At the ‘Invisible: Art about the Unseen’, 1957 – 2012 exhibition at The Hayward Gallery there was this empty room with the title for the exhibit of ‘More Silent Than Ever’ (2006). You see a label saying that in the room was a hidden listening device. You looked around and there was nothing in the room. You are thinking now where is the listening device. Initially the curiosity is very physical, bodily knowing, factual in nature: i want to know where it is? Then i am told: it could be anywhere or maybe not there at all. Now it is different: now the mind shifts a couple of gears. It starts to get sinister. The mind goes from where is it to maybe it is not here at all and now i have to worry about it. The mind broadens in its outlook: from curiosity, safe to danger. I wanted to say something so that it might get recorded, mischievous, being silly, a lie maybe about someone, gossip that is not true etc. But did not. But if you are looking about how the viewer views art, how his mind approaches the work, there are similarities to how the mind broadens out when he is curious about the presence of the listening device. There is a sense of not knowing and perpetual wondering that never ends. An Artwork is like that room with the listening device. That exhibit is about the mind rather than the listening device or the empty room. It is about how the mind looks and its process and then you think: it is like the work of art itself as it came from the meandering mind. So room with listening device, like the mind, like the work of Art: all is one and not separate. Like, “The observer is the observed”, (Jiddu Krishnamurti-JK). You ARE what you observe. They are not separate. We tend to stand back and look out and think we are separate from what we see, JK, explains. That is that I observe, and I am me. That is there and I am here but it is all one: the observer and the observed is actually physically one that is the seen and the unseen part of matter.

Now with the discovery of the higgs particle today, a new understanding might be possible. One of its functions of the Higgs field may be like the morphic field put forward by Rupert Sheldrake. A virtual storage space in the ether. Is it possible the Higgs field is the morphic field. You cannot see it but it is there. The ‘Invisible exhibition at the Hayward had an exhibit to show you what you cannot see using sensors placed on your head. It was called, ‘Invisible Labyrinth (2005). It was a ‘maze’ of infra red rays that built up the unseen ‘maze’ and you had to walk around it with a sensor on your head. When the sensor hits an invisible ‘wall’ it vibrates. You get to sense something there but you cannot see it. Like the Higgs field. But the mystic sitting in silence would have known this before the higgs particle was confirmed to exists because he would not have needed the sensor on his head to tell him an infra red wall was in front of him. He had his whole body as sensor connected to the Higgs field to tell him it was there. Before you raise your finger in protest remember this: you did not know the Higgs particle existed or not, until the scientist told you today. (4th july 2012).

So how far has the Human form come as of today: First the big bang and there was only a gaseous atmosphere. As the atmosphere started to cool the Higgs particles started to clump together and created a kind of ‘field’ which interacted with the different elements of the atmosphere. These elements interacted differently with the higgs field slowing them down at different speeds. This created elements of different masses. So after the big bang, the atmosphere started to have small bits of particles floating around space. These small particles then became asteroid and then planets like earth. Now because of the way these elements clumped together we also got water – now water on a planet, then life as a single cell amoeba in water. The evolutionary process then begins. Fish to reptile which then walked out of the ocean to land to the mammal which then started swinging from tree to tree, fell off the tree and started to walk and to become the scientist who discovered the Higgs boson and they get to tell us how we got here. But keep in mind we still go back all that way back to the days of the big bang. Evolution still allows us to keep the genetic material that initiated us. Genetics can still trace us to the first mother and father. It tells us that there were many fathers and mothers at the beginning but we all came from one particular pair and the present day population branched off from them. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166906/Retired-lecturer-grandfather-Britain-DNA-test-reveals-direct-descendant-worlds-woman.html)
We will always be connected to the beginning of time. The Sun sustains us. Its light through our eyes triggers a lot of chemicals in our body to keep us part of the environment. The sun on our skin gives us Vitamin D. Without vitamin D we will still be swinging. Mood chemicals triggered by light through our eyes. Some of that light when it arrives on earth still stretches right back to the beginning of time.

It is crazy to see how that amoeba has come full circle to see itself as the scientist at CERN to figure itself out. Now how crazy is that to go from the beginning of time to now and then to see itself again in a different time after evolution and where nought here to, you may ask. You better ask those guys from CERN. But I would put the last penny I have on how the body and mind will develop to be fully connected to its environment both past and to its present and to realise that the ‘observer is the observed’ (jiddu Krishnamurti) and he is one with his environment and to the beginning of time and to everyone in the universe through the morphogenetic Higgs field (Rupert Sheldrake) that permeates the universe. Was chance at play in the evolutionary process or was its template already mapped out in the the morphic field. The structure of society was created by the mind of man. The creative process was involved for its creation. But man itself was not created by its own mind silly, because it was not there yet to create shenanigans for itself. She/He might have come about because of a template in the universe and then we created society with our minds using the creative process. Looking at the structure of society now, can he/she actually change the environment that it is living in if it did not like what it created. As evolution progresses in the body and mind the ‘itself’ would want to see the world it would like to live in differently. Like I had said earlier in earlier articles: we seem to be creating our self’s into our environment. The internet and technology has an uncanny resembalance to the ‘self’ that is us and to how we are all connected. It seems to be recreating itself into the environment. So as we better understand our ‘itself’ as we did today with the discovery of the Higgs Boson, will we change our environment to suit the new ‘itself’ in the way we live. If the process is an organic process with no template to guide it but the creative process of the mind then how do you think it will pan out in the future. You are already seeing some of it today as the transition is in place. I don’t think the ‘mind’ will take away everything of society it has created so far. But it will takeout some of it as it sees what the structure it created is making of him. The creative process is intelligent enough to get rid of the parts of society that imprisons ‘itself’ because it needs freedom to create and if it cannot do that it will change things. With the world in transition you can make your new world for the future. One can speculate as to what other changes will take place. If body and soul finds itself by discovery and freedom to create and he/she is the driving force then then society will make itself go there. It is a natural need. One can speculate that borders will go. Live for the experience and for the need to know. People will move about freely, hundreds of miles away from cities and start again. Those who live in the suburb’s will flock to the cities for the experience and for the need to know. They will come from hundreds of miles away, cross borders, and walk straight into cities and make themselves home. You can already see this in Europe. Financial situations of countries will force their borders to be open and to be less nationalistic. People come for some experience and go back, others stay and the ones that returned will come back when they are better prepared. People who lived affluently in the west will be happy to go and live simply by the sea in a much poorer country. Ordinary people will bring seminal changes to the structure of their new homes in more ways than one. They will not need permission to move across borders and set up home in a different land. People will interact and learn from each other. The net will be their source of information. The ability of ‘itself’ to ‘see’ will increase by leaps and bounds as people settle into their new psyche. Learning institutions will be less important as priorities of the people change. It will not all be back to basics. Society as such will exists but not like what we knew it to be before. It will be a one world system with a one world government. You will see the ‘itself’ now realising what it really is like and will create a new world like ‘itself’ to live in. And that is a world all one and connected to every part of the world like ‘itself’. The environment makes us as in the evolutionary process, and our minds makes for comfortable living in it by creating a structure called society around us.
And with this, in silence, you make Art and Art is a reflection of all that is all at once, this moment, the now, this instant and it shows how it is all connected as ONE. Now, how crazy is that. Something was discovered today at CERN and that is what the ‘new’ looks like.

Siri
(4th July 2012)

Related Images:

I think science is great: but don’t get put off by this as this website is about Art. ‘The talking mind’ is the reverse of what was suggested in an earlier article, ‘Speak Thinking’.

‘Speak thinking’ is to ‘trace’ the path of speech: from the brain to the vocal chords: getting ready for speech and editing before speech. It was suggested that the thinking part is fully played out by the vocal chords and sounded in the chest cavity before being carried out by the breath and you can monitor all your thinking in your breath. The edited part is then spoken. Not all of thinking is spoken. ‘The talking Mind’ is the reverse: what you hear is played out in your brain. There are a lot of implications with this. We all understand: i hear so i know. But what if with subliminal messages, i don’t hear, but i am unknowingly influenced anyway. This is the work of advertising: i see so i am unknowingly influenced. I subliminally hear and i am unknowingly influenced. There are implications in the Art’s and Art History. Business. Banking. Buy and selling of shares. ATM pin numbers. The colour of your tablecloth. Get it. The making of society and just about anything you know. And synthesis in the Art’s is also another ‘get it’: how do you know it is yours. Understand.

Science’s progress at present is hyperbolic. It found nothing on the Moon and Mars and so it decided to look in greater detail into the workings of the brain here on earth. It all adds or confirms to what the mystics knew through observation. The mystics know it all, totally, by observation because they observe the whole and science will always play a secondary role of confirmation because their observations are always localised and don’t take into account the interactions. Anyway this article came about because of the article i read in nature.com: “The brain’s electrical activity can be decoded to reconstruct which words a person is hearing……” and actually record it in the brain (with those electrodes) and then play it back.

http://www.nature.com/news/voicegrams-transform-brain-activity-into-words-1.9945

Hear your brain talk. If you would like to hear the playback from recordings in the brain as a result of hearing please use the link above.

The artist is like the scientist, he wants to understand the whole through the process of making Art.
When a mistake is made by an artist he realises that it did not come from the thinking mind and hence from the past and that there might be something new in it: so he ‘chases’ it to see where it takes him. The scientist would do the same thing. And the artist studio, like a scientific lab: both a self contained mini universe and they both work in silence.

Related Images:

A Slug in my Kitchen

He lived under my fridge. I asked him why he was not in the garden. He said too cold outside.

But I told him this is summer. He nodded his head, and I am sure I saw him
shrug his shoulders. He said I used to live under the copper pot
and it was a long walk to my kitchen. He asked me if I minded.
I said no “as long as you don’t come out during the day”,
Not that I don’t like you, just that I might mistake you for a slug.
You know what people do to slugs. “Yes I know”, he said.
He asked me if I could drop him some slices of cucumber
every night so he did not have to venture off too far for food,
and, “please don’t cut them too thick”,”as I am not a mountain climber”,
I said, “what about some of those garden pellets I can get from homebase”,
He said nothing, but I am sure I saw him smile.

So one day when the sun came out, and the temperature soared, I put him out in the garden. Occasionally I would drop some lettuce near where I left him by the copper pot,
and I wondered if slugs were snails, who left their homes behind.

Related Images:

Invisible: Art about the Unseen 1957-2012 – review

Hayward Gallery, London

by Laura Cumming

The Observer, Sunday 17 June 2012

Invisible, the Hayward Gallery’s new exhibition, has a theme so novel and provocative one cannot help rising to the challenge. What kind of art would be sufficiently invisible (as it were) to appear in this show? Perhaps there will be glowing after-images, or mirages conjured out of nothing by the American light artist James Turrell. Perhaps there will be sound works by Bruce Nauman or the Turner prize-winner Susan Philipsz; or maps to buried treasure such as Robert Smithson’s great Spiral Jetty, long since vanished beneath the waters of Lake Utah.

Invisible: Art About the Unseen
Hayward Gallery,
London
SE1 8XX
Starts 12 June
Until 5 August
2012

Perhaps the show will concern itself with lost art, destroyed art, or art that was never made in the first place, such as Leonardo’s colossal bronze horse or Vladimir Tatlin’s stupendous Monument to the Third International, which would have dwarfed the Eiffel Tower had his dreams been achieved. Perhaps the Hayward Gallery will be showing Marcel Duchamp’s nostalgic vial of Paris air, or an evocation of Yves Klein’s 1958 Paris exhibition, empty of everything except (he claimed) the artist’s own spirit.

Once you start, a romantic anthology soon springs to mind. But Invisible only alludes to the Klein. A show of surprising range, touching on faith, philosophy and even love while remaining fully alive to the comic potential of its theme, it’s nonetheless strictly concerned with non-visibility and what was known in the 60s as the dematerialisation of the art object.

What is there to see? Quite a lot, as it turns out, otherwise there wouldn’t be much to add to Ralph Rugoff’s excellent catalogue. The paradox is, of course, that an artist can only be represented here through something visible: a film, a photographic record, typed instructions about leaving a blank canvas outside overnight until it’s suffused with pink dawn light. By the time you’ve read Yoko Ono’s prose-poem, the image is in your head.

There is a blacked-out gallery (supposedly haunted by The Ghost of James Lee Byars, to use its title) that makes darkness visible. Visitors to Jeppe Hein’s wall-less labyrinth collide as if their regulation headsets made them blind to the existence of others. The Taiwanese artist Lai Chih-Sheng has made an immense chalk drawing (the largest in the world, he claims) for those who have eyes to see it; which might be the crux of this show.

Even the nod to Klein involves a vivid archive film of the artist striding about his empty gallery contemplating the bare (but curiously glowing) walls as if there really was something to see. Which there was at this stage, of course: namely the artist filling the room with his artistic sensibility, parodying the Romantic tradition, displaying his aura.

Even when Klein wasn’t there, visitors insisted they could still feel his presence. This was a proposition tested by Chris Burden in a 1975 performance. Burden lay on a concealed platform in a New York gallery for 22 days during which he saw nobody, and nobody saw him. Yet visitors became palpably infuriated by the lurking sense of his presence; or so it is claimed.

Invisible is a show replete with claims and assertions – that the artist was present; that this white canvas was primed with mountain snow; that these stones were once inscribed with water: they sound like confidence tricks, and certainly turn upon trust of a sort. You have to believe that the Chinese artist Song Dong was too poor to afford ink and wrote his diary in water instead, otherwise those stones are meaningless, aren’t they? In fact, the stones are irrelevant as visible objects. As soon as the idea of that poignant act begins to grow in one’s mind, it is only the thought that counts.

Some assertions can be tested. I could see no sign of Chih-Sheng’s immense drawing in the central gallery until I ran a finger beneath a balustrade and found the chalk line transferred to me. But there is no way of knowing whether Maurizio Cattelan’s hilarious police report concerning the theft of an invisible artwork from his car is genuine or not. What is the difference between fiction and not-fiction in art? This is art as unreliable evidence.

One room of the Hayward is empty except for an eavesdropping device (according to the wall text). But it’s nowhere to be seen. Uneasiness sets in, which is apt since this is the work of Roman Ondák, born in former communist Czechoslovakia.

Another gallery is devoted to all-white canvases including a sharp send-up of the genre by Tom Friedman entitled 1000 Hours of Staring. But Bruno Jakob’s works are a challenge to cynics, made as they are with not much more than canvas or paper exposed to the elements. There are no images but each bears faint traces of its making that inspire unexpected landscapes in the imagination.

With all this emphasis on invisibility, there is a cognitive bias towards spotting what’s visible – the green temperature dial on the air conditioning machines in Art & Language’s unrelievedly boring work of 70s conceptualism (nothing to see = nothing to buy). Or the unusual beauty of some of the actors hired by Bethan Huws to wander about distracting us from the show, thus rendering it supposedly invisible. The art is invisible because we’re not looking at it? Try telling that to the children.

Invisible is a surprisingly various show, but oddly conventional in one way. It has stronger and weaker works, more or less imaginative, more or less involving; it is in this respect like any other group show.

There is, for instance, an immense gap between Jay Chung’s project – a movie entirely shot without telling cast and crew that there was no film in the camera and thus no record of their mutual labour – and Claes Oldenburg’s buried monument to John F Kennedy. Neither work is visible, indeed neither was fully realised. But Oldenburg’s idea was to evoke the sense of loss through a hollow colossus: the space Kennedy occupied in life now sealed beneath the ground. Even the drawing for the proposal is poignant. Chung, by comparison, is working at the dead end of conceptualism.

This show puts its faith in the audience, in our willingness to think and our openness to ideas. But it cannot quite escape the trap of its own theme for not one of these works achieves total invisibility. Even in the black room there are discernible figures, pinpricks of light and visible forms. As long as our eyes are open, we continue to make pictures of the world. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jun/17/invisible-art-about-unseen-hayward-review)

Related Images:

Recently i heard a conversation that went like this: “If i wanted to see a painting i would go to the Tate” and the reply was,” but there is nothing new there.” I think there is some truth in this. You keep going back and you see the same paintings over and over again and you come back with the past in your mind and nothing new. Museums around the world plan years ahead to rotate exhibitions of the established artists and you come away from seeing the same things. You can understand why they do this to maintain upkeep with no risks. Established notions are safer to deal with.

The new is happening now. It is present in the artist studios that are scattered around London, the country(UK) and the world. This is where the artists who spend their time looking and doing work from the past for the future. Be the, ‘worse you can be’ or be the best that you can be, and in between and you will find something that did not exists before in a museum – and if there is ‘no good and no bad’ all that you see, will make a difference to the new you (are you).

I saw the Woody Allen Documentary just recently: the best parts in the documentary were the beginning and ending: At the beginning it said something like: when he is planning a movie the mind can make wonderful successful images in his mind and create the excitement of making the movie. But when it comes to the practical implications of making the movie he realises what trouble he is in: as the translation from the illusion to the object is an agonising reminder of what he had got himself into because he sees that the pragmatic translation is impossible to meet the illusion. The painter will find this in every painting when he tries to capture that illusion. At the end of the Woddy Allen documentary, after he had documented all the movies he made etc etc, he says, ‘after all these successes i still feel that there is something unsatisfactory in me’, or something like that. Purpose? His friends would tell him it is about making the best jokes etc. But why do it in the first place, looking for something that you will probably never find.

So this thing came to me one day. We came out of the water, swung from tree to tree for a while, fell a couple of times and decided to stay on the ground as it saved one climbing back up the tree again. And we are here right now and built a structure called society around us to live in: and we are still looking for purpose. What i am saying is this: that from the very beginning the natural purpose was to recreate the universe around us as we evolved through those billions of years. As it is above so it is below: when the sages came up with this they meant it literally. It was all done unknowingly. It just naturally came about. And there was no other way it could have turned out. The master in this process is the universe. The template lies within its greater structure. There is no quantum leap for the new. And even if it shows itself we will not recognise it because we are still waiting for the same bus to come along every morning – the evolutionary process is slow – you don’t see anything new coming along with it. It happens in tiny bits of changes. (Stay with me please it will come through in the end.)

So is it possible that we are living in a real enclosed loop and space such that all we are doing is creating replicas of our natural self. What i mean is this: the ‘us’ as human beings are just replicating our natural selves both seen and unseen, especially the unseen into the physical world, so we can see ourselves as we are in total. There is an uncanny resemblance, in total, between the ‘us’ as a population, together with Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic field and the higgs field and how we feed of it and the physical world of technology and the Internet. Both worlds run in parallel, but what is more interesting is that we created or discovered that not because we saw a good thing coming but because we live in a loop and that is all we can do. We are not capable of seeing anything new that is outside of this loop. We are just manifesting ourselves into the physical world of technology like an artist tries to manifest an illusion of the mind into a painting. Look at the facts: Arts: what have they done up to now: from realism to abstraction (1920) to cubism(the being as ether capturing his many facets) to ‘life and death’ with Damien Hirst etc etc. The process is not so obvious in the arts, but to technologically manifest a physical world that is like the human psyche and then to live in it: we are living in our own minds masquerading as the physical world environment. The net today with all its viruses and Trolls and hackers is just a reflection of what any of our minds are like. Know thy self and you will know the physical world around you. Or yeah we are also inventing the Robot that can be like us, blink like us, talk like us, the mini to the whole. As is the artist studio a mini universe and an environment for observation. Or just simply making the best painting you can do as it is for what others wanted Woody Allen to do: just making the best jokes: because that is all it can do by living in the loop and replicating itself in a world that goes from smaller to bigger and order to disorder. Nothing exists outside of this. The ‘new’ to us will always be a pattern of the whole and its past. We unknowingly manifest our being into the physical world and into the new technological world of today that we then live in. We all play our part in building the structure and perhaps if we can ‘see’ the space we live in we can also see ourselves.

Related Images:

Struggle to live an MT life

(say aloud)
There are 4 tea cups,
2 toppled over and broke,
how many left?
answer: 38.

Related Images:

You have been shancked by your mind. Unless the mind has the facts it cannot help you. It will deceive you with its interpretation. Jiddu Krishnamurti on Self Deception: ” I Would Like to discuss or consider the question of self-deception, the delusions that the mind indulges in and imposes upon itself and upon others. That is a very serious matter, especially in a crisis of the kind which the world is facing. But in order to understand this whole problem of self-deception we must follow it not merely at the verbal level but intrinsically, fundamentally, deeply.”

http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Mystic_Musings/Jiddu%20krishnamurthy/jiddu-deception.htm

Triggers words don’t need to be threatening to the mind. They can be quiet simple phrases that plays on the concern of privacy for an individual. The rest of this article has to be like a short story: you don’t tell the reader but you show him. To show fear it just needs to be put forward and the fear is created by the minds of those reading the sentences. That is what this article is all about right. If I just tell you then it becomes a joke but if i show you and you imagine it then the story is transfered to you by your own mind. If I told you and you read it and it is forgotten. But if you create it in your mind then it becomes yours and it becomes real to you: but it is only an illusion until you know what was happening to create that fear. The mind is only there to receive and create fear until it knows and then fear disappears. Too much emphasis is placed on the mind as a ‘friend’: it can also deceive, but it does not know that it is doing it: it is an unthinking mind in itself; that which creates all the problems in the mind is you yourself. And hence the importance of: “know thyself.”

Imagine this: remember this is story telling to create fear in you. Like reading a thriller. If you had somebody come up to you and threathen you: you know who it is and you go to the police: it was him:shancked. Some fear for a while there but not much. But what if you heard a voice come to you, quietly when at hoem: “what is he doing. He is scratching his chin.” An actual voice. I heard it. But how can anybody know what i am doing: there is nobody around me. Is there somebody in the garden:No. Where did that come from. So you forget about it and continue watching TV. Then you hear, “he is watching ‘friend’s” Ding dong goes off in your brain. Somebody is watching me. There must be a camera in the house? and then it starts. The camera is the first thing that comes to mind because that is the fact that is stored in the mind from the past. It must be a camera. Somebody can see me??. And now imagine that this continues all the time everyday. Somebody is following you in the house all the time. Is it your mind doing all this. You can hear voices etc. Are you crazy. ‘Yes you need to see a doctor.’ They can hear me think. How can somebody know what you are thinking. It must be your mind. In the kitchen when you are cooking lunch: you hear what you are going to do next like somebody knows what you are thinking. ‘Have a sandwich. You have cheese in the fridge and bread. Also your favourite…’. Now this is not bingo anymore. Somebody is following me and knows everything i am doing. I can hear them. There must be a bug camera in the house. ‘You are crazy’ I hear. If they can see me all the time they can see me naked when i am having a bath. Then i hear laughter. They are laughing at me. How can this be happening. Then the threats starts: “you are dead”. and “leave”. “leave?”. Leave my home?. Is it the mind. Am i crazy. And it goes on. And you are not playing bingo anymore. This is real and in your mind. Your mind knows that there is only one way this can happen: and that is somebody is able to see me all the time in my home. See me naked. Know when i wake up everyday:”he/she is up.” The day starts like that from the time you wake up etc. Or when you are at an ATM at a train station paying for your oyster top-up and you hear a voice repeating your pin number you just typed in. You look behind you? nobody behind you. Sitting in the bus you hear intimate private details of you from the past coming as a muffled sound from the back of the bus. Somebody has been researching into your past. Like you read about in the tabloids or what you now hear at the Levison enquiry: hacking into voicemails. Information is collected about you and voiced back to you to spike up the fear. Or if you are in a plane and you happening to silently recite a prayer as the plane takes off: and you hear that prayer come back to you in a muffle from behind you. And so on and so on. You mind says it is straight jacket time. But the mind does not know so it generates fear. The fight-or-flight response is there and it is immediate. You cannot get past this if the unknown comes upon you but the mind can come round for a correction.

Todays environment is in transition. The new technology world allows you to deceive in a new way and the mind has no reference to help you. But it can help you find your way to helping you solve your new problem. With exposure to the new environment it will circle round the new happenings and a new understanding will emerge.

Try this on your neighbour for a beginning and see how it works so you can understand how the new problem works:

http://www.spygadgets4u.co.uk/listening-devices/wireless-rf-audio-bug-listening-device-500m-transmission.html

or this if you are on holiday and want to keep in touch with your neighbour when you are away to see what he is doing:

http://www.spygadgets4u.co.uk/gsm-bugging-devices/gsm-bug-spy-listening-device.html

There are a lot more gadgets on the net for you to find everyday to try out. or this:

http://www.spygadgets4u.co.uk/listening-devices/bionic-ear-hear-up-to-100-meters-away-headphones.html

In fact you can look them all up at this link:

http://www.spygadgets4u.co.uk/

and

close the door and i will know,
drag your foot and chair,
and you want me to hear,
a noise outside my window,
saying what I are doing,
from top side down side,
to right side up,
when you start running,
I will know,
it will be a roommate for you,
in a room 6 by 4.

prerecorded sounds as trigger sounds see link below:

http://www.flasherdot.org/4_SE.htm

you got to keep your friends on their toes. Keep them tight and constantly focused on you. That way you are fully in control of them.

Shaka lobo!

To understand the new environment you need to see what can be done when you are having scones with your tea in your garden or toast with nothing on it on your balcony if you have one.

The permutations on how varied the environment can be changed around you depends on the creativity of the minds in your immediate morphic field. Please see the other article on this site called, ‘speak thinking’ (https://siriperera.com/eecore/index.php/site/entry/speak_thinking/) to see the answer of the above problem where fear is generated in todays mind with the new technologies and a world in transition. It is possible that technology is already here which can monitor what you are thinking and it does not need electrodes taped to your head anymore. It knows what you are thinking by listening to your breathing:speak thinking. In short when you are thinking you are also silently speaking and it is modulated/carried in your breathing.

And what has Art got to do with this: nothing and everything, if you can trust your mind to be certain that the synthesis in the mind about your work is you or just a deception.
Know thy self? No? Don’t like being told what to do? ok.

Siri.

Related Images:

If you started a conversation with the question of who am I? you would quickly find the room MT.

The question of who am I? was not only an Indian thing but was also a Jesus thing. In the Bible i gather when Moses asked Jesus who he was, he said: ‘I am that I am.’

And when William James Adams, Jr was asked who he was he said: ‘will.i.am’
And in was also a Greek thing: γνῶθι σεαυτόν: “Know thyself” was inscribed in the forecourt of the Temple of Apollo at Delphi (4th century BC). “…….. “Know Thyself” has had a variety of meanings attributed to it in literature. The Suda, a tenth century encyclopedia of Greek Knowledge, says: “the proverb is applied to those whose boasts exceed what they are,” and that “know thyself” is a warning to pay no attention to the opinion of the multitude.” (wiki) (Also inscribed is (μηδεν ἀγαν) – ‘Nothing in excess’)

The question of ‘WHO AM I’ exists in layers in all levels of thinking. Education plays a big part in providing knowledge for understanding but minds can make themselves think that this is the be-all and end-all to education. But one might want to consider it only as a means to an end (not for finding a way to pay your mortgage) but for finding your place in the universe by knowing Thy Self.

The work of the artist is as a result of the ‘self’ working itself out. When abstraction came about at the turn of the last century the object was discarded in finding the greater Truth in Art and its purpose. Knowledge was put aside as it could not any longer provide the answers for discovering what was ahead. Shancked by your mind one had to take a leap, ‘into the void’ to find the Truth. Give up everything. And in the unknown there is no method, no knowledge, no path. No technique. Everything is found from the now as new. And what does that sound like to you: Art. The only medium that is free to create and yet there are still right and wrongs that exists in its midst: because minds puts them there. One might sense a kind of natural right and wrong: sense, one can’t even trust that as how does one know that it is not the remants of it’s conditioned self coming through. Hence the significance of looking into ‘WHO AM I’ and its place in the universe. Jiddu Krishnamurti had said: ‘when there is no more choice in your mind then there is no more conflict” When you know because in silence you have found your natural place then the mind sees all clearly – there is nomore conflict. Knowing is not of learning anymore to know, but just knowing. Its process is ‘pathless’ and it is free like Art is Art. In its essesence it is like the process of making Art. At its best it is always forgetting what you know and finding it again. At its worst it is always looking at your past for your future.

The Theosophical Society has through the ages been an inspiration to some of the pioneers of abstraction, like Kandinsky and Mondrian, to give up the object for abstraction and to look at the ‘self’ again without the object coming in the way.

The talk by the International president of the Theosophical Society Mrs Radha Burnier for the 135th International Convention at Adyar, India was the topic “WHO AM I”.

(summary of the public lecture delivered on 30.12.2010)

Who am I? is a question that could be asked by anybody, and most people will immediately say:”I am so and so, was born to so and so, had my schooling in such and such a school, I have been working as an officer in a reputed organization for many years, or I am …..

(to be continued)

Related Images:

and the counter spiral…

Related Images:

If painting is just a trigger word then how can you go beyond it. Does this build a case for discovering what is new in Art. To define a trigger word: a word that causes a silent big bang in memory. It creates a reaction in yourself. Not to make you jump out of your chair as the stimulus is silent and brought forward in memory to make you react. Trigger words work only because they stir your past in memory.

I was watching a program on capital punishment on TV and there were those for life for life and the those for not. Both the groups sat opposite to each other. And interestingly both argued their space confidently. Both had very good reasons for what they said. So it was from their experiences that they decided for or against severe capital punishment. I guess we can say that it all was as a result of where in memory it comes from or the ulterior motives for arguing a subject one way or another.

Advertising plays with trigger words. They know the strings to pull to get you to their shops. So is it possible that Art is just a ‘higher’ form of advertising. With respect to the viewer, its form, its composition, the title with the narrative aspects of the composition, its colour all act as a trigger to the work. It depends on ones experiences, one’s memory and past to make an impact. The purpose of the work to the artist can never be met because the artist has no control of how the trigger in his work will function as per the viewer’s experiences.

Large malls in big cities could employ trigger words to its casual visitors just looking for a cup of coffee, but later seen walking out with bags of goods they wonder why they purchased. Trigger words can be made in silence, subliminally induced, to create an action in the ‘listener’. Today’s technology allows for this. The work of one artist can trigger further ideas in another artist which will never be conceived by the originator of that idea because of his particular experiences. Trigger words is only the beginning of the process that triggers a torrent of thoughts in ones mind. And today, soon, with high technology science, the mind might soon be able to be read by others. It is the way of the human mind to be captured by another. There is no way around it but perhaps only through observation and understanding of the process. The concept of the ‘meme’ gene from Richard Dawkins strengthens this idea. The meme gene is a non existent gene where an idea is passed on from one to another by word of mouth, or a painting perhaps, which when repeated enough times, is adopted by the society as true, good, well done, fantastic, brilliant, magic. That is why you see yourself dressed like your neighbour, your bola hat, ok yesterday, but perhaps not today – the gene not hard-wired is malleable and changes with time. It is a wireless gene where the mind is easily hacked into. It is transmitted wirelessly from one mind to another mind and another and adopted as true.

So there is no such thing as privacy. We might soon come to accept this. You can see how Rupert Sheldrake’s morphogenetic field is just an extension of the mind in how it works. It is proof that we are all one and connected?: sharing what we discover. Triggering one to be the other.

In understanding how it works will trigger evolution of the mind. It will bring about the new.

So to the viewer, how does the new come about in a painting. Perhaps it does by not acting as a trigger to the past in the mind. That means that its form, its mark making, its content does not allow the past in ones mind to play a part in seeing the art work. The work does not start a narrative process in the mind. There is no movement or action in the mind towards a corner but allows it to remain in the centre to only observe the work. It could remain in the wow factor: only as an observation. No history to distort the feeling. There can be no form that is intelligible………that is new art will always be a:

?

As J. Krishnamurti says, “…….And with those as screens (desires, prejudices, daily worries, fears etc), we listen” And nothing new comes of it but just patterns of the past.

Related Images: