Posted by: Jim in Painting Technique on
Aug 06, 2008
For an audience to believe that you have created a forever painting you have to build in complexity. This is somehting that was, not only known, but widely utilized in past centuries. When painting was a primary mode of entertainment it was imperative that the artist build in levels and depths of meaning in order to have a painting stand up to the scrutiny of repeated viewings. If the viewers always felt that there were more hidden meanings than could be comprehended in an intial viewing, they would be drawn back to the piece again and again. Today we seem to have lost the ability and desire to build such complexity into our watercolor paintings. While design and color can contribute to feeling and meaning they do not allow the viewere to continually explore and find new and different meanings hidden within the framed work. They are significance is primarily emotional. We need to begin once more to explore this idea of complexity as a part of the design process in order to create more memorable works.
Posted by: Jim in Philosophy, Painting on
Jun 16, 2008
The captioned could be a mantra for anyone wishing to create forever paintings. For what else can be gained from just creating ones that are 'Nice'? A question to ponder for any artist aspiring to create something new and meaningful. Will your painting stir or will it simply be used to adorn a wall?
Posted by: Jim in Mars on
Jun 16, 2008
Is it important whether or not we find specific evidence of water on Mars? I think not. We have substantial evidence that Mars was once a planet that had quite a bit of water. So if we find water what would we do about it? What would it change in regards to our present space program or the pace of space exploration? I think nothing.
The fact that we successfully accomplished this part of the mission is probably more important than if we find water locked up in the form of ice on the planet. I think it was exciting but the recent U.S. Open and NBA Plyoffs got more television viewing and coverge time than this latest space venture.
So as a nation we must not share the common dream and aspiration for space exploration. In level of importance and interest it does not capture the minds and hearts of the majority of citizens. Herein lies the key issue to be addressed.
If it is that important then we need the leadership that can sell that vision. I think that it is the lack of these common visions of the future that is at issue here and not if we find or don't find water on Mars.
If we don't find water will it deter us from eventually going to the planet with a manned mission? No. So why did we spend so much money in pursuit of the water question? It beats me!
Posted by: Jim in Pyramids, Egypt on
Jun 16, 2008
Pythagoras gained a lot of his insight and direction from the Egyptians. One of the most important Pythagorean symbols was the tetractys. It is a pyramid shaped symbol made up of the first four whole numbers. One was for unity. Two was the dyad, the first principle of dichotomy. Three was the symbol of beginnings, middle and end(the process of things in time and space) and fourth was the number of points that it took to construct a pyramid. Togehter these numbers add up to ten which is the perfect number and basis for all of his system and ours.
"I swear by the discover of the tetractys, which is the spring of all wisdom, the perennial fount and root of nature."
If this came from the Egyptians belief system then perhaps we have some more insight into the nature and symbolism of the pyramids.
Posted by: Jim in Philosophy, Painting on
May 20, 2008
C.S. Lewis once said that in order to make progress in any matter sometimes the most productive way is to begin over. I have found that once I am on a pathway and have a fundemental set of protocols (in use and that work) I have a hard time breaking out and doing anything truly creative.
Instead I continue to pursue the same methods with little change in the outcomes. I paint alot of nice pictures but nothing truly great. I find myself stuck!
A couple of dozen years ago I took some lessons and the painter I was studying with had me begin with the color wheel. I didn,t understand at the time but this was to give me a fresh start. It was to give me another chance to begin again from the start and to open new opportunties to growth and creativity.
It seems to be a painterly approach to contemplation of the art. I think now that the more times you start over the more chance you have to create something truly new that has the potential to be a Forever Painting. (I now do a new color wheel once a week!)
Posted by: Jim in X Prize, Moon on
May 20, 2008
AA recent article in Popular Mechanics covered the criteria and goals of the Moon X Prize. While interesting they do not require that the rover do any science which is one item that I think they left off of the qualifying critieria for winning the prize. Like the Apollo program they have overlooked the key element or reason for going to the moon which is to learn more about ourselves and our origins. If they had added the necessity for some type of meaningful and successful scientific experiment they would have increased the value of the effort and the prize expotentially. This is not to suggest that having an amateur or private group actually get a rover to the moon is not a challenge but with a science package on board it would have more depth and meaning.
Posted by: Jim in The Sphinx, Egypt on
May 19, 2008
Several years ago The Fox TV Network had a live show from the pyramids that exposed several new underground chambers underneath the Sphinx. As I recall in their explanation of the findings they focused on a large sarcophogus flanked by several statues of Annubis. They also pointed out several tunnels(now filled with debris) that radiated out under the Plateau. What struck me was the engineering necesary to hewn these chambers out of bedrock and to a depth of 2 to 4 stories. It also appeared that the walls were pretty well fininshed and square. I had to ask the question 'how'? Also what of the tunnels and 'why'? There has been no follow up reports to my knowledge but I think there is much more to find in the Plateau complex than we can ever imagine and most of it might be underground.
Posted by: Jim in Philosophy, Painting on
May 18, 2008
A painting that shows us, or makes us feel, more of what the world is like is one that can be considered forever. It is the difference between surface representation and essence.
The world is much more complex and interesting than it may appear. If we are only aware of what is represented by the obvious we will never be able to appreciate the complexity and interconnectiveness/ interdependent nature of all of existance.
A 'Forever Painting' seeks to take us below the surface and to show the richness of the relationahips and complexities of our world. This is true of abstract as well as representational painting.
Posted by: Jim in Moon on
May 18, 2008
A recent article in Popular Mechanics discussed the idea of private property rights for the Moon. I for one am in favor as it has been shown historically that it enhances progress and protection. The individual has always been the primary force behind development and protection. Wheter it is in hte arts or sciences the individual comes first as he or she has the internal creative power and built in moral imperative that has seen to best address the needs of new territiores and discoveries. As my previous post regarding the greening of Mars indicates we need a new set of visions for space and privatizing the Moon is one of them. It is man's job to be both a developer and a steward and that does not end with the earth.
Posted by: Jim in Pyramids, Mystery, Engineering, Egypt on
May 17, 2008
A question that has always haunted me is why the builders used such large blocks in the construction? Logic would tell us that if at their size and weight(minimum 2.5 tons) it was difficult for them to handle they would have reduced their size to facilitate construction. The only conclusion that I can make is that they must not have had trouble working with such large masses or else the construction plan itself required the larger size. Why not make them the size of standard building blocks?
If anyone can shed light on this conundrum please let me know!
Blog
