Manifesto -- for thinking types only ;)

[FriendCarol]

Much angst this morning after I wrote this -- I'll never get there, I shouldn't be wasting resources (as if my brushes were as rare as a Stradivarius violin !). I'm gonna keep going, though. (I'm a free person, I can choose this particular path to failure if I want to, so there!) This is my way of trying to evaluate where I am, and where I need to get to, and maybe how to go. Since it represents my current understanding, I'd appreciate a 'critique!'
_____________

Edgar Whitney said an artist is 'shape-maker, symbol collector, and entertainer," but that's just the job description. Def: The artist expresses experience in such a way that viewers are able to share essential aspects of that experience, incorporating such aspects into their own experience. Thus, artists distill experience, enabling us to experience more than one person could live through.

The importance of the artist, particularly in the multi-cultural world in which we live, becomes obvious: Most of us have a natural tendency to fear what is strange or 'other.' The artist makes the experience of the 'other' accessible to us, reducing our fear, which should reduce our hostility as well.

Can anyone, even a technician, become an artist? Yes, but the process requires spiritual growth, which is always somewhat painful (especially at the beginning). Why? Since art is sharing experience, becoming a good artist requires:
- being capable of (i.e., perceptual ability), and open to, experience;
- acknowledging experience (which entails some reflection, whether conscious or no);
- developing ability to communicate experience -- mastering the techniques of art:
--- material (pigments, surfaces, tool selection, 'tricks')
--- compositional
--- physical movements, and
--- color theory,
... which requires discipline and dedication of time; and
- generosity -- willingness to share, which entails vulnerability.

A painter (unlike a film-maker, for example) can communicate only a relatively brief experience, a 'moment.' For representational painters, this moment is usually a purely perceptual experience -- typically, many desire that the viewer of the painting simply be able to say 'I feel as if I'm right there!' Impressionists, in this sense, are still very much representational.

Great representational painters express more. Richard Schmid Paints Landscapes (p. 10): "The apparent subject is little more than a vehicle or excuse to reveal a more subtle but powerful insight... purpose lies within the content of the expression. The subject, however interesting in itself, cannot stand alone for long. When a painter understands this, he becomes an artist."

Painting (def): applying (w/c) pigments, on an essentially 2-dimensional surface, using techniques chosen to express the moment as effectively as possible. One criterion for good art is elegance, which emphasizes simplicity/brevity over detail/decoration; detail is selected, never merely decorative. (Imo, however, especially for the abstract painter, detail can be used effectively to emphasize intentionality, which leads the viewer to trust that the painter is expressing something and to continue trying to see.)

Painting is a language. Color, texture, form, line, etc. are the vocabulary; the syntax is composition -- all subordinated to expressing the moment.

Moving from Representational Art to Abstraction:
The abstract painter seeks to express a moment which is not purely perceptual (imo -- this is surely controversial!). Typically, this moment is a 'feeling' or emotion, but not always. Munch's The Scream may be a good example of an abstraction which expresses something other than, or more than, a feeling. Not all viewers will follow the abstraction, just as not all viewers appreciate representational art or even classical music or simple songs.

As art becomes more abstract (whether music, painting, sculpture, or any other art), fewer viewers will follow it. This is irrelevant to the abstract artist. (The artist may not insist that viewers learn a specific 'language' of art, since the artist's role is to convey experience, rather than requiring the viewer to undergo training to understand the conveyance of it.)

One tool used by artist as entertainer is 'incidents at the edges' (of shapes). Example: leaves at the edges of trees. The artist who is representing an abstracted aspect of trees or a tree (two different things) must choose (elegance criterion) any incidents at the edges of a 'tree shape' in order to communicate concisely the particular abstraction of the experience to be shared. A tree may be abstracted as (some examples, not definitive list!):
- a green fountain, after Rene Thom's (sp?) _Structural Stability and Morphogenesis_ (or "catastrophe theory")
- a branching function, after the notion of fractals in complexity (or "chaos") theory
- a rhythmic sequence of shapes (repetition with variation) making up a composite shape
- color, merely (i.e., 'pure' color)
- shape, merely
- line
- texture

In general, abstract artists may use 'vocabulary items' not available to the representational artist. These include (apart from the elements of design used 'purely'):
- symbols widely shared by members of the artist's culture, which have a specific, shared meaning that can be used directly or ironically; and
- strange symbols recognizably symbolic, yet having a meaning not accessible to members of the artist's culture. This largely reduces them to the role of line/shape meaning, or evoking, 'strange' or 'other.' If the symbols are recognizable as belonging to a class of symbols (such as Japanese, Hebraic, or other calligraphy), this meaning is also present (i.e., specifically 'other,' rather than general otherness).

Once particular works of abstract art are established in their culture, they themselves can become vocabulary items, such that partial references to them carry may some meaning. Over long periods of time, as Kandinsky suggested, art may in this way become more abstract (by becoming more self-referential), yet still express experience. In time, it may come to be capable of expressing longer 'moments' or more abstract ones.

[Even If It Rains]

I couldn't find a single thing to disagree with

[salmon]

I don't want to be rude FriendCarol but whenever I read your posts I get the feeling that you are thinking about this whole art thing way too deeply.

Leave the keyboard alone for a while and just paint intuitively. Don't think about it, just do it. Let your intuition take over and give your brain a well earned break. You could amaze yourself.

I sincerely hope you are not offended, that is not my intention. I just find that when I think about art and art analysis I always remember our forefathers painting on cave walls who probably didn't have a word for 'brush' or 'paint'. It didn't affect their pictorial outpourings which were quite beautiful. If they had started to think about what they were doing from an intellectual standpoint, I'm sure they would have found all manner of excuses for not painting on those cave walls in the first place.

There, I've had my say. Puts on crash helmet . O.K. Let her rip.

[MonicaB]

There's a lot to be said for Salmon's response, but then again, like Carol -- I have found myself getting a bit analytical in trying to move from representation to abstract. So, I can relate, Carol. Trying to find what works in abstract is much more difficult than in representational work, I think. In short, abstract is *hard*. But when I get tired of thinking about it, I pick up my brushes and paint with purty colors.

[mame]

Salmon said:

"I always remember our forefathers painting on cave walls who probably didn't have a word for 'brush' or 'paint'. It didn't affect their pictorial outpourings which were quite beautiful. If they had started to think about what they were doing from an intellectual standpoint, I'm sure they would have found all manner of excuses for not painting on those cave walls in the first place"

Au Contraire
A lot of "thinking" went on.

Many of the paintings required, and evidence has been found of scoffolding to produce the huge, very high paintings

Caves were apparently "selected" for size as well as security (it is generally thought that these caves were not inhabited but selected specifically for the paintings)

Paints/pigment/color was "mixed" as opposed to found.

They made brushes from twigs, feathers, leaves.

The artists had an understanding of animal anatomy and principles of motion - which leads one to surmise observation and study occurred.

This of course has nothing to do with considerations/criticism of the intellectal side of art making re this thread

[FriendCarol]

Hi, even, but were you really trying???! That's okay, then.

Hi, Salmon, wasn't thinking of attacking you, so you can put down the crash helmet! LOL

Btw, I just read that those cave paintings (the ones that lasted all these years) came about because someone noticed that the pigments (earth?) that had mixed with the fat/oil of dripping grease when they cooked the meat were more useful than the same pigments mixed with water. (Of course, this came before gum arabic. )
Someone's gotta go around noticing things while everyone else paints for hours. My painting (sitting) time is strictly limited, so I nominate me.

Hi, Monica -- after I did 3 color sketches of a painting this past week, then did three sessions on the painting, I still don't know if it's 'working.' But I no longer feel led to express Maundy Thursday, either, so I guess I'll have to wait a year to find out! LOL

Yeah, abstraction is really hard. Still don't know if I can get there from here, but if I live long enough, I guess I'll find out!

Meanwhile, it's on to Easter for me.

Hi, Molly (Molly, right?).

[Tamana]

But I no longer feel led to express Maundy Thursday, either, so I guess I'll have to wait a year to find out! LOL

Your key word is "feel"...

[Don Berendsen]

Originally Posted by FriendCarol

- developing ability to communicate experience -- mastering the techniques of art:
--- material (pigments, surfaces, tool selection, 'tricks')...

Hi Carol,

I thought your 'manifesto' was very well put and it will no doubt not be a suprise to hear that I agree with what you've said. For me understanding the artistic process has been useful in understanding what is important to art and helping me focus my efforts on improving my art by identifying the areas of the process where I was weak.

There's a step that I feel you've probably implied in what you've said above that for me is very important so I would separate 'developing ability to communicate experience' from 'mastering the techniques of art'.

To me the ability to communicate involves getting clarity of the initial experience and mapping it to the marks in the medium. That can take a great deal of reflection and searching, it may drive one to develop new technical abilities. Conversely, learning new methods of expression help aid one in getting the clarity of experience and the mapping.

To me a work speaks strongly when the initial experience is clear, the mapping is direct, and there's the technical ability to precisely make the marks that express that mapping. This doesn't imply a process of deductive reasoning. It's a much more powerful process of making something that can be very subtle and formless manifest strongly and clearly through some marks on a surface.

The weeks of 'staring at the wall' that Pollock went through before creating that mural for Peggy Guggenheim almost overnight is a good example of this aspect of the artistic process.

FWIW,

don

[FriendCarol]

Originally Posted by Don Berendsen

not ... a suprise to hear that I agree with what you've said.

No surprise there, no!

Originally Posted by Don Berendsen

focus my efforts on improving my art by identifying the areas of the process where I was weak.

Yes, hence the angst.

Originally Posted by Don Berendsen

... I would separate 'developing ability to communicate experience' from 'mastering the techniques of art'.

So far I'm with you; they are separable for me, too.

Originally Posted by Don Berendsen

...ability to communicate involves getting clarity of the initial experience and mapping it to the marks in the medium. That can take a great deal of reflection and searching, it may drive one to develop new technical abilities. Conversely, learning new methods of expression help aid one in getting the clarity of experience and the mapping.

Perhaps because I am so verbal (and a poet?), clarifying doesn't require reflection/searching on my part. In fact, as a poet I work hard to keep that initial impetus ('crystal,' as opposed to what I called 'moment' for visual art) immobile in amber, as it were! I sit with it only when I'm absolutely ready to write, rather than manipulate it or analyze it at all! (I won't even write a note about a 'crystal,' though I may write whatever lines come to me when I realize I have one embedded in my mind/heart.)

As to the rest, I discovered a new technique just a few months ago (caught myself doing something automatically that worked really well!), but haven't yet developed ability to use it as an aesthetic, rather than corrective, measure. Trying to, though; experimenting.
As to the second, that's probably still too 'abstract' for me (specifically, related to visual expression!). Getting to the point where a technique helps me clarify experience is probably way beyond where I WANT to go!
Express visually = good.
Express something about visual art/techniques = ???????? AND =/= me

Originally Posted by Don Berendsen

...when the initial experience is clear, [and] the mapping is direct, and there's the technical ability to precisely make the marks that express that mapping

Yes, I would agree that is the absolute ideal -- have the moment oneself, then clarify and communicate the moment using the most appropriate tools quite naturally. If one's tools are second nature, and one's mastery of composition (in the broad sense) has made it from head to body, it probably becomes easy, as someone like Picasso could make it look. (Disclaimer: I mostly don't like Picasso; it's the color thing. Would agree he was one of the greatest masters of 'expressive line,' however.)

Originally Posted by Don Berendsen

This doesn't imply a process of deductive reasoning. It's a much more powerful process of making something that can be very subtle and formless manifest strongly and clearly through some marks on a surface.
The weeks of 'staring at the wall' that Pollock went through before creating that mural for Peggy Guggenheim almost overnight is a good example of this aspect of the artistic process.

Here's where I'm trying to transfer what I know (working in English/natural language) of how to proceed, into visual art.

Definitely not a process anything like deductive reasoning, we're agreed there. For me (this is absolutely NOT true for all!), I start with the end -- and it's not a logic-related statement, that 'end.' But it's not just feeling, either -- that would make my work 'sensational,' which is absolutely not my goal.

Then I 'just' (heheheh) write towards the end. This part of the process I can characterize as (pick your terms) a dialogue between my conscious drive towards my end and the work of 'the boys in the basement' (Stephen King); dialogue between right brain & left brain (some rather soft psych types); or

very intentional application of me-in-control-with-knowledge/education/technical ability (which I think of as ego -- but not in Freudian sense!) to the stuff that spews out of my whole self (partially not accessible to consciousness), as editor, during periodic writing/editing/rewriting cycles.

What I already know about this process would translate a whole lot better into visual art if my medium were not transparent w/c. (But it is, intrinsically; nothing else is bearable.) The initial 'to-be-edited' stuff will spill out a lot more coherently, presumably, when composition stuff up in my head works down into the depths. (Maybe I'll should just read Tony Couch's book, Keys to Successful Painting, another dozen times? I could actually start out every day reading the outline of that I did the last time I read it. ) The editing (the more conscious and analytical process) presumably will go a lot better when I recover some ability to 'see' my own work. *sigh*

At the moment, it all feels precisely backwards: I think I'm using compositional head-based knowledge to 'create,' then relying on the intuitive whole self to analyze/correct! But at least doing color sketches (with w/c pencils) over again (until I have something) seems to be a way to move forward -- albeit while facing backwards!

[beadguy]

CarolMyFriend:
This has been an excellent window into your fabulous mental process. I only wish I could see the images that you were envisioning when you wrote your manifesto.

When I wrote mine a thousand years ago, it was much simpler and implied less. It ended with the sentences, "My style is a lack of style; I join no schools. Thus, for me, artistic expression will continue to be a search for self integration within this reality . . . a journey into the unknown worlds of experimentation in design.

I still believe that, but have added the resolution, as of New Years' Day 2005, to do at least one creative act every day for the rest of my life. So far, so good.

[MountainSong]

You are in an interesting phase of being an artist it seems…when so much is angst, trying to articulate the artistic process and through some alchemy turn it into artistic expression of the human experience.
It is in the dissolving of words/thoughts into pigments and applying it with the weight of your passion to the canvas that may well be your next move FriendCarol.

You are well on the road to where you need to go and melding your intellectual passion to the canvas will give you a unique voice in the art world – it is your strength. You have something to say through art and there will be those who can read what you will teach yourself to paint.

Ah, just noticed the dates....this thread has been around a while - thought it looked familiar. Carol, have your feelings changed any? Do you find progress in the alchemy of the artistic process?

[ashling]

dont worry song
t'is jusa wind screaming
t'is hard to hear anthings
and
i prolly more a feeling
than a thinking
so i better
be gone

[beadguy]

A LEAF IN THE WIND

I am like a leaf upon the wind;
I must go to where it tells me,
The breeze blows and there I go,
Tumbling off so wild and free.

I am like a leaf upon the wind;
My life is not my own,
For I am only a follower,
And I go where I am blown.

I am like a leaf upon the wind;
Always rising and then falling,
My focus constantly changing,
About the center of others’ calling.

I am like a leaf upon the wind;
Sometimes moving fast, then slow,
Perchance to end up in a puddle,
This is what I never know.

I am like a leaf upon the wind;
There’s no place I’d rather be,
Yet sometimes I regret,
Coming loose from parent tree.

I am like a leaf upon the wind;
I think I’ll never stop,
Finally wedged in a dark corner,
Never more to swoop and drop.

No longer am I like a leaf upon the wind;
I’m stuck here till I dry,
Ever browner and more brittle,
Suddenly afraid to die.

A poem for Martha Lawson by Nic East, Hill Home Forge, July 10th, 2000

[FriendCarol]

Hi, Nic, thanks for the visiting & the appreciating (and the poem)!

Hi, Song -- I actually made huge strides towards my goal over the past couple of months. Here are two VERY long and VERY wordy threads where some of us made some progress:
Vision -> Concept -> Visuals -> Paintable Image
Representation and Rendering in Art
These were written simulataneously, one in the Watercolor 'general' forum (now 'Wash Cafe,' I think ), the other in Debates. This probably makes them hard to read -- same people talking back and forth to each other in 2 different threads! (Maybe it works better to open both threads in 2 windows and read in sequential order?!)

The result of these discussions was another thread in the Wip Subforum of Open Critiques, in which I am very slowly working out the design of my new abstract. I've done just a bit of the painting, around the edges (literally!). The 'armature' for this painting is my new avatar, btw.

The angst over "I don't know how to do this" is gone; the new angst is all about "my color printer won't print, I don't think a quarter-sheet of 300# w/c paper will scan on my little scanner (won't touch the glass without creasing?), my 15 w/c pencils don't give me enough range of color to draw the lines on the b&w printout..." You get the picture. Technical angst. So much more addressable (albeit slowly, or with money) than the other kind.

P.S. There's also a currently active thread Nic (beadguy) started in the Creativity forum, on Imagination. It's not that long yet, if anyone wants to join us there!

[Songwriter]

Post removed. PM sent.