Origins of Shaolin? [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

brucereiter

12-18-2006, 12:03 AM

hinayana and mahayana are different but chan and mahayana are almost the same. it is tamo who created chan out of mahayana. mahayana is considered the greater vehicle and hinayana is the lesser vehicle. they both come from hinduism

dyana is the sanskirt word for chan and one of buddhas followers was the first in that school bodhidarma i think was the 29th in line ... i think bodhidarma brought chan to chine and did not create it ...

< Once, in ancient times, when the World-Honored One was at Mount Grdhrakata, he twirled a flower before his assembled disciples. All were silent. Only Mahakasyapa broke into a smile.

The World-Honored One said, "I have the eye treasury of right Dharma, the subtle mind of Nirvana, the true form of no-form, and the flawless gate of the teaching. It is not established upon words and phrases. It is a special transmission outside tradition. I now entrust this to Mahakasyapa." >

tattooedmonk

12-18-2006, 07:12 AM

dyana is the sanskirt word for chan and one of buddhas followers was the first in that school bodhidarma i think was the 29th in line ... i think bodhidarma brought chan to chine and did not create it ...

< Once, in ancient times, when the World-Honored One was at Mount Grdhrakata, he twirled a flower before his assembled disciples. All were silent. Only Mahakasyapa broke into a smile.

The World-Honored One said, "I have the eye treasury of right Dharma, the subtle mind of Nirvana, the true form of no-form, and the flawless gate of the teaching. It is not established upon words and phrases. It is a special transmission outside tradition. I now entrust this to Mahakasyapa." > he was the 28 patriarch of buddhism and is the first patriarch of chan.

brucereiter

12-18-2006, 10:41 AM

he was the 28 patriarch of buddhism and is the first patriarch of chan.
hi,

that is correct 28th ... i was going from memory ... my point was that chan, zen and dyhana are the same thing ... bodhidarma did not create it he spread it.
as far as i know :)

best,

bruce

GeneChing

12-18-2006, 11:51 AM

We've visited this discussion before. You all should take a look at Meat, Wine, and Fighting Monks: Did Shaolin Monks breach Buddhist Dietary Regulations?
by Dr. Meir Shahar (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/ezine/article.php?article=521)

TaiXu

12-18-2006, 01:36 PM

Thanks!

In Chinese Vajra(Jingang), also implies saint or a Buddha's guardian.

tattooedmonk

12-18-2006, 10:06 PM

hi,

that is correct 28th ... i was going from memory ... my point was that chan, zen and dyhana are the same thing ... bodhidarma did not create it he spread it.
as far as i know :)

best,

bruce chan, zen and dyhana are all the same thing but what I said was that he created chan out of buddhism ( his interpretation of mahayana tradition of buddhism ) hence him being refered to as the first patriarch of chan.

GeneChing

12-19-2006, 10:51 AM

I merged two older Bodhidharma threads into this one. (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38368) Perhaps if this thread makes any progress, I'll merge it into that thread too. Right now, this thread sort of pales by comparison, at least so far. It's always best to do a little search before you post. Our search engine isn't the greatest, but at least you can avoid being overly redundant. Always do your research. ;)

There's a few more threads that are related, since like I said, we've been here before. I might dig around for and link up here later.

Sal Canzonieri

12-19-2006, 07:31 PM

In the 1990s I did many articles for Gene's magazine, Wushu Kung Fu Qi GOng,
on the true origin of Shaolin martial arts, its all there if you want to dig them up.

The Damo origin of Shaolin martial arts has been debunked many years ago.

Sal Canzonieri

12-19-2006, 07:33 PM

an interesting note that no one notices anymore:

Damo's successor was said to have lost his right arm
and all Lohan Shaolin forms start out on the left side with the left arm doing the initiation of the movements, all the 18 Lohan forms start this way,
even 18 Lohan forms from other system besides Shaolin.

GeneChing

12-20-2006, 10:34 AM

...actually the martial arts field just figured this out recently, but it's been rather common knowledge within the Buddhist circles for some time. Bodhidharma was mythical however that in no way detracts from the value of the lessons that have been passed down which have been attributed to him.

Following up on Sal's comment, the Shaolin tradition of a one-armed bow is also credited to Huike, Bodhidharma's one-armed disciple.

You can find listings of all our previous table of contents in our magazine section (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/index.php)- even back when we were called Kungfu Wushu Qigong (we changed our titles for reasons described here (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38007)). It's worthy of note that our latest issue, our 2007 Shaolin Special (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=687), features another fine contribution from Sal, The Hidden Song Taizu Chang Quan Roots of Chen Taiji.

Shaolinlueb

12-20-2006, 11:52 AM

so if damo didnt create it then who did? and was shaolin always have week monks? or was this just all a plan to promote their kung fu?

Sal Canzonieri

12-20-2006, 02:19 PM

so if damo didnt create it then who did? and was shaolin always have week monks? or was this just all a plan to promote their kung fu?

From the beginning of the temple's existence, guards were needed,
they were often retired Generals.

They were forced to be retired by the governors and Emperors because generals
with nothing to do are considered a possible future threat, heh heh.

Often they were given a choice, "retirement" by beheading or castration.
Those that chose castration became monks.

Anways, many ex-military people lived at Shaolin as guards and they studied the religion and became monks.

These people developed over time Shaolin martial arts.
Mostly it was Shaui Jiao type takedowns mixed with long fist boxing type movements so that it could be practiced both as sport to while away time and stay fit and as self defense movements to protect the place from robbers (MANY robbers tried and suceeded in ripping off people around Shaolin.

Shaolin owned a LOT of land and they had tenet farmers that grew crops for the temple.

that's the real, unglamorous story of how Shaolin martial arts developed.

It was all loose techniques until after the Song Dynasty, by the Qing dynasty, forms were developed that codified the movements.

Over the centuries many martial arts ideas from many different stylists found their way into Shaolin and hence it became known as a "library" of martial arts, not necessarily that they invented new styles, Shaolin was really good at amalagamating different ideas together.
(Like it's Chan/Zen , which is essentialy Taoism and Buddhism and a little tiny bit of Confucianism mixed together.)

Many techniques/forms/substyles from Shaolin left there with the people that practiced them and they were gone for good from the temple's curriculum.
Hence, in the nearby provinces and local villages, people perserved long lines of Shaolin forms/moves/whatever that have not be done at Shaolin for many ages.

Shaolin closed and opened so many times that there are a lot of different martial arts that come from it, depending on the time period and who was doing what at Shaolin during that time.

The forms seen done at Shaolin today (skipping all the modern wushu crap!)
have their origins at the earliest in the Ming Dynasty and mostly in the Qing dynasty.
Very few forms are still know that are from earlier than Ming time (such as Xin Yi Ba, Tai Tzu Chang Quan, and some scattered forms).

Shaolinlueb

12-20-2006, 04:26 PM

From the beginning of the temple's existence, guards were needed,
they were often retired Generals.

They were forced to be retired by the governors and Emperors because generals
with nothing to do are considered a possible future threat, heh heh.

Often they were given a choice, "retirement" by beheading or castration.
Those that chose castration became monks.

Anways, many ex-military people lived at Shaolin as guards and they studied the religion and became monks.

These people developed over time Shaolin martial arts.
Mostly it was Shaui Jiao type takedowns mixed with long fist boxing type movements so that it could be practiced both as sport to while away time and stay fit and as self defense movements to protect the place from robbers (MANY robbers tried and suceeded in ripping off people around Shaolin.

Shaolin owned a LOT of land and they had tenet farmers that grew crops for the temple.

that's the real, unglamorous story of how Shaolin martial arts developed.

It was all loose techniques until after the Song Dynasty, by the Qing dynasty, forms were developed that codified the movements.

Over the centuries many martial arts ideas from many different stylists found their way into Shaolin and hence it became known as a "library" of martial arts, not necessarily that they invented new styles, Shaolin was really good at amalagamating different ideas together.
(Like it's Chan/Zen , which is essentialy Taoism and Buddhism and a little tiny bit of Confucianism mixed together.)

Many techniques/forms/substyles from Shaolin left there with the people that practiced them and they were gone for good from the temple's curriculum.
Hence, in the nearby provinces and local villages, people perserved long lines of Shaolin forms/moves/whatever that have not be done at Shaolin for many ages.

Shaolin closed and opened so many times that there are a lot of different martial arts that come from it, depending on the time period and who was doing what at Shaolin during that time.

The forms seen done at Shaolin today (skipping all the modern wushu crap!)
have their origins at the earliest in the Ming Dynasty and mostly in the Qing dynasty.
Very few forms are still know that are from earlier than Ming time (such as Xin Yi Ba, Tai Tzu Chang Quan, and some scattered forms).

sal

you should change your name to kung fu encyclopedia!!!

thanks man, i figured something along the lines of fighters going there to hide or something. but thanks for the better explanation.

Adam

GeneChing

12-21-2006, 10:34 AM

If you stop and think about it, just how many retired generals do you think there were in ancient China? If you spread that population of retirees across all the countess temples in China, it becomes a bit of a preposterous presumption to think that they had a significant influence on the creation of Shaolin kung fu. Of course, you might try to weasel out that there were more retired captains, sergeants, etc., but at a certain point, that gets a little preposterous too. Why bother living at a monastery if you're low ranking enough to return to civilian life? Monastic life is hard. It's a life of renunciation. This doesn't mean that there were no retired military that took up the cloth, just that it probably doesn't account for the majority of the martial monastic population.

Here in America, we have a rather skewed perception of monastic life. There aren't that many functioning monasteries here, certainly none with more than two centuries under their belts. Most Americans base their ideas of monastic life upon pure fiction - movies and such - which is one reason why Americans seem to have so many issues with Shaolin. The idea of martial monks is actually quite universal, not just in China, but throughout Asian and even in European traditions. The Crusades have a martial monastic connection, but probably the most prominent western martial monk was Friar Tuck. Do some research into 'holy water sprinklers' and you'll find some other evidence about martial monks in the West. Every holy place holds treasures, ergo, every holy place needs a standing private militia. You'll find esoteric martial practices in temples everywhere. In China, there are plenty of martial temples beyond Shaolin, such as Wudang, Emei, Funiu, Wutai, just to name a few.

Which leaves the more intriguing question of why is Shaolin so predominant as a martial monastery? That's actually fairly easy to answer too. Again, you just need to look at history. The entire area of Henan is surrounded by martial arts cradles like Chen village, and there's good reason for this. It was a cultural center of China. Nearby Zhengzhou has 5300 years of recorded history. During 3600 of those years, on five separate occasions, it served as the nation’s capital. You needn't look much ****her than the Luoyang grottoes to realize the massive achievements of this area. Now Shaolin controlled a temple at Baigu fort, a major pass to Luoyang. From a tactical standpoint, it was like Hawaii for the U.S. in WWII. In that respect, it wasn't so much about retired generals. It was a more active military influence, and one that was sanctioned under a Buddhist-partial government.

lunghushan

12-22-2006, 07:54 PM

Honestly, how are you sure that China isn't a myth? Just because you've been there, how do you really know that was China, and not just someplace around the North Pole?

Perhaps all Chinese are eskimos and all Indians are actually from South America? :p

Anyways, it is well known that some emperors in China used the monk's military forces to their advantage, and not just Chinese but also Tibetan.

Baqualin

12-26-2006, 03:00 PM

lunghushan

12-26-2006, 03:27 PM

I'm glad to see some things don't change.....the King of the TROLLS is back:p

Why don't you stop calling people trolls? Just because I don't want to come out and play with you ...

Besides, trolls are these big gargantuan monsters and I'm a little peon.

Anyway, I won't go into the entire history of martial monks, the Templars, all the different orders in the West, and all that. They've done a few movies on that recently. But suffice it to say China isn't the only place with martial monks.

David Jamieson

12-27-2006, 09:11 AM

yeah, the righteous, scholarly and upright moralistic knight is a persian concept really. The grubby europeans got it from there and then took it back there during the crusades with a little bit of twisted factor applied to the original concept of the Palavhan.

:p

ta mo story of shaolin kungfu is poppy****, anyone who's read even only one book about historical context surrounding buddhism in china knows this. It is martial arts schools mostly that perpetuate the nonsense and this is probably due to the direct transmission meythod of teacher >student over numerous years where a lie or an untruth is told over and over again so many times that people become convinced it's true.

In actuality, the very existance of a monk named bodhidharma is contentious. It s notable that in order to give credibility to an idea in many cultures, including the chinese, to defray from any pecadillos you yourself may ahve, it is considered wiser to attribute the message to someone else. Often a mythical or polished version of a person living or dead who cannot be questioned etc etc.

so. you attrribute your idea to someone else who can't be rebutted really and you can get the movement going. ergo, It is very likely that Hui ke was the real first patriarch of ch'an in chinese buddhism. Ch'an was practiced in china before Hui Ke and before the legend of bodhidharma in actuality and goes back to india and it's practices of mixed martial/spiritual development arts.

I have found that at the level of "martial artist" history has it's greatest inaccuracies and plain untruths not to mention really dumb ass ideas about what's what or rather what was what in China. :p

a lot of it is laughable. not trying to be negative, just a warning to avoid the pitfalls of blundering about trying to learn history from a sauce chef or tying to learn calculus from a coconut picker. Don't go to the wrong source and you'll get closer to what is true. And don't forget that filial piety and what not often puts any martial arts school's stories out with an agenda. IE promote taht school and art and make the strongest connections there.

It's weird, but so are lots of things.

GeneChing

12-27-2006, 10:14 AM

The real problem here is a lack of wisdom within the martial arts, especially lately. We reject what is myth and accept only some strange permutation of what we now term 'reality' (as in street fighting, MMA or whatever). Mythology is extremely important. Within it are the very threads that make the fabric of our culture. Just because it isn't true in the literal sense doesn't invalidate its significance. Sure, Bodhidharma is mythical, but it's a very important myth. Embedded within this myth are many intrinsic lessons. Bodhidharma represents commitment, vision, enlightenment, unattachment - many concepts that form the backbone of Shaolin. There's an implicit moral code of behavior transmitted in these myths. You don't get that from forms. You don't get that from sparring. You only get that from embracing the myth and understanding what it represents. Throw that out as poppy****, and out goes the baby with the bath water.

The real fault here is that most students take their lessons too literally, whether that be in forms, in sparring or in myth. They don't investigate applications beyond combat or outside the ring or the message underlying any legend. They just take things at face value and go no further. That's the real enemy of tradition - shallow students, and consequently, shallow teachers.

lunghushan

12-27-2006, 01:15 PM

KungFu Student

12-27-2006, 02:41 PM

I guess it is a bit irksome that you keep saying Bodhidharma is mythical. Just because there's texts saying he was born off a lotus leaf or something doesn't mean he didn't exist, just that some writers had an over-active imagination.

Take Jesus Christ and all the legends. Just because some people made up a religion about him doesn't mean there wasn't an actual person.

What sort of incontrovertible evidence do you have that Bodhidharma never existed? How about Guatama Buddha, do you have any evidence about him too?

I think the real question is does it matter if Bodhidharma existed or not? He represents an ideal to strive for. Kinda like Davy Crockett at the Alamo. The legend is that he fought to the death, but some modern evidence hints that he might have surrendered and was executed. But if the legend inspires people to be more than what they are, then it serves it's purpose. It is the same with Bodhidharma, in my opinion.

GeneChing

12-27-2006, 02:44 PM

There probably was a real Bodhidharma, but his involvement with Shaolin and Zen are likely to have been fabricated. Bodhidharma is mentioned in too few historical works - Biographies of Eminent monks is probably one the most significant. Many of his feats have a mythical air, like the creation of tea by cutting off his eyelids or nine-year sit resulting in a bird's nest on his shoulder, so I don't think it is at all out of place to regard him mythical. I just wouldn't call him poppy****. Nor would I consider rejecting it. Even in those two myths, there is an implicit lesson.

lunghushan

12-27-2006, 03:08 PM

Well you have to remember that China had a lot of purges of temples and monks and a changing political landscape. So the records aren't always so great.

Vajramusti

12-27-2006, 04:56 PM

Apart from the miracle legends---if anyone is interested in some serious work and translations related to the Bodhidharama...folks might want to read the article with pictures by Andy Ferguson in the Winter 2006 issue of the journal "Buddhadharma". Ferguson travelled with the very knowledgeable "Red Pine" to key places including Bear Mountain a little over an hour's drive from Luoyang where Bodhidharma's remains were said to be located and a stupa was built later. There is a stupa in honor of the Bodhidharma. The temple there originally called "Ding Lin"(meditation forest) was renamed as "Kong Xiang"(="Empty Form") 200 years after Bodhidharma's death around 535 to honor him by the Tang Emperor Xuan Zong. Emptiness POV was different from Fa hsien's Yogacara school of "Consciousness". Ferguson and Ped Pine also visited the flat topped knoll at Huike's "Second Ancestor" village where the oral tradition is that both the Bodhidharma and Huike expounded the fresh newly arrived Dhyan/Chan/Zen .
Red Pine also did the translation of the Bodhidharma's original sermon "The Outline of Practice"-which still had the Indian flavor in its expressions.You might want to read references also in Red Pine's great translation of Hui neng's The Platform Sutra. Red Pine apprently will soon come out with another book.
Stories get exaggerated over time with many historical figures- but epistemologies when properly analyzed remain- ditto for the Dhyan/Chan Bodhidharama concepts of emptiness and the mind.
One should tread witha little care and make distinctions. There is the story of the Bodhidharma crossing the Yangste on a "Reed". Not too far fetched if one understand that boats made of reed were quite common for crossing the Yangste..
As a Buddhist the Bodhidharma is not likely to have invented a martial art...but it is not too far fetched to see the impact of "emptiness", disciplining the breath, conquering the body and quietening the mind on several traditions-including aspects of martial traditions.

joy chaudhuri

David Jamieson

12-27-2006, 05:05 PM

The idea that came forth and is propelled through time out of the legends associated with the development of zen and the martial arts is indeed a good one.

But bodhidharma walks a fine line because it is often asked that he be accepted as reality. Your point:

The real fault here is that most students take their lessons too literally, whether that be in forms, in sparring or in myth. They don't investigate applications beyond combat or outside the ring or the message underlying any legend. They just take things at face value and go no further. That's the real enemy of tradition - shallow students, and consequently, shallow teachers.

Is good, but putting the fault on students is to put the fault in the generation before and before that and so on, because that's where it came from.

In context to zen this is absolutely true no matter who you're talking about. :p

So the face value should probably be taken aback more from the myths and legends and imo, more needs to be done towards the non visceral aspects of kungfu as opposed to walking further towards that. But you make that point as well ~G.

Historical evidence and provenance of documentation or other media in that nature is absolutely important to reining in myths and distilling them to their real meanings.

GeneChing

12-28-2006, 01:04 PM

I met Andy Ferguson years ago when doing a work study at Tassajara. I've always wanted to go on one of his research tours. And I'm still chipping at a galley of Red Pine's translation of the Platform Sutra. Thanks for the reference, Joy.

LHS: As for records, they aren't great, but they aren't that bad either. There's plenty of stele, imperial, and gazette accounts that are available to scholarly researchers. Of course, you start to beg the question with that point. If you deny the existence of historical and archeologic evidence, that supports neither argument. Then it just becomes a question of who has more faith, and I don't really want to go there.

lunghushan

12-28-2006, 01:12 PM

Gene, I've been involved myself in a few news articles that people wrote about either my or my friends exploits in the past 30 years or so, and none of those articles were accurate. There were small and large inaccuracies.

If the media today and records are wrong, I hate to think what somebody's interpretation of a 3000 year old document that has been copied by several people and possibly translated into a couple of different languages is.

Suffice it to say that I wouldn't want to form any big conclusions about anything based upon any of those documents or records.

I don't deny the existence of those things -- but I don't think you can tell the truth from those things.

GeneChing

12-28-2006, 01:30 PM

But let me ask you this LHS: if you can't reach conclusions based on records or archeology, how do you determine history?

lunghushan

12-28-2006, 01:36 PM

But let me ask you this LHS: if you can't reach conclusions based on records or archeology, how do you determine history?

I don't think you can really determine history, definitely not 100%. Can you really know what a dead painter or a dead composer was trying to do with a work? Or what a novelist was really trying to get at?

Personally I think what's more interesting is how people make their conclusions based upon such works and work themselves into such a fervor that they would kill, such as many religious fundamentalists. I just don't understand that one at all.

But especially history and archaeology -- it's highly political. They had some show about the Dead Sea scrolls recently, and the findings based upon their translations.

They showed some of the politics involved in changing people's views on subjects that were already based upon limited archaeological evidence, based upon further limited archaeological evidence, and it was pretty startling how political it all is.

So when somebody talks to me about China, usually it is a sifu or somebody, I think you have to ask yourself, why are they telling you this? If they say their art is based upon Shaolin, and talk about Da Mo, why are they telling you this? Is it really relevant to the martial art? Or are they trying to sell you?

I guess if there's a 50% probability, or a 70% probability of something, it's interesting that people will not use fuzzy logic in their reasoning. I was talking to my Grandmother while I was visiting her about the Bible and the three wise men from the East. Because if there were 3 wise men from the East, then where East would they have come from? They must have come from Persia, China or India, right? Or were they just from Chaldea? And the things they brought, Frankincense and Myrrh (they used to trade from China and India to get African Frankincense and myrrh, or at least one would assume) along trade routes ...

Anyway, she said she never thought about it and she doesn't concern herself with such matters. Yet she is a fervent Christian and believes the nativity story -- yet she never thought about it.

That, I think, is more relevant, how people will accept things based upon a book or what they were told, without thinking about it.

lunghushan

12-28-2006, 04:03 PM

Anyway, I don't think people who study Chinese history really READ the books.

Like if you read Chuang Tzu, he talks a lot about environmental problems, and cutting down trees causing problems. They faced environmental problems in his time due to overpopulation and environmental degradation.

China is facing a LOT of environmental problems today from the same issues. Dust from areas that used to be grass (that probably used to be trees), etc.

They had a big article about dust from environmental problems in the Seattle Times today.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003498352_cashmere282.html

But nobody is interested in that. They'd rather argue about the origins of Shaolin or if Bodhidharma even existed.

GeneChing

01-03-2007, 10:59 AM

Hey Joy,
That was a fine article by Andy Ferguson. What an exciting trip. I also liked the article on diversity. It came to a predictable conclusion, but it clarified some terms that have been floating around Buddhist circles for me. Thanks again for the lead! I would have totally missed it.

David Jamieson

01-04-2007, 07:54 PM

~G

You live in a country that believes Christopher Columbus discovered it.

Christopher Columbus believed he discovered India.

In other words, data can be and is manipulated to suit an agenda and spread a meme that creates a status quo and a power base.

There are flaws beyond heavenly and there are truths forever hidden.

We simply have to choose to believe or not believe barring the self evident.

Shaolin Wookie

01-07-2007, 02:01 PM

I don't think you can really determine history, definitely not 100%. Can you really know what a dead painter or a dead composer was trying to do with a work? Or what a novelist was really trying to get at?

I don't think that's what Gene was getting at....if I can step into this quagmire of interpretational semantics....

I happen to be an artist, writer, and a poet, and people tell me all the time what my work says to them. 100% of the time--it's not what I intended. But what I intended was simply my intention. I couldn't give a flying duck what they thought my intention was in doing something, choosing a word, or using a particular person, color, or shape in a painting. When I'm asked--why did you do this or that? I reply: Because that's what I did....

The question is--are you examining the painting, or are you getting lost in the details and intentions? If I wanted to convey intentions, I'd write them down in plain english and then publish them, and then forget about the artistry. But would it be entertaining? I love satire...it's funny...but does it really, truly, have to be anything more than entertaining? I love philosophy...it's intriguing...but does it have to be true? True according to whom? If it were true, it would cease to be philosophy, and philosophy would be dead.

The idea of 100% accuracy is an incubus...imagine how boring the world would be with 100% accuracy in everything. For example--this forum wouldn't exist, b/c we would all know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that MMA is hte best martial art out there, right?;)

This is especially true with history--if you read enough, you'll see prejudice in every history book you read...either by keeping certain details from the record, or downplaying those that might be contradictory to a given viewpoint. I read history all the time, my favorite being Roman (it covers the same problems we're having today)...

If we're talking religion....naw, I'm an atheistic buddhist/taoist (despite their mutual seclusion)...we better not go down that road.:D

The Bodhidharma type figures in history serve a purpose--they give focus to things that take too long to explain in historical terms, especially where few trustworthy written records exist. (Read a little Jung for elucidation).

Because Bodhidharma myths exist, the man exists. There are histories that declare he's a real guy, based on actual facts. Facts according to whom?

You can quibble about 100% accuracy, lineages, etc.

But this world is just a series of delusions, none verifiable, none lasting.

It's more like pick your delusion.

And if you don't pick, you're still in the delusion of being without delusion.

Shaolin Wookie

01-07-2007, 02:08 PM

Go check out Quantum Physics and the Copenhagen Interpretation...

There's empirical evidence that reality doesn't even exist at the most basic level of physical phenomena....

And yet we experience it--therefore creating it for ourselves.

I'm talking actual science--not metaphysics...

If you've studied quantum physics and it has not shocked you dead, then you haven't understood it....--to paraphrase Niels Bohr.

If reality can't even be verified at a subatomic level, how could history in its macroscopic generalities?

It's all delusions, my friend....

And that's kind of why I fell into buddhism......and martial arts as well....

Yet another delusion...reinforced by another delusion....

Baqualin

01-08-2007, 08:19 AM

GeneChing

01-08-2007, 11:36 AM

Actually, I had no intention of going into wave-particle duality here, but it's a more interesting detour than environmental problems. Or perhaps not.

My question is simply this: what do you base your conclusions on? You can say that history/archeology/research is false, but that doesn't allow you to assert a counter argument unless you produce some sort of contrary evidence. If everything is false, where does that leave you? I'd accept nihilism or faith as an answer here, ironically. It's much easier than grappling with quantum physics.

Anyway, I'd encourage you all to engage the article that Joy cited. It's quite good and actually relevant to this thread. It's also on the newsstands right now, so if you post on this thread without engaging it, it's really hard to take you seriously. Whether or not you believe the research, you still need to engage it to participate in the debate.

Or perhaps not. ;)

MasterKiller

01-08-2007, 12:46 PM

I don't think that's what Gene was getting at....if I can step into this quagmire of interpretational semantics....

I happen to be an artist, writer, and a poet, and people tell me all the time what my work says to them. 100% of the time--it's not what I intended.

Then you are probably not very good.

While the observer brings a whole host of psychological baggage to the table which the artist cannot possibly consider, if you cannot steer people in the direction you want them to go, you are wasting your time trying to be an artist.

Intent is everything. It prevents a painting from becoming wallpaper.

You can't build a road to Istanbul and not put up street signs; otherwise, no one will arrive in Istanbul. It's the artists job to build the street and make sure all the necessary street signs are in place.

Unless of course you are a Deconstruction Theorists. In which case, you can't even trust the letters on the page to convey the words you think they are conveying.

Lamassu

01-09-2007, 09:29 AM

Then you are probably not very good.

While the observer brings a whole host of psychological baggage to the table which the artist cannot possibly consider, if you cannot steer people in the direction you want them to go, you are wasting your time trying to be an artist.

Intent is everything. It prevents a painting from becoming wallpaper.

You can't build a road to Istanbul and not put up street signs; otherwise, no one will arrive in Istanbul. It's the artists job to build the street and make sure all the necessary street signs are in place.

Unless of course you are a Deconstruction Theorists. In which case, you can't even trust the letters on the page to convey the words you think they are conveying.

What??? :confused:

Art is a form of expression, the only 'job' any artist has is to convey his emotions, thoughts and ideas. The artist can make his work as subtle or as blatently obvious as he wants. Just because the viewer doesn't know the artists intentions at first glance is what precisely makes his work NOT wallpaper. Ever look at wallpaper? The intentions on any given wallpaper seem pretty clear to me. If you, the viewer, can look at a painting and see exactly what the artist is trying to convey then it's wallpaper, aka crap, but if you look at the painting a second and third time and see something new or some other intent is revealed to you after careful study, then it becomes art. A "masterpiece", by definition of the art community is a work that requires at least 5 separate viewings to garner all the intricities, meaning and 'intent' that the artist is trying to convey with that piece. Otherwise, it's just wallpaper. BTW, why Istanbul?

GeneChing

01-09-2007, 10:33 AM

Well, this thread just took a sharp turn. I like it. To bring things full circle, let's overlay this discussion of the expressionistic intention of artists and the transmission to the observer on the art at hand - martial arts. Swap a few nouns and we're now discussing meaning in martial arts. For arguments sake, let's toss all the evolutionary processes aside for a moment and reinterpret our topic. If the intentions of a martial art founder gets misinterpreted by a successive practitioner, is it still good? To put it in more tangible terms, if Bruce Lee founded Jeet Kune Do, and if his students/followers totally missed Lee's original intention, can they still get to Istanbul?

MasterKiller

01-09-2007, 11:09 AM

A "masterpiece", by definition of the art community is a work that requires at least 5 separate viewings to garner all the intricities, meaning and 'intent' that the artist is trying to convey with that piece.

What community college did learn that from? A masterpiece is an artists best work--his Master Piece. The term is often misused and misunderstood.

I've looked at paintings 200 times and gotten deeper insight each time. Each time I read On the Road, going on about 11 now, I see new things.

Art is a form of expression, the only 'job' any artist has is to convey his emotions, thoughts and ideas. The artist can make his work as subtle or as blatently obvious as he wants.
Yeah, but he still intends for you to see his expression a certain way. What good does it do to "Express" without intention? If I want to express my sadness, but everyone thinks I was really happy, I just failed, no matter how obvious or subtle I was trying to be.

BTW, why Istanbul?

Would you prefer Constantinople?

MasterKiller

01-09-2007, 11:22 AM

If the intentions of a martial art founder gets misinterpreted by a successive practitioner, is it still good? Only if it works.

To put it in more tangible terms, if Bruce Lee founded Jeet Kune Do, and if his students/followers totally missed Lee's original intention, can they still get to Istanbul? Sure they can get to Istanbul, but they may get lost along the way and have to stop for directions, or even have to hire a new guide to show them the route.

Shaolin Wookie

01-09-2007, 11:25 AM

To Gene: Yeah, they just take a detour. And then you get Shaolin-Do....hahahaha:D

To MK: that's the difference in perspective between artists and viewers, or writers and readers. Stating exactly what you mean in art is like masturbation....you learn this after a while. Statements of purpose are rookie mistakes. When you put up your work for public review, you learn to shut up real quick. Let the deconstruction come---just don't do it yourself, or else the deconstructionists won't talk about your work, and if they won't, nobody else will (i.e. you talk too much about yourself and then you don't get laid). It's a vicious system....:rolleyes:

Do you think that Hemmingway had much to say, in the way of intent? I don't. He had a kind of existential tone, and I suppose that influenced his writing, but is he really trying to explain existentialism? Nope. Not like Dostoevsky...or Sartre...

Now take Victor Hugo or Ayn Rand---they're bogged down with ideals and philosophy. Everything means something--everything's connected to something else, and there's rarely a wasted word. They demonstrate things--especially Romanticism. Their intents are laid out across the board, and hence leave very little to the imagination--yet they're two of my favorite writers. Now take someone like Joseph Conrad or Henry James.....and tell me what either one meant to say. Everyone agrees they had intent....but they disagree as to what. Just look at Achebe's interpretation of [I]Heart of Darkness to get the picture.

Then there's Voltaire and Byron--their characters embody the ideals of personal philosophies....they'll make you think---but they'll make you think like them (that's the catch).

Now take the Holy Babble...I mean, Bible, :o . How anyone gets objectivity out of something so self-contradictory and subjective (God embodies the universe...then God embodies Israel...then humankind...then the friggin' universe again...then souls and ghosts, demons and goblins--or Native Americans [props to the Mormons];) ), I haven't a friggin' clue....

As for me....I'm not abstract---I'm more of a post-romantic [my made-up genre] (wannabe J.L. David....sometimes more like JWS Turner...) depending on the mood. I have things to say, and if my intent is in the painting, I succeeded. But do I care if everyone gets my intent? Nope. Then nobody would talk about my work....and it would be a dreadful bore. I'd wind up painting calendars for a living:rolleyes: .

Objective or subjective...who cares? If you're quibbling over that, then you've missed the point.

Then again, maybe I subjectively suck in an objective kind of way....;)

MasterKiller

01-09-2007, 11:30 AM

To MK: that's the difference in perspective between artists and viewers, or writers and readers. Stating exactly what you mean in art is like masturbation....you learn this after a while. Statements of purpose are rookie mistakes. When you put up your work for public review, you learn to shut up real quick. Let the deconstruction come---just don't do it yourself, or else the deconstructionists won't talk about your work, and if they won't, nobody else will (i.e. you talk too much about yourself [instead of listening to the chick--and that's all she really wants to do anyway] and then you don't get laid). It's a vicious system....:rolleyes:

Intention is not the same as explantion.

As for rookie mistakes, I leave those to the people that have not published any novels.

Shaolin Wookie

01-09-2007, 11:46 AM

Yeah, but he still intends for you to see his expression a certain way. What good does it do to "Express" without intention? If I want to express my sadness, but everyone thinks I was really happy, I just failed, no matter how obvious or subtle I was trying to be.

What Utopia are you livin' in, MK? The first and foremost thought in any artist's mind is this--whether he admits it or not---will anyone read or look at this?

Hence, you sell out from the beginning. After that, you put your prejudice into the work. You take it where you want. But first and foremost, the audience's feelings and interests are always on top....if you want any exposure.

And expression/creativity of intention is not what always seals the deal. After all, who's the best selling author in the world? Daniel Steele:mad:.

Gene can attest to this. Hell, he featured GM Sin once or twice in KFM and they talked him up as the real deal....;)

Herman Mellville is accredited with the greatest American novel. He died a pauper, unknown, after living a miserable life working in a custom's house. Tough love...he thought he was a failure. So now, MK, what's a masterpiece? It's what people like and hate. I can tell you this--most masterpieces hailed by the public are the books and paintings least-loved or regarded by the artist, himself. And that's the gospel truth, my brotha....

As long as people are reading it, or looking at it, who cares what they think but them, in the end?

Shaolin Wookie

01-09-2007, 11:50 AM

How much, after all, did Da Vinci say about his Mona Lisa?

Not a goddam word.

How many volumes are written about that one painting?

****, man, there's a movie about it.:p

MasterKiller

01-09-2007, 12:04 PM

What Utopia are you livin' in, MK? The first and foremost thought in any artist's mind is this--whether he admits it or not---will anyone read or look at this?

Not the published authors I hang around. They usually have a story to tell, and set out to tell it first and foremost.

People who write for a living usually cater to their audience so they can make lots of money.

The authors I know start with a story or a character first. Of course, once it goes to the publisher, they often ask you to rewrite or change things for marketability. But that is an after-thought.

....if you want any exposure. Depends on the exposure you are looking for. If you want to be a millionaire, then I agree.

But there are lots of writers out there who publish significant works but still have to work a day job. Critics know them. Other writers know them. But they are unknown to most of the free world. Those are usually the guys I read.

And expression/creativity of intention is not what always seals the deal. After all, who's the best selling author in the world? Daniel Steele:mad:. I can guarantee you that Daniel Steele's intentions are readily apparent in every paragraph she writes.

Gene can attest to this. Hell, he featured GM Sin once or twice in KFM and they talked him up as the real deal....;) That is neither here nor there.

So now, MK, what's a masterpiece? Have you read any of Melville's other stuff? Mobey **** is his best work. Since when does best = most popular? Light My Fire was the Door's most popular song, but it hardly compares to The End or Crystal Ship. Drove Jim Morrison d@mn near crazy.

As long as people are reading it, or looking at it, who cares what they think but them, in the end? Serious artists, that's who.

Lamassu

01-09-2007, 12:41 PM

What community college did learn that from? A masterpiece is an artists best work--his Master Piece. The term is often misused and misunderstood.

I got my BFA in Studio Arts at Texas State University, and I'm working on my Masters in Historic Preservation at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. So, what do I know? :rolleyes: And someone's best work, their "master piece", can still be considered crap in the community and therefore not a true masterpiece.

I've looked at paintings 200 times and gotten deeper insight each time. Each time I read On the Road, going on about 11 now, I see new things.

You must be a VERY existential person :p

Yeah, but he still intends for you to see his expression a certain way. What good does it do to "Express" without intention? If I want to express my sadness, but everyone thinks I was really happy, I just failed, no matter how obvious or subtle I was trying to be.

You just said you've looked at paintings 200 times and get deeper insight each time, so you didn't see a certain aspect of his expression until the 200th study. Maybe that's the artists...intent? :eek: Like conveying sadness through superficial trappings of happiness, and it would take several study's for the viewer to realize this. Sure it's easier to convey their intention, sadness in this case, at first glance and then the viewer gets promptly bored with it and the piece is forgotten. Or the artist can take the viewer on a wild and crazy ride with his subtlety and trappings of happiness only for the viewer to realize after say the 200 viewing that the artist is in fact sad. It's the journey not JUST the destination that makes a work of art memorable and thus a 'masterpiece'.
Would you prefer Constantinople?

"So if you have a date in Constantinople, she'll be waiting in Istanbul."

MasterKiller

01-09-2007, 12:58 PM

Or the artist can take the viewer on a wild and crazy ride with his subtlety and trappings of happiness only for the viewer to realize after say the 200 viewing that the artist is in fact sad.

And you don't see the intention in this? It doesn't just happen by accident.

Shaolin Wookie

01-09-2007, 01:06 PM

I disagree. Bartleby the Scrivener was his best work. I've hated every workweek job that I've ever had--it has personal resonance. And as for plot and character development--I it's on par with Moby ****, word-for-word. See MK-we're 2 different people. I happen to think that Kerouac is pure crap. We don't have to agree on anything. And we don't.:p

And as for intents: My intent is always this (I'm anonymous here, so I don't suppose it'll hurt if I state it) is to make the viewer/reader think. My tone is always skeptical and satirical. Sometimes it's sincere, sometimes I play devil's advocate. I make an argument, and you get to interpret it. I don't cram ideals in anyone's face. You read and get what you want from a book. I read and get what I want from a book. When I look at a painting, I look for it's flaws. I've spent months in the Louvre and Orsay--there's plenty of flaws you don't notice when you get textbook reprints in college courses (to wit--Calliebot's Floorscrapers). I jump into those flaws and live in 'em. I tried explaining this to a critic friend of mine. He didn't understand what the hell I was talking about. I just laughed.

(I.E. as an irrelevant sidenote--the best thing in the Louvre is Courbet's Room of Scandals--it's a room filled with tons of paintings of vaginas... "Origin of the World". I love the effect it has on people. They all get so embarrassed, and then they kind of saunter out feeling like perverts....it's hillarious.)

Anyway...let's tie this into the topic on our hands.

According to the first post, Bodhidharma started Shaolin for three reasons. Are they reasonable? Certainly....

I could pin down my first three reasons, too, pretty easily. They aren't that far from BD's.

1. I wanted a way to strengthen up in a complete way. (Before MA, I distance-ran [5k, 10k, Half-marathons], and weight-lifted [got pretty big for a little guy]). Only thing is, running wears down on the joints, even when you're the best. And weight-lifting builds the body up, but does little more than fluff the ego in the long run [and wear out some joints]. I wanted a complete workout, with a higher meaning behind it, which would sustain the body for a lifetime, and develop over a lifetime. I found it. Running has Zen-like qualities, but not even close to MA....not to mention the intellectual side....and traditions....

2. What's the point of working out/fluffing the ego nowadays? Sex appeal, mostly....but as what? A badass. But most big dudes are actually kind of foofy....:p Does being big=badassness? Nope. It's kind of nice to know I've at least got some fighting ability now to fall back on, in case somebody wants to steal my buddha:p ....just kiddin'....I don't toke....:o

I guess I wanted to give function to fitness. (Bench pressing for no other reason than bench-pressing really does get boring after a while). Bench pressing to improve a palm-strike....now that's priceless.

3. I wanted to be able to defend myself against wild animals. Friggin' bears are crazy round here, dude. I lost three of my friends to a rabid squirrel last week. Pour out a little liquor for my homies....not to mention fighting off mingin' birds....
(Gotta have a Brit's lingo for that one).

Personally, the Bodhidharma figure has resonance with me. We don't have 100% foolproof evidence that the man existed in the way he is historically represented...and that seems to be the direction this thread is going. But guess what? We only have on hand 5 actual documented facts about Shakespeare. From these 5 facts and local hearsay, the figure of the "glover's son" (undocumented fact) emerged. We know he went to grade school, bought a bed, got married, etc. All the rest is just assumed, syncretic hearsay. Some say he was Bacon. Some Marlowe. We don't even know if he was real. Same with Homer, Jesus, Mohammed, Lao Tzu, the Buddha for crying out loud, etc.--but they're some of the biggest names in history, with the biggest impact, with the biggest resonance.....

Each guy leaves a legacy, and everyone else picks up on it. Dogmatic dumb-dogs won't ever understand what Bodhidharma meant (not just the name, or his philosophy, or his history---but the sum total of his essence). I don't know what to say but that you're going to have to dig a little deeper....however you want to take it...

This post is getting long. I wanna keep going, but I'll spare y'all the boredom.

Lamassu

01-09-2007, 01:22 PM

And you don't see the intention in this? It doesn't just happen by accident.

Of course I do. :confused: That's my whole point, but how many times will you study a work of art until you arbitrailly decide it has no intent?

MasterKiller

01-09-2007, 02:09 PM

Of course I do. :confused: That's my whole point, but how many times will you study a work of art until you arbitrailly decide it has no intent?

It's usually pretty evident right off the bat.

Lamassu

01-09-2007, 02:38 PM

It's usually pretty evident right off the bat.

Is it?

I take it you're not a fan of Dadaism. That's okay, I'm not either. :p

MasterKiller

01-10-2007, 07:40 AM

Is it?

I take it you're not a fan of Dadaism. That's okay, I'm not either. :p

L.H.O.O.Q. ;)

GeneChing

01-10-2007, 03:45 PM

Elle a chaud au cul
:)

David Jamieson

01-10-2007, 07:22 PM

Then you are probably not very good.

While the observer brings a whole host of psychological baggage to the table which the artist cannot possibly consider, if you cannot steer people in the direction you want them to go, you are wasting your time trying to be an artist.

Intent is everything. It prevents a painting from becoming wallpaper.

You can't build a road to Istanbul and not put up street signs; otherwise, no one will arrive in Istanbul. It's the artists job to build the street and make sure all the necessary street signs are in place.

Unless of course you are a Deconstruction Theorists. In which case, you can't even trust the letters on the page to convey the words you think they are conveying.

I am not certain after reading this if you understand the difference between industrial design and art. :p

art is whatever the observer wants it to be.

where does van goghs "lillies" take you in your mind?

what did Dali want us to think with his work?

However, Industrial design is very direct and meme-ish and seeks to develop unified thinking towards a goal. Brand management, style guides, wayfinding, signs, logos etc etc are industrial design and are indeed a form of artistic expression, but they do not carry the same type of individualistic emotional content that more personal and direct art does.

at least, that's how I see it and I've been told I'm a good artist and designer. :p

MasterKiller

01-11-2007, 07:30 AM

art is whatever the observer wants it to be.
Yeah, but a good artists leads you in the direction he wants you to go. You don't just splash ink on a page without an intended idea of response (unless you're Jackson Pollock, that is).

what did Dali want us to think with his work?
What difference does it make if art is only what the observer wants it to be?:rolleyes:

However, Industrial design is very direct and meme-ish and seeks to develop unified thinking towards a goal. Brand management, style guides, wayfinding, signs, logos etc etc are industrial design and are indeed a form of artistic expression, but they do not carry the same type of individualistic emotional content that more personal and direct art does.
OK. I guess you've never been to a Warhol exhibit. How about Robert Motherwell?

at least, that's how I see it and I've been told I'm a good artist and designer. Yeah, and I've written two novels. We are practically a new art movement.

GeneChing

01-11-2007, 11:04 AM

Suppose the founder created a martial art to kill. Suppose a student interpreted that art as performance and used it to dance. Is it still art?

Su Lin

01-11-2007, 11:09 AM

Aww I got excited then,I like talking about art (it's my job) :)

It' still a type of art if the student interprets it in a different manner to the founder,but as more of a pastiche, rather than carrying the original meaning .I suppose it's a bit like the prints of great paintings you get, ie having a print of a Mark Rothko painting on your wall rather than the real thing.It essentially looks like the real thing,but th essence is missing somewhat.

MasterKiller

01-11-2007, 01:27 PM

OK, Su Lin is into Art and Kung Fu? If she says she likes Star Wars and Gatchaman, I may have to make her my mistress.

Su Lin

01-11-2007, 01:44 PM

I'm very much into art (I'm a curator) and LOVE star wars , and really used to love Battle of the Planets if that's any use.:p

I do however HATE Phantom Menace and the other 2 prequels. :p

MasterKiller

01-11-2007, 02:13 PM

I'm very much into art (I'm a curator) and LOVE star wars , and really used to love Battle of the Planets if that's any use.:p

I do however HATE Phantom Menace and the other 2 prequels. :p

You are allowed to hate TPM and the first 1:25 minutes of AOTC. Any sensible person cannot possibly hate the Battle of Geonosis, or ROTS (except for the inexplicable cutting of the Qui-Gon/Yoda dialogue explaining how to merge with the Force).

Battle of the Planets is a pale shade of Gatchaman. I'll forgive you that, but just this once.

Su Lin

01-11-2007, 02:47 PM

Thankyou :o

Crushing Fist

01-12-2007, 07:39 AM

It seems like a lot of people on this thread are attaching quite a bit of emotional baggage to that question. In modern times it seems like quite a trend to make something more outrageous and ridiculous than what has gone before and then stand back and let that question be asked. It seems the answer always comes back "yes".

Is there intent?

Does it lead the viewer in the intended direction?

Does it express the inner being of the artist?

Is that expression recognizable?

Does it matter?

Let's just simplify this a bit, ok?

Art is that which is created with no functional or practical purpose, a purely aesthetic creation. That's it. That's art.

Whether or not an artist intends to tell a story, express an ideal, protest a horror, demonstrate the beauty they behold, or even intend it to ever be seen by anyone else is entirely personal. These do not make art but only categorize and label it.

It's like the difference between Jazz and Rock n' Roll, which one is really music?

It has been said above that all artists whether they know it or not create with the intent of others seeing it. Again, this is personal and not an absolute truth. Look to Emily d!ckenson (how sad that I live in a world where I must edit a person's name) for the antithesis of that ideal.

Just go to the High Museum (for the atlanta crowd) look at the garbage glued to the wall and ask yourself...

Is it Art?

no I have nothing to say about the actual thread topic.

GeneChing

01-12-2007, 10:50 AM

...or maybe not. Maybe we can just keep this thread rolling on it's hairpin topic turns and see where it goes.

Ever read The Great Dali Art Fraud and Other Deceptions (http://www.pixi.com/~hicatt/) by Lee Catterell? It's one of my favorite books on the subject, especially since I'm a huge Dali fan. I'd highly recommend it since it's quite relevant to this thread now.

...or maybe not. In my rather flailing attempts to bring this thread somewhat back on topic, the 'baggage' that Crushing Fist alludes to is exactly what I find interesting about Shaolin origin theories and Shaolin in general. Of all the martial arts, Shaolin is the granddaddy, with more recorded history, legend, movies and descendants than any other. That's what makes it interesting to me. And like this thread, it takes you to interesting places.

ok, back to talking about Star Wars or whatever...

Su Lin

01-12-2007, 11:06 AM

:p

I haven't read that book actually, I read more about Dadaism and early Surrealism,in particular a big show at Moma NY that was pretty influential ,but interestingly enough the town in which I work is the birthplace of a lady called Leonora Carrington- the1st lady of Surrealism who married Max Ernst. (Moma NY is m favourite gallery ever )

Yeah,so back to Shaolin, it's great isn't it.:)

GeneChing

01-12-2007, 11:31 AM

...then again, it's Dali, so it's totally about surrealism. The book addresses the big lithograph controversies that peppered the Dali estate and goes on to address what might define an original artwork in the age of mass reproductions. One of Dali's final scams, or pranks, or acts of high surrealistic art, was to sign blank sheets. If you look at the website, it'll probably give you a good feel of the topic. I'm assuming that since I only just found that site when searching for the link for the book above. I read the book several years ago. Personally, I think the statements of the book can be very relevant to martial lineage, in an abstract metaphoric sort of way. But I've always seen martial arts being as much about art as combat applications.

MOMA rocks.

Su Lin

01-12-2007, 11:37 AM

Sounds really interesting Gene,I shall ch ch check it out :)

I prefer Dali's ideas and "interventions" more than his painting really.I also find the mass reproduction thing really interesting - does it lose the original essence that the artist intended? Can that be said of Shaolin do you think ? Or is it just that things are changed and adapted over time and is that really a bad thing if it is a development?

I agree with the "art " part as well as the martial applications.

GeneChing

01-12-2007, 05:02 PM

I think where it becomes parallel is the nature of source and copy, and the ability to acquire source material given the surrounding resources. Take one of my favorite Dali pieces The Hallucinogenic Toreador (http://www.salvadordalimuseum.org/store/product.php?productid=3015&cat=8&page=1), which is housed in the Dali Museum in St. Petersburg. Now that's a huge canvas, nearly 4 meters tall. At that size, it's a tremendous experience to stand before the masterpiece, absolutely tremendous. I can tell you that my personal experience of this work bordered on ecstatic - I was profoundly moved by being in its presence and I never thought much of it before. Does that kind of essence get communicated on the little refrigerator magnet link like the one I posted above. Not at all. But for people who can't go to St. Petersburg, that can suffice.

Shaolin Temple is somewhat parallel. The experience of Shaolin at Shaolin is huge. Some tourists see it for just a few hours and they don't really get the picture, but if you stay there for a spell, there's just nothing like being in a community of tens of thousands of practitioners. But here, most people never go at all. They only see the refrigerator magnet and judge it based on that. Does that lose the original essence? Of course it does. But does that take on something new as well? Well, I can pin my shopping list to my refrigerator with it, and that's quite useful.

I'm not a big proponent of this intention discussion we've been having. For me, for art to be good, it must be vital. It must be alive. Sometimes you create life unintentionally. This thread is a fine example - it went from a well-intentioned question to something entirely different (not just me chatting up Su Lin ;) ). The Chinese might say art must have qi. Does the refrigerator magnet have qi? Well, I need it for my shopping list. And if I had flaming giraffes on that shopping list, I'm sure Dali would be proud.

Shaolin Wookie

01-15-2007, 11:50 AM

Just go to the High Museum (for the atlanta crowd) look at the garbage glued to the wall and ask yourself...

Is it Art?

I suppose you haven't been to the Louvre exhibits?:D

I mean...come on. I've been to the Louvre, so the High's exhibit is low tier in comparison.....but you're seeing the best of the best....maybe not masterpieces, but excellent in their own right.

The High actually does have quality paintings permanently stored in-house. They've got the likes of Bierstadt(my fav.) and Durer, and two excellent (but small) statues by Gautier (Mephistopheles, and a witch [other favs])....and a black bar-style piano w/ intricate woodwork I would probably kill just to get my hands on......and those are just my own personal highlights.

With such fantastic exhibitions of Van Gogh, Picasso, and the Louvre these past couple of years, I have to ask.......what in the hell were you looking at?:D

But yeah....sometimes they get crappy exhibitions......it's the nature of the animal....gotta please the freaks as well.....