• ABOUT

thinairfactoryblog

~ A topnotch WordPress.com site

thinairfactoryblog

Tag Archives: The Bard

AI, an Endangered Species & The Immortal Dinner

09 Monday Sep 2024

Posted by Thin Air Factory in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Creative Obsolescence, Dialogue, Exponential Creative Development, Final Draft, generative AI, haydon, Keats, malcolm X, Margaret Atwood, storytelling, The Bard, The Immortal Dinner, Wordsworth

On the night of December 28th, in the year 1817, B. R. Haydon – by all accounts a rather eccentric British painter – gave a dinner party in his painting room in London. He invited, among others, three of the greatest writers of the age: the poets John Keats and William Wordsworth, and the essayist and wit Charles Lamb. Over the course of a long winter evening, they recited poetry, indulged in the high art of conversation, punctuated with antics both ridiculous and absurd. The evening was filled with such displays of brilliance and wit that Haydon’s party came to be known as The Immortal Dinner. 

In a podcast conversation recently with Maryrose Lyons from the Institute of AI Studies, I entered the conversation ostensibly as ‘an endangered species’ – the creative writer in an increasingly AI driven world. In a very pleasant and robust conversation with Maryrose, I ventured some of the ways in which writers can change their lens on AI, and understand more clearly how they can use it as a ‘buddy’ or tool. So with Haydon’s Immortal Dinner in mind, I thought I’d share where our conversation netted out .

Firstly, on that Endangered Species thing, if we listen to the AI doom-gong of some, my professional life is apparently all but over.

AI will not only eat mundane repetitive production line and back-office tasks by the gazillion – it will also consume the flowery likes of me along the way.

Why pay some ink slinger, or hack top-dollar to shape nuggets of written joy either large or small when an algorithm can do all the work at a fraction of the cost? Just think: all those by-lines, pop ups, adverts, blogs, essays, speeches, white papers – and that’s before we even get to the whole teeming slurry pit of marketing content that fills the platforms and networks on which we live – all done without one whining writer or transaction? Pretty compelling really – and it’s a fair cop. Our species are the shapers of the world we live in, so the adage of making beds and lying in them holds true enough. We are the architects of our futures, both good and bad – and sadly, more often than not, it tends to be the bad we focus on most.

The ‘bad’ are not always misguided or hysterical – some perceptions of AI  make an interesting point. In conversation with Laird Hamilton, legendary big wave surfer and water man, with whom I co-authored a book called Liferider, he touched on a theory of his that’s worth repeating. His theory is that ‘however good things are’, as a species, we always find a way to mess things up – and that AI is just the next phase in this series of species self -harming. It’s as if, having used our awesome protein computer brains to become the Alpha Predator on the planet, we suddenly realised that we’d created a flaw in the ‘order of things’. We realised that we needed to create a new Alpha Predator to maintain the ecosystem – as if we knew that, without a predator to test us, our evolution would stall in the face of our misuse of all that we’d created. So, we came up with a new predator to ‘thin the herd,’ keep us optimal and maintain the natural order of things. Take a bow, AI.

A powerful idea simply put and not that far fetched.

But.

There are three things that make me believe that, certainly for my shade of the species, extinction of purpose through AI is not a foregone conclusion. But we do need to accept that it will be very bumpy along the way – we live in the times we do.

As Ian McGilchrist pointed out in his book The Master & his Emissary, we are living in a Left Brain Tyranny now. Our seemingly unquenchable desire to use every technology we have, especially our new computational ones, to measure, manipulate and control everything from the universe to human behaviour to shopping basket suggestions is ascendent over the softer humanities and Right Brain creativity. In this world, every human action and task is a cost to be parsed, written down or extinguished in our fetish for ‘best maths homework ever’ – and a pat on the head of course, from whichever ‘teacher’ is marking our homework, whether they be shareholders, CFOs, Investors or simply the person in charge of calculating exco bonuses.

Creative Extinction Rebellion

So, what are these three things that make me think I can survive under, and indeed flourish in the face of this tyranny of AI?

What are the three things that make me believe that ‘creative doers’ like me can evolve and adapt within an AI world and, in real terms, use the ‘enemy’ to elevate and improve themselves, their value and their possibilities along the way? 

The first: The Company We Keep concerns the solitary nature of writing, creative exploration, and the absence of creative socialisation. The second, A Bigger Train-set, concerns the Application of one’s creative abilities and the art of evolution. The third, Fuelling the Fire, focuses on the need for AI to be relentlessly fuelled by new creative content and ideas to stay optimal and avoid its own form of endangerment.

So, here are my expanded thoughts on the survival of my breed:

1. The Company We Keep

Creative writers live in an isolated bubble, mostly. Yes, for a period of some 50 years, vast numbers of us of a less purist and more commercial bent sat side-by-side with our art directors and designer cousins in large agency organisations industrialising our crafts, and playing with and executing creative communications of every shade and hue for local and global ‘brands’, organisations or businesses.

Many did this from a rather privileged and well rewarded position. This bright, noisy creative machine exponentially grew under the watchful eye and once bulging bank accounts of advertising, PR, Marketing and Design agencies.

These creatives served the rise of ‘the consumer citizen’ and created a landscape hungry for more of their wares. But the computer age, the internet, mass digitisation, and flexible and remote working has returned many of them to their solitary desks, writing pads and keyboards.

For some creative writers this is bliss. The splendid isolation of it fitted with their ‘lone tortured artist in search of creative pearls’ narrative. But for many, the absence of the serendipitous creativity that existed in socialising their ideas amongst a group of like-minded people every day has narrowed their view’ of the world, their role in it, their craft, and ultimately, the ideas they generate. That’s not good.

At this juncture, many of those writers feel that AI represents just another nail in their creative coffin – the super accelerant of their demise.

But, for me, it offers the opportunity of not only expanding the creative company we keep and bringing the most diverse set of minds to bear on whatever we do, but also seeing our ideas through the eyes and pens of some of the greatest writers the world has ever known, forcing us to raise our bar again and again.

Which brings me to The Immortal Dinner part of the title. In the absence of a set of workmates and a big shared table, we can now use AI to create our own Immortal Dinner, all in the tap of a computer key.

A creative writer can take any creative phrase, description or idea, and feed it into even the most basic ChatGPT with a request to have the phrase rewritten in the words of the likes of Malcolm X, Margaret Atwood, The Bard, Graham Greene, Jumpa Lahiri – anyone that takes your fancy. Five or six goes at that and voila! You have created your own immortal dinner – where your shared idea has been reimagined through the eyes and words of another’s genius.  Cheeky? Maybe. Cheating? Not at all. 

As an example: to test the edges of a creative concept line I’d developed to explain genomic science in a more compelling, ‘feeling,’ and human way, I invited Jumpa Lahiri, Shabba Ranks, Margaret Atwood, The Bard, JP Donleavy, John Lennon, Iris Murdoch, Bill Bryson, and John Betjemen to my ‘Immortal Dinner.’

The outcome was swift and exhilarating. It opened out other avenues of language and phrasing, and creative thoughts around how different minds, communities, cultures, and eras might see the same thing. It was a dip into the eternal and universal.

Just for fun, I’m going to leave the responses anonymous – see if you can guess which one is which.

My Phrase:

The source code of our humanity.

ChatGPTs responses:

“The intricate design that governs our humanity, subtle yet profound in its influence.”

“The melody that writes our human story, the notes that make us who we are.”

“The quiet script that shapes our humanity, woven into the fabric of who we are.”

“The intricate manual that underpins our very existence, full of quirks and complexities that make us undeniably human.”

“The rhythm and root of our human core, the heartbeat that makes us true.”

“The raw, tangled code that makes us human, messy and marvellous all at once.”

“The blueprint that threads us together as human.”

“The essence that scripts our mortal soul.”

“The very script of our shared human heart.”

So, to summarise the ‘first thing’: For a writer, AI platforms, even the most basic ones, enable creative writers to effectively socialise, hone and explore their creative ideas amongst some very rare company. The machine mind doesn’t provide the answer – but it provides a sophisticated sounding board that enables the writer to ask better questions of themselves and their creativity. What’s not to like?

2. A bigger Train-set

So, to our second point, and AI’s potential to expand and evolve the application of a writer’s craft.

generative AI can help transport a creative writer’s ideas into new channels and skill sets they had otherwise never touched, explored or deemed to be in their ‘wheelhouse.’ This second point focuses  on how generative AI can build both commercial resilience and creative possibility at one and the same time.

For example: many commercial writers harbour fantasies of writing a novel or a movie script [though given that Hollywood is in melt down right now, this might be worth shelving for a while at least – Oh, and it’s all AI’s fault.]

Often, the lucky ones will take themselves back to college or, at the very least, embark on a writing course or two. BUT. Both of these options are expensive and time consuming – and if you’re struggling with bills, time poor, or have children or relatives to care for, the luxury of wafting off for a 7-day orgy of self-interested literary self-development, though a very attractive proposition, may well be beyond you. Fear not. ChatGPT to the rescue.

Basic generative Ai platforms can take a rough film treatment of yours [as long as it is well fleshed out, with clear scene structure and well-developed characters], and convert it into a very rough foundation form of Final Draft [a tyranny to those who know it] With one click, you can start to see how your idea falls on the page in script format. Again. It isn’t going to write The Ipcress File for you, or Slumdog Millionaire [unless you ask it to write your script in the style of those films]. The film idea has to be strong first and foremost – otherwise you’re just creating algorithmic ‘noise’

One simple way to test an idea that might be bobbling around in your head is to play with the core idea of it. For example: if your idea is basically Hamlet but played out on a Cruise Liner as a comedy, start by asking ChatGPT to rewrite Hamlet in the style of a sitcom by a TV comedy writer you revere: Armando Iannucci? Sharon Horgan? – take your pick. The result may be madness [but in a way, for Hamlet at least, that would be quite fitting]. This is a simple and quick way of testing an idea to see how much stretch and flex it has in it – and ultimately, whether you still feel excited and enthused enough to put in the leg work to bring it to fruition. The desire and perseverance required to realise an idea fully demands an absolute belief in what you’re trying to do – AI might help tip the balance.

In more particular terms, you can dive into very specific explorations that mix the immortal dinner idea with very particular disciplines to help you to develop voice and tone through comparison. There are a lot of genius screenwriters and their work out there to mine – William Goldman, Elaine May, Joel Cohen, Frances Marion and Tarantino to name but a few. They are masters of their craft and there’s a lot to learn from them. But there are also short cuts where you can test your mettle against them, courtesy of generative AI.

                  For example: a piece of dialogue from a piece of fiction I’m currently writing features a rather withered and cruel dying mother and her anxious and screwed-up grown-up daughter having a tiff:

“Oh, the whole ‘we named you after a car in a movie’ thing was just a little joke, darling – just for fun.”

“And 40 years of humiliation. Oh, how you must have laughed.”

“Oh, ‘Ren you are soooo dramatic.”

“She puts four ‘o’s in ‘soooo’ and I’m dramatic.”

“Oh, ‘Ren you are soooo funny. You sound just like that American comedian – jewish – Billy something or other.”

“Billy Crystal.”

‘That’s the one.”

Now, I’ve no intention of turning my two provincial English ladies into a pair of gnarly Cali-valley wash-ups perched in a hospice room in a run-down nursing home at the crap end of La Cienaga – but it is interesting to see how the dialogue translates when I put them through a Tarantino lens:

“Oh, c’mon, sweetheart. The whole ‘we named you after a car in a movie’ bit? Just a little gag. You know, for kicks.”

“Yeah, and 40 years of being the punchline. Bet that had you rolling, huh?”

“Damn, Ren, you gotta chill. You’re always soooo extra.”

“She drags out the ‘soooo’ like it’s a freaking opera, and I’m the one overreacting?”

“Ren, you’re a riot. Seriously. You could be that Jewish comedian… Billy, uh… you know the guy.”

“Billy Crystal.”

“That’s the one! Nailed it.”

Again, this is not about answers and the technology doing the work for you. Again, it is a tool by which you can ask better questions of yourself. The examples I’ve used are simplistic, but they are intended to demonstrate one simple point:

Forget what anyone else says about generative AI. Find out for yourself – take control of the technologies available to you and use your creativity to figure out first and foremost how to use them to your advantage. Screw with them, push them. Try to break them. Enjoy the irritatingly good and sometimes great responses they seem to pull out of thin air. Learn something. Surprise yourself. But most of all. Make it fun – and open your mind to everything and anything they have to offer. You’ll be surprised at the outcomes.

Which brings me to the third and last reason for my potentially non endangered species status.

3. Fuelling the Fire

For all the trumpeting of how the exponential improvements of generative AI are going to consume the old creative arts of writing, photography, design, fine arts and most conspicuously, film making, we seem to be missing one simple fact.

Generative AI is capable of doing what it does because of the well from which it draws its responses. It can scrape, curate, reorder, and reassemble all of civilisations current stored intelligence, knowledge, artifacts, systems of thinking and understanding to fit any question or challenge we set it [within reason]. While the well of its enlightenment is being filled with a relentless tsunami of human thought and creativity, it will continue to draw up some remarkable results. But that’s the point. To be the best it can be, the well cannot be allowed to stagnate.

If all human evolution of thought and culture were to stop tomorrow, left to its own devices, AI would eventually eat itself in series of ever-decreasing returns [after a few tries of course, at replicating the sheer individual gloriousness of our far superior protein computing.]  

It is therefore not in generative AIs interests that we hang up our creative spurs and accept obsolescence any time soon, whatever the bean-counters may say [though, given how short-term their view is, much like the industries exhausting the natural capital of the planet we exist on, they’d most probably think “screw it’, I’ll be gone by the time that happens”].

We are the fuel. Until the moment comes when AI can replicate the power of that ‘big old protein computer’ we call a brain, and do so a few billion times over, all at once [something that is still a very very long way off], we will always be the fuel of its best performance.

…

So, there we are – my three reasons for feeling mostly unendangered, excited, and in good company, thanks to generative AI.

Deluded? Perhaps.

But hopefully, if you’re of a creative bent, or are looking to optimise creative potential, these thoughts have chimed with you in some way, and you’re already planning an Immortal Dinner of your own sometime soon, just for the hell of it.

The Bard, Bowie, hemispheres & the bearable lightness of being.

07 Sunday Feb 2016

Posted by Thin Air Factory in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

1975, Aeschylus, Boccaccio, Bowie, Bowie IS, Broakes & Marsh, cartesian Duality, Charles Laughton, Chaucers, Dante, David St Hubbins, Descartes, Donne, Empathy, Extasie, Georg Cantor, Greek Chorus, Iain McGilchrist, Infinity, Lady Macbeth, Marlowe, Master & His Emissary, Neuro-imaging, Otherness, psychology, Right Hemisphere, Rosalind, Shakespeare, Spinal Tap, Station To Station, The Bard, The Soul, The V&A, Thin White Duke, Throwing Dart's In Lover's Eyes, Troillus & Cressida, University of Liverpool. Olivier, Ziggy Stardust

david-bowie-40-anni-di-ziggy-stardust-l-alieno-sessualmente-ambiguo_h_partb.jpg

I think there’s been a happening in the cosmic fizz just beyond our mortal measure and comprehension – but thankfully those of you Right-Hemisphere leaning kids out there will be none the poorer for it – quite the opposite one would hope, if the laws of social contagion are to be believed.

On 10th January 2016, David Bowie, a rock and pop performer of exceptional elegance and a master of transformation, died.

He left behind a staggering back catalogue of human invention. His ability to shift from masque to masque, identity to identity, not only in his career and lifetime but even in the process of one performance was in retrospect one of the great artistic spectacles of the 20th Century.

Until the point of his death, history was preparing to view 2016 through the eyes of another Great British artist (some would say the greatest), and a master of the dramatic theatre of shifting masques and identities.

2016 is the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death.

2016 was to be the year of the Bard, generator of some of the English language’s greatest turns of phrase; creator of some of its greatest dramatic masterpieces, characters and archetypes.

Hamlet. Lady Macbeth. Iago. Juliette. Oberon. The list is endless, and the construct and dynamics of their identities have been studied in minute detail and from every conceivable perspective.

The Bard’s own real identity has also come under intense scrutiny over the years – was he part of his work, merely the quill of it, or himself the greatest piece of literary confection of the English lexicon?

Was he a thief, an imitator, a fake, a sage or a genius? The jury it seems is still out.

Speaking of The Bard, genius, shifting identities and cosmic collisions – it is worth noting that on the evening of the 10th of January 2016, as David Bowie peacefully departed for a place from which he could chime ‘Look up here, I’m in Heaven’, another great shape shifter of the stage, (already an inhabitant of the intangible Otherness) was being celebrated in an RSC film night at the Barbican.

The film was Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream starring Charles Laughton – a man known to have infuriated his contemporaries(Olivier particularly) with statements such as:

“Great artists reveal the god in man,” he said in an interview, “and every character an actor plays must be this sort of creation. Not imitation – that is merely caricature… The better – the truer – the creation, the more it will resemble a great painter’s immortal work.”*

Reaching out beyond what is known, what is given and what exists is the simple process of creation – a conscious or unconscious action – and one of the greatest slingshots of our conscious development. It was certainly what drove Laughton.

 Laughton’s post-war masterpiece, Night of The Hunter, delivered a ground-breaking collision of theatrical chiaroscuro and dramatic tour de force that had until then never been seen on the movie screen.

In his need to see and go further than any one had ever gone before he aligned himself with the belief that the primary force of the stage is creative, not imitative – a belief system by which both The Bard and Bowie patently lived their lives.

The Bard & The Thin White Duke were, I believe, driven to do so – compelled to create something of a higher order – using contexts and characters to draw the sky towards them, to study the whole of our existence, instead of scratching out increments of cause and effect, measure for measure.

I believe that they did this because one aspect of their conscious self compelled them to do so. They were wired that way – more attuned to the right hemisphere of our brain; and its quest to seek that which lies just beyond our sight and our reasoning, rather than just controlling and measuring that which we already have.

This reaching for some sense of Otherness – just out of sight and beyond our reasoned comprehension – is not just some artsy humanities piffle.

Georg Cantor the 19th century Mathematician struggled with finite or ‘fixed’ concepts of infinity – he struggled with the idea of there being a necessary (rational/reasoned) uncertainty and incompleteness in the realm of mathematics.

He struggled with the idea that Beyond the infinity of infinities; (lay) Something Other. Infinity was no longer tameable by turning it into an abstract concept and then just carrying on as though it were just another number.

(Obviously one should be aware that there is a danger here of falling into the Spinal Trap of David St Hubbins and his discourse on Infinity:

‘It’s like saying when you try to extrapolate the end of the universe, you say, if the universe is indeed infinite, then how – what does that mean? How far is all the way, and then if it stops, what’s stopping it, and what’s behind what’s stopping it? So, what’s the end, you know, is my question to you. 

Though, as a form of dramatic proof, in this astonishingly funny moment, as with all great characterisations, we find a far deeper and more expansive question waiting to be asked hidden in the subtext of their comedy.)

If we delve deeper into the ties that bind the Bard and Bowie the deeper threads of influence ad interrelation strung between them are many.

In their astonishing curation of the man ‘DAVID BOWIE IS’ for the V&A, Victoria Broakes & Geoffrey Marsh refer to Bowie’s formulation of a theory of Gender as Performance, ‘… antecedents for which can be found in Shakespeare’s plays, where theatre becomes a master metaphor for life.’

Broakes & Marsh also refer to how ‘with his silver lipstick and forehead astral sphere he evoked the radiant allegorical figures of courtly masque.’

Going further, they attest to the belief that ‘Indeed, in Ziggy Stardust’s supernormal militant energy and shuffled masks we may have come closer than we ever will again to glimpsing how Shakespeare’s virtuoso boy actors performed the roles of Rosalind, Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth.’

As we should remember, the relationship between Bowie’s Thin White Duke (an exquisite confection of Abdicated Edward’s veneered hair and permanent cigarette painted in the gaunt Berlin draw of a smack-head aristocrat) and the Elizabethan Bard are more than just accents and accidents of gender performance.

The Thin White Duke was a man who spent much time ‘throwing darts in lover’s eyes.

love’s arrow or love’s darts and a penchant for casting them was a popular Elizabethan conceit favoured by Donne, Marlowe et al.

This emanation from within – reciprocity of feeling not thinking – was a reoccurring theme in the dramatic and written arts.

In Il Filostrato, circa 1338 Giovanni Boccaccio fused the tradition of love at first sight, the eye’s darts, and the metaphor of Cupid’s arrow:

“Nor did he (Troilus) who was so wise shortly before… perceive that Love with his darts dwelt within the rays of those lovely eyes… nor notice the arrow that sped to his heart.”

That this piece of writing was the inspiration of Chaucer’s ‘Troilus and Crisedye’ which in turn was the inspiration for Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida should come as no surprise.

Many were enamoured by the idea of an inner ‘light’ of intimate observation, emanating from inside the ‘soul’ of the observer to become one with soul of the observed.

Take the lovers of Donne’s Extasie for whom

Our eye beams twisted, and did thread

Our eyes upon a double string

 

And Shakespeare’s Oberon says of Cupid:

“A certain aim he took

At a fair vestal thronèd by the west,

And loosed his love shaft smartly from his bow

As it should pierce a hundred thousand hearts.”

 

Equally, Dante in his ‘Donne ch’avete intelletto d’amore’ (Rime XIV) was not inured to the charms of the reciprocal gaze.

“The very paragon of Beauty, who

Will wound the eyes of any who dares view

The flame-like essences of burning love

She shoots from her bright eyes – which, when they move,

Penetrate to the heart and wound it too.

Thus in her face one sees the vital strength

Of Love portrayed where none may gaze at length.”

There is a vital reciprocity in all their gaze – a mutuality and transaction of something alive. This is not mutual seeing of the direct referential See the Crow. Point at the Crow. Shoot the Crow type

Something has been shared – an inspirational and profound thing – a thing that improves each of them equally.

To Iain McGilchrist, author of The Master & His Emissary, a book on how our conscious selves and the world in which we exist is being shaped and moulded by hemispheric sensibility, the light ‘darts’ from the eyes of lover’s was the Elizabethan’s way of describing a form of seeing or observation that is fired by the right hemisphere and its pursuit of the intangible immeasurable higher order of us – whole expansive pictures of our existence far beyond the scrabbling measures of the left hemisphere’s control-freakery.

In reference to Dramatic Tragedy and the role of the Greek Chorus, McGilchrist points out that this new form of observation – distant – removed – taken out of the immediate rational linear Now – is one of the illuminating and enlightening moments of our conscious human development.

In viewing life and its tragedies from a distance, Drama allowed us to engage in an evolving form of human learning – of matters of the soul – of Otherness.

McGilchrist writes ‘In tragedy we see for the first time in the history of the West the power of empathy as we watch …the painful moulding of the will…’

The central role of faces and identities in drama and theatre is telling in regards to what both the Bard and Bowie understood – they ‘knew what was right without knowing’ – a very right hemisphere trait apparently.

McGilchrist points out that ‘the interpretation of faces is a Right Hemisphere prerogative: in looking at the face of one’s partner (compared with an unknown face) the right insula increases in activity.’

At the beating heart of drama we explore faces and the tension lines drawn between them. In faces and living expressions played out across identities and their myths we learn to understand the abstract, unseen and unimaginable – we use the dramatic shifts in the face – its expressions and light – to interrogate and comprehend our own existence, our empathy for others, our otherness in relation to the world around us.

In 1973, few young English teenage girls understood death other than through that of Ziggy Stardust. Their pain and loss were real; as the emotions had been created within them by the artist. They were not imitating life changing sadness and mourning. They were living it.

To be clear, Iain McGlchrist is not advocating some Cartesian Duality of Either Or. He is utterly committed to the lateral truths of how both the right and left hemispheres interrelate and relentlessly inform enrich and recalibrate each other. BUT.

He does contest that the greater dimensions of our conscious selves owe much to a hemisphere which until now has had to bear the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune showered upon it by the very  rational, left-hemisphere-leaning, scientific prism through which we are now all required to view and celebrate life. Hubble and Hawking must be enough for us now. How could we ever seek more

McGilchist’s polymathic interest in the collision point between neuro-imagination, literature and language and psychology is not working alone in the world.

Recently this world view has been bolstered by the works of another cluster of diverse minds.

Julie Henry writing for the Telegraph on the 13th January reported that ‘Scientists Psychologists and English academics at Liverpool University found that reading the works of the Bard …had a beneficial effect on the mind, catches the readers attention and triggers moments of self reflection.

Henry continued “Scans showed that the more “challenging” prose and poetry set off far more electrical activity in the brain than the more pedestrian versions.

Scientists were able to study the brain activity as it responded to each word and record how it “lit up” as the reader’s encountered unusual words, surprising phrases or difficult sentence structure.

This “lighting up” of the mind lasts longer than the initial electrical spark, shifting the brain to a higher gear, encouraging further reading.

The research also found that reading poetry, in particular, increases activity in the right hemisphere of the brain, an area concerned with “autobiographical memory”, helping the reader to reflect on and reappraise their own experiences in light of what they have read.”

Rational minds that dismiss the humanities and the arts as a distraction from the improving nature and evolution of being human seem to deny one pure truth that their own science reveals.

Our minds positively respond to reaching beyond what ‘is’. We are made better – improved – for it. Our humanity is illuminated and given depth and expanse by the creations of these pioneers of identity and conscious self. We learn to empathise with what is otherwise intangible – the feeling carried within another – beyond the linear and immediate.

The works of The Bard and of Bowie, compelled by their right-hemisphere need to reach beyond the measurable and the given – to seek to capture the ‘light’, the darts thrown from lovers eyes – created works both for the creator and the receiver – to inspire both themselves and us to reach to a greater degree of self understanding – of greater consciousness. They created a moment of mutual gaze between us and them -to allow us a glimpse of the light within in their own.

Their works become the dart and we the lover. And Vice Versa

One might even venture that the utter lack of utility or function seemingly required to render something ‘art’ is a defensive evolutionary mechanism. Perhaps its artfulness, its redundant pose, is itself an artful deceit designed to obscure the primary and far more powerful role the pieces of dramatic creativity are undertaking – to relentlessly improve and expand us through firing in us a greater quest for more conscious enlightenment in, and doing so while our left brain’s back is turned – for fear that otherwise the left will wade in, spoil and obfuscate what it cant understand – and in doing so diminish us and our potential to exist.

Or was it just that both Shakespeare and Bowie liked a man in tights (as did Laughton) – the Dressing Up box of Creativity and Dramatic effect and the reaching for Otherness being preferable to the real tragedy and visceral slaughter that came from those only interested in reaching for the Now and what existed in front of them, as they sought to measure, map, grasp and rule it.

*Quoted – Simon Callow Charles Laughton: dazzling player of monsters, misfits and kings 2013 – Telegraph On Line

 

 

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • November 2025
  • September 2024
  • June 2021
  • December 2020
  • August 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • January 2020
  • October 2019
  • June 2019
  • April 2019
  • November 2018
  • August 2018
  • June 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • March 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Categories

  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • thinairfactoryblog
    • Join 28 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • thinairfactoryblog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...