Vook Bebiew X

As we rebel against beauty, the issue of "design" comes in: not design as composition, but design as - I'm sorry! - a judgement call.
My senior art project in college was my hand-built coil ceramics that were totally non-functional, but meangingful - like a sculpture - and completely unique, but the only hint of beauty I could ascribe to them was an earthy but sparkly glaze that a fellow student-gal kindly lent me. I applied it in a couple different hues, to all the pieces. "Rule-wise" there was no glaze required, but something within judged the whole design as insignificant, if it didn't have at least an attempt at beauty.
That's a judgement call, and that's where the Da-Da ists made their departure. They moved into left brain. They made left-brain choices that became so extreme that they could declare that "extremity" is art, that contrast is art, that anything displayed could be art. But I say:
No design. No beauty.
No standards.
Little art.

Vook Rebiew IX

MEANINGFUL AND UNIQUE, BUT NOT BEAUTIFUL.
In his book Whole New Mind (WNM) Dan Pink says (and I'm paraphrasing) that Right-Brain is "meaningful, unique and beautiful". I like this premise, and he elaborates upon it throughout WNM. To me this is the most pure definition of visual art, whether it's 2- or 3-dimensional, and of music, dance, theatre, authorship, calligraphy, flower-arrangement, singing, public speaking, performances, even stand-up comedy. (I heard it said - as a side-bar - that Jerry Seinfeld says "if you work CLEAN, you can work ANYWHERE," and that to me is where "beauty" comes in, added to "unique" and "funny"!)
But back to Right-Brain as a definition. D. Pink, in WNM, says that "intellectual" is not considered Right-Brain, but Left-Brain. And there's obviously a place for "intellectual". However in art, for example in DaDa-ism, which for many is extremely MEANINGFUL, and of course UNIQUE, (that's a given!), I feel they were clearly rebelling against BEAUTY.

To me, it's a question of DESIGN.
Stay tuned.

Vook Rebiew VIII

Reading Whole New Mind (WNM) by Daniel H. Pink: he says that "story is where high concept and high touch intercept." Pg. 103. And he says the "Aptitude of STORY is Context Enriched by Emotion".......so here's my thusly defined story, from my past week:

Thunderstorms are very wet and wild.
In the desert, so dry and hot, the contrast between rainstorm and desert is remarkable.
Monsoons like this occur globally, of course, in various climes and locations.
But my life is here, in Arizona, and I find it more memorable than weather stats and facts and factoids online.

Rainwater on my patio, in my special bucket, from the waterfall off my roof: dark skies, flailing winds in my olive tree, and the gestures of the tall, tall eucapalyptus nearby, with highly visible lightning strikes that fairly crackle, and slashing water from the skies. The noise is overwhelming, in my little villa, with the screen doors.
I love it.
Or, as they say on the street,
"I'm lovin' it!"

Vook Rebiew VII

In WNM, Mr. Pink often refers to the differences between the left-brain approach and the right-brain approach. It has opened my eyes.

This week I went to an "art demo" during which the artist made so many right-brain references to us, that you would've thought he was reading Daniel Pink's material. He is a very well-known and accomplished artist (I love his work) named David Simons, of Tubac, Arizona, and he said:

"Painting is an event." (Not a thing.)

"Painting is a process, not a painting." and he quoted Confucius as saying:

"He who thinks about the fruits of his labor is miserable." The key word there, I think Pink would agree, is "thinks": try not to think so much, but to feel and experience.......

Simons defined art: "Art is nature as seen through a temperament." In other words, our feelings can actually design and interpret reality. And he said "The world never gets tired of seeing itself through new eyes." Time to pull a laminated quote from my wallet: Edgar Degas said,"Art is not what you see, but what you make others see." Now I am encouraged and rejuvenated, as I am by reading A Whole New Mind : such fresh, right-brain concepts.

Vook Rebiew VI

• Whole New Mind: this non-fiction book is very "Big Picture", very "Here and Now": very helpful and apropos. Granted, the economy is a distraction, but the economy is a Left-Brain drain. We were brought into "abundance" (Daniel Pink's word) by Left Brain tactics, but - let's face it - that couldn't last, as we are all now aware! It was the Left Brain that can't hold us in the position of "abundance" any longer. We didn't get to the Right Brain soon enough. Dan Pink is the herald of our times, with his research into Right Brain tactics and Right Brain phenomena, to my way of thinking.
• Mr. Pink, in this book, is quick to point out, that "Left" is not bad per se, and "Right" is not good per se, but that it's the balance between them that's required. He says we rapidly lost track of our Right-Brain directions as Left Brain got the bit in its teeth and plunged us into its own Left brain prosperity. It was prosperity, but we were out of balance.
• The mistake is to go on thinking that Left Brain tactics alone will will continue to serve us, that Left Brain tactics alone will restore the balance to our economic state. And Dan Pink's book, WNM, is very current and will help us restore our balance.

Vook Rebiew V

-In Whole New Mind, Pink states that because of recent affluence, the burgeoning of technology (software that writes software, for eg.) and outsourcing: a world that grows smaller every day, the fact is, we are being nudged into a brand new era. Pink calls it the Conceptual Age, as plays out against the Agricultural, the Industrial, and the Information Ages.
-The Conceptual Age, he says, has, as its main characters "the CREATOR, and EMPATHIZER, whose distinctive ability is mastery of Right-Directed Thinking" (reference to the right brain).
- The "management meta-guru" Tom Peters says we have discovered our Copernicus for this brave new age in Daniel Pink. So I went to Wikipedia for Copernicus - 1473-1543 - astronomer, philosopher, a central figure in Europe, of the so-called Scientific Revolution, whose theory referred to the "changing fortunes of the kingdom of the world" a totally "deep" reference, in my opinion. I am quite taken with the idea of a world that is a kingdom, perhaps a plane of existence.
-Daniel Pink, though he deals with the white collar individual and the realm of exisitence entitled "economy" (instead of the sun, as did Copernicus) may have a handle on this kingdom in general, which is our world.

Vook Rebiew IV

In WNM by Dan Pink, ("Think Pink!") he states that our need now is to find things which are "pleasing to the eye, or compelling to the soul". He says: "it is woefully insufficient - in an age of abundance - to appeal only to needs which are RATIONAL, LOGICAL, AND FUNCTIONAL."

Let's go with "compelling to the soul". Isn't that the very essence, the quintessential definition of ART? I think it includes literature, dance and music, paintings and murals and crafts and drawings and comics, and theatre, movies, even stand-up comedy. It's all art, and mostly the reason we read, and attend, and look at, absorb and laugh, is it's because it's compelling to the soul, thank you Dan Pink.

As far as "age of abundance", we do have some reasons to turn about and ask questions, as to: "how does this relate?" With less abundance, are we less Right Brain? Or was this "economic downturn" caused by too much Right Brain? and do we move forward with ongoing Right Brain?