Suska
September 11th, 2009, 04:53 PM
I've given this some thought, examining my own motives and reasoning I've come to the conclusion that Part I wound up emphasizing something secondary. I've reformulated what I hoped to say, my motives here, as ever are simply to generate some talk in order to check or enhance my own ideas. I'm here to learn really. Yes this is best described as Art Theory, but it emphasizes storytelling just as "experience" emphasizes subjectivity - so it oughta be fun!
I have a very simple way of explaining it which you all can understand. You can understand it as easily as you understand a child's attachment to a Teddy Bear.
This is an analogy for Animism.
There are two useful ways of looking at a story, using the example of science fiction Michael Wong wrote a good breakdown (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html).
You can look at it from either perspective:
1)Literary Analysis : "Treats the films and TV shows as a mere "depiction", or "dramatic re-enactment" of a world which exists only in the author's mind."
2)Suspension of Disbelief : "The aliens in the hilarious sci-fi satire "Galaxy Quest" considered the TV shows depicting Tim Allen's NSEA Protector to be "historical records", in which they assumed they were documentary footage and analyzed them as such. We copy this approach. In the case of books, we would treat them as history books."
I suggest that Suspension of Disbelief itself has two parts, the one just described in which the storyland documents are second hand, and this one:
2b)Apophenia/Animism/Precognitive "Absence" of Disbelief = Belief itself : The artifact-image itself has the experience which is depicted.
Some examples:
Han Solo did shoot first in some universes, and in the universes in which he did not shoot first he had an uncanny experience of dissociation - the event felt "unreal"
The Defiant is actually a variety of sizes, as uncanny as that would be for us, in the realm of images, objects are very elastic, this doesn't have any impact on them since as they get closer to interacting their proportions normalize.
The teddy Bear does not "represent" a bear, it is a Teddy Bear and lives the life of a Teddy Bear. As with most "constructed" entities and other formations of inert matter the Teddy Bear is extremely Lazy, but quite responsive in some ways. It is very patient, always cheerful and available for intimacy. And why not..? How nice a life of hugs! Left alone, Teddy Bears die very gradually, but like people they can die in disasters.
Whether taken 'as-if' (suspension of disbelief) or Animistically (The artifact-image itself has the depicted experience) The matter applies to all sorts of Art but significantly to image-generation, the question is whether the Artist approaches the blank paper loyal to, affectionate with, and interested in the experiences he depicts as if he credits to characters the capacity to experience them, or the matter of the blank paper is answered in every case by a formula, the tradition, and cribbing.
My feeling is that every sort of Artist is tapping into a dream-stream of ambient spirit even if there's no all-encompassing reason to prefer to call it that over calling it 'the creative process' - but my contention is that it isn't so totally the black box popular culture insists it to be. Creativity, and loving one's Teddy Bear have everything in common and I could use many words to describe this but I will select 3 I've always liked.
Belief, Sincerity, Innocence
For a competent Draughtsman to become a Great Storyteller (whether in one frame or millions) they call this Genius, or Inspiration, my aim here is mainly to paint a picture in words addressing matters like, why do we love fictional people and animals? If they are not unreal (and don't let it be said a fictional character never had a real part to play in non-fictional events) - How are they not unreal? Because they are real, how would you describe their realness? Ultimately in terms of their own reality. To reduce the matter to the materialistic, it is semiotic; these are symbols of our communications. But in Art - as the song goes - it ain't what you do, its the way that you do it. But before I get into Teleology or Metaphysics, is this an interesting perspective? Is what I'm saying comprehensible?
The Lie of which I speak is whatever doubts the living spirit and personal perspective of the Teddy Bear. Looking at it this way clarifies and sanctifies the Arts; we communicate with the Ambient Spirits, inhabiting the spaces sealed between ink lines. And we know by this how to be open to subtle winds and to employ our entire capacities. If they are alive then we must respect them enough to depict them well.
I have a very simple way of explaining it which you all can understand. You can understand it as easily as you understand a child's attachment to a Teddy Bear.
This is an analogy for Animism.
There are two useful ways of looking at a story, using the example of science fiction Michael Wong wrote a good breakdown (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Analysis.html).
You can look at it from either perspective:
1)Literary Analysis : "Treats the films and TV shows as a mere "depiction", or "dramatic re-enactment" of a world which exists only in the author's mind."
2)Suspension of Disbelief : "The aliens in the hilarious sci-fi satire "Galaxy Quest" considered the TV shows depicting Tim Allen's NSEA Protector to be "historical records", in which they assumed they were documentary footage and analyzed them as such. We copy this approach. In the case of books, we would treat them as history books."
I suggest that Suspension of Disbelief itself has two parts, the one just described in which the storyland documents are second hand, and this one:
2b)Apophenia/Animism/Precognitive "Absence" of Disbelief = Belief itself : The artifact-image itself has the experience which is depicted.
Some examples:
Han Solo did shoot first in some universes, and in the universes in which he did not shoot first he had an uncanny experience of dissociation - the event felt "unreal"
The Defiant is actually a variety of sizes, as uncanny as that would be for us, in the realm of images, objects are very elastic, this doesn't have any impact on them since as they get closer to interacting their proportions normalize.
The teddy Bear does not "represent" a bear, it is a Teddy Bear and lives the life of a Teddy Bear. As with most "constructed" entities and other formations of inert matter the Teddy Bear is extremely Lazy, but quite responsive in some ways. It is very patient, always cheerful and available for intimacy. And why not..? How nice a life of hugs! Left alone, Teddy Bears die very gradually, but like people they can die in disasters.
Whether taken 'as-if' (suspension of disbelief) or Animistically (The artifact-image itself has the depicted experience) The matter applies to all sorts of Art but significantly to image-generation, the question is whether the Artist approaches the blank paper loyal to, affectionate with, and interested in the experiences he depicts as if he credits to characters the capacity to experience them, or the matter of the blank paper is answered in every case by a formula, the tradition, and cribbing.
My feeling is that every sort of Artist is tapping into a dream-stream of ambient spirit even if there's no all-encompassing reason to prefer to call it that over calling it 'the creative process' - but my contention is that it isn't so totally the black box popular culture insists it to be. Creativity, and loving one's Teddy Bear have everything in common and I could use many words to describe this but I will select 3 I've always liked.
Belief, Sincerity, Innocence
For a competent Draughtsman to become a Great Storyteller (whether in one frame or millions) they call this Genius, or Inspiration, my aim here is mainly to paint a picture in words addressing matters like, why do we love fictional people and animals? If they are not unreal (and don't let it be said a fictional character never had a real part to play in non-fictional events) - How are they not unreal? Because they are real, how would you describe their realness? Ultimately in terms of their own reality. To reduce the matter to the materialistic, it is semiotic; these are symbols of our communications. But in Art - as the song goes - it ain't what you do, its the way that you do it. But before I get into Teleology or Metaphysics, is this an interesting perspective? Is what I'm saying comprehensible?
The Lie of which I speak is whatever doubts the living spirit and personal perspective of the Teddy Bear. Looking at it this way clarifies and sanctifies the Arts; we communicate with the Ambient Spirits, inhabiting the spaces sealed between ink lines. And we know by this how to be open to subtle winds and to employ our entire capacities. If they are alive then we must respect them enough to depict them well.