naxatras-coreli

[naxatras-coreli]

If you cannot define it, you do not understand it.

Many people discuss many things about transcendental issues, being these kind, this is nice, I am happy, you are bad, this is true, but how much of this do they really understand? 

If one ask them hey, why you are happy? Or what is evil? Could they, answer them without their tongue getting stuck or not staying blank?

Many do not, because they do not bother to find out what they are talking about, they have the idea of ​​happy or bad that most people have and (unfortunately) these are very superficial ideas about these issues, since they have their foundation in dictionaries or in what great powers tell them, although dictionaries can be a guide that can be consulted would be at the bottom of the experience as to the explanation that we could have to give when someone questioned us, and for having its foundation in low questions, assume these concepts without even stopping for a moment and wondering, is this really the bad thing, or the happy or the good?

 They lack the experience to say x = y (although that does not stop them from going there "correcting" others when they are mentioned), and they will say more opinions than statements and although opinions can be taken into account when we try to improve our logos, we really are not going to get very far that way when you have a subjective foundation, although asking them for a philosophical demonstration would be too much (in these times there is really no time to do that), at least one delimitation or a crux of the idea that they have in the head must be given to show that they have really gotten to try to explain them and they are not releasing pure gibberish by the mouth, it is not something very complex that we say, we will require the use of our logos, with the old reliable "why is it" "what do I understand by x concept" "really that's it, or is it because I want it to be that way?" but above this we need e x p e r I e n c e , even In these questions we can achieve a foundation in the experience and we can get it in two ways consulting the great teachers, such as Seneca or Plato, or experience it on our own and then try to make sense of it, science can be a good basis but delimit  the transcendental questions to a mere chemical configuration (that although it is correct) would be to maim the true essence of the effect produced by that question. The logos without experience is an exercise in stupidity because we will make meaningless leaps demonstrating things without any basis other than our ignorance, even if they are entities of high complexity as this ones, we must be based on reason and experience to achieve well-informed knowledge and not to think that being something very abstract already lacks any explanation and what anyone says is already valid for being very abstract issues. Everything has its arche, we just have to look for it.

[naxatras-coreli]

The virtue of comparison.

The reference material used to make this essay is present at the end of the same.

There is a general reluctance by the Internet drawers to compare their works with others, made by drawers of any kind, deliberating a bit and trying to find out the crux of this thought, I proposed some hypotheses to try to explain that thought. There will be some who think that the comparison is a type of attack on the work and even themselves, this because they consider it as a form of criticism, to look for flaws in their work and those of others, look with an analytical look at the work of both and therefore have to point out things, they do not like this because they have to admit that they have errors in their work, or that there are mistakes in others, it would imply moving from an opinion to a statement and having these to take a position, prefer to pass this as it would imply a divergence with his mediocre man mentality, many say "yes, I need to improve", but you will not find any, especially if you have been drawing for a long time, say that their works have errors, this would show that they are not as good as they think, this being a direct attack on the effort they have put into their works and, ultimately, towards their supposed pride. If it is not due to this may be due to another misinterpretation of the term and is that some would take it as a homologation of their work to the other person's one, by doing this they would insult the effort made by the other person, since they know they do not have the same skills as the one with which they are compared, they think that they are reducing the work to the same level as theirs and by derivation, belittling it. Another would be that some would see it as unfair because when you compare yourself with someone who has more skills than you, you realize that your jobs lack the same quality as theirs and then you would be discouraged by this and the fuel that once fueled the desire to continue drawing, would be exhausted and the person would desist to continue.

But even if all this is wrong there is a mistake that is intrinsic in all this, and that is that they do not see the enormous potential that the comparison has. It is not a homologation since that would imply an equalization of the works, it would not be an attack since it looks for things that are derived from the abilities of the artist and much less would be something unfair and that would be considering it as something harmful, what is fair is what one should make, and  if we want to improve, we need to compare our work, the comparison is the contrast between two or more works to determine the quality of both, when looking for quality one looks at the way they are made and from this observation one can apply the techniques of others to their own works, the artists can only take their skills to a certain extent, but there will come a time when they will not be able to advance, since they would not know how to do it, those who say that you do not have to compare enter into statism, because they only have their work and nothing else and as at that point (three or four years of drawing), many say they are good, they have no real reason to go Beyond, they become drowsy, they enter into mediocrity and when they continue, and they decline to do this, they arrive at the mediocre of which they will not leave without being pushed by someone external to them, but if the comparison is made with the works of those who they have many more years drawing and above all with those who exhibit more quality than one, can be impelled to go for something else, the comparison implies imitation since it imitates those new ways of approaching things, but imitation allows us to preserve our uniqueness since imitating implies a equality but not a copy, and once we do it equal or better even than that with which one compares, diverges and retains its essence and is now improved, even if the style is different this is irrelevant, the comparison implies the handling of the elements, not the elements, setting an example here if we want to see if Tarkovsky's Stalker or Kubrick's 2001 is better than the other in the photographic aspect, making a comparison of the handling of both, how angles are used, staging, movement, you can determine which one uses it better, because at the end of the day the transmission of information is the reason for the photograph, and having this in mind we can find an answer. We can see how the old masters handled shapes and figures and once understood, we understand how to stylize them and once we understand that we can also understand other stylizations and from that apply them to ours so that our style separates from what everybody does and manages to be unique and not a copy of the same elements that many ask for but of quality have nothing. If the old masters had listened to those supposed tips that some people wear in their heads, the art would have stagnated, thanks to the magnificent works of Da Vinci and Michelangelo because after both it was believed that the art had already reached its highest point and I could not take it any further, so for a while it was not known what to do and they began to copy the works of both, their handling of the figure and elements, then they said that if this was the best and if comparing my works with the ones of them I would never be able to match them, then we must have to do something else, and derived from that the movements that focused on other aspects besides the figure were enhanced, as is landscaping and a whole new art movement was born: the mannerism. Which was characterized by complicated, extravagant forms and a slight separation of realism. If this had not happened perhaps art would have stagnated in similar works like those of the two of them, and we would have returned to the times of Egyptian art, which did not change for thousands of years until Akhenaten changed it a little, only to then return to the same when his successor Tutankhamen ascended to power and stayed for another thousand years the same. A comparison is a form of virtue, when you compare your moral with Socrates’ one and you see that it is not so straight, you straighten it out, and you imitate it, when you see that Seneca's intellect surpasses yours, you increase it, and seek to overcome it, when someone draws better than you, you do not say "I will never reach that level", the artist says "I will be better than him", and starts a career to get there, the artist always has to improve because there is always something that he does not make well, then when he sees that someone directs his works to transcendence he seeks to raise them as high or higher than theirs. Only the mediocre man trembles and daunts at the greatness of the paradigms, the superior man imitates them and tries to overcome aiming as high as or higher than they, whoever carries as oriflamme the virtue and its ideals as a guide, the highest peaks are insured. "He who does not know how to appreciate the best, cannot create the best" And this is because when you know how to appreciate the best, you understand how it was done and put the effort to get to that point. By outlawing the comparison, one outlaws one of the most valuable sources of an impulse for the artists that exists and sticks to ruminate the same forms without distinction that are much “liked” but have nothing of value. Reference material: Ernst H. Gombrich (2006) The history of art. Guiseppe Ingegnieri (1913) The mediocre man.

[naxatras-coreli]

The Artistic Resistance.

The reference material used to fabricate this essay is present in the end of the same. In the age of the digital reproduction of the works, the possibility in which the flock of an artist or the followers of a drawer can make them fall in the massive reproductions of his works is very strong, this due to the contact that can be established with any difficulty between both parts, it is just needed for one or the other type of works producer, to receive plaudits for its works the “oh, look what a nice drawing you have made” kind of plaudits be them mediocre (in the beginning or with years producing them) or be them already above (barely) the mediocrity, for them to look to increase their scope through the productization of their works, this implies making them without personality by the excess of their quantity to appeal to the natural state of the flock (the lascivious content drawers), with lascive relative content using the aesthetism in a more shamelessly way than their counter part, and the other ones with the aesthetism and the simplicity of theirs to hook them. Consequence of this they sell themselves to the market’s demands and their process of productization initiates causing that their works lose all quality that made them (supposing that they started with one) unique or original, they cede to their flock and to their consumerist mentality and they cede to the pressure of the market’s trends.Those that do not draw lascivious content fall into the mediocrity and go to the way of the popular and the masses to want and look for the aesthetist (by the ease of their production and consume), they go and focus their works to that kind of content, being examples of this aesthetism things like very saturated colors, eyes with unnecessary details and with very saturated colors, exaggerated facial expressions, general aesthetic abuses and appellations to the natural state of the flock in a controlled or subreptitious ways but not less aesthetist for this. This with the objective of the easy applause and the vacuous impression. The aesthetist can be defined without any problem as the artistic demagogy because with exaggerated and easy to produce elements that want to apparent (to the flock) being content of real significance when they are only looking for an easy impact. While its content turns more and more popular this ones start to turn static in the development of their skills, and this effect gains more force as the numbers of followers increases and the apex of this is absolute statism because they do not have a real motive to move ¿why I would make a bigger effort to make something more complex if the people that, knows, does not stop saying that my work is good? The vacuous claps of their followers bogs them in the mediocrity. This same clapping by its quantity and reception infuse them with vanity because they claim the term artists to describe themselves (term in his past positive definition), when they do not exhibit any quality of them and believe that since they are artists they are privileged and can live without any responsibility either for them or for their followers, claiming nonexistent virtues as a result, and therefore falling into vanity that only poison their heads. But the more affected by the productization of the works are the drawers of lascive content, this ones, de facto, are centered in mass producing due to the nature of their products, there is really nothing that a character in intimate interactions can convey more than the core of the product that is the provocation of the onanism of flock which is worth nothing of merit or intellectual effort, they put the money as their leitmotiv of movement to produce and at the same time they will say as much prattle as they want to defend its works as art but the things that they say and the ones that they show are two distinct universes, teems a lot the fallacy of false analogy or the fallacy in general, in their rhetoric to justify their works as art and like they sound “reasonable” create an obfuscationist resonance in their flocks by the not so strong criteria of them making them to accept without reasoning what they say even being this very ridiculous, vulgar, or directly misólogist. These work according to the market to which they give in for the greed and praises of their herd, and it is mandatory for them to catch up with the new trends that the herds dictate, according to their tastes, whose rarity increases as time progresses, see aesthetic abuses increasingly shameless, taking advantage of the widespread ignorance of the flock over art, increasingly strange fetishes, like the lascivious content of fictional species or machines, and as the desires of lascivious content of the vulgar are strong and increase this because their mediocrity, apart from eliminating the reason for them, makes them enter into their natural state that emulates the animal-instinctive behavior that makes them put the feelings in place of the intellect reflecting not a greater empathy, but a reduced reasoning falling into accepting anything without even questioning whether what they accept makes sense or not. By this natural state and they infused liquid consumerism nature, they force them some without realizing (this for following them and say that what the make is good), others more directly (this for giving them money being this the crux of the production of this kind of content), to produce more faster as much works as possible, works which would have a function strictly directed at onanism removing any quality apex due to its speed of reproduction and production (a note in this section is that one of the many qualities that characterize this class of subjects is the sluggishness, so despite producing fast if they had an adequate number of followers this would force them to produce even faster creating a greater mediocrization and an adoption of the market mentality, more marked with all its consequences), but not only their works (iterations), are condemned to be reproduced en masse, also their characters (and those of others) would have to be produced quickly, only that the speed in characters would be reflected in their design rather than their frequency ( since not many can make an original character with a coherent background, even a badly one), a design without personality that is very attractive to the vulgar and has exaggerated attributes for a much greater scope, but by focusing his character designs to the production and reproduction causes them to be treated as products, ergo without respect. Exhibiting them as merchandise in all kinds of acts where they can be exploited to squeeze as much benefit as possible, believing that by having brought them to reality, this would de facto give them the right to act as gods with them, without giving them something of space of action and without showing respect to them, having taken them out of the unreal (that is to say that they have passed from the nothingness, the not thought, to the knowable for being only an idea and then the tangible, to be able to be perceived by the view), is not a valid handle to do with them anything, since if they are done well and they are not only tools or pivots of engagement for the attraction of subjects to the works, the only difference they have with a real person is their null physical tangibility (This means that for exhibiting qualities of a real person their only difference is that they are part of a specific reality and not the real one), for that reason they must be treated as if they were a real person (with all the complexity that characterizes people), to show that the person creating them shows both interest and concern for them, this in order to make them better and more realistic, because having their nature in mind, this will make us respect them, even those "hitch pins" would deserve respect, which should be reflected by not creating them in that way this because it is an insult towards them and a lack of respect for treating them as a worthless product. Anyone who makes a character without showing respect to him and without really caring about giving him a coherent background away from liquid consumerism and digital reproduction, does not make a character just makes a tractor of mediocre men. This lack of respect does not only apply to the characters but also to the artists, the artist is a liquid, it must be so, since showing unique characters to his person will make people move away from him by not finding a mediocrist resonance with they, being a liquid, its form is dictated by its flock, the null respect shown towards its characters or those of others, is a direct consequence of the null respect for themselves, they cannot show it, that would imply demonstrating something of personality and the herd has not resonance in it. Something clear must be have to understand this and that is that there must be something first to be respected, a man without form is banned from it, for allowing himself to fill for what others want, once there is something this can build its respect, is the base for this and then, earn it, respect is the noble treatment of a person, this treatment being a direct consequence of their dignity which is based on a morality based that has a base on virtue be it for the other person or oneself. The drawers of lascivious content to be the paradigms of mediocrity, societal liquidity and the apologies to the lack of nobility by hyperbanalization are self-outlaw of it. To avoid falling into the reproduction without control of their works and into the productization of their person, the creator or digital drawer, must show resistance against his herd, artistic resistance, this is a demonstration of self-respect for everything around the creator or cartoonist, this includes, himself, his characters, iterations and in case that he has already expanded to other places, his works, is to plant them face to face and show that he will not become his slave, the artistic resistance is a struggle against the productization of the creator.But a situation that must learn to handle, is to also resist excessive interaction with his followers, if a person can create something that can be called art, or something that exhibits quality, this is not a guarantee that those who follow the producer of that kind of content are all already an attempt of a superior man, or already, they are without a doubt, they will continue being the majority of them (by overwhelming majority), mediocre men, and as well as interacting with a well versed person and greatly nobleman, can serve for the person as a pivot to awaken noble qualities in him, similarly interacting with mediocre people makes us acquire their qualities, their pernicious qualities, both mediocrity and superiority can influence people, however, as the first one is stronger, the creator should keep its distance of them but this does not mean that he must go around disdaining all his followers and demonstrating narcissism and vanity everywhere be it the place physical or not, this implies that he must have a reduced contact with them as a measure of protection, that the plaudits even if they are well deserved, they can contaminate the subject if he does not know how to discriminate and discard them, it is necessary to avoid those comments that can contaminate him and ruin his work, every creator or digital artist must keep his distance to his followers, to protect his work and his person, of digital reproducibility in which they can make him fall, even without wanting to. To show that one is not the container of the herds you have to be, to avoid being filled with their mediocrity but the perennial error of the cohort is to think that one, is, without having something that characterizes them, to resist to be toned, one must be, but there is no such thing as "being-us" being, is "being-me" or is a "being-product" an illusion granted by the vulgar caused by the productization of the person demonstrating a vain exaltation that puts them their heads as “mongolfieras” and makes them act like children incapable of some apex of maturity.When with a couple of buttons it is possible to reproduce works, it is absolutely necessary not to fall into the vulgarity of the flock, the artistic resistance is a way to protect the works with value, and the creator of these, those that do not show it, will end up creating the same garbage, and being a maelstrom of spectacle, immaturity, mediocrity and vanity, ending as the prostitute of his herd, unable to show some critical thinking and unable to produce something that can give light or fight against time to obtain his work, eternal value. Reference material that was used in the production of this essay: Consuming Life (2007) Zygmunt Bauman. The art work in his age of mechanical reproduction (1936) Walter Benjamin.The mediocre man (1913) Giussepe Ingegnieri.Sculpting in time (1986) Andrei Tarkovsky.