A TRADITIONAL STYLE INFUSED WITH MODERN, SYMBOLIC CONTENT - THE SINGH TWINS

Liverpool 800:The Changing Face of Liverpool
2007
54.6 x 81.3cm (21.5 x 32in)
Poster colour and gouache on mount board
Artist: Amrit & Rabindra K.D. Kaur Singh

I started out as a symbolist, back in 1991 when symbolic content poured out of me after a period of intense dream interpretation. I have explained why I feel that symbolism is a relevant method of artistic expression here in this blog article (as well as on my website). I realize, however, that there are several ways in which one can be a symbolist artist. One can do very deep and complex work with more or less original elements that constitute a whole that says more than the sum of its parts. There are more shallow levels of symbolism, though. For instance, there is a form of literal symbolism that isn't really symbolism in the deepest sense. It's a form of expression where various physical elements that represent easily determined value systems are juxtaposed to create a fairly realistic scene. The art of the Symbolist movement is often like that. It's a visual language that is very easy to read. The problem with it is that it's easy to read with your rational mind while much intuition isn't required. It means that the whole isn't that much greater than the sum of its parts. Some people also create art they call symbolic when it has a few symbolic elements thrown in, but there isn't really a coherent whole that would explain the presence of these elements. Sometimes, however, the symbolic elements do contribute to the overall feel, in a good way. So I would say there are no strict rules for this kind of art.

I have been thinking about symbolism in a languid sort of way, wandering where to go from here. I feel that my own artistic expression is dying away, and I have absolutely no idea what could take its place. If anything at all! Of course, in this process I also have doubts about symbolism and how relevant it is for me from now on. My symbolic language has changed over the years, from being very explicit to being less coherent, but more expressive. Whether it's a weakness or a strength, I don't really know.

There are two London based twin sisters of Indian descent who took up the dying form of traditional Indian miniature painting. They were scoffed at at first, and told their contemporary interpretation of this traditional technique (which on top of everything wasn't European!) was not art. They persisted nonetheless, and have since made it in the art world. There is an interview with them here. 

Partners In Crime:Deception and Lies, 2004
Poster, gouache, gold dust on mountboard
57 x 78cm (22.5 x 30.7in)
Rabindra KD Kaur Singh

This piece features George Bush and Tony Blair. The Singh twins explain the symbolism:

"/.../ symbols of deceit and crime and the poison of words are signified here by the aconite (monkshood) and convolvulus flower respectively. In addition, Bush stands on a hyena, symbol of the two-faced person and inconsistency, thus pointing to the hypocrisy of the USA’s stance in condemning the Iraqi Dictator whom they once openly supported. Outwardly presenting themselves (through their use of religious rhetoric) as forces of good out to free the world from “evil doers”, both politicians wear the trappings of the preacher. However, their outward appearance is contrasted by other details which suggest the real motifs behind their occupation of Iraq – namely, the desire to spread Imperialistic western ideals and to control Iraqi oil. Hence, an imprint of the Stars and Stripes can be seen across the geographic region on which they stand whilst oil flows from an Iraqi oil rig into a pipeline to the west – an operation which is overseen by a monkey and squirrel, both symbolising greed. At the same time the “thieving magpie” flies away with a string of pearls which denotes wealth./.../"

Dressed To Kill (from the SPOrTLIGHT series)
2002
23 x 38 cm (9 x 15in)
Poster colour and gouache on mountboard
Artist: Amrit K.D. Kaur Singh

About "Dressed to Kill":

/.../ Sports celebrities and specific sports are presented in symbolic images that take a light hearted and sometimes satirical look at how commercialisation and the mass media have transformed sport into a tool for product promotion and increasingly blurred the boundaries between the world of sport, fashion, media and celebrity. The series, which formed an exhibition in 2002, reinterprets 18th and 19th Century Indian miniatures paintings - the aim being "to create a platform for introducing wider audiences to this traditional art form through a subject that would have mass appeal as part of popular culture". In a broader context 'SPOrTLIGHT' projects the artists' ongoing aims to assert the value of traditional and non European aesthetics as a legitimate form of expression within Contemporary art practice./.../

I think the sisters' pursuits are admirable - bringing Indian traditions to people's attention as well as executing such fine paintings. Please view more of their art and explanations here on their website. I do ask myself, however, whether the themes and the symbolism isn't a tad simplistic. I personally feel that the traditional style creates some constraints that leave very little room for the symbols to breathe. They are pre ordained to co-exist in a traditional space that to me, appears a little claustrophobic and stifling. For instance, I find the figures a bit nondescript, as they mostly exist in a flat traditional Indian space that attempts to look as realistic as possible (seen from the level of the onlooker's eyes, with their feet on the ground below, and so on).  

The sisters claim that one of their endeavours is to create art that isn't individualistic.  Well, to me that defies the value of using traditional methods in the first place. I don't see that traditions are valuable unless they are tweaked to fit a point in the collective evolution of consciousness, and the point I'm talking about here is infused with an increasing sense of individualism. There is nothing wrong with individualism, on the contrary. I also think it adds a dimension to art that we yearn for as a collective, because it's something that preoccupies us a lot right now. The evolution of indivdualism is part and parcel of the progression of life's different shapes and forms towards ever-increasing complexity. I admire the twins' efforts but also see some problems with the approach. Ironically, the very literal expression of the challenging collective themes about greed and the disintegration of the sacredness of love the sisters have been wanting to express is in itself an expression of a rather shallow, conventional and flat understanding of symbolic art and what symbols can express at their very best - in fact, it's an academic approach, it uses a formula. This is conventional and unenterprising the way modern people usually understand these potentially spiritual systems of meaning. You could use this kind of approach in as a form of satire, using self-irony, kitsch and clichés in order to make a point about the superficial ways of the world, but I'm not detecting this kind of approach in this art.

I also wonder, if the quest for "non-European aesthetics as a legitimate form of expression within Contemporary art practice" easily becomes an end in itself. The modern themes seem to me the only way in which this art can claim to be contemporary, and I wonder if it's a somewhat poor one. I'm not even sure the themes are telling us anything we didn't already know - to death.  Contemporary art at its very best comes in a breath of fresh air, a new point of view... that's what I'd like to see also connected to symbolism. To award this Indian derived art can also easily be an act of political correctness... 

I certainly prefer this art to most art out there... but I don't see it as quite as progressive as I'd like to see it as.

I'M NOT WELL ENOUGH TO KEEP UP WITH THE HEALTHY AND NOT ILL ENOUGH TO QUALIFY AS TRULY DISADVANTAGED

Vivi-Mari Carpelan 2011 "Tied Up" (copyright)

After months of encouragement from the Arts Council of Wales, the meeting that was due on Friday in my home was cancelled because there has been a great deal of interest in their programme for disabled artists, and others who are more deserving than me have taken precedence. I do get it. I don't blame them. At least they talk to you and inform you in person, and give some kind of explanation to their process of elimination.

The bottom line is, I'm too articulate and have too big a body of work, so supporting me and my development doesn't meet with the criteria that have been set up for this funding project. I think the idea has been that truly disadvantaged people with no voice but artistic potential can emerge. These criteria are not set up by the officials but come from higher up the rank. It doesn't matter that my CV is not as great as it could be because I have not had all the opportunities of a healthy person, nor that I have great trouble reading complicated guidelines, or that I have wanted to get serious messages across about the reality of invisible illness. In fact, if you're articulate enough to describe your need for a grant in great detail, it's probably the reason you won't get it through this programme. It's a Catch22, I fall into a slot, in a no man's land. I belong nowhere, fit in nowhere, and my art cannot be neatly categorized. I'm too healthy to be a real outsider and too ill to be able to keep up with the normal people. This makes for a very lonely journey, which to be quite honest is starting to look really pointless. And seriously - trying to save the world is such a juvenile notion.

The support would not only have included some money (I desperately need a printer in order to do anything with the abstract photography), but also mentorship and help with contacting galleries and reaching an audience. I admit that I broke down on the phone to the lady I've been dealing with. I know none of this is her fault, and I told her so. But my sense of desolation is very real, I simply couldn't hold back my emotional reaction. I guess by the end of the day, the encouragement I received was the last straw of hope I was holding onto. You could argue that it wasn't wasted, that I learnt a lot in the process, and not least, that I specified ideas that I might put forward through the ordinary grant application process. The reality is, however, that I feel really spent, and that Martin would have to be my mentor and assistant to make sure that I got it right. It's not fair on him, he needs to work on his own artistic process and on trying to make a bit of money that we can live off as our finances are not adding up at the moment.

As far as reading guidelines goes, that's exactly where my disability really hits me, as I have no ability to read complicated text without a great deal of difficulty and multiple re-reading and double checking. It may not seem that way, because I can write - this is the irony, I can more or less follow my own train of thought (though it's getting harder to reach my thoughts due to brain fog) but there is no way I can apply for grants as if I was a normal person. On top of that I find this country incredibly competitive, which to me simply soul destroying for someone as sensitive as myself, and I ask myself if I should withdraw altogether because this never ending struggle to receive some valid recognition is just taking too much of a toll on me. In fact I dream of relaxing in a nice country house and spending the rest of my days away from civilisation.

Vivi-Mari Carpelan 2010 in Hanko, Finland (copyright)

The ideas that I presented to the Arts Council was about my own development, about making it even more contemporary by integrating my abstract photography into collages about invisible illness. I was going to start with myself (well, continue doing what I have already doing but in a more poignant fashion) and then I was going to bring in other people's experiences in order to create a new and much more meaningful body of work.

Ah, in fact I just got some more feedback and it seems that the themes I wanted to work on were interesting to the Arts Council but for whatever reason that remains elusive to me were not at the top of the list of priorities.

As it is, I'm tired of seeing the old work on my walls and I am prepared to get rid of it at almost any price - in fact, I will have to lower myself to the level of an amateur artist in order to have greater chances of selling anything. Even then, there is no guarantee it will sell or that I have the energy to put into this process.

Vivi-Mari Carpelan 2010 in Hanko, Finland (copyright)

After the rejection from Axis, I started a discussion on Linkedin and the Facebook site for Disability Arts Cymru (Wales) about the difference between modern and contemporary art, A few people have joined in, which I have much appreciated. Some have been encouraging, and I thank them warmly.

One of the artists did not believe self-expression and social commentary were valid ways of defining either category. Another was of the opinion that the idea of a authority or "club" that gets to decide who is contemporary is against the very ideals of modern art, i.e. the freedom of expression. I answered: "The idea of freedom - that's very interesting and I wonder how one could analyse that even closer? I did a course on modern and contemporary art very long ago when I was at University, it was fascinating but I don't necessarily remember more than a vague distinction between modern and contemporary art. And much has happened in the art world since then. My illness and to be fair - a general lack of interest and a lack of information have been the reasons why I haven't pondered these issues until now when it's all opening up to me in a new way. The general definitions of these two categories were taken from some websites I quickly googled, I admit that I need to do much more extensive research. I do however think there is some general truth to the notion that modern art was a lot about individualism (hence the idea of self-expression), and that it evolved into the contemporary art scene where it's often the go getters with a strong sense of self or ego who manage to get the attention of collectors and funders. 

I do wonder, though, if anyone really knows exactly how to define these things, as the notion of freedom certainly implies that pretty much anything goes. It seems to me that you can make art the old fashioned way, in which case it's really almost a form of pastiche. There is a danger in not looking deep enough for more meaning than that, however. I have a suspicion, (though it remains a suspicion as I have no evidence to go by other than Axis's woolly guidelines) that the Axis judge who looked at my work went by a shallow interpretation of the elements of the work, thinking it all looks old fashioned, when in fact there is nothing old fashioned about my subject matter and my messages. And who knows... maybe he was also influenced by the fact that it is 2D, shock horror! 

I still maintain that there is much snobbery within the art world, and there is often nothing very exceptional in terms of message in work that suddenly "makes it" within the art world. As far as I can see there is also an even wider gap between the work that galleries are willing to represent because they know it will sell, art that collectors are willing to invest in because it seems novel, and art that public galleries are willing to show because it's not commercial. As usual, I personally seem to fall into a slot somewhere in a no man's land, and this is the reality myself and many other artists have to deal with. You do ask yourself if it's really worth the hassle."

All photographs are by myself and subject to copyright.

WHO IS OPEN FOR COMMUNICATION? IS THERE A PLACE FOR DEEP ART?

FRIDAY, JULY 15, 2011

Vivi-Mari Carpelan: "Bad Communication", abstract digital photo 2010

In this post, I will talk about the doubts I am having regarding the importance of art for a humanity that on the whole is not interested in the deeper layers of life, and how I think that amateurs should be gentile enough make room for those with something to say. 


It is now fashionable to be an artist, and whether one is a professional artist or someone who is not able to go past the level of amateur ship, everyone is fighting for the same position in society. In general, we all crave recognition. We all want to communicate and tell about ourselves. It is an age of individualism - in fact, we may already have reached the peak. The problem is that everyone has something to say but are so busy and often self-preoccupied that they do not have time to listen to others. I think people are becoming more and more overwhelmed by the never-ending flow of information,  it becomes harder and harder even for normal healthy people to filter the information and to make decisions about what is worth to giving attention to. There is a lot of negative stress.

To counteract this, I don't think there is any other solution than to take time to think and consider one's priorities. Firstly, it may be worthwhile asking oneself whether one wants to be self-centered and selfish or compassionate and generous. How should one proceed? You have to decide how you want to express who you are. As for artistic expression, it may be that you need to be really honest about yourself and see if  it might better to keep creative pursuits as a hobby and not enter an already overcrowded market. It is generous to provide space for those who really have something to say and who have the required talent. I know it seems like an impossible task to even decide who is truly a good artist, but see it as a thought experiment. If you do not want to be totally self-absorbed, you must also be able to receive from others; this is an important part of the soul's development. On top of this, you need to be able to support and encourage those who have something important to give. 

"Bla bla bla ... I need a rest," handmade collage 2008

Especially here in the UK, I feel that  one is not being taken seriously if one mingles with amateur artists and exhibits in spaces that you get for free. On the contrary, you have to present a list of all the commercial galleries you have exhibited in, and on top of this you should ideally have a social message and be prepared to work with socially-oriented projects in schools and nursing homes. It's demanding a lot of an artist and if you do not meet all of these external criteria you may receive no grant money, either. To top it all, you need time and effort to market yourself (in practice there are many who elbow their way and it is the extroverts who are getting anywhere), and you will easily be seen as arrogant if you are not very communicative with everyone you come in contact with.

If you use the Internet, generally speaking you get attention only if you give it to others (and in practice it usually means giving energy to groups of mutual admiration or offering bland comments about pictures that are more than mediocre - this type of exchange is often quite useless). It is not always the will that is the problem,  the problem is to be physically able to be deeply creative while managing all these threads. We need help, not demands!

No matter how talented you are, it is not enough if you do not have a lot of money to spend on exhibitions at prominent galleries and energy and interest to engage the body in social projects. I have neither the money nor sufficient health and strength for all this. My husband also feel that there is no place for him because he "just" wants to paint pictures. Yet we have much to say. It's as though we are standing and crying out while nobody hears us. I do not mean that everyone needs to like what we do, but we are serious and tech savvy enough to be able to express what we have on our hearts. I think there should automatically be room for us. Though there is of course the possibility that it is only we who think that our message is of importance. If so, then we might as well just stop trying to reach out and be content to keep creative expression as a hobby.

It's no use trying to communicate with the outside world if nobody wants to listen. I wonder who really is sufficiently coherent, centered and interested to have the receptive faculty for deep and meaningful communication? Who are able to be thoroughly present for this to be possible, and not divided and distracted by the fatal combination of "stress and entertainment"?  Who even has curiosity that goes beyond the old and ingrained thinking? Currently, I am quite disillusioned. However, I invite others for discussion if there is anyone out there who wants to chat about art and the meaning of life.

"Hallååå ..?" copyright 1998