somewhere on the holo-deck (Letters 6.1)
When using an artist's painting, there is a subjacent story to interpret. Of course we can totally subvert the theme, which is what I usually do, however, only in the case of a totally abstract painting, would I go into random psychographic writing. If there is a story in the picture, it's usually a good symbolic depart to the building of a written scene.
https://steemit.com/hive-107855/@hefestus/ss03wk
While reading these lines, written by @hefestus on 2025-20-02, there arose two objections in my thoughts. The second one of them I articulated in my response; within that, I focussed on the term ‚a totally abstract painting‘ which I regard to be a cliché. The answer of Hefestus on my objection on this term introduced a new concept and a strong statement, which I dared to name a ‚credo‘, and from hence he and me got into a discussion with more and more distance from the first themes and from each other.
Thus I’d like to return to the first comment as cited above. Back to the roots. As I just mentioned I formerly only uttered the second objection, and now, as I see or as it seems to me that we go out of interacting, I want to recurr to my formerly not revealed and chronologically first objection:
Is it true that ‚there is a subjacent story to interpret‘? I think of portraits, I think of landscapes, I think of still lives. And I cannot imagine any stories lying or laid down within such paintings. Let me not be misunderstood – I do not deny that the artist may have had a story in mind while painting, but such story is not ‚subjacent‘. Secondo me: I think of paintings as invitations to look and look deeper, not of requests to reconstruct nor to interpret something. I personally like to measure therefore the quality of a painting in its ability to make my own perspective recognisable to myself. If I can see the world around me with new eyes caused by a painting – this impact I regard to be the painting's highest value and the artist’s topmost intention (which needs no further interpretation).
Having made these steps it seems close at hand to me to think and to speak of a relationship and even an interaction between artist and recipient: both try to go side by side discovering and revealing the human condition. So, when I go into this process and I try to describe what happens in my mind, then I have to use metaphors and images to get a lever for words, and in this way I want ro return to my phrase that "picture walking" is something like perpetual change between psychography and following ideas. It is – I’d like to accomplish – something like a mixture of hermeneutics and fantasy.
Thus, I am sad if we cannot get more distance from the technichal approach. To be regarded as an emitter or as a receiver is unbearable for me.
I will address your concern. I did have to explain why I made my claim about the author's intentions being inconsequential.
I understand this since I thought the same. But I ceased to think that way, and thus I had to refuse this claim. Part of my reason to refuse this claim is that this is a quite common claim, not originally yours nor mine, and moreover, I think (secondo me): Behind such a claim lies hidden an image of human communication and thus of man(kind) itself which is destructive - not at the moment, but at the very end.
This is very nice, and I appreciate it very much. So, let me give you another (but in some way the same) hint on what is my concern: It can be summarized in the question(s):
Who am I, what is a human being, what is mankind?
Like most totals or sums, there are summands, and I prefer the following:
Maybe you recognize these questions as not originally mine, and this would be very true. But while I learn to put them on my own they are going to be mine in such a sense that I feel linked and connected and even related to all those who put these questions seriously, be they alive or dead.
Maybe you remember that I predicted we would arrive at those questions in the Intermezzo.
I often think about them and the implications of being able to answer them. Especially the question: Why are we here?
I'll go into that, first on my answer tou (6.1). and then, on my next letter.
Today is Carnaval (party, party, party), so, I won't have much time for this, but I'll be back soon. :)
0.00 SBD,
0.03 STEEM,
0.03 SP
This is not for the first time I read this formula, and I did not regard it as important - up to now, because just in this moment I came to the question: why?
Do you want to say, I should wait and not go for the mentioned issue?
0.00 SBD,
0.01 STEEM,
0.01 SP
Go for the issue. I'll go into it just the same. I just mean that I intend to get there. Also, I have an half written text. I'm not finishing it today.
"why" is a bit ambiguous.
Do you mean the origin or do you mean the purpose?
"What for are we here?" seems exciting and philosophically interesting to me, "Why..." with the meaning "What is our origin?" seems to me interesting in a scientific sense, since we know the evolutionary principle. There are many sub-questions of high suspense, but I do not see there any longer a strictly philosophical implication.
"What for are we here?" on the other hand implicates such philosophical questions, primarily: "Who are we?" and "Where is here or what means 'here' while it seems to include 'now'?"
One thing I regard as given:
When I press ENTER then my computer initiates emitting this message, and later yours (or your smartphone) will receive this message consisting of bits & bytes, of letters and words.
Sometimes I forget I'm talking to a German and I need to be more precise because we use a mutually understandable language, but not the same base language.
Why, in this case means: What is our purpose here?
Our origin is also an interesting subject, but it seems to be on the other end of the scale. Though knowing the origin may prove to lead to conclusions about the purpose, I don't believe them to be causally related.
0.00 SBD,
0.03 STEEM,
0.03 SP
I'm living in Germany and I'm speaking German - is this sufficient to conclude that I am a German?
;-)
0.00 SBD,
0.01 STEEM,
0.01 SP
It may be enough to conclude that you depart from a very different linguistic scheme from mine. An that is notorious in some of our exchanges.
You could be Nepalese for all I care, but you think like a German.
Cheers.
0.00 SBD,
0.03 STEEM,
0.03 SP
You're kidding, aren't you?
;-)