Art for arts sake is a complete paradox as a remark. Art for the sake of communication and Attempted perfection without communicating are the plus and minus of it all. One can of course communicate to oneself, if one wishes to be both cause and effect. One studies art only if one wishes to communicate and the search for artistic perfection is the result of past failures to communicate. Self-improvement is based entirely on earlier lack of communicating. Living itself can be an art. The search for freedom is either the retreat from past failures to communicate or the effort to attain new communication. To that degree then, the search for freedom is a sick or well impulse. Searching for and discovering ones past failures to communicate an art form or idea about it will therefore inevitably rehabilitate the artist. However, due to the nature of the reactive mind, full rehabilitation is achieved only through releasing and clearing. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How much art is enough art? The amount necessary to produce an approximation of the desired effect on its receiver or beholder, within the reality of the possibility of doing so. A concept of the beholder and some understanding of his or her acceptance level is necessary to the formulation of a successful art form or presentation. This includes an approximation of what is familiar to him and is associated with the desired effect. All art depends for its success upon the former experience and associations of the beholder. There is no pure general form since it must assume a sweeping generality of former experiences in the beholder. Artists all, to a greater or lesser degree, need comprehension of the minds and viewpoints of others in order to have their work accepted, since the acceptability of a communication depends upon the mental composition of the receiver. Scientology, then, is a must for any artist if he would succeed without heartbreak. In any art form or activity one must conceive of the beholder (if only himself). To fail to do so is to invite disappointment and eventual dissatisfaction with ones own creations. An artist who disagrees thoroughly with the taste of his potential audience cannot of course communicate with that audience easily. His disagreement is actually not based on the audience but on former inabilities to communicate with such audiences or rejections by a vaguely similar audience. The lack of desire to communicate with an art form may stem from an entirely different inability than the one supposed to exist. Professionals often get into such disputes on how to present the art form that the entirety becomes a technology, not an art and, lacking progress and newness of acceptance, dies. This is probably the genus of all decline or vanishment of art forms. The idea of contemporary communication is lost. All old forms become beset by technical musts and must-nots and so cease to communicate. The art is the form that communicates not the technology of how, the last contributing to the ease of creating the effect and preservation of the steps used in doing it. A forms reach, blunted, becomes involved with the perfection alone, and ceases to be an art form in its proper definition. A communication can be blunted by suppressing its art form. Examples: bad tape reproduction, scratched film, releasing bits not authorized. This then is the primary suppression. On the other hand, failing continuously to permit a nondestructive communication on the grounds of its lack of art is also suppressive. Between these two extremes there is communication and the task is to attain the highest art form possible that can be maintained in the act of communicating. To do otherwise is inartistic and objectionable. These, therefore, are the fundamentals of ART.
Posted on: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 10:34:07 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015