Indeed she does! I didn't know that she had a baby. Have you seen the video for "Mother" yet?
MMMmmmuahahaha!!
re the dress: the way she talked about the dress in the short documentary was touching to me....how it embodied so much personal experience and life. And then to lose it. I've always had a fear of losing certain irreplaceable items...and when it does happen, I tend to see meaning in the loss. As if losing it speaks to a deeper purpose/cause than just being disorganized.
Maybe that's my attempt to feel better about the loss.
No, I hadn't seen it ("Mother"). I found it a bit too explicitly didactic... but I suspect that such is the temptation facing the artist, the temptation to "teach" (or in many cases "preach"). With success and fame, comes the temptation to attempt mold others and the world around us rather than simply tell interesting and instructive stories about them (ala husband Neil Gaiman).
I don't my having my ox gored, provided it's not done in a condescending manner (unbalanced).
If I were to balance this piece, I'd also present (or at least hint at the risks associated with) the tale of the farmer and the viper... but of course, I'd immediately be labelled a racist for suggesting the immigrants were "evil vipers".
ps - and if Amanda didn't purposely "lose the dress"... her subconscious has done the work for her. ;)
Of course, on second thought, you could read this piece as an argument against helicopter parenting. But to be successful, it would have to present an "alternative case" (of successfully parenting of an independent child).
Amanda's "naked" premise. It's funny because it confuses opposite concepts. It's not "style" that lies beneath your (or her) clothes. It's the reality of health. "Style" is rhetorical. It's "sophistry". It's pure appearances, intended to disguise realities. Reality is what is under your clothes. And if it's "fit" it's healthy, if it's flabby it is unhealthy and shows that you need exercise and physical conditioning. Only if you aim in your "style" for authenticity/reality can a claim that what's under your clothes is your "true" style. But that is seldom the aim, unless one is wearing "spandex" or transparent clothing. Clothing is usually intended to HIDE or DISGUISE our defects.
I would rather not be tedious, and therefore I will only say, after the manner of the geometricians (for I think that by this time you will be able to follow)
as attiring: gymnastic:: cookery: medicine;
or rather,
as attiring: gymnastic:: sophistry: legislation;
and
as cookery: medicine:: rhetoric: justice.
And this, I say, is the natural difference between the rhetorician and the sophist, but by reason of their near connection, they are apt to be jumbled up together; neither do they know what to make of themselves, nor do other men know what to make of them. For if the body presided over itself, and were not under the guidance of the soul, and the soul did not discern and discriminate between cookery and medicine, but the body was made the judge of them, and the rule of judgment was the bodily delight which was given by them, then the word of Anaxagoras, that word with which you, friend Polus, are so well acquainted, would prevail far and wide: 'Chaos' would come again, and cookery, health, and medicine would mingle in an indiscriminate mass. And now I have told you my notion of rhetoric, which is, in relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body. I may have been inconsistent in making a long speech, when I would not allow you to discourse at length. But I think that I may be excused, because you did not understand me, and could make no use of my answer when I spoke shortly, and therefore I had to enter into an explanation. And if I show an equal inability to make use of yours, I hope that you will speak at equal length; but if I am able to understand you, let me have the benefit of your brevity, as is only fair: And now you may do what you please with my answer. - Plato
Where I believe Amanda's argument falls short, IMO, is in the desire to "feel comfortable naked". Shouldn't it be to "improve" ones self? To eat healthier and act and perform ever better? Isn't THAT 'A' (what the Big Other) wants AND what she, through the objet petit 'a, secretly wants? I know that I do not feel comfortable 'naked'. Adam and Eve didn't feel comfortable naked. Even Playboy models and bodybuilders don't feel comfortable naked. To feel comfortable naked, you'd have to Not believe in a Big Other and be a true sociopath. The "gaze" of the other (even if it is only a little other) is there (not always). We reserve obscene ob skene/off screen/stage activity for intimate situations, not for general viewing. And so we are driven to IMPROVE ourselves. Like in the case of Adam and Eve, our nakedness exposes our inadequacies, and our conscious knowledge of them. We "hide" from the sight of G_d.
Amanda is right, that "Being" (comfort/statis) is the goal, but "Becoming" is the road. THAT (the shame and discomfort in our nakedness) is the "road" to "Being", and THAT discomfort is what we should "celebrate".
Like the objet petit 'a, as soon as we achieve a goal it transforms into another. Like Apollo, we chase Daphne, only to see her metamorphosize into something else the moment we achieve her.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Amanda, through this challenge, is attempting to tempt a few friends out of the lethargy and convince them that they're not nearly as comfortable naked as they'd like to be?
18 comments:
well that was cool!
This band, Eisley, is from Tyler, TX...which is just around the corner from me.
Was that Amanda Palmer at the end? nice.
oh HA! She was in the whole video. :p
She was in the last two (but not the first). I love Amanda's Bride... I was inspired by the recent short about her.
Yes I watched it on her website!
Interesting that she was married in that dress, but later lost it.
Yes, but I think that marrying Neil obviated the need for the dress. ;)
She's got a "new" art project.
Indeed she does! I didn't know that she had a baby. Have you seen the video for "Mother" yet?
MMMmmmuahahaha!!
re the dress: the way she talked about the dress in the short documentary was touching to me....how it embodied so much personal experience and life. And then to lose it. I've always had a fear of losing certain irreplaceable items...and when it does happen, I tend to see meaning in the loss. As if losing it speaks to a deeper purpose/cause than just being disorganized.
Maybe that's my attempt to feel better about the loss.
No, I hadn't seen it ("Mother"). I found it a bit too explicitly didactic... but I suspect that such is the temptation facing the artist, the temptation to "teach" (or in many cases "preach"). With success and fame, comes the temptation to attempt mold others and the world around us rather than simply tell interesting and instructive stories about them (ala husband Neil Gaiman).
I don't my having my ox gored, provided it's not done in a condescending manner (unbalanced).
If I were to balance this piece, I'd also present (or at least hint at the risks associated with) the tale of the farmer and the viper... but of course, I'd immediately be labelled a racist for suggesting the immigrants were "evil vipers".
ps - and if Amanda didn't purposely "lose the dress"... her subconscious has done the work for her. ;)
Of course, on second thought, you could read this piece as an argument against helicopter parenting. But to be successful, it would have to present an "alternative case" (of successfully parenting of an independent child).
The imbalance is symbolized in the cyclopian make-up (usually left-eye).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVl1XMXXhIU
This was fantastic, in my opinion. Something tells me that FT wouldn't like it, though. ;-)
lol! I know I've posted it a dozen time, but I'll reprise it here...
attiring:gymnastic::cookery:medicine
how so?
I didn't see it as particularly informative, but I don't think that was the goal in the first place.
Amanda's "naked" premise. It's funny because it confuses opposite concepts. It's not "style" that lies beneath your (or her) clothes. It's the reality of health. "Style" is rhetorical. It's "sophistry". It's pure appearances, intended to disguise realities. Reality is what is under your clothes. And if it's "fit" it's healthy, if it's flabby it is unhealthy and shows that you need exercise and physical conditioning. Only if you aim in your "style" for authenticity/reality can a claim that what's under your clothes is your "true" style. But that is seldom the aim, unless one is wearing "spandex" or transparent clothing. Clothing is usually intended to HIDE or DISGUISE our defects.
I would rather not be tedious, and therefore I will only say, after the manner of the geometricians (for I think that by this time you will be able to follow)
as attiring: gymnastic:: cookery: medicine;
or rather,
as attiring: gymnastic:: sophistry: legislation;
and
as cookery: medicine:: rhetoric: justice.
And this, I say, is the natural difference between the rhetorician and the sophist, but by reason of their near connection, they are apt to be jumbled up together; neither do they know what to make of themselves, nor do other men know what to make of them. For if the body presided over itself, and were not under the guidance of the soul, and the soul did not discern and discriminate between cookery and medicine, but the body was made the judge of them, and the rule of judgment was the bodily delight which was given by them, then the word of Anaxagoras, that word with which you, friend Polus, are so well acquainted, would prevail far and wide: 'Chaos' would come again, and cookery, health, and medicine would mingle in an indiscriminate mass. And now I have told you my notion of rhetoric, which is, in relation to the soul, what cookery is to the body. I may have been inconsistent in making a long speech, when I would not allow you to discourse at length. But I think that I may be excused, because you did not understand me, and could make no use of my answer when I spoke shortly, and therefore I had to enter into an explanation. And if I show an equal inability to make use of yours, I hope that you will speak at equal length; but if I am able to understand you, let me have the benefit of your brevity, as is only fair: And now you may do what you please with my answer. - Plato
Where I believe Amanda's argument falls short, IMO, is in the desire to "feel comfortable naked". Shouldn't it be to "improve" ones self? To eat healthier and act and perform ever better? Isn't THAT 'A' (what the Big Other) wants AND what she, through the objet petit 'a, secretly wants? I know that I do not feel comfortable 'naked'. Adam and Eve didn't feel comfortable naked. Even Playboy models and bodybuilders don't feel comfortable naked. To feel comfortable naked, you'd have to Not believe in a Big Other and be a true sociopath. The "gaze" of the other (even if it is only a little other) is there (not always). We reserve obscene ob skene/off screen/stage activity for intimate situations, not for general viewing. And so we are driven to IMPROVE ourselves. Like in the case of Adam and Eve, our nakedness exposes our inadequacies, and our conscious knowledge of them.
We "hide" from the sight of G_d.
Amanda is right, that "Being" (comfort/statis) is the goal, but "Becoming" is the road. THAT (the shame and discomfort in our nakedness) is the "road" to "Being", and THAT discomfort is what we should "celebrate".
Like the objet petit 'a, as soon as we achieve a goal it transforms into another. Like Apollo, we chase Daphne, only to see her metamorphosize into something else the moment we achieve her.
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps Amanda, through this challenge, is attempting to tempt a few friends out of the lethargy and convince them that they're not nearly as comfortable naked as they'd like to be?
Post a Comment