I wouldn't even WATCH something demonic like that.
Tom Walker
On Jun 10, 2017 4:57 PM, "Benjamin Sloane via Piano Technicians Guild" <
Mail@connectedcommunity.org> wrote:
Geoff, Well it is not as if you threatened to blow up the White House in front of a million people. That makes a man in America a terrorist and... -posted to the "Pianotech" community
| Re: I don't know art, but... | | | | | | Geoff, Well it is not as if you threatened to blow up the White House in front of a million people. That makes a man in America a terrorist and a criminal; it makes a rich aging popstar white female a shock artist. The work forced me to look more into destructivism. There is actually another movie I've seen I would call destructivist art, by the Japanese filmmaker Mia Tominaga. I think it might help people to help appreciate the work of Ortiz you presented. Here is a URL to the movie. It worked on my phone. I was not looking to engage in soliloquy. It has been left to me to mention Herbert Spencer, who invented the phrase, "Survival of the fittest," and recognize his contribution as the one who put "Social" in Darwinism. You must as a materialist grapple with this to be a pacifist and the influence it had on the eugenics policies that led to WW2. Hitler got so far because so many were sympathetic to the regime for this outside Germany. There certainly have been developments since then in what I accused the materialists of today for, most important, the work Crick and Watson many claim they stole credit from for, an English Jewish woman, Rosalind Franklin. At any rate, DNA moved things further in the direction of biological reductionism, the epistemology for the dialectic between deconstructivism and minimalism. Beyond that epistemology, not even a dialectic is possible. It is almost impossible to speak with the people departing from it in this climate. It is so easy to slip into racially hygienic policy here that leads to war. In light of this it is difficult to accept from someone claiming to be making such a psycho-spiritual statement as Ortiz. It is also extremely disturbing to accept the most outspoken religious authority I've found to be challenging these assumptions is the Buddhist, Robert Thurman. Evangelicals are too busy chasing the diehard biological reductionist, Dr. Phil, who regularly claims to be a Christian and a person of faith. This is not a small conflict, the drift toward Spenser's positivism in the Church. This is making it impossible for former friends and immediate family members to be in the same room together. The symmetry of form in minimalism and departure from it in deconstructivism both appear in the Warhol portraits of Marilyn Monroe which I attached. During our previous discussions about the Beatles I got to thinking about music too. Warhol's Plastic Exploding Inevitable, The Velvet Underground and their deliberate departure from popularity as a goal seems germane as the Beatles nevertheless here. Yoko Ono herself has been doing performance art in museums that could be considered destructivist. I assumed that Geoff knew this as we were discussing the Beatles earlier. Anyhow, not on lying, not on metaphysics, it is on popularity that Kant might be most vulnerable as a philosopher. With PEI we have the determinism that is so unacceptable in metaphysics since Kant. I still have not read the manifesto of Ortiz. Haven't found it yet. Perhaps he is not so much a materialist as I suspect from what I've read about destructivism. I brought up the historical instruments movement and do find it does not escape the destructive process by assimilating the Baroque with those instruments. I love Glenn Gould. There are arguments about performance, whether you interpret or duplicate the composer, etc. I say interpretation is inevitable. These instruments are not being used in the Rococo architecture, halls, in the fashion, of the day. Metaphysically impossible, the Feng Shui is way too off. It is impossible to duplicate. It must be interpreted, as is frequently marked, that say, Mozart, would play the most modern instruments if here today. I also came across the original performance of "All you need is Love" by John Lennon, a TV special Our World. Interesting story on what is being claimed to be the first international broadcast in television by satellite. It sounds from Lennon's description he was joking to an extent. Pablo Picasso was present with many others. This kind of dream for peace has obviously failed. Wool 100% is about aging spinsters, sisters turned hoarders in an aging house, who only failed in a love I suspect was of something too different. I don't know if she is a lesbian. The tautology of a girl who mysteriously appears knitting, messing it up, and crying, "Now I have to do it all over again," trivializes procreation and producing another generation. The repeated image is knitting red wool, but there is no minimalist symmetry about it. Tominaga is constantly changing the theme of knitting. At 94 minutes, a song that Ricki Lee Jones wrote begins at the credits. I suspect it was an influence. It explains everything that is wrong about the idea of needing nothing but love when we are so different. Jones was obviously influenced by the Zhuangzi in writing it. Here are the lyrics. Hope you watch the movie and play the song with the URL provided. There was a fish, alone, in the sea, she fell, in love, with the bird, flying about, in the sky, what she saw here, she couldn't forget His wings slashing, in midair... So she prayed the ocean to swallow the sky You know its water when you hold somebody feels like you are flying in the air Don't you remember, where you used to belong, and how you swear, to be, You don't remember {2x} The days we fall in love again You know it's tender, when I'm in your arms, dear, feels like I'm, drifting in the sea Whoever said that, chimps only turn into human beings it ain't true We came along, from, far away, a path down There was a bird, alone in the sky that fell in love, with the fish Thinking about, to the ways, once he saw her he couldn't forget, the quick bird loved her splash, So he prayed the sky, to fall down to the sea You know it's a wonder, when you hold somebody, it feels like you're flying, in the air. Don't you remember, where you used to belong, and how you swear, to breathe, But the fish lost her scales, the bird lost his wings, They fall in love, to kiss, again and again, on the ground Counting on the day to become, as once they ever dreamed of So they pray, time to stop now and forever, forever ------------------------------ Benjamin Sloane Cincinnati OH 513-257-8480------------------------------ | | | Reply to Group Online View Thread Recommend Forward | ------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2017 00:45 | | | |
Original Message------
Geoff,
Well it is not as if you threatened to blow up the White House in front of a million people. That makes a man in America a terrorist and a criminal; it makes a rich aging popstar white female a shock artist. The work forced me to look more into destructivism. There is actually another movie I've seen I would call destructivist art, by the Japanese filmmaker Mia Tominaga. I think it might help people to help appreciate the work of Ortiz you presented. Here is a URL to the movie. It worked on my phone.
Amazon.com: wool 100 percent movie soundtrack
| Amazon |
remove preview |
|
| Amazon.com: wool 100 percent movie soundtrack |
| Amazon.com: wool 100 percent movie soundtrack |
| View this on Amazon > |
|
|
I was not looking to engage in soliloquy. It has been left to me to mention Herbert Spencer, who invented the phrase, "Survival of the fittest," and recognize his contribution as the one who put "Social" in Darwinism. You must as a materialist grapple with this to be a pacifist and the influence it had on the eugenics policies that led to WW2. Hitler got so far because so many were sympathetic to the regime for this outside Germany. There certainly have been developments since then in what I accused the materialists of today for, most important, the work Crick and Watson many claim they stole credit from for, an English Jewish woman, Rosalind Franklin. At any rate, DNA moved things further in the direction of biological reductionism, the epistemology for the dialectic between deconstructivism and minimalism. Beyond that epistemology, not even a dialectic is possible. It is almost impossible to speak with the people departing from it in this climate.
It is so easy to slip into racially hygienic policy here that leads to war. In light of this it is difficult to accept from someone claiming to be making such a psycho-spiritual statement as Ortiz. It is also extremely disturbing to accept the most outspoken religious authority I've found to be challenging these assumptions is the Buddhist, Robert Thurman. Evangelicals are too busy chasing the diehard biological reductionist, Dr. Phil, who regularly claims to be a Christian and a person of faith. This is not a small conflict, the drift toward Spenser's positivism in the Church. This is making it impossible for former friends and immediate family members to be in the same room together.
The symmetry of form in minimalism and departure from it in deconstructivism both appear in the Warhol portraits of Soup Cans which I attached. During our previous discussions about the Beatles I got to thinking about music too. Warhol's Plastic Exploding Inevitable, The Velvet Underground and their deliberate departure from popularity as a goal seems germane as the Beatles nevertheless here. Yoko Ono herself has been doing performance art in museums that could be considered destructivist. I assumed that Geoff knew this as we were discussing the Beatles earlier. Anyhow, not on lying, not on metaphysics, it is on popularity that Kant might be most vulnerable as a philosopher. With PEI we have the determinism that is so unacceptable in metaphysics since Kant. I still have not read the manifesto of Ortiz. Haven't found it yet. Perhaps he is not so much a materialist as I suspect from what I've read about destructivism.
I brought up the historical instruments movement and do find it does not escape the destructive process by assimilating the Baroque with those instruments. I love Glenn Gould. There are arguments about performance, whether you interpret or duplicate the composer, etc. I say interpretation is inevitable. These instruments are not being used in the Rococo architecture, halls, in the fashion, of the day. Metaphysically impossible, the Feng Shui is way too off. It is impossible to duplicate. It must be interpreted, as is frequently marked, that say, Mozart, would play the most modern instruments if here today.
I also came across the original performance of "All you need is Love" by John Lennon, a TV special Our World. Interesting story on what is being claimed to be the first international broadcast in television by satellite. It sounds from Lennon's description he was joking to an extent. Pablo Picasso was present with many others. This kind of dream for peace has obviously failed. Wool 100% is about aging spinsters, sisters turned hoarders in an aging house, who only failed in a love I suspect was of something too different. I don't know if Tominaga is a lesbian. The tautology of a girl who mysteriously appears knitting, messing it up, and crying, "Now I have to do it all over again," trivializes procreation and producing another generation. The repeated image is knitting red wool, but there is no minimalist symmetry about it. Tominaga is constantly changing the theme of knitting. At 94 minutes, a song that Ricki Lee Jones wrote begins at the credits. I suspect it was an influence. It explains everything that is wrong about the idea of needing nothing but love when we are so different. Jones was obviously influenced by the Zhuangzi in writing it. Here are the lyrics. Hope you watch the movie and play the song with the URL provided.
There was a fish, alone, in the sea, she fell, in love, with the bird, flying about, in the sky, what she saw here, she couldn't forget
His wings slashing, in midair…
So she prayed the ocean to swallow the sky
You know its water when you hold somebody feels like you are flying in the air
Don't you remember, where you used to belong, and how you swear, to be,
You don't remember {2x}
The days we fall in love again
You know it's tender, when I'm in your arms, dear, feels like I'm, drifting in the sea
Whoever said that, chimps only turn into human beings it ain't true
We came along, from, far away, a path down
There was a bird, alone in the sky that fell in love, with the fish
Thinking about, to the ways, once he saw her he couldn't forget, the quick bird loved her splash,
So he prayed the sky, to fall down to the sea
You know it's a wonder, when you hold somebody, it feels like you're flying, in the air.
Don't you remember, where you used to belong, and how you swear, to breathe,
But the fish lost her scales, the bird lost his wings,
They fall in love, to kiss, again and again, on the ground
Counting on the day to become, as once they ever dreamed of
So they pray, time to stop now and forever, forever
------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-08-2017 00:45
From: Geoff Sykes
Subject: I don't know art, but...
Mr. Sloan --
I had no idea that Ortiz' had anywhere near that deep a message. Who would have thought that destroying a piano could change the world? And here I was thinking he was pulling a fast one. My interpretation of this performance piece was that as long as the audience thinks it's art, and are willing to pay him big bucks to perform it, over and over and over, he's there. Write him a check and give him an old piano and he'll turn it into kindling. The audience is free to interpret it, and add meaning to it, in any way they want. But I think he's chuckling to himself as he walks away with a check in his hand thinking, suckers. At least that's the meaning that I attach to it. I have almost the identical thinking towards David Lynch's third season of Twin Peaks. (And don't get me wrong here. I like Lynch!) The network has hired him to make something weird and he is delivering something weird. But he's doing it with as little effort as possible because everyone believes that anything he does is weird enough just because he's Lynch, and that there is deep meaning in every frame. Again, that's what I'm getting from it. He is pulling the wool over the networks eyes and laughing at how easy it is to take their money and, once again, capture the attention of an audience that wants to believe, without any effort whatsoever.
And I respect both Ortiz and Lynch even more if, in fact, that's what they are doing.
It's either that or you may have had enough of whatever it is you're drinking.
Dear everyone. I apologize if I have offended anyone. I posted that video not because I thought it was controversial, or had any deep meaning. I posted it because I thought it was over the top. And I posted it because I was featured in the first couple of minutes. I was proud to be the jester. I was hoping that more people would get the joke and laugh along. And since that didn't happen, I think that what the Communities section of the PTG website needs is a HUMOR community. A forum that should be at least occasionally piano related but where we're not allowed to take anything seriously.
------------------------------
Geoff Sykes, RPT
Los Angeles CA
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 06-07-2017 14:43
From: Benjamin Sloane
Subject: I don't know art, but...
Far as the theme of aggression and the egg throwing ritual, this is where I arrive at reservations with Ortiz and the rejection of metaphysics.
The post-modern materialistic ontology that transformed the invective emperic from quack into indisputable expert will not ever accomodate faith based foundations for understanding health and disease no matter how hard we try. The platform that man is fundamentally aggressive and needs to find constructive ways to express that is not even from Freud or Menninger or deterministic self-help theories suggesting throwing eggs, but from the Social Darwinists that guided them. Medicine is a branch of Chinese Metaphysics.
In the Occident, Kant created a metaphysics that strictly identified Human in being Rational, opposed to animals, and recognized the capacity for Man through that condition as having freedom in relationship to an outside cause. The inevitability of aggression as a phenomenon to obtain things or eat is something in our humanity we are not powerless over in the face of any outside cause for Kant due to the capacity of humans opposed to animals, to freely control our reaction to these freely, be they foreigners who have land we want or attack us, pianos, or whatever other thing that might provoke aggressive behavior. His metaphysics did not provide a framework within which aggression is inevitable. Darwin did that.
Destructivism finds the source of all in death, not the metaphysical, as the source of life in the evolution of the species, failing to distinguish between man and beast. Religion whether or not devoted to a temporal or eternal model for the universe rejects this.
Madness for Foucault was metaphysical, and this is why Derrida rejected him. This transcends dialectics about Sunya between East and West metaphysics which the East will always embrace and conservative Evangelicals reject. A great example is the Japanese movie "Ran," an adaptation of King Lear. The themes still work along the lines of Oriental Metaphysics. The 4 major tradgedies feature a protagonist with the theme of madness; the problem with Hamlet was he was not aggressive enough, not that his aggression was misappropriated. What drove them mad was treachery, whether their own, like Macbeth, or that of others, like Othello. The materialism of the deconstructionists and destructivists falls apart in the face of such metaphysical context, in a world yes of war, but also, ghosts, goblins, and witches, of men not only called to preserve life, but to kill.
Ran
| Rottentomatoes |
remove preview |
|
| Ran |
| Ran is Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa's reinterpretation of William Shakespeare's King Lear. The Lear counterpart is an elderly 16th-century warlord (Tatsuya Nakadai), who announces that he's about to divide his kingdom equally among his three sons. |
| View this on Rottentomatoes > |
|
|
------------------------------
Benjamin Sloane
Cincinnati OH
513-257-8480
------------------------------