I must interject a mild objection to the description of CAS a a "misanthrope" - Clark did not dislike the human race or people in general - of course, if, not expecting a rebuff, you nonetheless get one from left field, you get gun shy (to mix a batch of unrelated cliches) - but he loved the denizens of "old town" and the "happy hour" bar, the little oriental Grocery and its owners, the Tsuda brothers, Marilyn Novaks "junque" store and paperback exchange etc. -- it was the small town "artsy-fartsy" crowd that he found offensive, and rightly so.
The truly educated (the Sully's, and a number of German immigrants from WWI, Roy Squires et al), appreciated him and he them. Clark was quick to pick up on the "phony", and limited his time among them severely - he was also not deceived by the pretensions of (it is to laugh) Behavioral "Science" (talk about an oxymoron!)
and the philosophy so prevalent after WWI concerning the ultimate perfectiblity of humanity -- infintite progress written deeply upon the "tabula rasa" postulated by Dewey - To whatever extent Clark may be defined as a misanthrope, I think it would be limited to the wise dictum found at the end of "The Monster of the Prophecy" -- sentiments which I, myself, whole-heartedly endorse.

Rightly or wrongly, I see CAS as a misanthrope of the Swiftian variety, myself:

Quote:

I have ever hated all nations, professions, and communities, and all my love is toward individuals: for instance, I hate the tribe of lawyers, but I love Counsellor Such-a-one and Judge Such-a-one: so with physicians - I will not speak of my own trade - soldiers, English, Scotch, French, and the rest. But principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although I heartily love John, Peter, Thomas, and so forth. I have got materials toward a treatise, proving the falsity of that definition animal rationale, and to show it would be only rationis capax. Upon this great foundation of misanthropy, though not in Timon's manner, the whole building of my Travels is erected [...].

(Letter from Jonathan Swift to Alexander Pope)

I would add that the rationis capax assessement on Swift's part is agathistic, in my view.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 03:46PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean,

Are you a retired lawyer?

Or perhaps a defrocked priest?

Well, if you must know....

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kyberean,
>
> Are you a retired lawyer?

Jojo Lapin X Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or perhaps a defrocked priest?

He's not a scientist. His straw man of the "science worshipper" corresponds to no real person.

Post 24 April, 2004

I am sorry, I could have looked it up before asking.

Just trying to better understand your individual perspective on art, and view that need for success is unimportant for the "truest" artists.

If one has a profession, career and job, or otherwise a stable economic situation, and dabbles in art as a hobby on the side, then one can afford to say that success is unimportant. However, fully consumate artists, greater or lesser, who have no other way of income, are very much concerned with succeeding economically. (Except perhaps someone who has extremely simple material needs.) It has no bearing on the artistic quality. Outside observers may think that, "Well, they sell out and compromise their honest expression, or loose the right focus.". But in those cases which clearly look commercial or poor in quality, it is more likely that these individuals really had no worthwhile quality artistic vision in the first place! Take Poe for instance, he was very much concerned with getting published. And so were many great artists throughout history.
If success is important, or if it is not, for a great artist, is simply governed by physical factors. And, some great artists may also have big egos, parallell to artistic quality.

(I am tired, I just can't get this post together! I need some sleep!)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 07:48PM by Knygatin.

Priscian:

Quote:

His straw man of the "science worshipper" corresponds to no real person.

Hmm, it seems that someone's still nursing a grudge after having been smacked around during our last exchange.

Anyway, you haven't read much Richard Dawkins, have you? Or even any of Dawkins's recent ridiculous media pronouncements?

In sum: Nice try, troll, but there'll be no more feeding from me.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 06:01PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> His straw man of the "science worshipper"
> corresponds to no real person.
>
> Haven't read much Richard Dawkins, have you? Or
> even any of Dawkins's recent brilliant media
> pronouncements?
>
> Anyway, nice try, troll, but there'll be no more
> feeding from me.

Your "uncritical worship of science and materialism" is performed by neither Dawkins nor Lovecraft, nor anyone else. To adduce such nonsense of Lovecraft and then call him "naive" sounds more like trolling than anything I've said here.

Having just finished the Dawkins article let me say this: The guy sounds so shallow minded. He may have a high rate of intelligence and teach at a school as renown as Oxford but he comes across as the most intelligent stupid person I have ever read about. Allowing a child to learn and be raised on myth, religion and fairy tales is in a way teaching them values and allowing them to learn such values having to do with the world around them. Of course kissing a frog will not turn it into a handsome prince, children are not that stupid. What this analogy is saying is beauty can be found even in things with non appealing visual qualities. But to limit a child's ability to learn about anything he or she wants to in the world around them is also a form of abuse. A child will learn to form his or her own conclusions by themselves. It is how the human mind is wired. I was raised on fairy tales and the supernatural and I am doing much better than the average.

This also stems from the new age way of thinking- that human beings are gods in their own right and are the owners of the universe. We claim this but have gotten no farther then the moon and a few distant planets and galaxies in a sea of infinite cosmos. Doesn't sound that Godly to me. Anyone with the slightest hint of intelligence would know that just because something cannot be proven to exist does not mean that it is not real or cannot happen. Somethings are not meant to be detected and are far above the human capacity to grasp and analyze. The world and spaces were created for us to enjoy. Not to serve us. We are merely a part of it, their guests. The true definition of intelligence is "I will learn as much as I can because what I am learning I know nothing about". And to know our place in the cosmos and world around us is smart. Pride is a dangerous thing ladies and gentlemen, and very unintelligent for such animals claiming to be the smartest of anything past, present and future.

Dawkins is hilarious. I am grateful to him, though, not merely because he offers an effortless refutation of Priscian's earlier statement, but because of the sheer entertainment value his fundamentalist-scientist mindset offers. With people such as Dawkins around, there's no need to dream up straw men.

As an aside, what would Dawkins have thought of CAS, if he finds Harry Potter so frighteningly threatening and inimical to the scientific world-view?!? It's a good thing that CAS did not write for children, I guess!

By the way, has anyone here ever tried to imagine what a CAS-penned children's story might resemble, or a children's tale by Lovecraft? That thought will give me a chuckle or two as I lie down to sleep tonight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 07:23PM by Kyberean.

Hope no one missed my important edits of my previous post.

I would even go so far as to say, that the drive to succeed and be published can be the most crucial factor for leading to any artistic results at all. Too much comfort can lead to laziness, regardless of talent. Pressure to put food on the table, can lead to great artistic achievements. For the talented. For the talented the art flows from the depths when starting to work. Regardless of conscious, superficial, motivations for getting going. The emotions, the esthestic sensibilities, the insights, wisdom, are still there, and will unconsciously be expressed through honesty, and by way of intelligence.

Nurturing the idealistic philosophy that the Art itself is the only thing of importance, can become a self-indulgent ego thing in itself. A way of pompously inflating oneself. It's just empty talk and pretension.

Either one has what it takes, or one doesn't. Either one has the talent, or not. Regardless of talk. Either one cuts it or one don't. Talking about it doesn't change it in one direction or the other.

(Alright, I'm dropping into bed.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 08:42PM by Knygatin.

Quote:

Nurturing the idealistic philosophy that the Art itself is the only thing of importance, can become a self-indulgent ego thing in itself. A way of pompously inflating oneself. It's just empty talk and pretension.

It's a matter of perspective. As I see it, any art whose emergence depends solely or primarily upon the need to fill the belly is likely to be as ephemeral as a given meal.

As for ego and the like, no one loathes self-important, pretentious "art for art's sake" artists more than I do. That is not the sort of thing that I mean, at all. All I am saying is the following:

1. Powerful desires to reach a given end can interfere with the means; and,

2. Artistic activity that is primarily motivated by external forces, such as the desire for status or economic advancement--in a word, to advance the ego--is less desirable in the longer term than creating out of pure joy and personal inspiration.

I have stated these points as clearly as I can, and more than once, yet they still seem not to be well understood. For that reason, I am letting the matter drop. Best wishes and best of luck to all in this regard, whatever their perspective and motivations. Those who think that great art arises from mundane needs for food and shelter, or from the desire for personal recognition and aggrandizement, are welcome to follow that path.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11 Oct 09 | 09:15PM by Kyberean.

It is NOT a matter of choosen perspective. It is a matter of talent or no talent, what person one is. Either one has it or one don't. And great art does NOT arise out of mundande and ego needs per se, those needs are NOT why a great artist has choosen art in the first place. But those factors can sometimes be partial in getting the body going, to move from dreams to results, in a roundabout way. The cat, and the Muse, will approach you when not staring them right in the eye. And I repeat, the quality of the results will depend solely on evolved talent, NOT on choosen attitudes and perspectives.

Kyberean Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have stated these points as clearly as I can,
> and more than once, yet they still seem not to be
> well understood. For that reason, I am letting the
> matter drop. Best wishes and best of luck to all
> in this regard, whatever their perspective and
> motivations. Those who think that great art arises
> from mundane needs for food and shelter, or from
> the desire for personal recognition and
> aggrandizement, are welcome to follow that path.

Best of luck here, best of luck there. Your sudden outbursts of dismission of others are quite amusing actually. Reminds me very much of my brother.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 07:33AM by Knygatin.

The real artist regards his art as a job. Like any other job. Because it is a job. Not the vision itself. But the manifestation of the vision into form, is a very practical job. "Writers block" occurs when this is lost, and the artist solely expects strong emotions in themselves to form into the art.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12 Oct 09 | 06:07AM by Knygatin.