Hopper / Antonioni / Chekhov : Effects of Reality

Roland Barthes explained the “Effect of Reality” as a way to establish literary texts as realistic.

He said that some descriptions, in novels, have no other reason than to make us feel it’s a real place.

“…in one of his novels Flaubert describes the room of his main character and mentions a pyramid of boxes and cases standing under a barometer. These kinds of details are called notations by Barthes; he contrasts them with the main outline of the story, which he labels predictive, probably because on this level we can make certain predictions about the development of the story.”

F. R. Ankersmit

 

  1. We find this “tool” in some Antonioni’s movies, L’Avventura or L’Eclisse for example. A scene lasts a little to much. The camera shows something (a gaze, a street) without “real” reason. No other reason than this : suddenly you “feel” as if you touched reality, getting out of the-dream-of-watching-a-movie.
  2. We find this “tool” in Hopper’s paintings. For me, it’s his main talent, asset. We watch : some people are here, just “being” – they wait or think, who knows? These paintings stop you, wondering what these people do, if they’re bored…
  3. We find this “tool” in Chekhov’s short stories. His descriptions are not here just to “paint the scenery”, but (and very shortly/effectively) make us feel something. So much that I remember plenty of places of these books!

Of course, it’s used in many other art pieces and form.

anto-103

I think this is linked to our idea of boredom. In Antonioni we often watch someone doing nothing – breathing, watching something, thinking. It breaks the usual “flow of events” we often see in movies. Or we see a conversation leading to nowhere. Blank seconds. We see people dealing with boredom. And maybe we are hurt, of surprised, or… bored a bit. And it’s an effect of reality, right?

Sometimes it’s just “a place shown”, like in Hopper‘s work. The light on a wall suddenly makes you “feel” the place. You can almost hear the little wind, or the street, the sea. It’s as if your brain suddenly touched the reality he wanted you to feel.

 

What will we do with this? Why and how does it work? Why is it… good? What about photography? One purpose of it could be to “make us touch” reality, instead of amazing us? What do you think?

 

Thanks for reading!

 

ob_631d2e_19i-edward-hopperhb_53.183 (1)

 

Decision : Is today the day after yesterday or the day before tomorrow?

Is today the day after yesterday or the day before tomorrow?

You can now take this little idea-stick and use it for concepts. Let’s do it with decisions.

As all we have is the “now”…

There are two types of persons, those who think in little simple boxes and let themselves trapped by words, and those who know life’s complex and moving. The first category can be divided in

  1. Therefore, most of wise-asses will stand up and pompously claim that “Haha, today is the day before tomorrow!!” – they make decisions watching the future.
  2. Some other saddened sad-pants will mourn and stop, watching the past only, the yesterday. They are mocked by 1.

 

Of course, my article would like to show that we need the past and the future to make decisions.

Considering the yesterday is drawing maps, spot mistakes to avoid, increase intelligence, preparing lines towards the tomorrow, inventing goals, foreseeing paths, inventing propositions. Tango!

…inspiration coming from appropriation of experience…

01.jpg

 

Have a nice day!

IMG-20160324-WA0026.jpg

Jeff Wall : Photography for Thinkers, Part 1

Jeff Wall is a Canadian photographer, but he’s also an interesting thinker.

In a way, photography is often pretty clear in its goals. Street photography to show a moment, “reality”, fashion, photo-journalism to witness the world’s events. That’s OK, but Wall wants to displace something.

Most of the time, photography about “spontaneity of looking” : you see a picture and you like it or not, you see a beautiful woman, or a funny face, or great colors. Social representations. Landscapes. People.

Jeff Wall wants something else, which is probably to make you think (about what?).

One example : “near documentary”. Something who seems very natural BUT which is in fact very staged and prepared.

Or else he chooses a picture from Manet, or Hokusai, and makes his own version in photography.

So as you know that, you watch his pictures and begin to think about what you see : what does that mean? Do I really feel there’s something wrong, or is it because I know this very “normal” picture is not genuine at all and needed a month to make?

In fact, you watch differently. You’re looking for clues. You’re looking for the reconstruction : where is it? Do you see it?

If a picture is directed, “made”, can it contains a documentary value?

img-1.jpg

The name of this picture? “Man with a rifle”.

  • He mimics, but has no rifle.
  • People around him doesn’t seem no notice him.
  • Is his gesture a joke and he’ll stop in a second? Is there danger? What does this man want?
  • What does the photographer want?
  • There are other elements to notice : colors, or the shadow of the other tree who is not here, or the frame made by the cars (like “in stairs”) and the lines, making the moment like “in a slice”.
  • When the photograph is showed, the size of the man is almost real size : you could almost walk into the picture.
  • Why would a single slightly crazy moment like that is on a photo that size?
  • It’s an action scene, but as you know the photographer and are aware of his work, you understand that these people are just like “stuck”, immobile for hours, maybe days.
  • As it’s in a street, it’s colored “street photography”, and more : we all know that photography automatically gives a “sense of reality”.
  • Enigmatic but “real”, the audience has to think about himself and his own look.

(More, in French, here : https://journals.openedition.org/cm/390#tocto1n1 )

 

Could you use this pattern, this state of mind in your Art? How would you express, explain and process it?

(I wonder myself why I love so much when one aspect of one artist is to make the public aware of the form he’s watching…)

 

Thanks for reading!

image.jpg

Marcus Aurelius VS bad management

“If only the bird with the loveliest song sang,
the forest would be a lonely place.”
John James Audubon

Ahh… “If only…”.

In France we say “Avec des si on mettrait Paris en bouteille” : “With “ifs” one could put Paris into a bottle”. Makes sense, I suppose…

Bad management is pretty common. If it’s too bad you have to quit, right? It you don’t, you have to deal with it. That simple!

Some managers are lazy, or weak, or just plain stupid. Some are violent, unsteady, irrelevant or beyond understanding.

You can’t fix people, but you can fight, say “It’s enough”, etc. It’s a path, you can go N+1, or use the Union, or make a team with colleagues : I’m not talking about that today.

In front of bad management, you can choose 4 paths :

  1. Have a good ulcer. Or a breakdown.
  2. Find a way to deal with it.
  3. Fight back.
  4. Quit.

Here, Marcus Aurelius is useful :

“If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment.

OK, here’s my tool :

  1. Focus for a few minutes and think about what is your job really about.
  2. You’re paid for that, therefore do your job, the best you can.
  3. Consider management as the weather.

That’s all.

  • If you sell things, your shelf displays must be clean and interesting. Vegetable, flowers or books. Great displays. Focus!
  • If you teach, your students must listen and understand, and if they love you, you’re good. Invent tricks and watch them.
  • If you’re a journalist, write great articles, captivate your audience and do your best. Blossom smiles!
  • If you’re a truck driver, drive well and pay attention. Do your job and listen to some good music.
  • Etc. Etc.

Management?

WEATHER

It’s sunny? Good! It’s a storm, it rains, it’s cold, windy? Whatever! GOOD!

You can’t fix people. You can’t fix the weather. Focus.

Do your job, JtfC!

Have a nice day!

IMG_6419.JPG

Endless Amendments : Reality

There’s a tree, in front of you, while you walk.

Perception. Your eyes send images to your brain. “It’s a tree”.

In a second, you brain has the image, thus the word and the concept linked to it.

You brain has a powerful tool : Analogy.

If it “looks” like a tree, thus you decide it’s probably one. Then you watch and fix, adapt.

Analogy is pretty good for representations, drawings…

If you hear something behind you, your brain computes immediately a 3D-Map of what is probably there. Then your turn around and your eyes fix, amend the “reality”.

Successive drafts, like instant sketches…

Endless Amendments…

 

Yes, it’s splitting hairs the French way, to imagine dials. Donc :

  1. What if a word was a tack? And a strong one…
  2. What happens when our senses send us something else than the tacked word?
  3. How do we know that all these are the Letter A?
  4. Who are those who think with preconceiveness?
  5. Why am I wary of words (as labels)?
  6. What are hallucinations?
  7. Why should we train ourselves to endless improve, enrich, amend what we think we know?
  8. What is movement, here? Haeccity?
  9. What is to plug with possibilities and propositions?
  10. What does “She’s mean” mean?
  11. Really?

 

Have a great day!

 

68f0ecba36164eca5e71468f8cd56c4c.jpg

 

01ZKkPtr8OYKN8Df46fI9AFm1Grdlo7ftMzcOHrcPX2_FK6X4R-0MXhMFWzlDcZ0w71hMJcy3bYLq3gpeNUsnYrslk7APZsVJe2Ay-ZB2dOsPFkB6QaUURZHLKB2LxXi2QBtrKL9K8IW4nwCR3UuA7iWohv4Nxs3TVL2TZI4NnBy2Fo92_3br8ZNw8Mzo1Xd0huW26FMEh82Twpfj7rAuXfm5hgc7jv1npkd.jpg

 

Irrelevant Fishes & Tetris Moods : Humans as Problems to Solve?

My previous article quoted S. Shore about photography :

“A photographer solves a picture, more than composes one.”

 

At first you want to think that it’s wrong – or at least “too easy”, but you have to admit there’s something intriguing here. To “solve” a picture… To find its balance, maybe? It’s stayed as a seed in my brain.

 

In the eighties I was in University and a friend of mine told me this story :

“I played so much Tetris these last days that this morning, as I was interviewed by a guy for a job, I saw all of his questions like Tetris tetrapods : I just had to move them, rotate them until they fit into my brain”.

 

OK, this is a puzzle. Here are some pieces :

  1. The idea of “solving” a photography
  2. Communication from another human being seen as a Tetris game (four square blocks geometric tiles moved sideways and rotated until it fits with no “gaps”)
  3. Marcus Aurelius’ constant pattern telling that the problem is not reality (therefore “the others”) but the way we react or not – which depends on us only
  4. The third Toltec Agreement : “Don’t take anything personally. Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering…”

 

See my workshop table? Some of you will get me, will see me coming. Recenter. You decide. Logic against feelings. The limits of all this. Watching/listening to others. Empathy. Etc.

I’ll have to write a bit more to sort all of it.

Some say that to blog is a way to learn things, right?

The 3rd Agreement risk is to consider others like irrelevant fishes in an aquarium, or something like “the weather” – but it can be an asset. Could be.

(to be continued)

 

Have a nice day!

1567606529401422195_259996796.jpg

Instagram : itspeteski

“It wasn’t a mini-tornado, these don’t exist”

As the weather is a bit stormy these days in France, some trees fell, some houses lost their roof, and you read articles in the press telling about mini-tornadoes, with an explicit picture (you can google.fr “mini tornade”).

Immediately, weather specialists stand up in furia and learnedly explain to the community that “It wasn’t a mini-tornado, these don’t exist”. You see their point : categories, how “real” tornadoes appears, etc.

As if you’d slap your little boy in the face because he plays with cars. “It’s not a car, silly, it’s a toy car!“. Bim!

There is something to notice here, a pattern we should watch closely.

At first you want to say “Breathe, buddy”. This thing looks like a mini-tornado, so why can’t people use this word? What’s the point with definitions, here? Isn’t, like a “toy car”, mini itself enough to say “not real”? What if we obey? It’s not a mini tornado. So what?

 

It’s like a cristallization of our problems with words and reality.

  1. Reality is real. Your house really lost its roof, even if mini-tornadoes “don’t exist”. Words are impartation, values – and names are conferred words.
  2. When we think about someone, we have a bunch of labels all ready, and the person disappears under stickers. It is convenient, but wrong.
  3. We often amalgamate the word and the reality, which deprives us from intelligence. A word closes the box, letting us stuck in stupid simplicity.
  4. What else?

 

“Haecceity” is about Labels on your Forehead, from where I copy paste this :

Deleuze says we are more accurately longitudes and latitudes, a group of different speeds and slownesses, an individual, a singularity, constantly inventing grapes of possibilities, a play of forces or encounters.

 

Thanks for reading!

(jenamalone)925340_1501739293429302_129233518_n.jpg

Instagram : jenamalone

 

 

IMG_20180102_082527.jpg

 

The “Let’s make it a dance” tool

Hefez : La Danse du Couple (really need a translation?) is a book written by a couples therapist. He says that a couple is an impossible thing to build and to live – the other one never “fits”.

Therefore, we all have to think, watch the other and our alliance, and realize that there are stairs to climb, paths to invent, that we have to think and “find a way”. All this gestures-mess is a DANCE.

“Let’s make it a dance” is a tool which says :

“When it’s difficult somewhere but you have to insist and you have to stay in the system, just accept and absorb the difficulties – and invent a dance. Your dance. It’s a mess, but you can dance it, smile, and climb the stairs”. And ignore the others. Nobody can understand your own dance. It’s a secret.

Thanks for reading!

(tammygucci)10890856_637724749687856_954860799_n.jpg

Instagram : tammygucci

Dark Propensities

In an old article I played with this Chinese idea : Instead of pushing towards our “goals” like stupid bulldozers, it’s maybe smarter to use the propensity of things. The “natural tendency to behave in a particular way, to move in a particular direction.”

Stay positive, keep your chin proud and high, move forward soldier, go go go!

But in Afghanistan, guys from the desert kidnap soldiers, cut their arms, legs and penis, put a solid tourniquet on each stumpextremity to keep them alive before giving back the poor body with a head next to a US base with medics. Purpose is not honorable : “Suffer, now, and until you die”. Medicine now is able to keep these men alive…

The ideal propensity of a warrior is to vanquish. The ideal propensity of a couple is to live in rich harmony (sex, hobbies, communication). The ideal propensity of fast cars is to make the knight-driver feel powerful and to go home faster, you go boy!

Tendencies and propensities have a dark side, Darth, though. The dark propensity of a soldier is trauma, to die or to be wounded. The dark propensity of a couple is drama or worse : manipulation, misunderstandings and boredom. The dark propensity of fast cars is accidents and consequences : death, hospital, disability.

What’s the dial? To watch all paths? Not being angelic? Cut the wrong ways up? Be attentive? Consider other assumptions?

OK : pay attention. That’s good.

Merry Christmas!

C360_2015-04-05-19-56-34-808.jpg

 

 

 

Juan Martínez Bengoechea, #painter

It’s about people in the 1920s, doing things you don’t understand, or posing like in front of an imaginary photograph. My eyebrows are moving up, that’s it! I kind of like the movement it triggers in my mind : a wonder, most of the time…

http://juanmartinezbengoechea.com/

Have a great day!

Jean-Pascal

 

5c32d617be161cd537cb257b6b3026a24ab793b1dcf62857adc2cfa1a8a5710276E4939f120ff2329beb2d6601cfdd5647c933763d74fb721f88a8d158e2baec5c4afbe018b8b465cef792c8f2b44a80254camionJuan Martinez Bengoechea _paintings_Chile_artodyssey (3)Juan_Martinez_la_femme_au_chienJUAN-MARTINEZ-BENGOECHEA_04JUAN-MARTINEZ-BENGOECHEA_08JUAN-MARTINEZ-BENGOECHEA_30rocaJuan+Martinez+Bengoechea+_paintings_Chile_artodyssey+(12)

Surprising Reversibilities

– I owe you so much!
– No no no, it’s I who owe you…

 

  1. A therapist takes care of his patient.
  2. Stravinsky or Hindemith were influenced by Bach.
  3. Someone is watching and analyzing a painting.

All these three examples are simple and clear. You can draw the arrow, right?

We thinkers like to go deeper, though. To find nuances, subtleties :

  1. There are many ways of listening, of helping someone…
  2. What are the elements which makes us notice the influence?
  3. What do we seek – and find in Arts? An emotion? Links?

You can spend months on each, reading books. Refining concepts is a bliss, right? Good!

 

Today I study one thing : reversibility. It’s meeting a surprise “the other way around”, and it’s charged with intensity :

  1. A therapist suddenly talks about himself. Instead of listening, he tells his own story. The patient is suddenly captivated. This is a well known trick in this field! Psychotherapists say it gives a stronger link (therefore a power) on a patient. Adding humanity in the bond is a strange and powerful idea…
  2. Many specialists come to a point where they see where is Bach in Hindemith, but also that there is some Hindemith (1895-1963) in Bach (1665-1750). Two centuries before, OK, but you can study this the other way around – even if you think it’s “not OK”. It’s a game for spirits, to study how the now can be seen as an influence for the past.
  3. An Art lover studies a painting, a music, and he realizes it works in the other way : the piece of work moves him, changes him, teaches him, overwhelms him. You explore yourself through another person’s work. You are amazed by unconscious and historical forces at stake. Your skin (or your guts) are activated. Astonishment is a trigger for your brain. Then, maybe, you’re… slaked (and this can be in MANY ways), right?

 

A child comes from a mother, a father. But parents are also transformed by the coming. In the end, the person who is a child gives parents… motherhood and fatherhood.

Mhhh I like that. You feel that I touch something here, oui? Where, in what other examples can you imagine this reversibility process? Business? Couple? Creativity? Ads? Poetry? Where, when it’s obvious “things are going this way”, could you reverse something? Therefore what?

Thanks for reading!

 

ncw_bc.jpg

 

 

When you don’t get signs anymore…

We all read about signs. Coincidences. Synchronicity. You get helped when you need it. You meet the good persons, etc.

You can also read : Coincidences? Are you serious?

But… what does it mean when you do get signs anymore?? You can go move through your life without being on the look out, or you can search them like crazy : nopething.

A few hypothesis :

  • I get signs, but I don’t “get” them
  • I don’t understand
  • I forgot how to “read” them
  • No more signs… is a sign
  • I have to manage by myself
  • The one who sent me signs is dead
  • The one who sent me signs lets me rest, gives me a break
  • The one who sent me signs wants me to reconnect with reality without looking out for them
  • I have to pass a milestone before receiving more
  • I finished my quota. No more signs in stock. F.
  • I disappointed my signs sender
  • I miss an ingredient to get them. Meeting people? Traveling? Creating?
  • An activity which opens a canal
  • I need to switch on my inner antennas, to make energy circulate
  • I am at the point I don’t need signs anymore, therefore I suppose I’m ready and I have to act immediately – but I have no clue what to do, dobidou
  • All this crybaby “signs” thing is bouleshit, you’d better understand by yourself if you’re on the right path or not. Have a glass of wine. Cheers!

 

What would you add? What happens?

 

Have a nice day! Thanks for reading!

(marso1107)11416905_512177768933971_938320641_n.jpg

Instagram : marso1107

 

 

 

Big Statements & Science of Bullshittery

Big Talkey, Little Doey

We all have a friend, this friend, promising after a drinking night, from a hangovering moody mouth : “I will never drink anymore”.

Yeah yeah yeah…

Hearing “big statements” is sometimes a little embarrassing.

What do you answer to “I never lie”, or “my couple is perfect”, or “I will love him forever”? Nothing : you just… nod in agreement, right?

 

What does it mean? What does it say? What does it show? 

The Science of Bullshittery should be written!

You have to study the bigstatementers, but also their audience.

“I stop smoking tomorrow” leaves the audience in a skeptical mood. “I’m writing a novel” goes the same – writers rarely say to anyone who would listen that they’re writing a book. They just write…

Sadder : when someone says : “I live a happy life”. You’re like “Oh, come on… Why would one NEED to proclaim that?”. We all know that we all struggle at times, and that we are happy sometimes, too. There’s no need for bigstatementery here, unless you…

 

Thus, hearing Big Statements invites you to think. Maybe you have to do as if you were believing them. Maybe you should show empathy and ask for subtleties. Maybe just say : “Let’s talk about it”. Being sarcastic doesn’t help. It rarely does.

In A Matter of Lever, two years ago, I quoted J. L. Borges (well, I tried to English translate it), who summarizes all of it this way :

 

Not the simplicity, which is senseless, but secret and modest complexity

 

Well, that’s it!

Oh. Efff. Isn’t it a Big Statement? Awweeee…

Have a nice day!

 

1306774634393583738_1204809845.jpg

Instagram : _bodylanguage_

 

 

 

Le Semblant d’Acceptation – I say yes all the time & I have a mind of my own

ONE

When you interact with people, you have to deal with three levels :

  1. What you think
  2. What you say
  3. What you do

There’s a struggle, though, between your angelic wish & will to respect people, and the good old “reality principle” : you have to drive your own life, even if you’re surrounded by stupidity, unsteady manners and paradoxical injunctions.

A good example : Rules. Of course, you have to obey rules, including the law of your country. But what do you do with stupid rules, invented by a stupid manager in an office cut from reality, yesterday or a long time ago? Say yes and nod. Inner Facepalm. Then do your stuff.

 

It’s the same when someone lies to you :

  1. You know it.
  2. You speak “as if” you’re unaware of it.
  3. You do what you just need to do. Just say “yes”, before.

 

Of course, you can fight stupidity, OMG : I let you begin, OK? Please do it. Stop war, too, while you’re at it…

 

TWO

There are quotes (mostly about relationships, right?) about words and actions. For example :

“Words are nothing. Actions are everything. Don’t tell me. Show me.”

Ahhhh we like that, right?

Fine! Thustherefore :

  1. What I think I keep for myself
  2. What I say is what the other one wants to hear
  3. What I do is what I want to do

 

THREE

Hmmm I know, there are consequences : people will say you have a mind of your own. Maybe that you’re a two-faced hypocrite, a free electron, a specialist of AS (Acceptation Semblance). Well : so be it!

“Words are nothing. Actions are everything. Don’t tell me. Show me.”

Voilà!

 

 

Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg

 

When your imagined map doesn’t fit with reality…

If you meet someone online, or even if you talk on Skype with a friend you know “in real life” but you never went to his/her home, your brain… works.

Your brain draws a map of this person’s apartment, or house.

According to the informations you have, you can NOT prevent your mind to invent “the other person’s place”. You’ve been there, haven’t you? Well, errr : nope.

You can hold two pictures of a room, or a complete Skype “Hey, do you want to see my place?” wandering : your brain does it : it builds a set of images and a map, it builds the light, the mood, the size of all of it.

Then…

One day you GO there. And this is disturbing. This porch, these lanterns, this mirror, this corridor, this carpet, this bathroom : you were all wrong, right? It’s different.

It clicks. You brain literally swallows the environment. It is trained to do it!

Now, you’re back home. And you have TWO memories of this place. Ah ah! So there!

The place you imagined. And the place you saw for real.

These are two different things!

OK, this makes us think, right? It’s a set of questions…

Our mind is constantly imagining what “will happen”, how this “will be”. Then, in front of reality, it… “fixes” it. It works in real time : if you hear a glass crashing on the floor behind you, your brain draws a whole decor, a scenery of “what I will see when I turn my head”.

What is disillusion?

Can you do that for a whole culture? A whole country?

What can we do, or study, with this knowledge? What if you were writing a movie? What tension could you use? More : what will your brain do with the first, imagined place, once you know pretty well the real one? Is it vanishing? Is it useless to keep it? Why? What if you studied the differences between what you expected and reality? What does it show about your brain?

What if you’re a couple and you both imagined the place you will be for a holiday, from a set of five pictures on the web? Would you talk about it, once you’re on site? I mean… about the differences of… the differences of what you imagined?

OK, I’ll have one more glass of wine before going to bed 🙂

Thanks for reading!

C360_2015-06-05-08-01-16-438.jpg

 

 

Unholy Placed & Sized Prisms

A photograph worries.
He doesn’t want to enjoy the moment, but to take advantage of it.
Ernst Jünger

 

If you’re creative, or obsessed by something, your contact with reality is spoiled.

It is true that we all have an ideal way of seeing a wise person, who is in “direct contact” with things and events : reality. Without filter, as we say, right?

But think about a photographer. He watches around with a frame in his head. He constantly “imagine what picture it could give”. A photographer always is a hunter…

If you blog, you hear every conversation, you read every article with this fisherman attitude : “Is there something I could write about?”.

More generally, if you’re a words lover, your filter is a complete set : everything around you, everything that “happens” becomes words, sentences, adjectives.

All this is maybe a protection. It creates a distance between us and the world.

I wrote about this already :

Sometimes we’re HIT by reality, all in a sudden, we stickcatch up back. It can be a sight, a word, a surprise, a kid, a cat, a movement. Suddenly it’s OK : your filter vanished.

Here you are, look at youuuu!

Do we have to trigger it, to “want” this? Why? What happens when the filter comes back? What’s the role of alcohol (does it de-filter, or does it add a mattress?), of meditation, of pain, of love? Do we have to be aware of this filter working along the day? Is it useful to dance between the two states (with/without)?

Thanks for reading!

 

 

 

 

“Add some light in places”, or why to intellectualize will never kill the magic!

This is an old pattern many people use, like an old, useless dusty tool. This one says something like :

In front of beauty, don’t intellectualize too much or else you’ll lose the magic

 

In sex, art, photography, any place where magic is found, of course we can say that wizardry exists because it unfolds out of the words’s limitations.

Even in fields like poetry or novels (where words are used), able to catch you with style and stories, and bring you in the domain of dreams.

And I’m the first to tell – and repeat – here in this blog, that it is wise to stay out of words, these weak labels, in many articles about how photographers or painters don’t like to explain, etc.

In front of beauty, don’t intellectualize too much or else you’ll lose the magic

Peel and decorticate magic, and you kill the goose (with the golden eggs, etc).

Well : Okey!

I’d add this word : BUT. Or this word : ALSO.

But, also, and nevertheless, there are days you wanna do it.

Analyze the magic of a novel. Dissect a music track. Have a precise conversation about sex. Use the pause button on your remote control to understand how a scene is edited. Read articles about masterpieces, and prefaces of old classics. Stop eating this delicious meal and try to find how it’s been cooked. Wonder how your love story is evolving…

This IS what intellectualizing is, it brings knowledge, shows you new paths, increases your intelligence, draws new maps, enlightens your universe, gives you more energy to explore, to dive deeper the next time you’ll plunge into your next “not thinking too much” moments…

Do you really think it “kills the magic”?

What if it rather adds some light in places?

Thanks for reading!

 

#layers
#layers

Gleanpickupping seeds & tools in a Gidon Kremer interview

In a French grey morning of August, I’ve had my coffee with two good slices of brioche, frame window staring, in front of an ominous sky, at the cut out moving trees in the wind, shhhh.

Mind wandering…

According to your job, your availability, your passions, you have different way of “entering contact with reality” :

  • A photographer type will watch around him with the “Can I take a picture here, when, from where?”.
  • A musician type will analyze some new song he hears, decorticating it like an alarm-clock.
  • A poet type will find a good word in a book then might begin to weave a poem in his head.
  • The climber type will watch these city walls… etc…

You… just have to put your “mode on” (and YES, you can have many “modes on” ready in your head, haeccity oblige).

 

I read an interesting interview of Gidon Kremer, violonist, in a classical music magazine. I read this interview with two modes on.

  1. First was : “Find maybe some music to listen to” (I found Schumann, Weinberg, Arvo Pärt, and a Prokofiev melody)…
  2. The other one was my blogger mode : “What little structure, what tool, what tropism can I find in his interview?”.

 

So, well, I learned things about Gidon Kremer himself, his friends, career, evolutions, wonders, etc. He’s an interesting person, the typical clever artist (for me he’s a cousin of Bill Bruford, the drummer).

Eventually, my second “mode on” found quotes, wonders, seeds to plant (here or there) and to meditate on :

  • We live a physical house, but also in some spiritual homes, other “places” we belong to.
  • Playing very few notes is more difficult than pure virtuosity.
  • When you find difficult to play or understand something, you maybe need to find parallel structures in other artists or situations : comparison enrichment.
  • You can explore a field (movies, music) with artists, eras, but also labels or studios, producers, etc. Let’s write something about ECM.
  • Should an artist listen or study what he did in his past? (Kremer never listens what he recorded in previous years).
  • When an artist collaborates, there’s a need of “mutual listening”.
  • Sometimes we miss something. Friends around us indicate things or persons but we don’t listen – when we maybe should.
  • Then and therefore : what is to catch up? How do we? What is “to redeem”, how?
  • “Seeking perfection is the enemy of beauty”

 

Etc etc. I found a few more. Whatever. Each line is a door to a new room, which is full of questions. How to drive “mutual listening”? What becomes virtuosity with very little notes to play? Where the frontier to find between catching up and letting go? Etc…

I found this too : when you have one or many “modes of exploration”, it becomes difficult sometimes to be in direct contact. You ALWAYS have a filter on, and that can be exhausting!

We have to find back a way to quit our introvert-analyzer inner computer to… touch things. I suppose it’s what great artists can do, having the great ability to move it like a lever, a slider, from 0 to 100%, from “I know this without any words” to “Analyze and peel it off to understand it”. Where is yours?

 

Thanks for reading!

 

To write this article, I needed music. I chose Weinberg by Kremer – of course. The YouTube link is under the sleeve, downstairs :

cover.jpg