Ovi -
we cover every issue
Philosophy Books  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
worldwide creative inspiration
Ovi Language
George Kalatzis - A Family Story 1924-1967
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
Art, Perspectives of High and Low Art, Perspectives of High and Low
by Leah Sellers
2013-04-13 10:40:56
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

After reading Dr. Lawrence Nannery’s latest article,” Art, High and Low”,I thought, “Yes, having been a high school English teacher for Advanced Placement students at one point in time, I have to agree with much of what he asserted within his article about the Rules and Styles guiding Poetry as an Art Form.  I taught such things to my Students as well.  However, my admission of such made me uneasy for some indiscernible reason.

Then I saw Tony Zuvela’s cartoon depicting Human Beings evolving from Monkeys/Apes, and my incomprehensible un-ease gained clarity.

Since Many Evolutionary Monkeys/Apes spend most of their days swinging and playing in the High tops of trees.  And Many Evolutionary Human Beings spend most of their days (and nights) walking, running or driving from one grounded Job or Task to another.  I’d have to say that Dr. Nannery’s High-to-Low/Low-to-High points-of-view regarding Art holds some even deeper Truths.

All Art Forms have Meaning, Beauty (sometimes an Ugly Beauty), Discipline, Rules and Truths or Not.

It all depends upon the Eyes, Minds and Souls of the Creators/Beholders.

Whether the Creator/Beholders are sitting in swaying tree tops quietly Contemplating and Meditating upon the Acts of Human Beings, and cogitating on the sweetness of ripened bananas.  Or revving it up driving from one shiny skyscraper to another or some kinetic/stagnant destination to another rocketing down some lonely or overcrowded highway to a fast food drive-thru or barreling onward to Somewhere - to NoWhere.  It’s always a matter of Perspective.

Because whether the Monkeys/Apes in the High Tops of trees or the Revving Engines in the High Tops of sky scraping Towers like it or not, Future Generations will Change, TransForm, ConForm and ReForm the Disciplines, Rules, Artistic Styles and Stylizing,…etc., the Artistic ebb and flow of Poetry’s Songs of the Souls to please and serve their Own brand of digitizing, pictalizing, fusioning, fissioning, quantum physicking Poetic Songs of Their Souls.  And that’s the High-to-Low/Low-to-High of it.

Hoo-hoo-hah-hah !  Look out for that Tree !

VaRoom-ba-boom !  You ain’t beatin’ Me !

0010100010000 - zoom !  Giving meaning to Punctuating Punctuality !

Zip, zap, fizzle, sizzle, pop !  It takes imploding and exploding Little Bangs
                                          To Energize and Make the Big Bangs Possible
                                          Potentialities Realities !

All Art Forms Teach Us, and allow Us to Feel, Sense, Express and Know that One Being’s Stinky Trash is another Being’s Fragrant Treasure !  And that’s the High-to-Low/Low-to-High of it.

All Art Forms Teach Us, and allow Us to Feel, Sense, Express and Know the Importance of Trivial Things and the Trivialities of Important Things.

All  Art Forms Teach us, and allow Us to Feel, Sense, Express and Know that EveryThing comes and goes from and to Sacredly Profane SomeWheres

And SomeWhere comes and goes from and to Profanely Sacred EveryThings.


Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Get it off your chest
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2013-04-13 11:18:21
Indeed Leah, much to ponder here. As I have often discussed with my students of philosophy, “it’s all in the eye of the beholder” can be considered one of the politically correct slogans of our relativistic age and may explain why every year the media returns to interview Charles Manson in jail and a movie about him is currently in progress.

He puts the mirror before our face and asks us: why am I in jail since everything is relative and my crimes, if there were any, are relative to the society I grew up into? We hardly ever bother to listen carefully and answer his pointed question, and then to assuage our guilt we brand him crazy and that’s the end of it. But is it?

Heraclitus said that if there was something on earth that never changed it’s that everything is continually changing; one cannot step in the same river twice. A paradox and a conundrum, I suppose, about which Plato thought long and hard arriving at the conclusion that while Heraclitus had a valid point about everything on earth continually changing and evolving within time and space, and perhaps time and space being interrelated (as Einstein later discovered) he would nevertheless refuse to become a relativist and postulated in his speculation that the Good, the True and the Beautiful were not relative to anything and were absolute; but to do that he had to make those Forms transcendent and place them outside of time and space. No wonder Augustine, a Christian philosopher, adopts Plato as the underpinning of his own philosophy.

The same can be said for Kant, he refuses to become a utilitarian relativist and postulated that there are categorical moral imperatives and they are absolute, based on freedom and a good will and can be discovered by the exercise of reason. Thou shall not slander or murder does not allow one to say, except on Monday, or except when it is useful to me or society in general.

Leah Sellers2013-04-13 17:19:08
Dear Brother Emanuel,
Sir, since you have chosen but one part of what I tried to convey in my meandering thoughts regarding Mr. Lawrence's article, I must ask, "Don't you Know a little SomeThing about me by now ?"
EveryThing in the processes of perpetual Creation and Destruction inherent within Our Cosmic Realities is also perpetually and simultaneously Static and Dynamic.
Universal Morals and Ethics (not just cultural-historical likes and dis-likes for various Reasonings or Un-Reasonings), in my opinion, should always be the Static Energies from which the other Dynamic Energies draw from and upon, and Re-Energize (one and the other) Simultaneously.
The breakdown in the Moral and Ethical Character of many of Our Global Leaders, Global Corporations and Global Banks, and the Activities, Theorums, Motivations, Algorithims...etc. which spring perversely forth from that tremendous lacking are what are leading We the People into the Black Hole of Oblivion of All of Our Own Makings and Breakings, because We are all(whether Consciously or Sub-Consciously or Un-Consciously) participating and supporting many of the Present re-occuring Patterns from Our Past which We should All stop foolishly and crazily repeating, in order to truly Move Foward into New Frontiers of more Positively and Creatively Being.
We are to Love One another. We are to Be Our Brothers and Sisters Keepers. We are All to try and Empathize, and Walk around in SomeOne else's Moccassins. We are all to try to Be Caring and Courageous Beacons of Hope, Faith, Inspiration and Charity to One Another. These are the Great Static Internal and External Enterprising Free Markets and Free Wheeling Tenets and Passions to which We should all Ascribe. The Great Static Energies We should All be trying to Dynamically Energize and Spark to Life in the World around Us.
We are All Connected to and InterConnected to One Another. Even Atomic Free Radicals have to deal with that Energetic Truth, and have to Work dynamically and statically within that Energetic Reality.
The World BeComes what We Give our Attention and Intentions toward. That's why Our Choices are so trivially Important and importantly Trivial.
Why do we constantly have to use Wars and Violence to purge OurSelves like Cultural Bulemics or Anorexics ? Why can't we Converge the Possible Potentialities which will produces Choices and Decisions that Energize the Realities and pairings of Living for and toward the Importantly Important (for All) and help to Educate the Trivially Trivial toward Other Ways of Being and Energizing the World ?
We can Do Better ! We Can Be Better, and oh so much Greater when We Consider the Other and the Earth within Our endless Equations of Doing and Being.

Emanuel Paparella2013-04-13 21:55:19
Indeed dear Sarah, I think we know something about each other by now to assume that what we may end up arguing about is never personal, never meant as a superficial diatribe, as a subjective or ad hominem argumentation, and that a publication of opinion buttressed by free speech (its life-blood)such as Ovi while allowing everybody to express their opinion freely, to read or ignore what others opine upon, to make comments or refrain from making them if they so feel, and dialogue or debate at their heart’s content, it does not condone incivility and slander and the making up of empirical facts or the ignoring of the historical record. Cordial and frank dialogue is possible even when disagreeing as long as people do not descend to the purely personal. Were that so I don't think either you or I would continue to contribute to the publication.

What such a publication does not allow, and I think the editors would concur since it is clearly spelled out in their comment policy, is for individuals to concoct their own facts on people or institutions, to confuse dialogue and free exchange of ideas with inane gossip and insults and self-promotion and even slander, and conceive the publication as some sort of Mutual Admiration Society. Most issues are too complex to be solved by perfect agreement in everything or by the avoidance of debate. Indeed, what is agreed upon needs no discussion; what needs discussion and argumentation (not to be confused with propaganda or political correctness or biased prejudiced assumptions on either the right or the left) are exactly the points we disagree upon. That may necessitate questioning of assumptions but such questioning need not be reduced to the personal and we need no hemlock or ostracism to shut up the gadflies among us who wish to comment on those assumptions.

I think we can safely assume that you and I as well as the vast majority of readers and contributors to this admirable magazine agree on those basic principles, and therefore we can also assume that we will continue to dialogue and even disagree from time to time without becoming uncivil and disagreeable. Plato and Aristotle disagreed and debated on some fundamental principles of philosophy but they remained friends and civil with each other throughout. We ought to do no less than that.

Leah Sellers2013-04-14 06:26:56
Dear Brother emanuel,
Sir, my name is Leah, not Sarah.
Sir, everything in my so called rebuttal was very civil, and not aimed at you.
Sir, my so called diatribe was only further explanation of my views regarding the subjuect at hand, and then your narrow treatment of it.
Sir, I preferred that the topic at hand be focused upon more broadly and completely, rather than narrowly and obliquely.
Sir, I do not consider my reply to be an argument, but an action of clarification, and I am sorry if you misunderstood my efforts and instead chose to negatively personalize and misinterpret my intentions.
Sir, I wish you well, and apologize if you felt that any offense was intended. Because, I can assure you that never entered my Mind or Heart.
Sir, you have too asterely and wrongly judged me. I am not guilty of your accusations of my intentions.

Emanuel Paparella2013-04-14 12:18:00
Leah,I sincerely apologize for placing the incorrect first name in my reply. It is an oversight, I can assure you that it was not intentional or meant as a sign of disrespect. I suppose I ought to redact and proofread my replies more carefully before forwarding them.

Be that as it may, I retract nothing from what I wrote on the topic of free speech and the nature of a magazine of opinion. They are not personal statements meant as accusations but general philosophical observations on a rather important issue that is bigger than the mere opinions of the two of us. Surely Heraclitus and Charles Manson, Plato and Augustine, Kant and Einstein have precious to do personally with the two of us.

It is unfortunate that you chose to interpret them as a personal attacks and answered accordingly implying that there was a betrayal of trust of some kind, a breach of professionalism or a family trust implied by your calling me brother, for which I am honored. Indeed we are all brothers and sisters or our faith is in vain.

I can reciprocally assure you that an ad hominem attack and some kind of nasty personal insinuation was the furthest thing from my mind and intentions. I find those tactics reprehensible as I think I have expressed repeatedly. I do not hate the persons who engage in them; if anything I feel sorry for their myopia.

I felt quite sure that you would concur that the abuses of free speech do not take away its use and that the value and the benefits of a comment section in a magazine of opinion are inestimable and far outweigh any negative effects, misunderstandings, bad interpretations and even ugly insinuations and diatribes that the overzealous and the extremists may cause from time to time. I guess I was wrong in that expectation. Perhaps the whole storm in a tea cup is a mere regrettable misunderstanding. I surely hope so.

Leah Sellers2013-04-14 20:48:03
Dear Brother Emanuel,
Yes Sir, I too, believe strongly in free speech. That is why I did not understand your having brought it up.
Yes Sir, I agree that there has been a regrettable misunderstanding.
Thank you for your further explanations. They were much appreciated.
I have never met you in person, but have good feelings toward the Workings of your Mind, Heart and Soul. So it pained me to be left with the impression that you were disgruntled with me on some personal level which I could not fathom, because I did not have enough information, after your second reply.
Blessings to you and yours, Sir.

© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi