The seriousness of art

alanbickley (4/11/2016)

---

[...]I think some of these topics are in danger of making the process of putting paint on canvas more difficult and confusing than it is, and I would think also that it could be quite intimidating for the beginner. Applying paint to a support is a simple process, once a few obvious points have been followed, priming etc. If it became a science that would take the object of painting away in my case. Painting is a therapy for many artists', it's about spontaneous decisions, excitement of applying colours, technical prowess as in tonal values, perspective and shadows, and failures as well, which is inevitable. It isn't particularly a therapy for me, more like a burning ambition to paint, it's there with me constantly and is the reason that I do paint prolifically, I enjoy it so much. I love experimenting as some of you will know and this keeps my interest in painting from waning. I'm not all that keen on talking about art generally, not in any great depth anyway, and history of art at college was a distraction but so important of course [...]

(This deserves a new thread.) I don't agree. It is difficult to create something out of the ordinary. My favourite TV program was a British art competition where four art experts judged the works of amateurs. The reward was to be represented at a fine art exhibition. (What was the name of this show? One of the experts was a hot-tempered person.) Anyway, an essential criterion, aside from artistic quality, was that the judges hadn't seen it before. This is difficult. So, for instance, one competitor presented a fine alla prima painting of a nature scenery. Of course, these are ubiquitous, so he was dismissed. It seems that the Impressionists have had an enormous impact. The critique that has been directed against them is like this: "Yes, these paintings are all beautiful and accomplished. So what?" Contrary to this, in all history, painting has been imbued with meaning. So, for instance, the Renaissance artists painted mythological and religious motifs. But, today, we are content with painting inconspicuous motifs according to technical know-how. The result is a painting that is attractive to the eye, but there is nothing more to it. Generally, there is a lack of originality. What we do today would have been regarded as "studies" by the Old Masters. We are content with creating studies. This is the legacy of the Impressionists, which must be overcome. Amateurs, especially, seem obsessed with this; to learn to make an attractive study. This isn't good enough. For example, Matisse received much critique for his Nice period, when he liked to paint odalisques in red culottes lying on a couch. This just isn't good enough. Of course, it earned him a good income, but he listened to the critique and returned to art proper. Eventually, he went over to making abstract collages, according to Suprematist ideals. Mats Winther http://www.chinaoilpaintinggallery.com/h-henri-matisse-c-58_74_1424/odalisque-in-red-trousers-p-31735 http://modernart1945-1980.tumblr.com/post/23714038241/the-snail-lescargot-henri-matisse-collage

There is bad and good abstract art and bad and good realist art. Socialist Realism is abominable. Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796-1875) is regarded the first realist and he was a remarkable natural talent. Picasso and Matisse admired him greatly. Sadly, he devoted himself to making revolution, among other things blowing up a statue, rather than focusing entirely on painting. An abstract painter which I admire is Asger Jörn (Danish, 1914-1973). (Again, what was the name of that British art TV program where four art experts judged the works of amateurs?) /Mats http://www.museumjorn.dk/en/work_presentation.asp?AjrDcmntId=1102

No, it was oils, too. I can't find it on the net, but somebody here ought to know it. They came with a piece of art and stood before the judges who evaluated it. Mats

Thanks, this was the one I meant. I hardly ever watch reality shows, but this one I found entertaining, regardless of the objectivity of the judges. I don't remember that they were harsh against the contenders, although it is a cruel situation. UK residents can watch it online here. One would have expected that amateurs be followers of expressionism to a greater extent. I don't know why people think it's so important that one gets an impression of realness. After all, one expresses a psychological reality, and that's why expressionism is more intimate, in a way. Why not paint large homogeneous areas of green, as in below paintings by August Macke, rather than making the impression of grass blades, by way of some neat brush technique? This is why expressionism is closer to abstract art and this explains why the first abstract painters, Kandinsky and Malevich, found support among them. Andrew Graham-Dixon has made some great art documentaries for BBC, also covering German expressionism, which is very appealing. Of course, one should acquire some drawing skills, knowledge about proportions and perspective, etc. I went to art school for half a year, and that's enough if one isn't opting for an artistic career. But then one should go about expressing oneself, rather than continue to be a student, and try and attain the level of Corot or Monet, because this is impossible. /Mats http://maherartgallery.blogspot.se/2012/04/august-macke-1887-1914.html http://maherartgallery.blogspot.se/2012/04/august-macke-1887-1914.html

An adult person must be able to take critique and meet lack of success with equanimity. It seems that the welfare state ideology has instilled in us the belief that we live in a Kindergarten for adults, and that one must always treat people with kid gloves. Marie-Louise von Franz (Alchemy; The Feminine in Fairy Tales, etc.) says that, since the Mother image is projected on the State, Christian civilization experiences a secret unobtrusive return to matriarchy and materialism. People remain like boys and girls, because they have an unresolved mother complex. That's why they must be treated with kid gloves. Mats

As Matisse expressed it, he and the Fauvists broke through the stone wall that Paul Cézanne had worked to undermine, thus invoking the epoch of modern art. Characteristic of Matisse's art is the large fields of pure colour, contrasted with each other. So it was a move towards greater abstraction. This was continued in Expressionism, which is essentially a development of Fauvism. And then Malevich and the Suprematists took the process even further and said that there must only be rectilinear fields of colour, and perhaps one or another circle and triangle. Eventually, colour was removed altogether when Malevich painted a white square on white background (White on White, 1918). http://blog.imagebrief.com/white-white-monochrome-trend/ So this represents a continual move towards transcendence. According to Malevich, the white background represents infinity, emptiness, and transcendence. In Suprematism3, the process is expressed in the fading of the form into white mist. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/447897125412885153/ Despite this, the mimetic view of art has retained its grip on artists and amateurs alike. It means that art comes from the outside, and we simply copy it. Already Plato was very critical of this stance. According to Plato, pure Beauty is non-representational, because it is a transcendental Form (cf. 'Plato's Aesthetics', Stanford Encyc., here). The breaking of the bonds with the outer world represents detachment, which in psychoanalytic language is termed resolution of the mother complex. We are all very fond of nature and the Impressionists' representations of it. We are also fond of sweets, alcoholic beverages, and many other things that we ought to detach ourselves from. And that's why we mustn't see painting as mere pleasurable activity, through the easy path of mimesis, because it means that the bond with the world as Mother is retained. Matisse, in his dialogue with Masson, expresses this idea of detachment when he says: "I always start with something--a chair, a table, but as the work progresses I become less conscious of it. By the end I am hardly aware of the subject with which I started." So the process of detachment is repeated again and again during his work. That's why we must continue in the footsteps of Expressionists and Suprematists, and not backpedal to a mimetic art form. Impressionism needn't be practiced as such, however. Yet, the way painting is taught today is to use Impressionist means to copy correctly, so that one gets the right impression. But, really, it is all about getting the right expression. Kevin Hill (homepage here) serves as a good example. He is a skilled young artist who is an expert at faking it. Please study his painting technique in these YouTube videos, here, here, and here. How do you judge this form of impressionist technique? And how do you judge the result? I concede that these are "beautiful" paintings, of which some have artistic value, but I revolt against the whole concept of practicing diverse tricks to achieve a mimetic result. I am not interested in how well an artist has succeeded in imitating a mountain side. I am interested in what he has to say. In my judgement, this is low-class art. Sadly, many amateurs find it appealing, and thus they waste a lot of time learning it. So this goes in the other direction than detachment and emancipation, as professed by Matisse, because with increased skill, the better is the mimetic result. The development of modern art, since Matisse, coincides with spiritual tradition, as taught by the Neoplatonists of ancient antiquity, Christian mysticism, Indian Dharma tradition, and Taoism. The goal is to overcome attachment, achieving transcendence. In Neoplatonic terms, what first takes place is the reversion (epistrophê) of one's life's energy, so that movement is instead directed toward the transcendental One. This will lead to henôsis, which is spiritual union and the achievement of oneness. Such spiritual language may seem preposterous, but it serves the important function of "overcoming the world", which is essentially the same theme as modern artists have laboured with. According to a modern psychological view, it leads to the freeing of personality and the achievement of individuality proper. This coincides with the resolution of the mother complex, which in its broadest definition is equal to unconscious attachment to anything worldly. Psychologists do not know why the unconscious psyche strives after this development. However, Marie-Louise von Franz says that the spiritual passion is even stronger than sexuality. This is corroborated by the enormous following that spiritual tradition has amassed throughout history. The conclusion is that both art history and the psychological motive behind painting revolve around similar themes as spiritual tradition. Yet, many a painter will continue to paint just for pleasure and to "have fun", because he/she lacks the strong spiritual impetus of the unconscious. There is nothing wrong in this, so I'm not going to say that the mimetic art form is abominable. However, we must promote the higher art forms, such as Expressionism and Suprematism, because these coincide with the directionality of the unconscious that strives to achieve the individuation and emancipation of personality. It is the only remedy against collectivism, which has haunted us throughout history, and which today shows its ugly head in the form of militant Islamism. However, the impact of multiculturalism, postmodern relativism, and global welfarism, is even more destructive. Malevich said that art was essential in reconstruction of the world, and he was right, because it serves an end of individual emancipation. Mats Winther "Things have disappeared like smoke; to gain the new artistic culture, art approaches creation as an end in itself and domination over the forms of nature." --Kazimir Malevich. "White was for Malevich the color of infinity, and signified a realm of higher feeling...an utopian world of pure form, attainable only through nonobjective art. Indeed, he named his theory of art Suprematism to signify 'the supremacy of pure feeling or perception in the pictorial arts'; and pure perception demanded that a picture's forms 'have nothing in common with nature.' Malevich imagined Suprematism as a universal language that would free viewers from the material world." (MoMA Highlights, New York: The Museum of Modern Art, rev. ed. 2004, p.85) https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kazimir_Malevich See also: Schjeldahl, P. (2013). 'The Prophet - Malevich's revolution'. The New Yorker, June 2, 2013. (here)