The only thing I would say regarding audience I dont think is bad "losing audience". I think the point is knowing YOUR AUDIENCE. Basically doing what you do which is challenging the audience to get not what they want what, but what they may need. and by "need" that means all you are trying to say is "this is the artist I am, and whether you like it or not, you will have to decide " so it is not me the artist who decides. So, I slightly disagree with you on that term. I think is okay to lose audience for a reason. And no, I do not think Alan Moore thinks he himself or any artist is always right when they talk about audience needs. Maybe, just maybe (at least this is my own interpretation on the matter) is that you are showing the audience who you truly are rather than showing whom they may be expecting you to be. It deals a lot with the way people see you, and the one you think you are versus the one you actually are, and what makes you. And there is a thin line between who you are, who you think you are, but then that is up to the artist to decide what is the most ideal scenario to portray these alternatives to the audience. And the audience (here is my own thought) is important to notice that it is not just as simple as knowing one particular person. And therefore I find it very valuable as an artist to always test my audience, because at the end of the day it may turn out they were not really. And it is an important lesson for them to know whether they are my audience or they just thought they may be.Quoting Plato "we are not the same person we were 3 years hours ago" well guess what, that can also apply for audience, because the audience can be as changeable. They can easily be transform and turn from being your audience to stop being your audience. I hope that makes sense.
That's an interesting interpretation of that statement. I will have to give that some thought. My statements on the matter have come from personal experiences from many other artists who do rather have a high opinion of themselves and believe their art is a means to proselytize to their audience but I fully admit that I could be over-applying my own bias based on those encounters. I appreciate the new perspective. Thank you.
Great examination, very interesting, one discrepancy I have is that Moore states that art is "literally" magic and does not claim to be speaking metaphorically . I could be wrong but I believe Moore is a deep occultist who takes the concept of "magik" in the Crowleyin sense as he states quite literally , at least in his own work though the quote does seem to assert all art is magic. I prefer to think of art as a form of communication though I suppose I do believe in the concept of "power of intention" which can imbue a work with a metaphysical quality if not "power" to influence the audience/receiver. It can be a "tricky" thing in my opinion. As a "wise man" once said "with great power comes great responsibility".
Yes, you are correct, although I think his definition of what makes literal magic is different than what is portrayed in popular fiction. He does study the occult but for all intents and purposes, it seems to me that he views it as part of his literary vocabulary in the same sense that surrealists use Sigmund Froid's work as their artistic vocabulary. I could be wrong but as far as I can tell he is only interested in altering consciousness and this is his chosen foundation for doing so. Thanks for the sub, by the way. I hope you enjoy my other videos.
Moore's occultism is not Crowley's. He took a part of Crowley's philosophy (namely the true/good magick concept) but replaced a lot of it's quirkier companions with by the book academic rationalism. Crowley dug into both religion and science seeing them as equal but incomplete paths and hoped to find a middle road between them. He saw his concept of magic might be that middle path. While Moore embraces the public perception he is this cranky old wizard but he still pretty much pro enlightenment and rationalism it's just his "idea space" concept is a bit out there for a lot of modernists to swallow. There's one interview where he even candidly described his magic as a 'rationalist version" of magic and before he developed it he pretty much viewed people who believed in magic in a negative light. (in his very Alan Moore polite round about way of doing so of course) I think a lot of people missed Moore's overarching point in the Century volumes of LoEG. There the Crowley analogue (Oliver Haddo) is pretty much a fool who has no idea what he is really up against and his new aeon results in a whiny millennial (Harry Potter). This was no coincidence on his part. Moore directly intended to tie Crowley's supernatural curiosities and millennials loving the wand swishing fantasies of Rowling as a connection of people having supremacy fantasies over "reality" and how dangerous this is. Moore's representative of the idea space (Mary Poppins) just overclasses them. Some chose to see this as a "lol Harry Potter sux" comment but i would say the metaphor Moore intended there was that his concept of idea space magic could save our world from the silly delusions brought on by the likes of Crowley or Rowling's fiction. Maybe some of this is new to youtubers who primarily talk comics, but over in book circles or occult circles be prepared to see a lot of criticism of Alan Moore. But i would imagine some of those circles don't overlap that often.
Good discussion. I think Moore's choice of the word 'magic' leads to problems. Yes, art (or a performance) can be 'magical' in its effects on us. But I think that it is an error to say that art and magic are equivalent. Further, I seriously disagree with the notion that language comes before consciousness. Yes, to have a word as a symbol for a concept which the mind creates is wonderfully efficacious in allowing us to think and then to communicate with others, to literally allow us to present our concepts to them. But babies are conscious before they possess any words or language. In fact, I don't think it's possible to conceive of language preceding the existence of consciousness. Language is a tool of the consciousness which created it, not the reverse.
Good comments. I have to wonder if language and consciousness develop together. Animals and even animals have some degree of expression. Babies are indeed conscious but that consciousness is very limited at first, although they will try to express themselves even then in very rudimentary ways. I have observed in my own children a correlation between their ability to understand and articulate language and their understanding of the environment that they exist in. I have also observed that people's ability to explore ideas has been hamstrung by fear of speaking one's mind, offending the wrong person, and evoking some ill consequence for doing so.
@@christophermoonlightproduction "I have also observed that people's ability to explore ideas has been hamstrung by fear of speaking one's mind, offending the wrong person, and evoking some ill consequence for doing so." Yes, clearly so.
@@christophermoonlightproduction "I have to wonder if language and consciousness develop together." Perhaps language comes shortly after consciousness but I think the latter comes first. For example, with a new born baby, there is a period during which the child literally cannot focus his/her gaze but will respond somewhat to a startle. I think this is probably consciousness without language. Obviously, I'm speculating.
@@douglasmayfield6411 It occurs to me that Moore is probably talking about the more complex aspect so of consciousness. He is speaking to the idea that by controlling what people feel they are allowed to say or even think, you limit their ability to question authoritarian rule.
@@christophermoonlightproduction "...controlling what people feel they are allowed to say or even think, you limit their ability to question authoritarian rule." That makes sense. But if that's his point, I have trouble seeing its relationship to his language/consciousness and art/magic comments.
You could very well be right. This video is strongly based on my perception of his interviews and writings. I've seen a lot of the videos you're talking about but I personally believe it's an act. I could very well be wrong but I believe that he's cultivated a public persona for the sake of his audience. That's not to say he doesn't study and have a near-complete understanding of the theories of "magic" but it seems to me that it's more about using it as a vocabulary for creating stories, much in the same way Salvador Dali used Freudian psychology as the vocabulary of his surrealist paintings. Dali is another example of a cultivated public persona for the sake of showmanship.
@@christophermoonlightproduction There is a video out there where he talks about being a skeptic and rational person but if Queen Elizabeth's righthand man believed then there must be something to it. Now, I'm in the place of Moore and him, now the man. If a man like Moore can find something in this, maybe I could. That would be an understatement. It is all very possible. Find the video where he talks about his trip with best friend, Steve Moore, no relation. Also Steve's wife Salina. I hope i'm not coming off as an ass but I don't see how you interpreted that. He was even working on a book with Steve about magick, a grimoire really. Not to psychoanalyze but you sound like you definitely don't believe in this stuff, admire Moore very much, and don't want it to be true so you hope that you're right. It's in your voice. Hey, I wouldn't believe this shit either if things hadn't have changed the way they did almost a year ago last may for me. I would be making fun of myself if I heard me now but last summer I had a strange pull or push? To get back into my spirituality (16 years) I have been stumbling around it and it has been insane. I have put the most energy into it especially in the past two months and I don't know where to begin. Rewatch the videos of him talking magick and watch them as he actually means. It'll fuck ya up and if you start getting into practicing, then you'll really be shaking your head. Cheers, mate
@@longfellow212 You're coming off fine. I appreciate your perspective and see that you are being civil. Your opinions are more than welcome, so don't worry about it. Moore is a brilliant writer and showman. Do I believe in magic? Not in the Harry Potter kind of way, nor do I believe that Moore does. He is a brilliant mind but there are a great number of things that I think he gets wrong. There are probably a great many things I get wrong on a daily basis, so I'll just chalk that up to being human. My sense is that Moore believes in magic as a way of altering consciousness. That can lead to the unlocking of great knowledge, which is what alchemy is, in its truest form. Christians regard this is Luciferian magic, which although I am not a Christian, I understand why they would warn against it. Will you lose your soul if you practise it? I'm no expert and can't say. I'd imagine that people worry about that much in the same way that they worry that the Devil will speak you through heavy metal music or leap from the pages of an H.R. Giger book. Do you have a soul to be tricked out of if you venture down the wrong back ally of a magical path, haphazardly? I've seen ghosts, real ghosts, in the course of my life so I wouldn't rule out the possibility. I think Moores comments about the soul and taking care of it are very important, so I don't think he'd play with his own so carelessly. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. I've heard his stories of performing rituals and talking to demons and think he's speaking in metaphor. (Not lying, mind you. I believe he does go through these motions.) The trick of a good showman is to not let on that you're doing so. That's part of the real magic. That's what real demons are. They're metaphors that have taken on a life of their own within the collective human psyche. That doesn't make them any less tricky or dangerous and I believe Moor knows that. Moore uses writing/magic to unlock the doors to enlightenment. With both, you must take care as to what you let loose when you open a door/book. Forgive me if I'm repeating myself, at all. It's been a while since I recorded this video and forget now what I said.
The only thing I would say regarding audience I dont think is bad "losing audience". I think the point is knowing YOUR AUDIENCE. Basically doing what you do which is challenging the audience to get not what they want what, but what they may need. and by "need" that means all you are trying to say is "this is the artist I am, and whether you like it or not, you will have to decide " so it is not me the artist who decides. So, I slightly disagree with you on that term. I think is okay to lose audience for a reason. And no, I do not think Alan Moore thinks he himself or any artist is always right when they talk about audience needs. Maybe, just maybe (at least this is my own interpretation on the matter) is that you are showing the audience who you truly are rather than showing whom they may be expecting you to be. It deals a lot with the way people see you, and the one you think you are versus the one you actually are, and what makes you. And there is a thin line between who you are, who you think you are, but then that is up to the artist to decide what is the most ideal scenario to portray these alternatives to the audience. And the audience (here is my own thought) is important to notice that it is not just as simple as knowing one particular person. And therefore I find it very valuable as an artist to always test my audience, because at the end of the day it may turn out they were not really. And it is an important lesson for them to know whether they are my audience or they just thought they may be.Quoting Plato "we are not the same person we were 3 years hours ago" well guess what, that can also apply for audience, because the audience can be as changeable. They can easily be transform and turn from being your audience to stop being your audience. I hope that makes sense.
That's an interesting interpretation of that statement. I will have to give that some thought. My statements on the matter have come from personal experiences from many other artists who do rather have a high opinion of themselves and believe their art is a means to proselytize to their audience but I fully admit that I could be over-applying my own bias based on those encounters. I appreciate the new perspective. Thank you.
@@christophermoonlightproduction Take as much as time as you need. My pleasure talking to you.
Fantastic impression. Well done!
Thank you.
Great video, appreciate what you did here.
Great examination, very interesting, one discrepancy I have is that Moore states that art is "literally" magic and does not claim to be speaking metaphorically . I could be wrong but I believe Moore is a deep occultist who takes the concept of "magik" in the Crowleyin sense as he states quite literally , at least in his own work though the quote does seem to assert all art is magic. I prefer to think of art as a form of communication though I suppose I do believe in the concept of "power of intention" which can imbue a work with a metaphysical quality if not "power" to influence the audience/receiver. It can be a "tricky" thing in my opinion. As a "wise man" once said "with great power comes great responsibility".
Yes, you are correct, although I think his definition of what makes literal magic is different than what is portrayed in popular fiction. He does study the occult but for all intents and purposes, it seems to me that he views it as part of his literary vocabulary in the same sense that surrealists use Sigmund Froid's work as their artistic vocabulary. I could be wrong but as far as I can tell he is only interested in altering consciousness and this is his chosen foundation for doing so. Thanks for the sub, by the way. I hope you enjoy my other videos.
Moore's occultism is not Crowley's. He took a part of Crowley's philosophy (namely the true/good magick concept) but replaced a lot of it's quirkier companions with by the book academic rationalism. Crowley dug into both religion and science seeing them as equal but incomplete paths and hoped to find a middle road between them. He saw his concept of magic might be that middle path. While Moore embraces the public perception he is this cranky old wizard but he still pretty much pro enlightenment and rationalism it's just his "idea space" concept is a bit out there for a lot of modernists to swallow. There's one interview where he even candidly described his magic as a 'rationalist version" of magic and before he developed it he pretty much viewed people who believed in magic in a negative light. (in his very Alan Moore polite round about way of doing so of course)
I think a lot of people missed Moore's overarching point in the Century volumes of LoEG. There the Crowley analogue (Oliver Haddo) is pretty much a fool who has no idea what he is really up against and his new aeon results in a whiny millennial (Harry Potter). This was no coincidence on his part. Moore directly intended to tie Crowley's supernatural curiosities and millennials loving the wand swishing fantasies of Rowling as a connection of people having supremacy fantasies over "reality" and how dangerous this is. Moore's representative of the idea space (Mary Poppins) just overclasses them. Some chose to see this as a "lol Harry Potter sux" comment but i would say the metaphor Moore intended there was that his concept of idea space magic could save our world from the silly delusions brought on by the likes of Crowley or Rowling's fiction.
Maybe some of this is new to youtubers who primarily talk comics, but over in book circles or occult circles be prepared to see a lot of criticism of Alan Moore. But i would imagine some of those circles don't overlap that often.
Good discussion. I think Moore's choice of the word 'magic' leads to problems. Yes, art (or a performance) can be 'magical' in its effects on us. But I think that it is an error to say that art and magic are equivalent. Further, I seriously disagree with the notion that language comes before consciousness. Yes, to have a word as a symbol for a concept which the mind creates is wonderfully efficacious in allowing us to think and then to communicate with others, to literally allow us to present our concepts to them. But babies are conscious before they possess any words or language. In fact, I don't think it's possible to conceive of language preceding the existence of consciousness. Language is a tool of the consciousness which created it, not the reverse.
Good comments. I have to wonder if language and consciousness develop together. Animals and even animals have some degree of expression. Babies are indeed conscious but that consciousness is very limited at first, although they will try to express themselves even then in very rudimentary ways. I have observed in my own children a correlation between their ability to understand and articulate language and their understanding of the environment that they exist in. I have also observed that people's ability to explore ideas has been hamstrung by fear of speaking one's mind, offending the wrong person, and evoking some ill consequence for doing so.
@@christophermoonlightproduction "I have also observed that people's ability to explore ideas has been hamstrung by fear of speaking one's mind, offending the wrong person, and evoking some ill consequence for doing so." Yes, clearly so.
@@christophermoonlightproduction "I have to wonder if language and consciousness develop together." Perhaps language comes shortly after consciousness but I think the latter comes first. For example, with a new born baby, there is a period during which the child literally cannot focus his/her gaze but will respond somewhat to a startle. I think this is probably consciousness without language. Obviously, I'm speculating.
@@douglasmayfield6411 It occurs to me that Moore is probably talking about the more complex aspect so of consciousness. He is speaking to the idea that by controlling what people feel they are allowed to say or even think, you limit their ability to question authoritarian rule.
@@christophermoonlightproduction "...controlling what people feel they are allowed to say or even think, you limit their ability to question authoritarian rule." That makes sense. But if that's his point, I have trouble seeing its relationship to his language/consciousness and art/magic comments.
There is no metaphors, man. Moore believes and practices. There are quite few videos on here of him discussing magick.
You could very well be right. This video is strongly based on my perception of his interviews and writings. I've seen a lot of the videos you're talking about but I personally believe it's an act. I could very well be wrong but I believe that he's cultivated a public persona for the sake of his audience. That's not to say he doesn't study and have a near-complete understanding of the theories of "magic" but it seems to me that it's more about using it as a vocabulary for creating stories, much in the same way Salvador Dali used Freudian psychology as the vocabulary of his surrealist paintings. Dali is another example of a cultivated public persona for the sake of showmanship.
@@christophermoonlightproduction There is a video out there where he talks about being a skeptic and rational person but if Queen Elizabeth's righthand man believed then there must be something to it.
Now, I'm in the place of Moore and him, now the man. If a man like Moore can find something in this, maybe I could. That would be an understatement. It is all very possible. Find the video where he talks about his trip with best friend, Steve Moore, no relation. Also Steve's wife Salina.
I hope i'm not coming off as an ass but I don't see how you interpreted that. He was even working on a book with Steve about magick, a grimoire really. Not to psychoanalyze but you sound like you definitely don't believe in this stuff, admire Moore very much, and don't want it to be true so you hope that you're right. It's in your voice. Hey, I wouldn't believe this shit either if things hadn't have changed the way they did almost a year ago last may for me. I would be making fun of myself if I heard me now but last summer I had a strange pull or push? To get back into my spirituality (16 years) I have been stumbling around it and it has been insane. I have put the most energy into it especially in the past two months and I don't know where to begin. Rewatch the videos of him talking magick and watch them as he actually means. It'll fuck ya up and if you start getting into practicing, then you'll really be shaking your head. Cheers, mate
@@longfellow212 You're coming off fine. I appreciate your perspective and see that you are being civil. Your opinions are more than welcome, so don't worry about it. Moore is a brilliant writer and showman. Do I believe in magic? Not in the Harry Potter kind of way, nor do I believe that Moore does. He is a brilliant mind but there are a great number of things that I think he gets wrong. There are probably a great many things I get wrong on a daily basis, so I'll just chalk that up to being human. My sense is that Moore believes in magic as a way of altering consciousness. That can lead to the unlocking of great knowledge, which is what alchemy is, in its truest form. Christians regard this is Luciferian magic, which although I am not a Christian, I understand why they would warn against it. Will you lose your soul if you practise it? I'm no expert and can't say. I'd imagine that people worry about that much in the same way that they worry that the Devil will speak you through heavy metal music or leap from the pages of an H.R. Giger book. Do you have a soul to be tricked out of if you venture down the wrong back ally of a magical path, haphazardly? I've seen ghosts, real ghosts, in the course of my life so I wouldn't rule out the possibility. I think Moores comments about the soul and taking care of it are very important, so I don't think he'd play with his own so carelessly. I'm sure he knows what he's doing. I've heard his stories of performing rituals and talking to demons and think he's speaking in metaphor. (Not lying, mind you. I believe he does go through these motions.) The trick of a good showman is to not let on that you're doing so. That's part of the real magic. That's what real demons are. They're metaphors that have taken on a life of their own within the collective human psyche. That doesn't make them any less tricky or dangerous and I believe Moor knows that. Moore uses writing/magic to unlock the doors to enlightenment. With both, you must take care as to what you let loose when you open a door/book. Forgive me if I'm repeating myself, at all. It's been a while since I recorded this video and forget now what I said.