59
GOODNESS ME! THE WORLD IS SO CONFUSING by Paul Henrickson tm. © 2014 When a correspondent, (that is, someone I write to and who writes back,) introduced me to the term “agitprop” my initial reaction was negative for it smacked of that

Goodness Me,,,surprise!

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Art critics, art gallery directors, art experts ...and then there is art. ART 101 -a lesson in vision Day dreams of majesty.

Citation preview

GOODNESS ME! THE WORLD IS SO CONFUSING by Paul Henricksontm. 2014 When a correspondent, (that is, someone I write to and who writes back,) introduced me to the term agitprop my initial reaction was negative for it smacked of that popular jargon which tries to distinguish between good and bad, acceptable and unacceptable as determined by the fledgling intellectual (who wants to belong no matter what)while employing the techniques of one-upmanship all the while being unfamiliar with the values involved.( a pathway to successful inter-social and intra-social behaviour regardless of the sense it, or doesnt ,make)..AND consequently this effort often turns into an art form in and of itself and mimics that demeaning social ridicule so characteristic of adolescence which is based on and fuelled by the need to belong to and the need to be distinguished from. In other words, the ploy is: if you dont agree with me I wont play with you anymore and we wont be friends And a part of the above is that if one doesnt follow the involved structures of the alphabet soup environment created by business and government one is ostracized, labelled a pariah and demeaned, unworthy of membership.En guarde as the rapiers say to warn the other to get ready for an assault, or, in more contemporary jargon watch your ass, buster!And if, out of some sense of social decorum we fail to object it is through this negligence we provide our assent to hang Saddam Husain and kill, (for the second time), Osama bin Laden and, as an additional bonus and final insult, we are excluded ,from whatever, for not knowing the password All of which ends up in my anti-climatic note that I find the behaviour described above as antithetical to my understanding of the aesthetic which embodies the enhancement of life, not its diminishment.So, as biblical commentators warn: watch and beware!The game of deception has a long history "At the beginning of the eighth century," Arthur Koestler tells us, "the world was polarized between the two super-powers representing Christianity and Islam. Their ideological doctrines were welded to power-politics pursued by the classical methods of propaganda, subversion and military conquest." And this behavior starts early in the human life cycle. Agitprop was a word used in an email by a correspondent a generation younger than myself who is intellectually well equipped and it confounded me so I looked it up.It seems to mean something like throwing pepper into the face of your enemy and amounts to winning an argument by stealth and deceit. I disapprove for this play has a malignant power to alter ones functional reality. If there is a problem to be solved we tell the truth about it, at least we are told we should.So, if one cannot bring oneself to use the tactics of ones enemy one . in this case, must use truth to defeat falsehood. Adults observing this behavior in the young defend it on the grounds that they are only children. It isnt serious. Well, correct, if one overlooks the fact that such play is precursor to very much more serious seductions....all, of course, in the spirit of amusement in getting ones fellow man to perform in ways that are not in his best interest...and this, we observe, is an early way of training to become a world leader.The effective tool for this seduction is language having become even more effective through some learned understanding of the role of consensuality in bringing a group to act in concert...for the convenience of others.

I much prefer the unabbreviated term agitating propaganda. It lacks the mysticism of an abracadabra mind set too lazy to educate and intent upon getting results the easy way by saying dont ask me to explain, just believe what I tell you,!Agitprop I had to look it up. It was not in my vocabulary.

It is related to the story of Adam and Eve and Lucifers attempt to deceive. I've regretted the meaning of his name as well, but why, then (I ask myself) does man claim to make knowledge a virtue on the one hand and continue to grease the wheels of the lie? Or, perhaps, all those things we learn are beside the point and we miss the really important stuff.

This, I see, in the operations of art criticism as often practiced and why I appreciate so much Leo Steinberg's observation of the work of Paul Brach.Paul Brach

Steinberg called Brachs paintings "the invisibility of an encompassing, undifferentiated homogeneity," then asked rhetorically, "can it be painted, this ineffable, metaphysical One?" Another commentator commenting on Steinbergs comment applied the following slant :Such longstanding loyalty to an artist felt like a well-worn slipper, full of character holes.The second comment appearing to be an attempt to redirect an observers interpretation of the first as a seriously damaging observation.In such an instance I approve of the word agitprop for it, somehow, echoes the gross misuse of the word loyalty in connection with art criticism. As soon as loyalty enters into the arena perceptive criticism has disappeared. However, perhaps what that commentator was actually talking about was loyalty not to the exercise of perceptive criticism but to a shared ethnicity. If such were the case the commentator is absolutely correct for if anything it correctly describes Paul Brachs social morality it would be that, however, in this narration I have discovered nothing that suggests Leo Steinberg shared that unhappy characteristic. Paul Brach, however, was not, very regrettably, an anomalous happenstance Paul Shapiro of Santa Fe, New Mexico is surprisingly open about his although, in fact, he may be unaware of it, racist world view.

What knits Paul Shapiro and Paul Brach together in the exercise of their production is an undiminished vacuity. There is ,little, if any at all, evidence of creative search and it may have been this vacuousness which Steinberg so cleverly alliterated in his description of Brachs work. Shapiro has a closet full of stylistic costumes which he assumes from time to time and in this day of agitpropism the imperceptive remain imperceptive for Paul Brach had his Mercedes and his BMW and his house in the Hamptons and Shapiro may have achieved what he told me he wanted which was to be the best (known) painter in Santa Fe..The scene seems a parallel to the one describing Simon Magus trying to get Simon Peter to sell him Christs secret for raising the dead.For the second comment above may be just another level of agitprop and I may be negligent in not detecting the odor of colon gas.

I will readily grant the difficulty involved in making aesthetic judgments, or rather, second guessing an artists intent. One of the easiest approaches to that end would be to determine how well an artist represents an object, but that approach limits the field to only those works which make that very specific attempt. It is even further limiting in that it doesnt even attempt to include all of the many aspects of reality that may be available. There is, of course, the unelaborated straight forward reporting of a physical appearance such as this illustration of a period costume,but then such an approach could not include this work by Jaime Wyeth where there is more than mere enumeration but some budding drama as welland because Edvard Munch andMunch and Andrew Wyeth Andrew Wyethhave both gone far beyond the physical appearance and, in the instance of these portraits, seriously touched upon aspects of the human psyche of course these too are real perhaps more than the others Although both this Munch (below) and the self-portrait by da Vinci may both be classified as possessing characteristics of realist thought it is in the Munch where the mere physical act of making marks on a flat surface has been detached to a great extent from the expected purpose of describing a physical object with this one, very important characteristic. The drawing describes the relationship between objects, as, for example the weight of the figure on the bed . Edvard MunchThis phenomenon, which does not describe separate objects as such but their effect upon each other in the real world is something rarely, if ever, encountered with Leonardo.Leonardo may describe in great detail separate objects and explain their functional relationship in words (written backwards we are told) but he does not, in a few strokes of the brush illustrate the relationship between objects such as we see here and might analytically describe how a body of a certain weight will effect a mattress constructed in a certain way of a certain material Leonardo may have observed that phenomenon but he didnt show us that. What he did show us was the effect of lines drawn by a silver point, I believe, on prepared paper which describe in great attachment both the structure and the texture of an object. Munch shows little interest in that phenomenon at all. It may be these and similar differences Leonardo da Vincibetween artists which distinguishes these artists from each other and them from non-artists, or pastiche makers. So, is it our responsibility to explain the significance of these differences and , if so, why?In the light of this analysis it would seem justifiable to conclude that both Paul Brach and Paul Shapiro follow the tradition of Simon Magus in wanting the appearance as opposed to the substance. In other words a lie will do just as well as the truth to an imperceptive public and it is much easier to manipulate.Or, to put the case more concretely we admit that Brach is very neat and moderately inventive in the circles he offers us, but his work lacks the concern one finds in that of Stanton MacDonald-Wright and Shapiro shows off as a vaudeville impersonator when he selects the more obvious aspects of the work of better known contemporary artists to emulate. Although on Shapiros behalf it can be said that he is better at what he does than Van Meergeran was at emulating Vermeer, but then Vermeer was a very substantial challenge to copy and any success in doing so was due mostly to an absence of perception on the part of experts. Few have the ability of a Bruce Chatwin. to identify the signatures which mark the creative effort.But the other side if the coin shows us the practical side if disguise. It may also keep one from being eaten. LovisCorinth Lovis Corinth presents, in the light I am trying to cast our understanding of creative behaviour, a number of challenges in that his academic training seems to have been so intense that even while he had been able to surmount its pressures (and they are great) it seems not to have been in the direction of exploring new insights into vision which , to some extent, it had been with Paul Cezanne, but in exceeding the achievements of others. For example, when it comes to drama he excels Bernini, when it comes to composition, he is more varied than Rubens, when it comes to the play of light in a dark ambiance he is more flamboyant that Caravaggio all this energy, it seems, merely to prove he was as good as, or better, than others in whatever the others were doing.However, the entire focus seems to be on the technical. I have not been able to discern evidence of new insights unless it be that in the way he treats light he gives to the figures a sense of movement through their space ignored by the other three. If so, a very creative contribution indeed. Only in this way can his work be considered in parallel with the efforts of Shapiro who has been very careful in the people he copies. This sort of myopic vision is limiting and seems inappropriate IF what we require is aesthetic insight.Walter Ugorsky a one-time professor at the University of Northern Iowa, may not have been quite as versatile as Corinth, but he seemed, also, to have suffered from the same limitation in not venturing beyond the conventional view. It is, in one sense, being overly polite in ones social contacts, so that its expression arouses doubt as to its sincerity. Not a good result.But, least I be misunderstood it should be made clear that my remarks about Ugorsky refer to his aesthetic behaviour, not to his social, which were always challenging and intentionally upsetting to the conventional. These three images are, in order, the works of Caravaggio, Bernini, RubensCaravaggio Bernini Rubens

Another aspect of this discussion on the relationship between truth and lies, the mark and the image might be seen in these works, one by myself and one by an artist in Santa Fe whom I knew.

One can approach an evaluation of a work via the nature of the marks which make it up and, on the surface, it seemed to me that the marks in these two instances were similar. In one case there were more of them than in the other and in one case the marks were intended to describe an object from the environment, but, in that instance, it seems, the artist limited their number in order to allow the object to become evident. That, decision, however, was not a requirement as might be seen in the work below by an unidentified artist where the balance between the graphic independence of the marks made and the object portrayed appears rather even.Alfred Morang HenricksonOn the other end of the continuum between object and no object we have this work by Franz Kline which doesnt, at first look, seem to relate to anything but itself and that it does very well indeed. Although I might add that someone recently indicated to me that Kline may have intnded this as a crucifixion. In any event, primary subject matter or not the message it carries is one of vigourous brutality and the vehicle for the message is broad brush strokes in black pigment. the antithese of the Van Eyck Now another, perhaps more subtle point, in the Munch and Wyeth (above) the action which takes place is action taking place on the canvas. With the Munchs Sun painting and my drawing of the road where I lived the action which allows us to understand the works has shifted from the surface of the canvas to how the observers optical equipment interprets that pigmented surface.The difference between the approaches is subtle. It moves from the concern of the artist to record what he sees to an interest and a concern for how the observer perceives. or, perhaps more correctly stated, the artist has recorded not physical material objects or their effects upon each other, but the ambiance of light which envelops them, thus moving the observers attention from the investigation of materiality out there to a replication of the neural experience of brilliance, moving from the objective to the subjective, which could be interpreted as a spiritual focus, This shift may be analogous to the shift from the making of pictures for the glory of the state, or the church to externalizing the creative responses of the artist....a record, one might say, a diary, of the artists nervous systemand without that record there can be no creativity ...only pastiche.With the Munch it is the brilliance of a rising (or setting) sun, with the other it is the bounce of light as reflections are generated and shared. Light is the subject in both of these works the surrounding items (landscape, houses)are secondary. Here we have a portrait of Sylvia, the widow of , I believe, a lawyer, who bought two houses in Gozo. As they adjoin each other it would appear that at some time in the future they might make an attractive bed and breakfast establishment. For a short while, after renovation the one not lived in was turned into an art gallery , for as the world turns and everyone knows it is respectable activity to run an art gallery even if you know nothing about art, but the person attending it because of infrequent visitors would function irregularly and she, or he, wasnt there when I rang the bell and Sylvia, obviously indisposed answered it and while explaining to me that she was not exactly open, meaning she didnt want to be bothered another visitor rang which immediately produced an expression on Sylvias face asking When is the world going to behave itself? This caller interpreting the expression correctly pointed out that the sign posted on the door indicated the place should be open. I commented to her under my breath that It seems you do not like being popular a comment to which she had a mixed response. I do not know why, but I enjoyed giving her awareness a little poke. It might be of interest to note that the second visitor was not a local person, a very unlikely event, but a German touristSylvia, like the others below are adjunct to a growing art scene which, perhaps like all art scenes really doesnt know what it is doing. I dont suppose there is a receipe for that in any case. It is fashionable, and fun, and entertaining, perhaps a little sex and beneath it all some mystery surrounding what an artist really is, because they have a reputation for being aberrant it might be excitingly risky to know one and to safely, perhaps, be a little bad with no attached consequences Here we have a local Maltese artist and Raphael Labro, from France, an artist by virtue of self acclamation and Dame Tempra, (by the generosity of Elizabeth II), functioning among the Maltese art gallery goers (of which there are very few) ;lending the exotic flavour the uninformed require in order to feel a part of the mystery of creation.Well, I suppose one has to begin somewhere and it is normal to feel a little odd in an unfamiliar costume. The scene, as played out in Malta , is identifiably farcical. Dame Tempra with Labro, Labros works Calibri (Body) Dame Tempra with admirers Forrest FennForrest Fenn, formerly owner, director of the Fenn Galleries in Santa Fe, N.M. located on one of the more prestigious sites on the Peralta, on the capital circle and opposite The Round House the States capital building modelled after an Indian Kiva. Almost without exception whenever Forrest added something new to the site he did so with conservative good taste and with just a dash of sybaritic style which would further seduce the moneyed class. When he built the library attached to the gallery I moaned in envy when he created the extensive garden with a pool and an alligator (at least I thought so) I sighed with longing.But like all successful seducers it was that that was the name of the game. It was all for the seduction of the ignorant and unwary. He, like the others mentioned above, know next to nothing of what they should as representatives of artistic creation and Forrest at one point intent upon proving to himself that critics know no more than anyone else in the art game invited me into his private quarters to see a painting over his mantle piece, which had been, I believe one of those a famous faker had made of one of Paul Gauguins work from Tahiti. He made a point of telling me not to go closer than 15 feet from the painting and then pulled out a postcard from his pocket and, unbelievably, asked me to tell him which was real. the one over the mantel or the post card.I became immediately deflated, the question and the situation were ridiculous.But Forrest insisted and biting my tongue and accepting the situation for what it was I , with great pain, said the post card was real while keeping in mind that it was, after all, a real post card. With that statement my philosophical being recoiled in self reproach. but I knew Forrest would misinterpret any further hesitation so, I said the post card. To this he showed his irritation and asked me how I would know the one over the mantel was not Gauguin. I replied:,Gauguin would never have joined the head to the shoulders in this fashion.. He didnt know what I meant and he had nothing more to say.Calibri (Body)