLY existence exists...

The consequence of this is that it means taking ideas seriously - it means paying attention to the importance of what the visualizer is considering as important, both WHAT is to be shown and HOW it is to be shown...

2007-09-01T17:33:00.000-07:00

The virtue of integrity - how does one apply it to being a spiritual visualizer? For one, it would mean retaining the logical view of the long term outlook involved, and help co-ordinate the individual works into a congruent whole, each work non-contradictorially adding to the major themes.... this implies, of course, that there IS a long-term outlook to the collection of the to-be works... most visualizers, however, have none, leaving only their general 'sense of life' as the closest to being any kind of guide - prefering the range-of-the-moment impressions to be as on themselves, helter skelter, instead of as part of a unified whole.... why is there an ought involved with maintaining a unified whole?

For one, it fits within the framework of the plot of one's life, of the actualization of the self-made person..... this involves the conscious choosing of one's fundamental worldviews as deliberately chosen, instead of the usual hit/miss mess most make of their lives for lack of choesion in their planning of their futures.... this does not mean rigidity, a detailed map of what to do from one day to the next, regardless, as some would presume - but adhesion to the recognition of the value of reason and the understanding that to fully achieve the best in one's life requires consistancy in dealing with reality - and reason is the only means of gaining that consistancy.... in being a spiritual visualizer, this means keeping that created universe within as closely concurrent to reality, however others may disparage the visualizations or seek to unduly influence its corruption [for anything which is to demerit rationality is corruption to reality - it is one thing to deal with fiction, which deals with reality's possibilities, and another to deal with fantasy, which is an attempt at fraud in evading reality].... remember - integrity is the ability to hold to an ideal - BUT an ideal is only of value if it adheres to reality.....

2007-08-24T02:12:00.000-07:00

Virtues are the application of values.... the values of reason, purpose and self-esteem are logical and uncontroversial on the surface - but applying them, putting them into practice, translating them into action, often brings one into conflict with view of others... the virtue of integrity is the steadfast adherence to those values even in the face of opposition.... maintaining one's integrity is essential to acjieving objective vlues and flourishing..... it is, in effect, loyalty to rational principles.... like all virtues, the need for integrity is grounded in ceretain basic facts..... "..it is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence - that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions - that, like a judge impervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to the wishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats against him - that courage and confidence are practical necessities, that courage is the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to truth, and confidence is the practical form of being true to one's own consciousness..." [Rand].... integrity is a critical aspect of rationality - one cannot maintain rationality without it.... for one thing, integrity demands that one HAS principles - one cannot be loyal to one's convictions if one does not have any... thus integrity demands a conscious effort to identifying those principles that should guide a person's life - and rationality, of course, is the guide to this effort....

How, then, does this translate into being a spiritual visualizer?

2007-07-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

Subsumed under the virtue of rationality are supporting virtues - honesty, independence, justice and integrity...

In order to practice rationality, there must be independence in thinking and acting - indeed, independent thinking is a redundancy.. independence is the freedom from influence, guidance and control of others... "it means one's acceptance of the responsibility for forming one's own judgments and of living by the works of one's own mind"... independence is a prerequsite for creating - and this refers not only to the artist doing the rendering itself but moreso what is shown within the rendering...... thinking for oneself involves making decisions on composing that may seem viable to the artist but 'goes against perceived wisdom' at times - but that, if properly thought out, is the act of creation, of giving a visual to an ordering of values held by the artist that may or may not have been noticed before by anyone else, thus enriching all by the enlarging of the metaphoric relationships newly discovered...... further, it recognises that while there are logical inferences about arrangings in compositions, there are always exceptions and as such the validity as consequence of acting on one's own thinking of 'breaking the rules', not in any haphazard manner but as the logical or noncontradictory identifying end result of that act of creating - and as such, a conscious decision quite able of being explained....

2007-07-22T12:25:00.000-07:00

How, then, does the virtue of rationality pertain to the spirituality of visualizing? The first thing to note is that the spirituality is in the valuing... within the four sides pf the artist's rendering comprises the "universe" of the composition, and the first to be asked and answered is - ratiomal or irrational universe.... extending this is the issue of application of the rational to the rational universe - in what among the constituents are to be of use for the furtherence of one's wellbeing as visualized.... is the landscape, for instance, "just" there, or is it controlled, delineated to purpose, or in process thereof - the wild field vs the planned garden, for instance, or the envision of nature [as in a Japanese Garden] or the "chaos" of nature, or the confinement of nature [as in an English Garden]..... in some respects, this seems as if repeating what has been said earlier, but the emphasis here is not epistemological but ethical - spiritual, providing the actioning of a value, the value of reason, the virtue of rationality.....

2007-07-21T11:02:00.000-07:00

Taking a step in a different, tho related direction, am now going to go over the virtues listed as applications of the values primary to the flourishing of a person.. a virtue, it should be understood, is consists of recognising facts, and acting on them.. rationality is the prime virtue, from which all the others are derived.... it is the acting on the value of reason, thereby extending the wellbeing of the individual and enlarging the sphere of influence on the world around... this is because reason is more than sensating and perceiving - it is frawing abstractions via conceptualizations and as such, instead of being as animals adapting to the enviroment around them as best as they can, alter the enviroment, shape the enviroment, to suit human needs, enhancing deliberately human flourishing beyond the mere animal level of adaptation..... when one's life then is given direction by reason, it is lived in a way that respects reality.... conversely, wickedness is seen as psychological breakdowns in reason marked by failure to respect reality....failure to think, to employ one's capacity for conceptualization, is an attempt to then act as if a different, lesser, organism....

As said, the first virtue is rationality.... in aesthetics, this is expressed thru one's "sense of life" - indeed, every artist expressed his/her philosophical view of the world thru, or rather, in a physical form... those who experience the artist's works respond so according to THEIR sense of life - the fundamental view of this is: rational or irrational..... rationality is the act of thinking, the foundational element of life, the act of using your ability to reason.... "rationality is the virtue of recognition ans acception of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values, one's only guide to action"..... "thinking is an actively sustained process of identifying one's impressions in conceptual terms, of integrating every event and every observation into a conceptual context, of grasping relationships, differences, similarities in one's perceptual material, and of abstracting them into new concepts, of drawing inferences, of making deductions, of reaching conclusions, of asking new questions, and discovering new answers and expanding one's knowledge into an ever-growing sum"....

2007-07-06T16:12:00.000-07:00

"The Birthing Tree" goes further in transition - not only are the islets of the sea now replaced by islets on tops of mounds among rock canyons, it has become a part of a series... the series in mind, tho, is not one of several variations, but as part of a continual viewing of a landscape, culminating in a 360 degree imagined landscape.... each part a work standing on its own, yet together comprising the viewing... moreover, there would/will be time-of-day differences among them, as well as seasonal differences, and as well as the issue of color - each depending on the merits of the individual works themselves.... for instance, an old and lost work, one done on canvasboard many years ago, "Cornered Stone" is to be the work to the left of "Birthing Tree", and the three parts which will comprise "Rite of Spring" may well be those to the right of "Birthing Tree".... this way, can comprise theming more easily and revive old works with new materials and updated vision......

2007-06-03T16:08:00.000-07:00

Like many works, "The Birthing Tree" has also taken a turn of evolving..... instead of being essentially a color version of "Mother Lode" with prenant women instead of sapplings and auxillary trunk, it now is best seen as a close-up of the trunk, which extends up beyond the viewer, on the right of the board, with one pregnant woman leaning against the trunk on the sunlit side, her feet lost in grass blades, and her hands behind her, she looking off into the distance beyond, where is seen the islets and sea.... with a layering of leaves from the far side hanging on the other further side of the trunk.... this still encapsulates the metaphoric relating sought in the first version, indeed giving it greater emphasis and clarity... of the age of the woman, obviously there are inside limits, so is best to give her the optimum and show her at her blooming finest. sunlit and full of grace......

2007-05-27T18:15:00.000-07:00

Returning to an earlier issue, that of metaphoric relating of non-human objects, consider a just-completed rendering theme/titled "Mother Lode"... originally it was to include two figures, one on the right, seated on a flat rock, seated away but face turned to viewer, and the other a pregnant woman to the left of the trunk, facing to the light offstage to the left.... in addition, there was to be a far background of distant islets into the open sea.... only the tree remains, tho a shoot now occupies where the seated figure was to be, and a small sapling may yet rise where the pregnant woman was to be..... why the change? and what of an alternative with the two figures both being pregnant and over the hill edge, each on the outside of the trunk, and the islets off in the distance? and theme/titling that one "The Birthing Tree"..... by not having figures in the present work, has the metaphor of the theme/title bemissed? or has it become more inclusive and obstuse at the same time? is the distant background actually needed, or would it merely be an additive if little real consequence in the theme/titling? what if in the present one, there are several more saplings over the ledge? or would that be an un-necessary additive? what of the idea being considered of having a flock of distant birds forming the not done outline area of another leaves area below the ones on the right of the tree? in other words, would adding fauna to flora increase the value of the metaphoric relating?

2007-05-20T15:32:00.000-07:00

One of the notions being presented by many is the issue of beauty - in that to include only the perfection of form within a work is not to be faithful to reality.... however, this precludes the nature of art to begin with - it is not a recorder of reality, for that is the business of the photographer... its purpose is to show, to present the essence of that which is important to the artist - the fundamentality of the nature of the world around the artist, a striving to look up to, in the same essential manner the Greeks did with their sculptures... it is as such the same with beauty contests, which actually strive to present in a person the essence of a kind, a personification as it were of the best within a person, overtly physically, and invertly the implication that the mind is of equal value and humanness as the figure... as such, for the spiritual visualizer, it is the essence of the quality wanted for the works which determines the specific perfections sought in the renderings....

Consider, for instance, another projected idea - the backyard patio of a hilltop place, with two crossleggedly sitting women, one facing the viewer, the other facing the first.... the one on the right, who faces the other, is gesturing, and the other is with one hand about to apply to a board in front of her, and with the other holding the hand as if requesting a pausing in the gesturing.... but the gesturing one is blind.... this midground, behind the foreground of a large tree offset to the left, is in color..... around the background, as if within a crater wall, in blue undercoating, is the vision being presented by the blind one to the other who is putting it on the board - a canyon city...... the theme/title - "Re-Creation"...... the original idea was that of a pair of heavy-set twins, not fat, but more ample than the usual slim trim athletic kind, each very beautiful in their fullness..... but what if a different set were chosen - not twins, perhaps, or teenagers, or different sexes, or dark skinned - each of which would present a slightly different metaphoric relating than the others...... which, then, to choose - and why?

2007-04-12T13:54:00.000-07:00

One of the problems with getting involved with such as still life is becoming too partial to the minutae and overlooking 'the big picture'... even as metaphoric relationships can and do transcend the momentary into the universal, it helps to keep a wider perspective and at times shift to views in that universe which broaden the scene and add a further dimension to the still life... by this is meant, for instance, using as part of a wider work still life within it which shows not only the relatings found in that still life but an integration into the wider world seen in the larger work... true, this involves more effort in composition, but the end results is on par with those of the grand landscapes mentioned before... for example, one of the ideas initialled in sketches years ago involved the foreground use of a three-tiered planter hanging from the ceiling, each tier reflecting different aspects of fruitful life.... the addition of a butterfly or two aided in extending this, and also a kitten on the floor playfully swatting at one of the flutterers.... by shifting this to a porch arena, with a railing over which can be seen that it is part of a canyon cityscape adds much to continuing the theming first wraught by way of just the planter.....

A second example, also from some time ago, is that of a woman standing at the edge of a hilltop, overlooking a bend in a river and a gooseneck cliff wall of vegetation across the river... to the right of her, being pointed out by a small child being held by her, lies a cityscape, filled with all manner of various forms of development suited to the area... on the left of her, as a child beside her is point out is a parting amidst the forestation at the base of the wilderness where a primitive gathering is preparing something to cook... "Choices" is a rather obvious theme/title, but it does allocate the differences in views of what is the 'natural' way of living [and indeed, perhaps adding 'Natural" to the title would make it more meaningful]... each of these views could have easily been done on their own, but by juxaposing them, there is added another dimension to the sense of life involved, another metaphoric relating not otherwise grasped if kept each to their own....

A third example involves a view from within a place, where the still life is the place itself, and it is then enlarged to seeing outside the place, thru the doorway and/or window - thus relating the theming of the still life to wider aspects beyond the immediacy...

The spirituality of each of these examples is that of how one sees oneself in relationship to one's enviroment - whatever that enviroment may be - and whatever is the due valuing given, not only by the artist, but by the viewer in agreeing or disagreeing with what is seen, because there is no such thing as intrinsic values and that which is considered of value must thus be derived as a consequence of what is within the person seeing the work(s) involved...

2006-12-18T09:31:00.000-08:00

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.....

2006-12-05T15:42:00.000-08:00

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]...

2006-12-01T14:41:00.000-08:00

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.....

2006-08-27T08:01:00.000-07:00

In presenting these views of spiritual manifestations, sometimes it must make allowances for practicality - that is, if the aim is to show, then there must be an optimum of size in which the showing can be most effective... much as it is great to be able to put the viewer 'into' the work, there is the matter of how much is need in order to be most effective in what is being presented... for instance, consider a projected work, entitled "Rite of Spring", in which is shown, on the right middle of a wide work, a kneeling woman, naked, legs spread, hands up in an invoking gesture, face upturned to skyward, and between her legs, on the moisted ground amidst the spread of snow at the edge of a woods, is a sprout, one of several seen in a curve to around the woods to the edge of a ground drop-off on the left of the woods... in the foreground, left side of the work, is the trunk of a tree, and off, aside the ground edge, is a series of rock ledges, leading to the distance, beyond another rise, of the city outline against the sky...... all this is in black/white, with the exception of the woman being chocolate, the shoots being green, and the lights in the distant cityscape being yellow... now, the original idea was to do this in pen/ink on a 48" x 96" canvas - or, perhaps, acid-free foamboard of that size.... however, for practicalness, a lesser size would be better, as not so many wall can hold such a wide work.... what, then, would be optimum size? if too small, say doing it on a 20" x 40" foamboard, the impact would be diminished, even as the showing would remain... personally, because of loving the large size, would rather it be the original, so - to compromise - the best alternative would be to render it in a 36" x 72" size, or to reconsider that the smaller size is not so optimum [this last because there comes the question of 'why' that size would not, as a pen/ink work, fill the bill for rendering.... these are ideas for thought in considering visualizations, as it is not a matter of whim, per se, in seeing to how well to present, but rather a seeking the most emphatic way of presenting, of exclaiming one's sense of importance to the matter at hand...

2006-06-22T07:37:00.000-07:00

The third of these grand scapes is the oldest - theme/titled "Metatropolis".... it was to be a cityscape on the grand canyon, as if Frank Lloyd Wright would have done it... it was to be a huge undertaking, with hundreds of various buildings along the cliff walls, with cantilevered pools and yards and gardens cascading downward to the river below - a lush terraforming... and, because of the amount of buildings involved, was put aside for later times - which have yet to come... again, this was conceived as one of the picture window 4 x 8 works... there were even considered variations of it - one using the gooseneck area, so to be able to contrast the uncultured with the civilized... part of the problem, tho, was in creating a work which stood on its own without being propagandist - something not so readily overlooked in this case... remember, the purpose of art is 'to show', to present an idealized view of a world in which the successfulness has come to pass, a pro-human world made in a human flourishing image, and contrasting that with the given from which came the transformation - and further, to present this as the normal course of events, as the proper sphere of human activity, as something to be proud of and glory in...

2006-06-09T15:00:00.000-07:00

The second of these grand scapes is one almost too ambitious at present to do, only with extended time involved in mapping it out would do it justice - The Hanging Gardens...... unlike the proverbial Babylonian version, this is to be a true hanging one - or, as in perhaps fact it would be, a floating one - as it would be a spacial one, as if in the midst of an exploded or expanded Ceres , with three moebus strips twined, each being a specific aspect or kind of garden [rainforest, desert, and temperate].... there is also an a unique aspect to this in that, properly, there would be no 'top' nor 'bottom' to this rendering - that it could in fact be place in any 'direction' and be correct in it viewing, and further, that none of these directions would imply any difference to the others metaphysically.... at the same time, this would be kept in an interest drawing rendering, full of nonstatic composing.... the initial idea was to be one of the Visioneer Windows sized works, 48x96 - and it may still be rendered as such, depending oh how much is desired to be placed within each of the various gardens, since each strips is of course being rendered on the length of the strip, leaving the impression of being on both sides, even as, of course, there is only one side to a moebus strip....

2006-05-06T05:43:00.000-07:00

On a related matter, there is the issue of the 'grand landscapes'... for me, there are at present three essential ones desired yet not yet done for technical reasons - their detail is almost overwhelming, tho of necessity... one is theme/titled "Fugue"... it is a scene taken from the back door of a place once workd at many years ago [indeed, the idea dates from the 70's] - the ground is stones and gravel of various sizes, back to the wood fence behind, in front of which grows bamboo... above it all are the telephone wires, a pole is seen on left side [and behind fence].... on the wires are birds, starlings perhaps, or a mix having sparrows - these, using the wires as the lines of music, provide the melody of the fugue [perhaps Bach's little fugue, or the Toccatta], which is picked up by the leaves of the bamboo shoots, with the stones in the gravel being as a base pedal notating.... not the whole fugue - which would make for an excessively long work - but enough for first set....... as stated, is a very straight-forward description - but, to do, is an immense task yet to do..... but the end effect - a work of wonder and delight to explore, and a dandy office piece to display... what, tho, is the sense of life being displayed? what importance is being noted and explored? does it require a specific fugue to do this, or any one would do? what size would be required - and here, had thought initially of the picture window size of 4'x8', but now realize needs more a ratio of 2'x8'... and - a note not considered initially - needs be in color, or would a pen/ink be best?

2006-04-11T17:21:00.000-07:00

In such as presenting renderings of still life, how, then, is the heroic to be shown? What kinds of objects would be used, and what is the nature of the arranging which would make for heroicness- or is it more in the manner in which these are shown, the coloration, or related sizes, or the unusualness of what is presented [for instance, a series of bottles on a railing, with one showing, thru it, a view of a woman on the beach behind - while the other ones show only printed matter of women]? What of articles involving things in the past - is this a manner in which heroic can be presented, or is it just as signalling of things past, to be cast aside for a progression of newer or more important ones, or - as so often done - a casting of nostalgia, a reversion of life gone, not to be? Much of still life has been as a piecing of the past, not as a sense of the future, a sensing of a decay and not of growth - even when in just presentations of such as books and tacked objects on the boards. As such, it has had a view given it as a sort of lesser kind of rendering, for all the technical skills which may go into the presenting - and even to the extent of claims of it not being 'real' art, but 'mere imitation' [itself an admission of inability to understanding the nature of such endeavorings - for there is indeed a distinct difference between imitating and re-presenting, the latter being what an artist actually does].

2006-03-18T19:52:00.000-08:00

The idea of hero or heroine has, at its core, a question of the nature of life - that is, is the norm that of catastrophes and thus requiring a view of the sacrifice of the individual as hero, or is it that of a sum-plus view with the hero as the trader, the inventor, the one who proceeds to enrich and not merely to show ways out of whatever difficulties but to show how to proceed in learning on one's own how to see these ways out of difficulties.... in other words, not to see sacrifice as the proper method of heroics but to see instead a non-coercive and enriching, a flourishing methodology ....

2006-01-21T18:12:00.000-08:00

One of the things so often overlooked, in seeking out this 'best within' oneself, is the nature of being a hero or heroine - even to questioning what is a hero or heroine, and why. Much has to do with the nature of how one approaches the good, and how it is viewed in relationship to the world around. Is, for instance, the world as such a realm of catastrophies? or are those exceptions to the norm? To quote : "A traditional hero usually emerges in a time of conflict: an evil force threatens peace and a world in crisis cries out for someone to step up. He is thrown into action by the bigger circumstances. The greater the evil, the more epic his heroic act. And he usually quietly returns to ordinary life after world order is restored. His value is significantly diminished in a conflict-free environment. Contrast this with Objectivist heroes like John Galt of "Atlas Shrugged" and Prometheus of "Anthem". When the world is upside-down, they hold their own and persevere. But a world in harmony is when they are thriving, producing and creating the most. The less turmoil the world is in, the greater their heroic acts. Furthermore, a hostile setting is altogether unnecessary for an Objectivist hero to distinguish himself. Howard Roark and Hank Rearden are excellent examples in this regard. This comparison brings about the question: what exactly makes these two types of heroes behave so differently? To answer this, we need to take a look at the prerequisites of each. What made them heroes in the first place? "[JJ Tuan]

He goes on and says : "The making of a traditional hero usually requires two elements: a world in conflict and unique personal qualifications, often bestowed by fate, chance or birth. Examples are Superman, Spiderman, Richard Cypher, Harry Potter, Frodo, to name a few. But these two elements don't happen in real life very often. The world isn't constantly collapsing and their special powers, not only unearned and unearnable, but also have little bearing on every day living. It becomes then tricky to make them resonate with regular people. Often, the solution is to make them uphold an ordinary and uneventful life as their ideal. Thus showing that deep down, they are just "one of us". As soon as their heroic acts are done, they hurriedly return to being ordinary.What about Objectivist heroes? They are normal people who made themselves exceptional. Their heroic acts are possible due to years of purposeful hardwork and continuous self-improvement, independent of circumstances. Given their capabilities are developed precisely for living well on earth, it's no wonder that their heroism doesn't spawn from the presence of a dark force, and that their skills are powerful living tools when their environment doesn't hold them back. For such heroes to be accessible to ordinary people requires no dumbing them down. They were born ordinary to begin with and made themselves into heroes. Every one of us has what it takes to become an Objectivist hero. Objectivist heroes thrive in peace time. Everyone has the choice to become his/her own Objectivist hero."

How, then, does this translate to rendering, to being a spiritual visualizer? What would a spiritual visualizer show which examplifies the qualities of a true hero?

2005-12-07T11:09:00.000-08:00

The key issue is that the image is for contemplation - that is, for viewing time and again with the gaining of new insights from the work each time... that which is worth contemplating, in the manner of enriching one's life, or adding to the flourishing of one's life, must then by its nature be positive - that is, a gain to the viewing of one's life... this is not to say that there are negatives to one's life, for of course there are always adversarial aspect to living, some of which can be tremendously influencing on the health of one's being - yes these, by the nature of life living, are not the norm nor can they be else there'd be no life to begin with... this holds true even with those few who begin their existance as humans under much negativeness - for, as in all living organism, where one begins is the playing field, and it is different for each and every, and further, is the point of exercising one's survivability - to the extent of it being how well that is achieved for that person which counts for the success or not of the flourishing for that individual... this, then, presages the contemplativeness of any work, and the affinity or not gained from viewing any work... this is emphasized because so often it is presumed a pro-life viewing is of a pollyanna nature, which is not true...

2005-10-14T05:53:00.000-07:00

Showing a positive view of life and its appreciating is not always an easy task without getting into didactic works - essentially propaganda works... while it is true art is for contemplative purposes, propaganda is like hitting on the head with a sledge hammer - too intense to do more than emote over, thus not allowing any deeper concerns [if indeed any are there]...

2005-07-26T21:23:00.000-07:00

There is another aspect to all this so often overlook in discussions, and that is the point of view of these presentations... it should never be forgotten the artist is the one from which these view stem, and it is as such a spiritual visualizing of the artist's personal with the primary import to the self... this means it is not a didacticness, but an expression of personalness... as a guide to others in their respective asperations - possibilities as it were... what teaching comes is as a consequence, not as a prime directive...

2005-05-18T22:45:00.000-07:00

Often the case may be that there are many variations on theming, which can bring confusion to the artist, in that some may be seen as minor ones, not to be bothered with, or others being in conjunction with another theme/titling which at least in first glancing be considered as a better or more universal one.... this usually takes place with someone who had only recently began the understanding of the theme/titling metaphoric relating, and thus sees a number of similars in the visualizing.... the best way to getting the precision needed for the best compositions is then to make sketches of these variations, and set them alongside each other, that they be viewed as a group - thus allowing them all to be focused on at the same time..... in that way, the ones which better express the theme/titling will come forth more pronouncedly, and the others can then be reconsidered as perhaps overlays to be added to the work in some fashion, or reworked into different theme/titlings which bear similar to the original one.. sometimes, too, these variations are expressions of needing a more complex and/or a larger work which is then capable of incorporating these variations within the one work - a mural or picture window sized one, perhaps, thus allowing theming to be rendered over the whole area instead of one major and then expanded to filling space..... so long as didacticness is not being employed, this can bring forth a much more powerful masterpiece of the theme/titling - a major work, in other words.... a bit of caution is to be noted in this, however - the mural, properly, is still in the grand scaping, not that of the usually given of murals, a hodgepodge of assorted bits much like a collage instead of an integrated work...

2005-04-24T10:18:00.000-07:00

In discussing issues of visualizing spirituality, one of the things which comes to mind is the question of 'scenes', whether to have them as studies or to consider them as works in themselves... to me, this is a given, that scenes are means to ends and not ends of themselves..... if there is a strong interest in the visual, then there is internally to it a theming going on which needs be brought to consciousness, explored, and utilized to better place the composition in accordiance to that theme/titling... in many cases, this would entail a shifting to including other material which would aid in the theming, rather than the work as a stand-alone..... otherwise, there is then within the work an idea being expressed, an issue of importance being noted, which needs, as said, be brought to consciousness for better metaphorical extrapolation...

2005-04-14T15:52:00.000-07:00

It is worth taking note that there is more to Aesthetics than just the utilitarian and the contemplative - and that there is more to Art than just the 'fine arts'....... there is, for instance, the decorative arts.... in the evolution of humanity, the first instance of the aesthetics of contemplation was with the realm of decorating - particularly one's own body, and particularly with simplicity of forms as noticed among the reality around the persons of that time, even if within the confines of, say, the evening hours when so much is in 'outline' form.... it was the first attempts at providing something just a bit more than mere utilitarian - something in which there was a specialness added - not so much in sense of ownershio, but as if of a greater valuing than if without..... it goes hand in hand with the increased sense of aesthetics involved with the making of whatever object at hand - a bowl, for instance, where the craftmanship has improved from the rudimentary to refined of form, and now added the decoration of enhancement.... to a degree, this can be said to have a sense of contemplation, if only in appreciation of the geometrics involved, but as these were not a seeking of likeness, there was nothing in the way of the sense of contemplation as is understood today.....

Decorative arts stand in between these major directions of utilitarian and contemplative in that there is an increasing of more than mere utilitarian to the objects, yet not so much as seeking renewal in abstract contemplating as is found in the re-presentative works... it holds its place thru the design factoring, savoring the sense of beauty in forms and colorings, and the arrangements of such, as to increase the valuing, as said, of the objects on which these decoratings took place.... to some utilitarian works, as time went on - architecture, for instance - the aesthetics of design becomes overwhelming at times, far away more than needed for the mere utilitarian of the objects.... yet, even so, the field of endeavoring is that of utilitarian - high craftmanship, if one wishes to say... and if the designing is so far into that where the utilitarian is not practical, as in some fancy bowls with open holes so as to not hold liquids - stil, as per the concept of that object being a bowl, it falls into the utilitarian [and as such, a poor utilitarian, as its prime purpose has then been disrupted and/or distorted... [usually in a flawed attempt to imitate art and seek to be included in another field, even as there is little to any contemplativeness other than the decorativeness... remember, for contemplativeness, there must be cognitive visuality - re-presentativeness - in order to see any grasping of theming.....

2005-04-10T08:47:00.000-07:00

In engaging in this visualizing, in seeing, as it were, the world thru the eyes of 'theming', it must be remembered that in so doing, many visuals will come to mind without prompting, and it can - to those used to introspecting - be disconcerting not to be able to identify those aspects of the visual which the abstract theme/title brought forth..... but not to worry - this means that for the artist, as much as for the viewers, the act of contemplation is there - enough, for the moment, that there is a visualization for the theming, and, to that extent, can give forth some sense-of-life reasoning for thus..... remember, ALL WORKS OF ART HAVE THEMES, even if the theming is no more than the sense-of-life without further introspecting, and as such has no given theme/title even [as is so oft the case with most artists]...

Seeing the world thru the eyes of theming - seeing metaphoric relationships among all that comes before the artist's viewing, whether thru the eyes, or thru written or heard words, or even thru hearing, whether the sounds of, say, birds or music - is a learning, an automatizing of the skill of integrating the abstract with the concretes..... in so doing, after a time, it becomes the same as if with walking - no conscious thought given to it....

2005-04-01T16:26:00.000-08:00

If postulating a rational universe - that is, of one as which is the real - becomes the norn, and the showing of the possibilities as the proper mode of thought regarding presentations, what is, then, the issue of deciding the importances of what is to presented.... that is, a grand landscape of the projected world as desired to be in, or a still life of a minutae within that world, or a presentation of alternatives according to diversed views of the nature of relationships - which to do.... and why.... here, the matter becomes more a case of where one's own focusing is in terms of interests, skills - and what is to the individual as artist considered of prominant importance... there is, to be sure, merit for any of the positions, as each reinforces the pro-humanity, enlarging on the 'showing' possibilities as envisioned by Rand.... as noted in the 'sister' site [www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com/ ], there is a developing wealth of diversed applications - some are landscapes, some are still lifes, some are at first glance animal studies - and others are as becoming erotic presentations - all upholding the joy of flourishing as being human, yet not all in the same realm as of importance to the showing..... why is this - what is it which within the subconsciousness brings forth such differentnesses? a very good question, one which needs much thought and introspection to come to answering.... for now, suffice to say it was at least at first a means of expressing a showing in many otherwise overlooked examplings of the fundamentals of moral presentating.... and time of doing has some bearing as well, as with so many ideas coming forth, there is a need to decide how much is to be spent in doing presentings, and how much is needed in the complexities - especially of such as grand landscapes - if the fullness of the proposition is to be achieved.... the mind, to be sure, indeed needs itself a shifting in terms of dealing with complexities - and this allows for the trivial to be of worth doing, even as other more complex notions form into consciousness...like muscles, there is a stretching and there is a contracting - both needed to achieve maximum results on the long term...... as time goes on, tho, there will inevitably be a shifting to some form of specialization, concentrating on select areas to further that arena - leaving the rest to others to enlarge as they would conceive....

2005-03-07T14:20:00.000-08:00

The first issue to be given concern in each work is what is considered as the 'universe' within which is done the work.... this is the space of the canvas or illoboard or such between the edges.... here is where one gives the metaphysics of the work - what kind of a world is to be shown....is it a world of recognizability, or is it one of flux? is it one of identity, or is it of impossibilities? is it to be a life affirming, or is it to be one in which life is a disparant? is it one in which this life includes the human, or is it one which marginalizes the human, or is it one in which the human does not exist? is it a world in which the fundamentals are as they are in this real one of ours, or is it a world in which the trivial consists of the whole?

It would seem that these issues were to have been taken care of in dealing with the ethics of the work - but no so, as these ethics need be placed within the confinements of this universe, and therefore it makes a difference as to how these ethics can function relative to the given universe as presented.... this becomes more particular when the idea of what constitutes fantasy versus what constitutes imaginating - and to be sure, the two are distinctly different, with different accommodations in being able to deal with the visualizing...... much comes from the initial biologicalness of the evolvement of the cognitivness of being human - the recognition that what evolves is as such because of its practicalness in furthering survivability [ and here am not refering to the 'feelers' as mutations go, but the enduring ones that carry on the various species, especially humans]... remember, while reason is the fundamental means of human survival, it has to be learned, and along with this, appreciated for its importance, NOT as a so-called 'necessary evil' frame of mind, but as an integral aspect of the flourishing as being human..... therefore, it becomes imperative that the discards of the irrational are seen for what they are, and not mourned as something to be wished for even if not possible to be in reality... it should also be added that this should be such that the reality is to be DESIRED, in the full recognition that it is of immense more enjoyableness than whatever fantasy was wanted beforehand - and that this is the consequence of self-responsibility, of ably and wantingly accepting the capacity of being able to deal in the world, of understanding the difference between the earned and the unearned - and the inhumanness of the latter......

2005-02-11T12:59:00.000-08:00

One of the things which might have been noticed was that the rendering was done in pen/ink, not - as to be expected - in acrylic paints..... this was partly bercause of the love with working with the possibilities of textures which can be transcribed with the fineness of the pen... too, there is the metaphysical issue of absolutes being implied here - the ink and the paper constitute black and white, yet all manner of shades come forth from these ultimate absolutes, a reminder, in effect, that greys are indeed composed of blacks and whites..... consequently, there is, in me, a competing issue - that of black/white, or color - and each proscribes different 'sense of life' issues, and thus provides good contrast to the psychologicalness of these differents.... many years ago, did a still life of a bonsai, two in fact, one being black/white and the other in color - just to show how different the understanding of the subject can be depending on which is shown, what is being marked as different in emphasis...... it was an exercise in this, just as this is, in effect, the same - a personal judging as to what is best in persenting the theme/titles....... as a spiritual visualizer, which most shows that essence - that is what determines whether color or not.....

2005-02-02T19:12:00.000-08:00

Beginnings can take many forms... for instance, in the rendering, "First the Sand...", what difference would have been achieved if the figure was omitted, and there remained on the beach only the forms of the sandcastle? there would still have been the human element, the conscious act of creation, in a universe showing possibilities - but there would have been the indifference of what kind of being did the work, the sex, the age, and yes, even the race would have been omitted - and the theme/titling would have reflected a time element, one of a passing, as it were, of the sand objects having been abandoned...... what, too, would have been a difference if, say, the scene had been elevated, seen from a height far above the eye level... what if the time of day had changed, and a long shadowing had been rendered... what if the sky was not clear, but full of clouds.... what if the vegetation were not so full, but sparce, or even barren..... each presents a beginning, as such - yet each presents a DIFFERENT beginning, and signifies a different presentation of the possiblilties and their chances of success..... as a spiritual visualizer, these are mindfulnesses which need to be taken into account, because each presents a metaphysical importance distinct from the others..... no, this is not to suggest the best is the lushness, and that barren is to be neglected as being of no real importance - but it is to suggest that context is needed and mindfulness is to be aware of the contexts involved, if the really import of what the artist considers to be of importance is thus rendered..... else there is an ambiguity there which lessens what may have been intended...

2005-01-21T11:56:00.000-08:00

So then, having established, in effect, that there is a crucial difference between fantasizing and imaginating, the issue becomes one of utilizing that imaginating..... consider, for instance, "First the Sand...", a pen/ink rendering of 30 x 40 ... it may be seen on the sister blogsite of 'visioneerwindows'...... in it, there is, in the foreground, a sandy shore, with a mound with seagrasses (on the left), behind which is a bent over figure of a female in the process of making sandcastles, behind which is the foaming waters of a surf crashing, and the surf waves behind that... the sea itelf, of course is behind that, with an offshore high-rise on the horizon, and a jutting piece of forested land on the left side..... now, the original had postulated two figures, one being a mother and the other a toddles playing in the sand..... why the change? to begin with, the use of a toddler playing in the sand is such an old cliche that to bother with it entales a conformity as it were - even as with the original idea of having the mother with the toddler, as in a family affair - tho that would be better, even as it would not, however, adhere to the theme/title (why wouldn't it have adhered - because it would not have given the clarity of the implication of the toddler, or either of them, as engaging in something which would lead to the future of a building as architect - a single figure is thus needed)...... to have, however, a more mature female, a woman (as noted by the bushiness of her pubes) doing the sand building WOULD make for a difference and an advancing of imaginating because it would be more the unexpected than any of the others - and far less expected than a male figure of any age.... now, why this presentation instead of, say, one in which the sandcastle building is being done in a sandbox of some kind, in the backyard, with the tall skyscraper seen behind a series of houses surrounding the backyard? for one, in doing the seascape viewing of the event, there is a starkness, a cleanness of the event, without any of the conventionality as seen in the surrounding houses - here, in other words, is a view which could be on any world, especially one in which the notion of furtherance with a female engaging in the future of what conventionality poses as a 'male' dominating position of endeavoring..... further, by having the building off on the horizon, in the clarity of the edge of everything, there is also the implication of a furtherance beyond merely another building - a furtherance of 'reaching out' as it were to much more, perhaps yet another world, as evidenced by the circle in the sky which could be anything from the sun to a moon to another world off in the distance.... now, why the more or less horizontalness of the waves crashing onto the shore? why not an angularity instead? - because it implies that there is a barrier of sorts over which one crosses to reach to the distant futurehaving an angularity implies a sort of road or pathway leading to that distance.... why is the distand building so less than strongly shown - because it is the future, with an objectified view yet one in which the details remain open to whatever changes is found later to be needed, from whatever set of circumstances might become involved.... as the theme/title says - "First the Sand..." - this is a beginning, with much in the way of implication as to the conclusion possibilities....

2004-12-30T10:40:00.000-08:00

One thing which comes to mind in this is - if what is shown within the borders of the rendering comprises the universe, what is to prevent usage of fantasy in the presentating? For one thing, it has to do with the fact that while this rendering is a universe of its own, to be effective in communicating, there has to be a referencing to this, our own real universe....... therefore, anything which is shown in this rendered universe can only be of value to the extent that it properly adheres to this, our own, universe's so-called 'laws of nature' - and the recognition that any other visualization is meaningless within that context... a second thing to consider is that there is a crucial difference between imaginating and fantasizing - the former utilizes the aspects of reality to formulate new ideas and applications, including some possibles yet to be - while the latter plays around with impossibles, and as such becomes psychological studies rather than contemplative works...

2004-11-12T14:44:00.000-08:00

How, then, does a visualizer go about the visualizing? To illustrate, let's take a theme, and ask questions about it.... consider 'coffee'.....perhaps the first image which might come to mind is that of the western campfire, wherein the cowboys are sitting, in cool morning air, and they're drinking their coffee...... another image which might come to mind is that of the evening, a dinner, and coffee being served in a romantic setting of two persons...... still another might be that of the woman on the porch, wrapped in a robe, sipping a cup as the sun comes over the hill...... there are many further questions which come to mind... which sex - why - what difference does each respectively engender...what age of the sex.....again, what makes a difference - why..... morning or evening - which and why......... all these questions are there because each of these options make for a difference in the presentation - in the theme as it is shown...... remember, the borders of the rendering defines a universe, and it is what is within that defines what is considered of importance respective to that universe.....

2004-10-27T17:18:00.000-07:00

Visualizing the flourishing, however, is but a momentary slice of possibilities - flourishing refers to a person's COMPLETE physical and psychological health over the span of a full life, and is an active process that can be achieved only by a person's efforts... but these possibilities enable one to better crystalize that furtheranceing, thus providing a form of guidance of possibilities - which fuels the person's creativity in adapting other possibilities to that person's ends ofthe life-enhancing living...

2004-10-26T14:26:00.000-07:00

It is not enough, however, to be concerned with values - in so far as being a spiritual visualizer... there is more to life than sustanence... there must be flourishing to be living life as human qua human... this has to do with the fact that what makes a life good is its being led in a life-furthering fashion... this is to say, a life-enhancing living... how to go about this, how to integrate possibilities of the material to this, is what a spiritual visualizer does - showing possibilities of successfully being in that world in which the flourishing resides... the issue, tho, is how the person then manages that which is within the person's control, within the realm of that person's choices - and this entails all the social strata of viable living, that is, above the sustanence level... moreover, this is a sum-plus in that the furtherance of this life-enhancing action tends to increase the wellbeing more and more, so that the end result will be greater than what had been before [all other factors or situations being equal - namely those matters which are NOT under the person's control ]...

2004-10-20T10:37:00.000-07:00

It should be noted that while the goal of life sets the standard of ethics, the identification of this standard does not, by itself, tell everything which is needed to be known in order to achieve that goal... just as knowing one's purpose requires a standard of measuring as to whether that purpose is being advanced or not, so too a standard must sometimes be supplimemted by more specific instructions or information... in this case, the objective, life, is a long-ranged, widely encompassing project... countless discrete actions can affect an individual's life, and recognising the exact nature of their impact often requires sifting thru layers of subordinate values and interlocking aspects of one's welfare... actions' net effects are often not apparent... to say that life is the standard of value is, while important, extremely abstract... if the identification of this standard is to provide fruitful guidance, what is then needed is more specific instructon... this is what nornative ethics provides... illustrating this normativeness is what being a spiritual visualizer is all about...

2004-10-02T01:47:00.000-07:00

Why is it that VALUES are so important to an artist? For one thing, it has to do with that universe within which is shown in every work rendered... what is or is not within the boundaries of the canvas displays the morals of the artist... at first glance, this does not seem to be so - but consider the implications of the fact that what is included within is so because it is considered to be of importance, and what is considered to be of importance stems from one's value, which are the source of importances... if, as shown, there is no such thing as intrinsic values, that the elements of reality simply exist and as such are there to be ascribed value by those wishing to make use of the components, then whatever is shown within the confines of any work of art is an expression of what the artist considers to be of importance, and as such, what is of value to the artist... now, there are values and there are values - a value, as said, is what one acts to gain and/or keep - and the only values worth persuing would, therefore, be those which are VIABLE VALUES, values which pertain to enhancing the wellbeing of being human, values which aid in the flourishing of being human... this is the task of being a spiritual visualizer - to show these possible viable values and how the materials of existance can be utilized to incorporate those values into the reality of each person's life...

2004-09-18T15:58:00.000-07:00

If the foundation of values is not intrinsic, what is it? values arise from alternatives... specifically the alternative of life and death - without that, there would be no need for values... 'life' is the yardstick, so to speak, on whether something is considered good or bad, or an action considered right or wrong... 'life', in other words, makes the concept of value both possible and necessary... this means that values have basis in facts - the actual relationship to an organism's life - and thus provides for a firm basis for ethics which are objectively true... a value, as Rand pointed out, is 'that which one acts to gain and/or keep'... and while values benefit, there is a difference between a value and a benefit... not all benefits result from the beneficiary's actions - certain salutary events can and do occur without any effort on the part of the beneficiary... other benefits, however, require effort on the part of the one being benefited - thus a value is what one ACTS to attain... values, however, are not self-evident - a person cannot spot a value AS A VALUE in the same manner as, say, can be spotted a tree as a tree, a chair as a chair, or a blade of grass as a blade of grass... what may look like a cool and refreshing drink, for instance , might be very toxic - and a fierce looking animal may be perfectly harmless and good to have around... in other words, what makes something of value may depend on facts about it that are not immediately or necessarily readily apparent, making it crucial to understanding what it is that would make or render something of value...

2004-09-12T18:37:00.000-07:00

Why is 'good-in-itself' not true? to begin with, why not just repose the question and ask, 'what is it? what does this alleged value refer to?'... when this is done, it becomes noticed that most often what is considered as intrinsic value is expressed by what it is not - it is NONrelational, it is value APART from from a thing's consequences, it is INDEPENDENT of other aims... but negative depictions are not sufficient - to claim a value is different from other types is only to emphasize part of the issue... there is also needed an explanation of what the VALUE is - what it consists of - an explanation of how the term 'intrinsic value' qualifies under the more general term, value... without this, there are no grounds for accepting its existance... the so-called 'evidence' boils down invariably to claims that intrinsic value is self evident... but the absence of objective evidence for it, alongside with the completely subjective basis for claiming or asserting it [eg - their feelings or intuitions], leaves no grounds for crediting its existence... advocates insist intrinsic value can be spotted, but provide no satisfactory account of how - and thus no means of verifying the claims... this failure, then, exposes the doctrine's latent subjectivism, and its therefore lack of viability... denying intrinsic value may seem harsh, especially if one agrees that some of the always considered ones - beauty, freedom, life, and so on - are quite wonderful indeed... however, denying that these are intrinsic values does not deny that these are valuable... nor does it preclude their being especially valuable, carrying significant ramifications for other values or for the propriety of various actions...

2004-09-11T17:04:00.000-07:00

What is 'intrinsic value', or is there really such a thing? the first thing to remember is that there are two strains to the notion - the 'good-in-itself' conception, and the 'sought-for-its-own-sake' conception... the good-in-itself view considers that intrinsic values are packed within the allegedly valuable thing, and that this is independently of and thus unaffected by the existance or condition of all other things, persons, and interests... the sought-for-its-own-sake view considers that intrinsic values are what are sought NOT as means to or constituent of any other ends... in other words, the alleged intrinsic value turns on a person's reasons for seeking something, rather than on the nature of the thing itself... the problem is that the discovery that something is sought for its own sake says only something about persons' motivations in pursuing those things - and says nothing about the propriety of the questing or the actual value of the things sought... in other words, the sought-for-its-own-sake version - representing persons' atitudes towards their ends - cannot deliver objective value... this is because when intrinsic value is characterized solely in terms of the reasons for which something is sought, the embrace of intrinsic value collapses into subjectivism... the good-in-itself version, however, is even less defensible...

2004-09-08T08:15:00.000-07:00

As a spiritual visualizer, it should be clear that an artist, then, should show purposefulness - which means productiveness, either directly thru the metaphorical examplings, or indirectly thru passages of effects... this last would mean the showing of progress thru the various stages of developness of whatever was being shown... using metaphoric relatings, the moralness of being productive can be made visual - not propagandizingly so, but as a natural course of events AS SEEN IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE RENDERING... this is emphasized because it cannot be stated too much that purposefulness involves, as Rand pointed out, 'remaking the earth in the image of one's values'... further, that this in turn implies the recognition that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTRINSIC VALUES, that the earth simply is, and as such simply is material to be used...

2004-09-02T13:10:00.000-07:00

Spirituality means recognising that life simply 'is', a normal aspect of existance within the universe, and that whatever meaning is applied to it - is PERSONAL, one one gives to oneself, and directs as such, as one's own 'captain of soul'... creating, as such, one's own destiny... one way to help in doing this is to understand what aesthetics itself is all about - the science of beauty - involving order, proportion, balance, harmony, and grace... this way, one can learn to discern those aspects of the utilitarian which lead one to appeal to them and desire them, even if only as visual aspects of reality which remind one of interrelationships with the world at large... that is, one could say, the purpose of it being within the crafts - and why those crafts themselves are used within the created realms of the renderer, the artist... this also involves understanding that there is a spirituality of productiveness, of the utilitarian aspect of survivalship for being human... productiveness is a form of practicalizing ethics, with the spirituality involved in the qualitification of that productiveness - especially from the personal standpoint of the individual... productive ability is a moral value - and, like all values, a course of virtue is required in order to gain and/or keep it... this means recognising that all "work is an act of creating, and comes from the same source - from an inviolate capacity to see thru one's own eyes", Rand wrote... a businessman/woman, fully as much as an artist, or artisan, is an exponent of spirituality... moreover, since there is the key factor of integration involved, an artist or artisan, fully as much as a businessman/woman, has to be involved in the material of the universe... one could well say that Art, like any legitimate area of endeavor, has a life-sustaining purpose - and that its creation demands objective, reality-oriented thought, with then embodiment of that thought in a physical medium... this further means that there is no such sense of opposing the 'spiritual' versus the 'material', that no rational area may be pitted against another - that ALL proper arenas or fields require thought AND action - that ALL exemplify the integration of mind and body, as is the naturalness of the universe... remember - there are no contradictions within the universe, and if one is perceived, then there is a need to check the premises, for one or more of those are in error...

2004-08-31T16:28:00.000-07:00

The thing which must be most remembered, the idea most important, is that 'existance exists'... this is not an idle statement, but the prime axiom, one so prime that even any attempt to refute it requires its usage - and thus its acceptance... what does this axiom mean? it means that what exists has ALWAYS existed, and always will - that something cannot, by its nature, come from 'nothing' (which is not some other 'kind of something' but is merely a designation of the absence of something... the second thing which must be remembered is that, by its nature, what exists is integrated - that there are no contradictions in reality, that when one is perceived, then there is a need to check premises, for one or more of those are in error... this integratedness is important to remember with regards to spirituality, for it is the hallmark which, in reality, removes the notion of any mind/body dichotomy, and which points out that if one is perceived, then there is an error in the perceiving... this also points the way that a 'spiritual visualizer' helps in practicalizing the ethics of being human - by showing examples of the integratedness between the non-material and the material of reality... of, as it were, 'being as one with the universe', an integrated aspect of it in living and flourishing as humans...

2004-08-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

Spiritual comes from the word, 'spirit', which meant 'wind', referring to one's breath, 'wind of life', as it were.. there is a sense of it when the phrase 'he/she has spirit' or 'the horse is spirited', meaning there is much life in the individual, be it human or animal... so, from the beginning, there was a recognition in reality of a non-materialness involved within the fabric of reality... the major error of understanding it came with the notion that there was such a thing as the supernatural, a supposed realm somehow 'outside' reality which 'somehow' affected reality... but since the universe is the sum of that which exists, there can be nothing 'outside the universe', that the notion is a fantasy bourne from the times of primeval ignorance, when there was little understanding of the nature of reality, or how it operated, and virtually no understanding of the self, of the mind, and how it functions... the consequnce of pandering to that fantasy was that there arose the notion, again false because of its non-reality orientation, that the spiritual must, then, pertain to dealing with another 'life', one which must be more desirable than the squaller that abounded among the humans of ancient times... the consequence proved to be a very deadly one, as instead of attention being paid to learning more of its true nature, and the improvement of being human and living in the world, the focus turned to demanding acceptance of the squaller as a normalcy, imposing the most evil notion possible to foister on to the ignorant and innocent - the damning of them for the mere fact that they existed, that they were human and as such should be ashamed of being such... one doesn't even give a cockroache or a dog that distinction, nor rats or snakes... only the hatred of one's fellow humans would produce such an abomination, hatred which sanctified domestication of humans - physically as in slavery, and mentally or spiritually as in slavery as well, instituting the false dichotomy of a mind/body split which had one part supposedly 'warring' against the other, and demanding that the 'mind' part be concerned with matters NOT of the real world, but of some 'realm beyond the grave', where all the desires could then be had that were not to be had in reality... this mis-understanding of what 'spiritual' really means persists yet today, despite the overwhelming evidence that life in reality is and can be most wonderous and not to be despised...

2004-08-26T10:30:00.000-07:00

Spirituality pertains to the mindfulness of a person, the non-material aspect of reality that DIRECTS the usage of the material - NOT, as so often presumed, opposes the material... there has always been a despairing of the attainment of goods, yet the plentitude of the goods and their variety enriches our lives - so it seems only fair to utilize the 'this earth' attitude to justify the 'good life' and mark the accumulation NOT as being frivolous, but as having real depth to the wellbeing of the living... one could say it makes for the practical application of the ethics of viable values... it falls in line with Rand's assertion of aesthetics being 'the technology of the soul'... while she used the word 'Art', I in turn (since she equated aesthetics with art) use the broader term, because I consider the utilitarian aspects as much 'technology of the soul' as the contemplative aspects... spiritual needs involve 'meaning in life'... this covers both short term purposes as well as long term... as much of importance, it pertains to the real world, NOT the fantasy of some 'other world', or of the notion of the 'supernatural', which claims an incompetancy of humans, that they are incapable of knowing on their own,and thus must remain perpetually as overaged dependants - children - instead of the self-responsible independant adult... from a psychological standpoint, spirituality means operating at a high level of consciousness - engaging in self-awareness and self-examinations, integrating the issues of values and life... it is considering how one experiences existance - not thru the delusion of faith and negation of the mindfulness - but thru consciousness committed to its own growth, cultivating the ability to see reality in all its manifestations, and as such remaining truthful to 'that which is', emphasizing the difference between believing and knowing... this means reliance on the mind - which involves the issues of independence, self-responsibility, the contrasting of meekness and self-assertions... this, in turn, involves the courage to treat oneself and one's convictions with respect... the end result is living purposefully - creating one's own meaning of and to life, and being a participant as opposed to being an observer... it also raises the issue of integrity, which involves the issue not of how perfect we are in integrity but how concerned we are in correcting breaches...

2004-08-25T14:41:00.000-07:00

One of the things which have come to mean so much to me is the recognition that the purpose of an artist is far more than has generally been considered... an artist is, by the fact of 'showing' that which is of importance to that artist, a Spiritual Visualizer, a person who has undertaken the responsibility of elucidating moral ideals... in effect, this means the practicalizing of the personal, of giving meaning to the material of the universe - NOT, properly, in any supernatural or fantasy mindset, but by dealing with reality, by integrating the non-material with those materials with which the person possesses and has,by that possessing, given importance to... note that to elucidate is not to moralize like a philosopher, but to act as a visualizer - to show possibilities in the world around us, according, properly, to a rational being (that is, a human being acting according to its nature)... note also that this personalness is in contrast with the social, which is the political, which - properly - is the ethics of dealing with persons qua persons, individuals together as aggregates... and note further that this integrating is not just the short-term of item by item, but the long-term of the being as a whole dealing with its purposefulness...