The d.o.m.:
Mr. Charles,
A couple of days have passed by and it seems that no one else would like to give any other suggestion than what you did. The d.o.m. would say you offered is a very good suggestion. He thinks that we may together start our exploration into what you suggested, now.

First of all, the d.o.m. does not know if you are or are not an artist or an expert of any field of art that you mentioned such as painting, poetry, sculpture or music.

On his part, the d.o.m. is not an artist or an expert of any field of it. He is not a critic to any of them either. Therefore, he would like to not make any praise or criticism on any of them but just look into them and see what they are or what they look like, then use some words to describe them a little bit to see if we can understand them and each other at some degree or not at all.

He would like to start with the word you used "a reflection" in the question, "Is all art a reflection?" And this is a good question.

The word "reflection" may have different meanings which may include, such as, (1) the process of light, heat or sound being reflected; (2) an image formed by reflection; (3) serious thought....

Which meaning among the above you meant with the word, the d.o.m. is not sure.

To the d.o.m., the word "reflection", in this case, means: any image or impression that an object such as a thing, an animal, a human being formed on one's mind by perceiving through six senses: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and intelect.

If this man would like to record the image or impression or thought on paper or some other material or instrument whichever he prefers to, it would be a painting or a poem or a song or piece of music or a statue, etc... then people who look at or read or recite or play it might call the one who recorded it as the painter, the poet, the musician, etc.

In this way, the one who recorded the images, impressions or thoughts was mainly living with those images, impressions and thoughts, since, not with the objects itself any more if he held on his painting or poem or song...instead of the object itself.

And the one who looks at or read or sing the recorded - even he might feel as he lives with the object itself - is in the same range of the recorder. Let alone many different schools of painting, poetry or music have come into being so far. All of them have become model or mould.

Anyone who could directly see things, hear sounds... but did not hold on any of their image or impression or thought long on his mind and lived with the object itself every moment in harmony would be a real artist of life. In this state of living, man and everything around him reflects each other like the net of stars that light each other in the night.

Take care,

SHAYNE:
well i know when i look at someones art or what they do or what they done i get an image of who they are. kinda like what they wear or how they dress.

also how they keep their house.
the inner and outer merge.
so yeah...life is art.

DAVID:
Dear Mr DOM,
Ha, ha, you do sound like an extremely forgetful sort of man, don't you? Yet or perhaps you never seem to forget eating, drinking, resting, sitting, sleeping, seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, thinking, cleaning, bathing, toileting, going home etc in your daily life. What kind of reflections are these in your view-points? Secondly, for example if an attractive worldly woman strips herself in front of you what is your immediate attentive response when you are face to face to each other? Or what does Mr DOM think or do?

LEHISH:
>On his part, the d.o.m. is not an artist or an expert of any field of it. He is not a critic to any them either. Therefore, he would like to not make any praise or criticism on any of them but just look into them and see what they are or what they look like, then use some words to describe them a little bit to see if we can understand them and each other at some degree or not at all.<

most people imagine as though looker/hearer which as though can reflect/"look into them and see what they are or what they look like"
http://www.angelfire.com/un/lishah/2.jpg

The d.o.m.:
Mr. David,
It's not exactly like what you have said above.

The d.o.m. is not a forgetful man. He just does not hold yesterday's things on his mind long. Therefore, his senses could keep themselves fresh in seeing, hearing, tasting...such as the taste of the fresh green tea he is sipping right now when sitting and typing these words to Mr. David. And he doesn't think he got any point of views when he needs to go to the bathroom. He just got in there, sat on the toilet bowl and did a good job! The same with the other things you mentioned.

Mr. David himself brouhgt his stripped attractive woman here, and of course, he will take her home with him because "she" has been on his mind so far. Why would the d.o.m. bother to think about that?

CHARLES:
"The d.o.m. would say what you offered is a very good suggestion. He thinks that we may together start our exploration into what you suggested, now."

Thank you. Here are some replies to things you said, inserted below.

"First of all, the d.o.m. does not know if you are or not an artist or an expert of any field of art that you mentioned such as painting, poetry, sculpture or music."

Sometimes I write poetry, but I am not an expert or critic in the field, nor am I very educated in it.

"...just look into them and see what they are or what they look like, then use some words to describe them a little bit to see if we can understand them and each other at some degree or not at all."

Yes, now we are just looking at the nature of art. We are thinking alike about this.

"The word "reflection" may have different meanings which may include, such as, (1) the process of light, heat or sound being reflected; (2) an image formed by reflection; (3) serious thought....

"Which meaning among the above you meant with the word, the d.o.m. is not sure."

All three are involved, but as you said, the second two are most involved in what is meant by "reflection" in this discussion:

"To the d.o.m., the word "reflection", in this case, means: any image or impression that an object such as a thing, an animal, a human being formed on one's mind by perceiving through six senses: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and intelect."

And then you wrote some things about how someone might stop living with the object that he was reflecting upon in his art, and then hold on to it so that it becomes his object. It seems there is agreement that somewhere in this process some people begin to add other reflections into the original one so that the art becomes more and more a reflection of the person's thoughts or feelings about the object, including associations with other objects. And then another person who experiences the work of art can thereby experience something of the one who made it, and something less of the original object.

In any case, the art is, as you said, a model for something. It becomes an object that represents some attempt to capture a reflection, and that then becomes a new object to experience.

"Anyone who could directly see things, hear sounds... but did not hold on any of their image or impression or thought long on his mind and lived with the object itself every moment in harmony would be a real artist of life. In this state of living, man and everything around him reflects each other like the net of stars that light each other in the night."

Yes, that is one observation to take from this, that if art and reflection are so closely intertwined, then we are all artists of life. Lynn mentioned something like that in the first thread on this topic. Sometimes we reflect most purely the objects with which we live, and other times our reflections blend together reflections of other things.

The d.o.m.:
Mr. Charles,
Based on what you have said here, it might be said that there are many different levels of art-works and also many different kinds of artists because there are original objects and the pictures taken them which were called the art-works or the less original objects or the pictures become the objects. Hence, there are the original artists who live with the orginal objects, then there are the less original artists who live with the pictures and thoughts about the pictures with which they try to figure out the original objects. And all of them, as you've said, are the artists of life. Right?

If so, the d.o.m. is lucky enough not being an artist. He is just an ordinary and deluded old man.

Thanks for your input.

DAVID:
Dear Mr DOM,
Of course I don't mean you are that forgetful sort of man in actual fact. What you had mentioned here you are just being the nature of creation by itself. For that, it is so called ART in our worldly measurable system. You claim you are not an artist yet you are an delused old man with suggestion or description here. So you neither a plant or a desire living creature. I wonder what are you... if you don't mind in your suggestive discussion here? Thanks!

Actually I don't mean to insult you or anybody here by bringing up the so called the ART of wordly female beauty here. I only thought what would your description or suggestion. Now you kicks the ball to my face accidently I suppose. I guess you are not interested to go further for discussion or it is not worth for mentioning at all. There was a story. Once a student purposely brought a monk to a strip show wihtout his consent, at the end of show the student asked the monk what he saw in the show, the monk answer nothing at all... & then keep quiet. Then the student asked back was it cold or hot? No, neither, the monk answered, it is as usual...

The d.o.m.:
Mr. David,
First of all, do not make it a problem for yourself and others.

The d.o.m. does not think you "insulted" anyone when you brought the "woman" here. He did not intend to kick the "ball to my face" as you felt and said here. He just said what he got on the spot.

If anyone would like to take a "naked woman" as the art, as you said, so feel free do so. The d.o.m. just sees a naked woman as a naked woman, no more no less.

Furthermore, the d.o.m. is not the monk in the story, so he would not do or say what the monk did or said. So, don't expect things happen in the same way.

CHARLES:
"If so, the d.o.m. is lucky enough not being an artist. He is just an ordinary and duluded old man."

So you do not call an ordinary man an artist? Reflections form in the mind of an ordinary man, and an ordinary man might even put them on paper, in stone, on a canvas, or into the Internet. We have done so. Right?

Perhaps you mean that an ordinary man is sometimes and artist and sometimes not?

SHAYNE:
i only read this briefly.
life can be art. honest reflection. what we do wholeistically or what we put our heart into is art.

it is a reflection of the soul. of the outlook of the individual.

CHARLES:
"So you do not call an ordinary man an artist? Reflections form in the mind of an ordinary man, and an ordinary man might even put them on paper, in stone, on a canvas, or into the Internet. We have done so. Right?" "Perhaps you mean that an ordinary man is sometimes and artist and sometimes not?"

The d.o.m.:
Mr. Charles,

If you would like to call anyone an artist in the way you define an artist, it's up to you. Or if an ordinary man would like to be called an artist, it's up to him.

Both are not the d.o.m.'s business.

SHAYNE:
d.o.m. has no wisdom.
but im not saying this is bad.

salutations shayne

The d.o.m.:
Mr. Shayne,

You are absolutely right.

CHARLES:
d.o.m.,
You wrote: "If you would like to call anyone an artist in the way you define an artist, it's up to you. Or if an ordinary man would like to be called an artist, it's up to him."

Yes, of course.

"Both are not the d.o.m.'s business."

Okay. Thank you for the conversation.

CT & Visitors 05/19/04

If you are planning on purchasing any product from amazon.com, you can help us out by using the search box to the right or by clicking on this link to begin shopping.