PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Isn't it just the same as watching water go down the plug hole in the kitchen sink ? it suggests 'a social, cultural, and even mythic dimension' ? It does ?But then again, The public art web site about the NYC installation says,
' ... Descension is ... exploring the potential of water to behave in surprising ways. The continuous swirling motion of this 26-foot-diameter liquid mass converges in a central vortex, as if rushing water is being sucked into the earth’s depths. We thus experience Kapoor’s abstract form on multiple levels. Its powerful physicality has a visceral and mesmerizing impact. Yet Descension also stimulates the imagination and suggests a social, cultural, and even mythic dimension.
There is such a thing as being overly dramatic, of course. (Artists are never, ever prone to that, of course. ) But I agree with Rodaki; the mere size does have an effect, I think. The kitchen sink can't hurt me; this thing could.Isn't it just the same as watching water go down the plug hole in the kitchen sink ? it suggests 'a social, cultural, and even mythic dimension' ? It does ?
The sculpture in the video was installed in a gallery, and for me, part of its power comes from it being open, exposed - it looks as if you could walk or crawl right up to it and peer in, or even get sucked in!
So even though people could come right up to it and peer over the fence, when I look at photos of this fenced in/off version, it feels like it's lost much of its power, because now people were cut off from the possibilities of exposure, of descending.
So maybe it wasn't as 'cut off' from exposure as I might imagine?
As a young child I think I was utterly terrified at the sight and sound of water going down the drain so for me being small and not knowing where this loud pulling vortex was going I might have thought it could take me with it. It seemed alive and loud especially the one in the bath. Shudder.Rodaki
eta: I wonder though if, even water down the drain, seen under the right circumstances and frame of mind and emotional state, might not produce feelings of greater meaning and grander dimensions, similar to those attributed to this work by critics . . (again the 'meaning is in the eye of the beholder' thought)
I love these thoughts! (and thanks for sharing them)As a young child I think I was utterly terrified at the sight and sound of water going down the drain so for me being small and not knowing where this loud pulling vortex was going I might have thought it could take me with it. It seemed alive and loud especially the one in the bath. Shudder.
I don't associate the art with 29 though because 29 keeps flowing and I see it as moving fast through landscape rather than a vortex from which there is no escape.
So, a few responses all rolled into one: I don't make an exact match-up between this art piece and the hexgram/trigram Kan, though some associations with the art and imagery do 'light up' for me: especially the idea of exposure, of plunging in, of being close to a powerful, moving force that you could fall or be sucked into.There is such a thing as being overly dramatic, of course. (Artists are never, ever prone to that, of course. ) But I agree with Rodaki; the mere size does have an effect, I think. The kitchen sink can't hurt me; this thing could.
Kan is associated with danger. And David used the word "exposure" several times - for some reason that word is ringing a bell with kan for me. (Although I can't find it anywhere, so maybe not!)
Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were, apologies if I left that impression.I don't make an exact match-up between this art piece and the hexgram/trigram Kan,
Ah. Glad to know I did indeed see it somewhere! (But I wasn't, again, trying to imply that you said "exposure" with that intent...)As to Exposure, that is the title/handle Bradford Hatcher uses for the gua and bagua Kan, and it might also have been used the the Ten Wings too?
'No worries' (as they say across the border up in BC). I never took what was said as anything implied. For me, this has been a very interesting and worthwhile exchange.Oh, I didn't mean to imply you were, apologies if I left that impression.
Dear Dora:... I still find myself sucked into vortexes but I'm learning, I hope!
As soon as possible:Manara wrote in 1988:
Translated with the help of Google:
"Is it true that appearance deceives? ... Maybe it's only half true, apparently only. Apparently, the appearance deceives. The deception of appearance is not a real deception. It's just an apparent deception. Or do I deceive myself? One can never rest. One can never be sure of anything. At least in appearance ...
Some stories ... contain more doubts than certainties, more appearances that deception, more love than anguish. At least apparently. If I do not deceive myself. "
M. Manara: Appearance deceives, del Griffo, 1988
In short: "things are not what they seem", seemingly.
Here's a few thoughts and images:I also found it while I had very strong 29 type feelings (the compulsion to dive into something I can't fully understand, the feeling of dread and yet being drawn into it) so it made a powerful impression on me
Link: https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/the-roller-skating-scene-from-charlie-chaplins-modern-timesThe roller skating scene from Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times
In the classic 1936 film Modern Times, silent film star Charlie Chaplin plays a poor American worker during the industrialization of the Machine Age. A bit into the film, he acquires a job as a night watchman in a department store and lets in a penniless young woman, played by Paulette Goddard, to experience its luxuries. When they both try on roller skates in the store’s toy department, a classic scene comes to life.
Spoiler alert! Chaplin was never in danger while filming. The gif below shows how a visual effect technique called a ‘glass matte painting shot’ helped them accomplish the harrowing scene.
Be sure to watch the illusion in the scene above again to find the moment when his back wheel briefly disappears behind the matte.
...Source: «The Kid Should See This» connects busy teachers and parents to a growing library of smart, short, and super-cool, “not-made-for-kids, but perfect for them” videos ...
Indeed they are not. I'm glad you pointed out the safety precautions taken. My heart was in my mouth with a few of CC's close shaves with the edge. The film crew had certainly created a realistic illusion for the viewers.Tings are not what they seem
The danger was real, in the fiction. But in the reality there were another sources of danger that passed unnoticed.
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).