Just back from 2011 Stomp convention...

[Bill Tobelman]

Would just like to comment on the groovy SMiLE Shop album cover.

Gotta dig Frank's appreciation for the child's point of view coming through in his artwork. He shared such an appreciation with Brian prior to starting his work on the SMiLE project.

Also you must like the idea that the man & woman in the storefront represent opposites, and that the the path through the doorway leads beyond the opposites.

I'm just trying to put a few things together to show how Frank Holmes' quote that there's more to it (his SMiLE art) than has been found out is true.

Here's a quote from Arthur Koestler's THE ACT OF CREATION:

"The so-called law of contradiction in logic--that a thing is either A or not-A but cannot be both--is a late acquisition in the growth of individuals and cultures. The unconscious mind, the mind of the child and the primitive are indifferent to it. So are the Eastern philosophies which teach the unity of opposites..."

So therefore the unconscious mind, the mind of the child, are indifferent to the opposites (or to the adult way of thinking: beyond the opposites).

What's cool is that if you add all of these quotes/thoughts together you get the idea that to truly understand the SMiLE Shop cover one needs to access the unconscious to get that child-like perspective.

Well that just happens to coincide with a Frank Holmes quote from years ago:
"The SMiLE Shop is a paradox. The drawing is a surrealistic idea; a visual that is not accessible in conscious reality..."

Another way of looking at this is just to simply recognize that these ides (unconscious, opposites, child's viewpoint) are all aspects of the spiritual experience & that when the Brian of 1966 was speaking of making spiritual music he knew exactly what he was talking about.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

I've never liked the concept of opposites. To me "three" is the perfect number. There has to be middle ground between opposites, and polar opposites often turn out to be the same thing.

Music, maths, religion and philosophy all abhor "two" as well. "One" is perfect, but too big to get your head around. "Three" is a manageable concept as the basis for your thought processes.

So yes, I'm all for going beyond opposites.

[Andrew G. Doe]

So when Frank Holmes' drawings have another level (such as the Vega-Tables artwork) it's because the whole freaking thing has another level.

Hello ? I didn't say that, nor did Frank: nothing about levels. What I reported was that the illustrations were more complex, informed by more than we'd already deduced. Frank explained that they were derived from the lyrics given to him, and of course, as with anything like that, once explained it's obvious. And I note you've also passed over my comment that his work was not informed by any vestige of zen.  

[Loaf]

I've never liked the concept of opposites. To me "three" is the perfect number. There has to be middle ground between opposites, and polar opposites often turn out to be the same thing.

Music, maths, religion and philosophy all abhor "two" as well. "One" is perfect, but too big to get your head around. "Three" is a manageable concept as the basis for your thought processes.

So yes, I'm all for going beyond opposites.

2 Polar opposites inherently contain a 3rd.

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

University-level Marxist theory for you

[Loaf]

So when Frank Holmes' drawings have another level (such as the Vega-Tables artwork) it's because the whole freaking thing has another level.

"Amen".

Brian, Van Dyke and Frank were all on the same wavelength (at least for some of the time), regardless of how they got there. The unity of Smile

[MBE]

So when Frank Holmes' drawings have another level (such as the Vega-Tables artwork) it's because the whole freaking thing has another level.

Hello ? I didn't say that, nor did Frank: nothing about levels. What I reported was that the illustrations were more complex, informed by more than we'd already deduced. Frank explained that they were derived from the lyrics given to him, and of course, as with anything like that, once explained it's obvious. And I note you've also passed over my comment that his work was not informed by any vestige of zen.  

Things on Smile are pretty straight forward. People read way too much into it. It's a great period of music but hey so were the five years before it and the five years after it.

[Bill Tobelman]

My prior post was a bit sloppy because "the opposites" in the spiritual sense are seen as completely dependent upon each other, not separate. Like foreground and background the opposites define each other. They arise mutually & go together.

Koestler points out that the unconscious and the mind of the child do not discriminate by separating the opposites from each other. Koestler further points out examples to show how a child's mind doesn't discriminate the way an adult's mind does.

"A baby is often taught the word 'da-da' before it has learned to recognize its father--except for some vague features such as largeness or bulkiness, which are equally found in other appearances. As a result, it applies the label 'da-da' 'widely and often embarrassingly to large individuals of all shapes, sizes, ages, and colours'. Abstraction and discrimination are guided by relevance; and the relevant experience in this case is some feature of dada-ness shared by lots of visitors who--their colour, age, etc., being as yet irrelevant--are not discriminated as individuals."

So by relating SMiLE information via Koestler we can link the child's viewpoint to the unconscious and a new viewpoint altogether (which finds the unity of opposites...hey, that IS Enlightenment!) which can be expressed by the word "da-da". Very spiritual stuff indeed.

[Andrew G. Doe]

My prior post was a bit sloppy because "the opposites" in the spiritual sense are seen as completely dependent upon each other, not separate. Like foreground and background the opposites define each other. They arise mutually & go together.

Koestler points out that the unconscious and the mind of the child do not discriminate by separating the opposites from each other. Koestler further points out examples to show how a child's mind doesn't discriminate the way an adult's mind does.

"A baby is often taught the word 'da-da' before it has learned to recognize its father--except for some vague features such as largeness or bulkiness, which are equally found in other appearances. As a result, it applies the label 'da-da' 'widely and often embarrassingly to large individuals of all shapes, sizes, ages, and colours'. Abstraction and discrimination are guided by relevance; and the relevant experience in this case is some feature of dada-ness shared by lots of visitors who--their colour, age, etc., being as yet irrelevant--are not discriminated as individuals."

So by relating SMiLE information via Koestler we can link the child's viewpoint to the unconscious and a new viewpoint altogether (which finds the unity of opposites...hey, that IS Enlightenment!) which can be expressed by the word "da-da". Very spiritual stuff indeed.

OK, exactly how does Koestler's origin theory tie in with a song that has nothing to do with children or childhood (as far as we know, and may indeed be nothing to do with Smile at all) ?

[homeontherange]

Brian was very into childhood stuff at that time. That can happen when you experiment with psychedelic drugs, and see your life from the very start, and get to analyze your life in a deeper way.
I have a friend who's into that, he sort of wants to reconnect with the total happiness of his childhood and get away from the depressing world of adulthood. Now he's gone to southern Spain all by himself. He's decided to live there for three months. But that's another story.

I think a lot of things inspired Smile. When you're an artist (especially an artist using weed and acid), you're inspired by everything that has made an impression on you. Koestler is one of those things. As well as stuff like "ego death" which people who use these types of drugs might get familiar with. You can't just say that Smile is a simple album with simple songs and no inspiration. Smile is deep, and much deeper than some of you imply. So why not let Bill and his friends speculate, and have fun? Zen sounds cool to me. Don't know if it's true, but I wouldn't reject it like that.

[Andrew G. Doe]

Zen sounds cool to me. Don't know if it's true, but I wouldn't reject it like that.

I don't reject it "like that" either: I've asked around some, and the consensus of those who were around at the time is that Brian's religion du jour during Smile was, if anything, Subud.

Like I've always said, I deeply respect and admire Bill's extensive original research on this theory (except, of course, that which derives from the discredited pseudobiography, and in truth, that's not very much) and that he's prepared to admit when he's proven wrong (Surfing Saints). I just happen not to go along with his ideas, especially the one that claims the principals have maintained a 44+ year conspiracy of silence and outright deception to ensure the truth will never out. Compared with the incoherent gibberings of Phil Cohen, debating with Bill is a complete pleasure.  He may be right, but being a nuts-and-bolts kinda guy, I feel the weight of evidence leans away from that conclusion right now.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

 

[Andrew G. Doe]

If it's all the same to you, I'll settle for a firm, manly handshake. 

[Iron Horse-Apples]

If it's all the same to you, I'll settle for a firm, manly handshake. 

I just love to see you kids getting on 

[Bill Tobelman]

Andrew G. Doe said the following:

I just happen not to go along with his ideas, especially the one that claims the principals have maintained a 44+ year conspiracy of silence and outright deception to ensure the truth will never out.

Using Athur Koestler's book The Act Of Creation as a basis for a piece of art would absolutely require the creator(s) to keep the mediating matrix (a second level or hidden level of meaning or code) a secret. The reasons for this can be seen across the humor, discovery, and art spectrums which are outlined in the book. With humor the consumer needs to find the 2nd matrix in order to 'get' the joke, in scientific discovery the 2nd matrix obviously needs to be hidden in order to be discovered, and in art the deeper level of meaning must be hidden to enable the consumer to have the transcendent 'oceanic feeling' experience.

[runnersdialzero]

If it's all the same to you, I'll settle for a firm, manly milkshake. 

 

[Bill Tobelman]

If you created an album with the potential (perceived or otherwise) to bring about the spiritual experience would you consider that 'too advanced'?

[Bill Tobelman]

I said this:

Using Athur Koestler's book The Act Of Creation as a basis for a piece of art would absolutely require the creator(s) to keep the mediating matrix (a second level or hidden level of meaning or code) a secret.

It could be claimed that the creators of SMiLE never kept 'the mediating matrix' a secret because they (especially Frank Holmes) have often spoken about spiritual enlightenment with regard to SMiLE. This is true & it does go against what Koestler's work seemingly dictates.

What the creators of SMiLE have instead presented are aspects of two matrices (see The Act Of Creation) inherent in SMiLE. What throws folks off is that they cannot reconcile the two matrices. Our penchant for logic doesn't allow for a second matrix.

[Bill Tobelman]

Would like to add that talking about the spiritual experience & enlightenment is a far cry from actually describing the down to dirt details of said experience (which could be more directly related to SMiLE).

So, in that respect (except for possibly a few parts of the discredited bio) SMiLE very largely HAS been kept a secret because the mediating matrix is spiritual enlightenment and the details of that experience have never been disclosed.

Therefore, I recant my prior post somewhat and insist that Koestler's requirements are still being met.

[Mikie]

Things on Smile are pretty straight forward. People read way too much into it.

I could not have said it better myself!  What a BIG understatement, and right on the mark! Especially concerning some of the SMiLE fanatics on this board.

[theCOD]

Things on Smile are pretty straight forward. People read way too much into it.

I could not have said it better myself! What a BIG understatement, and right on the mark! Especially concerning some of the SMiLE fanatics on this board.

WOW! Hear that everyone? We can all stop talking about SMiLE now. Mike says it's pretty straight forward.

[Bill Tobelman]

Things are so 'straight-forward' that you can easily make sense of SMiLE, right? Some explanations are so convoluted. You wonder why.

Here's Koestler giving you a tip or two (page 163 of The Act Of Creation):

"When a situation is blocked, straight thinking must be superseded by 'thinking aside'--the search for a new, auxiliary matrix which will unblock it, without having ever before been called to perform such a task. The essence of discovery is to hit upon such a matrix..."