Curazipirid can you please re-explain your really interesting points about : "suspect one another of having set up a set up for catching out who the dreamtime robbers were" - what is a dreamtime robber? Someone who represents visual qualities of the space?
"why living in the shade of gum trees keeps you a bit higher than the rest of the planet all the time" - concerning gum tree psychoactive qualities in the stems ? (have heard)
"why aussies have less formally figurative psychedelic art"
What is determining the style of vision they were representing? Both the traditional landscape artists, and the Aboriginal.
On the first point, (and sorry about my bent sense of humour everybody, I get that, sort of too funny one time, like I couldn't have noticed the joke on me, then the next time like to bent for anybody else to get what I was finding funny) . . . .
Umm, back into the original context, minus accidental smilie face
within indigenous Australian culture,
images of representations of truth and meaning,
are, in one of the following three forms:
A: were so over exposed and so badly robbed off of everybody, as that we all (indigenous mob I refer to here) suspect one another of having set up a set up for catching out who the dreamtime robbers were;
B: were so secretly hidden as that hardly anybody with white skin could stand a chance of getting to the substance of the matter, and nobody at all without indigenous ancestry would survive having a look into;
C: were already all fully transformed and transfigured into representations which came to be exactly condensed into solid matter/mana, as the indigenous flora and fauna unique to this land.
Point A, is in that in the Aboriginal way, nobody lets nobody rip anybody else off, without expecting that who got worst ripped off, was potentially in on the whole deal.
Whether or not any of us were in on such deals, we tend to hide, and then tend to become exposed for having hidden our part in, as soon as we have realised that hiding that part of the game, is somewhat cancerous. But it is basically a kind of angle on warfare which is unique to indigenous Australia. Basically dreamtime robbers are not who represent the visual qualities of space, but were who stole the representations other people made, and attempted to assert false meanings around.
Next point I believe you are asking me, is in respect of what the relationship was/is within indigenous culture, in respect of the relationships between the psycho-active content of native plants, and Art in indigenous culture.
Well, the pituri chewers in Alice are allowed to sell their Art, even when in every other respect, they fall to the bottom of the heap in Aboriginal social structures.
So when I say "figurative" I am saying it contains representations of human figures, so when I say less formally figurative, I mean that indigenous Art is not obviously figurative outside of indigenous cultural contexts, but I also intend to imply, a similarity within much of the work of well known Australian landscape painters. Where are the human figures? You know how in Chinese Art, the human figures are often tiny and distant, and the way to get their is concealed. Like that, but more like, you'd want to be very polite to everybody to get in on which figures are representative of how human beings fit into the landscape.
As to what is determining? . . . . you may need to be more precise with your question, in case I have not comprehended it accurately enough.
But it seems like you are asking, on one level, is the landscape causal to the Art or the Art causal to the landscape.
The answer is that people cause the Art, and the Art causes patterns of human consideration.
People also caused the landscape, and the landscape causes patterns of human consideration.
This is the plain fact of indigenous society, that you can't make the relationships between the landscape/trees, and the Art, without knowing you have to factor in human people, as who made the Art, and witnessed the Art, and who witness the landscape, and make impressions in the landscape. It is all about relationship for indigenous men as well as women. Relationship is the defining function, like the function that defines the structure. So nobody in any indigenous context relates Art with landscape, without relating Art to humans and humans to Art.
So your sentence "Both the traditional landscape artists, and the Aboriginal" (I am assuming you mean traditionally European landscape artists, but at first I wondered since "traditional" in my head means traditional Aboriginal, so now your question makes more sense.) Well I am agreeing, that both the traditional euro-centric artists and Aboriginal artists, have the dominant influence of the Aussie landscapes, that might or might not, be also very influenced by the smell of the gum trees.
I was not originally intending to imply anything about pituri, BUT, having spent two years overseas, then seeing gum trees for the first time again when in Greece, I am certain that I was severely missing the effect of the scent of the oil.
Eucalyptus oils have a "suppressive" effect on the mind, meaning that they delete aspects of the consciousness, until a later date, when the body is more enabled to process. Like causing dissociative psychosis slightly all the time. But varying from location to location with species, varies what matter of mind is able to be present in body.
What is determining? I dunno, could be the Eucalyptus I guess, but then what determines what grew where?
but as for good psychedelic ART (about which I won't bother explaining again, that what goes up, must come down, therefore bring it down as biodiversity please):
(whoops the first image I only had in Facebook, and not in any other website, so I posted it to the EGA Facebook page, and so here is another):
Edited by curaezipirid, 24 February 2012 - 11:19 PM.