« On Painting

ART

Big Answers

Originally posted on June, 15, 2007

I guess that I never was educated out of believing in answers. All of us, when we were little, did not become nervous when the teacher put a problem on the blackboard. We KNEW that she had the answer. Somewhere along the line most of us forget that life is like that. There could not be a problem, or a question, unless there was a pre-existing answer. It cannot be otherwise There are many complex explanations as to why we forget this. One often overlooked reason, is that much of what shapes and underlies modern reality is not sensible. Buckminster Fuller wrote about this. He talked about the changes in industry during the first-world war. The new technology became invisible. (And when the masters of technology reached the point where they no longer understand what was going on? Then what?) Another big reason why we devalue our innate intelligence is our poor understanding of what art is and how it functions.

A much used method of explaining modern culture is to class people into two groups: the literary/artist type and the scientific type. Then you oppose art and science and explain art on scientific terms. All that has been written based on this reasoning is nonsense. Point. Okay, I understand those who live in a glass house should not throw stones. But this is too important. I have read tons of art criticism. Most of it, particularly from the 20th century, is nonsense. Literary people are no longer seeing the forest for the trees. It must be the fault of our education system. Verbal expression is by its very nature dualistic. Visual imagery in the form of paintings or photographs is two dimensional. We can allude to the non-dualistic or to the third dimension but we cannot change the nature of the medium. When we try to do so, for me, it simply becomes nonsense.

Art is not technology. Art is measured in terms of EVERYTHING. Art is directly related to the world (all there is). A work of Art contains NO content. Confusion continues on this point because the literati continue as though it is possible to separate form and content. THERE IS NO CONTENT. Nothing is hidden. Art’s function is to nourish us; to expand our sensibilities and our consciousness. There are not any formulas to follow. None the less this is the big answer to the question of Art. What our modern and somewhat deprived world needs is a new and more open way of looking at the world. Hopefully, we will reaffirm our connection to the sensible.

“It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible.” Oscar Wilde, in a letter.

Published in french as Grandes réponses

Posted in Art, Artist-Art | Comment

Clarification

Originally posted on May, 26, 2007

I am receiving some e-mails with comments and questions seeking clarification. I am very much encouraged by them. These people have a unique quality that is all too rare these days. It is not many people who think below the surface of things.

The words we use are important even though, at the same time, they erect barriers and limitations to the clarity of our thought. The word culture did not even appear until the year 1510. This was the early beginning of the modern attempt to separate content from form. Most people today are concerned with art only in terms of its content. They put works of art in the box and label it accordingly to it supposed purpose. Where did the magic go ? Mankind’s earlier experiences of art most certainly where magical.

Now, today, it has become quite problematical to speak or write on these matters. We can today only question our way of justifying art. Beyond that it has become like a never-never do-do land.

One more thing before I stop ranting. Art critics have now found a clever way to circumvent the entire problem. They do not talk about art at all. They simply psychoanalyse the artist. What better way to make art opaque and manageable ? Is this the intellect triumphant or a clear avoidance of deeper thinking?

It is not easy to “overcome” our race mind thinking. To approach what we call the artistic and creative side of life demands much effort. The concepts we use in this effort are crutches. Just crutches.

Denis

Published in french as Clarification

Posted in Art | Comment

Can Art be taught?

Originally posted on April, 26, 2007

In the old atelier systems years where spent simply learning technique: genius, the problem of becoming an artist, was not addressed. Conventional opinion was that art could not be taught. It wasn’t until very recent times that this began to change. Today, it is not really clear how to go about teaching art.

Is it best to stick to the art cannot be taught doctrine? Do the questions of design and composition become important? Do we attempt to help the student find their personal style? The questions go on and on.

However we may feel about it, evolution is leading to more and more importance being placed on individuality. Having a healthy sense of self is vital for the artist. But the insecurity that usually goes along with being an individualist can be great. Finding the balance is often difficult.

The question of how art should be taught is an important one. If we are going to teach art it needs to be taught well. A big responsibility. I am going to toast this drink to all the good art teachers.

Cheers,
Denis

Published in french as Peut-on enseigner l’art ?

Posted in Art, Teaching | Comment

On life and art

Originally posted on April, 10, 2007

I am of the opinion that we are not able to teach anyone art. But, having said that, we are not absolved from spending our life learning.

In my younger years I studied classical literature and philosophy. Then, for the last 30 years I’ve been obsessed with 19th century art and literature in my attempt to better understand how we got ourselves into this mess. Many years were spent in Portland, Oregon in the United States perusing Powell’s Book Store, one of the largest bookstores on the planet, as well as the Portland City Library. I lived between the two which were just 3 blocks
apart and was transporting piles of books back and forth to my apartment.

In the 80’s I began to concentrate on painting. I certainly waited far too long. Not that I hadn’t been painting. It seems I’ve always had a pencil or brush in my hand. Was I lacking self-confidence? In my mind it was tied up with wanting to communicate something worthwhile.

I had problems buying into the postmodernist trip. But then I had trouble buying into the modernist one also. It takes time to wade through all the spin and hype that writers and critics have put on things. It is interesting to see how, in the mid-nineteenth century, French Art critics became more and more polarized. In future articles, perhaps, I’ll take a closer look at this. The long and short of it is that sometimes the intellectual capacity of society is advancing and sometimes we have a decline.

Anyhow, I finally did really get down to painting as they say. As luck would have it, at that time I had a painter from New York, Kay Heally, living next door to me. A fascinating woman, lived in Shanghai during the 30’s. That is another story. She was a close friend and painted with New York artist Anna Meltzer who gained considerable notoriety considering that she was a woman artist in 1940’s New York. She has work hanging in many museums. My friendship with Kay helped me a lot. Living next door to each other we saw each other daily; Every evening for 3 or 4 years we got together for a glass and talked about life. We lost Kay the year I moved to France in 1994. She had reached the respectable age of 89. A wonderful woman.

I learnt something: for the artist both are important, the theory and the application. More than that though, when you give each its due they work as compliments and amazing things happen. Other paradoxes reconcile themselves: representation and invention, the now moment and all of eternity, the opposition of the subjective and the objective, the intellect and the emotions and so on. I can now see light at the end of the tunnel. Each day the light gets a little stronger. All of this to have something both personally satisfying as well as worthwhile to communicate.

Have fun. If you are not having fun doing what you do the price is too high.
Denis

Published in french as Sur la vie et sur l’art

Posted in Art | Comment

« On Painting