WHERE IS THE BACK STORY

[marleft]

Ali has stated some very important ideas about photos in relation to our life. I will try to isolate some phrases from his text in order to give a dynamic to our discussion, and then give my comments.

 

Ali Soltani Farani

 

"The photo of the Vietnam war is not the Vietnam war, it is just paper and some ... So let us be clear that it is the observer that makes the relation between the photo and what it shows, and that the photo, in soul has no relation what so ever to what the observer thinks it shows"

 

"So what is it that makes a photo so special, so as to stop a war, make a protest, bring tears to my face, or for the least make me want to watch and watch and watch?"

 

"It brings out a series of images in our memories, it has the ability to suggest a relation between those images, and our thought has the ability to manipulate all this and make an idea, a new perspective to look from. It is still the past, but maybe it has helped me find something in my memory I hadn't paid attention to so far."

 

"This is why a photo may have the potentiality to stop a war, but never will any photo have the potential to stop war, because in order to stop war totally, and make peace and harmony, everyone of us has to stop this continuous action of manipulating the past and just look at war right now, look at ourselves right now. if we want to change the way the world goes, we have to look at now."

 

"For a minute there, I thought of giving up photography, but I finally caught it. I have made images of life too and of tranquillity and peace of mind, of how one can live free and be aware at all times, and of myself. Maybe your photo will have the potential to relate all these memories together and bring out the contradiction I have always believed in: that there is a me, and there is my thought; Maybe I'll come to react to this contradiction and find out that I am thought, and then maybe I'll take my big part in stopping war and feeding the hungry; Just Maybe."

 

Marios Leftheriotis

 

It is obvious that the photo of a tree, is not the tree, as also the word tree is not the tree as well. But in order to communicate, we have agreed that this photo and this word must mean a tree, the photo being superior than the word, because it can show the kind of the tree too. Besides let us not forget that more than two billion people in earth, communicate through images (ideograms). It would be very interesting if we had a Chinese friend here to make his comments. So a photographer can, through his photos, give messages, ideas and feelings to the viewer and pass to him back stories. In this way a photo can stop a war, but unfortunately this is temporary. And here comes the problem of human behaviour. Wars will stop for good, only if we stop war inside us, caused by contradictions raised in our minds by the mal processing of thousands of images gathered or made by our self. So the question is how can we stop this war inside us and have inner peace, in order to spread it to our surroundings and little by little transmit it to the whole world!

 

I think that the first step for this, is the deep understanding of the way which human mind works. And for this Ali has proposed some ideas. Let's listen to him!

[photis santamouris]

Marios,it's midnight here in Athens,and all I can see is darkness.All around me.You started a big discussion on art.There are countless books,thousands of authors and millions/billions works of art.For me it's the natural aptitude of humans to creation,a phenomenon that appeared 30 thousands years ago.Time evaluates human creations with a completely different way than in the era in which a work of art was made.There is no common outlook among the writers,no holistic,neither theoritical,nor philosophical approach in art.In India there were ritual written rules which sorted out any work of art.In China,where an immense philosophy created an aesthetic ideal,there were also various minor and independent artists who caused a lot of reaction.There are artists all over the world,that mould new aesthetic theories,because their transcendence exceeds modern rules,or simply does not obey them.It's a mistake to interpret art on a basis of historical,technological,social,or economical database,because artworks constitute autonomous branches of thought.Erst Gombrich is right to comment that 'art feeds from art'. Excuse any mistakes,my eyes are too tired to correct my text on a PC screen.

[soltani]

Marios! <p>

I think our friends have left us; There are few who would contribute to such a discussion, be frank, and not fear.<br>

In the book named The <i>The Solitaire Mystery</i> by <i>Josetin Gaarder</i> there is a part where the main character, Hans, tries to communicate to some little strange guys; The only question which, when ever asked by Hans makes the little guys run off, is this:<br>

Who are you?<br>

All of those little guys are afraid of this question, just as I was.<p>

Let us follow the discussion our selves; maybe they will join us. I have many things I would like to discuss with you and Fred Goldsmith amongst the others.<br>

I watched a film some days ago named <i>"Gandhi"</i>; Some time near the end there is this beautiful phrase by Gandhi:<br>

I am a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew.<br>

Now look, there is this verse from the Muslim Quran:<br>

To Allah religion, is the Islam.<br>

Many verses of Quran state that the Christian, Jew, Islam, ... religions were from Allah; The above verse in combination to the others, means that to god religion is one whether it be Jew, Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity, the name is Islam.<br>

The word Islam, is related to Taslim( Arabic ) meaning being surrendered.<br>

Now look at what we have been speaking of: The freeness of man from himself and all other authorities, in order to be in peace and harmony to nature. The action of the free man, whose action is that? It is the action carried out by a human body, it is in response to seeing the truth, it is in harmony with nature, it is also correct, but where is the actor? The free man has no answer at that point. He would say I just knew it was the right thing to do. The actor is love. It is love that acts when the man is free of all authorities including himself. The man is surrendered to love. To me he is Muslim. <br>

Hafez, a Persian poet, says: ( in meaning )<br>

Hafez! you are the curtain in front of your own eyes, get out of the way.<br>

In our world everything is so united. For the free man there is no difference between people, there is no borders, there is no such thing as my country or your country, there is only unity. There is only NOW and there exists only love.<br>

Hallaj, was hanged at his time for saying : Ana'l Hagh; meaning I am god. He had come to find the unity in our world and it was so obvious to him, that he didn't have the capacity to hide it from those he knew would kill him for saying it.<br>

Last but not least, I find this little piece very coherent to our discussion:<br>

"... and you, Marcus, you have given me many things; now I shall give you this good advice. Be many people. Give up the game of being always Marcus Cocoza. You have worried too much about Marcus Cocoza, so that you have been realy his slave and prisoner. You have not done anything without first considering how it would affect Marcus Cocoza's happiness and prestige. You were always much afraid that Marcus might do a stupid thing, or be bored. What would it realy have mattered? All over the world people are doing stupid things ... I should like you to be easy, your little heart to be light again. You must from now, be more than one, many people, as many as you can think of ... "

- Karen Blixen<br>

("The Dreamers" from "Seven Gothic Tales"<br>

written under the pseudonym Isak Dinesen,<br>

Random House, Inc.<br>

Copyright, Isac Dinesen, 1934 renwed 1961)

[marleft]

Hi Ali,

 

Ali Soltani Farani

 

"I am a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim, and a Jew"

 

"It is love that acts when the man is free of all authorities including himself. The man is surrendered to love."

 

"In our world everything is so united. For the free man there is no difference between people, there is no borders, there is no such thing as my country or your country, there is only unity. There is only NOW and there exists only love."

 

"Be many people"

 

 

Marios Lefteriotis

 

I isolated these marvellous phrases Ali, from your text. You are a Muslim, I am a Christian Greek Orthodox, he is a Catholic, she is a Jew, the other one is Hindu, Protestant, Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Buddhist and so on (sorry if I don't remember now all dogmas and religions). But the Truth is one: GOD is above God!! Meaning that this which really exists and we name GOD, cannot be understood by our minds, and that's why, He is above what every one of us, little, weak and egoistic human beings, thinks God is! So,

 

GOD UNITES, EGO DIVIDES...

 

You say that we have to be surrendered (in God you mean, I suppose)

 

We say that we must have faith and complete confidence in God, which is the same.

 

So, basically the majority of religions and dogmas, using different ways, say the same things, and it is natural because they speak about the same God.

 

But there are many fellow human beings too, who don't believe in God and many of them are good people, sometimes better than some of us who claim that believe in God...

 

So we have to find the uniting factor for all human beings, believing or not in God. And I think that we have agreed that this is the transcendence of our egoism until we reach the state of love. And that's what we are exploring here, starting from the art of photography and how can we, by using art photos and back stories, help others transcend their personal problems and become better human beings.

 

But unfortunately we have a big problem here. You mentioned it at the start of your text. People do not care about these. They love their silence, waiting for something to happen tomorrow, that will change things to the better. But world has reached a critical point and we don't know if there will be tomorrow!! So we have to act now, so everyone of us, makes his personal inner revolution against egoism in order to start respecting, caring and loving others...

 

Ali, I gave a new definition of Art but nobody understood it:

 

"Art is everything which is useful for our soul and helps us understand this world we are living in and especially what the nature of human being is... Life is Art"

 

We cannot accept it because we are living in the past. We shall understand and accept it perhaps tomorrow (if there is tomorrow). But the fact is that this is the only way to make human beings realize the bad aspects of their nature and do something about the major problems humanity faces to day, before it is too late...

[marleft]

To PhoS Sant

 

Hi PhoS, welcome to our discussion.

 

"It's a mistake to interpret art on a basis of historical,technological,social,or economical database,because artworks constitute autonomous branches of thought"

 

I agree with your text PhoS and especially with this phrase. But I should like to know what is the interpretation of Art for our age. We don't Know it yet, because Art is in a process of continuous transformation and as we are living in our thoughts and memories, which come from the past, we are unable to catch the oncoming new aspect of Art. So we are exploring the facts of our times and what human beings need more, in order to guess the new face of Art.

 

So PhoS, please read my discussion with Ali Soltani Farani and tell us your comments on it, or perhaps propose some new ideas. It should be very interesting to listen to some fresh aspects on this great issue!

[jonathancharlesphoto]

Marios said "Life is Art" but if the concept of art is no more specific then the word becomes a useless synonym.

<p>

For me art is an attempt to get to the "self" <i>ie</i> the inner subconscious being of Carl Jung's psychology and make some kind of communication with others at that level. It is of little interest to me whether it is new or old - this is the concern of art critics and historians - it only matters how well it succeeds. So when someone says a photo of mine "really stirs something inside" I feel I am on the right lines.

[soltani]

Dear Jonathan! Art is not Life, Rather Life is Art.<p>

Life is beautiful, every second of it, it is in itself a creation, which helps one understand the world; so if Life "really stirs something inside" it is in no doubt, Art.<br>

Yet Art is not life, because life requires one to be free of all; one can not devote his/her being to the creations of others and his, and chain himself to Art, rather one would do the right thing what ever it may be( That may be devoting one's being to Art, if that is the right thing to do at all times ). If one has the energy and peace of mind to be serious of all aspects of life, learn from and enjoy each second that passes by like he/she enjoys and learns from Art, then his life is in no doubt Art.<p>

Regards. Ali.

[marleft]

To Jonathan and Ali

 

Jonathan Charles

 

"For me art is an attempt to get to the "self" ie the inner subconscious being of Carl Jung's psychology and make some kind of communication with others at that leve"

 

 

Ali Soltani Farani

 

"If one has the energy and peace of mind to be serious of all aspects of life, learn from and enjoy each second that passes by like he/she enjoys and learns from Art, then his life is, in no doubt, Art"

 

 

Marios Leftheriotis

 

"Art is everything which is useful for our soul and helps us understand this world we are living in and especially what the nature of human being is. So, life is Art".

 

 

I believe that all three of us say the same thing, in different way. The key word for that is COMMUNICATION. And for Ali and me, it is obvious that communication comes, when we live in fullness and therefore this living is Art. For Jonathan, art is some kind of communication (in subconscious level). But what is this kind? For example is it art, when we are communicating (subconsciously) for making a crime, or promoting merchandise and so on? I don't think so. Art therefore has to convey messages and ideas (consciously or subconsciously), which help human beings overcome their problems and find a way out from the dead ends, especially in our times. And we, photographers, have in our hands, a marvellous instrument, called camera, which can do that in the best way. It produces images which everybody can read, if they are shot in the proper way and so we may communicate between each other, like billions of people do through ideograms?

 

And my final question to myself and everybody else:

 

Are all other kinds of photography, especially NOW, just marvellous eye candies?

 

(I really don't know the answer because I like shooting landscapes and portraits and flowers and all this kind of stuff, as everybody do, but this question stays there all the time, in the back of my mind).

[jonathancharlesphoto]

You raise the question of whether art can be used as a technique for bad purposes. I believe it can, as none of us are all good and so art can make contact at a deep level with our negative instincts. Often this can be used to make these known to us in a valuable way, such as in the ancient Greek tragedies and Shakespeare's plays. But it can be used in a negative way such as in political propaganda. In fact this is in common with other human activities - science, social organisation, commerce, religion, even love can all lead to bad things as well as good.

 

My artistic attempts are all aimed at positive ideas of beauty and communion with nature - but that's just my personal choice and not IMHO intrinsic to art in general.

[Norma Desmond]

I think Jonathan makes a great point. I was thinking of Leni Riefenshtahl, whose Olympiad

and films about the Third Reich generate much debate about the purpose of art. I also must

say that, in my opinion, there is too lofty a purpose being given to art by some here. I don't

believe in "souls" but I do believe in art.

[marleft]

"I also must say that, in my opinion, there is too lofty a purpose being given to art by some here. I don't believe in "souls" but I do believe in art"

 

Can you be a little more specific Fred? Please name what is this "lofty" a purpose for you and what is your meaning of the words "souls" and "art".

[Norma Desmond]

I will have to leave for the day, so won't respond probably until tomorrow and have to be

brief now, sorry. The kind of "lofty" sentiment I was referring to is quoted below and when I

speak of soul not existing I am thinking of something nonphysical about us that often gets

elevated as being above or more important than or superior to our corporeal existence. I also

don't believe we are living in the past. I believe we exist in the present, remember the past,

and look forward to the future.

<br><br>

<i>"Art is everything which is useful for our soul and helps us understand this world we are

living in and especially what the nature of human being is... Life is Art"</i> --Marios

[marleft]

O.K. Fred my friend (how beautiful it sounds!, I mean it)

 

I respect your opinion and I will change a little, for you, my definition of art.

 

"An artist's creation is Art, if it helps us, in any way, become better human beings"

 

Do you accept this? If you don't, please make your corrections, in order to find together, what Art has to be, especially for our times.

[soltani]

Dear Marios and Fred!<p>

what difference does it make, to believe or not to ... ?<br>

They're the same in nature, and that is memory. Seeing, is what makes the difference. Seeing a flood coming right at you, makes you take action, what difference would it make, to believe in or not to believe in, the coming of the flood. Let us be free of our beliefs and see.<br>

<p>

For Dear Fred!<p>

<i>"... when I speak of soul not existing I am thinking of something nonphysical about us that often gets elevated as being above or more important than or superior to our corporeal existence. I also don't believe we are living in the past. I believe we exist in the present, remember the past, and look forward to the future."</i><p>

That something that often gets ... superior to us, what is it Fred?

Is it not an image in your memory, when you speak of it? Is it not of the past?<br>

The comment on May 29th written by me might help clear out what is trying to be said here.<br>

We exist in the present, our body and mind; but where is our thought wandering? Can thought act on the present? Is it not thought that takes us to action? If thought can not act on the present and if it is thought that takes us to action, then our actions, although carried out at present are the result of our memories, thus we humans seem to pull the past and bring it to the present, thus living in the past.<br>And when we look to the future dear Fred, is it not an image of the past, trying to fake it self as the future? The future does not exist thus looking at the future is a mere illusion of the past.<br> Regards. Ali.

[marleft]

O.K. Ali

 

"I believe that all three of us say the same thing"

 

If you are refering to this verb "believe" of mine, I can change it to "I see" which conveys the exact meaning of my words. And at this point of course you are right. Sorry. Marios

[Norma Desmond]

Using words like "better" (as in "helping us become better human beings") when referring

to art can be tricky. I like to keep art and value judgments distinct. Surely there is some

overlap between esthetics and ethics, but there are differences as well. I think some art is

just meant to be interesting or stimulating or exciting or different or

quizzical or enigmatic or beautiful or disgusting, for that matter, to look at. I'm not sure

how Andy Warhol's soup can gets us to be better human beings as much as it changes (not

necessarily for better or worse, just different) the way we view objects and art. Marcel

Duchamp's Urinal doesn't seem to make me a better person when I view it, certainly

wouldn't turn a sinner into a saint, just gives me a laugh and my sensibilities a nudge. Leni

Riefenshtahl's films helped do the world great harm yet are very artistic and contain

magnificent images. I love to look at Mondrian's paintings but don't usually choose to talk

about them literally. They are a visual treat for me. I don't attach meaning (in the verbal or

literary sense) to such paintings. This is not to say I don't appreciate the type of art, also,

that

you speak of. I try, often, to convey emotions in my photographs because I like that sort of

communication and connection both to my portrait subjects and to my friends who view

my photos. I think that kind of expressiveness and emotional vulnerability and

communication is a "good" thing. It's just that I don't think art necessarily has to

accomplish that. I long ago gave up trying to define Art. I think we are better off just doing

it and allowing it to happen and seeing and feeling what the result is. But getting stuck on

defining it misses the point. I had an experience recently where I questioned the existence

of God to someone claiming to believe in God. I said I didn't believe in unprovable things.

She responded by saying that she saw proof of God's existence in various human

situations. I have had much religious and philosophical training and always understood

that what defines religion and how one would relate to God is through faith. So it seemed

odd to me that someone believing in God would try to claim there is proof of God instead

of just asserting her faith. While I don't have faith, I respect greatly those who do. I also

find it fascinating and like exploring it with them. But, to me, it undercuts the specialness

and beauty of faith to claim that it is accompanied by supposed proofs. And that's a long

way around of trying to explain a little bit how I feel about art. By talking about it, by

trying to explain it and define it, we undercut it. We may not <i>know</i> what it is, but

we <i>feel</i>

what it is. Why undercut it by trying to be rational about it and putting it into words?

Instead,

we might be photographing more and looking at each other's photographs and that will

tell us how each one of us approaches art and what art is for each of us and what art

conveys for each of us.

[marleft]

Butterfly effect in Art Photography

 

Fred

 

I red very carefully your marvellous analysis about art and religion and I have to accept that in general you are right. The mistake in all this discussion I started about photos back stories is that I did not cleared up from the beginning my intentions. So we have seen the trees but we have lost the forest and it's me to blame for.

 

My idea is very simple. We are living in a very dangerous world and everything is going to the worst everyday. We hoped that governments and politics should do something about it, and eventually they do, but it is not enough! Why? Because human beings don't change to the better. What do I mean by changing to the better? Start caring and helping others, stop chasing this idea of making more money, instead, start spending money in order to loose less when they die, and all these things. Are you smiling? Perhaps. Because the easy answer to all these is: Well, you are right, I am starting doing this. SO WHAT? what can be done just by me and you and some others? There are billions of people in this planet?

 

But Fred, science has proved that even a thought by one person, changes the world, changes the whole universe?It's called Butterfly effect. It is only a matter of time?But even that, isn't it worthwhile, for sake of our children and theirs children, to do so?

 

So Fred, why don't we stop making eye candies with our cameras and start making back stories, which will help others to become "better" human beings? And by doing so, we will impose a new ideal about Art Photography!

 

You know Fred, what we are discussing now, you and me and some other friends, is changing the world. It may not be realized by us, during our life, but someone else will realize it in the future... It's a matter of time, as science says? Believe me. I am not just another dreamer.

 

I should like very much to listen to your thoughts about all these!

[mmene]

Dear Fred I agree absolutely with you. Unfortunately for the art every

...ism ( fascism, communism, christianism etc.) is trying to put rules to art and artists. But fortunately for the art it's always going on without the need of any guru. So they try every time to give a their explanation about what is art, artist and the scope of them. Art does NOT need priests and colonels.

 

I think that these thoughts explain too many things.

 

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live".

 

"The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible".

 

"The world is divided into two classes, those who believe the incredible, and those who do the improbable".

 

"When the gods wish to punish us they answer our prayers".

 

 

"Manipulation of art is the fascism of "ideologists"".

 

"A photography that needs explanation it?s not a photography".

 

I respect every ideologist like my friend Marios but I respect most of all democracy and human freedom.

 

That's why I do not like to take part in discussions like this.

 

"Why undercut it by trying to be rational about it and putting it into words? Instead, we might be photographing more and looking at each other's photographs and that will tell us how each one of us approaches art and what art is for each of us and what art conveys for each of us".

 

So my friend Fred I believe 100% your previous thoughts. Everything else is completely USELESS.

[jonathancharlesphoto]

As Fred says, you don't need faith in what's provable. Religion is like logic - you use it all the time without necessarily being conscious of it. You believe in it because few conscious thoughts have any meaning without it. Every time you make a value judgment or moral decision you are expressing your faith. It may not coincide with the teachings of any of the religious organisations but more likely it will be along the same lines as all of them - they are not so very different.

 

Art is also part of human nature but its language is not logical or ethical IMHO. It speaks of all those complex drives and experiences that make up our personalities. We all want greater understanding of ourselves and others and art gives us a window into the deeper mental world - "through a glass darkly", but it's the best we've got.

[marleft]

Welcome Michael my friend

 

I was long expecting your presence here and I am so happy because you are with us now.

 

Michael the beauty of this world is our differences (in good faith of course). Think how boring should be this world, if all of us had the same opinions and beliefs in our life. So I deeply respect your aphorisms because these are YOU, my friend. All of us have our own personalities, quite different, but, IF we respect each other, these differences make the Harmony in life? And I think that we all agree on that.

 

Michael, Jonathan, Fred, Ali and all the friends of this discussion

 

I made a proposition some hours ago, in my answer to Fred, titled "Butterfly effect in Art Photography". It has to do with our life and our future on this planet.

PLEASE STAY ON THIS and react. Say your opinion what ever it is.

 

Don't you see that I am trying to find similar aspects in our personalities in order to agree on major problems of this life and do something about them, using our love to photography? It's our life and our children's life and we have to do something about it!! Dont you agree?

[Norma Desmond]

I don't think we're supposed to get too political on these forums, although trying to keep

politics out of photography or art seems like a ridiculous endeavor. I welcome any

thoughtful and respectful dialogue, as you do Marios. I also, like Michael, worry about

putting art to certain use. While it <i>can</i> be done, I don't think it necessarily <i>has

to</i> be done. Better, I think, if the masses (at least of my fellow countrymen and

women) would

take the simple step of voting and staying informed about global politics instead of sitting

on their collective butts watching American Idol. I'd sooner protest in the streets about the

wrongs I feel are being perpetrated by my own current insipid government rather than

hoping for some butterfly effect to work its way slowly around the globe as 18-year-olds

are dying and killing.

[marleft]

Fred

 

I said "start caring and helping others". Is it bad, or is it political? Does it prevent you from doing anything else?

 

Fred I don't want to persuade anybody about my ideas. On the contrary at June 2 09:23 PM I said "(I really don't know the answer because I like shooting landscapes and portraits and flowers and all this kind of stuff, as everybody does, but this question stays there all the time, in the back of my mind)". So even I, have not yet persuaded myself, because I like making eye-candy photos. But I want to try for something better..

[Norma Desmond]

Marios, I didn't mean you were getting political. I meant I was about to (with my statement

above). I suppose I was still stuck in some of your original statements about what art MUST

be and have. You have since adopted a very different tone and I do acknowledge that. I think

you are right, that we are not very far apart in a lot of our thinking and desires. Certainly,

nothing you have said is "bad." And I enjoy hearing your views. I'm not sure there's much else

to say on the matter. We seem to have covered a lot of territory and aired a lot of ideas and

suggestions. I appreciate that very much!

[soltani]

Dear Marios!<p>

<i>"... I like making eye-candy photos. But I want to try for something better.."</i><br>

Maybe us trying for something better is in itself a defeat of our purpose. I would like to discuss that.<p>

Dear All!<p>

5000 years ago we killed using stones, today we kill using guns and mass destruction weapons. I see no difference; we are still killing. No person, no group, no ideology, nor religion has stopped this. Let us stop depending on these and act on our selves. The American president won't bring peace and harmony to the middle east, nor will the president of my country, Iran, stop Americans from watching American Idol. If the world is this way and we are concerned, let us start with our selves; We are all responsible for what goes on in the world. Hoping for the butterfly effect to work it's way around the globe, doesn't stop us from taking part in protests and voting. Do what is right.<br>

Photos do harm, as they do good; There is no virtue in Photography or Art for that matter.<p>

I was touched by this movie named <i>Gandhi</i>. Gandhi stoped the Indian civil war. He fasted. He didn't make speeches or gather in groups, he didn't even try to find the people who provoked the issue, he just fasted until the people realized the wrong in their doings. Gandhi only tried to make them realize, and for that he acted on himself.<p>

To define Art is to limit it, let us just shoot, yet beware of what we cause. Art has shown to break all sort of limits. To define Art would also limit the Artist.<p>

I see no responses to what I say, except of Marios; Maybe I am off limits or real damn wrong, tell me if it is so. Maybe it's because I am younger or maybe it's my name or religion or nationality. What ever tell me. I am free of all. I find no use for borders, or difference in religion, or age.<p>

[Norma Desmond]

I didn't mean to ignore you. I thought I was responding to you somewhat in some of

the things I said but realize I didn't address you directly and I am sorry for that. You make

many interesting points but, frankly, are a little all over the map and a little obscure for me

to understand how to respond. You are welcome to get my email address from my home

page and start from the beginning and tell me what you want to say. I was a little put off

when I read that post of the 29th, where you started off about being shot for what you'd

say here, etc. I wasn't sure what to make of that, so didn't want to respond directly at that

point. If you mean that people who make points in the philosophy forum are often

treated without respect by other members, I agree. The fact that you are Iranian or young

does not make you any less able to speak here and convey your thoughts. I have talked

much with younger people and realize that youth and innocence combined with age and

experience can often lead to interesting and substantive dialogues. If you could try to be

more straightforward about what you are saying about the past and present, it sounds

interesting, but I am not quite understanding you (also in relation to the soul--I'm not

sure what the soul and memory or the past have to do with each other in your eyes). I

don't think trying for something greater than eye candy is defeatist, I just don't think it is

necessarily what art strives for. I agree with what you said above about not trying to define

art. I think, there we have similar ideas and approaches. My trouble with religion generally

is not so much a problem with someone's personal beliefs, it is that the powers that be

(and often the individuals who believe) of the religion are so often trying to convince

others of the rightness of their beliefs. The amount of wars and hatred and disharmony

that can be attributed to these beliefs in a so-called benevolent and merciful deity or

deities is reason for me to question the benefit to man/womankind of faith and

spirituality. In the name of faith and god too many atrocities have been perpetrated, too

many people put down, too much power taken and exercised, and too much reason lost. I

associate the soul with religion and therefore reject the whole notion of it. As was said

above, the physical for me is beautiful and satisfying enough. And I include in physical the

mind, emotions, expressions, etc. Anyway, feel free to continue with me personally. I'm

not sure that eventually some of our thoughts won't be stricken from the forum as being

inappropriate to this web site's purposes.