Quote From: battlepace I gave you something to think about eh? Well, you're not alone. I'm less certain now about my premis than when I was trying to unwind it from my mind.
I may need to kick my own ass.
I didn't really respond to where things come from ... the "I dunno" may be the most accurate part of my idea since you are of similar mind on this matter.
I'm not sure 'seeing' is the right word. I mean it isn't bad for what I want it to represent ... but it seems a bit large. I need something that discriminates more.
It is more a web of links that reside inside the mind. I don't how they are born or how exactly we draw upon them. I'm also not sure it is something that can really be taught ... I think it should be ... I just don't know how one would accomplish this. Perhaps since I've never studied writing there are ways of developping the linking of idea.
From what I gather however, is that people who study the craft are given techniques, which isn't teaching seeing, rather a cover and provides a means of fake abilities.
Okay here is the example that maybe explains the problem of discord running though my mind. I had just read Legacy by James A. Michener.
(Short book by Michener standards ... 150 pages roughly. It followed a family named Starr from 1720's to 1980's. The part that drew me in was the description of events surrounding writing the Constitution of the USA ... just excellent work.)
I was suddenly excited to read more Michener. Loved Kent State, the Drifters, then I picked up a copy of Mexico ... I think. I didn't even make it past the first chapter before I fired the book across the room, swearing at it and cursing Michener as it flew.
He knows how to write ... obviously, but I found he was applying a formula to the book. The descriptives were all there ... the mountains (check) the setting sun and colour (check) the man with a haggared face standing on the side of the road (check) the sound of the type of bird there at the right time of the season and obligatory sensual reference (check, check, check).
It made me mad because it felt contrived. It felt as thougt he was building the story while refering to some literary check list. Referenced against technique rather than an honest description. It was beautiful gratitutious detail. There was no spontanity. It had all the elements one could be 'taught' are important to good writing ... but hit me as dry and emotionaless thereby treating the reader as stupid. There were no stiring links drawn. There was no play. I'm still mad!
This is a key difference between being creative and simply being a technician to a process.
Again with meandering mind ... an example here would be a guy named Bob Ross who showed how to do landscape paintings on PBS. While his paintings are perhaps pleasant to look at, they are repetition of technique and are crap. There is no inspiration. There is nothing original or creative in what he did.
Then I think of the work of someone like Emily Carr (painter from B.C) her work is stiring. There is life. There is breath. There is heart. She could see.
Bob could tell you which brush to use, how to represent a tree ... his work was empty.
Emily on the other hand saw something deeper, sure the same tools were employed ... brush and canvas, yet that is where the similarity ends.
Perhaps my views are too judgemental as art is too subjective. BUT here I am heavily judgemental. Screw it!
I'm not sure where I'm going with this.
We do have our individual styles and ways of processing information ... as we saw with personnality tests. This almost leads me to believe that some abilities are wired into us and regardless of teaching there is a limit for certain skill sets ... thus the links we all do draw are individual. Different things register with each of us.
Or like when I played music, I was a slave to taught technique. I could make my instrument voice all the required sounds, I could read and follow direction but I could never create.
All this to say seeing isn't the right word and learning I'm unsure about the how. I may just be ignorant but not knowing where exactly my ignorance lies it is hard to rectify.
I've got alot more thinking to do!
Okay enough ... I must thank you for warning and protecting me from your mothers tendancy to dispatch husbands.
Oh, about my Neecie's feelings. I think she knows my affection for her could only be classified as a force of nature ... she is my real joy ; )
I just figured it would be easier to get papers on you if I scraficed myself to feathery festivities.
I'm worried about one thing, and have yet to discuss it with Neecie ... I'm not sure if she'll let me adopt you. I have also neglected to mention to her my plans to kidnap Tap ... I figure you should have a couple sisters to hang out with while I'm at work.
Anyway don't worry Trace I'll apprise Neecie of my plans before things go too far, I'm sure she'll be excited ... you may want to keep this under your hat until I've found the right time to broach the subject with her and get the details all sorted out ; )
Had to add my two cents as far as Bob Ross is concerned. I would agree that his paintings lack inspiration if you are only looking at the painting. If you only look at the work, yes it appears empty but the question I would ask is how many individuals did he inspire to pick up a paint brush? His contribution to the world of art should be judged more on what he was able to teach. Case in point, me, until about 5 years ago I had not touched an artist's brush. One day I happened upon one of his shows, I had recently bought a set of oils at a yard sale and gave it a try. I still have much to learn but in that time I have taken some art classes and found something that I love and that I have some hidden talent. Would I have found it without Bob Ross, probably, but his repetition of technique was able to convince me that I could paint if I tried.
I guess what I am trying to say is that through his work, Ross probably inspired many talented individuals whose work does have depth and are filled with life. That, in my opinion is much more valuable.
