Removed by User Request
Removed by User Request
Last edited by DeleteMePLOX; 01-28-2009 at 05:36 AM.
What?! I draw to convey emotion as well, WAY over making something visually appealing. To be honest I'd rather come up with a work that made the viewer feel a strong emotion, even disgust or contempt, than to create some hollow but well positioned "thing". That, to me, is art.
Add to that....I am very VERY stubborn when I want to be and will absolutely not back down no matter what the costs are if I feel strongly opposed to something...I'll damn-near fight to the death, I'm just very tolerant up until that point..
I'm now confused.
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Here's an example I have on-hand of my work...
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
I.E: SEIs are more likely to be one of the much deeper types and because of this the most misundertood and judged in terms of the whole "dumb blonde/superficiality" thing.
I know I say a LOT that gets missed, many hidden multiple meanings in one statement. Even with that picture...
It was about someone that really hurt me and it has three different meanings.
1 - When does the pain of the heartache stop?
2 - When can I just die already.
3 - An anger reaction referring to the image based on something that was very close to the person that hurt me. This person lost a certain animal, and this is not a human heart, but it matches to pretty much exacting degrees the heart of the animal this person lost - a malicious bite back, designed to make this one person experience the pain he caused me once the initial two messages were given. A secret, hidden meaning that only he could be wounded by and understand. (Although he probably didn't, it made it an effective emotional outlet for me, which helped the situation).
Hello, my name is Bee. Pleased to meet you .
Perhaps the "hollow" accusation comes from the fact that I think SEIs can sort of work backwards in the sense that they may not start with a clear idea of what they want to portray. They may just begin with little bits and pieces of unrelated emotions, observations that have individual significance to them. And then they work with these ideas until something pleasing starts to emerge. Or they may just work in a blinkered way - going with what feels or looks right – not worrying about the big picture – trusting that it’s going to turn out well because the individual pieces come from real places and have some sort of connection with each other. And experimenting with different connections, they just know when the right ones come along. Or maybe they do start with some definite, strong emotions that they want to communicate creatively, but aesthetics take precedence over authenticity of expression along the way. :-p And perhaps it's enough for them that they get personal enjoyment out of knowing that their work is embedded with various private feelings etc, or that it has no real meaning whatsoever ... so they're not really that concerned with what meaning people take from it. As long as it “makes sense” as a whole to people and is aesthetically compelling, the rest is not really anyone’s business. :-p I’m not sure why some stranger would want to know my private inspirations anyway. That would be a bit creepy! Hmm - a bit of a "hollow" approach to art perhaps. :-p
This one time, after having given a performance of a piece that was supposed to be rather dark and depressing, this lady was going on to a mutual friend about how she didn’t realise how deeply I felt things. lol She seemed to think that I must have been depressed to convey those sorts of emotions. I found that rather flattering .. because my goal is obviously to make a person believe that the emotions are my own. In reality, I don’t really have to have felt those emotions before – I may just think of someone else’s plight and tune into what that person is feeling. I can see how that could be described as “hollow” in the sense that what I am portraying doesn’t have any real significance to me. Not to say that I may not use art as an outlet for real emotions. Just that I rather pride myself in people not being able to tell what carries real significance and what doesn’t. Let them wonder. :-p I think it’s funny sometimes watching people speculate over the intent of a painting or something .. when most likely the artist was just going “Ooh, a bit of red would look good there” *backs up, squinting*, “need something in this corner to balance things out” etc. :-p
But anyway, to sum up :0, or perhaps to introduce a new point, I think SEIs value the successful conveyance of emotion or a unique idea in their artwork above everything else. Where that emotion or idea may have come from is sort of irrelevant and perhaps embarrassing. Do you like the end result or don't you? As far as technique goes - pfft. Anyone can master an activity given enough time. Actually, this reminds me of a description of an artist in Anna Karenina. The section was quoted in some MBTI book (in describing an ISFP) .. but anyway, I think it's a good example of the sort of attitude an SEI artist might have. The first part about the way he works .. I relate to it a lot in that he’s just going with what he feels is right in the moment, trusting his impulses. The bit of tallow alters the picture, which gives him another perspective … which brings the shopkeeper to mind .. and he knows that he would be perfect, so he puts him in. What’s the significance of the shopkeeper? None. He’s just what happens to work in the picture. I can sort of see how Ni people would be somewhat disgusted by such randomness of method and absence of large pictures and whatnot. :-p But it’s easy to attribute meaning to things, and it’s such a subjective process …. create your own if you want meaning! What do you want with mine? And imo, if there is in fact some sort of deep message, but the art strikes you as bleh, then who cares? Sounds rather callous … but sorry, you can remove yourself from play. Your communication attempts have failed. :-p Shouldn’t art above all else be something that you just know whether you like or not straight away? That just hits you as beautiful or sad or passionate or funny or in some way compelling? If you have to stand there analysing it before you can appreciate it .. seems like it’s already failed. But anyway, here’s the excerpt ..
And this, re technique ..Never did he work with such fervor and success as when things went ill with him, and especially when he quarreled with his wife. ‘Oh! damn them all!’ he thought as he went on working. He was making a sketch for the figure of a man in a violent rage. A sketch had been made before, but he was dissatisfied with it. ‘No, that one was better...where is it?’ He went back to his wife, and scowling, and not looking at her, asked his eldest little girl, where was that piece of paper he had given them? The paper with the discarded sketch on it was found, but it was dirty, and spotted with candle-grease. Still, he took the sketch, laid it on his table, and, moving a little away, screwing up his eyes, he fell to gazing at it. All at once he smiled and gesticulated gleefully. ‘That’s it! that’s it!’ he said, and, at once picking up the pencil, he began rapidly drawing. The spot of tallow had given the man a new pose. He had sketched this new pose, when all at once he recalled the face of a shopkeeper of whom he had bought cigars, a vigorous face with a prominent chin, and he sketched this very face, this chin on to the figure of the man. He laughed aloud with delight. The figure from a lifeless imagined thing had become living, and such that it could never be changed. That figure lived, and was clearly and unmistakably defined. The sketch might be corrected in accordance with the requirements of the figure, the legs, indeed, could and must be put differently, and the position of the left hand must be quite altered; the hair too might be thrown back. But in making these corrections he was not altering the figure but simply getting rid of what concealed the figure. He was, as it were, stripping off the wrappings which hindered it from being distinctly seen. Each new feature only brought out the whole figure in all its force and vigor, as it had suddenly come to him from the spot of tallow.
lol erm :0 ... so do you relate, Chibikeba?‘Yes, yes, marvelous!’ Golenishtchev and Anna assented. In spite of the excited condition in which he was, the sentence about technique had sent a pang to Mihailov’s heart, and looking angrily at Vronsky he suddenly scowled. He had often heard this word technique, and was utterly unable to understand what was understood by it. He knew that by this term was understood a mechanical facility for painting or drawing,entirely apart from its subject. He had noticed often that even in actual praise technique was opposed to essential quality, as though one could paint well something that was bad. He knew that a great deal of attention and care was necessary in taking off the coverings, to avoid injuring the creation itself, and to take off all the coverings; but there was no art of painting—no technique of any sort—about it. If to a little child or to his cook were revealed what he saw, it or she would have been able to peel the wrappings off what was seen. And the most experienced and adroit painter could not by mere mechanical facility paint anything if the lines of the subject were not revealed to him first. Besides, he saw that if it came to talking about technique, it was impossible to praise him for it. In all he had painted and repainted he saw faults that hurt his eyes, coming from want of care in taking off the wrappings— faults he could not correct now without spoiling the whole. And in almost all the figures and faces he saw, too, remnants of the wrappings not perfectly removed that spoiled the picture.
"Language is the Rubicon that divides man from beast."
"The artist produces something - a painting, a sculpture, a piece of music - and the audience submits themselves to it. But it's a very modern, not to mention vulgar, idea that the spectator's reaction should resemble, or even necessarily have anything to do with, the artist's."
I need to find the actual quote. Delaney put it much better than I paraphrased above. And when I later came across Ouspensky writing about Gurdjieff's ideas, which include the conviction that "true" art conveys a very specific and unalterable meaning, I was repelled by the notion. Gurdjieff and his students visited several sites of antiquity, such as the Sphinx, and according to Ouspensky, everyone "knew" what the Sphinx "meant." Furthermore, G implied that if someone went to the Sphinx and found any other meaning, then there was something wrong/deficient about that person. I think that's bullshit.
SLIOriginally Posted by Charles Bukowski
I don't make art, so I feel left out. I suck at drawing incredibly. I also don't have the patience to draw anything. I like art a lot, but I don't draw.
This is me and my dual being scientific together
My ISFp friend just draws cartoons and things of his son just for the fun of it. If i tell him to draw a picture of a woman with a penis he will without hesitation. Whoever said ISFp's only draw to create something beautiful is full of it.
You are very ISFp its just obvious. The art is a clear connection, but also ive seen your deviant art page and you love saying things like ROFLCOPTER etc etc which is very ISFp. Also you can be bitchy at times which does fit with many ive known
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin