estheticidea

Yes, life is movement and not frozen. But the direction of that movement is absolute--it can be only in ONE direction, or 180 degrees different. The will to live is not ambiguous. When we perceive the world, to perceive hardness and solidity is beautiful, because our functioning, our perception feels "at home" in an absolute universe. When it comes to perceiving, and painting a human being, it is beautiful to find the hard and solid aspects that are a result of the will and movement inside.

I believe this a very pure statement of the Kantian view of what reason is. There HAS to be a privileged center to the Universe--I privilege my OWN center. What matters is not the consequences of my benevolence TO OTHERS (that's a manipulative mindset)--what matters is, the consequence of my benevolence to ME. It makes ME happier.

I have been at the receiving end of this, and trust me: you don't want to be in that position. It is repulsive. If your delight becomes the object of somebody else's delight, you want it to be that somebody's authentic delight (i.e. based on authentic values), not a BORROWED one.

I don't think that when you are proud of something you did, it should make you more proud when somebody likes it and less proud when somebody dislikes it. The issue here is understanding how valuing an other person is selfish. One can value something for more than direct utility! When it concerns valuing an other person, it is rational to value his consciousness, and the character that he has shaped with it. The selfish value of a person, qua person, to you, is something he has already earned. Guru, the fact that it is his consciousness that you value, as distinct from your own, doesn't mean that this is therefore an altruistic value. If you value someone, qua conscious being, a big part of what you value about it is, that he has his independent purpose, independent from yours. It couldn't be otherwise (you couldn't say, "I will only value an other consciousness if I can force my own purpose onto it, because letting him have his own purpose would be altruistic." Having friends and in general, living in a world with other people in it adds to your happiness, quite apart from the fact that it offers utility.

It is unavoidable: when a person draws something the result is art. "Drawing something" means, drawing a world of objects "out there." Living in reality and having to act, there is no choice about it: every man operates on the basis of SOME ideas about it. The only choice he has is: which ideas? So, as soon as somebody chooses to draw something, he automatically expresses his ideas about what is important. This comes to bear from the first moment his pencil touches the paper: what does he NOTICE about the object he selected? That is ALWAYS a value judgment, whether the artist acknowledges it or not. Further, there will always be SOME integration, some level of abstraction that binds the elements into a composition. By default, the highest level of abstraction that the artist had in his subconscious mind--this is the highest meaning of the piece of art. (Even a drawing that was done by someone who does not believe he has choice, expresses an idea. If it is good art, it will probably express Determinism.) Further, the artist does not need to know explicitly, in words, what the abstraction is, for it to be a GOOD, integrated piece of art. Knowing meaning explicitly helps an artist develop his art. But at the moment of creation, the artist should FEEL, not think. This level of consciousness is what allows the artist to create art that is really ALIVE. When you are in the thick of creating, you should FEEL, and think later. The feeling is what IN FACT integrates the elements. If the artist only had the THOUGHT (and did not feel it), the idea will not be registered and won't be FELT when looking at the artwork. The abstraction in a work of art should reach the viewer's consciousness THROUGH feeling.

In Tango there are no signals and no arm motions. Fundamentally there are just body motions. In Tango there are no requests but invitations. In Tango what makes it flow smoothly is understanding your own motion (posture, balance, cadence) and feeling the motion of your partner as though it was your own.

I agree with you. The elegance of the man and the femininity of the woman are made visible. The concept of elegance in tango entails that the man initiates movement and then follows the lady in the completion of the movement. This is incorporated well in the choreography of that video. The interesting thing is that, to enjoy tango is to build this element into every single step that is done together. The femininity of the woman entails that she is extremely self-contained. This element can also be enjoyed in every step, by both partners.

Ok, now at least that is an interesting statement. I would be interested to know an example of what you think is hot, and if you are able to identify what makes it hot? I gather that you don't find sweet things hot?

It makes me sad that this is indeed the image that emerges of tango, and some people obviously revel in it. (But do you realize that there is a similar image of swing dancing, with swing dancers dressing up as gangsters, etc?) I disagree with that representation. Tango is not about anger at all, it is sweetness and earnestness. It is both serious and playful, at the same time, with playful challenging, back and forth between partners. Tango as a social dance was suppressed and almost lost between the 1950s and the 1980s. Then in the 80's tango was re-interpreted by show dancers. These show dancers didn't understand the nature of tango posture and tango movement that give it its sweetness. Instead, they copied the steps and fabricated a technique for visual effect. The dancers that I mentioned earlier, Javier and Geraldine are heroes because they helped re-discover what some of the old people still knew as tango. A vast majority of social dancers in the US don't know what this difference is and why it matters. The fundamental nature of their movement does not match the old (1920s-1950s) music and so they become indifferent to it.

Kainscalia, I never said you know nothing about tango. I suggest you read or listen more precisely before you engage somebody about something he says. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are honestly mistaken. But based on your behavior here I'm not holding my breath waiting for an apology. And that was not a "quip" about your education. I was identifying the IDEAS that you subscribe to.

Kainscalia, you insist on making ad hominem attacks. You speculate about me, and you're wrong! As I said before, let's drop it. You have nothing to offer me in this area.

Look Kainsclia, the fact that you are a good musician does not mean that you automatically understand Tango, qua dance music (let alone that you would be able to play it.) You insist in appealing to authority and keep focusing on the image that the humanities professors have created about tango. The Saura movie completely bypasses the esthetic qualities of tango as a social dance (which are very sweet indeed). And you are not interested in that either--you are trying to belittle something you know nothing about--so let's just drop it.

You imply that you know something about "THE passion behind the dance." But I am not convinced because all you give for support is cliche's and stereotypes: So Kainscalia, are you saying it was a dance of "the proletariat?" What does that have to do with "passion?" Who's passion? What does that have to do with tango as a dance? (these are rhetorical questions.) Well Kainscalia, you misread what I wrote! Your comment is not relevant to what I said.

I think for a lot of people here it would be instructive to think about what it is, and look at examples of things that are done primarily for show, as contrasted by things that are done with an earnest belief. A lot of people, when they find out that others admire them for something they do, shift their focus and lose the original authentic impulse. I think from what I remember, the substance of the movie "Tango" is merely "for show." When it comes to art it is easy to make this mistake, because the artist wants to show something. Plus, in dancing, when you do a choreography, you have to think about what the audience perceives. But this fact should not become a reason to bypass your own consciousness! When you learn a social dance like A.T. it helps that you have one more consciousness to keep your head straight (your partner.) I'm not sure how this applies to ballroom though. Ballroom does not have a good record of adopting dances like swing and tango, as it looses a lot of the sweetness and expression of the originals and creates a bad charicature of them. Piazzola created more modern music primarily for listening, not for dancing. Even though it is sophisticated music, qua tango music it didn't retain the sophistication of the older tango music that makes it a joy to dance to.

In order to master the technique you have to start also by feeling what your body is doing and isolating/analyzing it. Then you have to integrate each action into a whole. In the end, it should not just look easy, it should FEEL easy. The point is: feeling is using your senses. It is required for being objective, just as looking is, but in the case of dancing it is more important to feel than to look.

I knew I had to reply in this thread... YES! This is a great thing about SOCIAL dancing: it is an art, and it is at the same time a great way to socialize! I organize a weekly social dance of Argentine Tango, aka "milonga" in Gainesville, Fl. A beautiful (in my eyes) example of my kind of tango is shown here: . Javier Rodriguez and Geraldine Rojas are my heroes (they are no longer together). The website of my social dance is www.tangoyte.com . The name, "Tango y Té" means "tango and tea", something like "tango tearoom," to denote that it is for enjoying tango and other innocent things that go with it. Every week I get to re-create a small benevolent universe, where every woman that enters desires to be embraced by me... where everybody smiles, and people tell me, "great music, David" and I think to myself: "I'm so happy that I created the setting that allowed you to notice it!" Dare I add also that, in a sense, Argentine Tango is the most philosophical dance of all...? This is a long story, I don't have time now. Let me just say a few things. The only way to dance beautifully together is to master your own individual posture, balance and *walking*--freedom, fluidity and lightness are achieved only by being grounded all the way down. Dancing confronts you with truths about yourself: you have to move, literally, as a whole person. In Argentine Tango, all movements are fundamentally, movements of the body as a whole, and the legs follow the body, as they are literally pulled along by the motions of the body. The interesting thing about dancing this way is: the only way to dance beautifully is to be conscious only of the music and how it feels to move to it, for yourself and your partner. You can't fake it. (What I wrote here is not generally understood, as there are many misconceptions in the way tango is danced today which I also continue to wrestle with in learning this dance.)

I know the experience of feeling you are being jerked around by an antagonistic arguer. The most helpful thing for me has been to ask: "what role do I want myself to play, for my own sake?" and to realize that my primary role is to be an observer. In other words: I am here to learn something interesting, and I can study the behavior of this person, if there is something I can gain from it (maybe there is a potential item of personal growth: I can introspect!). The crucial thing to keep in mind is: this person, and anybody listening to him, is fully responsible for forming his own opinions. There has to be some initiative toward uncovering truth at some level, or else you are studying an example of dishonesty. Just like you would be studying a raindrop fall from a leaf, as an observer you have to let the action happen without feeling responsible for it. The bad opinion, or the lie, or whatever is a fact of reality driven by a cause outside you; accept that you have no influence over that cause, and study it. Very often this attitude of observing is your most powerful influence. It's the power of Howard Roark's quiet, self-contained demeanor.

Rationalism is a tough problem for the person who has it. Your preconceptions do not readily integrate with your observations, so you always have to be cautious about what you see in front of your own eyes. You have to expend a lot of effort to reconcile things, lest you wade into a contradiction. I am not a rationalist any longer. I don't worry about other people's contradictions, when it comes to my own thinking.

It occurs to me that some here are focused on judging the person of Rush Limbaugh, almost as an end in itself? The implication is: "what if I "sanction" him, and then it later turns out that I was wrong? What if he later returns to his religious dogmas and betrays us again?" But in discussing his radio monologue, it is not necessary to imply anything about the character and integrity of Rush Limbaugh. For all I care, he could be a schizophrenic man, advocating selfishness one moment and self-sacrifice the next day. That is of no concern to me. When I listened to his monologue, I judged the thinking happening "right before my ears," which was grounded in reality, first-hand, passionate. Why not identify it as such?

Ok, it's your loss. I'm not going to argue.

I'm at a loss what to say to this, because it is missing what's going on so completely. This "argument" is pure rationalism: "Rush has errors in metaphysics and epistemology. Therefore, his ideas in politics cannot be sound. Therefore he is not a good advocate for capitalism." Advice to anyone who does not see a problem with this "argument" (and I speak from my own personal experience): rationalism is a big obstacle to one's ability to think about the world. You owe it to yourself to find out what the nature of this fundamental error is.

In my opinion this is remarkable. Today in his radio program, conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh observes how Ayn Rand's ideas apply to today's politics. He starts things off by stating: "Obama, every time he opens his mouth, mentions the need for people to sacrifice. We all must suffer. We all have to jointly suffer in order for all of us to somehow be the same, and self-interest, selfishness is condemned. And self-interest is not selfishness. Self-interest is what built this country. " This is from the 3rd paragraph in the transcript, here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5110.guest.html Say of him what you want, but this man does have an active mind.

Thanks Rob. Yes, the best examples there of what I mean are: Rough', Puckett, Capuletti, Momii, and Puckett. David

I'm looking for new and beginning artists that integrate that which is playful with seriousness, in their outlook as well as in style. I am looking for elegance of method and simplicity of form. As an example: the cityscapes of Robert LaDuke: http://tinyurl.com/cu54bw Please contact me in this thread or with a personal message, if you are an artist, or if you know of one. (Also, if you like my description, we can discuss it here.) -David