T Nation

I Don't Usually Like Art, but...

[quote]SirenSong61 wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not necessarily.

Not everyone has the brain functioning to be able to do so. For example I am a very nonvisual person. I really can’t visualize anything in my head except in the vaguest sense. I can’t even picture in my head, for example, the faces of people I know well, although I do recognize them when I see them of course. While certainly I do like some drawings, pictures, or paintings, I probably fundamentally can’t get the enjoyment and appreciation that a more visual person can.

The odd thing though is that when dreaming, in my case the visual representation is very accurate and detailed, and proceeding as if in realtime, which would seem to imply a tremendous amount of capacity somewhere to generate images. But it’s totally non-accessible to the conscious mind.

How that would carry over to supposedly not enjoying life would seem to make sense if a person positing this pretty much ONLY was able to enjoy the visual, which perhaps is the case in some instances but hopefully not presently.[/quote]

Sorry. I’m an artist and I’m all about the visual image so I wouldn’t even want to try to imagine MY life without art. I see art in the every day, everywhere. To be without art would definitely kill the joy of living for me. I forget not everyone sees the world this way.[/quote]

Oh, not at all. Your followup explanation helps me understand what you meant better.

[quote]MaliMedved wrote:
Hmmm…

I like art. My opinion - This is weak. Simple and unimaginative.
Edward is a fag, though.[/quote]

Well! That about sums up all my thoughts on the matter.

Now thats what vampires are all about! This pic was the best I could do. All the vampire porn sites I went to sucked…

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not necessarily.

Not everyone has the brain functioning to be able to do so. For example I am a very nonvisual person. I really can’t visualize anything in my head except in the vaguest sense. I can’t even picture in my head, for example, the faces of people I know well, although I do recognize them when I see them of course. While certainly I do like some drawings, pictures, or paintings, I probably fundamentally can’t get the enjoyment and appreciation that a more visual person can.

The odd thing though is that when dreaming, in my case the visual representation is very accurate and detailed, and proceeding as if in realtime, which would seem to imply a tremendous amount of capacity somewhere to generate images. But it’s totally non-accessible to the conscious mind.

How that would carry over to supposedly not enjoying life would seem to make sense if a person positing this pretty much ONLY was able to enjoy the visual, which perhaps is the case in some instances but hopefully not presently.[/quote]

Bill, that is very similar to how I experience the world. When I close my eyes and “picture things” its only ideas and vague, rudimentary imagery. If I try really hard I can come up with vague outlines of shapes, but that is about it. I certainly cannot “imagine” my moms face or a tree. I believe we are in the minority though, as this concept is generally difficult to get across to people.

I am also VERY inartistic visually, I have almost no skill when it comes to drawing/painting or aesthetics in general, but can think of interesting concepts story wise, with a strong affinity for science and facts. Perhaps they are connected, perhaps not.

[quote]BodyByGame20 wrote:
I was trying to show a female coworker what a REAL vampire looks like… [/quote]

Seriously? Hate to break it to ya bro…

Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.

I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.

Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.

However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.

I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.

Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?

It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.

There is no such thing as a ‘manly’ or ‘non-gay’ vampire. It’s all the same thing.

Sometimes I think the worst thing about Twilight is how noisy it made some people about how “a REAL vampire would totally kick that guy’s ass!” and whatever other crap.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.

I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.

Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.

However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.

I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.

Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?

It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.[/quote]

Interesting discussion. As an artist, I always thought everyone had the power of visualization, but their process of manifesting that image became burdensome or impossible to actualize in graphic or plastic form.

Perhaps what you describe, Bill, is what sets apart non-artists from artists. In my own experience, I see a clear picture in my mind of what I set out to do on paper. Then I execute it. Sometimes I admit my ideas aren’t so clear-focused, yet I still take pencil to paper because there’s a “learned” response that fills in the blanks at that time. Often the results are pleasingly surprising if not successful. We artists describe this event as a “happy accident”.

Anyone into Banksy?

His latest beef is worth reading about…

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.

I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.

Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.

However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.

I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.

Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?

It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.[/quote]

Interesting discussion. As an artist, I always thought everyone had the power of visualization, but their process of manifesting that image became burdensome or impossible to actualize in graphic or plastic form.

Perhaps what you describe, Bill, is what sets apart non-artists from artists. In my own experience, I see a clear picture in my mind of what I set out to do on paper. Then I execute it. Sometimes I admit my ideas aren’t so clear-focused, yet I still take pencil to paper because there’s a “learned” response that fills in the blanks at that time. Often the results are pleasingly surprising if not successful. We artists describe this event as a “happy accident”.
[/quote]

I’d like to add another perspective to this discussion (very interesting). I’m an extremely visual person. My whole career in mapping and software (and geology) has been based around visualizing structures, shapes, geometries, colors, and patterns. When I talk I catch myself using my hands and ‘seeing’ the things I’m talking about (aside from being Italian). I’m not an artist per se, but I’m an OK sketcher and I do a lot of computer graphics (+ dig. photography and manipulation).

Where I’m going with this is, I am a musician (audio art, if you will). I don’t read music (well), and taught myself guitar by ear-- I only need to hear something once or twice. When I hear, play, or compose music I “see” it.

The best thing I can describe is that I see colors and shapes-- not colors and geometry as you think of ‘red’ or ‘square’, but more like a fabric of patterns. I can’t explain it any better than that. I’ve had this conversations with lots of musicians and some get it and some don’t, but I know (and from others) that when I (or anyone) find that pocket or zone in a jam it’s like a visual dream state and the notes are creating landscapes (for lack of a better term).

Incredibly cathartic.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.

I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.

Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.

However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.

I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.

Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?

It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.[/quote]

Interesting discussion. As an artist, I always thought everyone had the power of visualization, but their process of manifesting that image became burdensome or impossible to actualize in graphic or plastic form.

Perhaps what you describe, Bill, is what sets apart non-artists from artists. In my own experience, I see a clear picture in my mind of what I set out to do on paper. Then I execute it. Sometimes I admit my ideas aren’t so clear-focused, yet I still take pencil to paper because there’s a “learned” response that fills in the blanks at that time. Often the results are pleasingly surprising if not successful. We artists describe this event as a “happy accident”.
[/quote]

I’d like to add another perspective to this discussion (very interesting). I’m an extremely visual person. My whole career in mapping and software (and geology) has been based around visualizing structures, shapes, geometries, colors, and patterns. When I talk I catch myself using my hands and ‘seeing’ the things I’m talking about (aside from being Italian). I’m not an artist per se, but I’m an OK sketcher and I do a lot of computer graphics (+ dig. photography and manipulation).

Where I’m going with this is, I am a musician (audio art, if you will). I don’t read music (well), and taught myself guitar by ear-- I only need to hear something once or twice. When I hear, play, or compose music I “see” it.

The best thing I can describe is that I see colors and shapes-- not colors and geometry as you think of ‘red’ or ‘square’, but more like a fabric of patterns. I can’t explain it any better than that. I’ve had this conversations with lots of musicians and some get it and some don’t, but I know (and from others) that when I (or anyone) find that pocket or zone in a jam it’s like a visual dream state and the notes are creating landscapes (for lack of a better term).

Incredibly cathartic.[/quote]

Steely

Sounds like you have a degree of synesthesia… although labeling that"ability" seems lame when you become aware that many artists have some degree of it. I’d prefer to all those who do not have it “deficient”. lol

What you described as that zone is very similar to what I described above. You don’t initiate a solo in a jam with every note in mind beforehand. This is where your “learned” response kicks in and it seems like some internal power takes over. I like to use the word “flow” because there’s a seamless connection to everything at that moment. It’s the same for musicians and artists alike. In fact, I’ll bet when you try to recall in your mind what you had played yesterday, you can’t! I’ve done great paintings where the next day I’ll review my work and I can’t remember completing particular passages of the picture. Man, I love that! That’s the zone I want to be in at all times.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.

I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.

Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.

However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.

I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.

Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?

It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.[/quote]

Interesting discussion. As an artist, I always thought everyone had the power of visualization, but their process of manifesting that image became burdensome or impossible to actualize in graphic or plastic form.

Perhaps what you describe, Bill, is what sets apart non-artists from artists. In my own experience, I see a clear picture in my mind of what I set out to do on paper. Then I execute it. Sometimes I admit my ideas aren’t so clear-focused, yet I still take pencil to paper because there’s a “learned” response that fills in the blanks at that time. Often the results are pleasingly surprising if not successful. We artists describe this event as a “happy accident”.
[/quote]

I’d like to add another perspective to this discussion (very interesting). I’m an extremely visual person. My whole career in mapping and software (and geology) has been based around visualizing structures, shapes, geometries, colors, and patterns. When I talk I catch myself using my hands and ‘seeing’ the things I’m talking about (aside from being Italian). I’m not an artist per se, but I’m an OK sketcher and I do a lot of computer graphics (+ dig. photography and manipulation).

Where I’m going with this is, I am a musician (audio art, if you will). I don’t read music (well), and taught myself guitar by ear-- I only need to hear something once or twice. When I hear, play, or compose music I “see” it.

The best thing I can describe is that I see colors and shapes-- not colors and geometry as you think of ‘red’ or ‘square’, but more like a fabric of patterns. I can’t explain it any better than that. I’ve had this conversations with lots of musicians and some get it and some don’t, but I know (and from others) that when I (or anyone) find that pocket or zone in a jam it’s like a visual dream state and the notes are creating landscapes (for lack of a better term).

Incredibly cathartic.[/quote]

Steely

Sounds like you have a degree of synesthesia… although labeling that"ability" seems lame when you become aware that many artists have some degree of it. I’d prefer to all those who do not have it “deficient”. lol

What you described as that zone is very similar to what I described above. You don’t initiate a solo in a jam with every note in mind beforehand. This is where your “learned” response kicks in and it seems like some internal power takes over. I like to use the word “flow” because there’s a seamless connection to everything at that moment. It’s the same for musicians and artists alike. In fact, I’ll bet when you try to recall in your mind what you had played yesterday, you can’t! I’ve done great paintings where the next day I’ll review my work and I can’t remember completing particular passages of the picture. Man, I love that! That’s the zone I want to be in at all times.

[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head. I’ve heard recordings of a gig the next day and a lot of it, I have no idea that I was playing it, but there it is recorded! It’s like trying to remember a vacation you took as a kid, where you know you were there and you can recall the emotion and some abstract visions of place, but don’t really remember being there consciously!

That’s why we keep going back. It’s a drug. Now that I think about it, there are analogs to this with sports and in the weight room. No doubt that athletes in the moment of greatness are artists in their ‘medium’-- they find that zone/dreamstate. You don’t get under big weight without at least trying to put yourself in a different mental place.

Interesting. I’m not talented artistically at all. But I can visualize things very well. The problem is when I try to draw it or color it on paper, it never comes out the way I pictured it. Guess I got no skillz.

So Bill, you can’t even visualize faces in your mind? So if you see a beautiful woman during the day , you can’t picture that image of in our mind later on that day? (ie put it in the spank bank)

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

That’s why we keep going back. It’s a drug. Now that I think about it, there are analogs to this with sports and in the weight room. No doubt that athletes in the moment of greatness are artists in their ‘medium’-- they find that zone/dreamstate. You don’t get under big weight without at least trying to put yourself in a different mental place.[/quote]

The “zone” in basketball was my favorite place on earth. I wish there was a way to put myself there at will but it was always a random, rare occurrence. I guess that’s what separates the amateurs from the professionals.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Along those lines: actually the best imaging I’ve ever done in the conscious state was my one experiment with remote viewing.

I was actually able to visualize the target (all I knew about it was an alphanumeric code assigned to it) better than I can picture anything volitionally.

Well, I have never seen the actual target, but while it wasn’t a sharp visual image it was closer to really seeing something than I can ordinarily ever do. Although of course it is a generated image from impressions of qualities gained by the subconscious rather than being based on actual imagery, as of course the eyeballs aren’t there to see anything.

However, it was sort of a self-hypnotic state, though not exactly.

I also cannot paint, draw, or sculpt, which seems naturally enough to go along with that.

Are your dreams reasonably lifelike images?

It’s interesting to me that the subconscious can generate such excellent images and in such speed and quantity, but for some persons such as yourself and myself, there’s no carryover to the conscious mind.[/quote]

Interesting discussion. As an artist, I always thought everyone had the power of visualization, but their process of manifesting that image became burdensome or impossible to actualize in graphic or plastic form.

Perhaps what you describe, Bill, is what sets apart non-artists from artists. In my own experience, I see a clear picture in my mind of what I set out to do on paper. Then I execute it. Sometimes I admit my ideas aren’t so clear-focused, yet I still take pencil to paper because there’s a “learned” response that fills in the blanks at that time. Often the results are pleasingly surprising if not successful. We artists describe this event as a “happy accident”.
[/quote]

I’d like to add another perspective to this discussion (very interesting). I’m an extremely visual person. My whole career in mapping and software (and geology) has been based around visualizing structures, shapes, geometries, colors, and patterns. When I talk I catch myself using my hands and ‘seeing’ the things I’m talking about (aside from being Italian). I’m not an artist per se, but I’m an OK sketcher and I do a lot of computer graphics (+ dig. photography and manipulation).

Where I’m going with this is, I am a musician (audio art, if you will). I don’t read music (well), and taught myself guitar by ear-- I only need to hear something once or twice. When I hear, play, or compose music I “see” it.

The best thing I can describe is that I see colors and shapes-- not colors and geometry as you think of ‘red’ or ‘square’, but more like a fabric of patterns. I can’t explain it any better than that. I’ve had this conversations with lots of musicians and some get it and some don’t, but I know (and from others) that when I (or anyone) find that pocket or zone in a jam it’s like a visual dream state and the notes are creating landscapes (for lack of a better term).

Incredibly cathartic.[/quote]

Steely

Sounds like you have a degree of synesthesia… although labeling that"ability" seems lame when you become aware that many artists have some degree of it. I’d prefer to all those who do not have it “deficient”. lol

What you described as that zone is very similar to what I described above. You don’t initiate a solo in a jam with every note in mind beforehand. This is where your “learned” response kicks in and it seems like some internal power takes over. I like to use the word “flow” because there’s a seamless connection to everything at that moment. It’s the same for musicians and artists alike. In fact, I’ll bet when you try to recall in your mind what you had played yesterday, you can’t! I’ve done great paintings where the next day I’ll review my work and I can’t remember completing particular passages of the picture. Man, I love that! That’s the zone I want to be in at all times.

[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head. I’ve heard recordings of a gig the next day and a lot of it, I have no idea that I was playing it, but there it is recorded! It’s like trying to remember a vacation you took as a kid, where you know you were there and you can recall the emotion and some abstract visions of place, but don’t really remember being there consciously!

That’s why we keep going back. It’s a drug. Now that I think about it, there are analogs to this with sports and in the weight room. No doubt that athletes in the moment of greatness are artists in their ‘medium’-- they find that zone/dreamstate. You don’t get under big weight without at least trying to put yourself in a different mental place.[/quote]

I was thinking about athletes while reading Steely’s post. I don’t think what you guys experience is any different than professional athletes experience. They have physical attributes that the average amateur doesn’t possess, much like artists have a visual aptitude that non-artists don’t have. You can overcome some of the “deficiencies” from practice and effort, but you can’t overcome genetics and the higher threshold for performance that comes with it.

DB

[quote]sam_sneed wrote:
Interesting. I’m not talented artistically at all. But I can visualize things very well. The problem is when I try to draw it or color it on paper, it never comes out the way I pictured it. Guess I got no skillz.

So Bill, you can’t even visualize faces in your mind? So if you see a beautiful woman during the day , you can’t picture that image of in our mind later on that day? (ie put it in the spank bank)[/quote]

Nope.

I can remember the qualities, so to speak, and so have some sort of encoding of what a great ass she had or whatever, but I cannot “see” a visual image at all sharply. Very vague if I try, and it’s hard to even try.

Perhaps somewhat interestingly, despite all this when I’ve tried multiple choice tests for spatial ability I score fairly high. But it’s not from any remotely realistic (if it all) visual images of rotating the object or whatever, but from, I would say, working abstractly with encoded representations of it.

Maybe (as that is only a single case) that illustrates that the spatial skills in intelligence tests draw on different brain functions than artistic or realistic inner visualization. If so, further evidence for that is that it seems that there is no evidence that women have less ability to visualize images in their heads, but on average less ability to deal with spatial problem solving. So that would suggest that they are different functions.


Wait, Bill, so when you’re in that special place about to FAP! the night away, you don’t see two boobies, but the equations for 2 3-D parabolic cones? :wink:

Whoa, neat!

Gay artwork, so far.

Someone post some Frank Frazeta in this bitch!

No, I don’t know how it’s “encoded.” More like using way too much compression and getting back something that does give the idea, but at best has the detail of say looking through cheesecloth, and perhaps 1% or 2% of the “reality” of actually looking at something.

And ordinarily not even that: ordinarily I’d remember the qualities, however that can be described as being, without generating a visual image at all, even a vague one.

Not as say a verbal description of (to use our example) her ass’s shape, but some sort of thing that (to use the same expression again) encodes it.

Or for example there’s a fitness chick at the gym who has a really striking build, or maybe she counts herself as a bb’er (she does entirely serious strength training): I can sort of see a snapshot of her, but there’s not a visual reality to it really. Maybe 1% of a reality, but still enough encoding of some sort to recollect her shape.

Hmm, I thought of another example where spatial problem solving pretty much be a totally different process than visualizing images, although some might USE their visualization to see what solution was derived by this different process:

In playing outfield in baseball, it’s a needed and ordinary skill to be able, from seeing just the ball thrown from the pitcher and seeing the first instants of the ball jumping from the bat and, I dunno, the first 20 feet or so of its way up, to be able to turn and run to the correct area of the field where you need to be to catch it. I can do this, as of course many can, though not to the Willy Mays extent of not having to eventually turn and look and make some small final correction.

This actually has been looked at scientifically and has proved to be a pretty amazing spatial problem solving ability. It is actually very hard to see how the brain can possibly do this.

This could hardly be by forming pictures in the mind and working with the pictures.

It has to be some differing inner process working with information gleaned from the brief observation.

Anyway it’s interesting to me that they are apparently two different things, and one could be almost totally incapable of visualizing anything yet good at spatial problem solving such as in this situation, or perhaps have amazing visualizing ability yet perhaps quite poor spatial problem solving ability. Which at first glance would seem (or would have to me anyway) to be contradictory.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:Perhaps what you describe, Bill, is what sets apart non-artists from artists. In my own experience, I see a clear picture in my mind of what I set out to do on paper. Then I execute it. Sometimes I admit my ideas aren’t so clear-focused, yet I still take pencil to paper because there’s a “learned” response that fills in the blanks at that time. Often the results are pleasingly surprising if not successful. We artists describe this event as a “happy accident”.
[/quote]

Yes! I get an image in my head, sometimes strong, sometimes vague, and I try to execute it. In my case, I rarely get what I set out to achieve but it’s cool because I almost always wind up with a “happy accident” IF I keep trying. When I was younger if I didn’t get something amazing immediately I would give up on that piece and just start over on a new piece, then another, and another, until I get SOMETHING.

Now that I’m older, though, while I sometimes get something good on a first try, I’ve learned to keep my “failures” in front of me while I work on something else. Subconsciously, the wheels in your head are turning while you’re in the presence of your “failures.” Eventually, something clicks, you know what to do, and you start re-working the piece until it just happens.

The best thing about happy accidents is that they can take your subsequent work in a whole new direction. Artist’s RELY on accidents to keep producing good work. And art IS work. You have to be at it all the time or it becomes much more difficult to produce anything. You just have to keep plugging and not give up.

I thought it was just me.