Dead End Mind Sets To Avoid When Looking At Art

The Idea of the open mind must be questioned once again, especially considering that our world is in such turmoil, precisely how can we claim to be open-minded. Through the art institutions, galleries, museums, parties, and sidewalk conversations, it appears we no longer seek to go further within the mind in trying to understand works at hand. Instead we are a society that holt’s our believes simply on the desideratum of what we like and dislike. When seeing a work we don’t connect with, if we had open minds, instead of making a split second decision of there’s too much blue, therefore that’s the only reason I need to move on. Shouldn’t we try to deeply reflect on multiple reasons of why some artworks just aren’t our cup of tea?

            Lack of interest in our disinterest was not an ideology born from thin air; it stems from dead end mind sets. Minds sets derivative of science’s dominance, conformatism, and viewing conditions. Yes, it’s a horrifying thought; those are elements of society that are deeply rooted within each and every one of us, if anything how can they be negative in the way we see?

            Let’s have a mental battle against our ally science, when a work is difficult to understand as they often are, we will look at the work somewhat physiologically because it’s the easiest answer. For psychologist the reason artist make work, mostly is based on sublimation, where art allows the artist to act out unacceptable impulses by converting those behaviors into a socially accepted form. By that reasoning we could say Jackson Pollock was an angry man and his works are simply an expression of his convoluted emotions of rage, and anybody who paints figures is obviously acting out sexual impulses. From there we would move towards the more practical methods of how the artist actually painted the painting, which more than often is the case. Trying to use the subconscious only helps to bring you to a wall of perfunctory ideas which are in danger of sealing the viewer off from arts spiritual essence. Meaning we are far too involved in trying to get facts about a work, there’s too much satisfaction in getting a couple of facts that are far too general, but all too commonly tend to be the final insolently based judgments’ of artworks.

            There is a real fine line between the ideology of self preservation and science, its speech tends to be cold and next to emotionless. Which is why during classroom critics analyzing student’s artworks scientifically allows their peers to save face. The classics in stock comments and questions are present in their suffocating boredom where any thought of enlightenment has no chance to be born. For example, the brush work got muddy; the colors are too bright, make it bigger, use bigger brushes, and when science talk fails an awkward moment of silence prevails. Artist are afraid to have opinions about others work, because they know artist are very touchy, saying something along the lines of , “this work is the embodiment of weakness and timidity”, wouldn’t go over very well. However if statements that are hard to bear are true to how you feel then it’s an evident step towards humanity. Considering the idea of self preservation is an idea against humanity itself, were your amicable and friendly towards the outside world, but to friends and family you’re cold and hostile.

            Through conformatism we compare, but you can’t really compare artworks, because in doing so, the viewer is living through a nullified culture. In the way that you set a standard for what are great artworks, but in doing so you are creating a level of greatness that seeks to equalize the works at hand. The main point is artworks cannot be compared, because they seek to annihilate one another by merely existing. Each artwork is fighting for the spot that truly balances the viewer’s mind, which tends to be misinterpreted as enjoyment. By comparing similarities of works you are actually betraying them, to truly let the work be its own master, you have to point out the differences of the artworks.

            Viewing conditions, everyone should know seeing a work on the internet, picture, or projections will never compare to seeing the real thing, unfortunately it’s something that must be repeated. Every work is unique to itself; at the same time every work requires a different way of observing. One would not eat a watermelon in the same way you would eat an apple, so you wouldn’t look at a Rothko in the same way you would see a Barnet Newman. Both of those artist realized there is a specific way in which the work must be seen for the spiritual resonance of the painting to be evoked onto the viewer. Rothko claimed the optimum distance to see his works was 18inches, as were Newman claimed the viewer had to walk by the painting. It’s important to note those methods are not limitations to see the work, but a starting point that will allow the viewer to get the most out of the work. Distance is one thing, but light is by far the most important in terms of seeing artwork. The absolutely best light to see work under is the suns, primarily at sunrise when the sun is unveiling its passion. No matter how good a light bulb might be, human manufactured light that is constant will never compare to the radiating waves of light emanated from the sun. When looking at a painting and there is no sun it’s as if the painting is sleeping, and you’re wearing sun glasses to see. Exactly, why you will never be able to truly see a painting inside a museum, they wouldn’t dare expose a painting to direct sunlight as it might fade the colors; instead they voraciously try to extend the life’s of artworks in order to keep making a profit. With the idea of the necessity of sun, we must ask ourselves have we actually seen any paintings. If that’s not a terrifying notion then were truly doomed.

            

Acknowledging Your Own Strokes

Far too often the emerging artist is told his strokes lack ability, either to small, too big, flimsy, repetitive, ect. However, those who are judging the strokes of an artist, on such a critical level, only to end up saying how the stroke should be are betraying their student. If there is anything De Kooning has thought us, it’s that a stroke has to be measured by its own measure. Unfortunately, it’s the current conformatist minds set to try and emulate the powerful brush strokes of what we consider the great artist. The calamity at hand is a stroke that will always fall short, no matter how similar it may look. For the sole reason that the strokes of Van Gogh, De Kooning, Pollock, Rothko, Auerbach, Bacon…..posses the unique spirit of those artist. Even if you want to get on technically scientific side, one could argue it’s hard to match the grip, arm weight, swing, arm length of the previously mention artist.

            The telos should not be to match or copy great strokes, but to accept the inherent stroke you posses whether it be weak or strong. For spirit is not something that can be thought, if yours is weak keep cultivating it and it will grow like a flower. When that happens your brush stroke will become immensely powerful. Let’s take Van Gogh for example, when he was starting to get involved in art, from what we see it’s easy to say the man had a rough time. I say, because his strong spirit was at odds with the conventional brush techniques he was urged to learn. It was not until he was true to himself that he was able to expel a stroke that would convulse in great emotional agony. He needed strong texture strokes that would make the sky cry, so he reached deep inside of himself and pulled them out. 

At the same time it’s important to note his strokes are small in size, however just as potent in power if nothing else to De Kooning’s strokes. It is said De Kooning was a chain smoker, whether the moral aspects of smoking are right or wrong are of no relevance to the work, indeed it’s the characteristics involved in the action of smoking that’s important. His large strokes are the visual incarnation of running a cigarette across an ash tray, but on a canvas.

            I was going to end it with an analysis of how Francis Bacon creates, in his paintings the same intensity as the first stroke you make when painting a wall, however true thoughts do not always understand themselves.

            Only those who are beyond cold will not able to see spirit, therefore will call Frank Auerbach’s method grotesque. What Auerbach does in his process of painting, scraping, and repainting not only takes courage but will power to find the strokes that are just right in energy. One may say, many artist approach painting this way, but I would claim only Auerbach has made it his own. Most likely Auerbach realizes that his individual strokes alone do not posses great spiritual resonance. Very ingeniously he adds small strokes of spirit relentlessly on top of each other until they fully develop into a magnificent ominous force.

Why White Paint is Dangerous

            To include white in a painting is to include a blatant out lie. From a western perspective of the symbolic meaning of white, we will tend to associate it with purity, cleanliness, truth, and innocence. Even more scientifically as light, and in terms that white is good for the lungs, meaning white creates visual breathability. In the long run we are claiming to create a white that is pure in a painting, which is a gigantic calamity of an illusion, because a society that is consumed by insidious malignant behavior appears very questionable in their ability to know what is pure, let alone create it. Even if you are a person that partakes in nothing immoral as we would assume it to be, in doing nothing but trying to live, you are doing nothing to help people those who are starving to death.

            White paint alone without use is now on trial. In terms of color theory, when we perceive white light we are actually seeing all the colors at once, but white paint is the absence of all the colors. Which is why Cezanne is of outmost importance not in terms of having led us to cubism, but most importantly from having rescued color from the opaqueness of the impressionist. White should be acknowledge as the destructor of true color, white is inexorably deceptive death. If anything black is now symbolic of life, painting wise, black can be arrived at with the combination of many colors.

            I’m not establishing an admonition to never use white but seeking to bring a better grasp, which might never be fully understood. The white devil in contemporary paintings can be successfully human if it’s at a two percent ratio, and carrying a large amount of spiritual resonance. Another approach would be a fifty percent ratio of white which should be balanced out with a fifty percent ratio of pure untainted color. As soon as white has become the dominant force in a painting, it is easy to say that the painting is nothing more than an illusionistic lie of which our gluttonous society is ever more fond of. In almost all the paintings featured in the 2012 April edition of Art Forum white was incredibly present, same month Chelsea shows between 20^th and 25^th street contain paintings relying far too much on that agonizingly insolent white being brought across as professional. If anything I’m pleased by the fact that I did not remember any of the names of those falsified minds.

            When everything is bad it must be good to know the worst, however were far too concerned with the “black and white”. With an unknowing internal struggle of our artist against white, there are those who are caught in between, and those who have made one good punch line. Being absolutely appalled by white it is by no coincidence that I stumbled upon a show called a Setting for White which is the name of the only successful painting in the show in terms of white. Kees Goudzwaard creates what seems to have a 50% ratio and 2% ratio against a very bright orange that keeps white from dominating the painting. While the painting is balanced in those terms which can be appreciated as a great accomplishment, the overall feel is somewhat stale.

 And while most of the pieces of Mr. Damien Correll our next artist on trial are fairly weak, his still life with skull is truly note worthy. The white within is muted and kept under control by a forest green that lets it go no further in its deception. 

 It is tautology to go any further, so we will end it with Joan Mitchell, who never really quiet got there and was caught in between a hairline nexus of enigmatic brushstrokes of colorful emotion and pitiful opaqueness.