Quite a hodge pode for one post I know bugt these are going to be brief and I just want to get them down and don't want to spend much time on them.
Nutrition and weight refers to an ad I keep hearing on the radio bya nutritional dietitian who gives what she condissiders to be good advice on diet to prevent obsesity in children which she says is now an epidemic among children. Her advice is just the same old same old tat I've come to understnad is what caused our obesidty problem in gthe firs place: lean meat, low fat dairy the biggest cultptrit. All that low fat stuff was a disaster. Full fat foods are normal foods and they help to control weight because they lead to a feeling of satiety sooner than lean foods do. You'd think by now that this would have become common knowledge but I guess nowt. Also she's into whole grains and pure fruit juices. There's nothing wrong with them in themselves but both are high carb and can add to weight gain.
Second gtopic is UFOs. I've written about this before but it's come up in refernce to something Tucker Carlson said, that some people find ludicrous and make Carlson foolish. Carlson has been the topic of much discussion recently for some political positions he's taken and if his critics are right I agree with them about him but I'm just not familiar enough with Carlson to have formed my own opinion so I don't have anything to say about that. But in discussing all that, some of his critics also mention that he has said he believes that UFOs are malevolent beings and that's what they think is so ludicrous and foolish of him. But that in fact is what Christians think about UFOs and I've said that here myself many times. UFOs do not act like anuything in the physical world and CHristians know there are demonic beings who are always out to deceive humanity in one way or another, and the behavior of these ofjects is much more like something in the spirit realm than anything in the physical world. Jacques Vallee, a UFOlogist, n who is not a CHristian, wrote back in the seventies or eighteies or soemthig back there, that UFOs do not behaeve like physical things but remind him of folklore tales of beings both living and mechanical, that can move at rtttremendous sppeeeds, turn corners without slowing down, appear and disappear at will and all that. Altghough he wasn't a Christian, what he has observed fits in with what Christians believe, to which we applhy our biblical knowledge.These are not extraterrestrials, theyare demons putting on a show to mislead us.
Third topic is Significant Form i art. This is a concept used by art critic early in the last century to identify what he considered to be the essential element in a true work of art. I have a general idea of what he means by it but I've always wanted to see pictures in which he identified the significant form so that I could know for sure what he meant. Whenever I ask what it means and get some art teacher trying to expoud it the discussion seems to beme to be completely wrong. Bell had the aesthetic sense he is talking about as the clue to significant form, but not all of us do. Maybe we could learn it if we had good examples shown to us and that's what I wish he had done in his book, just taken a number of pictures in which he sees it in order to show us what he means. It is something in visual art that provkes what he calls the aesthetic emotion which is a kind of rapture or bliss in response to this arragngmene tof lines and colors he finds in some works of art, in fact it is what he considers to be only worthy of the name art, all kinds of pictures being called art having none of it.
Tha's all.
faithswindow@mail.com
Later. Sigh. Decided to look up anything beig said or taught about the work of Suzanne K. Langer, who wrote on the philsophy of art back it eh fifties, and to my mind said thingks more or less along the same lines as Clive bell, although he used diferent terminology and I think may have written a criticism of his idea of significant form although I don't remember that at all clearly. Anyway, I found an art teacher talking about Langer's point of view in the usual way that usually higts me as all wrong, or one of those ways since I guess there's more than one way to get this stuff wrong.
She reduces Langer's concept of symbolim i art to expressio and the idea of it as conveying feeling, but she seems to have in mind our own everyday emotions finding expressio in the art, whereas I do know from my own memor y of Langer's books that she thought of art as screating an entirely new feeling in itself, which is pretty much what Clive Bell is also saying. Art creates the feeling, it is not just mimicking life. ATL ALL. It is creating a specifically artistic or aesthetic feeling in the viewer or hearer et . Oh well.
No comments:
Post a Comment