There cannot be style without an individual. But, style will always appear as a phenomenon in time and space. Style rings through because it creates a symphony out of shared objects, symbols and memories. Without these objects and symbols, there would be no style. An actor on stage can seduce us because he is a master of manipulating shared symbols and memories with his voice, face and body. Without these shared symbols and memories there would be no seduction. The actor would just be incomprehensible, a lunatic.
Style is movement. Style appears as a powerful personal configuration of shared symbols and objects, for instance from the micro univers of the suit, tie and dress shirt. We may manipulate the symbols and objects but we depend on them too. Like a language our shared symbols and objects are resources but they are boundaries too.
We should not forget that relationship between individual and the world. Style is driven by an internal force, a will to power, a will to fly, but style only EXISTS through shared symbols, objects and memories.
Style as a phenomenon in time and space
I have seen actors whose mere presence on stage, without uttering a single word, is such a powerful magnet that there is no room for anyone else. No objects, no symbols, no memories - just sheer presence.
This reminds me of the movie "Being Julia" (after a novel by Somerset Maugham) in which Julia Lambert, a renowned actress (in the movie), accepts to play with a young debutante whom she knows to have an affair with her husband. At rehearsals, she appears in a plain dress, takes a remote position on the stage and does all to put the young woman in her most favourable light. At the first representation, though, she shows up in a magnificent dress and changes everything from positions to replies, to the very text of the play, improvising in a brilliant manner and completely disorienting her stage partner, until the latter loses it completely. Julia's success may be explained as you suggest, through the powerful use of symbols, objects and memories, but the other's complete failure shows that some are not capable of summoning up those objects, symbols and memories to translate them into Presence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSEZovFs ... re=related (4:10)
Can Style, Presence be conveyed without the help of any objects, symbols, memories? Can it be static, too? Is the man enough? I think so... - http://www.movieplayer.it/gallery/45101 ... ut-berger/
Give him the means of dress and he's just as good: http://coolifornia.tumblr.com/post/2836 ... mut-berger
But it isn't in his clothes, is it?
Of course Style manifests in time and space, where else, but its manifestation is not tied to that time and space in any way, or else we would no longer understand or enjoy the stories, images, words, sounds, ideas of men of Style from the past. In fact, that's sort of an acid test: if you can sense that Presence beyond time and space and feel it would apply just as well here and now, even if with the means of a different epoch, then it's true! Otherwise, it's not Style, it's just artistry.
This reminds me of the movie "Being Julia" (after a novel by Somerset Maugham) in which Julia Lambert, a renowned actress (in the movie), accepts to play with a young debutante whom she knows to have an affair with her husband. At rehearsals, she appears in a plain dress, takes a remote position on the stage and does all to put the young woman in her most favourable light. At the first representation, though, she shows up in a magnificent dress and changes everything from positions to replies, to the very text of the play, improvising in a brilliant manner and completely disorienting her stage partner, until the latter loses it completely. Julia's success may be explained as you suggest, through the powerful use of symbols, objects and memories, but the other's complete failure shows that some are not capable of summoning up those objects, symbols and memories to translate them into Presence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSEZovFs ... re=related (4:10)
Can Style, Presence be conveyed without the help of any objects, symbols, memories? Can it be static, too? Is the man enough? I think so... - http://www.movieplayer.it/gallery/45101 ... ut-berger/
Give him the means of dress and he's just as good: http://coolifornia.tumblr.com/post/2836 ... mut-berger
But it isn't in his clothes, is it?
Of course Style manifests in time and space, where else, but its manifestation is not tied to that time and space in any way, or else we would no longer understand or enjoy the stories, images, words, sounds, ideas of men of Style from the past. In fact, that's sort of an acid test: if you can sense that Presence beyond time and space and feel it would apply just as well here and now, even if with the means of a different epoch, then it's true! Otherwise, it's not Style, it's just artistry.
-
Gruto
Presence is connecting with an audience. There would be no presence without you sitting there. You are a part of it. I tell you, the actor will feel the difference. There is huge difference between practising backstage and acting on the front stage. Why? Because you and the rest of the audience are there.Costi wrote:I have seen actors whose mere presence on stage, without uttering a single word, is such a powerful magnet that there is no room for anyone else. No objects, no symbols, no memories - just sheer presence.
If YOU can sense that timeless presence, exactly. You are a co-creator. Presence is not a closed message. Presence is a collaboration, a joint venture.Costi wrote: if you can sense that Presence beyond time and space and feel it would apply just as well here and now, even if with the means of a different epoch, then it's true! Otherwise, it's not Style, it's just artistry.
Oh, so we are moving into the territory of the unseen, of the subtle exchange of energies between actor and audience, or between individuals. We are finally acknowledging that there is more to it than the image that meets the eye. Style is this very ability to involve others in your own story, to make them share in the same sphere as you. But this ability transcends space or time – its instruments, its means of expression are tied to a space and time, yes, but not its very existence. Like intelligence (of which Style might be viewed as a particular species, according to Bruce Boyer), one can’t help manifesting it when it is there. It often manifests itself using objects and symbols, but it does not reside in them. It will use whatever means available to find expression. It will always find a way. So I cannot agree that “without these objects and symbols, there would be no style…” Style is THE WAY these symbols and objects are used, it is their sauce. And when objects and symbols are in short supply, Presence still radiates like the subtle energy between actor and audience, as in the photo of Helmut Berger in Adam’s dress.
-
Gruto
Style cannot live without objects and symbols just like handwriting or a signature only finds expression through tools. There is no acting, no style, no presence without a clash between individual and the world. What you are trying to describe as "Style" seems to be a disposition, a will, an energy, a capacity, a biological drive. Style is something entirely different. It takes place, it is out there in that moment an individual meets the world.Costi wrote:It often manifests itself using objects and symbols, but it does not reside in them. It will use whatever means available to find expression. It will always find a way. So I cannot agree that “without these objects and symbols, there would be no style…” Style is THE WAY these symbols and objects are used, it is their sauce. And when objects and symbols are in short supply, Presence still radiates like the subtle energy between actor and audience, as in the photo of Helmut Berger in Adam’s dress.
Ah, so miracles happen only when you witness them. If you don't witness them, they don't exist! Therefore, when they do happen, it's only by the merit of your being there.
You are tempting me to go even further than Bruce Boyer and call Style not a form of intelligence, but a form of genius: it's inborn. Inborn in everyone, actually, but most choose not to manifest it. They LEARN how NOT to manifest it and replace it with acquired "cultural" material and reasonable thinking: these are the objects, the symbols, the memories. They become intellectual fetishes, while for the man of Style they are but instruments of expression. He may choose to use them or express his Style outside of them, in other ways. He will still be received and decoded, because true Style does not speak to the mind, does not address the intellect - it inspires, it makes itself loved (not the same as seduction); it puts a smile on others' faces, not an intrigued raised brow.
What is the place of Style? It is not the outside world - the image only speaks to our imagination. Style "takes place" in our imagination - an intermediate space between the mind and the heart, where symbols become emotions, instant understanding, while emotions become symbols that the intellect may comprehend. What we receive as Presence is not what the man of Style shows on the outside, the objects, the means that meet the eye, but what these things make us imagine about him, the hidden messages, his subtle nature. The reaction of the audience is to "fall in Style" (admire it and contaminate from it = inspiration), the way the lover falls in love. That's how we perceive / receive Style.
You are tempting me to go even further than Bruce Boyer and call Style not a form of intelligence, but a form of genius: it's inborn. Inborn in everyone, actually, but most choose not to manifest it. They LEARN how NOT to manifest it and replace it with acquired "cultural" material and reasonable thinking: these are the objects, the symbols, the memories. They become intellectual fetishes, while for the man of Style they are but instruments of expression. He may choose to use them or express his Style outside of them, in other ways. He will still be received and decoded, because true Style does not speak to the mind, does not address the intellect - it inspires, it makes itself loved (not the same as seduction); it puts a smile on others' faces, not an intrigued raised brow.
What is the place of Style? It is not the outside world - the image only speaks to our imagination. Style "takes place" in our imagination - an intermediate space between the mind and the heart, where symbols become emotions, instant understanding, while emotions become symbols that the intellect may comprehend. What we receive as Presence is not what the man of Style shows on the outside, the objects, the means that meet the eye, but what these things make us imagine about him, the hidden messages, his subtle nature. The reaction of the audience is to "fall in Style" (admire it and contaminate from it = inspiration), the way the lover falls in love. That's how we perceive / receive Style.
-
Gruto
Style doesn't come ex cathedra. Style is a phenomenon driven by an individual, who is influenced by the world around him, who uses the world around him, who communicates with the world around him. I cannot subscribe to your idea that we (some) are born with an eternal and invariable "Style message" that is not influenced by the life we are living.Costi wrote:Ah, so miracles happen only when you witness them. If you don't witness them, they don't exist! Therefore, when they do happen, it's only by the merit of your being there.
Exactly, not ex cathedra. No doctrine, no teaching, no method can bring about Style. Because Style does not originate in the outside world. It manifests itself in the world, just like a Mozart symphony makes the air vibrate, but that is not the level at which it is significant.
Factoring in the audience denatures Style, as it diverts the focus from the self (where Style happens) to the outside world (where it is not to be found). The world is an active witness, not a co-generator of Style. To continue the acting metaphor, acting for popularity, thinking of the audience, of the effect is the very definition of the ham, of the cabotin. A great actor "acts" from the inside, brings out something that lies deep within himself, to which the audience reacts by empathy. It's just some art critics that obstinate to intellectualize the process...
Factoring in the audience denatures Style, as it diverts the focus from the self (where Style happens) to the outside world (where it is not to be found). The world is an active witness, not a co-generator of Style. To continue the acting metaphor, acting for popularity, thinking of the audience, of the effect is the very definition of the ham, of the cabotin. A great actor "acts" from the inside, brings out something that lies deep within himself, to which the audience reacts by empathy. It's just some art critics that obstinate to intellectualize the process...
-
Gruto
There is a difference between pleasing an audience and listening to the sound of the world. A great actor connects with the world. He spellbinds the world, and he himself is spellbound by the world. The world is like a magnetic field. Take his audience away, remove the stage, cut his connection with the outside, and he will die.Costi wrote:Factoring in the audience denatures Style, as it diverts the focus from the self (where Style happens) to the outside world (where it is not to be found). The world is an active witness, not a co-generator of Style. To continue the acting metaphor, acting for popularity, thinking of the audience, of the effect is the very definition of the ham, of the cabotin. A great actor "acts" from the inside, brings out something that lies deep within himself, to which the audience reacts by empathy. It's just some art critics that obstinate to intellectualize the process...
That is why acting is not really a good metaphor for what we chose to call Style. Presence, Style may be manifest in an actor, but it is not at all the same as acting. The art of the actor (for it remains an art, no matter how much native talent and instinct an actor may have) occurs in relation to an audience, that is hard to argue. Even here, though, as soon as the actor thinks of the audience and how to please it first and foremost, the authenticity of his art suffers.
In fact I referred to acting in the discussion to exemplify Presence, because that was the most obvious instance that came to my mind. Charismatic actors need not do a thing on stage, their mere presence mesmerizes the audience. However, that does not put an equal sign between Style and acting. Style is not a performance in front of an audience. Style is how a man does things, irrespective of whether he has an audience or is home alone having breakfast by himself. The actor steps on the stage and becomes someone else, a character - though convincing as he may be. A man of Style is always himself, he doesn't bend to the expectations of an audience, or else he loses his authenticity. He does not follow a script, either. He will REACT to an audience, yes, naturally, but in his own way. He is not conditioned by an audience and does not become someone else in front of it.
In fact I referred to acting in the discussion to exemplify Presence, because that was the most obvious instance that came to my mind. Charismatic actors need not do a thing on stage, their mere presence mesmerizes the audience. However, that does not put an equal sign between Style and acting. Style is not a performance in front of an audience. Style is how a man does things, irrespective of whether he has an audience or is home alone having breakfast by himself. The actor steps on the stage and becomes someone else, a character - though convincing as he may be. A man of Style is always himself, he doesn't bend to the expectations of an audience, or else he loses his authenticity. He does not follow a script, either. He will REACT to an audience, yes, naturally, but in his own way. He is not conditioned by an audience and does not become someone else in front of it.
The book of Sufi wisdomGruto wrote:Style cannot live without objects and symbols just like handwriting or a signature only finds expression through tools.
Is not written on the blank page,
But on a heart white as virgin snow.
Scholars pursue penmarks.
Sufis track footprints in the snow,
Like hunters tracing a musk–deer’s trail,
Until they breathe in the sweet scent
That the deer exudes from its navel,
And rush to catch their quarry.
Style remains mysterious, however hard we try to study or explain it. There is no teaching it. It is not science. If we want to grasp it, be inspired by it, we should proceed like the Sufi in search of wisdom in this Rumi poem. It is in our hearts, not on the pages of a book that it is written. That is where it proceeds from and that is where it may be received. A state of grace, a state of the spirit whose manifestations in the concrete world remain elusive - the footprints in the snow, the scent in the air... Just enough to let us know it is real!
-
Gruto
Why shouldn't it be possible to explain style? I don't understand the need for mystifying a phenomenon like style. Style, like other human expressions, takes place through a medium, a field of possibles, both physical and social possibles. Even the scent of a woman and a bird's song have a medium: air.Costi wrote:Style remains mysterious, however hard we try to study or explain it. There is no teaching it. It is not science. If we want to grasp it, be inspired by it, we should proceed like the Sufi in search of wisdom in this Rumi poem. It is in our hearts, not on the pages of a book that it is written. That is where it proceeds from and that is where it may be received. A state of grace, a state of the spirit whose manifestations in the concrete world remain elusive - the footprints in the snow, the scent in the air... Just enough to let us know it is real!
I don't understand the need to explain something that does not address the intellect. Has anyone explained love or talent definitively and convincingly? We each have our own truth about them, but not a universally accepted one. Trying to explain and understand such a thing only leads further apart from it; it's like trying to hear a scent - the wrong capacity is put to use. Going mystic again with Rumi:
The intellectual quest is exquisite like pearls and coral,
But it is not the same as the spiritual quest.
The spiritual quest is on another level altogether,
Spiritual wine has a subtler taste.
The intellect and the senses investigate cause and effect.
The spiritual seeker surrenders to the wonder.
Nobody is mystifying Style, it IS an attribute of the spirit. Style does manifest in all kinds of fields of possibilities, but we should not confuse such manifestations with Style itself, or conclude that they actually constitute Style.
Surrender to it, rather than trying to understand it. It will reveal itself to you this way. Give in to it, when you see it, instead of analyzing it. Style is synthesis - the parts have no meaning of their own. "Fall in Style".
The intellectual quest is exquisite like pearls and coral,
But it is not the same as the spiritual quest.
The spiritual quest is on another level altogether,
Spiritual wine has a subtler taste.
The intellect and the senses investigate cause and effect.
The spiritual seeker surrenders to the wonder.
Nobody is mystifying Style, it IS an attribute of the spirit. Style does manifest in all kinds of fields of possibilities, but we should not confuse such manifestations with Style itself, or conclude that they actually constitute Style.
Surrender to it, rather than trying to understand it. It will reveal itself to you this way. Give in to it, when you see it, instead of analyzing it. Style is synthesis - the parts have no meaning of their own. "Fall in Style".
This is interesting. I'd be relieved if what another mystic-type said about illumination—“Do not seek [it] unless you seek it as a man whose hair is on fire seeks a pond”—does not apply to Style also. 
The fear of our hair catching fire can make us shave our heads bold, then build a theory explaining illumination in terms of optics; that will make us feel safe and in control of things 
In reality the "fire" of Style poses no threat and cannot be extinguished in a pond - it is nimbus.
In reality the "fire" of Style poses no threat and cannot be extinguished in a pond - it is nimbus.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest