Image and seduction

From e-luminatus
Jump to: navigation, search
'jointly created with Potion, November/December 2006
(exceprts from Image and Seduction on Seducersworld).

Potion: Crystallization is very difficult to undo in some circumstances. Even though casual incidents may in a magical instant show us their reality at a time we are a bit less enchanted, their crystallized image in our minds takes a life of its own and lives on.

jon: For me poeticization creates images that symbolize and refer to memories of "reality" (as well as other images); crystallization involves some kind of loop-back between the different kinds of images and relationships and fantasies and realities.... preferring the more positive dynamic flowing evolving and ecstatic tantric and sufi forms. There are many kinds of crystallizations, pick the ones that work for you!

Potion: It seems to me that image is of essence in seduction simply because we are dealing with others' minds, and in their minds we are more closely percieved images, than real realities.

You are not anyone else. You never will be. As close as you may come to them, there is always a wall. That distance is awfully similar to the distance between essence and image.

Jon, what is reality, my dear butterfly? How is your target's reality involved in her seduction of you?

jon: I don't have targets :-)

Different people seducing me involve their realities in different ways. Some treat the seduction complete separate from reality; some make connections between our mutual realities; in some cases (and these are the most intense mutual seductions), we jointly create our fantasies and realities.

Potion: When we fall victim (I know, I know, you don't like this word ) to our seducer's charms, we as victims are not ourselves immune to the rule of it's all about the victim. We shape and mold them to match our desires, we create them the way it best fits our weaknesses, provided that there is a good timing for the encounter. We paint the image ourselves.

Kisses to you!

Potion: In wholeness of art, the unrelated and irrelevance of reality_ in short what does not add to the wholeness of the symmetry and definiteness of beauty, what does not add to the wholeness of the mask, persona, the image _ are cut out.

What remains is a concentrated whole in which all components correspond to creating one thematic image. Be it poetry, tragedy, rhetorics, or sculpture.

Hold on to this wholeness here, the symmetry, congruency, and definiteness. It's in such a whole picture that the idea of sending mixed signals, and strategic vulnerability leaves the most effect.

Before contradictions can confuse and seduce, we need a sufficiently recognizable image.

jon: Art is a part of life and life can be experienced (and created) as art; art helps create and shape reality as well as being shaped by it; reality as well as art can be whole, relevant, symmetical, congruent ... and for that matter, great art, like reality, need not be any of these things.

Confusion is not the only kind of mystery; contradictions (real or apparent) can also seduce by illuminating and clarifying ... and every image (why settle for just one) is 'sufficiently' recognizable for at least some purposes from at least some perspectives.

Potion: It's very true that in many cases Art shapes life and life can be lived at least partially as Art. The point in criticism, philosophy or aesthetics by setting extremes is to further lead us towards ideals. Ideal here meaning what gives most desirable results. Seductiveness.

jon: The ideal of "life as art" are those moments that are simultaneously meaningful, intentional, serendipitous, positive, transcendental, an integral part of multiple narratives, and beautiful ... in short, infinitely seductive. What ideal were you thinking of?

Potion: I am personally very much a formalist at heart, Jon, when it comes to evaluation of arts. The self sufficiency and independence of formalism appeals to me much more than the subjectivity of the most meaningful content. What is meaningful to you may not be much so to me.

In Seduction as in other arts, I prefer to see form do it all. A good piece of art stands on itself, on its form, not on its history, not on its audience, not even on its creator.

A work that needs interpretation is flawed, imperfect.

Seduction must in perfection be its own defense when it comes to evaluating it as art, of course in my opinion.

Image is so much more dependant on form than content. Wouldn't you agree?

jon: No. First of all I see form and content as interacting and less-than-completely separable; secondly, to the extent it does make sense to discuss them separately, both are important.

I think it's too limiting only to consider abstract acts of seduction outside of the societal, cultural, environmental, and personal circumstances of the people involved.

> Seduction must in perfection be its own defense when it comes to evaluating it as art....

Perfection is a process.

Potion, agreeing to disagree:

I am very much enjoying the discussion but just bringing it to consciousness. our both inclinations, mine to go through the process of elimination, and yours to resist to death to choose. I wish you would allow me to give you a moral lecture on benefits of choosing somethings over others, at least sometimes.

There are few works of art even amongst classics that are totally free from their history, cultural background, creator, audience, and interpretation. Each of these in fact adds to the thematic communication of the work and finally ultimately results in more appreciation. The thing is the more a work stands on itself the better it seduces. Words only go so far. They even damage.

Show instead of tell, that's if the medium is visual.

Perfection is a process as it's an ideal, as is a measure for success, as is a motivator, and a direction.