« In the House of the Hangman 1289 | Main | In the House of the Hangman 1291 »



Ed Baker

so far in
all of these years of having a first paper printing's edition 1968 of
(U of Ca Press') The Diaries of Paul Klee 1898-1918 edited by his son, Felix) and as of yet only have flipped through stopping
here and there to read a bit or to look at a sketch. Now, randomly picking over in Diary III from 664:

"[...]. An exercise as a joke: Represent yourself without mirrors and without the kind of 'a posteriori' (italics) conclusions that you get from mirrors. Exactly as you see yourself, therefore without a head, which you do not see."

and 670. " The subject in itself is certainly dead. What counts are the impressions before the subject. The growing vogue of erotic subjects is not exclusively French, but rather a preference for subjects which are especially likely to provoke impressions.
"As a result, the outer form becomes extremely variable and moves along the entire scale of temperaments. According to the mobility of the index finger, one might say in this case.
"The technical means of representation vary accordingly.
"The school of the old masters has certainly seen its day."

In other was/as I ' get "it" ' it is NOT a matter of The Imagination
it is, rather, all dependent upon (merely) paying Attention ... to

if y'all 'get my drift' which I understand but
cannot explain... conjunctively


Now, the question I have: what is the difference between paying attention and the Imagination, except seeing clearly with the outer eye in the first case and with the inner eye in the second (I'm thinking of Blake). The point is to not make anything up.

Ed Baker

I guess that from either case alone
no aspect of (a poem or a painting)
whatsoever would be produced.
or a drama or a dance or a concerto...

I mean a-tell-you
not possible to separate the outward appearance(nature, the model))
from the inward idea in the mind of artists's/poet's/composer's

not posible to separate subject from object, the "divine" spirit
from the "breath of life"

who's to say that the 'natural form' is not merely the shape
or, simultaneously, the shape of it's idea and a reflection of
either is
not either ?

not so much it is Blake but rather
that he DID produce and revealed
things far beyond resemblances...

spirit/mind // images revealed by a right use of
natural forms ?

can / is it possible that (any) art can find its perfection in illusion
or in "making anything up."

we can leave politics out of this equation...making things up leads to real bombs dropping... etcs:


I agree with everything you just said 10000%, Ed.

michel jordan

| Salut là, simplement devenait conscient de blog thru , et situé que c'est instructif. gonna va surveiller pour Bruxelles. Je vais reconnaissants au cas où vous continuer dans cette avenir. Beaucoup de gens seront probablement bénéficié out de votre écrit. Vive!
michel jordan http://www.airjordanpassoldes.com/tag/michel-jordan/


tqidwlfcfc http://www.gww2qgr0m7dg10l3t906eil14243de74s.org/

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)