The Mnemosyne Journal

Mnemosyne Journal is Moving

2010-03-15T09:39:00.000-07:00

The Mnemosyne Journal has been merged with Art Babel. Please follow the link to continue.

Thank you for your interest.

Richard T Scott

The Lost Dreams of Titian

2007-12-01T15:33:00.000-08:00

In past posts I have been known to say some choice things about Jeff Koons. Though I don't entirely recant all of my statements, I must admit that I have developed a different outlook on him and what he does.

You see, I just got a job working in his studio, and my first week has altered my viewpoint drastically. The pay is good, the health insurance is great, and what he gives to emerging artists by employing nearly a hundred of them, is the ability to make a decent living while pursuing their foundering careers in the city that never sleeps (nor gives you an inch).

In my first week I have met a number of intelligent and highly skilled artists in his employ and have struck a friendship with a few. Chief among them is my quickly growing friendship with the painter Adam Miller. His piece "Ariadne", above, awakens in me the haunting remembrance of visions in the dreams of Titian - images to which he never gave expression. These are the lost moments of a master, recently unearthed from the mists of time, and all the better as we can see these marvelous pieces afresh with searching and youthful eyes - never before exposed to this poetic mastery. These are the moments when art is most vital to the human experience. These are the moments when all the senses reach an apex in perception and the work transcends simply the beautiful and surpasses the sublime. These are the moments which reach the human soul.

The Electric Car Vs. Hydrogen Fuel Cells

2007-11-06T08:55:00.000-08:00

The Sexy Tesla Roadster - it's electric baby

I'll keep it simple. Here are the basic facts

Hydrogen Fuel Cells

Emissions = water vapor (much cleaner than gasoline, but still a greenhouse gas)

Few moving parts -almost no maintenance

More reliable and efficient than combustion

H produced by steam reforming natural gas
This is cleaner, but more costly than gas
and is not the most environmentally friendly process

300 miles on a single charge

Can fill up at any station, when/if
they build the costly infrastructure

5 min. to refill

Reduces our dependence on foreign oil

I Didn't find data on performance

25% power grid to motor efficiency

Does not operate well in the cold

More expensive than gasoline

Technology is progressing

Current cost of production per vehicle:
$1,000,000
Estimated to be 20 years
until it's a feasible alternative to gasoline

Electric Car

No Emissions

Few moving parts -almost no maintenance
more reliable and efficient than combustion

Power plants (production of electricity is
cheaper and more efficient than gas
and H fuel cells and 100% clean
if electricity is produced by solar,
wind, hydro-electric power, etc...

Modern e-cars go 250 miles on a charge,
New auxiliary motor technology increases range to 600 miles

Can be plugged in at home - no trip to gas
stations station necessary!
Could build less costly refilling stations

5-7 hours to recharge
(5 seconds to plug in, leave overnight)

Reduces our dependence on foreign oil

0-60 mph in 4 seconds (Tesla
Roadster)

86% grid to motor efficiency
for production

Operates in all conditions

cheaper than gas - 2 cents per mile

Technology is progressing rapidly

An economy sedan
Can be built and sold at a profit for
$25,000 right now.

Sources:
Who Killed the Electric Car? - A documentary you must see. (Available at Netflix)
Electric car vs. Hydrogen
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
Wikipedia - Hydrogen Fuel Cars
Wikipedia - Electric Cars
Plug In America

Creative Solutions

2007-11-01T10:15:00.001-07:00

Our new blog Sustainable Art seeks to find ecological, economical, and creative solutions to climate change and other problems endangering our planet (and our species).

We think that art, from its message down to the process of creation, can help solve the problems facing us today. Help us create a sustainable art and a sustainable future. It's a big and interconnected issue and we could sure use your ideas.

The Art of Cuba

2007-10-21T07:41:00.001-07:00

Roberto Fabelo

Art on the Block

2007-10-18T08:33:00.000-07:00

Come to the preview on Wednesday, Oct 24th 6-8 pm. It's in Chelsea.

Saatchi Gallery Showdown

2007-10-15T14:41:00.000-07:00

For those of you who didn't receive my shameless e-mail bidding for your vote, please don't be disappointed:
I'll beg you right now.

Please vote for me here on the Saatchi Gallery Showdown (voting opens Oct 22-29th 2007),

and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

Sherlock Holmes and Serendipity Cake

2007-10-11T11:08:00.001-07:00

Upon waking this morning, I randomly discovered that my friend Jacques de Beaufort had placed on his blog - Jung's chart - right below a random beer advertisement.
To this innocuous action Steven LaRose commented, "ah, to be Jung and full of beer"... at which point it struck me that Jacques and Steven were exchanging secretly encrypted communications. And so, I immediately set about to unearth their duplicitous scheme.

Realizing that no beer add is truly random, I unlocked the secret code through a complex system of laying one over the other. Don't try this at home. The next step was to discern what this incredible image was telling me. After hours of laborious contemplation, the sweat of my brow trickled down into my salted and bleary eyes, and I suddenly realized that I still had that decoder ring I found in a cracker jack box when I was six. How serendipitous!
Thus, I finally discovered the three truths that were so obviously intended for me to discern, which I will kindly share with you gentle reader as you do not have the unequivocal aid of my decoder ring.

My higher unconscious is embracing the universal higher spiritual being - who is both male and female (I had a sneaking suspicion!).

My collective unconscious is flirting with my lower inner being,

and my higher self seems to be some indiscernible kind of cake.

Pinochle and Parsimony

2007-10-10T09:00:00.000-07:00

My wife and I just took our first vacation in almost three years. Our grandparents (my side) invited us to come stay with them in Houlton, Maine... about 2 miles from the Canadian border. To all appearances it seems that all my expectations were off base. I expected something out of Green Acres, and what I got was more Northern Exposure. There is a surprising thriving cultural community nested in those hills, with all the quirks of any eclectic arts group, and some ethically minded activists living completely off the grid. We were nearly there ourselves with no access to a computer, little TV (I didn't miss it) and no telephone, cellular or land-line. It was truly a poem in simplicity, which made each moment the more poignant.

Not only was the land absolutely breath-taking, but the time spent with my grandparents (love them though do) was surprisingly entertaining. My wife monopolized my grandmother's time and I did the same for my grandfather. Every day began with a trip through the countryside - perhaps to go pheasant hunting - a lesson in economics (the tariff lifted on importing Canadian potatoes had destroyed the local agrarian economy) and a journey into history (my grandfather grew up there). And every evening ended with Pinochle. I recall at the height of a game, when my grandfather won a bid, something more than cards passed between us. I believe a little bit of understanding was born.

Being the self centered youth that I am, I had not realized that this man I had known my whole life was actually a stranger to me. This was the first time I had spent more than two hours with him since I was 15, and at that time I was hardly interested. But it was as if I suddenly had connected with something rooted in my soul that I had never guessed existed.

All the stories, all the moments, all the visions of his life recounted
might have passed out of memory with him years from now, and I would never have known.
I mention this because of the inevitability, and the fact that my grandfather has bladder cancer. I do not know how much time he has left, something none of us really know. I hope that we have time to spend at least a few more summers together in Maine.
Regardless, I am thankful that I took the time to drive ten hours in an unknown territory
to make a journey into the past.

And forge a few moments for the future.

Iconic?

2007-09-26T12:26:00.001-07:00

What do you think of this?

Open Critique

2007-09-23T07:30:00.001-07:00

What do you think about it?

Xenobiology

2007-09-02T20:14:00.001-07:00

Image copyright by Alex Reis

Here's a piece by artist Alex Reis. A beautiful example of the meeting between art, science, and imagination. Xenobiology speculates on the possible forms of life on other planets based on variables such as planetary size, geological cycles, and quantities of various elements.

To Quote the Master

2007-07-25T11:47:00.000-07:00

I have here, my favorite Rembrandt copy yet. But I am compelled to ask, as you likely are, why the obsession with copying Rembrandt? Why the obsession with copying in general? Certainly, I learn tremendous amounts by copying these paintings, but after a certain point....

I do continue learning each time I copy - even if I copy the same painting, each one reveals something new, something I could not quite grasp before. But, somehow this is not the entirety of why I do this. There's something else, something almost nameless that drives me to continue this. I think it has something to do with a search for meaning - an effort to reconstruct something integral to the human soul, which was cast aside in the post-modern era. Deconstruction has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Let us try to give this a name.

I think the closest explanation that I have found is a short story by Jorge Luis Borges entitled Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote. It can be found in his book Labyrinths, from which I'll quote a small excerpt. He discusses the hypothetical reasoning behind the hypothetical author Menard's rewriting Don Quixote.

"There is no exercise of the intellect which is not, in the final analysis, useless. A philosophical doctrine begins as a plausible description of the universe; with the passage of years it becomes a mere chapter-if not a paragraph or a name-in the history of philosophy. In literature, this eventual caducity is even more notorious. The Quixote-Menard told me-was above all, an entertaining book; now it is the occasion for patriotic toasts, grammatical insolence and obscene de luxe editions. Fame is a form of incomprehension, perhaps the worst."

He goes on to say, more solidly than I, that

"Cervantes' text and Menard's are verbally identical, but the second is almost infinitely richer. (More ambiguous, his detractors will say, but ambiguity is richness.)"

The conclusion of the story puts forth the premise that "deliberate anachronism" and "erroneous attribution" enrich the text. Because the second (the copy) has the context of the original and the added context of it's recent re-creation giving it another dimension of depth and interpretability.

So, in analogy, perhaps I am testing this theory in paint. The "deliberate anachronism" of smearing dirt and oil onto pieces of cloth in an age when I could use a multitude of different and contemporary methods, seems to hold some importance to me. The anachronism of the act, the anachronism of the subject, the anachronism of the technique - for me almost poetry, but why?

Considering this, does the copy become an artistic or philosophical statement in it's own right, or is it nothing more than mimesis?

Poe, Times Two!

2007-07-21T06:15:00.001-07:00

I'm collaborating with Greg Oliver Bodine on his off-Broadway show Poe, Times Two. An adaptation of two great stories by Poe, The Cask of Amontillado, and The Black Cat, it is a tale of murder, supernatural mystery, and ultimately Justice!
I can't help but conclude, from reading the script and knowing the set design, that Greg is making an artistic statement not without political import.

I worked in props design to produce a painting for the piece, entitled Justice Triumphs over Rebellion, which works perfectly with the tone of this play. Symbolically it is the sword of Damocles which hangs above the performers head, and visually it is a baroque image which supports the emotively dramatic atmosphere. I feel that the iconic nature of the painting will work well with such a heavy narrative.

The Rise of the 'Art-Mart'

2007-07-16T15:28:00.000-07:00

I came across a lively discussion of the state of the collector driven art market on Edward Winkleman's blog. It is certainly worth a read.

I propose that what is occurring in the art market is merely symptomatic of the larger global economic trend. Independently owned niche galleries are being pushed out in the same manner that Wal-Mart and other corporate fuedalist states have crushed the small business owner. Now, all across America, you can find a small selection of generic items amidst a vast categorical one-stop shop. It seems that the art market is becoming a high end version of this, the successful galleries offering the high turnover selection of name brand artists in every style, all under one roof.

Can we solve the recurring problem with a genre-specific band-aid or should we not get to the root of the problem and re-establish the vital diversity needed in our society at large?

Genetic diversity is necessary for a species to be successful. When the species lacks diversity, the species lacks adaptability and vitality. Diversity is necessary culturally for the same reasons. So, why would it not be necessary for art, when art is so integral to civilization as well as to each individual (whether they know it or not)? Below is one of the responses from the discussion which I find concisely states what I mean.

What I think is needed is a capitalism of ideas. Philosophies and criticism and aesthetics need to be able to partake in free debate, violent disagreement if necessary. Museums, curators, critics and even academics should fight it out, there is NO NEED for agreement, NO NEED for consensus, history solves that over time in it’s own way, the culture ultimately decides on what it chooses to value.

However, I do not think one can stop the weed without getting at the roots. We need to restructure the corporation to a more democratic system. As it is, the corporation is essentially structured as a monarchy. And because of the growing power of these corporations (Wal-Mart alone made over $360 billion in 2005, more than the economies of all but the 21 richest nations!) we must take notice. These should be labeled as they are: rogue monarchies, and all it would take is for them to hire a "security force" and they could be as dangerous as Napoleon, if not more.

That which I call the 'Art-Mart' is only a fever. The real sickness lies deeper down. If we value our diversity and our freedom of choice, we need to re-evaluate how we do everything. Society has become truly global. The world is changing, and if we want to survive, we have to change with it.

Auction Update

2007-07-05T13:15:00.001-07:00

I unfortunately mis-informed you about the upcoming auction. The main viewing is not free, but is $20. I apologize for any inconvenience.

-Richard

What is "Contemporary" Art?

2007-06-26T22:31:00.000-07:00

I would like to address a common question that I hear over and over again.

Why don't you make "contemporary paintings"?

I'll try to answer this in brief:

As far as we know, man first painted on cliff and cave walls 40,000 years ago. These images were design/pattern oriented without an attempt at the illusion of three dimensions - i.e abstract. Throughout the entire history of painting, man has only attempted to compose within the illusion of three dimensional space for less than 1,000 years cumulatively (that's if you count the Greeks, but we only have stories about their paintings, not actual paintings).

Take 39,000 years of abstraction in one hand and 1,000 years of illusionism in the other and tell me which one has been thoroughly explored.

Or if you prefer: I as an artist am a product of contemporary society. Ergo, my work is contemporary.

Buy Art, Invest in Humanity

2007-06-22T14:54:00.000-07:00

My work will be in an art auction benefiting Action Against Hunger. If you're interested in buying tickets to the VIP preview, the nAscent gallery website has contact information.

I hope to see you there.

-Richard T Scott

Art

2007-06-08T11:24:00.000-07:00

Art, like consciousness, is a dance between order and entropy.

Artistic Anatomy

2007-05-09T19:37:00.000-07:00

The artist has long found anatomy to be integral to his training. This is why, for over 2,000 years artists have trained by drawing, painting, and sculpting the nude.

The first concrete accounts of specific anatomical study by an artist arose around the 15th century. Leonardo da Vinci was known to dissect corpses and make detailed drawings of his findings. However, there are some accounts of this practice being done even during the time of the ancient Greeks.

This picture is of an ecorche that I made as an anatomical study. This piece roughly follows the tradition of the ecorche which originated in the French academy in the 19th century.

The Theory of the Nude

2007-04-26T20:14:00.000-07:00

My friends and family often ask me why so many artists paint (as they say) “naked people”. Some think that the nude is only pornography, while others just think that it’s out-dated in the art world. Most artists will tell you something along the lines of “we don’t see them as ‘naked’ we just see beauty”. Though this may be true, it doesn’t answer our question. As a classically trained artist myself I have a theory on why people make art using the nude. I think the first step in understanding the nude in art is to understand why people made them in the past, and why they continue to make them.
There are three basic categories of nudes, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive (sometimes they overlap):
The Ideal Nude: Originating with the Greeks, the ideal nude is just a concept really, the basis of which was most clearly explained by Plato. He stated that within all things there is a universal and divine “form” that defines it. For example: if you look at 100 trees, each individual tree will look different, yet they are all similar enough to categorize them as trees. What is the sameness or underlying quality of the tree which makes it a tree? This thing, this sameness, Plato called form. Greek artists took this idea and tried to find the ideal form of the human body. They used shapes in the human body, much like a musician would use musical notes to form a chord. The idea was to create a harmony through repetition and variation of certain visual elements of the body. Excellent examples of this are, of course, classical Greek and Roman sculpture, Leonardo da Vinci (who also could be mentioned in all of these categories for different works), Donatello, Rafael, and the Neo-classicists of the 19th century.
The Observed Nude: Originating in the Fayum portraits of ancient Greece in a technique of painting called Encaustic, which uses wax as a medium for pigment instead of oil or water. The main purpose of this originated in portraiture and was all about trying to capture the individual’s personality and particular appearance. Great examples of this can be found in the paintings of Rembrandt, John Singer Sargent, and ancient Roman portrait busts.
The Expressive Nude: This form is intended to do just what the name implies. The nude is used here as the main vehicle for the artist’s expression, usually with emotive, and in the case of the Renaissance, devotional purposes. Great examples would be the work of Michelangelo (who could be classified under ideal nude as well) and most of the artists of the modern period: Rodin, Picasso, Matisse, Kathe Kollwitz, Edvard Munch, and Paul Gauguin etc…
I would like to rephrase our original question in the interest of brevity and to be more specific. “Why is it that the most recurring subject in all of art history by far is the human face and body?” Modern scientific research also gives us a clue to the reasons behind our question. The human face and the human body are psychologically stimulating to the mind. Our brains are actually hard wired to recognize human form. Take, for example, a chimpanzee. If you look at three different chimps for 5 seconds, would you be able to tell them apart as individuals? Now if you look at three human faces for 5 seconds, I bet your success rate will be much greater. But a chimp can recognize and differentiate between other chimps much easier, just as you can recognize a human face much easier.
You might say, Ok I understand why we look at faces, that makes sense, but why nude? Well there are multiple reasons. First (and least important to me) is tradition. There is a long tradition predating even the Egyptians of recreating the human body. So, as a method of teaching art, there are lots of people who have done it before and so there are a lot of excellent techniques and examples for artistic training that have been developed which apply to other forms of art as well. Second, it is a test of skill. If one can make a believable representation of something that we are so familiar with, then everything else is a piece of cake. If I paint a chimpanzee you would be less critical of whether it looks real or not than a human face, simply because most of us don’t see chimps every day for our entire lives. Some artists get caught up in this challenge for perfection and are never satisfied with their degree of skill, (I know I never am) and so continue to pursue impossible perfection even though most people might not see the minute faults of the work which the artist does. –The next passage includes much of my opinion on the subject and is not intended to force my views on anyone, but merely to share another point of view.-
Third, (and most importantly to me) the nude, when I choose to paint it, is representative of something more than observation. My works are meant to evoke complex emotions or thoughts in the viewer, and are not meant to be decorative, though beauty is important to me. Since nudity is not often seen in normal everyday settings, it implies that there is something more to the interpretation. It makes the piece more intimate. For me, art is about conveying the complexity of life; its joy and its sorrow. If I paint a nude with a certain degree of sexuality implied, it is to communicate the dual nature of every human being. All of us, from the most pious, to the most base, from the greatest ideals of compassion and love, to fear and jealousy; we are all torn between what we are and what we wish to be. We all have some desire to do or see something greater than what is before us, and we all struggle with the desire for immediate pleasure. It is this tension between our animal and divine sides that I attempt to evoke; and in doing so, perhaps to help myself and others understand a little bit more about being human.

Deconstructing Deconstruction

2007-04-12T07:05:00.000-07:00

Micheal Jackson and a monkey - "Jeff Koons"

What would you say if I told you that there was an insidious dark ideal infecting the art culture, the very belief structure of which is paradoxical. It is a faith of non-belief and it is merely being accepted, not challenged, as the only system of intellectual thought. All else is dismissed as "kitsch". And not surprisingly, this movement "appropriates" (bastardizes) all forms of "kitsch" for the purposes of pointing out its futility. The acolytes of this dogma tend, in the arts, to hide behind irony as a shield for a lack of quality, content, or emotive integrity. A prime example of such an "artist" is Jeff Koons (above), who passes off other people's "craft" as his own, and whose only discernible product is shock value. - "He says with a sardonic grin."

"To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation." - Yann Martel, The Life of Pi

What is this philosophy of doubt of which I speak? Why, it is nothing more than an abstract categorization called "Post-modernism": a single label within the structure of philosophical theory meant to categorize the idea of the negation of structure. (Sounds like a paradox, no?). One of the main premises of post-modern thought, and the one for which I have the most criticism is the idea that all experience, all life, everything is essentially meaningless. This stems from the deconstructive thought of Heidegger , Kierkegaard, and Derrida,
further complicated by the Schroedinger and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
However, I view uncertainty and probability as something separate from negation.

This absurdist philosophy or rather, nihilism, is a process and not a conclusion, just as deconstruction is a process and not a conclusion.

In the dialogue of painting one might see our contemporary era as a re-constructive era. Where the tenets of Derrida informed the deconstructive elements of post-modernism, the act of mimesis or the appropriation of “obsolete vernacular” is a sign of the discontents that our contemporary culture finds in the detritus of post-modern thought. Now we pick up the cogs and springs to reassemble them – to create order if only because we feel it is needed. We reclaim the mysterious origin of art – meaning. It’s interesting that we might confuse nostalgia with meaning, but does that make it any less potent, universal, or reflective of life? For that’s what art does… reflect life.

Obviously this a weighty topic which could not simply be condensed to one listing... So,
this diatribe will be continued in later postings, so hold tight and please feel free to let me know your responses etc...

New Painting

2007-03-25T15:09:00.000-07:00

This new painting is too large to see the whole all at once while I'm working, so I had to improvise a longer paintbrush.

Advice to the Young Artist

2007-03-18T19:46:00.000-07:00

About 40,000 years ago a caveman mixed some burned bone and saliva. He saw that he could make a mark on the stone of his cave wall with this. These marks became patterns and images of bison, hunters, and horses. He found that he could make an indelible impression upon the world around him and that his mark would last… beyond his lifetime, and his children’s lifetimes. For how long, I’m sure he didn’t know. But here we are today reflecting on the meaning of what some unknown man did 40,000 years ago. Such a simple thing as rubbing dirt and ash onto stone walls… and we wonder. We wonder because we know this has a meaning. Survival was difficult enough for him without wasting his time smearing mud onto a wall.

Later these pictures evolved into pictographs and the pictographs into alphabets… and the alphabets formed words, and the words became the Odyssey, and Hammurabi’s law, and Plato’s Republic, and Shakespeare, and the Constitution… and Harry Potter.

For me, art is meaning itself. It is communication; it is reaching out and connecting to someone else in the deepest way and finally knowing that we are not alone. Because of all these things, art is the foundation of civilization. Everything that man has ever built rests upon it. For me, it’s that big.

It means something… something a little different for each person. That’s why art isn’t just for the rich or the highly educated. It’s not some obscure language that no one can really understand. It is what it communicates to you. It’s around us everywhere, it’s within everyone. Making art is simply making something with passion, with every ounce of your soul.

Especially in the world today, we’re constantly inundated with voices… from the TV, magazines, radio, computer… from every direction saying everything there is to say. It’s hard to find your own voice amidst the static. Your particular way of expression that most fully communicates you. It’s a long journey of self discovery that, for the artist, never really ends. So I’d like to pass along a little advice, to clear out a little static so you can hear your own voice. Most of it is for those of you who would like to become artists, but I think it also applies to everyone who’s searching in life.

Don’t worry about what is fashionable and popular. If you’re interested that’s fine, but don’t let it dictate your actions. Do what is interesting to you. Robert Henri, a great artist and teacher said in his book The Art Spirit

“For an artist to be interesting to us, he must have been interesting to himself. He must have been capable of intense feeling, and capable of profound contemplation. He who has contemplated has met with himself.”

If you do what is interesting to you, your work will speak to us. And if your work speaks it will become what is popular, it will become the thing that everyone talks about.

Copy the work of the greatest artists that you love. You will learn more directly from them than anywhere else. And what you love about their work will sneak its way into yours. Copying is great for learning, especially if you can capture the spirit of the thing. But remember, that’s the goal, the spirit. Don’t try to borrow someone else’s language of art. By imitating Michelangelo you may become half of what he was, but then you will never become all of what you are.
Whatever it is that you do. Whether you sculpt, or paint, or make sushi… do it a lot - every chance you get. If you do this all the time, you will either realize that you should be doing something else, or you will get much better at what you do. And if you happen to find that you should be doing something else, don’t despair, you’ve just learned something very important – don’t waste your time doing the first thing when you could be finding what you love and doing that to the best of your ability.
To become a master at anything, you must first master what you already have. Only then can you truly add to your knowledge.
Many people say that there is nothing new to say in art… that everything has been said. They’ve been saying this since ancient Greece… and just look at everything since then, that couldn’t be said.
Don’t worry about originality; you couldn’t shake it if someone beat you with a stick. There has never been and never will be anyone exactly like you. Even twins who share DNA and grow up together end up being different. What ever you do will be distinctly yours. The question is how can you best use it?

I’ve got one final piece of advice before I answer any questions you might have.

Get out there and talk to people about art. Go to museums, go to galleries, meet people, ask questions… the more people you talk to the more knowledge you’ll gain and you might also build some interesting and helpful friendships. Art is a business also, like anything else. You have to go out and see what’s happening in your field. You have to network. If you look at history, all the artists in the history books were talking to other artists who are now in the history books. They collaborated and pooled their resources and that’s why they’re in the history books. They saw each other as assets and not competition. In the long run, that’s what re really are. I may be 10 years older than most of you, I may be a teacher now, and you a student now. But 10 years from now that won’t matter. I’m still a student of life now, and I’ll still be a student in 10 years. It’s a long journey and the truth is we’re all contemporaries. We’re all fellow travelers through life, right now.

Hendrickje Stoffels

2007-03-02T19:10:00.000-08:00

This is a copy I just finished at the Met. It is Hendrickje Stoffels by Rembrandt.
I love the psychological content in her eyes. The photo has a little glare in the top right. I'll have to update the photo.

Shadows of a Hand

2007-02-24T06:43:00.000-08:00

This ink wash by Victor Hugo has never ceased to inspire me. Abstract poetry meets psychological realism in these works. I came across it in a book entitled Shadows of a Hand, which is a collection of the great writer's ink drawings. Delecroix once said that if Victor Hugo had been a painter instead of a writer, he would have been the greatest of the Romantic painters.

Hatching from a nameless gleam of light I see
Monstrous flowers and frightening roses
I feel that out of duty I write all these things
That seem, on the lurid, trembling parchment,
To issue sinisterly from the shadow of my hand.
Is it by chance, great senseless breath
Of the Prophets, that you perturb my thoughts?
So where am I being drawn in this nocturnal azure?
Is it sky I see? Am I in command?
Darkness, am I fleeing? Or am I in pursuit?
Everything gives way. At times I do not know if I am
The proud horseman or the fierce horse;
I have the scepter in my hand and the bit in my mouth.
Open up and let me pass, abysses, blue gulf,
Black gulf! Be silent, thunder! God, where are you leading me?
I am the will, but I am the delirium.
Oh, flight into the infinite! Vainly I sometimes say,
Like Jesus calling out “Lamma Sabacthani,”
Is the way still long? Is it finished,
Lord? Will you soon let me sleep?
The Spirit does what it will. I feel the gusting breath
That Elisha felt, that lifted him;
And in the night I hear someone commanding me to go!

VICTOR HUGO

There is only one other work in literature that I have yet come across, which so eloquently and accurately conveys the feeling and act of creation as this poem. Now, being somewhat of a romantic painter myself, I must admit my bias towards this somewhat (melo)dramatic view. But it is simply that I feel that art is about life in its simplicity and complexity; and a life without passion, without vision, without the emphatic would be a dreary life lived. Art, for me, should convey the crest and wake of life’s truly tempestuous nature. However, I digress.

As I’ve said, this passage describes quite perfectly the act of creation, and there is only one other work I know of which evokes the same degree of recognition. There is a collection of short stories entitled: Labyrinths, by Jorge Luis Borges. Among other stories of incredible beauty and depth, is one called: The Circular Ruins, in which the protagonist attempts to dream into existence the life of another man, but through the act of creation comes upon a revelation.

Both are interesting in their similarities: the references to Christ, which makes sense in context of the gospel of John. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.” For the act of creation is a kind of memesis of the first act of creation. Whereby God divided the light from the darkness by means of the Word, or Logos (from Greek meaning literally word, but implying logic and order). So, according to John, the Word and God are one in the same; thus the act of Genesis was the imposition of order upon the chaos of the dark void. The act of creation is in some way a futile grasp at immortality (our nameless gleam amidst the void), for why does man commit image or thought onto a physical object such as paper, stone, or wood? It is the very hope that our creation might speak for us beyond our mortality, that we might carry on in some way, even if only as a memory, a phrase, or an image. This is the sad passion which drives us, for fear - not of death, but of oblivion.

Western Aesthetic Thought: A Brief History

2007-02-21T20:16:00.000-08:00

“…do not forget the lament of the short lived Achilles, mourning the leaf like change and vicissitudes of the race of men and the decline of the heroic age. It is not unworthy of the greatest hero to long for a continuation of life, even though he lives as a day laborer.” (Nietzsche “The Birth of Tragedy.” p.43)

If one considers Plato’s analogy of man’s state in his description of the shadow puppets in a cave, one may see this as an analogy of the artist as well. For the artist is one perceiving of a greater dimension, yet constrained to living in three. He intuits the existence of the greater world, but cannot quite see it. In this way, all artists are crippled, yet no more so than man. Still, the artist is one who can give the symbol concrete form. As the symbol is the essence of art, it is a general or abstract idea presented, not directly, but metaphorically. While it is a necessary component of language and of culture, as “culture” is defined in anthropological terms, the symbol and art cannot be removed from culture and culture cannot exist without it. The symbol is the basis upon which all of civilization is built. All human knowledge rests upon this very concept. This idea of the symbol, so integral to human social interaction, was first given description by Socrates and most memorably composed by Plato and Aristotle. But the means to investigate it were founded by the first Greek philosopher and scientist, Thales. He proposed that all matter in the world was composed of a single principle, which he thought to be water. The important factor was not whether he was correct in his assumption; it is that he was making the first leap in formal abstraction of western history: how he deduced an answer and not what he deduced. Whereas, anthropologically, man has recognized abstract ideas in terms of tool-making and the governing principles of nature- as far as how they apply to food-gathering-; this was the first time man tried to answer the question through observation rather than with an abstract disclaimer such as “the gods”; he made the groundbreaking assumption that the world could actually be understood by man. Thus the understanding of an abstract principle was revealed. It is the crossroads of all human knowledge: the search for the universal. Thus the natural conclusion of western man’s first coherent question has driven western culture for over two thousand years. Any such conclusion would throw us into disarray. As I will discuss, post-modernism is the natural conclusion of western thought and by extension western art. Only on the surface though, does science and logic seem to support the precepts of the post-modern conclusion.

“Thales was best known for being the first thinker to propose a single universal principle of the material universe, a unique substratum that, itself unchanging, underlay all change.” (Van Doren, p. 31)

His question may have been motivated by a single universal principle that all human beings know and among other things, defines us from the animal kingdom. It is the knowledge that all creatures are born, and eventually will die. His great question was: since all of the observable world changes, is there something that does not? He reasoned that if there was something recognizable in one “thing” even throughout its change, then there must be something recognizable in all “things” throughout their change. Of course, through thought most people come to the conclusion that there is some unchanging thing, otherwise, how would we recognize things to be the same, only changed? A tree is a tree, though it is different in every season, and there are many different kinds of trees in many different places. The label “tree” is merely a group that we place all of these individual things into because they share similar characteristics. It is a symbol, or abstraction. Thales held that the single defining principle of all things was water; later the stoics held that it was fire, and others held it to be other elements. But, Pythagoras believed that mathematics to be the universal (and even divine) principle which defines all things. Yet what put an end to the cult that sprung up around him was there remarkable insightfulness. Because they held a mystical belief about numbers, one discovery of theirs leads them to complete disillusion. They discovered irrational numbers, which meant that some things could not be quantified in a rational integer. Thus the human mind could not understand all things. There was disorder, and thus, all things did not follow an absolute order. If there is no underlying order then there is only chaos, and so, no hope of divinity. Fortunately their woe has laid the groundwork for the advancement of mathematics after.

A philosopher whom many have ignored throughout the ages seems to have come the closest to the scientific truth. Democritus believed that all matter could be broken down to a single physical principle. This particle he called the Atom, from which the name used in science today, was derived. Yet it was Socrates who began our specific discussion, and could be said to have invented most of the difficult questions in history. He focused mainly on ethics and politics, but he was renowned for his cutting accuracy when asking the right questions. He did not write anything that we know of, but he passed on his method of analysis to his star pupil Plato.

Plato is most well known for his concrete belief in ideal form. Revived around 300 A.D. by Plotinus, the ideal form of neo-Platonism was adopted by St. Augustine as the truest conception of the world in terms of Christianity. He proposed that the truest form was based upon geometry, and was the divine principle of all things. Chiefly, Plato’s ideas rose from the society in which he lived, where the most important god was Apollo, the god of light: clarity, and reason. In Plato we also find the origin of the work of Polyklietos, perhaps the most rigorous of classical artists. Each of his sculptures was formed according to his extremely specific code of geometric ratios and proportions, which no-one after has yet precisely described. Yet through this complex system of geometry, artists have been passed down the tools to more accurately depict human form in a realistic and even individual sense. Each form, in order to create the illusion of reality, must have a degree of proportion and geometry, as well as imperfection.

Aristotle was the most famous student of Plato and also the thorn in his side. He proposed an alternative: that reality consisted of observable and quantifiable fact and a principle form, by which we can understand it.

“Matter did not exist by itself, nor did Form. He disagreed with Plato about the latter point, for Plato had posited the independent existence of Forms. Thus the world that Aristotle taught us to understand is the very world we see. It is full of real objects which he called substances, having potential aspects, which allows them to change, and a formal or essential aspect, which makes them intelligible...” (Van Doren, p. 42)

He invented the rules of thought, the scientific method, and is known as the father of modern Science. He concluded that things exist only due to two principles: form and matter. Defined in his terms, Form is the ideal principle which is shared by all things, and Matter is the observed and imperfect reality of individual things. Thus existence consists of a balance between order and disorder. And the system of dichotomous analysis was born. One thing reveals itself only in context with another. This conflict set up the major dichotomy of western culture, which has influenced the path of history since.

All of these thinkers have become the basis for many of our contemporary categories of knowledge: Theology, Physical Science, Mathematics, and Art to name a few. One might conclude in hind sight that Democritus found the true and final answer, and all others must have been wrong. Yet through viewing the applications of these various theories we find that many of them were right in their own context. Further, each has had their peculiar and specific effect on the development of art; Democritus influenced pointillism, Plato classicism, Socrates social realism, Aristotle the Renaissance.

In The City of God St. Augustine discusses the reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire around 500 A.D. It had been said that Christianity was the reason, but in this single book, Augustine conclusively rejected that statement, brought about almost a thousand years of theocratic reign, and arguably the most profound theological thought in western history. During this time, all of the greatest minds turned towards theology, which is the cause of what we deem the “dark ages”. Yet this term is a conception which we have super-imposed upon the era due to our biases. It is true that the quality of life decreased after the fall of Rome, which was simply because Europe had decided a new path of development. Since the precepts of worldly knowledge had evidently failed. They chose to seek success and reward in the after-life. We define social progress in terms of politics and science, which are the very things that Medieval Europe had precluded from their intellectual focus. Instead they developed beautiful and eloquent treatises on God and built awe-inspiring architecture such as the French Gothic cathedrals among others. The average person did not have the material comforts or freedoms that had been enjoyed in Greece and Rome, but who is to say that their lives were less successful, important or happy? That is a judgment that we cannot objectively make.

“In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, a void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” (Genesis 1:1)

The God of Abraham originated as one of a pantheon of gods in the early Jewish faith. Jehovah-Jera was effectively the god of war and eventually became the single god of the faith. Through the expansion of the Greek empire by Alexander the great, Greek thought and innovation was spread throughout the Mediterranean, and even as far east as Persia and northern India the influence of Greek philosophy was felt. At some point these ideas became introduced to Judaic theologists, and the characteristics of the Greek Apollo became intertwined with that of Jehovah. Thus, we can understand Genesis in terms of God imposing order, therefore giving law to the universe.

It’s not a great leap of logic to see where St. Augustine was getting his platonic ideas, when we read the Gospel of John, probably one of the most poetic and philosophical tracts in the Bible.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him and without him was not any thing made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1:1)

There is a direct reference to Apollo here, in John’s reference to the light. Further, the fact that he so directly correlates the word (logos in the Greek tract) with God reiterates the very concept of form. For what is a word but an abstraction, a symbol of some idea or object? Moreover, the Greek logos has further connotations. In its relation to logics it implies rational order itself, just as in Genesis. The word is representative of Christ, the embodiment of the ideal of sacrifice. It seems that John, living quite a time after Christ’s death, was the first to apply Platonism to the concept of Christ, and through this, he ensured the legacy of Greek thought, at least through Christianity, and sowed a seed which later flourished in western art, giving it such fascinating depth and mystery. St. Augustine continues to identify the concept of Satan with that of the Dionysian, which will be further explored when we come to Nietzsche.

“To them, therefore, let that fabulous theology give place which delights the minds of men with the crimes of the gods; and that civil theology also, in which impure demons, under the name of gods, have seduced the peoples of the earth given up to earthly pleasures, desiring to be honoured by the errors of men, and by filling the minds of their worshippers with impure desires, exciting them to make the representation of their crimes one of the rites of their worship, whilst they themselves found in the spectators of these exhibitions a most pleasing spectacle- a theology in which, whatever was honourable in the temple, was defiled by its mixture with the obscenity of the theatre.” (St. Augustine, Book VIII p. 248)

These theatrical rites of worship which St. Augustine refers to are the Dionysian festivals; notorious for their dramas of mortal sin and the frenzied sexual orgies. For him they belie a characteristic of the carnal nature of man. St. Augustine lays the framework for the later refutation by medieval scholars of Aristotle’s “matter”, which he interpreted to represent the disorder; the irrational frenzy, of man’s corporeal nature.

In the Medieval world, the image held an awe inspiring power to begin with. Firstly, the written word and the graven image represented a means to immortality, as both of these were means of recording one’s thoughts and experiences so that they may carry on past one’s death. Secondly, most of the population was illiterate and had to learn about the bible through the imagery in the church, and so the nature of the immortal record and the message of promised immortality being communicated through them created a mystical view of art. The predominant icons of the time were not merely representations of divinity, they were considered actual incarnations of the ideas which they represented- almost an exercise in Form. These icons, like The Man of Sorrows included, were believed to have the power to incite actual visions. The cathedrals represented the form of the holy city on earth, just as the The Man of Sorrows was the embodiment of Christ’s sacrifice. One can guess, with the proliferation of private icons after the iconoclasm died down, and the great cathedrals being erected all across Europe (the largest of all buildings at the time), why the church was the dominant arbiter of all thought and culture for almost a thousand years.

III

“The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.” (Michelangelo)

There was a gradual, but dramatic shift in thought. Its roots began about the same time as the medieval period but did not fruit until around the 14^th century. Boethius translated Aristotle’s Organon, or works on logic, into Latin, so future generations could access it. He is most famous for one phrase, which is his conclusion to a solution of the holy trinity.

“As far as you are able, join faith to reason.”

As simple as this phrase seems, it set forth a bee’s nest of anger in the church, for it assumed that man could reason with faith, and therefore understand God. Though this may fit with St. Augustine’s doctrines, it was an extremely unpopular idea. A solid defense of observation and reason did not reappear until a man named Peter Abelard was born in 1079. He argued that sin consisted not in the act, but in the consent of the mind to what it knows is wrong. In terms of the direct idea of our polar philosophies, Boethius and Abelard do not directly contribute, but they are extremely important for the development of St. Thomas Aquinas, who finally brought back the importance of the Aristotelian observation of the natural world as a valid means of understanding it. This was an important step in equalizing the balance of the polar concepts of form and matter, which were necessary as a point of tension for the emergence of the Renaissance.

Leonardo Da Vinci arguably recorded more human knowledge from observation than any single person in western history. He was one of the first and foremost to appreciate the application of Aristotle’s matter. He was fond of saying that nature held the answers to all questions. Not only did he make great contributions to nearly every field, he understood the basic concept of polarity, and how it could be applied to everything. In the case of art, he was the first to articulate the effects of atmospheric perspective. He understood the tenants of linear perspective (laid down by Massaccio, but also Brunelleschi) so well, that he even pointed out problems with the system. With the tools of dichotomous analysis first rationalized by the Greeks, he set up other polarities of formal language with which to compose a painting: warm and cool, light and dark, soft and hard edges, curvilinear and straight. All of these are integral to create dynamic tension within the picture plane. It’s important to note, that many other cultures, especially non-Christian based, throughout the world do not use a system of dichotomous analysis. For example, eastern thought (as a generalization) tends to conceive of things as a unity of parts and though it may recognize certain polar ideas, it does not tend to expand upon their principles. It is a simple, but extremely effective (for our purposes) method of analysis. But it is among the many kinds of knowledge that is often suppressed by tyrannical governments, which is why its development was so geographically and temporally limited.

“One has to deprive reality of its value, its meaning, its truthfulness, to precisely the extent to which one has mendaciously invented an ideal world.” (Nietzsche, Ecce Homo)

In the development of modernist thought, there is one pre-eminent philosopher who influenced nearly every thinker of the twentieth century. Nietzsche started his career with a book entitled The Birth of Tragedy discussing the formation of Greek tragedy and its influence on art. In this brilliant book, he isolates the cultural influences of the Greeks and qualifies certain characteristics as either Dionysian or Apollonian, where the Dionysian is expressly the influence of tragedy, and as he argues, the inherent influence on creative thought. This piece marks an important shift in intellectual discourse, where for the previous four hundreds years were governed by the tenants of rationality, which is a result of Aristotle’s matter, he departs from popular thought to lay down a foundation for the importance of the primitive, the mystical, and emotive qualities associated with the Dionysian, or his re-interpretation of form, but in a different manner. Form became an immeasurable and disordered force: the mystical creative desire for ascension of the human spirit.

“Mans ability to traverse the earthly and supernatural in spirit as opposed to his physical impotence is the original human tragedy: the tragedy of spirituality. The consequence of this simultaneous impotence of body and mobility of spirit is the dichotomy of human existence. Half captive, half winged, each part becomes aware of the tragedy of its incompleteness through recognition of its partner.” (Paul Klee)

I think that Klee very eloquently described Nietzsche’s duality of human spirit and beautifully illustrated this concept in his Hero with a broken wing. It is not only an obvious extrapolation of out plurality, but also an interesting modern interpretation that hinges on social discourse in the same manner as Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment. The thing about the modernist era is the direct influence of all fields on all other fields. This has always been the case, but because of the proliferation of knowledge due to the ease of printing, the increase of the middle class and general mediation of education, there has been an unprecedented increase in the cross-pollination of ideas, and the introduction of sciences such as psychology has increased the awareness of the relativity of perception.

The importance of science on contemporary philosophy and culture has not been adequately explored, in my opinion. First, if one takes the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which describes the motion of sub-atomic particles and states that no measurement, due to the fallibility of the tools of measurement, can be absolutely accurate. Thus, nothing can be perfectly quantified. Secondly, a particle in motion can not be measured in velocity as well as in position, meaning that if one attempts to measure the exact position in space of say an electron, the act of observation gives the electron more energy, thereby influencing its velocity. Further, when one attempts to measure the velocity, one cannot find its exact position. One can conclude that there is some influence imparted by the observer on the object observed, which logically leads to the individuals influence of perception on matter, the ability of perception to alter reality. This was a phenomenal discovery for science, but an equally phenomenal discover for philosophy. And in the last thirty years a new theory has developed: String theory answers Thales’ great question with even more accuracy than Epicurus. It proposes, and to a certain degree supports, that at the most minute level, all matter consists of energy vibrating at various frequencies. The one principle which underlies all things could be described as change itself, for what is energy, in physical terms, but the potentiality, or actuality for motion and change. Is this the universal form which makes up all things? Does this form exist without matter? One can no longer be certain if the original polarity upon which all western knowledge was based, is an accurate description of existence. When one peers deeper into matter one finds order, yet deeper into sub-atomic particles; one finds disorder and uncertainty, for change is disorder. All things tend towards entropy.

Physics has come to the point of philosophy itself (string theory), and philosophy after the 20^th century has become an extension of mathematics and science (comparative logic). But the overwhelming difference between our current society and those of the past is the cult of individuality. For the first time we are encouraged to think our own viewpoint is just as important, if nor more so, than others. Whereas the modernist period was characterized by this movement towards universals and the avant-garde, Post-modernism is characterized by the deconstruction of all knowledge of the past. Now, everything is considered to be relative, devoid of hierarchy, and fragmented by individual interpretation. The era of the pillars of dichotomous analysis has ended and we are left with nothing but scattered pieces: bits of irrelevant thought in a confused consciousness. Does society need structure to direct thought?

Just as at any time in history, not all things held to be true continue indefinitely to be held true. All “fact” is simply our best educated guess, so far. The essential problem with postmodernism is a simple one, but an important one nonetheless. If all things are relative and all things are subjective; the power of the individual is absolute in his own view. This relies on an extremely self-centered view of the universe. Yet, if one understands its vastness, then, and only then, can one truly see how minute and inconsequential our actions and views are to the grand scheme (if there is one), or simply the machinations of the cosmos. So an answer to the universal is that there is an unchanging, defining form, and that is the observer.

I will not be so bold to say that the twentieth century has finally and conclusively answered that age old question (or any question for that matter). But it has done so to a degree that is sufficient enough for most people. Most assume that we have reached the pinnacle of all societies, when in fact, our only significant progress in knowledge is in how to manipulate our environment through technology and the ability to access a great wealth of knowledge produced in the past. Otherwise, we are essentially the same as our preceding cultures, and know as little about human nature and what constitutes happiness. The Greeks arguably had as much knowledge in the areas of politics and ethics as we, they had reached a great understanding of observation in terms of art, and they made impressive musical accomplishments and were great students of human nature. The idea of progress is dependant upon a system of hierarchy. It depends upon a change towards an ideal goal, which is superior. Yet if everything is relative, then there is no progress, for no state of being or understanding is better than any other. A human being is merely more complex than an amoeba, but not necessarily superior. “Progress” serves self perpetuation, but objectively, is not an altruistic measure of change.

“Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace.” (Oscar Wilde)

Bibliography

Van Doren, Charles: A History of Knowledge Ballantine Books, NY 1991

Nietzsche, Friedrich: Thus Spake Zarathustra Dover Publications, NY 1999

St. Augustine: The City of God Random House, NY 1950

Nietzsche, Friedrich: The Birth of Tragedy Modern Library, NY 2000

Nietzsche, Friedrich: Ecce Homo Modern Library, NY 2000

Unlisted quotations derived from quotations.com

Nocturne with Satellites

2007-02-19T15:28:00.000-08:00

This piece was influenced by Whistler's landscapes and Rembrandt. The subject, however, came from a story by my good friend Troy Wingard.

A Prayer

2007-02-18T14:21:00.000-08:00

My Rose

Who art in heaven

Forgive me

Forgive me for the sun

Dancing on the water

Across your rippled reflection

For the sound of wind in leaves and branches

Whispering against the

Cool azure sky

Forgive me for the smell

Of lilacs in spring

And coffee brewing

A winter morn

The silent cadence of snow

A hum in D minor

My Rose

Forgive me for the warmth

Of your cheek on mine

As I teach you to read

Your eyes curious and blue

My blue February rose

Forgive me

For I plucked you in august

You were yet a bud

An unlikely bloom

I never knew

Forgive me

For the sand, the sea

And the wind

For your lost song drifting through an open window

One autumn evening

For the breath

You never knew

My Rose

Who art in heaven

Forgive me

Eugene Carriere: the Lost Father of Modernism

2007-02-14T16:51:00.000-08:00

A review of the book, The Symbol of Creation by Robert Rosen

It is difficult to find, in America, a decent compilation of the works of this French painter at the turn of the twentieth century. But Carriere's influence on 20th century art was vast (as one glance at his better works would reveal), though largely ignored on this side of the Atlantic. He was as acclaimed as his good friend Rodin and reviled by such as Degas (which was often the case with anyone who rivaled his skill as a draftsman and innovator). Gauguin himself called Carriere a "great master" though he was renowned for getting along with few people and liking even fewer paintings. Further, his influence on Picasso is directly evident in his blue and rose period paintings: a vast visual eloquence that, in my opinion, was unmatched in the rest of Picasso's extensive career.

This particular book is the most cost-effective collection that I have yet encountered on Carriere. It describes his life, influences, and artistic progeny; not un-eloquently, and offers excellent reproductions of his work. Since most of his paintings are monochromatic, it is absolutely essential to get the value relationships right in a reproduction (as close as they can be: no reproduction is ever the same as the original), and only one other book I've found offers the same, or better images. That one, however, cost twice as much and is probably the definitive collection on his work which is readily available in the states.

All in all, it is an excellent introduction to an artist who might have been forgotten in the last century but will surely return to his proper place in history if I have anything to say about it. Anyone interested in art history, whether a historian or artist, would find this book a great wealth of visual and written information.

I as an artist have found this book particularly helpful, given my previously mentioned love of Picasso's blue period, I find it exponentially helpful to trace his influences so that I might understand why he made certain choices.

And the Dew Turned to Frost

2007-02-12T19:05:00.001-08:00

December came late this year
around mid march
and the dew on the bricks next door
was still dew

Jack frost must be on vacation

She came late with the winter
her plane from Boston
landed in the first freeze
in the ides
and the dew turned to frost on the bricks

She must have brought the chill

Her breath held my ear
from a distance
but only silence spoke to us

In its weariness to sleep
and the dew turned to frost on the bricks

And the dew turned to frost.

Leon Golub and Functional Social Discourse

2007-02-10T16:44:00.000-08:00

A Retrospective of his Work in the 50’s and 60’s

Man is driven by essentially two gross classifications of impulses: fear and desire. Desire is the most primal, for fear elicits the cognitive mind in its machinations. It is a natural connection since our cognitive abilities developed first for the purpose of avoiding danger. Desire sometimes elicits fear and thereby cognitive thought, but it is only in a secondary manner, thus fear is the dominant motivator for our social lives.

Fear can be divided into two basic forms. There is cultural fear, perpetuated in our times by the media, and there is natural fear, causally induced by direct danger. Cultural fear tends to be a high pitched neurosis that contains us in perpetual consumerism, which is what we will focus on. The dominant media outlet in our culture is television, and television plays predominantly on our two basic impulses, yet fear is by far the most utilized technique for marketing and entertainment. Art has never held the position of the greatest cultural influence, as it has always been overshadowed by the opiate of the people. In the past this was the church, and now it is television, movies, magazines: the media industrial complex. Just as the church utilized fear and desire to exercise control, so to does the media.

Leon Golub’s work must be first discussed in the context which it was intended to be viewed, as a social reaction against the powers that wage war, and their major tool for public relations: the media. The Vietnam War greatly differed from other wars in that it was the first time that such graphic and disturbing images were available to such a great number of people. The simplicity and intensity of Golub’s statement reflected the dumb didacticism of the media in an attempt to counter it with the same intensity, yet it reads now as the futile attempt of wrestling a bull by the horns without the superb training or red cape of the matador.

Art cannot compete with the popular media on the same terms. It can only offer its greatest impact as a social discourse, whether satirical or otherwise, in offering what the media does not: subtlety, intelligence, and depth.

Divested of its social context, and the inherent glamour of the abstract expressionist movement of the time in which it was created, Golub’s work must now be discussed formally for the work to stand alone. We may, however, compare it with other work from this movement for contextual reference.

At first glance, the large murals of figures on raw, un-stretched canvas, performing powerful yet unreadable gestures, struck me as nothing more than the crudely drawn, dissonant palate and lack of composition indicative of the juvenilia made by angst ridden teens often encountered in the cultural backwaters of the Georgian suburbs. Upon closer inspection, I realized that my initial impression was entirely accurate. The bold lines had no variation; the colors, straight out of the tube had no apparent evidence of mixing or relation to one another optically. Each brush stroke was applied with a consistent and monotonous brevity in length and width. The composition lacked any kind of rhythmic relationship that one might find in Pollack’s Blue Poles or the relationship of abstract forms and colors in De Kooning’s Woman one. Further, both of these artists utilized a variation of line quality for the purposes of expression, whether they were drips or brush strokes. Both of them used color and form to produce some degree of coherence compositionally. At least in these pieces, each portion of the painting flowed in to each other portion of the painting. Yet in Golub’s work you find none of these things, only the lack of any concern for the actual quality of the painting. To make it worse it is obvious from two of his other pieces that he had some degree of facility. Burning man IV and Head XXXII exhibit some knowledge of these formal qualities in the layering of oil pigment to produce a textural variation, which does not occur in the other works. These are the only pieces in the show which transcend the rather infantile crudity of the other work to become a sublime example of mediocrity. They rest solely on their textural beauty but appear completely contained upon the raw canvas, with no relationship to the remainder of the picture plane. They are simply singular objects centered within a frame. His only success at a cohesive visual language is mitigated by the lack of any other supporting elements.

There is a place for this kind of art, but it’s definitely not in public exhibition. There are a multitude of greater works in the same genre that would have been beneficial to view, but as I see it, Golub’s work merely took up space. As Andy Warhol said in the book The Philosophy of Andy Warhol, I paraphrase, ‘I think space is much better without art to clutter it all up’.

As always I look forward to comments and even counter-arguments to my views.

Prelude to a Memory

2007-02-10T15:31:00.000-08:00

I love the thought of love
so that it pains
opens in my chest a hollow space
and a wind at my throat.

I wail though I cannot wail
so that I swallow
and only taste regrets
a rosehip wine with an endless stem.

She cries to the red star
so that her words are lost
in breath of midnight
I mistook them for my own.

I'm in love with a storybook
but cannot find my looking-glass.

A Case for Spirituality in Contemporary Art

2007-02-04T09:51:00.000-08:00

Since the fall of Modernism the art communities in more public places such as New York have on principle shunned spiritualism, mysticism, and aesthetics. It is an understandable backlash from the idealistic tenets of a hopeful culture that ultimately lead to destruction and genocide through the world wars and communist regimes in the U.S.S.R and China in the 20th century, but this cynicism has become more than a rational and healthy criticism. It has become an intellectual elitist dogma, whereby anyone caught having theological discussion, or spiritual belief is castigated from "intellectual" society. It is the practice of these individuals to refuse rational discussion on this topic. Yet I would argue that ideals, just as cynicism, are important parts of thought. Both can be dangerous and foolhardy, but both are necessary for human happiness. Absolute refusal to address important human issues on either side result in blindness, socially if not altruistically.

We are in a time where religious fundamentalism challenges the security of our common lives. It is not only far off places that are effected by fanaticism, but our own country, our own people. Ignoring religious discussion only blinds us to the complexities of the issue. There must be a place in art culture for some spiritualism. It has been a responsibility of the thinking artist to hold a mirror to society; to inspire debate and discussion; to give voice to issues that none can or wish to discuss. It has been so since the dawn of civilization in the caves of forgotten nomadic tribes.

It is hard in our pluralistic society to hold to one's ideals. We encounter more ethnic and spiritual diversity in everyday life than ever before. Globalization has greatly affected our views on the world. That is why it is more important to have a dialogue on these issues. That is why we must understand the perspectives of others. But we cannot understand others without understanding ourselves.

Through post-modernism we have lost the great dialogue on morality, and spirituality that was so prevalent in all other times in all other cultures. In this way perhaps America is, as many fundamentalists call us- a country of infidels (unfaithful). Yet we are not so, because they call us so. It is not because we are unfaithful to Allah. It is because we are unfaithful to ourselves and our obligation to humanity.

I’m not arguing against a secular state or for the integration of church and state, I’m arguing for dialogue. It seems the only dialogue on this subject is the ridiculous argument about replacing Evolution, the Big-Bang theory, and Plate Tectonics with creationism, which is an argument of the extremes. There are moderate positions on this subject which do not preclude either God or Science, (for example check out the book The Science of God). If there were a rational dialogue occurring, this kind of fundamentalist negation wouldn’t be able to affect policy.

The Hand of a Master?

2007-01-14T16:32:00.000-08:00

From the beginning I have to preface this by admitting that I am self appointed expert on Rembrandt's works and painting techniques. But I should think that my opinion is just as valid as anyone else who has studied his work inside and out for many years. But don't take my word for it, I'll give you the opportunity to judge for yourself. On my website, www.memoreejoelle.org, you can find many copies I've painted from Rembrandt. These studies and research compiled from various sources are the basis for which I will compare a few paintings I've come across, one of which I just don't believe was painted by Rembrandt himself, though it is largely considered to be by his hand.

Consider this (Rembrandt) self portrait as St. Paul (1661) on the left. From a first glance at the composition and the gestural, descriptive brush strokes, it appears to fit the criteria quite well. But upon closer examination, and consideration alongside several other self-portraits, I find some inconsistencies, which I'll point out.

First, the subtle changes from light to shadow which we see on the middle(1662) and bottom(1658) are not quite so subtle on the top. This is a subtle difference which is not very well conveyed by the photo on the bottom, but can be seen in the original in the Frick collection which I have visited many times. Secondly, there is a much greater accuracy of draughtsmanship in the second and third portraits, as well as a more consistent use of the brushstrokes to describe the shape or form of the head. In the first these expressive strokes appear more arbitrary. Third, the idea of the shape of the head (or the form sense) is different. In other words, whoever painted St. Paul has a different understanding of the anatomy and shape of the skull than the other two. To be specific I'll point out the exact regions I mean. In the portrait at the top, the superciliary arches above the eyes and the shape of the forehead are inconsistent with the other two. The zygomatic (cheek) bones protrude less in the first in relation to the plane of the temples. Also, the maxilla (upper lip) is shortened and the mandible is slightly more square. All of these are relatively consistent in most other self portraits known to be painted by Rembrandt.
The Kenwood self portrait in the middle was painted at least at the same time or a year later than the one on the top, so we know that he wasn't just simply loosing his faculties. In fact, his paintings continue to be consistent up until his death in 1669. There have been dating methods performed on this painting, however, and the fibers and pigments are consistent with the period and geography, so my assumption is that this was painted by one of his students. Regardless of all these elements, it was still a master of some facility who painted this portrait, and I for one feel that it should not be devalued even if it is not a Rembrandt.
-Richard T. Scott

On Beauty

2007-01-12T08:49:00.001-08:00

Beauty is that which one cannot quite discern.

First post

2007-01-11T17:03:00.000-08:00

Hi, just by way of introduction I thought I'd let you know a little bit about what you might find here. As the subtitle suggests I'll be discussing the long awaited ressurection of beauty, realism, philosophy, and the figure in the art world. Now, there may be some reading this who might think that because I support realism in art, that I don't appreciate or understand other (modern) modes of art making that have been predominant in the 20th century. I assure you that this is not the case. I love Picasso and Schiele, I am open minded to appreciating any and all art that communicates to me, that makes me feel something. But I don't believe that the Sublime can only be experienced in the absence of Beauty (Sorry, sometimes I get a little into art theory: check out Immanuel Kant for a greater explanation of this).

However, I am a figurative painter because of one major fact. Man has been painting beautiful, imaginative, symbolic, psychologically dense, essentially FLAT paintings for 40,000 years. The illusion of space in painting has only been explored for about 100 years in ancient Greece (though we have very few examples of this only some of the Fayum portraits, merely incredible descriptions) and in recent history since about 1400 when Massaccio (and others) developed a system of linear perspective and Leonardo daVinci systematized aerial and atmospheric perspective. When you compare 39,300 years of art focusing on flat design and 700 years of exploration into the illusion of depth.... I'd say that maybe we have a little more that is unsaid in this mode of expression. It seems to me that abstraction has been more thoroughly explored, especially after the 20th century!
So, in conclusion, I will be writing about any and all forms of art... probably philosophy, personal and otherwise... probably politics... probably Literature, music, etc... but I will focus on my field of expertise: Realism, oil painting, and the human figure. If any of these subjects interest you please feel free to browse, read, or e-mail me questions. Thank you and goodnight.