In class Wednesday night the question came about...How can we telll or tap into peoples emotions? or can we share the same feelings and the same time? Something to that efftect. In wanting to answer in class but not wanting to be insensitive to a fellow classmate and a friend I wanted to not say in class what I am going to say in this blog entry. I have been thinking about this alot... after the class especially Jung because he has to be my favorite phsycologist we share some of the same points of view where as Freud I really think that is it really necessary to base everything off of sex...
Now back to the idea of do we share the same feelings? I think we do to some extent share the same feelings. They may not happen at the same time but we do at some point mourn a loss. We may encounter the same feeling as one person to the next sucha as we ma or may not miss them when the pass on. Majority of us probably will miss them. We all show emotions differently there are the mopy sort, one who cooks fore everyone, those who are seem to be happy but are really sad, and those who cry whenever they see pictures or hear the name of the person who has passed. I also thought of a mass level of mourning or emotional state... September 11 where our fear was heightened and our feelings for those lost also was publicically the same. Another example would be when Princess Diana passed, Mother Theresa and Pope John Pauls passings all seemed to bring about a public mourning. I remember seeing Elton John singing on the telivision while my mother sat with tears in her eyes. I don't know if the mourning seemed to be Worldly because of their social status' but it seemed that people mourning gave these people reverence while mourning such as taking in account for their "goodness" that they did and what they did for other people and how humble they were before they died. I think we all at some point are affected by some sort of event which causes us to know or have a sense of what one is going through. Some events such as physcological problesm taht are chemical imbalances whe can see the product but we may not neccesarly feel what they are feeling such as Bipolar and Depression. We may not know how they feel because it is mainly internal and condensed to that person we just see the result of their disorder. I know probably thinking now hat if feeling are internal how can they be seen?
In the same class we were also talkng about the id in relation to art work. In how things can be stated as falic or not. Such as the obelisk thaat si met to have a flaic meaning to it. It got me thinking if there are any falicies in my work. I dont intentially put them in but if they were put there unconciously? My work is now strictly unrepresentational but one person may be able to find something falic in it with the drips and drabs? One piece I did definately stood out in my mind which is now noted as the scary painting by many people. It may be cosidered falic with all the fetus's plastered over it people with pins stuck through thier abdombens and people seemingly drowning and a painted nusse and other images that seem to result in falicies and underlying states of mind. Which to me when I did the painting it did not occur to me until after the fact that it could be deemed as a dark side... I honestly don't know what prompted me to do the piece but now that I look at it I want to get rid of it! I would like to stick to my happy organic patterns!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Well, I think part of Freud's notion of the id that must be born in mind in responding to your concerns here is that it is wholly unconscious: one would not, under average circumstances, be aware of the operations of the id. They will be channelled through the superego and the ego, both of which have conscious components.
Thus, if phallic symbolism occurs in your works, it is there not because you consciously, deliberately, put it there, but because unconsciously you are driven to place it there -- if I understand Freud's theory correctly.
The reason I bring up Freud specifically in the context of an examination of art and science is that, from my perspective, science must be a conscious process, but art need not be. Self-expression is possible without the CONSCIOUS self being involved. This is the notion to which Freud (and others) points us.
But INTERPRETATION of art may also be an act of the self, and here you have to be willing to accept that some work of art you created wholly innocently (in a conscious sense, at any rate) with no intent of, say, sexual imagery, may still be so interpreted by others. But they must own THEIR interpretation, as you own your own creative process.
Post a Comment