Moth
|
Oh aye!
Sep 24, 2003, 17:07
|
Sorry 4W, you went onto the nymphs/sprites/whatever bit so quickly I wasn't sure. (The full stop should've been a giveaway I guess LOL!!!)
love
Moth
|
baza
|
Trainspotting
Sep 24, 2003, 18:41
|
I missed that weblog of Tombo's, too.
Having had my attention drawn to it, I disagree with the whole tone of his article and here are a couple of thoughts in way of a reply.
As a young lad, I was a trainspotter...with an anorak. As well as standing at the end of station platforms, jotting down engine numbers, I had a good knowledge of the British railway system. On seeing a locomotive, I could tell you exactly what type of locomotive it was, where it was built and by whom, where its usual base was, what type of traffic it was designed to haul.......and so on. I see nothing wrong with having such an interest; does anyone? Way back then, some people derided me for my hobby, as do some now, when I go off to look at some 'rocks' or 'bumps in the ground'. If someone collects stamps then I see no reason to mock them. The way I see things, derision of such a pastime is born out of ignorance or misunderstanding, just as I sometimes wonder at the hobbies of some others.
<I>A megarak....</I>[makes]<I>....cries of denial: "we can never hope to understand the purpose of these places or the intentions of their builders", and "all those who claim to know anything of the purpose of these places or the intentions of their builders are indulging in nothing more than speculation".
This is nihilism at its worst: denying even the possibility of knowledge because you personally don't know.</I>
Ha! My experience is exactly the opposite to what you claim! There used to be a pagan-inspired collective going under the name Cruithni. I was denied involvement *precisely* because I have an open mind as to whether or not we will eventually discover the meaning and use of prehistoric monuments!
Andy Burnham claims to have devised the word 'megarak' and this is how he says that the term 'anorak' was first applied to certain enthusiasts:
http://www.anoraknation.com/knowledge/free_radio/000002.html
baz
|
morfe
|
Re: you don't have to!
Sep 24, 2003, 19:19
|
"Geometric doodling must come to mind before drawing people. Does it? Anyone got good info on that? Does it occur to kids to 'draw mummy' until someone asks them to?"
That's not easy to answer without knowing more of the question, I mean, are you specifically asking about cognitive development and skill of interpretation with regard to the learning child, or are looking to find a similarity between a child and ancient rock art?
If it's the former, then you expect scribbling and experimentation, where the child gets to know the medium, and lean about volitional non-interpretive connection between themselves and the medium. Once it becomes established that there is cause and effect, the skill may grow and join with observational and/or recollective efforts, a more conscious attempt at intepretation. This is where tuition becomes the rod that can spoil or save the child. Too-rigorous a methodology can harm the perceptual/instinctive process, too little makes us mix the paint back-down to mud. Drawing as opposed to painting is far more rooted in symbol, it's easier to simplify a concept with line, it becomes easily translated, universally.
If your question was the latter I believe it to be non-valid, but that's another thread!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: you don't have to!
Sep 24, 2003, 19:28
|
|
It was the former and your thoughts are my thoughts. Thanks :-)
|
morfe
|
Re: you don't have to!
Sep 24, 2003, 19:29
|
You just reminded me, I used to have in my tuition, a boy of 16 yrs, profoundly autistic in many ways, high functioning, yet emotive and given to doodling. In a real-life parody of the fast-show,whenever he became angry or agitated, he would mix the colours to BLACK! BLAaaAACK!!!
Another one would refuse to draw, we couldn't teach him he would just rip the paper with a pencil. One day, he drew my watch, just there and then, it was a total shock. Even the digital LCD all rendered in lines. The whole was composed of lazy squares, but completely recognisable. But in answer to your questioning whether a child would draw a person/object unless it was instructed to, or would it just doodle, I haven't a clue! I want to know NOW. I'll just go and make a baby, brb.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Trainspotting
Sep 24, 2003, 19:42
|
Ah ... that's better! And a much calmer answer than the one I penned and binned :-)
I must admit that I did feel a certain ... erm ... revulsion is about the only word I can think of ... to the text. I know it's written from the heart and is in response to several things that have been said in various threads over time, but I did think there was a lot of 'Pot' & 'Kettle' about it. Not Tombo being the 'Pot', but 'a New Ager' being the pot.
I personally find a great many spiritual types to be the most closed minded people I know. Any criticism of theories, any simple explanation to a mystery and they jump up and down stamping their feet. This, I think, is why I have lowered myself to doing the same over the years, thinking it was maybe the only way to get through to some of them. I was wrong.
I have been trying for some time now not to throw my teddy out of my pram and I've been doing fairly well, with just a few minor tantrums of late.
Everything has a cause and everything has an effect. We know a lot of effects and a few of the causes. I believe we will find all the causes eventually. Whether removing all the mystery is a good thing is a totally different thread.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: you don't have to!
Sep 24, 2003, 19:50
|
It is an amazing question isn't it!? Someone must have done a study on this ... otherwise there's a feckin' good paper there waiting to be written! I was hoping your experiences with talented kids would give you insight.
I have just remembered an incident that may go some way to answering my question. My eldest daughter was scribbling one day in the fashion of two year olds. The whole sheet covered in swirls and nothing else ... except a small gap just off centre. In this space was a circle with two triangles sticking off the top. In the circle were a few lines. When I pointed to it she pointed at one of our cats - we had about four then and they were a big part of her life, there was always at least one in sight.
|
morfe
|
Re: you don't have to!
Sep 24, 2003, 19:58
|
You've just answered the question yourself :-)
My not being blessed (or cursed!) with childlings is leaving a gap in my understanding, I only got to teach them from 11 upwards, so there's no way to know everything that's gone before.
Of course, your daughter may well have been instructed by the cat-spirits whilst you were looking the other way ;-)
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: you don't have to!
Sep 24, 2003, 22:21
|
"There is no reality, only perception."
And didn't I say some way back that it's all about semantics?
|
Hob
|
Re: Electric Monk
Sep 24, 2003, 22:41
|
Whoa! Hold on mon!
No crit intended Morfe.
I merely perceived an ability to transcend typical paradigmy-memey straightjacket thinking going on. Due to AMAT and the objective-subjective whathaveyou. In my book, the ability to accept and feel comfy with paradox and multiple meaning is a blessing. I'm used to being surrounded by dogmatic types at work.
Genuinely sorry about the ambiguity. Ha'ad on, there's irony there. I'm even worse at writing than I am at sensibleness.
|
