THE ZEN OF GIVING UP SOMEWHAT GRACEFULLY

Antoni Tàpies: Hieratical, 1990

I spent a couple of days looking at commissions for disabled artists but I had to concede it's all out of reach and that I am not cut out for any of it. Of course one would like to make a difference, but one can really only do that through art by participating in society and making socially relevant work that gets seen by a lot of people. One has to be one of those people who are able to conform to the expectations people now have on contemporary art. I don't feel that any of it is wrong, it's just the way it is. As a contemporary artist you're just another cog in the great big social wheel, you are doing a job and you get paid through commissions and grants to respond to people's needs. Gone are the days when people just made art and would pride themselves that it wasn't their job to explain it to anyone! It also seems to me that the value of expressive gesture, i.e. making a mark with pen or brush and putting one's signature on a surface, has been reduced because of the prevalence of mind centred (and often very narcissistic) art.

Of course people who are able to engage in this kind of socially encouraged art practice sometimes do make meaningful work that make us think about ourselves from a new angle. I should sit back and enjoy what other people do instead of allowing myself to be so frustrated about my own lack of opportunities (to the extent that I can afford it, of course). I do feel segregated because I can't even begin to explore such possibilities. Chronic illness sets you apart from other people who may have physical and mental obstacles but don't suffer from a lack of energy. I am unable to work and thus naturally also unable to sustain focus and energy in order to apply for the big money, let alone execute the work in accordance with the expectations on a job well done. Since I can't do this in the first instance I can't build a track record that would make it easier to carry on pursuing a career. So I think it's best to realise that this is not part of my reality, even if it reduces my practice to a mere hobby. Conceptual art is not something I ever envisaged in the first place, and though it's possible to become passionate about new things in life, I think the fundaments of your psychological make up is often evident from an early stage in life. It's not that I am devoid of ideas, it's that I keep asking myself why I would want to bother. Some different way of expressing my creativity might be possible, though. It may not even be through art, as scary as that is to someone who feels it's their only way of self expression. I'd like to think that the crisis I've been ploughing through for a while now will lead to a new realisation and so the act of giving up is more a case of letting go of the old self and old fixations.

Antoni Tàpies: Large Grey Painting No III, 1955

Antoni Tàpies: Grey Relief in Four Parts, 1963

Antoni Tàpies: Double Beige Door, 1960

Antoni Tàpies: Matter in the Form of an Armpit, 1968

Antoni Tàpies: Red and Black, 1981

I came across the artist Catalan artist Antoni Tàpies (1923-2012) while studying art in Perpignan in 1991, but never actually looked into his work (a lack of internet made it so much more difficult in those days). I felt somewhat interested in the colour and texture of the work I saw then, but then forgot all about it. A friend reminded me of him recently and that prompted me to look up the work on the internet. I was really blown away. It was far more intricate and beautiful than I had imagined. Martin then got a couple of books out for me from the University library. As I worked my way through them I felt that the ideas I've had for abstract work based on texture aren't worth pursuing because he did it all so much better than I ever could. It's in fact too similar to what I had in mind - only better, since my ability to be spontaneous is quite limited (not least due to a lack of energy and work space).

I feel such deep kinship with the mysterious and tactile aspects of his work - to me his evocation of the material is deeply mystical, emotionally intelligent and very sensual, with an aesthetics that speak of the barely contained chaotic nature of matter and its rough naturalness. To me, matter is inherently spiritual. He was initially inspired by the Surrealists, read the authors I also enjoyed when I was younger, and was interested in Eastern philosophies. The ideas that void is an ontological fact and that all aspects of reality are equal, are pillar stones of his world view. He seemed to have wanted to convey a sense of Zen, that is "shock and contemplation". The values of Taoism and Zen come through very strongly in this work, in containing meditative and expressive gestures, a colour scheme that encourages contemplation, a pronounced equality between all aspects of reality, and a profound communion with organic matter. These are semi-abstract matter paintings with an autonomous presence as Shamanic things in themselves rather than windows onto a different reality. They are infused with traces of human emotions, and therefore never detached from subjective reality and human universalities. Interestingly, my feeling of resonance with this work was there before I was made aware of the Eastern link.

Tàpies' art would escape geometry - albeit retaining some of its fundamental forms - in order to explore the world of organic life, the 'amorphous', ambiguous and unfinished, the expressiveness of pure gesture inspired by Chinese and Japanese traditions. (Jean-Luc Chalumeau: Tàpies)

Antoni Tàpies: Montesy - Montenegre (Detail), 1988

Antoni Tàpies: Breathing In, Breathing Out, 1991

Antoni Tàpies: Matter Spiral (Detail), 1991

Tàpies was clearly able to ride on the wave of art trends in order to synthesise an approach that was deeply personal and esoteric in a way that is rarely seen in modern art. When this kind of connection with contemporary currents doesn't occur, an artist will find themselves in a difficult position that ultimately leads to serious questions about the validity of their practice. Such resonance with surrounding currents has at times been there in my own life, but not in any big way. Perhaps things would be a bit different if I felt more confident in pursuing fine art as a career. Passion is a sign of the prevalence of a true life path, and when that motivation is somewhat tattered you feel that this particular path of destiny is called into question. Too many concerns are distracting me and keeping me from feeling a really deep sense of artistic purpose.

The strange thing is that my abstract photography series "Traces" is so evocative of Tàpies's work, and that I had explained the experience of the video work based on the photos as a form of Asian koan. In 2013 I wrote:

The viewer is also encouraged to contemplate the way we inadvertently leave our personal marks on the many layers that constitute our reality - some of our marks get erased as new people leave theirs. The enigmatic contents with its Cyrillic lettering and random numbers can serve to disrupt “functional fixedness”, breaking old cognitive patterns and helping the brain make new connections. Inspiration has been derived from the ancient Japanese tradition of the koan, a story or statement that is ultimately absurd, offered to Buddhist disciples as a way of breaking out of mental ruts, to drop their rational minds and become susceptible to the greater mystery of life and question the rationale behind the frantic process of dashing about the planet in a state of semi-functionality.

My photographs with their highly gestural and coded content bear an almost uncanny resemblance to his work in general. Even the frequent occurrence of letters like "X" and "T" evoke Tàpies' work.  If I had some money I'd buy a new camera and set out to collect some more. You have to realise that once you decide not to go down the path of conceptual art, no one will pay you to buy materials and equipment and just make some art.

I rewrote a statement today:

“Traces” is a photography project already comprising over 150 images that brings to view the marks that people have made while simply doing their job. The source of these mysterious surfaces that have been repurposed time and time again are old dilapidated goods wagons from Russia. Successive layers of paint, repeatedly stencilled or painted signs and lettering, as well as the corrosion, express the convergence of cultures and efforts to communicate within a professional, and thus exclusive, framework. These real life happenings caught on camera chime in with the instinctive and highly tactile work of Antoni Tapies. They evoke an equal sense of the mysterious communion with the material and intrinsically imperfect aspects of life, as well as codes passed on from person to person The impression of the passing of time becomes evident through the layers of paints and marks. While the workmen who have given rise to the imagery had no artistic intention and tend to be invisible to most passers by, it is the photographer’s eye that has recognised the artistic quality and aesthetic value of these markings. One person’s gesture has thus become another person’s art.

Having now processed Tàpies' life and work for a while and thought about my own inclinations and limited ability to create conceptual art, I just might go ahead and do something handmade in 2D after all, especially as my health has lately improved a bit. On a good day I might find the energy for this kind of work. After all, texture is what I really love (something I also wrote about in my post about William Kentridge). Never mind that it stays flat. In any case I do feel I'm in the process of breaking away from old cognitive patterns...

From the series "Traces" (Vivi-Mari Carpelan 2012, the year Antoni Tàpies died):

You can view more of this work on my website.

Antoni Tapies' lithograph

A few more of Antoni Tàpies' art works:

Antoni Tàpies: Ocher and Pink Relief, 1965

Antoni Tàpies: Rags and Strings on Wood, 1967

Antoni Tàpies: Scribbles and Varnish, 1987

Antoni Tàpies: The Catalan Spirit, 1971

Antoni Tapies: Speak, Speak, 1991


Vivi-Mari Carpelan: Helsinki 4, 2012 (Digital photograph)

THE EMOTIONALLY VAPID STATE OF THE CONTEMPORARY ART WORLD

Selfie in Aberystwyth - Martin is now enrolled in the art school and 
has been allocated a studio in the beautiful building in the middle.

I have been thinking about the meaning of contemporary art and my relationship to it. My thoughts aren't complete but I'll present a few anyway as it all reflects my desire to find a new way and a new niche. Finding one's niche is of course essential to one's mental health, and finding oneself in some kind of state of transition and change in this respect can be hard. I feel a need to transition but uncertainty of the way to go and whether things will work out in the end is quite wearing. I don't feel very confident I'll find a niche again. It frankly makes me quite anxious and a little manic. 

If you look at the evolution of consciousness, it's only natural that the most progressive art of today should be conceptual. Concepts are of the mind and preoccupation with the mind and its contents marks society today. Emotions are often set aside in favour of rational analysis. It's of course simplistic and shallow way of dealing with reality, and tends to fall short in the face of the real on goings of human life.

I find conceptual art quite tantalising because it is of this moment in time and a mirror of society, but also quite frustrating because of its general lack of emotional input (it's not a rule of thumb but in my opinion a frequent occurrence) and because it indirectly says a lot about negative values in today's world. The problem with lack of emotional input is sometimes corrected within the framework of performance art, which normally uses the body to convey messages, but it's also an art form I rarely have a chance to witness.

Conceptual art often takes the form of installations and usually employs a philosophical approach that tends towards an objective and intellectual stance. It's a cerebral rather than an emotional process. Emotions are usually commented on indirectly through intellectual analysis. In fact, most things are commented on indirectly, which is why it takes a while to work out what it's all about. That's why this kind of art can be intriguing, but often fails to touch people on a deeper and more instinctual level. In other words, it's not intrinsically emotional but rather points to events and situations while saying they are a reason for emotional reactions. I do find the concept of intellectualism disguised as art quite scary and can see how it is becoming the new conventional. I've no doubt emotionalism is considered somewhat passé by many. I'd argue it's time for a higher level of emotional intelligence, a more synthetic approach than what we've seen before. People on a specific evolutionary level won't be able to recognise it as valuable because it's of a higher order than they are capable of comprehending, but I realise this viewpoint isn't well understood by the general population and won't go into it here.

I'm not saying contemporary artistic comments are useless, as I'm sure every comment ever made about life and reality contributes like a shallow stream to a much deeper river, but unfortunately it's still often just poor philosophy that leaves you feeling a bit indifferent (though I'm sure it depends on your own level of consciousness). It's a strange phenomenon that people with no education in certain scientific areas such as philosophy, political sciences, social sciences and so on, feel they can make art about questions that belong to these fields of expertise. I have seen some ridiculous info graphics in books about contemporary art, they are just graphic tables illustrating phenomena without any artistic input whatsoever. And when Jeremy Deller re-enacted a miner's strike - well, where's the art, where is his personality and artistery? It seems more like a social study. Worse still, intellectualism tends to represent a fragmented view of reality, one that doesn't reference the wider context or even take the whole into consideration. You can't take the whole into consideration if you don't have a complete and solid worldview. This is very typical of Western society of today. It's why, when I went to University, I found most modern Western philosophy very boring. It's often bitty, exclusive and pedantic, and often seems a bit trivial in the grand scope of things because of its failure to touch on a human level.

Every day, /.../, people rely on the cognitive clutter in their minds—whether it’s an ideological reflex, a misapplied theory, or a cradle-born intuition—to answer technical, political, and social questions they have little or no direct expertise in. (David Dunning: We are All Confident Idiots)

There's always talk about art pushing boundaries. While it's true that it's the hallmark of some contemporary art, I wouldn't consider this its primary function. Pushing boundaries so easily becomes an end in itself, missing the actual point about communication and sharing. Take for instance the recent winner of the Jerwood drawing price. It's a sound piece! This is by no means the worst example of the breeding process of the fine arts, but it's an illustrative one.

This sound piece by Alison Carlier describes the act of looking at an object while drawing it. Sure it's a clever idea, but it's also somewhat ridiculous. I mean, what's the point? There's a kind of modern day flatland where everything has to be made equal, which I think leads to a tendency to obliterate qualitative distinction between different disciplines. I believe that the modern day idea that "diversity" should be respected often ends up meaning that everything has to be the same. It's one thing to cross boundaries and let disciplines interact, it's quite another to mix it all up in some kind of mash up where things are no longer respected for their intrinsic uniqueness. I know it may sound stuffy, but I do think this is sometimes a real concern. It's basically saying that one discipline can be substituted for another. I have mentioned this problem before in the context of sound art, where very often people are trying to equate an image with sounds, such as a particular colour with certain notes.

There's a real danger that art becomes just another arena that reflects the dry world of Western scientific discourse, that is, cold and often very contrived objectivity using quantitative rather than qualitative research, where data are always seen from a very reductionist black and white "either-or" perspective. All this is well illustrated on the funding scene, where it's all about ticking as many boxes and getting as many bums on seats as humanly (or non-humanly) possible.

All this flatness seems further enhanced in the way you're supposed to present yourself on your artist's website. Aloof, lofty, minimal and cryptic - I still find it hard to find my way on these websites and often end up missing the real work - if there is any at display, that is. There is a clear trend that prominent art must only be shown in approved spaces and the idea that all and sundry could access the work in some way is horrifying to the elite. The contemporary artist's website is clearly geared towards galleries, rather than being a source of enjoyment and exploration for the lay person. And moreover - it all makes me feel increasingly embarrassed about who I am, because I'm unable to be  like that. I just wish conforming was easier...

Of course how these issues come across depends on the context. In the case above we're talking about a drawing contest that people enter with the understanding of what the official definition of drawing is: "The art of representing objects or forms on a surface chiefly by means of lines" (The Free Dictionary). While there is nothing to stop people from taking this definition further within the framework of their own practice, I do think that allowing for a medium that has nothing to do with surfaces and the physical world is very unfair in the context of a drawing contest. While challenging people's collective assumptions is fine as art, it's not fine as an unspoken framework for an exhibition entitled "drawing contest". I have heard that it's common practice within competitions to focus awards on only certain categories of work - it means everyone else misses a chance that specific year. I don't find this very appealing. It's like pulling the carpet from underneath people's feet.

The sound piece was obviously chosen because it was breaking boundaries and therefore considered innovative, however that's quite a contrived reason that presumably has little to do with the actual quality of the work. It's clearly an intellectual decision rather than an emotional one. I'm sure it has its place in the grand scheme of things but it only goes to show just how far from emotional truths that contemporary art has strayed. The real point sort of eludes me.

More interesting than pushing boundaries between disciplines I find the act of asking questions and probing our emotional selves and challenging functional fixedness (habitual thinking). Still, having grumped about contemporary art, I do also in some ways find it all a bit liberating, and even in some ways quite attractive. Even though I may not feel comfortable in the elitist art world, at least there are new ideas and perspectives about. At best these new currents arouse our curisosity and challenge our habitual mental patterns and ideas of what constitutes an artistic exposé. They can bring together many disciplines and aesthetic expressions under one roof, instigate dialogue and discussions and gradually enter ordinary people's consciousness from all sorts of directions. In spite of a tendency towards exclusivism, I see art in all its myriads of forms as becoming a more integral part of society rather than less. It's all rather exciting, but the worrying trend is that as there is lots of it, most of it isn't going to be very good.

The art market is really like an enormous big supermarket of consumer goods, that come in and go out in rapid succession. I get the sense that people hardly ever stop to really ponder a piece of contemporary art, it's rapid consumption. It means the message has to be easy to take in. I find this trend very worrying, but the upside is that art is probably becoming much more of a part of ordinary people's lives. Also think about how difficult it was for avant garde artists of the past to get their work accepted - only the initiated would "get it", and the mainstream would follow suit a lot later. Now it seems art authorities are desperate to be on the beat, the initiated member of an exclusive club who have complete control over the very newest in the arts. I think this desperation to be the first to recognise the latest and best can lead to a lack of sound judgment and a heck of a lot of "noise". After all, only some time and perspective can give us clues about the real value of trends, and not everyone can always be in the right. There are also an awful lot of copycats who have discovered what the trends are, as for instance in the present case of small blobby abstract paintings in muddy colours that you find in every contemporary open at the moment. Thanks to the internet, it's quite easy to stay in tune with the fashions.

This is how it is, in the art world today. If you want to make it and get funding, you should have lots of energy to create a performance or installation, and to engage with the general public and make them feel they are contributing to the piece in some way or another. It needs to be socially relevant in some way. You should also be able to handle many media and create it all on a large scale. Being young or an emerging artist is a bonus. The following is an example of a typical call out for artists - as usual, you have to be extremely extroverted.

Exhibition proposals are invited from self-defined practitioners at all stages of their careers with new single works or collections in any medium, including participatory or performative works, to test in the public domain. We are looking for evidence of experimentation and ideas that push the boundaries of contemporary practice, and a commitment to artistic and critical enquiry. Practitioners should suggest how the exhibition would benefit both their own practice, students’ research, and the wider public, indicating how the opportunity would be maximised and whether further developments may be anticipated. (Hardwick Gallery)

I found this description of a recent installation and thought it somewhat amusing, as it really seems to tick most of the boxes of what contemporary art should look like. Multidisciplinary using film, sound, physical objects and strange constructions, the play of light - and there's even a glance at a disability! And a title that doesn't mean too much. Perfect! Which is not to say it isn't any good of course - I think it looks arresting enough.

As part of this year’s Outcasting: Fourth Wall artist moving image festival, Richard Bowers was commissioned to make a new installation piece that combines complex film and sonic techniques. Drums suspended from wooden branches on the ceiling and on a wooden structure are rigged with lights and play/light up in response to events on screen. The film itself blends a background from a classic film, with action slowed down and overlaid with hand gestures (a combination of British Sign Language, piano fingering and dance gesture). As the hand moves gesturally the drums/lights are activated throughout the space. (CCQ magazine)

I have to admit that I find currents that are stuck in modernist art (the first half of the 20th Century) very tedious. An expressionist artist who paints dark Kyffinesque paintings of landscapes, seascapes and still lives has won the MoMa Wales Open twice! It's as though the gap between traditionalist 2D work and conceptual art in the form of performance, moving imagery and installation is just widening, like the gap between rich and poor. What I find so difficult about today's world is the incessant tension between opposites - for instance, this is a country with a terrible power battle between two opposite political views with insufficient balancing forces in the middle. Perhaps this is reflected in the arts, which seems to favour one or the other ends of an extreme spectrum (raw art being very introverted and conceptual art being very extroverted). Dual thinking is how our brains operate - we can only liberate our attitudes by challenging this habitual tendency to put opposite forces against each other. To me, the only way of changing anything in a fundamental way is to realise that we're dealing with paradoxes, i.e that the oppositions are equally valid and fundamentally illusory. 

I wish to approach the contemporary art scene through my own work at least in some way or another, albeit without losing track of who I really am. I feel real pressure to conform, to be as lofty and conceptual as everyone else. Because if I'm not, then on what rubbish heap will I end up again? It's all reflected in an identity crisis of sorts. So I'm going through this process of trying to figure out ways of expressing something essential without falling into on the one hand the trap of ingratiating triviality and on the other the trap of exclusive intellectualism. I want to steer away from representational art without completely losing touch with it. I doubt whether I could express emotional truths in a satisfactory way using only an abstract pictorial language. It's no doubt as easy to fall into pictorial cliches while using abstract forms and colours as it is using figurative imagery. I'm no doubt looking for some kind of synthesis of different approaches. There must be a way that makes emotional sense. A way that doesn't comply with a need to be extremely extroverted and socially engaged.

I want to minimise the role of figures or landscapes as I mostly find them quite trite. Of course these are the highways to a person's emotional brain but I feel they reinforce habitual perception and are therefore ones that can prevent us from seeing other aspects of reality from a more emotional point of view. I'm also tired of 2D but I guess one is stuck with it while unable to do performances or unwilling to start creating installations (both of which consume masses of energy some of us don't have). In the meantime I'm playing around with my new smartphone (as I finally decided they are good enough and updated to the modern age) -  exploring shapes, texture composition and atmosphere through snapshots and interesting filters. It is such fun, which I guess begs the question why real art is usually not a lot of fun. There is too much pressure to conform and to impress through cleverness.

The Artist

I did finally manage to finish a project using my latest soundscape "A Long Way to Heaven". More about that in my next post. Last week we saw an exhibition with sculptures by Tim Shaw (RA) . I was hoping it would prove a bit more emotionally satisfactory, and it did. I enjoyed his expressive red figures at the RA Summer Exhibition which I had a chance to see this year (albeit unimpressed by the standard of the work from the public). The work is of course representational, but the expressive materials used make it all out of whack in a good way. And of course, he is conveying relevant messages in a sincere and direct way.

Tim Shaw: Casting a Dark Democracy

THE TRAP OF TRYING TO PLEASE "ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE"

Photograph by Vivi-Mari Carpelan

Most of the time I have pretty extreme doubts about my art, and it hampers me a lot. What I try and do artistically is of such great importance to me, I just cannot take it lightly. Because of chronic illness it's the only thing I'm able to do in order to feel accomplished. It is in this respect my day job (I spend an average of five hours a day on creating,  still I feel it's taking way too long to "get anywhere"). I also feel very driven to make a difference. Some money out of it all would of course be welcome, but I can just barely survive without it, and so don't make it into a priority. Life is stressful enough as it is.

However, I don't have a degree in fine arts and my line of thoughts and feelings run counter to those of the average art world. The blankness, rejection and general lack of encouragement is deadening to say the least. There was a time when I was successful with the general public, but times have changed. Today, there are more artists who compete for attention. My own art has changed and may not be as easy to take in as it was twenty years ago. People's habits in regards to consumption have changed. The internet has changed the way we view art because there's so much of it readily at hand, and information about exhibitions is also easily available. There's simply too much choice, people get overwhelmed. The collective consciousness is even more ridden with urgent challenges, and we are made increasingly aware of various forms of threat through an increasing variety of sources - art is seldom seen as a necessity in times of great upheaval. However, it's also in times of great upheaval that great art is often made, but the artist's contemporaries will no doubt find it difficult to distinguish greatness from the ordinary. It may take some perspective to perceive that which is truly meaningful and significant to the overall collective mind, and it's perfectly possible that no one will.

When I arrived in the UK and took up art again I soon realised just how competitive the art world has become. All bigger open exhibitions are connected to awards, and if you don't win them you're not considered a good artist. However, you probably won't win any awards unless you have a degree in fine arts. As an artist, you end up depending more and more on other people's opinion and criteria, and it can affect the way you make art. This will result in more mediocre art. What I see is that a lot of contemporary artists are not intuitive and true to their souls, but people pleasing and calculating. That's why so much contemporary art is so crap. For instance, everyone knows that art with a social message is more highly regarded than say expressive emotionalism, so young artists try and bend their minds towards a strategy of socially engaged conceptualism that satisfies the art world. Art with a social message is only good art if it comes from a deep place. But of course commercial art that is purely decorative is just as bad. Most people (i.e. the average person) are complying with rules and regulations, thus supplying more mediocre art to a world that is replete with blandness.

The lack of support and encouragement threatens to kill my spirit. I may not be making great art, and it certainly isn't always good... However, you would think that people had a heart and remembered the moral of smiling at least once a day at the person at the cashpoint or a random person at the bus stop. Make their day! Well, artists also need a "smile" to keep going. Be a good human being by being generous and kind to those who are struggling to do what they are destined to do, regardless whether they are making a huge contribution to society or not. Support will help them get better at what they are doing, and it's potentially for other people's benefit too. No one is an island.

If I ceased trying to get my art out there to the attention of the general public and art authorities, and focused on being creative on my own terms instead, I might get some kind of peace of mind. However it would also damage my desire to communicate and certainly ruin every chance of ever "making it" while still alive. Seriously - I'm in two minds about this. I'm driven to communicate so withdrawal doesn't seem to be the answer. No one likes rejection and some of us are more prone to suffering from it. It can hamper you so badly, that you just give up. You don't know for sure if you're making good art or not because you're not getting much validation, and it could mean the end of a really promising path (I rather say "path" than career). After all, a lot of writers and artists have struggled for quite a bit before making it. Often they had very little support until they were suddenly discovered by an authority who resonated with their work. 

There was a recent TED talk with Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of "Eat, Pray, Love" who struggled with rejection for years until she made it. However, in this case we seem to be talking about stuff that's fairly commercial - I don't know about the book, but I saw the movie and it's pretty cheesy. I know that in the end it doesn't matter what you do as long as you do it creatively and with integrity. It really doesn't matter what you do, because there should be room for everyone in our world (that's what true diversity should be all about). However, if you're not looking for commercial success you may end up lacking in some drive. After all, who are you supposed to communicate with? What does success look like to you? It can be hard to imagine if you remove the rather straightforward commercial aspect, and so you may end up feeling pretty scatty and unfocused. You might have to think consciously about how you can bring yourself back to your own inner centre. Even when you are doing what you love, it's never an easy ride and a lot of the work you have to do is tedious and uninspiring. It's a little bit of inspiration and flow, and a lot of hard work. To remain in touch with your soul throughout all this is definitely not easy. 

Every once and again I cry for a day and then pick up again when I got the sadness and frustration out of my system. I lick my wounds and consider that people might just be too stupid to get me (I know you shouldn't, but... I'm only human). I think of ways in which I can minimise exposure to disappointments, including trying too hard to get noticed. Trying too hard to gain attention is not a natural and fluent way of existing. I remind myself of the Taoist ideas about going with the flow along the lines of the least resistance. Take the watercourse way. Nowadays I also meditate at least once a day (three times would be better). Though it's sometimes a fruitless pursuit, it seems to be the only way in our chaotic world that one can regain some inner balance and poise. My husband then reminds me that my job is to make art for the future. It may not please society we know today, but it just might point the way in some way... I guess what I really want is to help people reflect upon the great pathologies within the collective psyche, and trying to be different is to go against my deepest concern, and it's a spiritual one which I'm well aware doesn't sit well in postmodernist society. I'm neither particularly clever nor geeky. Perhaps one day it will be appreciated in spite of all its shortcomings. 

This blog post was inspired by another one from "For the Creators".

THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN... SOME CONTEMPORARY ART ON THE SCALE

Mostyn Oriel (Gallery) is situated in an old Victorian Art Gallery with some added modern bit sinside

I am soon done working on another collage, it was a tricky one to put together. This morning when I was trying to sleep I had some idea about a short multimedia project about insomnia. How could I make it express it without being too literal? I have some initial thoughts and will get down it soon. The two other more extensive projects (including creating the complete Traces) are going to have to wait. It occured to me, however, that I haven't posted the trailer for Traces yet so I will do in a separate post.

About a week ago we went to the North of Wales to pick up the second hand printer my husband bought on Ebay with the money we raised through the crowd funding project. It was a sunny day, and a lovely couple. We had picnic on the beach, then saw Llandudno, which is beautiful and quite sparkly summer resort. We also managed to get to Portmeirion, which really captured my imagination, so I will create separate article with photos from this magical place.

Mostyn Gallery is situated in Llandudno so we had a little look at it as we'd not seen it before and it's fairly prestigious, at least by Welsh standards. It's quite heavily into conceptual art. There was a show about interactive art, called YOU. Now some of the pieces, such as the typewriters that were set to create different patterns that the audience could control in order to create different kinds of images was quite cool. Interestingly, nobody had done anything to the paper itself. At the really bad end was a teleoscope that shows reality upside down. Apparently by looking into it, it will challenge your view of the world and blahblablah... thumbs down! 

Another piece I thought interesting but not necessarily in a good way was a large floorspace filled with candy. Apparently the weight of the candy corresponded with the weight of the artist's wife, who had been wasting away with cancer. The audience was invited to (morbidly?) eat the candy and it would thus symbolize the loss of her weight. To me, the idea was as far fetched as you can possible get. Candy - a human body? If anything, this contrived correspondance devalues the human body in question. I also feel uncomfortable because to me it sounds like emotional blackmail. In other words, you feel almost obliged to give thumbs up for the work because it's about a dying person who's now dead. I honestly can't think of anything less pretentious. Afterwards, when Martin and I discussed it, he said he really regrets he didn't mess up the place a bit and step on all the candy, because after all, you were invited to interact! We agreed that some artists would have welcomed this and others would have been horrified that their carefully dictated form of interaction wasn't respected (so how honest is the piece if it's very strictly monitored?). Of course, art should ask questions, and the discussion we had bares proof of that, but it still doesn't mean it was any good.

Another thing I've noticed when approaching conceptual art is that there's a vast amount of text telling you what you're supposed to understand, written by a curator. They write it so it sounds as if you should really already have understood it and they are just clarifying it for you. But without this explanation the audience would understand very little. So it all becomes strangely circular and maybe, just maybe, it's the explanation that is the art?

Nowadays I'm curious about conceptual art but I find it sad that so many authorities within the arts still value this type of art higher than other forms of art that are more directly expressive of feelings and experiences. Not only is the artist often in a highly analytical frame of mind when he's constructing his piece, but even if it's just created intuitively, by the time it reaches the judges it turns into this object that has to be approached analytically in order to be either approved or disapproved of. 

Another exhitbition I meant to write about was a collection of collages from the Arts Council, but it's long gone and I wasn't immensely impressed. One that stayed in my mind, however, was a piece by Chris Ofili. It's a lovely and colourful collage except he's stuck elephant dung on them to support some ideas about national identity. But... it's dung. Honestly, it would be quite a beautiful piece (not by far one of his best though) if it wasn't for the dung, which no only is not aestethic in the context of the rest of the collage but only says very little. The "shock" isn't doing anything for me. I'm not sure the juxtaposition works from any point of view. I think it's a good thing to be experimental with "combines" (this term derives from Rauschenberg). Still. I think in fact the artist was noted for his beautiful images inspite of the dung, but still... Call me conventional but for me it's thumbs up for the fantastic collages but thumbs down for the addition of dung.

Detail of Chris Ofili "Holy Mary" 1996 - a controversial piece

Read my blog post 'Is Conceptual Art Just Bad Philosphy'

Rauschenberg: "Canyon", 1959.
Rauschenberg's collages made of stuff from the streets hold a strange appeal to me.

SOME ALTERNATIVE ART IN TIMES OF DECADENCE AND EXTREMES... MAYBE

Vivi-Mari Carpelan: "The Heart's Desire", copyright 2000
I believe our hearts may look something like this.
This was just before muscle spasms made it difficult for me to draw.

I decided not to add to my previous blog post, which is about a specific problem, but write a few words as a follow up. There's a discussion on LinkedIn in response to the article I posted her on my blog at the very end of the last article, but I don't find the viewpoints very clear. One thing seems quite obvious, though, and it's the fact that the big money making names in the art world are domineering the art scene, but also what is being taught in the art schools. You may recall my post about the exhibition I visited in Cardiff - it looked like a graduate show made up of ideas from a text book about conceptual art, and it was very clearly young and immature. There are alternative artists out there, but they don't get very much support as far as I can see. For instance as Martin has been looking for funding, he has found very little that addresses the needs of the individual artist. The funders, especially the Arts Council, are often more interested in supporting events that bring in large audiences so they can count the number of seats that were occupied. The other problem is very obvious; if you do work in 2D you're "passe". This is ridiculous, since human beings will never stop putting their thoughts and feelings onto a flat surface.

Michael Schwartz is a distinguished art critic in the USA who has abandoned the usual contemporary art scene in favour of a more spiritual and uplifting kind of art. I had the honour of having my art seen and written about by him when I was accepted into the integral art gallery at intergrallife.com.  Here is a video in which he explains "what is so special about integral art". I don't find it very comprehensive but if you're interested you can look up a lot of articles and talks on the site (some of which you have to be a member to see). The art galleries are all available to the public and you'll find that the artists are often very articulate and obviously highly intelligent beings. Although I keep these aspirations and attempts to promote a new kind of art in very high regard, I do sometimes wonder if it's still a bit limiting. These people obviously shun art that only reinforces all that is sick in society. However, they are also adamant about the presence of the "shadow", that darker side of all of us that needs to come into the open so that we can evolve as spiritual beings. What concerns me is that art such as my Project X would not go down well with the integral community because it might be seen as negative. My object is not to dwell on negativity but to inform an audience about the existence of certain problems within society. These problems need addressing very urgently.

I have digitally remastered photos of some of the art I did back in the 1990s. Back then, I was consumed by my research into spiritual matters and Eastern philosophies in particular, but it's also true that there is always a tension in all of my art between what I believe life to be in a deeper sense and the situation I find myself in this particular body, in this particular reality. This tension may be part of the reason why people wanted to buy my art back in the 1990s in Finland. At some point I felt that I had come to the end of my mission to talk so explicitly about what we can be and I thus started to look for an alternative. It took me a good ten years to specify what I felt I had to do. While my disability or issues of marginalization in general were at the back of my art in the 1990s and my spiritual world view was at the forefront, the concerns are now turned around so that invisible illness and similar issues are at the forefront and my spiritual world view is at the back of it all. I feel no urgency to talk about my world view with anyone and therefore I know that it's not my job to do so. 

Michael did say to me that it's not very common for artists to be able to talk about their own art, and that he found me unusually articulate. I enjoyed his interpretation of my art but I'm not sure I want it to be as much about memory as he suggested. I have to say that I often find myself lacking in words and less articulate than I used to (considering I'm a very literal person and sometimes behave in a straightforward, incredulous manner almost as if I had Asperger's syndrome like Saga Noren in "The Bridge"!). Perhaps it's a good thing, perhaps we should not always be able to pick our art apart. After all, a picture or other visual experience is supposed to say more than words can describe. However I was reminded that the bad philosophy I was talking about in my previous blog post also is a problem because artists are being pushed to being verbal and while I personally like a bit of explanation, it's possible to explain art to death. 

I think the pendulum has swung far into two extremes as we now find a contemporary art that is fragmented, contrived and shallow while mirroring only the worst aspects of society (both in terms of context and the way it's being treated by the "authorities"), and a spiritual art that is all about subtle and causal energies and Eastern deities, or the tree of life. While the latter can be elevating, it often lacks a direct connection to mundane life as we know it, and therefore I don't really see how it can make a difference to the layman. I say let's find a golden middle path. This has always been my ambition, no matter what I do. I also believe that the pendulum of human evolution eventually finds the middle. This is a Hegelian concept that I fully believe in - thesis/antithesis>synthesis are an inextricable part of the evolution of consciousness). All art forms and expressions must eventually be found equal, this I believe to be one aspect of the golden middle path. Another thing is, the idea is not to make everything the same shade of grey, but to appreciate diversity. As for contents and meaning, I do feel that art should be constructive and helpful, rather than just depressing and the perpetuating of negative myths or behavioural patterns. I personally believe there is a compromise to be found, one where art can point towards anomalies but also inspire (I'm trying to achieve this myself). But before that we will see a lot of extremes and finding the balance might take a bit of time. One of the extremes we will see a lot of these days is decadent art that copies other artists and art that has been before (the robotic artists in China being a great case in point, but that's the extreme of the extremes). As I found in an investigating documentary I watched the other day, this is the era of an extreme indulgence in the copying of things we have already seen and experienced before, as if that brings human some comfort in a disconcerting world.

AP

China's Art Factories

Here is the art of the past that I have edited so far. The text is from an artist's talk I'm doing soon for the Disability Arts Cymru. I think it's alternative art, at least it's art about the human psyche that the authorities never cared much about and I soon learnt to keep away from them.

"The Realm of Water - Level I" 2002 mixed media collage, sold
This piece is about the subconscious mind

In “The Chrysalis” (mixed media drawing) 1998), there is the idea of the possibility of slowly coming to life while on the other hand feeling boxed in by the limitations that my condition was imposing on my life. The figure is waiting for change. Tension, stress, tiredness and pain were all part of my daily life while I was struggling to keep up with everyone else. 

In “The Sacrifice” (mixed media drawing 2002) you can see that while I believe there is something greater behind us, so to speak, I also felt that the acquisition of a greater understanding of life was a kind of sacrifice. It was like Eve eating the fruit of knowledge, yet it was necessary as ignorance was not a choice. I was tied to the Earth, and I had to let go of any resistance towards life. In fact a greater acceptance of my situation helped me overcome some of my physical and emotional problems. It seemed increasingly important to focus on the issues here and now, in this reality.

"Those Who Wait Will Be Rewarded", (mixed media drawing 1999). One of the most important ideas was however that reality is fundamentally a paradox. In this picture, two realities are intertwined. There is one in which the communication between humans is difficult, there is a block of ice between them and the atmosphere is cold. The other is warm and sensuous, symbolized by a cat and a tree of life with roots deep into the ground. In other words, there are always two sides of the coin, but it's the same coin. In a deeper sense, life is not divided into opposites as it seems to the human mind, but one integrated whole. 

This picture is called “All the World is But a Stage” (mixed media drawing 2002), which not only explains that I think of life as a kind of theatre or school, but it also depicts the opposites of summer and winter and the idea that there is a unifying element and life force behind life as we normally see it. Being in touch with this life force is vital to our well being regardless of how disabled we are.

IS CONCEPTUAL ART JUST BAD PHILOSOPHY?

Eija-Liisa Ahtila: "ME/WE, OKAY, GRAY" (still from video, 1993)

When I was a student of philosophy, which ended up as one of my minor subjects, I was looking for answers about life's deeper questions but didn't find very many. My feeling at the time was that most philosophers sit in their armchair conjuring up contrived problems that have very little to do with what is really going on in the human psyche. The only modern philosopher that I could instantly relate to (and this was when I was 19 years old, without any previous formal education in these matters) was Nietsche. His philosophy is one that encompasses questions about spirituality and the human place in the grand scheme of things. It has an element of psychology to it. Years later, after my failed years in art college in France, I ended up studying the one subject that did provide me with the answers I was looking for, i.e. the psychology of comparative religion. I enjoyed every minute of it - until I finished my Master's degree which dealt with creativity and found that my health problems were making it increasingly difficult for me to read anything at all. 

I have to say, however, that I did nonetheless respect the serious philosopher who is that one deviant human being who is able to question the way we look at reality. Regardless whether these strange turns of logic and the challenge to our conditioned perception is of any deeper significance to the human race or not, it's still admirable. Some of these theories, for instance those dealing with our construction of language, are actually even relevant to human development.

I have often thought, however, that conceptual artists are very much like this - philosophers. They often throw ideas into the air for the audience to catch and look at, and it's very much about challenging our programmed brains. The problem is that the issues they like to dwell on very often end up being excuses for bad art, and in fact it's not very good philosophy either. These people would normally be incapable of writing a convincing, intellectual thesis on the subject of their challenging questions. And if they did, they wouldn't be artists but philosophers... I really feel that this is a great problem and I can't think of a single example of a truly successful artist who can do both with panache. Modern and contemporary art deals to a great extent with social commentary, and that's all fine and dandy. Trouble is, very little else goes down very well with the authorities of art, unless it's technically intriguing. What looks interesting and glitzy on the surface, with a promise of greater depths beneath, is very often just gimmicky art in the end. 

I get updates from the Saatchi Facebook page and it's amazing how often they promote art that is just "clever", i.e. it's a construct (often a face) of little bits of something, and it is technically very well advanced. This is usually not conceptual art, it's just art that looks good on the web. But what does it say? Not much, as far as I can see. On the other hand - and this is a bit of a paradox - there's the idea that individual artists are only eligible for grants and other funding if they provide a challenging view of reality and society in particular, and this is generally speaking the realm of performance art, installations and videos. These pieces don't render themselves well in photos nor are they easy to understand and relate to, so they have to be accompanied with a thousand words. It's the well articulated, but not necessarily very comprehensive, philosophical statements that convince the jury, as far as I can see. How often than not do we end up with art that is not of the heart but of the mind? How often is this just bad philosophy and not art at all?

I'll give you an example. I was checking out a short article on a Finnish female artist who is considered one of the most innovative and is therefore internationally acclaimed. She is Eija-Liisa Ahtila, born in 1959. She also likes to have characters perform in ways that people wouldn't normally behave. In "Okay", a woman paces up and down the floor speaking loudly about violent relationships, and during the course of this performance her voice and thus her personality changes. What does it mean? Her work is supposed to be reminiscent of Finnish cult director Aki Kaurismäki's films - we just watched "The Man With No Name" and found the explicit contrivances about people who can only express themselves through their sentimental music very unconvincing. No - not all Scandinavians have Asperger's syndrome or mild autism like the heroines in many criminal stories of today. In another piece, some women go down in a lift to a place beneath the surface of water, they float around discussing atomic catastrophes; apparently this is meant to be some kind of parallel to their personal crises. I'm not sure I don't find this analogy a bit far fetched, and worse still - I don't really care. I'm not sure this is good psychology either, and so it leaves me indifferent. On this note, I have to admit I haven't seen any of this in real life and may have a better opinion if I did (but I doubt it). You may recognize the imagery of floating women and people in awkward, dreamlike situations from my review of Pia Borg's work.

On her website, Ahtila explains "ME/WE OKAY from 1993": "A short film with three fictional episodes and narration consisting of rhythmic monologues. The subject of these three humane dramas is the transformation of one´s identity. ME/WE is about balancing individual identity and about control. OKAY uses a single on-screen persona and various voices to consider the shifts, desires, and inhibitions of the ego within a sexual relationship. The subject of GRAY is the change in reality caused by a catastrophe, and the blurring of the boundary between ego and other."

You may like to check out JAR, an online magazine that attempts at a synergy between art and serious research. I signed up for it but couldn't figure out how to upload my stuff. I hope they have made it easier.

Modern/contemporary art is supposedly all about the fragmentation of the human being. It seems to me, that only those who admit to being existentially lost are considered serious artists. As far as I can see, it leaves us with a body of work that is mostly nonsensical and chaotic. I don't find it helpful to human evolution. I don't believe life has to be that way at all, and my own art does not express a fragmented world view. I'm not saying I am not interested in conceptual art... I will continue to be curious, and probably more so the older I get. I will continue to try and read what people mean even though I struggle to do so. However... We were watching a documentary about the Turner Prize and whether the art that has been awarded or nominated really is any good. I would say that sadly, most of it is just gimmicky. I mean come on, someone gets an award for turning the lights on and off in an exhibition space! This artist has nothing better to do than make art about his inability to make art - and that's quite a symptom of the "modern". And yet another is awarded for flattening silver plated objects and giving them a "new lease of life"... It's just sad.

What do you think? I would love some comments.

As I had just finished this article I came across this one, and here the author, Ben Lewis, states as he ponders the decadence of contemporary art (decadence has crossed my mind too) and especially that of Damien Hirst: "There is a pattern typical of these end-phase periods, when an artistic movement ossifies. At such times there is exaggeration and multiplication instead of development. A once new armoury of artistic concepts, processes, techniques and themes becomes an archive of formulae, quotations or paraphrasings, ultimately assuming the mode of self-parody./.../ I believe that this decline shares four aesthetic and ideological characteristics with the end-phases of previous grand styles: formulae for the creation of art; a narcissistic, self-reinforcing cult that elevates art and the artist over actual subjects and ideas; the return of sentiment; and the alibi of cynicism." Read more about "why modern art is so bad" here on www.prospectmagazine.co.uk! It's potent stuff. I don't agree that the use and repetition of certain style elements is all bad as they are signs of the times, but I do agree that style can easily become mannerism and a lack of originality.

Damien Hirst at Tate Modern, "For the love of God": This skull is covered with real diamonds. Perhaps this is meant to be
a cynical comment about modern day art collectors...  

"But what a small and conservative act of rebellion this glossiness is. Art has become small, superficial and self-indulgent in its emotional range: sentimental rather than truly intellectual or moving." I couldn't agree more, though my knowledge is quite limited due to years of ignoring the whole realm of conceptual art. I love the end: "To paraphrase Trotsky, let us turn to these artists, their billionaire patrons and toadying curators and say: 'You are pitiful, isolated individuals. You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on—into the dustbin of art history!'”