One might ask whether an eighth goal might have been included (especially in light of the seventh): conceptualize each of the prior seven goals within a philosophical mindset. That wording might not read well or even be considered irrelevant ─ it doesn't seem 'scientific'; but then, reductive approaches often miss meaning in art, literature and the magic we perceive and reflect upon. I got that point drilled into me when I studied The Act of Creation by Arthur Koestler in the mid 1960s ─ an inquiry into the creative efforts of both scientists and artists.
Here is an essay that grew out of that class on creativity and which I've rewritten and expanded over the years. Consider this art exhibit a challenge to the BRAIN Initiative: how exactly would brain science explain this exhibit?
Your thoughts?
Imagine walking into a museum ─ an art museum with a new exhibit called Black on White. The room housing the exhibit is small and set off from the regular exhibits of 18th century landscapes. This room traditionally houses exhibits dedicated to the boundaries of the human imagination.
You approach
the first image. It appears to be a line, more or less straight and more or
less textured with shades of black. The line is inscribed on a fabric that
looks like white space. The title plate says Unknown Artist. Carbon dated to 8000 BCE. Southwest US. Found inside a recessed area of cave. Thought to represent a hunting weapon with
magical qualities.
Unknown Artist. Carbon dated to 8000 BCE. Southwest U.S. Found inside a recessed area of cave / A hunting weapon? |
You might
wonder about magic as a much needed adjunct to the harsh surrounds of life.
After all religion has been found in all societies, though not to the same
extent and not with everyone participating ─ but still there as a pervasive
force. Life without the constant light and noise of contemporary life, a life
without modern shelter and weapons. As much as can be inferred from life in a
primitive technological period, art likely expressed magical desires to control
the environment. Art, religion and the practicalities of survival in the deep
recesses of the human psyche, measured in thousands of years of the history of the
human species ─ modern man and woman notwithstanding.
You walk
over to the next image and it looks remarkably the same: a black line on a
white space. The title plate says, Artist: Emilio Velez, A lone tree on an Alaskan snowscape as seen through snow goggles. As you think about the artist description,
you might nod in agreement. Yes, there is the brilliant white snow. The snow
goggles prevent me from being overwhelmed and blinded by the whiteness of the
snow. The tree looms up ─ a solitary pole of blackness. The artist’s intent is
clear, revealing and persuasive.Emilio Velez / A lone tree on an Alaskan snowscape as seen through snow goggles |
Having fully
absorbed the impressions crafted by the artist of a black tree on white snow,
you now walk to the next painting. This image appears to be the same as the
previous image ─ a line, more or less straight and more or less textured with
shades of black. You look at the artist description and it says, Frank Morton, A picture of the universe.
Frank Morton, A picture of the universe |
You continue
on through the exhibit. The next image looks strikingly like the last three,
except this one is labeled, Noemi Parvet, The
number one. It is an abstraction
codified as blackness on whiteness and, again, the artist’s intent is clear,
revealing and persuasive.
Noemi Parvet, The number one |
Viewed from
the perspective of human history ─ or histories since there have been many
cultures and institutions with their particular trajectory ─ these images have
been understandable in a concrete way. Or at least they appear straightforward.
The next one seems odd, almost as if a con artist decided to play in the artist’s
sandbox. The curator and collector were willing to go along with the con with a
nod and a wink. Strange.
Here, the
artist is reaching beyond the lie of representational art. We know that the
image of the sun is not really the sun. That is an acceptable fiction. But now
we have the trickster who wants us to believe the exact opposite of what the
fiction claims to represent ─ as if a painting of the sun were called the moon.
Is this the disdain of the modern? The artist’s own name ─ D.A. Lie ─ is both a
put on and a putting off of the viewer; true and false at the same time. This
is the weak howl of alienated individuals, participating in a civilization that
is collapsing upon itself with no foundational illusions, small or grand, to
give palpable meaning to life. In this image, the artist’s intent is clear ─ to
lie to the viewer (can something be two different things at the same time?) ─
which, while revealing about the image’s content may cease to be persuasive as
art. Oh well . . . time to move on: This is really the sun AND this is really
the moon.D.A. Lie / This is really the sun AND this is really the moon |
More modernism.
Or maybe a post─post modernism. Here you might infer that the artist is
uncertain of self as well as an uncertainty about what is real, leading to an
infinite regression ─ of a thing posing as a thing posing as a thing posing as
a thing, and so on. For these artists, the result is an inability to find
beauty; they only find the emptiness of the regression. It is the artist who
says, ‘I can do nothing that speaks to the magical acts found in art from
kachinas to Munch’s Scream. Instead,
I can pose what looks natural and say it has been transformed into art simply
because of the pose itself. And if I can persuade museums and collectors to buy
the pose, then I no longer need to be an artist, but only pretend.’ The modern artist’s
intent is clear, but is it any longer revealing about either the content of the
image or persuasive about what art is or ought to be?
You come to
the sixth image. Here the description states, Xingua-Jun, Black color on a white space. Xingua-Jun, Black color on a white space |
In thinking
back on the exhibition, you realize that you have just experienced the breadth
of the visual artistic endeavor ─ from magical object, to impressionistic, to
naturalistic, to abstract expressionist perspectives and, of course, the
nihilist and Philistine who claims there is no art, but simply ego put to a
white space in the nature of colored inks. And even lying and posing may indeed
be called art ─ if one wants to stretch the terminology and call up, down and
down, up.
Yes, there
are different traditions and individual styles within these visual
perspectives, and it is very much worth the effort to appreciate these
variations. One might also argue that by stepping back, we can understand the
limits of human thought and, by way of those limits, understand the unity of
the human psyche in expressing visual artistic endeavors. Some societies and
periods of history might favor one style over another, but each style is
accessible to human thought ─ at least in terms of the human experience up to
this point in history. But even within these limits, the variety of human
experience is immense. Even more so when we realize that all art is summed up by dots on an X-dimensional plane (generally, two dimensions). Get a big enough electron microscope and even paint will dissolve into dots, or points of light. From this vantage point, one can hardly discern an image of art from a child’s scratching with crayons. All are dots. What are needed to differentiate the child’s play from the artist’s image are the elements that comprise the goodness of an aesthetic object. Here, we rediscover the importance of form, composition, theme, color management, perspective, and the like. We do not need to give up any of the craft in the many traditions of creating art.
Each object must be taken on its own. Is this artistic or not? We can refer to a tradition ─ to the media, the craft and styles ─ but such a discussion merely takes us into various technologies, patterns and reputational schemes that can be applied to create the art image. Those are useful for learning about the manner and categorization of art objects.
But, truly, each image must stand on its own. Is the image compelling from an aesthetic perspective? Aesthetic? To what aesthetic should we refer? Some might be trapped inside an ethnocentric box, thinking that the object must be representational (does the man look like a correctly drawn man?) or that three-dimensional perspective is somehow better than an image without it. Many cling to an ethnocentric aesthetic ─ which works for those who live inside that particular box. But the human experience, and human artistic experience is more than one box, more than two boxes, and more than boxes, too.
At the other
extreme from ethnocentrism is relativism. That can lead into the trap of a
world without any standards. Before we leap back into, ‘oh yes, western
representational art’ or some other easy way to grab hold of a standard, it
might be more prudent to indulge ourselves in the variety of artistic images
from ancient to modern times, and from culture A to culture Z, and from painted
objects to photographed objects to digitally re-mastered objects.
With this
one black line on a white space, we have already seen six distinct pictures: a
magical line, a tree on a snowscape, a picture of the universe, the number one,
a lie, a pose and black paint on a white space. The physical markings are the same, but the context ─ expressed by
words ─ sets them apart as different objects or different perceptions of a
visually identical object. The human experience is not a closed enterprise. Within our limitations in thought and expression, there are yet many ways to concoct artistic imagery and, then, to appreciate it. Some dialogue would help in talking through what we see, some thought would help in attending to the artistry of the object, and some empathy would help in communing with the moment that the artist intends for us to experience.
It is also
the rare moment when our imagination is not inflected by the world of words ─
either as explicit and consciously aware or as embedded through our
socialization into one or more cultures. These are the words that we bend and
shape the perceived world to our particular needs and, of course, which have
already bent and shaped us to societies needs and, in turn, are being bent and
shaped by creative individuals. The ongoing struggle of the individual in
society permeates our art and, indeed, every aspect of our life.
From the
perspective of the individual, the curator of the original Black on White
exhibit some fifty years ago helped pave the way for demonstrating how the same
starting point can lead to the concoction of a variety of artistic images. Or
at least can lead to a variety of labeled boxes in which we find or discover
different images.
But now, you
notice there is a seventh image. The show has been reinstalled with a new image.
It is still the same line inside the same white box, but the line has
apparently been tinkered with and unlike the other six previous versions or so
the artist says.
Artist X / That thou art: Homage to Black on White, a digital reinterpretation |
The artist
notes that he had seen the earlier show and that he was reinterpreting that
imagery. An homage to black on white. The artist explains that he is conveying
the relationship between his idea and the pixels within a digital imaging
program. He also states that his image is, in fact, a collage of all the other
images presented in this exhibit, that his work is a synthesis of all the
styles and contextual statements presented and, as such, his digital art work
constitutes something new and unique in art ─ a digital aesthetic. It is not a
mere copy, for that would be a reproduction or giclée; rather, it is a new
rendering with gradients, beveling, transform, filters and the like that are
beyond the perception of the human eye, but altogether possible with digital
technology. Or so he says.
The curator
of the show had been tempted to exclude this image because it looked the same.
Was this, the curator reflected, simply the exercise of using a new toolset ─ that
it was only a new dimension of thought by way of new technology in the same
manner when canvas supplanted wood panels. Or had this artist contributed
something more to traditional notions of aesthetics expressed in the first six
black lines on a white space? And what was traditional anyway? The digital
artist titled the seventh image: That
thou art.
The curator
was puzzled by the title. The curator had thrown up his hands and decided for
himself that not enough was known to categorize this visual experience. Maybe
it was a new style of art after all. The curator saw the crowds clustered
around the last image and accepted the digital artist’s intent as a matter of
faith. Perhaps this is what is needed to draw an admiring audience back into
the museum ─ maybe this could be another fundable category ─ impressionism, art
deco, cubism, modernism, post-modernism, watercolor, fauvism, pointillism, and
now, digital art.
Joe Nalven, 2009
Joe Nalven, 2009
Postscript, 2015:
I recently wrote an article about the animation imagery of Buhm Hong. The work discussed is Floating Dreams of which he writes: "Memories continuously shape our worldview, including our perception of real and imagined spaces. My multidisciplinary practice is an attempt to understand how people accept new and strange places, including the liminal space between 'being there' and 'being here.' I focus on the origin of consciousness that can connect two disparate yet related places through fragmented, stream-of-consciousness thoughts that gradually form organic structures . . . ."
I realize that the concepts which make the series of images appear to be different objects is open ended. Consciousness, dream states, fantasies are other realms from which the object continues to take on new meanings. With a nod to Buhm Hong, I add yet another picture for the museum.
Artist unknown / Dream state fantasy |
Historical note:
This
aesthetic puzzle was originally conceived in the mid 1960s in a class on Creativity at
Columbia University. The text was Arthur Koestler’s The Act of Creation (1964). From time to time, I’ve elaborated upon it, but the core understanding
remains. I have used this example occasionally in classes I’ve taught in
philosophy and cultural anthropology and alluded to it in my imagery when
perception is confounded by the magic of art.
A version was published in GoingDigital: The Practice and Vision of Digital Artists by Joe Nalven and JD
Jarvis, pp. 25-30, Thomson, 2005.The Going
Digital book takes the next step by adding quite a bit more information to
the artistic endeavor than simply a black line ─ three photographs were used to
capture the built environment, the natural environment and the human form.
Clearly, the aesthetic hypothetical of a black line on a white space is
designed to set the stage for a far more expansive discussion of the aesthetic
enterprise and not substitute for the world we actually live in. Our world has
many more colors and shapes, we have fuzzy lines, densities and perspective,
and not just a black line on a white space.
This article (with minor edits and the postscript) can be found at Nalven Studio / Thoughts.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please share your thoughts with a kind intent