See also this site by the artist: Prus Natalia (Nedelesco)
[ email | Criticism/analysis of society | Travelling | Projects | Goncharenko centre: Talks/discussions » Talk/discussion: Goncharenko centre 2025-5-11: Art, humour, music ]
Post event notes: See farther down on this page.
Translation: auto translation of this page into Ukrainian
I will start with an introduction about differences between men and women and how that affects friendships, but also discussions, and that my view is very different from the guy below. The discussions I had with women are actually far more interesting and deep than with any men, and these made me think about a lot of topics and write down my ideas, some years ago, so that's where these quotes are from, and I include this introduction as background of why it happened that I talked about such topics with women, and not with men:
Video: Training W/ A Female Giant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gg3CoQmoIk
Channel: Jesse James West, 2022-4-22
@Marco_My_Words
2 years ago
@justbinji7718 “Treat everyone the same” - No I am not supposed to treat a woman like I treat a man. I have male friends, but not female friends, and that’s for a reason. Women are waaaay different than men, in behavior, in thinking, in talking, in everything basically. Having a woman as a friend is the most boring thing for me, those things only happened when I was a child and didn’t know it better. Whereas with other men, I can often be very comfortable, talk about similar interests, go to the gym and do the same workout, go out drinking without ending up as someone’s therapist who has to listen to everyone’s problems. Men are just different than woman, the sooner you realize that, the better it will be for your mental health.
This is the opposite of me: For me men are generally not interesting, I am interested mostly in talking with women who are far more interesting, because they are not such simple thinkers (which means linear thinkers, and from that: predictable). My conversations and correspondence with women is far more deep and interesting though a friend said when I asked at a meeting in February that it depends, and he likes to talk more with men for for example if needing to get information, especially on technical matters. This is true but the most interesting correspondence and talks I have had were with women because women give different unexpected directions to a conversation/correspondence and ditto unexpected viewpoints.
I mentioned this to a friend, and the issue I had with 'L' in Zhytomyr and he said about women wanting to oppress their views that it definitely true in relationship/marriage (they want to change the men), but that about the issue that women will criticise men more than men criticise, that what she said about me coming to Ukraine "you are crazy for coming to Ukraine" is possibly related to how she feels herself: Not safe, then this criticism will come out. But I think men will not do that even if they don't feel safe. He is one of the exceptions of men who think in an interesting manner...
So, now to the topics in hand. The following quotes are from correspondence with some women in Ukraine, and my responses, several years ago:
I will come to the similarity of laughing about things that are not funny, and humour, further on.
First, what do you think is humour?
Note: Regarding the quotes below from messages to me and from me: I fixed a little of the spelling, not everything, but in essence it is what they wrote, in their style, and what I wrote.
I remember this one well because of realising that I wrote that I laughed about something that she wrote me in a message, but which wasn't meant as humour. I will also show a bit from her message in this post about that I made her change her thinking about some everyday things in Ukraine that she did not appreciate before:
Julia-S:
Sometimes I try to see the world through your eyes. I noticed this fact. Today, I was walking home through the park and I watched the trees that have already got autumnal coloring. I found myself thinking about how you could look at it, admiringly.
And I read your letter in which you write about the trees that are not well maintained. [ rather, more disorganised and chaotic, not necessarily maintained, as normally trees don't need to be maintained except cut down if they are rotten and could fall down, for example ] It turns out that it is very beautiful... But we got used to it and we do not notice it...[ so she started to look differently at the world around her ] I loved the trees in Paris :-) Because they were beautifully trimmed and they stood out like a a smooth wall...
I have seen some trees that were growing in huge pots, because everywhere was asphalt...It really felt like a "bonsai" :-) But in enlarged form... Here [ in Ukraine ], nature is natural, so far...
......................
Parable. Unhappy people.
One man had gone to heaven. He looks, and saw men walking there, all joyful, happy, open and friendly. And it is just like in real life.
He liked it. And he asked the archangel:
- Can I look, see what is hell like? Even for just a moment!
- Okay, come on, I'll show you.
They come in hell. The man looks, and there it is all the same, as in paradise: the same ordinary life, but people are angry and resentful, apparently they feel bad here. He asks the archangel:
- There are all of in the same manner as in paradise! Why are they all so angry?
- Because they think that heaven is better.
.........................
Wouter:
I laughed so much about the parable about hell and heaven, and you are right. In English there is saying that represents this: "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence". So if you live somewhere, doesn't matter where, many people will imagine that the grass is nicer in the garden of the neighbours... And perception is in the mind, so even if it's worse, then it can still look better there to people who 'want to believe' that it's better elsewhere!
Sometimes we need to hear the whole story, I mean the parable you told, to explain it more clearly. People don't think about it enough! So it was nice that you told me the parable...
Not so long later I realised this could be interpreted incorrectly so I send another message, part of it was this:
Wouter:
I thought about 2 things that I want to clarify:
1. Laughing about the parable: It was not because it's funny, but because it's so true, how people believe it is better elsewhere. Do you ever have this, that you laugh when you read something because it's so applicable, or if something is really curious, or interesting?
And the relevant part of the reply was:
Julia-S:
1. I understood you, but not right away... At first I was surprised that you were laughing about the parable... But then I realized that you're not laughing about the storyline... It is the joy of knowing the truth... [ correct ] Sometimes simple words help us to understand what seems to be incomprehensible for a long time. Laughter is not only from something funny... But from the simplicity of solving some problems... I understood everything... It's simple... and I feel funny... So your example about the grass on the other side of the fence is an exact expression... :-)
By the way, I like to read parables... Much truth is concentrated in a small story...
I asked Maria-O if she had 3 wishes, what would she wish?:
Maria-O:
[ skipping wishes 1 and 2: ]
I heard a lot of crazy stories from men, who ask their girlfriend, WHERE IS MY SECOND SOCK?? I GAVE YOU TWO OF THEM BUT AFTER YOU WASHED THEM, THE SECOND DISAPPEARED!!!!
The third will be - I wish that the second sock never disappears))))
Humour: Some comments are not humour, not funny, but you can laugh about them. Laughing is a reaction to a realisation of a connection, and of something unusual, that is not clear at the start. It is the same as with jokes: Suddenly you see (realise) an unusual connection/fact, and that makes you laugh and that makes it a joke.
A joke is about something not real, hypothetical, whereas about something real you can laugh when realising a connection, or a truth, but it is not funny.
In case with Julia-S, I laughed because I realised what she said is real, not because it was funny.
Sometimes people say: "It is funny because it is true" but I would say funny is then used in the sense of seeing an unusual connection.
First: What do you think is art?
Here is a part of message to me from Julia-K:
Julia-K:
And what I consider like junk is for example the famous British artist Damian Hirst...I was at his exhibition in Kiev a few years ago... I even visited this exhibition for 3 times with different people aiming to understand but I didn't understand anything... His works cost millions of dollars but I wouldn't give even a cent. The theme of all his works is death, he paints skulls and everything like that. You can find his works in internet and to see by your own eyes. And the biggest shock (negative shock) for me was his work called 'the itch for gain' or smth like that. It was an installation of cow with all of its entrails laying on the ground... yuck... I almost vomited when I saw that... I don't consider it art at all... I don't even understand how can people like it...
Look at these pictures: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=damian+hirst&ia=images&iax=images
I wrote about that:
Wouter:
For something to be considered art by me it must fulfil 3 conditions:
- It has to have beauty
- It has to be technically good, but more specifically: it must have been made with a lot of effort and skill.
- It has to have meaning (in itself or because it is for example a depiction of something from a story or history), or be interesting
If something can be made in a few minutes, there is no effort, and it's no art. Usually there is also no beauty then.
For me the Mona Lisa ("La Gioconda") is not art because it has no beauty and no meaning and it's not interesting. Apparently the way it was painted is extremely well done, but that means it's more an exposition of technique, rather than art.
The same is the case for anything by Picasso: His works have no beauty, and it looks like it could be painted by a child :) Perhaps that's not the case, but it doesn't matter as the missing beauty for me already makes it not art.
So what about the future? I thought a lot about this, technical perfection has been reached by painters and statue makers hundreds of years ago already, so the only thing that art can evolve in, is meaning. And this is where some art has gone, but by people who are incompetent at making something beautiful and well made.
One guy immediately realised there is something unusual in humour. Yes, that is essential. I told some examples but it was difficult to make some things clear...
One woman took 3 examples of art she made (see the pictures below), and we got talking more about "what is art?".
See also this site by the artist: Prus Natalia (Nedelesco)
2 people suggested everything is art, everything that comes from within. But I say: That is something a person created, a creation. Not all creations are art. One woman mentioned something created by artificial intelligence: Yes, I don't consider that art either. I talked about AI with someone else who used it in business to write some texts. I stated that I do not use AI for anything, I want everything to be written by me...
The same for "What is humour?". Some jokes that one person likes is very different than what another person likes. What one person considers disgusting is fine for someone else. An example is toilet humour which I don't appreciate at all. Can a bad film be considered art? What about a disgusting film (such as in particular some horror movies)? [ I suggested to watch "Evil dead 2", a horror movie, for being over the top (ridiculous) in blood etc. from which it is not disgusting because of the blood/violence/craziness being so ridiculous ] What about paintings that are just in 1 colour, or have a dot somewhere? What about the 'music' piece of which the title is the length, but it is just silence? I consider none of these art, they are really more "taking the piss", or in German "Verarschen", or in terms of parables "claiming the emperor has clothes on" when he doesn't have any on.
Humour that I do not appreciate: Charlie Chaplin's films in most cases have an unfriendly type of humour, such as pulling back a chair, just as another guy is sitting down on it and falls. Not cool, not funny, just annoying. I would recommend instead to watch Harold Lloyd of the same era. Excellent humour, including in the talkies, word jokes. Someone wondered whether Chaplin's 'humour' would have been funny then, but really such things do not change. It was not really funny then, and it isn't funny now, but it appeals to some people just like seeing someone fall can make some people laugh (actually, this can be instantaneous, a response to an unusual situation, something unexpected, usually it is predictable, such as in the films by Chaplin, but when not then it can trigger a laugh response even if you dislike such 'humour'). Another type of film or TV series that I don't like is those with too many 'jokes' which is already a problem. Also those jokes are usually not enough of a surprise connection so to me they feel unfunny. A joke should be something that stands out. Example: "Police Squad!" (1982), with Leslie Nielsen. I don't find it funny at all and don't like this series. The "Naked gun" series of films in which Nielsen plays the same character I find to be similarly annoying rather than funny. I do like "The detectives" (1993) with Jasper Carrott and Robert Powell, which is also about bumbling policemen, but the unexpected connections and unusual situations are created better and paced better (not a continuous stream of bad ones which is boring and tiresome, as in "Police squad!" and "Naked gun".
I would recommend for unusual humour to read "The hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy" (Douglas Adams), and/or watch the TV series (there is also a film, but I don't recommend watching that), though it is quite sarcastic and a strong criticism of lots of issues in society. You may need to be in the mood to appreciate it. Also very good is the science fiction TV series Red Dwarf.
Note: Watching TV series while using subtitles can be a good help to learn English and to learn a lot of expressions.
Addition 2025-5-17: There are forms of humour related to recognition of something from the past. I thought back to that about a video on youtube of some woman making 'jokes' that depend on having experienced something in life. Some woman commented on others finding it not funny that it was not for them, only for those who experienced such situations. I replied that (years ago) about that, that I do not consider that humour, even if it can make some people laugh. Laughing is a response generally to something unusual, not necessarily something that is funny/humour. Here the realisation is that "others have the same problems in life". Memes are a form of 'recognition-humour' but that started as something unusual. The repeat of the same phrase returns your thoughts to the origins and can make you laugh.
|
Copyright W.H.Scholten, 2025. To contact me you can email or send a message via telegram (via phone +31648816383), or via vk.com (https://vk.com/w.h.scholten, which I don't really use but I will get notified of messages from there). I don't use: facebook, linkedin, twitter. |