[Previous entry: "LACK OF VISION?"] [Next entry: "ART BASEL MIAMI BEACH: YEAR THREE:"]

01/18/2006: "ART AS A REFLECTION OF HUMAN NATURE"

An argument is raging: Sometimes we set out to do one thing and discover something unexpected. Our call for artists has exposed many questions. Do we make art as a reflection of our human nature in an attempt to rise above the basest desires, or as a rebellion against the crudest aspect of our human nature?

There are those who claim there is actually no such thing as a definable human nature and so argue the question: How is art possible?

There are those who claim in University and College art departments and think tanks that art is a cover up by personalities who refuse to accept an imposed version of moral codes and values and of what human nature is: Look at a copy of any fashion magazine to see how abstract and conceptual 'art' has become. Fashion photographers are the first to exploit the new, the far out, the technological diversity. Visit any one of a number of Chelsea Galleries in NYC or Bergamont Station in Santa Monica or check out the Art Dealers Alliance, a kind of union of dealers who want art to be a way to compete in a 'healty manner' at it's art fair shown next to Art Basel Miami: Reminds me of the kind of controversy that began with the Pop Artists first alternate show at the Janis Gallery.




I have spent a lifetime as an artist trying to express the beauty of the human spirit which fulfilled the desires of my collectors for beautiful art. Yet this is an aesthetic young artists just don't seem to have today. Just today I received a fan letter from a couple who bought one of my mother and child paintings at an expensive furniture art gallery and have loved it since 1964 and "have never let it out of our hands."

Mother and Child: 2ftx3ft: Hyacinthe Kuller, 1964, oil on canvas. Original in private collection: As a book cover design.

Consider the argument as set forth in a limited way here. Look at art of the past: Search for evidence of god given powerful strengths in Michelangelo's work.

Recombine the fractured pixels in the Impressionists attempts and bypass the question with their realization that art reflects the diversity of what we see as beauty.

El Greco's paintings show a distorted view of mankind arising from the earth in an apotheostic vision we now know was caused by an astigmatism.


Icarus: Hyacinthe Kuller Baron: 2x4 foot oil on canvas. Painted at the Art Students League and inspired by a model in the class of religious painter Frank Mason whose paintings are in the Vatican. Private collection.

Picasso and Braque continued the argument by abstracting in order to portray a challenging concept called Cubism to defy the accepted mores of their time by proving how far the elements of art making could be carried forth.


The Nature of Motherhood: Hyacinthe Baron: 4x4 foot: Grey scale oil on canvas. The Mother holds the model as Picasso looks on.

Francis Bacon explored the horrific aspect of human nature and called it art, actually unleashing visual images of the distortion of our visions. Countless art students acclaimed Bacon’s statement and crowded college art classes hoping to prove to themselves that a new art style was worth emulating because Bacon exposed a new truth. A new style was revealed that involved distortion and perception.

Sculptor John Chamberlain mashed together his feelings of disdain, a feature of the human nature of most of the Pop Artists, by using the cube and block forms and shapes of smashed cars as metaphors for the distortion of the natural through the interference of the technology. His was a profound artistic conviction that declared that the materialistic trappings reflect that art is nothing more than junk that humanity scatters about the earth in total disregard and that human nature is alien.

Marcel Duchamp gave it up when he recognized that art fails to capture a lofty goal (to make order of chaos) and that ultimately art could imply time and more dimensions in a revelation of who we really are and that art cannot reveal this on a 2 or even 3 dimensional surface.

Jasper Johns, probably taking his cue from the Magister Ludi (The Glass Bead Game) by Herman Hesse, reduced the argument to numerical formulae. He obsessed that there are infinite ways to compose the elemental structure of human nature using numbers as the visualization and recognition of truth.

As in most arguments the ignorant and the incapable attempt to bully with insults and even threats: Do I dare mention my opinion of the work of artists such as Basquiat. I have been called stupid and worse names and even threatened by anonymous and unartistic commentors for expressing my opinions, and even warned that I should not dare to speak against him or question his status because he is in the pantheon of art and critics and so we must accept him: thereby bringing full circle what I suspect is a basic truth of art, an expression of rebellion by the artist to create outside of imposed standards.

Basquiat in my opinion just let it all go, making a mockery of all the centuries of striving for order to arrive at beauty and to make art the expression of the finer qualities of human nature. His supporters accept that he captured chaotic revelations and lack of order in the images he created in order to reveal the childish level of human nature.

Could the denigration and abstraction of art be interpreted as the beginning of days that herald the end of days? And who is to say in this raging argument that terrorists and suicide bombers are not artists who are onto the next phase, like the ultimate performance artists, or that they are really committing the ultimate acts of art and exposing human nature for what it really is?

Pan: Hyacinthe Baron: 4ftx3ft: Fired stone clay with oxides. Executed at Fort Mason in San Francisco.

The elements are there to argue that human nature is undeveloped compared to nature' creations. Is art then a primordial instinct? Is it a way of recognizing a certain reality? An priori language before there was the verbal word? The primitive urges to communicate as in markings? A message stamped on the earth: 'I was here!' Is art a map of individuality? Is it an editorial about making an impression. A way of proving that human nature is aligned with the gods? An expose of the duality of human nature?

The Ice Priest of the Lotus: Duality: Hyacinthe Baron: Monumental Sculpture: 8ftx4ft: Clay, Plaster gauze , epoxy resin and fiberglass cloth. Constructed in Stinson Beach in Northern Calif and shown in the Baron Gallery in San Francisco.

A conclusion is drawn here: There are several steps to successfully commit to art and being an artist. As in any artistic discipline the pursuit of technique to enable creative expression is a necessary since the bottom line of artistic endeavor is a compulsive behavior which may be a reflection of the basic human nature.

Ask me and I will tell you about the aching back and feet and the loss of sleep to complete a work, or the impossible tasks I set for myself and pursued out of sheer compulsion. One thing is true: Human Nature is nothing, if not persistent.

There are many interpretations as to what being a visual artist means in relation to human nature. There have been many interpretations quite succinctly and brilliantly discussed in blogs on Absolute Arts.

These are some of the questions that have arisen during the formatting of the international illustrated literary and art book ART and HUMAN NATURE COLLECTION. It has become obvious the book will function on so many levels, amateur to professional, as an exhibit that might just provide some answers to the argument by permanently archiving some examples of the art of our time. In view of the argument the book may prove to be an important statement that reflects individualistic points of view as well as a record of another reality in which the artists, authors and poets reflect on what was, what is and what could be and their interpretation of ART and HUMAN NATURE as more than a license to move on in our understanding of technology and how humanity will fare in the future..

The Lotus Keeper: Hyacinthe Baron: 4ftx3ft. Clay, Oxides, Resins.The opening in the torso is to enable the human spirit to come and go.

For more details and up to date information on how to submit art and essays please visit: www.barongallery.com and www.palmspringsarts.com

Hyacinthe Kuller Baron is a lifetime career artist whose works are being archived in the museum bearing her name. She is a published author, poet, playwright, fashion and home décor designer, sculptor, graphic artist and painter. Creator of the Drawing by Making Your Mark technique she is currently editing the Art and Human Nature Collection Literary and Art Book for the Baron Conservancy and Editor of www.palmspringsarts.com Online Magazine.

Replies: 22 Comments

on Thursday, February 2nd, freelance artist said

Great post. Thanks.

on Monday, January 23rd, jose freitas cruz said

What worries me is not so much that art (some art being produced and promoted in our time – good or bad is irrelevant) should be compared to acts of terrorism, but rather that the mechanisms and paths it is assuming are so identical to the forms of terrorism being perpetrated. I would even go as far as saying that terrorism merely emulates our own abnormal behaviour and uses it effectively to call attention upon itself. Terrorism has always existed, since the dawn of man’s time (as indeed has art), only it assumed the forms that the mentalities of each period conjured and was obviously less immediately felt/seen/heard of – and mostly at the comfortable, safe distance in space and time books, newspapers and word-of-mouth would afford.

It is the choices/patterns of existence we in the western-northern hemisphere have opted for and allowed to go down a foul track for too long that create and validate the forms of terrorism we experience. The world is a tightly interwoven network, that much we know, and so in a certain way, Yes, certain manifestations [and the way they come about] in the field of art can be compared to acts of terrorism. Perhaps they do not kill people but they are responsible for keeping-up the structure that validates others’ beliefs that such a stance will gain them greater visibility and acclaim. Can we then truly blame them for their ferocity?

We’ve reached the point where certain artists have decided to take a stand. Some will continue to insist that the present trend is the only possible way to become visible [if only for a flash instant] and will continue to persevere along that line until their generation dies out and their modus operandi becomes obsolete, others have decided Now to revert to a different MO and refuse to play the game. Will this generate better art? That’s beside the point! In the end art will still exist [as will terrorism] but the structures and the mechanisms will have adapted and changed. This is about a societal challenge and about whether or not we have the balls to take it on.

Utopia? Of course it is, but what else have artists ever believed in other than utopia? If it hadn’t been for the subtle intervention of artists at various levels and through different mediums many of the ideas we cherish today would not have materialised. So, in a nutshell, yes, we are responsible, and sure, it’s up to us to think and act differently to bring about the subtle changes that have yet to come.

on Saturday, January 21st, Kumiko M. said

I agree that the human figure as well as other creatures and aspects of nature are beautiful and so unique. I always appreciate the artwork that captures the beautiful part of human nature well. However, when you see the inner part of human nature, it is not always as beautifulness as one would hope, but also an ugly part is hiding deep inside of the human heart. The ugly part of human nature is intangible and sometime appears on the surface, but is mostly hiding deep inside. I think the ugly pat of human nature is very powerful. How can you express the intangible human ugliness in your artwork? I believe it is almost impossible to express it without ugliness in your artwork. Personally, I am not much impressed by artwork that has only beautiful or just ugly aspects. I prefer artwork that contain both aspects of ugliness and beauty since the contrast between them compliments each other and make the ugly things more uglier and the beautiful things more beautiful. When you see the stars in the sky, you can see the stars brighter when the sky is very dark since the darkness contrasts with the brightness of the stars and shows them off them well in the sky. The same is true in art. When you see two opposite aspects at the same time, it shows off the others aspect very well and makes it strong and powerful. The interest level is much higher.

on Saturday, January 21st, Mark Brockman said

Still doesn't answer the question Hyacinthe of whether your musum is the desire of others or your own desire. In fact if your last statement is in regard to my question you have tried to asnwer it as many a polition would, dancing around with other statements as answers, and I might say you sound a bit defensive.
Your statement of the trend toward "archival collections" dedicated to those of great or measured success creates an even greater sence of elitism from which art already suffers from. The gallery is a far better place, open to all who wish to view or create. The whole problem of art for many years, starting with "modern art", is telling the common man that only the artist and the critic can understand art, which again makes art only for the elite or "educated". Which is truely a sad state of affairs don't you think?
As far as jealousies I dought many are jealous of what you have, I am not, I am content in my life and work. Secure in my work and place in the art world. Jealousy is to petty, and a great waste of time.

on Saturday, January 21st, Brad Michael Moore said

I’ve heard of Basquait, I've seen his art, and specials on the subject of his short life on the boob tube. His works didn't not imprint on my memory. He's famous for being known to have a reputation that argues for him as an artist. At least, such is the view of those who brought him up as their brainchild of a perfect contemporary suffering artist reflecting his time in our society. Many people have never heard of the guy, nor care. He will, however, be a footnote in art history for some decades to come… Until after we're all dead, and the great artists of our time are identified by their works which continue to resonate into the 22nd century. Couldn’t tell you who will be on that list.

on Saturday, January 21st, Matt said

Whether art is beautiful or ugly is rather a moot point as beauty is culturally dependent and highly subjective leading to the familiar question: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Art is a form of communication and all forms of art communicate something: a different point of view, feelings, making a statement about something, an idea, etc., etc. Art can provoke positive and negative response.

Whatever the art and whoever the artist the art itself will always be subject to scrutiny and, by default, the artist. We all scrutinize with and without credentials. We all question. This is (part of) human nature.

on Saturday, January 21st, Hyacinthe Baron said

In light of the sense of beauty with which certain artists imbue their paintings there must be a realization that artistic creation is one of the few choices societies allow individuals to make to forego ego, religious beliefs and practices is another.

The ego is a selfish survival medium that prevents human nature from partaking of the more advanced possibilities and pleasures that life offers.

Jealousies are petty feelings arising from the basest levels of the ego.

Distinctions betweeen good and bad, ugly and beautiful play no part in any discussion being put forth here.

If anyone reads the many essays posted on my web site it should be obvious that the trend today is toward archival collections of the works of individual artist museums instead of galleries. i.e. The Warhol, The Noguchi, The Rodin and so on. The historical aspect is one of the requirements as is a large enough collector base to support such an institutionalong with a history of sales and exhibitions and private and public collections and institutions and museums.
Such an undertaking is a trust on many levels and is engendered in both a physical location, The Baron Conservancy and an extension of Andre' Malraux's concept of the Museum Without Walls through exhibitions and projects and events analogous to the use of the internet.

Any philosophical discussion is always welcome as is the setting forth of outrageous ideas which often spearheads new forms of creation.

on Saturday, January 21st, Mark Brockman said

I believe that perhaps Hyacinthe thinks that artists are of a greater stature say then a plumber. Taht to be an artist one must be god-like. Get real Hyacinthe, artists are people, no more no less. Ugly art is not terrorism, terrorists are not artists, don't give them so much credit and belittle the artist by the comparison. Man creates art because of a need within himself. It is not god given, god insired, or any such sillyness. Art is a wonderful thing but I know of a carpenter who is an artist in his craft, I a know a mortician who is an artist in his craft, Why? Because they love doing what they do and they want to make it more then just craft. But that does not put them above all others.
Hyacinthe, in my first responce to this blog I asked if your internet museum was a case of vanity, rather then a means of preserving great art, you did not answer the question. Why? I think it would be helpful to all to know so we know where you are coming from. We would all like to have museums dedicated to us, as some artist have, but to create your own museum for yourself seems some what self seving. "I am great there for if no one else will make a museum for me, I will do so for myself." I don't mean this as an attack, if this is what you want to do, do it, I might do it myself for I to am a great artist, just no one knows it yet, LOL. I just feel it would help us better understan where you are coming from so we better understand your blogs. Hope you answer, but if not so be it, your lack of answer will be an answer. Keep on creating Hyacinthe, and to all others also, keep on creating.

on Saturday, January 21st, Michael Fornadley said

Can go both ways, seen ugly paintings that communicates a message and truth about our existance or a social injustice. Seen beautiful paintings that caters to our pleasure zones, mentality and physically that turn ugly and empty when further studied. Maybe more of the study of the lifestyle of the artist would indicate the lifeforce behind the work, garbage in garbage out would be more of a easier concept. A good piece of art I believe has a spirit about it, much like a living being, that is why great art done by an artist some 500 years ago still produces emotion when viewed today. To understand bad from good requires a deeper understanding than what our society wants us to have, too many gray areas in the mix. When people do advance an opinion that goes against the mainstream of thought out there, the crowd mentality is to start throwing bricks, always question authority. One of the things that will advance your craft will be critical thinking in all fronts. The mention of the 911 disaster considered performance art is not too far from the truth, it hit all the catagories that we judge art today, part of the sickness.

on Friday, January 20th, Ed Baron said

More. There is no way that the Paul's can become known obviously they exist in a vacum.

How the interpretation has been suggested that the issue here is the difference between good and bad results, beautiful and ugly art is only more evidence that there individuals out there who have lost the technique to philosophize and to aspire to reach greater heights through art.

The examples given are only reminders of how beauty is the tool by which the viewer accepts the artistic point of view and that so called ugly art appeals only to the basest values within human nature.

on Friday, January 20th, Hyacinthe Baron said

Why is it so unclear to some that Art is the result of the highest processes involved in the evolution of human nature?

How can there be such a misunderstanding of a basic tenet of human nature?

Is it not evident that we have the urge to create Art for reasons other than survival and that terrorists want to dictate who will and won't survive and therefore control the nature of man and the survival of those who follow the concepts of the terrorists who unfortunately in most instances are Muslims.?

If Art becomes the analogy in this essay it is because it obviously takes an extreme instance to understand what we are talking about here.

Laxity in all things which were previously engaging to artists in the highest form of aesthetic endeavors is analogous to terrorists who have no value for life on this earth.

on Friday, January 20th, Mark Brockman said

To those who critize Hyacinthe's art, you don't need to like it. Her art is no worse or better then Basquait's art (Nor is mine or any one elses), depending on your opinion and art beliefs. We should all have opinions, but no opinion is right or wrong, they are just opinions, including Hyacinthe's.
What is good art, what is bad art, what is great art, will always be debated. But will never be decided. But to compare bad or disagreable art to terrorism seems extream to me. Bin Laden is not an artist, his terror is not preformance art. To even compare the two is a diservice to all art, bad or great. Bin Laden is a murderer, I do not know of bad art that has killed people. (Even if you consider art propaganda, it may give a deadly message but the art may not be badly exacuted)Bad art, I do not think will end civilization as we know it, nor will it degrade good art. If it is good, time will be the true test.

on Friday, January 20th, Paul said

Ed,here I am Im not hiding,I respond and post in the open of fresh internet air,to discuss and debate,and one debate is,there is a pantheon of great artistic masters,of the past and present,and its no good saying that so and so doesnt belong there,because the great and good have decided otherwise,whatever we may think personally about it,but I must say it behoves anyone who is into art atall to if they find blind spots or something they dont agree with,to spend some time earnestly studying why the world thinks one artist or another is great,and another isnt,in conclusion its self evident,
and although we perhaps would like our artistic partners or freinds,to be great artists or part of the pantheon,no amount of repitition or table thumping or similar makes it so,and to think otherwise is sheer fantasy.

on Thursday, January 19th, Ed Baron said

COMPUTER ART AND GAMES

To begin in defense of my brilliant wife whose interests and career I have managed for 36 years and protected out of respect for the brilliance of Hyacinthe's works both artistic and literary I must state that there is no way to acknowledge the ramblings of invisible individuals when they occassionaly crawl out their holes and this is because it is so dark and unredeemably distorted where nameless unreachable Paul's hide.
Hyacinthe has received more than her share of admiration and honors and like Matisse she has created beautiful art in drawings and inspired paintings that portray a beautiful and positively charged view of the world and a projection of a world of innocence unthreatened by the futility of terrorists.
Everyone has a right to their opinions, however there is a tendency among certain disrespectful respondents to create an atmosphere of dissolution which is extremely unpleasant and wasteful in view of the amount of information and discussion which is made possible through the arguments offered presented in essays and blogs.

on Thursday, January 19th, Hyacinthe Baron said

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY.
Whenever I let myself go, that is, at times when I give in to uncontrolled urges and thoughtless creativity, what is revealed is a lurking truth about human nature: and it is not pretty or even beautiful as is clearly seen in my sculptures. This state of creating causes me distress and the art that I make exudes an isolationist attitude that almost warns others to stay away in a pubescent defiance. This type of art reflects a fantasy of the sort being lived out by suicide bombers and students who kill and Bin Laden Terrorists and other Dogs of War who have turned creativity into a denigration of the best of human nature and is a revelation of the worst art horrifying in the essence of truth of what lies beneath.

on Thursday, January 19th, Pau;a Fischer said

As evidenced today with an announcement from Bin Laden, one of the greatest performance artists of the century, it verifies one of the main points of Hyacinthe Baron's essay in this blog which is that we live in dangerous times and a lot of the art being accepted today is a reflection of the state that human nature is in this time in the world. Since the concern for beauty and consideration of the chaos of murderous beliefs has become acceptable it relaxes the rules of decent behaviours and the strivings for order which has been the aesthetic aim of human nature.

on Thursday, January 19th, Kelly Borsheim said

Quality should always be discussed as we are always trying to improve upon our efforts and expand our ideas. The first step is often the easy one -- first decide what you DON'T like, eliminating the "bad". Then start figuring out what does move you and ask why. This is the more interesting question, and more difficult to answer. And sometimes the answers change with time and experience. It is all personal; it is all subjective. With time, we hope to weed out the fads in our tastes and any hype we might have succumbed to. Quality lasts and is worthy of our discussions.

on Thursday, January 19th, Life Gamer said

Mark, art could be ugly or beautiful, it doesn't matter. The only permanent quality of the art is its greatness.

on Thursday, January 19th, jose freitas cruz said

Is to be seen and heard of to be taken then as a guaranty of irrefutable quality and seriousness of intent? Should to be seen and heard of then be the motor of art? If we move along that road I'm afraid Hyacinthe has a point, we move dangerously close to the mentality of the terrorist... regrettably, it seems to be the trend.

on Thursday, January 19th, paul said

Possibly the same or similar things that are being said here about Basquauit,are the same or similar things that were being said about Matisse,eg childlike ect,in his time by the straights of his day,and the same is happening here,I think that you are just conservatives,or have blind spots,its obvious to me,and to most others,you can invent whatever conspiracy theories you want to,and drag up the same old,but none of it alters the fact that Ive heard of Basquait,he's a famous artist,but Ive never heard of you.

on Wednesday, January 18th, Michael Fornadley said

Let them have it Hyacinthe, if you feel that Basquiat was a joke, good for you. I personally do not cater to intellectual bullying either especially in the artistic arena. Might share the same opinion that most of the successful artists in the larger markets have advanced the skill of con artists rather than their trade. Basquiat's work from scanning appears to have an expressive childlike quality, not offensive at all, the problem is that he died too young to really see any advancement. Another thing that might upset some of us is his political correctness and his award of recognition of being such. This living large and dying young is really for fools anyway, give me a long and healthy life, generally most artists who really did anything chose the later. As far as skill level Basquiat would never approach an similar artist who died way too young (Egon Schiele), both died at the same age 28. Really compare the output and quality of both artists, I feel that there would be no contest, Egon would destroy Paul. Talent would be the main telling point, also Schiele was actually maturing with his personality and work before dying of spanish influenza. Have more of an understanding and compassion with Schiele's death, than Basquiat's overdosing on heroin.

on Wednesday, January 18th, Mark Brockman said

Ms Baron,
I must ask this question,is the museum your idea? I don't want to judge the validity or vanity of the museum till I know that.
I have read a number of your blogs all seem to beg the question what is art? And can art come from some one not trained in the tradional manner?
Art is open, like it or not. I don't like a lot of what people call "art", some "art" is what I call the "Art of an idea" not substansive art. But whether I like it or not, whether you like it or not, does not determine what is or is not art. Art is what sociaty excepts as art. Critics, artists, even the art buying public as small as it is does not determine art, sociaty does by its exceptance, pure and simple.
I must say as a struggling artist for the past 30 years I grow tired of the argument of what is and is not "art". Who cares. We all must make it as best we can and spend more time creating art then arguing over what is art. I can not help but feel that those who argue the most about what is art are those who feel left behind, not heard, not seen, forgotten, not excepted as the great artist that they feel they are. I feel sorrow for those, for creating art is the act of creation, not whether it is seen or purchased. Certainly it is nice for our work to be seen to have been purchased and hung in someones home or museum or even office building. We all like being told we have done a good job. But if that is the reason for making art then that is sad, sad for the artist and those who may see the work, for all are cheated. I paint for myself, not for sociaty, not for ctitics, not for the buying public, I make it for me. That is why we should all create art.
The questions of what is art? Is that Art? Is art only based on past art? Can art come only from the trained individual? Is only the beautiful, art, and the ugly, is not art? Is a waste of time. In fact I have wasted enough time discussing the very thing I feel we waste to much time discussing. So having said that I head back to the studio to do what I do. To do, what, please me.