Here is what could be the ultimate proof for the existance of 'effortless action' and existance of invisible spirits who make you do things.

I talked to a painter recently and she told me about Picasso. Picasso's painting style changed dramatically all of a sudden mysteriously.

After losing this ability, he tried to paint made a lot of efforts but he could only potray childish monster like images.
This is mysterious, because it looks like there was an invisible spirit in him that was actually painting the masterpieces and it actually left him for reasons unknown. And later when he tried to paint, he only produced monsters.

Take a look:

1902:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso_la_vie.jpg

1905:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gar%C3%A7on_%C3%A0_la_pipe.jpg

1906:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GertrudeStein...

1907:
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/File:Les_Demoiselles_d%27Avignon.jpg

1941:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/D...

1968:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Picasso-Neckl...

Sacred, Profound

Tihit Kumar1 wrote:
After losing this ability, he tried to paint made a lot of efforts but he could only potray childish monster like images. This is mysterious, because it looks like there was an invisible spirit in him that was actually painting the masterpieces and it actually left him for reasons unknown. And later when he tried to paint, he only produced monsters.

What a load of nonsense. Picasso knew exactly what he was doing. He challenged the conditioned manner in which people see images - the way in which they relate to only what they recognize.

To some extent Picasso was in step with K in this - challenging conditioned reactions.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
What a load of nonsense. Picasso knew exactly what he was doing. He challenged the conditioned manner in which people see images - the way in which they relate to only what they recognize.

I was told that it was an American businessmen who applied this logic to sell these monsters for a bomb in US and make money. They like monsters in US anyway. I mean, look at all the animation movies they make.

But, as you rightly grasped, he succeeded in sending this message across:
1) People have different viewpoints
2) Everyone does not have a holistic view

And by the way K did make poke fun at Picasso's paintings more than once.

You have accepted Picasso as a great painter, a great creator, putting one nose on three faces, or whatever he does. ...25 Jul 1980

19 Apr 1979 ... Sir when you go to a museum and watch several pictures - Picasso, Michelangelo - I withdraw Picasso (Laughter) - Michelangelo and so on ....

K was more a fan of spanish painter Goya. (Classism form of art, as opposed to cubism of Picasso).

Goya painting

Now going back to the invisible spirit.

I was told Picasso could not paint the way he could in his earlier years even if he wanted to. Now this was not a choice. This was an inability, not a physical inability but a mental inability. He lost a faculty he once had, and that gift or faculty is a living thing, a spirit.

Sacred, Profound

This post was last updated by Tihit Kumarz (account deleted) Tue, 15 Feb 2011.

frank ajai ask where sundit, is second name not telling you !

the messiah

frank ajai ask where sundit, is second name not telling you !

the messiah

Goya, Schmoya, it's all entertainment.

AS for Picasso, the abstraction of form from meaning may have had some meaning for him and maybe it mirrors the destruction of relationship in modern society, in which it is but social criticism and therefore propaganda. Is self-expression creative? No, it is simply expressive.

What are you waiting for?

there was someone else called k, one was kafta and another was a detective or something like that, and krishnamurti, usually hated painting, the popular dum dums of the modern times, made it up until they got into their muse, like j.krishnamurti,there was one man whom like painting, but we watched him until he joined the ensembled crowd. i heard the truth about picasso, and i thought it, a creative offering, i have seen, the spanish artist picasso, ho ho, the works of man, hmm, har, man himself , who ?

the messiah

there was someone else called k, one was kafta and another was a detective or something like that, and krishnamurti, usually hated painting, the popular dum dums of the modern times, made it up until they got into their muse, like j.krishnamurti,there was one man whom like painting, but we watched him until he joined the ensembled crowd. i heard the truth about picasso, and i thought it, a creative offering, i have seen, the spanish artist picasso, ho ho, the works of man, hmm, har, man himself , who ?

the messiah

In this entire discussion we see one thing:

Everyone does not see the world in the same way.

Or Do we??????!!!!!

Sacred, Profound

It is irrelevant.

The world is what it is - regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Opinion does not change fact.

Tihit Kumar1 wrote:
After losing this ability, he tried to paint made a lot of efforts but he could only potray childish monster like images. This is mysterious, because it looks like there was an invisible spirit in him that was actually painting the masterpieces and it actually left him for reasons unknown.

Tihit,

How do you say because he lost the ability that there was a spirit in him painting the masterpieces earlier?There can be multiple reasons for it.May be he himself changed it!

Patricia,

Patricia:It is irrelevant.

The world is what it is - regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Opinion does not change fact.

mina: There is also the fact that the world as we know it (=the world thought/knowledge is putting together, as the outer reflection of our inner state) IS actually made up of 'what we think about it'. It is a world made up of opinion, limitation, contradiction.

'Everyone does not see the world in the same way.'

Mina: Yet the same in all these relatively different views/opinions is that they are all express what we think about something, revealing actually the common nature of thought and its apparently 'different ways'.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 24 Feb 2011.

Our thoughts bring us to diverse callings, setting people apart; the carpenter seeks what is broken, the physician a fracture, and the Brahmin priest seeks one who presses Soma. O drop of Soma, flow for Indra.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Mina Martini wrote:
Yet the same in all these relatively different views/opinions is that they are all express what we think about something, revealing actually the common nature of thought and its apparently 'different ways'.

Yes, and what 'we' think about something is what the 'self' thinks.

And this is true also of the artist. In 'self-expression' the self is expressed, not the universal, not the sacred. Is the artist, is Picasso, expressing the self, or not? If the artist has moved beyond self then we would see something entirely new in art, not mere changes in perpective, line and form, which were not revolutionary but contemporary.

Would we not see it in the artist's life? Would it not end fame and ambition in his life? Picasso, as I understand it, was an ambitious and sensual being, like many others. Is it that which we worship?

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Is it that which we worship?

you have pressed Soma.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Dear Paul,

Nice to come across you.

Paul:'Yes, and what 'we' think about something is what the 'self' thinks.

Mina: of course. to think about=the self.

Paul:And this is true also of the artist. In 'self-expression' the self is expressed, not the universal, not the sacred. Is the artist, is Picasso, expressing the self, or not? If the artist has moved beyond self then we would see something entirely new in art, not mere changes in perpective, line and form, which were not revolutionary but contemporary.

Mina: Exactly. It is only when the 'artist' (anyone) has moved beyond the self that the expression (any expression) is creation.

Paul:Would we not see it in the artist's life? Would it not end fame and ambition in his life? Picasso, as I understand it, was an ambitious and sensual being, like many others. Is it that which we worship?

Mina: No opinion/knowledge of Picasso here, but it seems clear that ideas of 'fame' 'ambition' etc. cannot co-exist with seriousness.

Mina Martini wrote:
mina: There is also the fact that the world as we know it (=the world thought/knowledge is putting together, as the outer reflection of our inner state) IS actually made up of 'what we think about it'. It is a world made up of opinion, limitation, contradiction.

That is what psychological thought likes to believe its power is. But the universe is not beholden to psychological thought.

There is a whole universe outside of thought Mina.

'Mina Martini wrote:
mina: There is also the fact that the world as we know it (=the world thought/knowledge is putting together, as the outer reflection of our inner state) IS actually made up of 'what we think about it'. It is a world made up of opinion, limitation, contradiction.

Patricia:That is what psychological thought likes to believe its power is. But the universe is not beholden to psychological thought.

Mina: Clear that the universe is not beholden to psychological thought. Was only describing how psychological thought has created the world of image which it takes for real. There is very limited imaginary power in psychological thought anyway, now that you mentioned power.

Patricia:

'The world is what it is - regardless of what anyone thinks about it.'

Mina: To discover 'the world as it is' there has to be understanding of 'the world as we think it is', which is ourselves of course.

This post was last updated by Mina Martini Thu, 24 Feb 2011.

Kapila Kulasinghe wrote:
May be he himself changed it!

I don't think there was any choice or will. It just vanished, the ability. It seems he tried to paint like before, but.. just couldn't.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
It is irrelevant. The world is what it is - regardless of what anyone thinks about it.Opinion does not change fact.

Thank you.

Humans, animals and other forms of life are constantly remembering, and forgetting. On one hand memories are being set aflame, like funeral pyres. On the other hand haunting memories form the basis of relationship.

Paul Davidson wrote:
'self-expression'

True, self's are in conflict.

Sacred, Profound

This post was last updated by Tihit Kumarz (account deleted) Thu, 24 Feb 2011.

Mina Martini wrote:
Mina: To discover 'the world as it is' there has to be understanding of 'the world as we think it is', which is ourselves of course.

It is true, Mina. The outer world is only approachable from the inner. The inner is a mess so we must start with the inner.

This division of the inner and the outer is essentially false and invented.

In a limitless universe each being is a zero point and therefore is the centre. We have to start from that consciousness which is the zero point, which is what we are. The whole world is there.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 24 Feb 2011.

'In a limitless universe each being is a zeo point and therefore is the centre. We have to start from that consciousness which is the zero point, which is what we are. The whole world is there.'

m:Wonderful Paul

Tihit Kumar1 wrote:
I don't think there was any choice or will. It just vanished, the ability. It seems he tried to paint like before, but.. just couldn't.

Another interpretation:

The modern conventions of perspective in representational art were built over several centuries. They were taught as the actual. Cubism broke from that. When one breaks through any tradition, whether it be representational perspective or national identification, it makes no sense to go back. Picasso could not go back just like one could not step out in front of a moving bus, once one realized the danger. For the practiced artist, painting is as physical as walking, and just as fraught.

It was not the ability that vanished, just the limitation.

What are you waiting for?

This post was last updated by Paul Davidson (account deleted) Thu, 24 Feb 2011.

Paul Davidson wrote:
It was not the ability that vanished, just the limitation.

Thank you, that could be another way of looking at it.

Sacred, Profound

anyone want to ring me up for an argument , it takes like the flight of dodo indian bread to fully cook (over a wood fire of course) you take too long for a good chat, that's why i want a xxxxxx argument. i didn't agree with that george, talking about sincerity, that his wage for crap talk, he isn't even george, you are all too slow and i round you all off as vistors to earth without shame. you should have seen the last website, this master pasted the esembled , with talk of real truth and this soft lad , cobbed me off, he also forget his friends , his in the wrong philosophy , they don't like k , they more like kipping after exausting themselves with hell stories, avoiding their subconcious truth. anyone want to talk, find an old turban, you can singh , yourself, in,

frank

the messiah

Tihit Kumar1 wrote:
I don't think there was any choice or will. It just vanished, the ability. It seems he tried to paint like before, but.. just couldn't.

Tihit,

Can it be due to a very simple reason which we all have overlooked due to the greatness of the artist? He was human. Is it that he became conscious of his ability? You know, have you noticed playing some game you mess up the artistry, the finesse, the moment you become unduly conscious of the skill? May be the self, the ambition got in the way?

This post was last updated by Kapila Kulasinghe Sat, 26 Feb 2011.

Sorry - but while one judges and assesses Picasso - or anyone else for that matter - one is ignoring the only place where the movement of psychological thought can be completely apprehended and understood, and that is within oneself. Standing all alone, and without any comparison at all.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Picasso knew exactly what he was doing. He challenged the conditioned manner in which people see images - the way in which they relate to only what they recognize.
To some extent Picasso was in step with K in this - challenging conditioned reactions.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
while one judges and assesses Picasso - or anyone else for that matter - one is ignoring the only place where the movement of psychological thought can be completely apprehended and understood

What are you waiting for?

So? Picasso explored technically in the art the manner in which images affect the human brain. I am not judging him personally - it is obvious in his work. It is a TECHNICAL observation, not personal.