INTRODUCTION
I find myself pondering how it is
that what I consider to be the decline through the 50s and 60s of the visual
arts has come about. The tendency is to apply: philosophical, political and social
definitions and concepts to a non-symbiotic world or discipline. These concepts are not irrelevant but in my
view are peripheral. In order to arrive
at a different, more accessible interpretation of the art world I consider that
not only must the language change but different perspectives are needed to add
more pertinent weight and depth to the understanding of the creative process.
The Conceptual creative process is
almost the reverse of the traditional aesthetic approach. A concept is conceived almost as a textual
document and this equals the art, moving away from authorial ownership towards self-reflexivity
so that a work reveals the process of its own making in order to avoid the illusion
of art. Yet, it seems to me, it is the
illusory nature of art (artifice) that opens doors to emotional reaction,
thoughts and ultimately an understanding of the work before us. Without that
imaginary veil I wonder if access to our hidden/subconscious perceptions is
limited. Would we merely perceive in a
direct retinal, or optical way minimising the artist’s psychological motivations?
In the case of conceptual art would the viewer look, see, then move on, without
being beguiled or inspired? Conceptualism appears a cold methodical way of
working that has little in common with the ethos of art as an emotionally rewarding
activity for the spectator, or does it offers more, a ‘mind mapped’ view of our
world? Greenberg says “The essence of
Modernism lies ...in the use of characteristic methods of a discipline to
criticize the discipline itself – not in order to subvert it, but to entrench
it more firmly in its area of competence”[1] Is it that the engagement of the viewer is no
longer important, or does the viewer need to become more informed? Conceptual artistic value is difficult to
interpret and award; the hard work has to be done by the spectator from very
little by way of visual clues.
To compare the thought process
between these two approaches would be interesting but I am insufficiently
familiar with the conceptual approach. However, I will do my best to outline my
personal method and try to assess where the conceptual artist might digress.
CREATIVE PROCESS
How does the creative process begin? This is my brief, speculative interpretation
and is probably far from the truth. Benjamin and Adorno viewed artwork “as the
space in which the experience of thought can be exposed to its own
potentialities, contradictions, and conditions of possibility”[2] I would venture to say that is a pretty good
description of the brain.
It seems to me that an initial
“idea” a sort of spark is triggered in the brain probably by some
electro-chemical mechanism, possibly called a neuron, which lights up like a
small starburst – a “flash” of inspiration.
It is interesting here to compare a starburst with similar images,
explosions, the big bang, starlight, cancer cells, nuclear fission, sparks;
they all have some sort of nucleus with emanations leading off in diverse directions,
and are associated with creation or destruction.
THE CREATIVE THOUGHT (IDEA)
However, returning to the “idea”
- pathways whiz off to various other
networks triggering all sorts of related ideas.
For the sake of clarity, the example “idea” is that of the bull (which
has featured in a recent painting). So
“bull” has lit up somewhere in my cerebral cortex (?) That thought triggers all
sorts of other ideas and now sparks are firing in all directions: Spain,
Picasso, bull fights, birth sign, strength, stamina, black, horns, smell,
danger, bulk, death; the neural pathways
are alive with activations that are spreading further and further a field,
colour – red, black, texture, Guernica, fear.
Yet this all takes place in split seconds, and is not defined by any
language easily transmitted. The
conceptual artist is probably stimulated by different things at this stage,
probably from his left brain.
Wittgenstein[3] says that Expression depends on idea
of intention to express a meaning, this will or intent comes before verbal or
visual consolidation and is therefore internal and private to ourselves but
unknown to others. He goes on to say
that a word’s meaning is established in its use and that words become a sort of
language game, they are learned and practiced interpersonally and gain credence
and meaning in that way. He therefore
asserts that private expressions make no sense as they cannot be
articulated. In semantic terms, I feel
he conflates “words” with” ideas” in the term ‘expression’. Ideas can be expressed visually even without a
meaningful linguistic vocabulary to express these private thoughts. It is
through the process of shared visual symbols that the viewer might experience mutual
understanding. The Jungian subconscious springs to mind.
I assume conceptual artists will experience
academic and linguistic thoughts relating to his project. Back to my “idea” lighting up the circuitry of
my brain. This thought has to be
realized in some way so I invent the simulacrum of a canvas support in my brain
where I might attach the “idea” of a bull.
The move towards actual realization is probably occurring in a different
part of my brain, it feels different, it feels more substantive, less
shadowy. I am still being bombarded with
distant links, I recall witnessing a bullfight, I think of my Spanish holidays,
and I am reminded that Taurus is my birth sign. My thoughts are going off-piste,
I have to control and guide them towards the prospect of creating a painting.
With these sub-thoughts appended to the main “idea” I have to find a way of
making choices, or will my brain do that for me? Will the low light starbursts disappear off
the radar leaving a manageable number of selections from which to choose or am
I focusing on the more interesting/relevant elements? I don’t know.
However, my library, which will be unique to me, will have similarities
by way of Platonic “forms” (for want of a better description) in other people’s
minds, and this, I conjecture, is why generic symbols are ubiquitous. The
conceptual approach might be similar though the personal library could be quite
different.
BUILDING BLOCKS (Referential Hooks)
There are timeless conventional
building blocks used in the creation of a painting, and regardless of the
desire by some contemporary artists to shun their worthiness, they remain
valid, i.e. colour, composition, texture, media, support, perspective (?),
certainly in terms of a painting, maybe not so much for an installation and
conceptual art. These are inevitable
functions of the creative process, which at least Francois Morellet[4], painting in the 50s did
acknowledge. But I am ignoring chance
and probability. Is this something that
needs to go into the mix or by its intrinsic nature will it occur anyway? I
think the latter, as one can never have total control over one’s work and
neither would it be desirable. So this
part of the process is relatively easy, colour I know should be red. I have been studying Klein’s monochromes so
that confirms my decision. The bull
happens to be my star sign and now I am thinking of my birth-date and rendering
letters and numbers, texture has to be relatively flat but interesting. Another lot of starbursts as further
possibilities come to mind. I also think
about the Guernica bull and how I might incorporate that and the photograph of
a bull taken in Spain.
These ideas are now cohering on my
mental canvas and are arranging themselves but they are still in a state of
flux. How do I achieve a balance (i.e.
composition), is it desirable? If not,
what attribute replaces it? Indeed, is
an alternative necessary? I find it
difficult to grasp the idea of something being cogent and mindfully constructed
yet relying on effects engendered entirely by random chance. My thoughts vacillate, as random elements
have an appeal, much as automatism appealed to the Surrealists, and Abstract
artists relied on its magic too. These
thoughts I sense will only become manifest when I begin work. Shall I use collage? I want the look of torn posters and I have a
photograph of some worn, torn posters of Queen on a wall in Spain, I’ll print
those and use them as collage. For the
support, I will use hardboard, without gesso and I’ll scribe it with a knife to
add texture, the blade that kills the bull.
My thoughts are emerging, coalescing into the visual realization of my
initial “idea”. I am nearly in clear air
where the actual work can begin.
PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION
I have done the mind work, the real work will involve taking decisions but most will be instinctive rather than worked out pragmatically, because for me that is where the creative energy takes over, working both internally and externally, which is what I believe Jackson Pollock and others have meant by being “in” the painting.[5] The “idea” is conceived in the mind and is shuffled off the simulacrum canvas only to emerge on to the real canvas yet somehow the mental thought processes continue to inhabit it, so that the two canvases seem to converge in an indefinable way. The eventual outcome evolves in unpredictable ways, because the control mechanisms of the mind are somehow sublimated to the creative process itself.
The real empty support is in front
of me. I now have to assimilate some sort of order to my thoughts. First, I scribe the hardboard with a
knife. Fontana, left it there and
submitted slashed canvases for his artwork.
I will go further. I will use little texture but need to sink some
colour into the surface as it will be very absorbent without gesso. I apply red acrylic paint and texture it with
a brush, cling film and impasto. It’s
good enough as a monochrome right now, interesting surface on which to work. I
think about the collage element: photos
of some red peppers (implying intestines), photos of Freddie Mercury, a photo of a bull construction. I work freely, the bull will dominate and I add
collage that will work as a Bull’s eye.
I stencil my birthday in individual letters and mix them up creating “I
am” Descarte’s expression, as well as “i bull”.
I continue staining the collage and adding black to give more contrast. I make marks with oil pastel, and add pastel
powder for texture. Once “in the zone”
or “in the painting” ideas keep coming and I am balancing the painting, adding
collage, paint and texture gradually building up the whole thing until it
becomes a harmonious coherent piece of work.
BETTER FUTURE UNDERSTANDING
If a discussion of the creative process leads to better understanding then we will have an improved experience of the art world. It will enliven and deepen our interpretation of works of art hopefully encouraging a wider, younger audience. Process Art reveals rather than conceals, but does it ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’ by eliminating artifice?
With artists like Grayson Perry http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03969vt we are being introduced to more interesting
exhibits that amuse as well as excite the viewer, and through his Reith
Lectures during October 2013, it is clear he is in the vanguard of a more
positive validation of art appreciation.
Perhaps the timeless “building
blocks “ are back, and with them the creative process, works that give appeal
to the eye and the mind - we may no longer be corralled into black corridors
looking and listening to digits and text, mirrors and sounds, thinking: what am I supposed to be thinking?
Source and Reference material:
Art since 1900, Hal Foster et
al, Thames and Hudson, published 2004
Shock of the New, Robert Hughes,
published 1980, Thames and Hudson
Aesthetics, Alessandro
Giovannelli, published 2012, Continuum
New Art in the 60s and 70s, Anne
Rorimer, published 2004, Thames and Hudson
[1] P.11 Clement Greenberg, New Art in the 60s
and 70s, Anne Rorimer, Published 2001, Thames and Hudson
[2] P 147 Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno by
Gerhard Richter - Aesthtics edited by
Alessandro Giovanelli, published 2012 by
Continuum
[3] Source
and Reference material: Art since 1900, Hal Foster et al, Thames and Hudson,
2004, Johns and Stella, p.407 Ludwig Wittgenstein
[4] Source
and Reference material: Art since 1900, Hal Foster et al, Thames and Hudson,
2004, French Conceptualist painting, p517
[5] P 313
Shock of the New, Robert Hughes, published 1980, Thames and Hudson
No comments:
Post a Comment