Robyn Hitchcock thread pt.2 : most artistic creations are incubators of undesirable programs

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In the earlier Robyn Hitchcock thread about marketing of music, I mentioned how it reminded me of the power of music and the angry jerk with headphones on or the angry jerk blasting music in his car radio. And as the thread developed more into scene/culture dialogue, I began thinking of it more as memes or brainwashing.

Just going through one of my old psychology books, I came across this:

"... Earlier it was said that the image must be dwelt on in a state of trance, and the preceding examples seemed not to involve trance. The confusion comes from the general ignorance—even amongst psychologists—concerning trance, which is usually described according to its narrow manifestation in 'classical hypnotic induction—through the use of suggestion, fatigue induction, and so on. The majority of Clinical Psychologists have ignored the work of the eminent hypnotherapist Milton Erickson, who has shown that trance and 'hypno-therapy' is easily attained without the manifestation of the 'classical hypnotic trance.' His technique is based on the common every day trance that naturally occurs when a person concentrates on an imagined scene or thinks deeply. The trance state, with its effective functions of healing, transcending or reinforcing conditionings, etc. occur at those moments in which the person is so engrossed that contact is lost with external events; the person fails to hear, see, feel what is going on around. This is a state in which we commonly slip into many times every day.

We misuse the imagination by failing to use it systematically and methodically to achieve our ends, and we fail to control its use, so that we often allow ourselves to program our subconscious with undesirable behavior. These errors are compounded by its ignorant use in the most elaborated form—art. Because most artists are ignorant of this, most artistic creations are incubators of undesirable programs."

Surely, this is fodder for a good and lengthy debate.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 11:51 (twenty-one years ago)

depends on what you mean by "Art".

haha, kidding-ah.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 12:11 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure if it was a good idea or bad idea to include Robyn Hitchcock's name in a thread that really has nothing to do with him. Hopefully, it will not piss everyone off.

It seemed to be a continuation of the ideas in that previous thread but entirely different enough to warrant a new thread, so I just used his name as a bridge or bait, if you will.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 12:20 (twenty-one years ago)

" .. All aboard.. ... Brenda's Iron Sledge"

― mark grout (mark grout), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:15 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm not sure if I follow/agree with the logic, first of all..
I'm reading it as:
1.-Not "guiding" imagination CAN lead to undesirable subconscious programming.
2.-Artists use imagination a lot.
3.~Therefore, (most) artists are generating undesirable/(destructive?) thoughts.

Q:
*What is your interpretation of the text?
*What is the consequence of #3?

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:21 (twenty-one years ago)

My interpretation of the text: It seems to be suggesting that one limit or be very aware of what he is taking in if an attempt is being made to correct what he perceives to be psychological problems.

Consequence of #3 seems to be: creation of mental programs that cause problems one is attempting to correct. If one does not perceive personality issues/beliefs at odds with his everyday desires and everyday situations, he probably does not perceive any problem and therefore probably would not bother with seeing a shrink, I'd guess.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

So maybe my first post was more relevant than I thought...
Because most artists are ignorant of this, most artistic creations are incubators of undesirable programs
Most may be stretching it.. This means that anyone who pursues artistic expression is likely to be headed on a course of self-destruction. I don't think that's the case - but then, I'm still not 100% sure I get the intent of the quote.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Most may be stretching it, I suppose. But would you say most artwork is "happy little trees" or "deep, passionate stuff?" It seems like anything that is 100% positive is not taken seriously. It seems like more frequently, irony, cynicism, injustice or "harsh reality" seems to pop up in art. I know just thinking about film, in general, it's pretty hard to make a "feel good hit of the summer" and not get critically lambasted (even just a happy ending can be cliche). In music, a "feel good hit" is more common, but still will not get taken very seriously.

I don't know, but I am taking a stab at interpreting here. Did that make sense?

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

It seems like more frequently, irony, cynicism, injustice or "harsh reality" seems to pop up in art

Yes, it does - at least in what many of us typically first think of as "serious" art .. But that's kind of negating all other artwork - which is fine to do for this discussion - but gets me into trouble again, as the word "marketing" did on the other thread.

Without setting the context of this discussion, it's an invitation for some wiseass to come along and say that cave drawings are art (which they are) and there are more of them than you'd think (probably true) and that they are or aren't necessarily conveying (or "marketing"!) anything imaginative, but rather, capturing a literal(?) depiction of real life.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

True! I was just thinking of it in relation to the "angry jerk blasting music" and Robyn's Quote:

"If you like this, you'll like this... and you'll think this."

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:09 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I make art (design) everyday that is happy enough.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:16 (twenty-one years ago)

xpost:
Yeah, and I thought that was an interesting premise, but it wasn't necessarily a concerted attempt on anyone's part to make it so. I mean, Madness didn't set out to sell you Doc Martens, and Yo La Tengo never told anyone to wear hornrimmed glasses. But people did those things, and the whole aesthetic took off and other people joined in for various reasons/pieces of the aesthetic - but not as if anyone masterminded it.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:22 (twenty-one years ago)

Also true. If you start thinking these musicians were really these master metaprogrammers, you could suddenly start to feel very spacey and paranoid. In reality, they're just reacting to stuff like everyone else, but they get the opportunity to create a piece of art, aided by marketing/positioning/visual art that naturally produces a trance state and is enjoyable enough to be repeated several times.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:26 (twenty-one years ago)

So how destructive is listening to the content of their art? If the listener enters the trance state (as described in your first post) then is the listener highly subjectable to undesirable programming?

E.G. Did Judas Priest lyrics cause/assist in teenagers' suicides?

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:30 (twenty-one years ago)

I think in the JP thing, they were talking about backwards or subliminal messages, weren't they? This topic actually has nothing to do with the average trance state described above. But, also, the charges were stupid. Wasn't he supposed to be saying "Do it, do it, get the gun?!"

How destructive it would be would probably depend on how impressionable you are. I can only speak for myself, but I was pretty damn impressionable when I was younger. Now, I think I have larger programs in place that override a lot of what might otherwise have more of an effect on me, but I'm sure I'm just as susceptible to influence as everyone else (children excluded). I still do tend to assume things are cool by association sometimes.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, thanks for the discussion, dave. :) And Mark Grout.

― Eleventy-Twelve (Eleventy-Twelve), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)

"If you start thinking these musicians were really these master metaprogrammers, you could suddenly start to feel very spacey and paranoid. In reality, they're just reacting to stuff like everyone else..."

What about the issues of Zeigeist and collective expression? Scenes and cosmologies often develop around groups of musicians exploring similar themes. Once they start fertilizing one another a body of work may be receive popular recognition as a "sound" or "genre."

Being able to place a piece of music this way--being able to affliate it with a certain time, place, group of people or group of ideas--seems to strengthen the enjoyment of both the listner and creator.

BUT what I think is really interesting is the idea that by simply listening to certain music one can feel as though he or she is doing something really progressive.

― mono.mono (mono.mono), Tuesday, 22 March 2005 21:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Who wrote that passage? It's very interesting.
Further questions: why would "happy little trees" art be presumed not to "incubat(e) .. undesirable programs" (isn't that what you're saying)?

"We misuse the imagination by failing to use it systematically and methodically to achieve our ends" = psychology bias? Any examples of art (music) that uses the imagination systematically and methodically - psychologist-friendly or not?

― check out my malady (jcartledge), Wednesday, 23 March 2005 02:39 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.