Notifications
Clear all

LAM retouched

Page 2 / 2

ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

The only trouble with the Tree idea is that it has Daath but not Tiphareth. Oh wait, that's perfect for Grant πŸ˜‰ Maybe that's the answer?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks for the upside down view that's quite a revelation.

In the upside down perspective is seems to me a drawing from life of coitus. That being Aleisters favourite pastime it would be disingenuous to consider otherwise.

Maybe after drawing it he turned it upside down and then drew the face, possibly from another inspiration.

After a time he prefers the face side up and does away with the crown. As he was always one for the subtle paradox he probably chuckled at the duality πŸ™‚
My 2d anyway


ReplyQuote
ptoner
(@ptoner)
The plants talk to me....
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 2132
 

sorry ian i am not a typhonian but someone who is not judgmental.
please detail what you mean by Daath... its something that does not commute with me.
your indifference with grant is obvious but i for one have two books waiting to be read by the same author... so my influence by grant is null and void.


ReplyQuote
Durga23
(@durga23)
Member
Joined: 14 years ago
Posts: 82
 

To quote Freud: "Sometimes an extraterrestrial in a fuzzy cape is just and extraterrestrial in a fuzzy cape." πŸ™‚

93's


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

I have a print taken directly from the original in Grant's possession. I can confirm it matches exactly the scan posted above from "Remembering Aleister Crowley". The obvious conclusion then is that either the original was directly altered before it was given to Grant, or that in the process of producing a copy for reproduction in "The Blue Equinox" or elsewhere, a faint area of the image was enhanced by a longer exposure. This is actually the most likely explanation, although whether it was enhanced according to Crowley's instructions or at the decision of a printer is something that will probably remain unknown.


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 147
 

93

Fascinating about this Lam...

I've now noticed that the drawing seems to have a three-in-one quality (perhaps this quality being why A.C. offered grant Grant three guesses and later offered three examples of how Grant might describe pieces of representational painting).

These three qualities or perceptions are --

1) One can be looking directly at a vagina that is the possessor of a massive, extended clitoris rising above and toward one.

2) One can be looking upward at an erect penis that is tipping a vagina and one that has a semi-transparent "love shaft" connecting to the area above/behind the head -- note how the folds/creases high above the eyes, including the central fold, are suggestive of a penis-head seen from underneath... Have fun with this one -- :).

3) One can be looking at the face/head of a new-born in what is the unity of penis-head and "girl head".

It is like a school assignment -- "Try to draw these three things in one." One might come up with a picture like this one (perhaps the shaft being later doodled on with hearts and/or rubbed out because it tended to make the picture too literal for the purposes of turning it into a mystery).

If we look at A.C.'s three examples to Grant, we have --

"A girl's head." Check.

"A boy from Martinique." (The baby, one may assume. Check)

"Snow-peak beyond foothills." Perhaps poetic of a, well, use your imagination. Semi-check.

It seems possible that A.C. was writing with these three things in mind when he presented his examples.

I think us various blind ones on this forum have been grasping different pieces of the elephant, so-to-speak. Perhaps what I have mentioned here is close to the elephant in total... and I'll even grant the Tree of Life being present in the drawing besides (as perhaps it should be), whether A.C. brought the Tree to the "canvas" on purpose or subconsciously.

The advantage of the above scheme is that the three elements I speak of are simply natural entities (though exaggerated and superimposed) and thus involve, per A.C.'s admonishment, only the "simplicity and reality of fact" -- penis, child, vagina.

I'd mention also that there is a drawing by A.C. elsewhere on this site where he superimposes a face onto a penis... so, perhaps this Lam drawing is according to his same unifying instinct along those lines.

Best.

93 93/93


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

If MY penis looked like that I'd be straight off to the doctors...:)


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 147
 

The one is less frightening/unnatural if one imagines it tapering away (perhaps with foreskin intact), even as the other can be imagined as looming toward one. Perspective really does explain the "big head," "high double brows," and other features... perspective making for simplicity... rezzing into the third dimension.


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

And to bring things, perhaps, to a close, I am indebted to a correspondent who wrote with the following kind offer:

Maybe it would help clarify matters if someone posted an uncropped image of the sketch; which (either way up) reveals far more of the original context?

I think it would...

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
priestofal
(@priestofal)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 147
 

I stand corrected! lol


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"OKontrair" wrote:
I see from comparing the 2 Lams side by side that there are other variations than the ones we have discussed so far.

Whole-hearted LAM has three rows of hearts and row three (outermost from pate) is partly cut off. Feint-hearted LAM has a complete row three and the beginnings of a fourth row. Also FHL has the darkest background nearest the face with a light background at the edge of the page. WHL - the gallery version from the Harry Ransome collection - has a light background near the cheeks, like a glow, and darker background at the edge of the page.

These two images are definitely of the same object because there is an identity of small detail in what must have been spontaneous marks by the artist.

Lastly I largely agree with the observations of sonofthestar and Nashmiron.

Upside down the image looks like a phallus with the A further expansion of this train of thought:


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"OKontrair" wrote:
As for the alien business, well I have never turned my mind in that direction. What do the gods/aliens, if any, want of us? These are the rabid nightmares of early farmers. All that sheep and lamb imagery inclines me to think that god wants us for food. If we behave one way we taste nicer, if not we need more time in the oven.

OK

The modern idea that greys prey upon humans fits in with the above. However LAM doesn't semm like the modern 'grey' to me.


ReplyQuote
ianrons
(@ianrons)
Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 1126
 

What an extraordinarily paranoid vision of the universe. Almost exactly akin to the Old Testament "jealous god" with his frequent blood sacrifices; and because "the blood is the life", the ultimate sacrifice is of one's own blood (as in Jesus' ritual) to the arbitrary "god", being IHVH or LAM. Then they bring on the squids. Eurrgh!


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 
"ianrons" wrote:
What an extraordinarily paranoid vision of the universe. Almost exactly akin to the Old Testament "jealous god" with his frequent blood sacrifices; and because "the blood is the life", the ultimate sacrifice is of one's own blood (as in Jesus' ritual) to the arbitrary "god", being IHVH or LAM. Then they bring on the squids. Eurrgh!

Yep. It also distracts in a major way from what real value there is in this Thelemic offshoot. I have a very good recipe that I could adapt to roasting a 'grey,' should I ever come across one in the woods and get a good shot at it. πŸ˜›


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

And yet there are so many modern religious ideas that have been impacted by Thelema, e.g.:
Greys
Dianetics
National Socialism
I could go on ad nauseum.
Perhaps by examining Thelema's impact on what could be regarded as spin off paradigms we can gain a greater understanding. Alternatively we could stand aloof in some kind ofThelemic purity and avoid getting our hands dirty by examining these spin off paradigm's more closely.

I wish to avoid trolling when I genuinely ask: How can the real value of any given Thelemic offshoot be ascertained without being prepared to examine all potential avenues?


ReplyQuote
lashtal
(@lashtal)
Owner and Editor Admin
Joined: 18 years ago
Posts: 5330
 

So, Nemo418, just to confirm that you see Thelema's influences "most worthy of receiving comment" as being on UFO cult nonsense, Scientology and Nazis? Didn't think it worth mentioning anything a little more, shall we say, uplifting?

Owner and Editor
LAShTAL


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Ok well clearly I lack sufficiently refined sensibilities for the lofty esoteric debates that occur here. You may as well unsubscribe me I will not be visiting again.
Bye πŸ™‚


ReplyQuote
christibrany
(@christibrany)
Yuggothian
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2856
 
"lashtal" wrote:
And to bring things, perhaps, to a close, I am indebted to a correspondent who wrote with the following kind offer:

Maybe it would help clarify matters if someone posted an uncropped image of the sketch; which (either way up) reveals far more of the original context?

I think it would...

this made me laugh very hard
thanks !


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

It occured to me that the curious, almost-Enochian signs look like the number 49 drawn in a 'mystic' style. Could this refer to the drawing's cataloguing of the original exhibition or have some deeper significance?

Fancourt


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 4132
 
"fancourt" wrote:
It occured to me that the curious, almost-Enochian signs look like the number 49 drawn in a 'mystic' style. Could this refer to the drawing's cataloguing of the original exhibition or have some deeper significance?

Although I don't have a copy of the exhibition catalogue, I think that the exhibit number of the drawing was 22.

As for the characters to the bottom left of the portrait, I recall reading somewhere that they are letters in a Tibetan script, presumably a rendition of the word LAM in that language. The reproduction of this drawing in the Blue Equinox has an inscription which begins: "LAM is the Tibetan word for Way or Path . . ."

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Thanks Michael,

Now you say so, I can see the general similarity to the Tibetan letters L and M. You'd be pretty hard pressed to recognise them as such if you didn't already know. But, then, Crowley wasn't a Tibetist I suppose.

Regards
Fancourt


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
 

Maybe AC deleted this area to make it harder for grant to distinguish what the portrate was? As I have heard it was a test for Grant to own the drawing, he had to explain the drawing.
Also I am intreged by the number of the hearts on the below drawing 888.
Just some more thoughts.
Malkuthmistress


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: