MayaRefugee wrote:Does anyone know if the Buddha ever talked about the imagination?
I've tried googling and searching this forum and I can't find anything.
The reason I ask is I have artistic inclinations and I've noticed I spend a lot of time manifesting mental concepts of what I perceive/am conscious of through the use of (what I currently think is) my imagination assisted by my intellect.
I would like to know what the Buddha said about this habit/tendency so I can see this process for what it is - I think I could just be clinging to aspirations of being labeled smart/clever by those I share these mental concepts with.
Trungpa's notion of Dharma art is not merely reproducing and interpreting a collection of Buddhist symbols or ideas, but it is an approach to art as meditation, an attitude of directness and unself-consciousness in creative work.
MayaRefugee wrote:...a collection of thought forms with an associated symbol i.e. word, graphic representation, manipulation of sound, gesture, etc that have been allocated a certain meaning
MayaRefugee wrote:Kim, I totally agree with what you say.
It's what to teach with your art that I'm trying and hope to one-day get to the root of.
MayaRefugee wrote:I'm interested in the proper treatment of the paint that sits idle on the pallete i.e. my bank of unmanifest thought-forms.
I ask myself:
- how much paint should be on the pallete?
- what's the right type/qulaity of paint to have on the pallete?
- what's the right intention to have when moving this paint from the pallete to the canvas?
- what purpose is there to move paint from a pallete onto a canvas?
- what are the repurcussions of moving paint from a pallete to a canvas?
- is there really a need to have a pallete of paint?
- is it possible to not have a pallete of paint?
I guess this stuff ties in with cultivating right thought and right speech.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Hi, everyone
There's something I was going to say yesterday in response to MayaRefugee's wish to view the Buddha as an artist. Now meindzai has tagged onto the thought it seems even more worth saying.
Claiming the Buddha as an artist and then trying to derive an artistic agenda from him seems unfair to him and to yourself: unfair to the Buddha because I'm sure he never saw himself in those terms, and unfair to yourself because you then have to bend and stretch your definitions and categories out of shape to make 'art' fit 'what the Buddha said and did'.
It's much more productive, IMO, to see the Buddha as a teacher - which is how he saw himself and how we usually see him - and the artist as someone who has a teaching role in the community, showing people new ways of thinking about things or looking at things.
The primary implications for your artistic practice emerge very quickly and naturally: effective communication becomes a key feature of your artistic language, and compassion/morality become key features of the content of your art.
Works for me, anyway.
MayaRefugee wrote:You say good art starts with having something to say.
Somewhere in the process the artist has to declare/believe what they have to say/express is worthy of being said/expressed.
What do you think is worthy of being said/expressed?
In the evolution of my art I've noticed what I deem worthy of expression changes as my beliefs/understandings change, once ones beliefs/understandings align with the changeless/deathless what do you think would be worthy of expression?
If one made it to the top of the mountain should they sit expressing/depicting the view for others at the bottom or should they build climbing aids to help others get to the top aswell?
Users browsing this forum: Bhikkhu Pesala, MSNbot Media and 5 guests