This blog has become a journal of artistic research for me. And, I'm kinda excited about this. haha So, looking at Schopenhauer, as Professor Chan suggested. And, here's why:
I have an idea. It's not new, granted, but it's the idea that the story of suffering connects us all. It's artistic (emotive), so to speak. And, it's worth fleshing out because art that's worth its salt either teaches us something new (about ourself or our environment), and/or it warrants consideration (is thought-provoking). So, suffering, I believe, is a storyteller. And, I want to use this medium as an art form (Class Discussion, February 12, 2013).
So, Schopenhauer? Getting back to the point, you ask? Well, don't you like tangents? Anyway, Schopenhaer says, "Knowledge is in itself always painless . . ." In essence, he says that we know we're alive when in pain. Pain is an instant happenstance. It is direct. And, it allows us clarity to the fact that yes, we are alive. He argues for the "positivity of pain," in that, "evil is precisely that which is positive, that which makes itself palpable; and good…is that which is negative, the mere abolition of a desire and extinction of a pain.”
Thus, pain is an aid in achieving well-being. This notion presupposes that there are types of pain. This is true, of course. He also says that our value system (i.e. recording the events in history that aren't peaceful, say) is a little skewed, then. That's why he flips it on its head and says, "Hey, yeah, what is good to you is actually negative. What is negative (suffering) can be good." Notice the "can be."
Henri-Frederic Amiel says it this way: "Make use of suffering."
In an artistic sense, suffering "can often be the catalyst for creation." Good point.
"Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle," Macleran says. So, suffering is obviously a thread that can tie us together.
But, I'm intrigued by the "knowledge is in itself always painless" point, because my "job"--rather, my vocation as an artist is to get to the pain part. To think, and then to project that thinking in emotive symbols the viewer understands. To understand, I think, is different (and deeper) than knowledge, because it implies internalization--the owning of that knowledge to make use of it. This is the part where the idea of suffering as a connection grows different than the old ideas.
The story. The story is not knowledge, but a medium. The story stirs emotion because it's personal. It's telling. It gives suffering a face.
"You desire to know the art of living, my friend? It is summed up in this: make use of suffering, as Henri tells us.
Reference: http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2008/12/28/60-in-60-14-schopenhauers-on-the-suffering-of-the-world-penguins-great-books/
I have an idea. It's not new, granted, but it's the idea that the story of suffering connects us all. It's artistic (emotive), so to speak. And, it's worth fleshing out because art that's worth its salt either teaches us something new (about ourself or our environment), and/or it warrants consideration (is thought-provoking). So, suffering, I believe, is a storyteller. And, I want to use this medium as an art form (Class Discussion, February 12, 2013).
So, Schopenhauer? Getting back to the point, you ask? Well, don't you like tangents? Anyway, Schopenhaer says, "Knowledge is in itself always painless . . ." In essence, he says that we know we're alive when in pain. Pain is an instant happenstance. It is direct. And, it allows us clarity to the fact that yes, we are alive. He argues for the "positivity of pain," in that, "evil is precisely that which is positive, that which makes itself palpable; and good…is that which is negative, the mere abolition of a desire and extinction of a pain.”
Thus, pain is an aid in achieving well-being. This notion presupposes that there are types of pain. This is true, of course. He also says that our value system (i.e. recording the events in history that aren't peaceful, say) is a little skewed, then. That's why he flips it on its head and says, "Hey, yeah, what is good to you is actually negative. What is negative (suffering) can be good." Notice the "can be."
Henri-Frederic Amiel says it this way: "Make use of suffering."
In an artistic sense, suffering "can often be the catalyst for creation." Good point.
"Be kind for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle," Macleran says. So, suffering is obviously a thread that can tie us together.
But, I'm intrigued by the "knowledge is in itself always painless" point, because my "job"--rather, my vocation as an artist is to get to the pain part. To think, and then to project that thinking in emotive symbols the viewer understands. To understand, I think, is different (and deeper) than knowledge, because it implies internalization--the owning of that knowledge to make use of it. This is the part where the idea of suffering as a connection grows different than the old ideas.
The story. The story is not knowledge, but a medium. The story stirs emotion because it's personal. It's telling. It gives suffering a face.
"You desire to know the art of living, my friend? It is summed up in this: make use of suffering, as Henri tells us.
Reference: http://www.jeffvandermeer.com/2008/12/28/60-in-60-14-schopenhauers-on-the-suffering-of-the-world-penguins-great-books/
No comments:
Post a Comment