Does Art Reflect Reality? - The Real as Surreal in "Twin Peaks: The Return"
POSSIBLE SPOILERS
Any Twin Peaks fans here?
I've been re-watching some moments from the new series, and thinking about the whole structure of the show. David Lynch has said in interviews that it's not so important to try to tie together all of the confusing, unresolved plot points. The idea is that life often doesn't make sense. The threads of our lives go unresolved; relationships, opportunities, disagreements, unexplained phenomena...
Which leads to the surreal element of the show. Take a look at scenes like this one:
The question, for instance, of why Cooper's face is super-imposed on this scene, and eventually says "we live inside a dream" at half-speed, is a question that's never resolved in the show. What this scene does is create a mood, and a general feeling of nausea, which is definitely a theme in the last two episodes of the show.
The common misconception (even among devotees of the show) is that these surreal elements all connect in some secret way to create a coherent plot. But this isn't the case; it comes from Lynch himself, and consequently, the show is so much more satisfying when viewed this way.
So, the themes of the show actually come full-circle: the surreal becomes the real: just like real life, things don't make sense, threads are not tied up; conflicts are not resolved. Plot points aren't neatly resolved; fan service isn't paid. The genius of Lynch here is that the surreal becomes the real. And vice versa. Ad nauseaum.
This brings up an interesting philosophical problem: does art reflect reality? Should it? Does art carry an intrinsic message? Is Lynch, for instance, trying to specifically show us the weirdness of our everyday lives, or is he simply responding to an aesthetic instinct, and finding what the results seem to indicate only after the fact? Is this sort of surrealism-made-real philosophically nihilistic? The ending to this new season, for instance, was sickening; I literally felt sick after watching it and had trouble sleeping that night. Not because of any horror element, but because of the element of the unknowable; the meaninglessness that seemed to permeate the finale.
A few more scenes:
Any Twin Peaks fans here?
I've been re-watching some moments from the new series, and thinking about the whole structure of the show. David Lynch has said in interviews that it's not so important to try to tie together all of the confusing, unresolved plot points. The idea is that life often doesn't make sense. The threads of our lives go unresolved; relationships, opportunities, disagreements, unexplained phenomena...
Which leads to the surreal element of the show. Take a look at scenes like this one:
The question, for instance, of why Cooper's face is super-imposed on this scene, and eventually says "we live inside a dream" at half-speed, is a question that's never resolved in the show. What this scene does is create a mood, and a general feeling of nausea, which is definitely a theme in the last two episodes of the show.
The common misconception (even among devotees of the show) is that these surreal elements all connect in some secret way to create a coherent plot. But this isn't the case; it comes from Lynch himself, and consequently, the show is so much more satisfying when viewed this way.
So, the themes of the show actually come full-circle: the surreal becomes the real: just like real life, things don't make sense, threads are not tied up; conflicts are not resolved. Plot points aren't neatly resolved; fan service isn't paid. The genius of Lynch here is that the surreal becomes the real. And vice versa. Ad nauseaum.
This brings up an interesting philosophical problem: does art reflect reality? Should it? Does art carry an intrinsic message? Is Lynch, for instance, trying to specifically show us the weirdness of our everyday lives, or is he simply responding to an aesthetic instinct, and finding what the results seem to indicate only after the fact? Is this sort of surrealism-made-real philosophically nihilistic? The ending to this new season, for instance, was sickening; I literally felt sick after watching it and had trouble sleeping that night. Not because of any horror element, but because of the element of the unknowable; the meaninglessness that seemed to permeate the finale.
A few more scenes:
Comments (71)
You are likely right that the main idea, as much as Lynch would be that concrete, is life is more like a dream (or that's a refreshingly different way to understand it).
We spend so much time fitting events into narratives, weaving a life that had some proper plot arc and resolution, that this is the anti-view - life lived with that particular character of dreaming, the anxiety of chasing meaning, apparently even grabbing hold of fleeting meaning, and finding things have morphed, altered, eluded our understanding.
So it is not surrealism as shock and surprise, but surrealism as relief and antidote.
:)
Quoting apokrisis
True, I didn't connect it all the way to saying that "life is like a dream". I dug for the interview in which he addressed it, but couldn't find it, I'll keep looking. I'm not sure how I feel about that though; that almost makes it too easy; "We live inside a dream"...it almost becomes an artists statement in that scene. I can't imagine he meant it that way. "We live inside a dream" seems more connected to the finale and the ending, to me. If you've parsed through the various possible layers of what time periods, alternate realities, etc etc that happened in those last two episodes, in an intelligible way...let me know...
Quoting apokrisis
Yes, there is a real emotional element of relief in the most surreal scenes. I know exactly what you mean.
I watched the original series and a few of the episodes from the return, which were very good, it takes me a long time to watch a TV series generally.
OK, he starts to dream, unaware that he is dreaming, then he sees the clock running backwards and he realizes that he is dreaming, his slow motion realization is that he is dreaming, at which point his face is super-imposed to suggest that he is aware of what is happening in his dream. Then as his dream progresses he loses this awareness of dreaming and the super-imposed image is gone.
Do you believe Lynch, does he have any right (authorial intent fallacy) or is his interpretation as valid as any other interpretation? I am undecided on this, but I tend to think the author may not be the best source for an unbiased interpretation of his work.
I think Art necessary starts with reality and then transcends it to become what it is, whatever that is, a reflection, a message, a dream...
I assume you're basing that interpretation off of the clip I posted? That would be a fair interpretation off of just that clip, however, that clip begins in the middle of a long sequence that has a lot of moving parts. i didn't find a youtube clip of the entire scene. The superimposition of Coopers face actually begins minutes before, within the same scene. it (oddly) cuts out once Cooper is reunited with Diane, but then reappears, and then the superimposed face utters its classic line (just you wait! it will be classic soon enough). I would also recommend watching all 18 episodes of the new season; it has some flavors of the original, but overall, the style of the new season is wholly it's own thing. Lynch co-wrote and directed all the episodes, after all, which was not the case for the original. This is pure Lynchian Twin Peaks!
Quoting Cavacava
I've made this argument before here, in discussions with you as well as others...no, Lynch doesn't possess some objective truth when it comes to his own work. My concept of the artist being only a fraction of the work itself should be well known to anyone who bothers to read the arts forum here. But, the reason I brought up Lynch's own interpretation of his work is because of the incessant conspiracy theories trying to tie all of the Twin Peaks knots together. In light of that culture of interpretation from the fans, I think this is a perfectly good example of when the artist does have some weight in weighing in and offering a subtle, simple interpretation to help us along. But only after we've grappled with the content on our own terms.
Quoting Cavacava
Why does art need to begin with reality?
So the aesthetic of art is from nature? The beauty/ugliness dichotomy stems from physical nature?
No, I mean aesthetic metaphysically. The aesthetic of a work is the property that makes it interesting to the observer. Aesthetic as "surface", as you say, is a different thing.
So, that being said, can you expound on this:
Quoting Cavacava
We can discuss it, if you are looking for a full blown theory then no. I think natural beauty is where all art starts. Our fascination with of what we see around us, what interests us with no purpose such as a sunset, the ocean, the sky and on and on, I think man takes from nature and transcends nature in art, producing something of higher value to others, a different kind then what is found in nature.
What? Why not? I would love a full-blown theory.
Quoting Cavacava
Ah, this must be our departure. Why say that the beauty of a sunset has no purpose?
If it had a purpose then it could not be beautiful, because what is beautiful must be beautiful as such with no ulterior motive or interest beyond itself as it is.
So beauty is it's own referent? I disagree. Beauty needs a context in which to obtain its definition.
We, the observers are as necessary as the artist, as the work, as the whole history of art. But what fascinates, what sets our imagination on fire is the work it self (not its context but certainly its contents) and what we experience in such a work opens up new possibilities which were not there prior to our experience of the work. Since all experiences are different there is no single correct interpretation as I said previously and as I think we have discussed in the past the experience of a work of art depends on how in tune one is with the work.
I think this is relevant - My brother-in-law is a visual artist. He paints geometric images. I asked him why he makes abstract rather than representational paintings. When he was a kid, he started out drawing what he saw around him. As he got older, that became unsatisfying and he started developing the style he has now. I don't get most abstract art. Some of it is beautiful or interesting, but I'm a pretty representational guy. Every once in a while I'll see something that makes me think about human perception in a different way. I enjoy that.
If you look at the progression of a painter's works, especially early 20th century painters, there is a strong tendency to start with nature and then simplify it, following and contributing to the trends of other painters, some of these painters eventual produce something that has little visible relationship with nature. An example of this kind of progression are the works of Piet Mondrian.
I looked him up on Wikipedia and I see what you mean about progression. I like his later paintings, colorful with a sense of composition that feels good, but they don't have any intellectual or emotional impact on me.
Yeah, again, i've made that point on this forum for awhile now. I'm not sure how it's a response to my question about beauty being it's own referent.
Quoting Cavacava
What? How can you say the audience is as important as the artist, and then say that context is not as important as content?
Quoting Cavacava
Wait, so which is it, according to you? Is there no single correct interpretation of a work, or does "how in tune one is with the work" determine the interpretation?
Can I ask a question in good faith? Why is it that when it comes to aesthetics, us philosophy types are suddenly beholden to personal experience?
No, I only let you ask me questions in bad faith. Hope that's okay with you.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yes, I would say it is nihilistic from the clips and the way you describe it (I haven't watched the show). It tries to portray things as meaningless and not tied together - as senseless. But that's just one way to experience life. Some people experience life as inherently meaningful, and weave stories around their experiences such that they make sense.
For example, giving a hypothetical example - someone has a boyfriend/girlfriend who they want to marry, and for reasons outside of their control they are unable to - like say Romeo and Juliet. One person would view the situation and the rest of their lives as senseless and meaningless. The other will look at it in terms of what they've learned from the other person, and will experience it as deeply meaningful, and connected with whatever future events requires them to use that knowledge. They may even believe they will be able to be together with that person after death.
There isn't just one way to relate to reality.
I'm not sure the show didn't make sense. A lot of it did make sense and it needs to be remembered there are two authors to it. Mark Frost had a lot of input.
Quoting Cavacava
I haven't haven't read anything you've written that didn't seem in good faith.
I was responding to what Cavacava was saying. As for "us philosophy types," here's my aesthetics. Four types of art 1) Stuff that moves me. 2) Stuff I don't get, but that I can see has value or know that people whose judgment I respect think it does. 3) Stuff about which I don't have an opinion. 4)Crap.
Following that aesthetic, I end up depending on my own personal experience. I think most of the rest of the aesthetic philosophy I've come across, which is not much, is pretty self-indulgent. For me, it comes down to "does it move me." If it doesn't, why pay any attention? There's too much wonderful stuff in the world I'll never get to without worrying about what I might be missing.
I don't think Lynch is trying to show life as meaningless or senseless. As I mentioned, what he said was something to the effect of "life doesn't always make sense". I like the way he plays with the foundational narrative structure we've all come to rely on; it confounds expectation, and it's truer to real life; our lives aren't the equivalent of a 2 hour Hollywood blockbuster; all the plot points of our lives don't get tied up nicely. That's what's interesting about his use of surrealism to portray an aspect of real life.
I'm with you!
Quoting JupiterJess
Which parts?
So how come your philosophy in general doesn't follow those types? Or does it?
Like this?
Quoting Noble Dust
I think the tying up of plot points is largely subjective, something that we have to do, it's not done for us. Nobody is going to tell you why you had the experiences you did - it's up to you to tie them together.
I think Lynch would agree with you. :P
Yep, but so much ado about nothing :P
What, this thread, or the show?
Neither! Rather the point that we are responsible to create the narrative of our lives. It's really quite a trivial point in the end. I suppose for other people it may not be, but if you've thought a long time about this, you know that this is the case.
Yes, I think it does. It comes from my observations, thoughts, and feelings about the world. And those are all one thing. As Emerson wrote:
"Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost,---- and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment. Familiar as the voice of the mind is to each, the highest merit we ascribe to Moses, Plato, and Milton is, that they set at naught books and traditions, and spoke not what men but what they thought. A man should learn to detect and watch that gleam of light which flashes across his mind from within, more than the lustre of the firmament of bards and sages."
I was going to say pardon me for putting myself in company with Emerson, and by reference with Moses, Plato, and Milton, but that was just Emerson's point.
What's trivial about it?
I agree, and that's a great quote. This is what always happens when I make threads about aesthetics; I just agree with everyone. So boring. :P
But I don't think a majority of posters here would agree with that idea of experience driving their philosophy. Or rather, they're unaware that it does, and so would disagree.
It's infertile. Where do we go from there? It's not provocative for any sort of change or revelation. Just another truth, like 2+2=4.
So far you've just made assertions that it's trivial; I was hoping you had an argument to make about it.
Well I've explained that I meant that it's not productive - we have nowhere to go from it. And I've provoked you - threw you a bone - to tell me where we go from it to prove me wrong X-)
I'm old now, but I was a pretty screwed up kid. I didn't know what I felt. I was numb a lot of the time. I've spent decades learning to become aware of my internal life emotions, thoughts, patterns. Also, I'm an engineer and I've had to spend a lot of time understanding the basis of reasons behind my professional actions. I generally know what I know and how I know it. What I believe and why I believe it.
And I'm a non-practicing engineer :P >:O
I don't feel provoked; I'm getting bored. How does the idea that "we don't have anywhere to go" from the realization that it's up to us to make sense of our lives make that realization trivial? That doesn't make sense.
I'm a screwed up kid myself (I think you have to be in order to enjoy the new Twin Peaks), so I appreciate the wisdom.
Are you asking which parts Mark Frost had a hand in or which parts made sense? If the latter, on a literal level the entire thing made sense. The fireman has to put out the 'fire' (nuke goes off and the bell starts ringing) and has enlisted numerous agents to get the job done. The FBI are also working to this end and have informants like Ray in Dopple-Cooper's gang.
But underlying that is the metaphysical attitudes concerning Lynch's own philosophy. And this is the interpretational part, that "everything that is a thing comes from consciousness" and that it may all be a story of someone making sense of their abuse by their father (Laura is the one).
No matter how she tries to escape, she always wakes up back to its reality. So in a very real way she is pulling her reality together to justify it.
This Lost Highway quote is a fairly good summary for that:
There are connections like that which make sense, yes, but that's not "the entire thing". Even something so simple as "has anyone seen Billy?", or why there were so many one-off characters having conversations at the Roadhouse, are more of what I'm referring to. As for the weirder moments, it's still unclear to me what the frog-bug was, and who's mouth it went into. But I mostly agree with you.
Quoting JupiterJess
Yeah, I really loved that he brought her back in. That was unexpected to me. I think that's a valid interpretation. I always interpreted the first two seasons as trying to make sense of sexual abuse in general, and the "cycle of abuse"; I interpret Leland's lines in his death scene to mean that Bob was also a real person who abused him in his childhood.
Your question is in response to my statement that art:
What I mean here is that there is no interest extraneous to the work, which makes the work beautiful. A work of art such as many of Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers are witty and extremely well accomplished, but they are kitschy, because their aesthetic effect relies on our momentary empathetic response.
The beautiful work of art is a product of its context, but it is not a beautiful work of art unless it transcends that context, unless it is avant-garde, in this sense. A concept limits meaning to what is denoted by that concept, a beautiful work of art utilizes the free play of the imagination to illuminate new meanings beyond our ordinary concepts. [like Van Gogh's 'Shoes' The negative part of the dialectic.
Yes, there no single correct interpretation of a work of art, but some interpretations are better informed than others and several interpretations may share similar points. I don't think what is beautiful in a work of art can be pinned down into singular terms. The experience of a beautiful work of art transcends the art object, it plays with our imagination freeing it to explore new options, vistas, concepts and relationships. In order for this to happen the observer must connect with the work, on its level.
I wonder whether beautiful means 'beautiful' in the conventional sense in art. I think Lucien Freud's works are beautiful, but not in the way the word in generally taken.
I binged watched the entire original series and most of the recent season in a few sittings (and the final few episodes as they were released)...
It's was definitely an oddessy. I would say that I'm a fan in the sense that I'll watch the inevitable next season, but like a lot of people I do take some umbrage with the most recent direction the show has taken.
Quoting Noble Dust
[SPOILER WARNING]
The show begins like most murder mysteries do; idyllic setting, the introduction of ambiguous characters to relate to, and the sudden murder of a pure and innocent victim. The incredibly polite and pleasant agent Cooper instantly becomes the lovable center of the show: the main lens through which the audience deciphers the unfolding plot. For the entirety of the season, as Cooper's situation progressively worsens, I found myself mostly just hoping for Cooper to get a decent coffee, and clean lodgings - at a reasonable rates. The FBI itself becomes like an arbitrary standard of normalcy; consistent, well disciplined, and logical.
The assortment of FBI agents in my opinion and their lovable and arbitrary consistency is perhaps the only running theme which allows the viewer to maintain a superficially coherent perspective for the duration of the show (like a buoy of sanity). As Cooper unfolds the central mystery of the first two seasons, like the audience, he becomes utterly battered by absurdity and confusion as the answer to any question only leads further down the disturbing rabbit hole. By the time season two ends, Cooper becomes trapped in a figurative and literal prison of absurdity. Almost everything is shown to be a facade which gives way to mystery and confusion: the Idyllic nature of Twin Peaks, the purity and innocence of the original victim, and Cooper's firm and well regimented grasp of reality.
I'm not entirely familiar with the circumstances of the show's original cancellation, but it probably had something to do with the fact that the entire show became so confusedly turned on it's head that the audience just couldn't stomach it. Where was Lynch originally going to go had he produced the third season back in 1992 rather than "25 years later"? Well, he was probably going to have Cooper slowly claw his way back to normalcy by tying all the weird and mysterious elements of the show into a symbolic exploration of "consciousness" ( whose final message or meaning Lynch may or may not have actually planned out). He likely would have inter-twined all the side-plots into one inevitable conclusion, but since the audiences just couldn't digest it, twas cancelled.
At this point I should say that there's a particular phenomenon that greatly afflicts show-writing which occurs when a writer opens up mysteries and questions which they have no present idea of how to solve, and ideas whose meaning they wish to explore but have no guarantee of coming to any meaningful understanding of. Without planned endings, writers sometimes must scramble to tie everything up at the end, and that scramble makes for painful and displeasing conclusions. Originally I think the show did suffer from a bit of Lynch not having any sweet fucking clue where he was really going with everything, but as experimental art he could have done a lot worse. If he had the full deck of cards to complete the third season rather than having to continue the story with aged and missing characters, the third season probably could have delivered a satisfying conclusion (the defeat of Bob and the emancipation of Cooper from his physical and mental incarceration) but alas the ratings were not there.
People were intrigued by the show and it was very well produced, so it did develop a bit of a cult following, but the final straw that made the third season possible was a vague reference made during season two: "I'll see you in 25 years", which was a line delivered without context or explanation at the time (originally it most likely was an allusion to Coopers eventual death). 25 Years later, here we are with the third season. It's a great example of that "write mysteriously now, actually solve that mystery later" which the show is rife with.
At the outset of the third season, like the now mentally unhinged Cooper, as a viewer we really have no clue at all what is going. In some ways as connections are revealed and Cooper eventually regains his mental faculties things start to make more and more sense, but somewhere along the line the progress toward sanity halts, and Cooper and the audience are inexorably sucked back toward deeper mystery and more confusion (although Cooper himself seems to be informed by a mysterious guiding force which he trusts).
At the end of season three, Cooper and the audience are shat out into a fresh new hell of confusion where everything is different. "We live in a dream" can be an interesting idea, but not when it is used to leave behind so many loose ends; then it's just a tragic departure. The atmosphere of mystery that Lynch creates is initially what sucks us in to the show, but ultimately it becomes so pervasive that we yearn for normalcy. The fragility of perception and understanding is the main theme the show reflects, and it teaches us to appreciate the normalcy we do have. I don't think Lynch wanted to portray things as meaningless, but rather how meaningfullness can degrade into unknowable absurdity.
Like poor Bilbo Baggins in his tale "There and Back Again", we spend the majority of the experience wishing only to return to our comfortable hobbit hole of understanding, except there is never any "Back Again", and the destination is the terrifying and utterly unknown.
Quoting Noble Dust
I agree that life often doesn't make sense; in fact in a certain way I would say that it never makes sense, insofar as life is not susceptible to being understood in terms of the deliverances of the senses. It is (empirical) reality that always makes sense because it is the realm of the senses, it is what is always already understood in terms of the senses.
So art, inasmuch as it is art as opposed to mere representation, never "reflects reality", it reflects life, which is by no means the same thing.
Shut up! he explained.
I'm not sure how an "interest" would make a work beautiful, but isn't context something extraneous to the work that makes it beautiful, as you say bellow, more or less?
Quoting Cavacava
Quoting Cavacava
Better informed about what? If there are lower and higher levels of being informed (education, if you will), does that mean there can only be better informed and less informed interpretations of art? If so, how would that matter if no interpretation is "correct"? What's the value of being better informed about a piece of art if there are no "wrong" interpretations? Why not just experience art without any information? I'm not sure you can have "no single correct interpretation", but then also have a hierarchy of interpretations. The hierarchy suggests an underlying objective value; "no right [and therefore no wrong] interpretations" doesn't suggest value beyond the subjectivity of the individual interpretation.
I did the same thing, lol.
Interesting that the atheist here wants the comfort of the known, and the theist here relishes the nihilistic unknown in the show. :P
But on a surface level, I can understand why you weren't satisfied with the show. A lot of people weren't. I might be in the minority, I don't know. What appeals to me (along with the real as surreal piece that I talked about) is the classic Lynchian dream-logic. I have pretty vivid dreams, sometimes where the dream feels more real than the reality I wake up to. The last two episodes of the series felt just like that in a weird way. The surrealism felt...real. I guess at the end of the day I can only philosophize about the show so much; I enjoyed the show on a visceral, aesthetic level, which is how art should be enjoyed anyway. Lynch hit a deep nerve of some kind for me. Not the case for everyone.
So, Vagabond, do you think art reflects reality? Should it?
Interesting distinction; when I say "doesn't make sense" I mean it colloquially; things don't work out the way we anticipated in our lives. I don't literally mean "sense" as in the five senses. I'm not sure why it would be necessary to address the question that way.
Quoting Janus
I get that, but again, I'm struggling to see how you took the phrase "doesn't make sense" in order to make that point, when clearly that colloquial phrase isn't trying to make that distinction.
I also find this interesting...
How can you really relish that much unknown though?. The final two episodes were in your words, nauseating.
If I had to describe that particular instance of nausea, it would be the result and angst resulting from having no sweet clue what is going on around you or what the immediate future might hold. It's something both my evolutionary endowed instincts and my rational mind utterly rebel against.
Quoting Noble Dust
I can see the nerve that Lynch keeps rapping on, it's just that in myself it is perhaps dead or atrophied.
The show has a distinct existential message that it reveals through the medium of Cooper's metaphorical and somewhat literal descent into madness: the world is other than how we perceive; what really are we?
The constant subversion of expectations and the erection of mystery is the cognitive and emotional battery Lynch uses to strum that particular nerve. Perhaps as an atheist with a conscientiously constructed epistemological world view (one that is required to support my existential, moral, and emotional outlooks) I'm forced to rebel against this kind of ontological assault because so much of my understanding of everything is therefore at stake.
I wouldn't say the show was totally unsatisfying though, it just didn't satisfy me by offering me a useful understanding of things in the traditional sense. It turns that story telling model on it's head and instead communicates precisely that there may be a hard limit to the usefulness of our traditional understanding of things (our materialist, empirical, western understandings).
Here's a great example. In the following scene agent Cooper is explaining the origin of what he describes as an intuitive deductive technique. As the viewer the scene is interesting but ultimately we need to cut Lynch some creative slack to let him get away with it. After completing the series though, it's clear that this scene is one of the early salvos meant to chip away at our understanding of the world, to confuse us and make us doubt what we know, what can be known, and how we can know it.
This scene is dripping with the elements I've described: inexplicably taking place in a forested area, a comfortable helping of good coffee is applied to soothe and prepare us for the strange turns which are about to take place. Something like smooth jazz begins playing, like some kind of grease to make it all easier to swallow.
Whatever motivated Lynch to write this scene trying to write this scene also seems to be the main motivation behind the entire series: to make us question everything and to pull every thread until the entire garment has unraveled..
Quoting Noble Dust
Art does reflect reality (what else should/could it reflect?), and yes I think it ought to. Twin Peaks reflects well the uncertainty and imperfection that is present in the human condition, and I think a major hurtle in life has to do with accepting dealing with that uncertainty and imperfection.
I think that's it. The theistic sense of something "larger", "higher", etc, is actually compatible with the sense of the unknown. Apophatic theology has more potency vs. kataphatic. (sounds weird to suggest that TP would be compatible with theism. I'm sure any of my old church friends would be appalled by the show).
Quoting Noble Dust
Sounds like Lynch was successful then. :P
Quoting Noble Dust
I actually found that scene completely hilarious, but I know what you mean, it was definitely a foreshadowing of the darker moments of confusion to come.
Personally the deeper reason I enjoyed the show, I think, is because of my current state of belief/philosophy. I'm kind of in limbo, and the sense of non-real limbo in the show actually has a weird comfort to it for me. I find it necessary to explore that place, whether in the show, my experience of it, or the realm of ideas. The scene where Diane sees herself standing by the motel entrance, with it's almost complete lack of ambient sound, was actually beautiful to me. Terrifying and beautiful at the same time (the hair on the back of my neck literally bristled when that happened). I would say the same for the horror of the last scene of the season.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Potential reality, for one.
To say that things don't make sense is not to say that they "don't work out the way we anticipated in our lives" but is to say that we cannot understand them, that they do not fit into the context of our general human understanding of reality. This "general human understanding of reality" is precisely the understanding which is given in terms of the intelligibility of the world delivered to us by the senses. Things are real to us when they make sense; and are surreal when the normal (causal) connections between events cannot be seen to obtain; that is when they don't make sense.
Quoting Noble Dust
I didn't refer to the phrase "doesn't make sense" at all in that response to your question. I am making the distinction between reality and life; where the former is understood as a collective representation and the latter is subjective affection. What do you mean by 'reality'?
Do want to prohibit others from extending and developing what they find in your OP, and insist that they not stray from exactly how you want to interpret the ideas you have presented there?
Alright, that makes sense.
Quoting Janus
You said:
Quoting Janus
But I guess that's not the exactly the same, apologies.
Quoting Janus
I would have hoped you would know the answer is no; did it not come across that way?
No, not really; I was just being provocative. :)
I have a suspicion that if your Church friends could get past some of the sex and violence of the show they would actually be fascinated by it. Magical realism (in terms of the existential implications of the plot, as opposed to the epistemic one's I've outlined) is very much an emotional boon of theism. Transferable souls, essence, good and evil; TP is deeply nested within a traditionally theological alley.
Quoting Noble Dust
Well yes and no. It's a lesson I've already learned throughout the course of confronting the gaps in my own understanding of the world and exploring the epistemological limits of observation, empiricism, and reason.
Through TP, Lynch makes us wonder whether or not some strange and imperceptible reality may actually be the case (what are we?), but to actually be impacted by this dilemma we need to go through an actual experience which makes it fundamentally real and relevant to our lives.
Without this experience, like Yetis and ghost stories, the extraordinary realities depicted by TP become mere possibilities of what really exists (what we really are). Without any real evidence each successive extraordinary claim becomes more obscure and less verifiable than the last; less intellectually extraordinary. At a certain depth of speculation, the possibilities become so numerous that none of them seem special, like turtles all the way down.
I do enjoy entertaining those possibilities which raise interesting questions, but intellectually I'm all to aware that fundamentally it's all speculation that exists in a space I believe it is impossible to rationally navigate. I do live with the understanding that nothing or almost nothing I think I know is absolutely certain or a ground floor of reality. As an atheist with a supposedly god-shaped hole, constructing moral and epistemic foundations (from very scarce and minimal starting points when bereft of "God") has absorbed the lions share of my intellect, and as a result they're minimal and robust. New evidence of hidden realities such as TP describes could come along, and there is room in my psyche for me to accept it, but without that evidence these speculations of hidden realities do not challenge my current "knowledge" in any relevant or new way.
Quoting Noble Dust
Have you ever seen or read "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"? (there's a British reboot of the show which is quite good). If you haven't seen it I do recommend it (Frodo is in it!!!). In a way it's like TP but instead of discomfort being the result of enduring mystery and confusion, serendipity and trust come to dominate. [SPOILER ALERT] The Dirk Gently series communicates the concept of 'the interconnected-ness of everything" and like TP uses hidden an mysterious magical truths as thematic plot mechanics. I absolutely love the show (much more than TP) because it explores the unknown with a fantastical but ultimately appealing and intriguing direction as opposed fear and discomfort as destinations.
It's true that I would like it if these hidden and fantastic truths such as alternate dimensions, the interconnectedness of everything, and a benevolent God, actually were the way things really are , and so the entertaining escapism of exploring these ideas is indeed enjoyable to me. Rationally speaking though they are but flights of fancy...
Quoting Noble Dust
I'm reminded of a discussion I think we had (I almost always remember the ideas I discuss, but I easily forget who I discussed them with) where I outlined my approximately categorical rejection of a certain genre of lofty claims. Possibilities like eternal souls and alternate dimensions are among the most interesting and appealing ideas that are out there, but they're also among the least substantiated ideas that are out there. The revealed "fictional truth" contained in TP is in some sense a possible reality, and thus it reflects in some way what we know or can know (or don't yet know) about reality. I suppose art could reflect nothing from reality, but how then could we ever interpret it? Even abstract art can be taken as a reflection of an abstract and absurd aspect of life itself.
If I had to sum up my beef in a single sentence, it would not be that TP paints a picture of reality which I object to, but rather that Lynch is merely painting a picture of his own broad uncertainties (epistemic, existential, ontological, etc...) and so doesn't himself know where he is going. We're just along for the thrill ride on his roller-coaster of confusion, and into the apparent darkness of the unknown.
[SPOILER ALERT]
Cooper has already escaped the Black Lodge and overcome it. Perhaps the White Lodge will inevitably be reached if Lynch can find a way to get there. Where he is currently at is perhaps encapsulated in this quote from Windome Earle when he describes the White lodge:
I think Lynch views reason as loveless and inherently shrouded in darkness, which makes sense given the direction of the show's first two seasons. In 25 years, since, do you think Lynch might have changed much?
The beauty in a work of art evolves dialectically out of its normative context. The negation of what is contained in the concept of the object enables new concepts to be formed or associated with the object. The beauty in the work frees our imagination from the normative constraints of our concept of the object which enables us to associate new ideas, concepts with objects such as with Van Gogh's shoes. [/quote]
I believe that our judgement of what is or is not aesthetically pleasing is a question of taste and some people have a better senses of taste than others. A person who is tone deaf is not going to have the same taste as a person with perfect pitch. Who would you rather hear whistle a tune?
A great work of art is a unique experience that expands our horizons. The value of an interpretation of a work of art lies in its ability to describe the work and some descriptions are better than others. Whether it is superior knowledge, or sheer talent, it does not make a difference. A good interpretation provides a guide for the observer, it establishes connections which may not be apparent to all observers. The experience of a work of art is personal, but it may be enriched if you understand more about the work. I would have had no idea of Radiohead's hidden syncopation in its "Videotape" without the tube video, it was there but I was unaware, now I listen for the beat, and it enriches my experience of the song.
Old church friends. ;) Not that I wouldn't associate with them, just that I don't anymore, by nature of having "fallen away"... That being said, you'd be surprised; I know a few folks (my older brother included) who, as Christians, are fairly open to these sorts of ideas. The stereotypes don't run as wide as the river of experience...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Hmmm. I would say that if you find TP interesting, it must be because of some glimmer of your experience that resonates with the show. Unless you enjoy it purely on escapist terms.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
That might be fine for philosophy, but what about art? I think that's the missing piece in your critique here; art doesn't use your reason; art isn't "robust" and minimal (it can be). Art is primarily seductive, in a sense. It's more immediate than reason; the experience of "what the fuck is going on, why are there two Coopers??" is not only emotional and dramatic, but it does have a philosophical underpinning that grounds the immediateness of the experience. Why are there two Coopers? What does that mean philosophically? Two identities? Someone being other than they claim to be? Someone having an outer (real world) and an inner (philosophy forum) life? But the immediate experience is visceral, not reasonable. Why begin at a (further off) abstract position, when the immediate position for inquiry is, by nature of experience, the now?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
What does rationality obtain, then? Robustness? What does that actually mean if it's not certain? If reality, ala TP is not beholden to rational observation, then you would need to let go of that fundamental grounding and search for something else; something not irrational, but something intuitive. Something that begins with, and trusts in, experience.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
You actually are precluding the possibility of those new hidden realities by beginning with evidence (presumably of the reasoned/material kind) as the litmus test for their possibility. In other words, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy; "I'm open to the unknown, as long as it is measurable".
Quoting VagabondSpectre
No; would I like it if I'm a TP fanatic? :P
Quoting VagabondSpectre
So what is this escapism drawn against? A cold, harsh world devoid of meaning? A world in which interconnectedness, benevolence, and the like are Lovecraftian abominations? Or, a world in which the escapism of a telos is wrong, and yet, we can find a nice atheistic balance in which the best possible world is found for each individual, until their immanent (and inherently nihilistic) painful death, followed by the heat-death of the Sun? Escapism from what? A belief in life generally? A belief in meaning? A belief in human value?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
How many religious texts and commentaries have you read?
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Through imagination! The mother of worlds...
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Fair enough; I don't count that as a beef; I count that as a valuable contribution to the human condition.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
God, I hate Windome's character; badly played and so unessisary to the plot. And I would guess that that dialogue was written by Frost, not Lynch.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Considering I'm almost 50 years younger than him, I have no idea. :)
I have an unhealthy tendency to mirror the debate styles of my interlocutors (see what I did there :P ), so I was just trying to parse through exactly what your terms meant, since I found them confusing. I'm still not sure what the overarching point you were making in the context of the OP was, but I do get the gist of your distinctions.
I was really just answering your question as to whether art should reflect reality in the context of making a distinction between life and reality. This is related to my reading preoccupation at the moment, which is Michel Henry. He makes a phenomenological distinction between life as lived and the external world (relaity) which is in some ways is not dissimilar to Berdyaev's distinction between being and spirit. In Berdyaevian terms it would be to say that art reflects (or should reflect) spirit, and not being as understood in the objective sense.
So is this inherently dualistic? According to Henry, or (preferably) you? If so, I disagree. Berdyaev makes the distinction between objectivization and spirit, but it's unclear exactly whether this is analogous to dualism/monism.
Also, I appreciate your Berdyaev references, but I trust you don't take me as some Berdy devotee. :P My philosophy is pretty unorganized at the moment, but still influenced by ol' Berdy.
No dualism is implied, because being is not thought as constituting multiple substance, or even a substance at all. If I remember correctly, Berdyaev rejects both monism and dualism; being for him is a symbolic manifestation of spirit. So, I think its more like some form of non-dualism for Berdyaev. Not sure about Henry, but since he is a phenomenologist, I would suspect he would reject metaphysics, and certainly anything resembling substance ontology.
Quoting Noble Dust
What's wrong with being a Berd fanboy? :P Seriously, though, I liked Berdyaev's overall approach when I read him, but he is not a rigorous systematic thinker in the way Henry is. I'm finding Henry's ideas very interesting, and also that many of his thoughts are developments of the kinds of things I have thought. I had a similar experience with the Berd, in terms of the cascades of soaring insights he delivers.
Correct. (And my Berdy fanboy-ism is confirmed by the hairs that stood at the back of my head as I read that.)
Quoting Janus
Correct
Quoting Janus
Don't know him; would be interested given a more detailed account about him.
Quoting Janus
Ha! No one feeds your ego on TPF, that's what...
Quoting Janus
That's why I like him; I don't do well with systems, which makes me a poor philosopher in modern terms. I join Berdyaev in that position of opposition to modernity.
Quoting Janus
The Berd definitely delivers and then some on the soaring Berdian heights. I'm always a sucker for those views, so I'll at least do a google search of Henry.
I think he's definitely worth investigating.
Quoting Noble Dust
Probably a good thing....?
Quoting Noble Dust
Interestingly, Henry is also opposed to modernity. It seems that his various works, as they present his philosophical development, form a coherent whole; and that's what I meant by "rigorous" and "systematic".
Quoting Noble Dust
8-)
Some of the ideas are at least momentarily stimulating on an intellectual level, but it is mostly the dramatic and novel intrigue of being in interesting and exciting situations that makes me enjoy the show. Ultimately I relate to agent Cooper.
Quoting Noble Dust
Art doesn't have to be this way, but in the sense of "does it reflect or teach us about reality?", robustness is my own main subjective standard. Art can evoke broad ideas, like the two Coopers evoking the concept of human duality, but if all art does is evoke a concept then it's sufficient to qualify as art. To then go beyond and interpret what useful and robust meaning and understanding we can gain from the exploration of those concepts (colloquially referred to as the process of "reflection") is more akin to philosophy than it is to being merely aesthetically pleased or entertained by something.
Art which goes beyond to decipher and explore the concepts they raise aren't necessarily better, they're just more.
Quoting Noble Dust
Imagine that reality is actually totally unlike our perception of it, but also that we have no existing experiential or experimental access to that true but hidden nature of things... If we spend our entire lives trapped in and limited by our own ability to perceive (to experience), then we can never be aware of any of the details of the real reality, nor if the reality we perceive is not itself the real reality.
When two people share the same experience but interpret it differently, how else can we resolve the discrepancy without applying reason (which is itself learned from basic observations) to the experiences and observations that actually require interpretation?
Ideological and intellectual robustness seems to be the very objective of attaining certainty. I think that we yearn for certainty because of the comfort and safe feeling we get from knowing. Predicting the future is essential to our survival, and the accuracy and scope of our predictive power is the very engine of human success. A robust prediction is one that we're comfortable with because it's more reliable. For the sake of avoiding imbuing points of failure into our understandings, we ought to use the most robust observations and ideas that are available to us.
My entire epistemic and ontological world view begins with trusting experience, but it is very particular about which experiences to trust. For example: pain and pleasure/good and bad are rather subjective experiences, so as a robust example (a helpful starting point for the would-be normative or existential nihilist): imagine dropping a 50 pound dumbbell directly onto your foot from a decent height. Breaking the bones in your foot like that is painful and bad; it's something you don't want to happen and you can be as certain of this as you can be certain of anything.
Quoting Noble Dust
Don't you see the epistemic risk in choosing to believe in the immeasurable? (essentially this is the main beef with all metaphysical claims). But to be specific I'm not precluding the possibility of their existence, nor am I precluding the possibility of me one day accepting them. What I am precluding is precisely the possibility of me accepting the validity of these possibilities without experience, observation, or evidence of their existence.
I'm open to measurements of the presently immeasurable once we've figured out how to actually measure them!
Quoting Noble Dust
Maybe too many. I did read the entire bible at age 14 or 15. Are you suggesting that none of them are interesting or that some of them are well substantiated :D (I assume the former).
The Bible reads like a long winded joke, true, but there's a whole world of fanatical obscurity out there that can be quite titillating. Winged fire breathing serpents and goddesses embodying fertility and attraction make for great story telling. Pretty much anything which waxes consciousness related hypotheses immediately finds sympathetic ears because the consciousness itself is still so mysterious and our curiosity unending. Nobody can prove that god, souls, alternate realities, complicated and arbitrary concepts like scientology's "thetan", do not actually exist (at least all permutations of such claims). What stops us then from just believing in whatever our intuitive whims tell us to believe? It does take effort and self-control to abstain from buying into any number of these possibilities which can be genuinely reassuring and intuitively comfortable. It's like a bland diet bereft of sweets, ultimately healthier but more emotionally challenging to endure.
Quoting Noble Dust
I think a lot of what we think is our own imagination is really just stolen from a mix of experiences and observations. I do agree though, our imagination is what we use to make sense of just about everything. We create internal conceptual models of how the things we observe actually work. Reason and imagination seems to be the main tools we have to actually work with and decipher our experiences.
Quoting Noble Dust
I only blame Lynch as short hand; whatever individuals, groups and processes are used to create TP. I do hope that they can find a sensical way back to sanity.
[SPOILER ALERT] How do you feel about the fact that Cooper has been shat out into a brand new alternate dimension? Personally I think it's a somewhat cheap way to create a clean slate, but ultimately I think it's necessary to eventually leave behind the unexplained and intentional confusion of the first three seasons. There was no way Lynch could really tie off the various plots and themes into neat and conclusive bows. I am eager to appraise the approach that the full facultied Cooper takes to getting a grip on his new world and whether or not the creators will let him succeed in doing so.
Quoting Noble Dust
Instead of being dark and serious with the unknown, it's fun and playful. I can't be sure but I think you would like it!
You're right, looking back, the entire Audrey plot was more ambigious than I realized. I was under the impression there were enough clues (with Richard and Dopple Coop and Doc Hayward's skype call) to establish she was a in a nut house. One of the scenes in the Roadhouse involves characters talking about Billy, and one establishing they visit a nut house and lifted a jacket. Meaning that Audrey may have heard the Billy story and concocted her own narrative during hypnosis.
So in light of the thread, I may have unconsciously attempted to put that together after the fact and then forgot it wasn't clear.
Anyway, the frog bug I thought was the Judy villain entering Sarah. The horse in the white of the eyes (Sarah's horse) and dark within (Sarah after removing her face). That and the 'call' DoppleCoop received sounded like her. And finally when he got the right co-ordinates for Judy, he appeared to be heading towards Sarah's home before the fireman interfered and moved him to where he will be destroyed by Freddie and his glove. :P
So I think there is a workable literal plot to it.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yep this is a common one. I'm also a fan of Paronoia Agent so that has an influence on my interpretation that Bob (originally Leland's personal trauma) may have been an example of mass hysteria that became real.
Interestingly tulpas are something similar to this which cropped up in the new Season.
I am just starting to get into Henry myself, and have read the first essay in Material Phenomenology and am reading I am The Truth: toward a Philosophy of Christianity. I am finding these full of interest and well connected insight. Having some idea of your interests I'm guessing you might enjoy Henry's writings. :)
I have also read synopses of his other works, and it is on account of that that I said his work seems to be a systematic evolution of a unified concern. That may have been prematurely stated, but nothing I have come across so far does anything but support it.
Reality = art
The logic to this is that since art already claimed the sequence of not, reality can't