Every critical text is analytical. It
aims at seeing, considering, digesting – that is to identify the major
components about what already happened, to identify those things
that are happening for the first time and thus discovering changes in the
structure of ideas, to find a connection and place in the world of familiar and
order, of the newlyborn elements - expanding by entering the world and the fabric
of the familiar. Otherwise creativity is synthetical. Not consecutive - but
simultaneous; spontaneous and comprehensive.
Simply put - through rationalization
to involve extensions into insight and insight to involve a horizon of
perceptions in our common world. Described linear-sequentially, the new loses
the risk of the unknown, but altogether acquires the calm of common reality.
Our way to arrange what is happening is to connect it in convention of
standardized sensations through linear sequences of events, and THAT extrinsic
link between the new essence of the new things to affiliate to the world of the
familiar. The model by which we survive is mean. We reject the new, through its
adoption within the status quo of the model of perception and understanding.
However, the new has taken place, the boundaries of the familiar have expanded
in direction to the horizon of what we know and with this technique of linear
time sequence to introduce new habitual perceptual model.
Very well done in terms of dealing with
reality, but terrible as a creative act. The terrible consists in the fact that an already happened complete insight we expand in the artificial mental structure of time and create the
false sense of accessibility of the creative act. Although it is a
matter of power and insight. When you lack energy for the overall perception,
you chop it into small and affordable parts, thus comparable
to your life horizon, but this descaling and lose your chance for integrity and truth.
Too complicated. Sorry.
I'll try to explain it through an example. In the post about Alzek Misheff, I also share an article from “Culture” newspaper, where the lack of understanding of
the art critic towards the artist is striking. It is (very
roughly) that modern killed creativity and we need to get back to the roots.
Formally it is
so. Essentially it is the just the contrary. The message is that in his personal aspirations Altsek Misheff reached the
limits of the known and going beyond the frame of modern
perceptual models initiated by modernity, had to examine the overall structure
of the culture we bear and we are, by RAISING AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING, and in the horizon so incurred from connected through the centuries reflexes, we have thus integrated all the time of our culture where the peaks and
achievements, marking boundaries and are structurally defining and not held in
the linearity of time. Linear perception is a model of rationalization rather than reality inherent. It's just a
technique. Thus, through understanding NOW, the matrix of past discovery takes place through the
vision of the artist TODAY.
So it turns out
that our church fresco is more up-to-date as meaningful
direction than for example formal
experiments with Don Buchla.
I experienced that in Dionysian wheel and Magic space Tangra. The difference in the worldview of our
culture and the preceding
magical world. The difference between the two is that in the current
civilization we perceive things
around us as subjects and objectively - meaning existing outside and independent from us. In our classical culture - and I found
models with depth of at least eight thousand years, the World consists objectively in
us and through us. That's the artist’s kitchen – the pressing need for clear and articulated vision as
the main cognitive tool with the help of
which we practice our craft.
And to our little art critic I will recall the practices of some of the greatest artists of the last
century - Joseph Beuys and Crimean experience - Jackson Pollock as well and his Indian dances. And because, as someone who has
been touched by art through the words
tool
rather than through direct perceptions experience, to reward your patience, I will mention some iconic books - Zen and the Art ofMotorcycle Maintenance and Lila. These books are supporting precisely this kind of
rationalization of reality awareness, namely, of the generation of artists, about which Altsek Misheff talks. A
true, great artist.
And in the BAS they are only interested
in notions and practices. I consider the explanations with ethnographic
gusts of creative searches with major artists as one of the signs of stupidity. Sorry -- lack of
capacity.
Another great
author of that time shared how when a child is taught to interpret the flow as reality, according to his mother model, he becomes a member of one culture,
but loses his total vision of
Consciousness. Picasso defines it brilliantly ... When I
was 12, I painted line Rembrandt. Then all my life I was learning to paint like a
child.
Вода гази -
жаден ходи… (a Bulgarian proverb - One does not take advantage of the circumstances)…
I have not said
good morning to Muse for a long time. And I should. I think I'll make her with my choice ..
P.S. Ambiguity in
the text comes from the lack of description of the perceptual model. Roughly it is the following:
We visualize
streaming in real time and with a certain processing delay caused by the need to select and
then arrange sensory data. In the process, familiar from unfamiliar things are first sift. What is known, or if analogical to something
already known remains - the rest is
rejected. Then the mix of familiar
and recognizable feelings is arranged in a sequence that reaches the mind as
the reality that can not be doubted - as you look around you'll see exactly
what I mean. It can be
considered with high
probability that in the frontal lobe (eyes I mean) about 98% of the radiation
(the information) is probably whittled.
You understand that
in order to comprehend everything we need large RAM and veeeery powerful
processors. If the question is whether we all see and experience the same reality, it is my
hypothesis that YES?! we
are tuned to one station, we call it our culture. As we move from the station, in
Germany, for example, we need serious software update :)
Considerations
of the kind were preoccupying the frontmen of 60s of last
century, who came to the
conviction that the perceptual model that we call our culture can be overcome
(rather blown up) only with drugs. Others try with indigenous cultures,
some with ancient techniques, meditation, etc. The first job was to destroy the
taboos - which already positions us in the Hippie culture.
I have always
admired the impulse of Columbus. What that he discovered America – and not India?
Jimi Hendrix at the
farm Woodstock festival 1968
