Replies: 39 Comments
on Sunday, March 1st, bmm said
Andrew, Mark, and several I do not know - thanks for your comments - They were the best part of this encumbrance. bmm
on Sunday, February 15th, findigart said
TO// Zarathrusta
So indeed that is the point of the essay, you figured it out. But have the art establishment have, as well? Have all those kiss-ass shallow trend possesed fashion clercks of art saw that the essence of Cubism, if any, is to serve as a tool for higher purposes, artistic and philosophical and perhaps even existential?
Do other artists understand it as well, or are they possesed by the consensus and blinded by the esteem of those who perceive art as a toy to mess around with but blather lectures about integration and harmony?
Do they?
on Saturday, February 14th, Zarathrusta said
you idiots! cubism is not some evil tax dodge. the question can't be whether or not it was or is worth anything... it happened! The question is whether or not you can use it for some new thing... extend it make it more than it is. If yes, great, if not do something else.
on Tuesday, February 10th, findigart said
TO// Michal
OK. after reading your comment, I'll try and better explain or elaborate on what I meant.
Cubism has purpose within its own boundaries. When judging Cubism along the innate rules of Cubism, then indeed it has a point, an intent.
But what is the impact of Cubism on the common man? Had Cubism utilized it's strength of disintegrating visual perception and reality in order to convey deep and meaningful messages that are of interest to all of us and not only to a handful of artists that deal with Cubistic paintings, I would have probably been of more significance to the greater good.
To the ordinary housewife, what is the difference between Cubism and Expressionism or Realism if the subject matter is of no relevance to anything involving her day to day life?
The technique itself, whatever it is, is of no importance to the viewer who seeks identification and answers.
Take the "Portrait of Daniel Henry-Kahnweiler" and paint it again using any artistic technique you want, OK? who cares? who is he anyway and why should I care to look at his portrait if it has no relevance whatsoever to my own self, my goals as a human being, my fears, my passions, my pain' my life, my death?
The subject matter of art is to me, the most significant element and has utmost importance in the relevance of the artwork to anything relating to the day to day reality of all of us.
That is why I use any technique I feel like regardless of any artistic consideration in order to convey the message I want, and if I have to make up something that does not exist than so be it. See? it doesn't make any difference - only the issue does.
Techniques of art, trends, artists - they will all die, but the essence of art and the existential suffering and all that involves it, are common to us all, they are facts of life to remain for eternity.
on Tuesday, February 10th, findigart said
TO// Andrew
Lucid insight, indeed. To tell you the truth I haven't thought about it along these specific lines.
On the one hand I was trying to convey a message and I knew that reactions will come. Something deep down told me that I write about somewhat sensitive and explosive issues, that will trigger reactions.
On the other hand I was not so deliberate and accurately foreseeing as to know what direction the discussion or comments will take. This became clearer only once the comments started pouring in.
When I rethink about what you said, I realize something I haven't before. I realize that although I did not Know where to go, I felt that we will be saying these words to each other, at one point and that the thread will be where it is now, inclusive of all that has been said in it so far.
I knew I wanted to trigger people to think about conventions, about consensus, about art along these lines... and about themselves.
Your comment was meaningful and alerting to me. Thanks!
on Tuesday, February 10th, michal said
Well, I agree that art today has no content, is not attractive and actualy has very little to do with art. But reading your thoughts about cubism makes me feel that the text is really interwoven with confusion about the things. I see cubism as new visual discovery and I really see the content inside Picasso's paintings. Realistic painting is actualy not reality, it is two dimensional mix of colors lied on flat surface and only human mind creates that image that you feel is very similar to the real world. In a way it is lie. Cubism is an attempt to defy the rules which make us percieve three dimensional reality where there is no, as well as the content where there is actually no content. Cubism is searching for limits, how long can the painting be just flat mix of paints and still can stimulate psychological constants in our mind which generate image of real world. Cubism is experimenting with these visual discoveries, how to depict the things of the real world in a means that are not identical with real world.
on Tuesday, February 10th, Andrew said
The comment thread is much more interesting than the blog was. That is what I meant when I said it was a vehicle. If you know what's going to happen here, that people will respond to what triggers them to do so, then as with brush, canvass and technique, one can 'paint' a blog with the goal of creating a subsequent back and forth dialogue. When we are aware of the effect of what we are doing, we create better rather than just random creations.
on Sunday, February 8th, findigart said
TO// Mark
Alright... :-)
Then perhaps I am rounded after all :-) although the ration in my website is 26 for artworks and 37 for articles :-)
The truth is that after writing an article which I feel is insightful and comprehensive pertaining to a certain subject matter, I feel no lesser satisfaction and relief than after finishing a work of art... Just as I feel as empty and vapid, since as I might have mentioned, art is not means for true gratification to me, nothing is but developing awareness...
on Sunday, February 8th, findigart said
TO// Alkistis Wechsler
Three main good points you have brought up:
1. Dealing with the divine is not necessarily religious as in dealing with meaningful subjects does not necessarily make meaningful art.
2. The artists of the Middle Ages didn't really have a choice of whether or not to paint religious paintings.
3. Making art about "living" things with no lust or zest will make them dead and making it with passion might instill life into seemingly arbitrary or superficial things.
So:
1. Indeed. As there are many artists who specialize in painting landscapes and are not even the least bit exited by the glory of nature.
In general a deep observer will find meaning and depth even in the most arbitrary subjects of paintings or art.
However, I think that we will both agree that there is a big difference between blathering and talking and between nonsense and essence.
2. They did not have any choice in choosing their matters of artistic creation, indeed. Art in general was fixated to satisfying the Church and nothing more. Art was a tool in the hands of religion as it is today in the hands of superficiality of a morally decaying and shallow artists.
However, I myself tend more to appreciate art that uses it's power to try and alert and waken and inspire rather than one that just seeks to please and make pointless statements.
3. Indeed, an artist that deals with "hot" issues just for the sake of promotion, scandal, consensus or whatnot is basically lying. It is like reciting a right answer to a question without really understanding either of them.
Needless to say that the answer will not be as thorough, lucid, passionate, insightful and compelling as from one who really understood the question and feels about the subject.
Great comment - Thanks! :-)
on Sunday, February 8th, Mark said
I didn't say there was something wrong with talking or writting about art, only that there needs to be balance between the talking and the doing. Some only talk, some only do, the more rounded do both.
on Sunday, February 8th, findigart said
TO// Mark
Indeed balance... and indeed I have yet to find one. I am still in the process of finding equilibtium as a human being primarily and as a derivative as an artist.
As for the second part of your comment, I can agree only if we both agree that there is something wrong in talking or writing about art, and I don't...
I feel that as long as it is a part of a conscious spiritual growth, as long as it is a manifestation of deepening awareness which reveals and unfolds conflicts that are stirring deep in the sub-consciousness whether we are aware of them or not and expresses them, it so becomes an integral and even an essential part of the artistic creation.
I would have loved to know the inner conflicts of great minds, I would have loved to know that they were human as well, I would have loved to see that greatness comes at great costs and that great people also suffer and have conflicts.
Is there more of an art than the letters Van Gogh wrote to his brother, Theo? This is quintessential art and moreover it is the manifestation of deep awareness and sensitivity - this is, in fact, why Van Gogh was a master-artist and a unique human being.
Expressionism was just a side effect of his mindful depths of consciousness and acute perception of reality, nothing more.
As a side remark I will note, that I am not sure whether the art establishment is capable of conceiving and comprehending that...
on Sunday, February 8th, Alkistis Wechsler said
Well, at the end art for art is what we do whatever we call it or what is the excuse for doing it. Further away from thast epicentre we do a mostly unconscious research of the Micro- and Macro cosmos; we do a psychological work on ourselves. Being human, we shall meet there a lot of other humans that have the same concern and see it pictured in our paintings. Dealing wwith the existential, with the divine principles, with the eternal questions is not necessarily equal with doing 'religious' art. Often for a painter in the past painting a biblical theme was the only way for him to get a job, to make a living while he was also indulging in his love of colour, alchemy and spacial composition. Often even these artisans were transcending the demands of the priestly authorities and depicted great metapfysical or what else ones like to call it, the quintessence of our existence, without staying in the lines of the church or similar authority.
It is true that one takes a great theme of humanitarian concern and creates a dead image that we can not call it art. It is true that one produces an experiment and expects it to be just the wholistic work of art. The point is when an artist does something sincere and out of his heart's depth, this will find a response in other souls; if one chooses any big issue of humanity in the every day struggle for surviving, but he does not have any feeling for it, then it will be a dead illustration that does not touch anyone at all.
on Sunday, February 8th, Mark said
I agree with Jeremy that we can and often do talk to much when we should be working, but talk is good too, the key is to find the balance.
IIAN, I believe with age and introspection the need to do the work because of the work will become more important then the fame and furtune. You already have the introspection, the rest may come in time.
on Sunday, February 8th, findigart said
TO// Jeremey
Tell that to Dostoyevsky...
Anyhow, I don't feel that "talking" about art is lesser than "making" art. Writing is as part is the artistic creation just as the making of the artwork.
Mondrian, Duchamp, Kandinsky and so many well renowned and no lesser than you and I, to say the least, were engaged heavily in writing also, and why?
Many atimes the artistic creation needs support, the support of the philosophy standing behind it, motivating it. It is in fact the depth of roots from which your creation stems.
People need to understand the spirit of the artist in order to fully comprehend his creation. At times written manifests and philosophical contemplation documentation do the trick.
For me it is a need as well as an inseparable part of my art. My philosophy of life is not your regular typecast, there fore my philosophy of art can be nothing but a derivative of that, and as a result my art in itself is a product of the two.
Will the people understand and how they will judge is their own problem. I, on my part, do my best to propagate my gospel, since it by all means a true revolution of cool breeze in the shallow stench of contemporary art.
And I hope you will excuse me for being blunt and condescending :-)...
Thanks for your comment and I'll be sure to take a look at your art later.
on Sunday, February 8th, Jeremy said
"Words, words, words! Let's stop all the talking and starting doing! Those after will be our judges...that's their job. Time will judge. If you feel it, paint it, sculpt it! But.golly,get out of your head and into your heart. Put those feelings out there and let what comes come. Just keep working. What's to fear?"
I agree completely its easy to talk but art is about the experience of making it. Sometimes this includes being a mercinary!
my artistic doings
on Saturday, February 7th, findigart said
TO// Johann
And what is ultimate beauty? what does it derive from? is it external only? is it the innate order
of Creation? is it Love? is it love of God?
Can ultimate beauty lie where there is inner dissatisfaction and unhappiness?
What is ultimate beauty, and how can art assist you in achieving such an exalted goal?
on Saturday, February 7th, Johann du Plessis said
Art for me as an artist should be the 'vehicle' towards reaching the ultimate Beauty.
Johann du Plessis (South Africa)
on Saturday, February 7th, findigart said
TO// Mark
Is was so inspiring for me to read what you said. So truthful and honest and humane...
I feel that at the end I will reach that same place, that wholeness of just being who I am, without the paraphernalia of corporeality and esteem.
I am not yet there, and I don't know what will further me more to that stage: succeeding or failing in realizing that dream...
God has the answers.
Thank you for that sincere comment.
on Saturday, February 7th, Mark said
Fame and furtune, that was a dream of mine many years ago, almost a lifetime ago. Now I want to do the best work I can, to stretch and head for other horizons in my work. I am content, now, in that fame and furtune are not a goal, perhaps a side road, if it comes I will not reject it but it is not the drive for what I do. Making more money from my work would make life easier, But it would not change what I do, so why let lack of it change what I do.
on Saturday, February 7th, findigart said
TO// Ellen
A very passionate comment. Made me feel. But as for me, despite my tremendous passion to art (is it tremendous?) I am looking ahead constantly, thinking about a future of less financial problems, of greater comfort - and these words are to say the least.
I want to be recognized, rich, famous, esteemed... I want all these things, when I forget that what I actually want is to be happy.
This is not a cliche.
When I remember that what I really miss is my own self and the presence of God, I realize that this dream of mine, this passion towards art that fuels and invigors that dream is nothing more than a trick of my own Ego.
Art is not a substance in its own, its not a dream, it's not a way of life, and not a passion. It is an illusion, one of many, just as being a doctor, a lawyer, a rich businessman, a Nobel prize winner for mathematics, a used car salesman who makes 1,500$ a day...
I just think that it so happens that I am very good at this and have something new to bring to the world, and so my dream for good life started leaning on this, on art, the same way it leaned on other things in the past.
Art is not happiness. Nothing is happiness but happiness itself.
I strive for peace of mind and freedom from fear... all fears.
on Saturday, February 7th, findigart said
TO// Andrew
I'm not sure I understood your saying: "The words are part of the whole. The blog was a vehicle, nothing more..."
what are you saying exactly?
as for the later part of you comment, I really didn't think of publishing this blog as a strategy to initiate a dialogue but rather as a means to propagate my philosophy of art.
Of course that if there is no dialogue, it means that people are not actually listening and the purpose is not served, but this was a side effect, a rather good one, but not a pre-planned strategy.
Regardless, I see that whenever I listen to other thoughts and opinions I discover little more about my own.
on Saturday, February 7th, Ellen said
It IS a good dialogue! Re passion: every artist who is serious about art is deeply passionate about art. Why else would artists work so hard for a dream? I know many people who are working endless hours, doctors, lawyers, accountants, who get a PAYCHECK & even a BONUS (well maybe not in these times....). These "professionals" then go on vacations or have nights out or whatever. That is a lifestyle that commands RESPECT. Why then do artists work 60, 80, 100 hours a week for the DREAM of getting paid for their labors (NOTE: even commission work with a 30-50% deposite doesn't always work out in terms of getting paid. I speak from first hand experience.). Artists (painters, dancers, actors, musicians) work for the DREAM of becoming recognized. Very few other lifestyles work on dreams. Cold cash is the reason most people work: even if they enjoy their jobs, or even love them, they want to be paid. Artists in the main create because they are passionate about creating their art. It is unthinkable for me to consider another lifestyle because all my life my passion has been to create art. In fact, other than a wonderful family (including some close friends) art is my life. Ergo passion.
on Friday, February 6th, Andrew said
The words are part of the whole. The blog was a vehicle, nothing more, to initiate a dialogue. You were successful. A good strategy.
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
TO// Mark
Well put.
So it could be that my Ego is the one telling me that my tremendous efforts in trying to convey my messages are worthwhile, because indeed the viewer might not relate to my works the way I wished for him to.
And indeed the only way for me to create art is the way that I do it, and in so emphasizing your last paragraph...
I don't know... the truth is that I am seeking for some ultimate truth to be expressed via art, meaning I would like to consolidate a language to convey real essence of notions and philosophy of life that in turn relate to the real essence and purpose of life in general. I still believe it is possible, and yet when reading something like your comment I slightly realize that despite my well-nourished ego, it might not be possible after all... :-)
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
TO// Ellen
You said: "whether you engage the viewer or not our passion is to try to relate."
Why is that? Why is it our passion? what is the essence of that passion?
When I see a plain and simple landscape picture it might provoke my imagination and feelings even without any intent of the artist of doing so...
I don't know. At times I feel the even purpose is purposeless when wholeness of self is not present.
After all, we all feel and think, we all react in numerous ways to numerous stimulations in the universe, without the universe having to do anything in purpose...
Or is it God that created all those stimulations in order to distract. Perhaps the only way to judge whether one has applied his or hers freedom of choice rightfully is to see how much of a slave they have become to the continuous stimulus of life...
Perhaps I distract people more than guide them, or perhaps I guide them to distraction...
Merde... :-)
on Friday, February 6th, Mark said
Perhaps I was bit to flip with my comment, I only wished to say that this blog touches on something often discussed (and should be discussed) but not to much. I agree with Nancy, work and time will tell if a work is worthwhile. I do not care for the work of Picasso, but I do like what he says about art. It doesn't matter if a work of art was created for arts sake or to bring about an emotion or tell a story. Why? because ultimatly the viewer, not the artist, will decide that. Yet each artist should create thier work in what way is best for them. So to keep true to my words, back to the studio, work not talk.
on Friday, February 6th, Ellen said
The images on your web site definitely tell a story and provoke feelings. That is what art is about: whether you engage the viewer or not our passion is to try to relate.
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
TO// Adrian
:-) you are cute as hell
I'd love to come to Italy and just LIVE!!!
but I assume that had I been able to really do that, I would have done it here in Israel as well...
I'm somewhat of a complicated creature :-)
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
TO// Ellen
Hi,
It was interesting to read your comment. I understand what you mean. Sometimes even a shallow or meaningless work get the attention of a deep and insightful person who will then see depths and intent that was not revealed even to the artist himself.
Some create to unload emotions, to immediately as possible express feelings, etc. Then a viewer might arrive that will experience certain reactions by watching this work: memories might arise, different emotions might arise, he/she might begin to think and contemplate... All by accident or coincidence.
A deep human being will always experience things deeply, always contemplate, always perceive the innate nature of things, always penetrate the outer shell of apparent reality and reach the depths of the mind-matter phenomenon.
I try to delibaretely make the viewer think, feel, contemplate of his/hers existential suffering, human condition, deepest fears, greatest hope and the path to liberation.
I try to tell a complete story by visual means and the artistic language I use. I try...
on Friday, February 6th, Adrian said
for now....come to Italy and have a real cuppacino and croissant while looking at beautiful living woman...and if ya cant speaka the languish ...then stare , absorb, just be what you are.
Interesting comment you got there...I'll muster up something later..
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
TO// Deidre Morrison
Great comment! Insightful and precise.
Is it possible? I like to believe this is what I do - Always a purpose, always a message, always a meaning.
I have fears that are common to all of us, I have passions, I have a striving spirit.
I fear death, I pursue the essence of life, I have much to say to the world, much to criticize, much to ask and much to answer.
This is what I do, as truthfully as possible...
on Friday, February 6th, Ellen said
Art, to me, is the expression of the artist and the viewer combined. I don't think that EVERYONE is looking for meanings. Often people buy art and then ascribe meanings to the work as they look at it over periods of time. Sometimes I create a photograph or a painting and someone tells me that it provokes memories, emmotions. This is wonderful to hear, but I continue to produce because I have that passion. I then show/sell my work to complete my own equation of artist + viewer. I sketch for myself, but cannot think of creating art solely for my own edification/satisfaction. Perhaps, Picasso or others needed a reaction (even a monitary one) to complete their own works. Dancers, actors, musicians tell me the same: many artists work for themselves and the reaction they get from others.
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
TO// Nancy Sasser
Hi Nancy,
Well what you say is indeed somewhat true. Many atimes I talk about art because I fear from it.
However, writing is also a form of art. When I transform deep spiritual awareness into intellectual analysis of any subject matter, and then express it in any means - it is art.
It is the mindfulness of the creator and his intent to create which brings upon an artistic creation.
For me writing about art, myself, spirituality or whatnot, expressing my awareness to my fears, my emotions and my thought patterns is a form of it is part of my art.
on Friday, February 6th, findigart said
Hi Heather,
Well, I don't think that the financial crisis can cause people to become less aware of themselves or less truthful.
Many people just don't like to face the truth, regardless of the external situation. It's their state of mind. Has John Doe been less introvert and straight-forward in the times of the depression than he has been after wards?
Was Picasso busy in Cubism because of this or that external situation or was it because of his own mind inclination to deal with nonsense?
"Lets "solve" the problem of realistic painting by inventing Cubism", he somehow thought. But there is not a single problem in realistic painting besides that most of them just as most of Cubistic paintings for example are purposeless in essence.
on Friday, February 6th, Deidre Morrison said
I am an Artist, I have been painting & drawing realistic & contemporary works for nearly 50 years. I love to make marks, study art history, go to art shows. I teach adults & children. It is wonderful to see them learn to unleash their inate creativity. Art can also be a way of healing their human spirits crushed by the mundanity of everyday life. Although this is all very edifying, I too have always thought there must be a way to make meaningful artworks like those of Daumier or Goya, that could make people wake up to themselves & live more purposeful lives. I understand that the reason most people who love to produce art, & let's face it , it is addictive, don't do satire or what ever you like to call it, is because they don't wish to get crucified! It's much safer to paint pretty landscapes. People love them & they buy them & you can make a nice living or hobby out of it. Or paint outrageous abstracts - they can look good on a wall, make great esoteric conversation pieces. But deep, sometimes buried too deep, in the heart & soul of every artist, is that yearning to do something meaningful. Paint the key that will unlock the door to paradise for all humanity. Is it possible?
on Friday, February 6th, Nancy Sasser said
Words, words, words! Let's stop all the talking and starting doing! Those after will be our judges...that's their job. Time will judge. If you feel it, paint it, sculpt it! But.golly,get out of your head and into your heart. Put those feelings out there and let what comes come. Just keep working. What's to fear? Terrific to have great intellect if it doesn't block your journey.
on Thursday, February 5th, Heather said
I normally never read the blogs attached, but this one caught my eye. You made some very valid points that I think no one really wants to discuss and why? Because the world is currently in crisis. Unlike the middle ages, there are many distractions that the corporations have convinced us that we need to survive. If you don't consume, well that's it, we're all doomed. To be clear, there is a difference between being a useful human being and a mindless consumer. It's simply easier to go out and buy a 1500.00 bag, then it is a work of Art that provokes "presence". A good example are the photos of the Great Depression. Now, there was a time period when everyone was forced to either be an active participant, or die. So, just picture your standard spoiled American housewife. Maybe her husband has lost a few stocks, and they had to sell one of their luxury cars; but they are not suffering in the slightest. Meanwhile, a young artist has created a series of paintings on the concept of families losing their homes. And the artist sells to regulars, but never does that housewife even enter the gallery. The thought of perhaps one day being homeless never crosses her mind. And this is the real problem that I think you pointed out. No longer are Artists viewed as a voice for the people. Instead we are seen as lazy, distracted, useless idiots who could have been stock brokers. Why has this happened? We've done it ourselves. We all love art for art's sake, but hard times like these demand something more.
on Thursday, February 5th, findigart said
Hey there Mark,
I guess it was interesting enough for you to put up the effort and energy to write this comment :-)
Doing something should always be for the sake of doing that something - intent and awareness are the guiding lights and purpose is the natural outcome.
God does nothing in vain but nothing in purpose.
on Thursday, February 5th, Mark said
The age old argument. YAWN! Will it ever end as we rail against those things that happen without anyone asking us? Art for art's sake, art for use, art for meaning or no meaning. Don't paint, make a chair, at least someone can sit on it. AH, but what does the chair realy mean? Interesting blog, maybe, or was it written to just write? Hmmmmmmm!
