That’s Ulysses, but you did a fine job.
:smack:
*Finnegans Wake *is a night of dreams and nightmares in the mind of a man who’s sexually abused his daughter. It’s also a treatise on the cyclic nature of human history.
It’s not about patterns.
Good abstract art communicates emotion in a manner that completely baffles me, but that is totally real.
Goody goody Joyce hijack! Here’s a layer you missed:
One of things going on in that short passage is plenty of punning on lexical intoxication. Almost all the words have an etymological link to boozing, and are morphed with printing/literature words.
“Leave them to terracook in the muttheringpot” is partly about fermentation. (“Terracook” as in terracotta amphora.) “Mutter” has the same Latin root as “muse”, and they both come from the Greek for “press.” (Referring to the lips being pressed together, in the case of muttering.) By making it “mutther” there’s an extra assocation with creativity, and “muttheringpot” suggests a pot which supplies inspiration. Gutenmorg of course refers to Gutenburg, but the German transformation establishes the time as early morning, which in the Wake is also the dawn of history. (You’ll remember that Tim Finnegan, of the traditional song, “had a drop of the creature every morn.”) “cromagnom charter” reinforces the earliness, but also stands in as a “magnum” – an oversized wine bottle. (Never mind the Magna Carta and the etymological link to “paper” for now. Whoops.) “Tintingfast” – “tint” is traced back to “tincture,” which is any substance in solution in alcohol. “Rubrickredd”: A “rubric” is any heading printed in red for special emphasis, but also instructions for church services. “Rubrickredd” (the extra “k” is a masonry pun, but leave that,) has a nice three-syllable cadence which evokes the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam –
“Wordpress” is a pun on “Winepress,” of course. “No virtue more in alcohoran” Alcohol/al Quran. “What papyr is meed of” – “Meed” means “reward,” but is also a pun on “mead” Honeywine. It literally means “to be wet,” though, so “what papyr is meed of” is about where writing comes from. (ie; what gets the ink on the paper) Detritus that has been reduced, cut up, mused over. Fermentation. We’re getting into alchemy here. Onward!
As for Misstress Tope and and Mister Typus, they are recurring characters in the sense that they’re universal feminine & masculine symbols, but that’s the only time they’re called that. In middle English, “Tope!” was used the way we might use “Cheers!” and still persists as a verb meaning “to drink too much on a regular basis.” “Toptypsical” is wicked because it inserts “tipsy” into “topical”, playing with the idea of a solution for the outward parts being applied inwardly.
Fillstup. (Full stop.) Fill/Schtupp. 'Nuff said.
Whew. Like the man said: “And hopy tope! sagd he, anded the enderer, now dyply hypnotised or hopeseys doper himself.”
Good night.
Fake. Fraud. Hoax. At the least, Clever Hansism.
Check out the caption of one of the pictures in the above link: “The paintings are given simple titles and signed ‘Marla’, sometimes with the ‘r’ reversed.”
The ‘r’ reversed? Like how in Toys ‘R’ (reversed) Us? Like in how the animals in Far Side cartoons made their r’s? Just how gullible can the public be?
Check out Ma’r’la’s website: Her home website
Those paintings (especially the one with the square border background) were not made by a four year old.
Hoax. Fraud. Fake.
Peace.
PS: I hate abstract art. Yeah, yeah, the artist is purposely commenting on art by deconstructing form and function and viewer expectations, and that itself is supposed to be artistic (which sort of rules out 4 yr olds and elephants being able to create real abstract art). None of it is art to me. I also hate songs about songs.
Oh, hell-- one more thing about “cromagnom charter.” I was trying to focus mainly on the alcohol theme, but I can’t let this alone.
“Cromagnom charter” is a perfect example of how Joyce compresses multiple concepts into tiny phrases. Above, I didn’t mention that it contains the fragment “gnom.”
When we say “gnome” we probably think “lawn ornament,” but “gnome” is etymologically connected to the greek word for “thought”," and anthropomorphic gnomes first appeared in the writings of the Rosicrucians, as little earth elementals that guard hidden treasures.
“Gnome” is also an archaic word meaning “a concise truism.” (cf; gnomic verse.)
“Cromagnom charter” is a joke about certain “ancient” orders that pretend to have been established much earlier than is very likely.
All through the Wake, Joyce sprinkles little backwards puns. Lots of palindromes. Characters appear with there names backwards. He talks of writing in a “murderous mirrorhand.” There is much use of acrostic and suchlike. Anyway, remove the “gnom” from “Cromagnom,” and you have a reversal of the acronym for the Antiquus Mysticusque Ordo Rosae Crucis.
Now where’s that damned tin-foil hat smilie? 
runs to bed
Excellent point. All music without lyrics is abstract. Just patterns of sound and silence. It has no ‘meaning’ that has yet been verbalised or can be verbalised other than that which we project on to it. No one fully understands the effect these sounds have on people psychologically becase it is extremely difficult to measure. All responses to tests are subjective. It’s the same with visual art. Colours and visual patterns have psychlogical effects too but how can these be empirically measured?
That’s why the Arts are arts and science is science (and psychology is widely regarded as a pseudo-science because empirical methods are more difficult to use…)
All Art is abstract, too. One of my professors insisted on it, and he’s right.
The funny thing is, from an artist’s view it doesn’t really matter whether or not you’re looking at subject matter when painting. The process of creating a painting is still about the same.
Ah, Jabberwocky. I like Jabberwocky. It is, in fact, the only poem, apart from Edgar Allen Poe’s The Raven, that I like.
The reason I like it is even though it uses a large number of nonsense words, it has a proper structure and one can make fun guesses at what the words mean by the context of the poem. And it tells a definite story. It would be like painting a portrait, but using purposefully wrong colors for some portions. It’s not abstract.
Of course, I’d still never call it a work of genius, but it is fun.
I should clarify my assertion.
Between the Impressionists and the invention of photography, painting as a recording of facts has been dead for quite a while (insofar as most artists are concerned). Even when you see recognizable objects it’s not (generally) because the artist felt a need to document them. Painting is the expression of a visual experience. Some artists are more fascinated with the detail in front of them, others are relating an experience that has no basis in physical reality. Borrowing the structure from the world around you makes it representational, and conjuring the structure yourself is the non-representational - and that’s why “abstract” work is frequently more difficult to make.
When you see a classroom full of painting students working from the same still life, the “best” one isn’t the most accurate depiction; the “best” painting is the one that conveys the artist’s visual experience by being coherent and complete. It’s like the telling of a story - did you include all of the necessary information, and leave out pieces that don’t advance the narrative? Is the voice consistent throughout? Did you stay on topic? Have you noticed anything unusual? It helps if the artist is an interesting person with an interesting point of view.
I blame museum docents for perpetuating the myth that good art accurately records reality. It’s utter b.s. If you look back at the true masterpieces, you’ll see they do far more than merely depict what was there.
Lyric-free music abstract? Oh, no no. It has meter, chords, individual notes, instrumentation - a musical composition is typically very well orchestrated. (Pun intended.)
Abstract paintings have… hm… Well, there’re usually different colors.
And there are legitimate examples of abstract music or oration. We just don’t ever hear the terms ‘abstract music’ or ‘abstract oration’ - or at least, I don’t - because examples of such don’t tend to be elevated to the same sort of pretentious pedestal as abstract art.
But believe me, abstract music is just as effortless and talentless as abstract art. Painting an entire canvas ‘black’ may strike some as an “insightful, cynical commentary on the state of art today”, and sustaining a B-Flat for half an hour may “speak volumes about the banality of modern music” - but they both have one thing in common : Anybody could do them. Easily.
Abstract art isn’t a comment on art. It’s nothing like a song about a song.
Perhaps some earlier works were conscious rejections of realism and the simplification of form, but aesthetics and the ability to convey an emotion have been central to most abstract pieces. How can you honestly look at a Kandinsky, Picasso, or Klee, and claim none of their work is art?
On the flip side, I don’t understand why so many people like realism. Realistic paintings bore me. Why would I want to experience something I can see every day when I can see something I’ve never seen before through abstract art? I have always reacted more viscerally to abstraction.
I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.
I think the kid is actually pretty talented, but not shockingly so.
The elephant however is a prodigy.
And no, I am not joking.
I loved the paintings the elephant made.
Absolutely beautiful.
It came to me last night at dinner, the artist was minimalist Ellsworth Kelly.
Here’s a bronze piece from the local Walker Art Center’s sculpture garden (second one down).
Even further out is his piece simply titled “Red Blue Green”.
If all music is not abstract (and I’m talking as much about the music of Mozart, Brahms or Bach as I am about Pierre Henri or Stockhausen or even John Cage) then what exactly does it ‘mean’? Or maybe I should ask how you would describe using words what it means? Can you answer this question because I, and plenty of other people who have studied extensively in this field, would be very interested to know? Please enlighten us.
Yes, sure, music and visual art have their own ‘languages’. That is widely accepted, but how can anyone who has not studied these ‘languages’ for years claim to understand whether a piece of art or music means or doesn’t mean anything? Perhaps ‘abstract’ is the wrong word to use here but they are abstract to a large extent in terms of how they can be explained verbally.
It’s also true that languages develop over time. How can there be any innovation or stretching of the languages of music and art if people merely imitate the work of past masters (many of whose work was also considered rubbish or absurd by the general public during their lifetimes). Ultimately history of art will judge the work of all artists. Whether you choose to buy the work of a new artist or promote the work of a new composer it’s a gamble, be it financial or in terms of your credibility.
Certainly every audience member has a right to his or her initial gut reaction to a work of art but surely Art deserves a little more than this before it is dismissed out of hand. All you can do is try to educate yourself and expose yourself to as much old and new art as possible, to follow developments in the field and the prevalent thinking behind the new works. Then you are more qualified to say whether something is good or bad.
And, what, abstract art is not well-orchestrated? You think it’s just paint slopped down on canvas? You seriously look at Kandinsky’s Compositions or Improvisations, and you don’t see the meticulous arrangement of colors and shapes?
The former works, especially, are incredibly well thought-out. And there is plenty of theory to go with it. Kandinsky wrote several detailed treatises on color, shape, and form. He knew exactly what he was doing, and, for me, it’s clearly evident from looking at his work.
If music has meter, chords, instrumentation, than abstract art has form, color, composition. It just annoys me to no end how dismissive people are of abstract art. Most, if not all, of these artists were accomplished draftsmen and could paint a realistic scene with the best of them. Look at Picasso’s early realistic works. Or Kandinsky’s illustrations for children’s books. I’ve even seen Pollack’s self-portrait sketches and they show a great command of technique.
These guys know exactly what the hell they’re doing, and it is hardly, hardly “effortless.” I’ve tried to create compositions based on Kandinsky. I’ve tried to parrot his style in an effort to create something new. I can’t do it. Every single time, it looks like crap. I find it much, much easier to draw a reasonable likeness of someone than to create a piece of abstract art I’m happy with.
Silly Rabbit. Art has no objective meaning. My complaint about abstract art is that it also lacks any subjective meaning. (obviously, that’s from my perspective)
‘Abstract’ art lacks structure. While that may be wonderful for someone who wants to scribble on a canvas with no rhyme or reason, it removes most of the (Already few) technical, objective criteria of ‘ordinary’ art. Now, of course abstract art can make use of patterns, but that’s not really difficult. It’s very easy to win a game when you’re making up the rules as you go along.
Frex - a portrait. I can look at a portrait - and irrespective of whatever subjective meaning one might derive, I can judge objectively whether the resemblance to the subject is good, and pick out parts that may differ from the subject.
With abstract art - I can throw a paint-soaked brush at a canvas, take it to a museum, and let the critics all debate about the ‘rage and frustration’ expressed in the ‘painting’. It took no effort. No talent. It’s devoid of meaning to me, the artist. And the art critics praising it are getting into an Emperor’s-New-Clothes situation. Does this mean all abstract art is created with such a lack of feeling on the part of its creator? Nah. But when I see abstract art, I think to myself - “Could I have done this, had I bothered? Is there anything special here at all?”
I’m not familiar with those pieces. I’ve been to a lot of art displays in my time, and a few museums, and I will say that every single piece of abstract art I’ve every seen looks like it could’ve be done by an appropriately-encouraged orangutan.
No…no it doesn’t. Some abstract art may lack structure, but the vast majority – especially the artists I’ve been harping about – show strong graphic composition. I’m a visual artist myself, but I work in a more realistic realm (photography/photojournalism), but many of those works contain compositional principles that even I apply in my everyday photography. Maybe you just don’t see it, I don’t know, but don’t dismiss something you don’t understand out of hand like that. Like I said, Kandinsky’s work is quite structured.