IF I COULD POST A SCENT ON THE INTERNET
Posted By robertmaynord on June 25, 2010
If I could post a scent on the Internet,
It would surely come from my art,
With spike lavender, beeswax, damar crystals,
Like Leonardo used from the start.
ART AND DECORATION ON MASS PRODUCED URNS
Posted By robertmaynord on June 25, 2010
Today, I was walking around the local mall when I noticed a store selling what appeared to be antique urns! Of course, they were mass produced copies, with designs on the outside that made the urns look ancient. It made me think about the use of art as decoration. In this case, the decoration was added to increase the value of the urn. Without the decoration, the urns would be worthless. The original urns were probably covered with similar decorations which no doubt added great value. Ancient urns were not for common people, but were for nobility.
When decoration is added to objects which have a utilitarian purpose, their value is increased. Decoration seems to serve a sociocultural purpose, benefiting specific groups interested in acquiring fame, power or wealth. In Western Culture the thick decorative embellishments of the baroque rococo style came directly out of the counter-reformation need to defend Catholicism against the onslaught of Lutheran and Calvinist ideas about art. Once that purpose had been served, rococo fell out of fashion.
But, doesn’t decoration have the potential to hinder creativity and inspiration in favor of technical skill and virtuosity? Doesn’t the display of skill often become the focus of attention, instead of the meaning of the work of art? If so, the artists’ skills simply used in the service of those who wish to enhance their own power or wealth, whether they be the owners of a store in the mall, or the rulers of an ancient empire.
LIVING SPIRIT OR MEANINGLESS MUD – PART II
Posted By robertmaynord on June 9, 2010
The phrase “matter as living spirit” would have been understood by any of the artists mentioned in the previous article. As the art historian Arthur Eddy wrote at the time, “The world reverberates; it is a cosmos of spiritually working human beings. The Matter is living spirit”. In contrast, Greenberg would agree that “a physical world precludes any consideration of a non-physical world”. The artists of this period believed that it was possible to discover basic symbolic patterns that revealed universal truths about life.
Much of the art from this time period attempted to draw on sacred geometry. Ideas from music theory were intermingled with concepts from Theosophy, Native American Indians, Zen, Jungian Psychology and Kabbala. The artists experimented with all sorts of symbolism, but the essential idea was a unity of matter and spirit. A mandala is an example of something they might create. But the figurative art of William Blake would also be included.
The terms spirit and matter are often assumed to be contradictory. We have inherited this dualist concept from Persian Zoroastrianism. But there are multiple problems with dualist thought, and most religious and philosopical traditions try to avoid it. Some branches of Christianity emphasize “the fall” to the point where it defaults to dualism. But that is contrary to the best theological thought.
Perhaps it might be suggested that a new term be coined for all this. There are, of course other terms in use that serve this purpose. For example, the term “essence” is one current word used to apply to the sum of existence. The word “Noosphere” was used by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin for related concepts that led to what he called the Omega Point. More recently, Integral Theorist Ken Wilbur also uses the term Noosphere. The Gaia Principle is also related to this same idea. Basically, the earth is viewed as a single living organism. Whatever term is used, the concept is basically the same. Spirit is not something removed to some otherworldly sphere, but is completely integrated with life.
LIVING SPIRIT OR MEANINGLESS MUD
Posted By robertmaynord on June 9, 2010
The early 20th century artists I have previously mentioned were moving away from representational art, but were not abandoning “meaning” in their art. Indeed they were often seeking some form of experience or understanding of universal spiritual concepts and patterns.
In contrast, there were some artists at this time who were part of the “Art for Art’s Sake” movement. They believed that art must be devoid of all external meaning, whether utilitarian or moral. Representational art was criticized as being art in service to official religions and political movements. The “Art for Art’s Sake” movement hoped to free art from all culturally manipulative influences. Art could then be complete in itself, and aesthetically independent.
Early Darwinist and Existentialist ideas were highly influential on the artists of this time. Darwin’s Gradualism and Natural Selection offered a scientific alternative to any system that espoused external transcendence. Life was mud returning to mud, dust to dust, ashes to ashes. Likewise, Existentialists beginning with Kierkegaard placed emphasis on the individual person as solely responsible for meaning in life. The individual alone faced despair, anxiety, alienation and boredom without hope of a larger pattern or concept from which to gain understanding.
Given the social environment of the early 20th century, it is not surprising that some artists applied Darwinian and Existentialist ideas to art. To them, art was not about transcendent concepts such as spirituality, but was simply about itself. Any meaning in art came from the individual. Other than the individual experience of art, art is simply the “mud” of the materials used to make it. This understanding reached full acceptance with Clement Greenberg in the 1950s. Greenberg sought to resist the capitalist ideology of consumerism. He argued that the highest art forms were moving towards the “flat” picture plane, in contrast to the representationalists who used various approaches to create perspective in their art. Indeed, Greenberg saw American Avant-Garde abstract art as being a necessary counter to oppressive capitalist ideology.
Of course, since the 1950s, Greenberg’s ideas have been de-throned by the post-modernists who argue for socially engaged understandings of art. Greenberg’s ideas, they say, promote the opposite of what he hoped for when you consider African art, Native American art, and so forth. It is also interesting that Greenberg’s term “kitsch” is now being applied to many forms of art that came from the Avant Garde itself. It appears that capitalism has the capacity to absorb any movement that threatens its existence.
Many early 20th century artists who were exploring larger patterns of transcendent connectivity may yet have their day. Both contemporary philosophy and science are opening to new and fresh ideas, concepts and discoveries about the way the universe operates. Richard Schmid may turn out to be correct when he says we are now entering a new golden age. It is an exciting time to be doing art!
SPIRITUALITY AND MODERN ART
Posted By robertmaynord on June 4, 2010
“Thus the art of the modern epoch has been largely nonrepresentational, characterized by the marred, earthbound, fragmented view of the human being. Beauty, eternity, and truth seem to have faded into a bygone era.” Juliette Aristides offers this view of art in her recent book, “Classical Painting Atelier”. While the topic of beauty is certainly worth exploring, it seems important to remember that early nonrepresentational artists were intensely interested in eternity and truth. Both abstractionists and realists after 1960 seem increasingly reluctant to acknowledge that spirituality was central to much of the art of the 20th century!
Around 1910, groups of artists were moving away from representational art toward abstraction. This was not an existentialist abandonment of meaning, but was a move toward symbolism, and an interest in spirituality. The idea was that matter is living spirit, rather than meaningless mud. But, in the 1930s and 1940s, mystical beliefs came to be viewed with suspicion, because of their political associations. Some of Hitler’s ideas were inspired by Theosophy. The word “spiritual” was considered a dangerous heresy during this time, and artists avoided the term, but maintained their interest in the subject.
Kandinsky, Kupka, Mondrian, and Malevich were all experimenting with abstraction in order to explore spiritual beliefs and systems. Kandinsky was reading Blavatsy and Steiner, and was keenly interested in Art Nouveau. Some say his “On the Spiritual in Art” is the most influential discussion on art of the twentieth century. His work from the Bauhaus years explores art as cosmic vibration. Krupka was interested in spirituality throughout his entire life, painting the idea that one’s inner world is linked to the universe. Mondrian invented his own visual language to express Theosophical ideas such as male-female, light-dark, and mind-matter. Malevich intended to represent the concept of the human body passing into the fourth dimension, an idea partially derived from Cubism.
Symbolism, Theosophy, and Cubism all nourished the emergence of abstraction in the early twentieth century, and later influenced artists such as Georgia O’Keefe, Raymond Jonson, Jean Arp, and the Surrealists after Andre Breton. But there was concern, in the words of Barnett Newman, that painting not become a “decorative art built on a slogan of purism”. He believed that “art is concerned with the sublime”, and “the artist tries to wrest truth from the void”. This was in contrast to Clement Greenberg, whose views had become established by the end of the 1950s, that art should avoid all value, political, aesthetic, or moral. In Greenberg’s opinion, paint was about paint – nothing more.
Is the reemergence of representational art actually a reclaiming of something that was central to abstract art all along? Is the real issue not a longing for some transcendent element in art, rather than just an individual preference for style?
IS IT REALLY ART?
Posted By robertmaynord on May 15, 2010
We live in times where anything and everything is referred to as “art”. That which attracts because of color, movement, size, emotional stimulation, or personal vanity appeals greatly to us, and since it it not part of the daily work routine, we call it art. Our personal creativity has been hijacked in the name of consumer freedom. Large scale entertainment forms such as film, television and video games, make it all the less likely that we will use our own personal imagination and creativity, the essential elements that make for true art.
The problem with many of our popular forms of visual entertainment is that they emphasize dramatic effect over meaning. Action, color, and emotional manipulation invite us to participate vicariously, but our participation is identified with the character on the screen, not our own personality. Entertainment leaves little room for the imagination. In contrast, Art invites our participation through what is implied or represented, rather than what is explicitly presented. Art invokes our own imagination and creativity, with unlimited possibilities for discovery.
Entertainment stimulates our senses with colors, sights and sounds – the more realistic the better. Years ago, there was a film format called Cinerama, a precursor to today’s Imax. One of the early Cinerama films was of a roller coaster ride where viewers would get dizzy or sick and leave the theatre – an amazing experience. Yet, today we remember the small screen Hitchcock films of the time, and have forgotten the roller coaster movie. We remember Hitchock, not for what was shown in his films, but for what was implied or hidden. Certainly any of today’s slasher films outdo Psycho many times over for showing explicit violence, yet how many slasher films are thought of as art? Todays entertainment offers us high-definition action, violence and sex. The point is to share in the experience of the action figures, not to creatively imagine our own.
Art takes place in our creative minds. We participate with art on shared ground, contributing our thoughts, ideas, and energies. Entertainment pulls us out of our own heads and generates the experience for us. We may enjoy the experience vicariously, but would not choose to live it in reality. It is escapism. Entertainment, like addictive substances, has a tolerance factor. Each new stimulation must out-do the previous in order to be effective. More chocolate and coffee! Bondage is boring! More spectacular effects! More dopamine! In contrast, art survives repeated exposure because we are creating the experience anew with each viewing of the art work. All art is thus “classical” in the sense that it survives over time. Entertainment is ephemeral. Entertainment may be anything you like, but art is about what you create.
IN PRAISE OF IMPERFECTION
Posted By robertmaynord on May 15, 2010
How perfect is your art work? Sometimes while visiting galleries, I see art that is extremely well done, polished in every detail. While I admire the craftsmanship of these pieces, I often find them less than appealing because there are no surprises. I know what to expect with every line, every shape, every pattern and color. The work is all too predictable. There is no room for the unexpected.
At one point in my life I had a collection of old handmade Navajo rugs, which I hung on the wall. I wasn’t aware of their value until one day someone offered me $200 for one. I then decided to research a bit more, and found out that the rug was an antique “Two Gray Hills”, very valuable. Two Gray Hills rugs have wonderful patterns that stretch and move so that in a sense they are “alive”. It is an old Navajo practice to intentionally skip a stitch in every rug. The skipped stitch allows for the unexpected, uncontrolled element. It is, in a sense, a way of allowing creative transcendence to become part of the rug.
I am not a big fan of totally expressive art, where no skill is required in the creative process. Such art may be therapeutic, but to me it does not have much appeal. However, I am equally unimpressed with art that a machine could produce (Chinese copies of Two Gray Hills Rugs). I always look for the human element in art, the unexpected, the re-arranging of our expectations for perfection. In other words, the uniqueness of the work of art.
Am I missing something here? Am I just making excuses because I am not an accomplished “master” in my own medium?
ART AND THE POWER OF FORMS
Posted By robertmaynord on May 15, 2010
On the west mesa near Albuquerque, there are over 30,000 petroglyphs, originally created between the years 1300 and 1700 CE. The area is considered sacred by Pueblo Indian people, who are reluctant to share their traditions with newcomers from the city. The petroglyph forms are of the kind we sometimes see incorporated into contemporary art: line forms of animals, dancers, hunting scenes and weather. These are magic power forms, functional in character, meant to bring about a good hunt, good weather, and fertility. They are not meant to be beautiful.
It is interesting how contemporary artists are attracted to this type of “primitive” art. We seem largely unconscious of our own magic forms in Western European-derived culture. For example, the logos found on automoblies are powerful symbols of directed energy, dedicated to the acquisition of wealth by a certain group of individuals. Most of these logos are legally protected, and anyone using them other than their owners will suffer severe penalties. The peace symbol and swastika are non-commercial examples of forms with a great deal of magic power.
The newest magic power forms are the icons used for social networking, search engines, and commercial web sites. Icons used for Twitter, Facebook, Wordpress, and Digg are accumulating new power, and are already focussing enormous energy. Though our own cultural power forms have genuine power, we are still somehow attracted to the older forms – even though they have less immediate significance for us. Could it be that as artists we are not fully conscious of contemporary magic power forms? Have we lost faith in the idea that what we create can have an effect on others and society? Are we unaware of how that might happen?
YOUR ART IN NEW YORK!
Posted By robertmaynord on May 15, 2010
For $2,500 you can rent a booth, and show your art for 4 days (a corner booth is $300 extra). For $4,500 you can have the booth for 8 days, at the “One of a Kind Art Show” in New York City – across from the Empire State Building. The Hyatt Grand Central is not far away, with rooms around $450 a night. If you’ve been needing a New York show on your artist resume, here’s your chance!
What do you think? Is this the ultimate vanity thrill, or could you really sell enough art to pay for the expenses?
Here’s the link–
http://www.oneofakindshowny.com/artistbenefits/marketing/
IMAGINARY FRIENDS
Posted By robertmaynord on May 15, 2010
Last week I had the opportunity to see a show presenting the work of UW Madison students at the Commonwealth Gallery in Madison. Oh, for the days of unrestrained creativity and freedom from the buffered marketplace! There were heraldic wooden shields, large cartoon style drawings, and mixed-media constructions surrounded with barbed wire. This was not a show for sales, but a show of creative expression, and a large crowd was there to see it. When was the last time you saw three-dimensional barbed-wire mixed-media art for sale in a gallery?
The artists were Roger Allan Cleaves, Josh Nemec, and Chinn Wang.