Artist Statment
STOP.
Countless neurons in your brain fired off when you looked at that word, but why did “you” chose to fire them off? Some would say the reaction was uncontrolled by “you” and instead an unconscious reaction occurred once your brain read the word STOP with your eyes. I say they are wrong. There is something deeper than that. A sense of self that is not made of flesh and bone, a self that lies deeper within us which chooses this reaction, which in fact chooses to experience life in this way. This inner “self” exists beyond the confines of reality as we know it. The essence within us creates its own reality every day by the actions we choose to make in the world. It is this inner creator or “artist” which I strive to transmit into the art I create. When viewing my art, (and I consider this statment a work of art) I humbly request that you suspend your current view on life as you know it, so as you may hopefully catch a glimpse into the reality I have created. This is a statement of who I am, why I choose to be who I am, and why I create art.
This inner “self” I speak of, the “youness” which can ignore its connection to reality as we know it, can view art as an object of interest detached from the confines of our worldly mentality. “In order to define art, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider it as a means to pleasure and to consider it as one of the conditions of human life” (3. Tolstoy, 169). A composition which contains subject matter that may be shocking to other viewers may be appealing to me because of its aesthetic qualities or composition or line weight variation etc. I believe this “condition of human life” we call art stems from the true self, but in order to understand the true self, it is necessary, first of all, to cease to consider the self as a body and a name and to consider yourself the ultimate creator (we are all the emanation of the divine omnipresent essence of consciousness called God); we are the creators of our own heaven and earth, the creators of our own realities. The confines of our daily concepts of ourselves must be broken down, just as the confines of our definition of art must. Though we are all on this planet and in this reality without knowledge of any previous reality, we are still here, and though we can choose to end this random trip we're on through life, why waste the trip? Who knows where you will go after life on earth and who cares? The important thing is to remember to breathe deep, enjoy life and embrace every day with the intent to use this power of creation for a good purpose.
Hinduism touches on my belief that in each of us there lie “individual souls, our atman (or soul) beings readily identifiable with the greater soul of Brahman” (5. Wikipedia) and as in the Hindu religion, I think that God takes on many forms because everyone has a personal concept of God and no concept is wrong, only different. I differ from Hindus in that I do not believe you are born into a caste system. I believe everyone finds their own way through life, and that there are no categories of inferior of superior consciousness or being.
Previous views on art must be thrown out in order to realize art's true potential. We must not confine art to beauty alone as Tolstoy believes. He says art is “that which makes beauty manifest, and beauty is that which pleases (without exciting desire).” (3. Tolstoy, 167), this view must be given up, and Instead we must adopt an all encompassing view on art as a medium through which individual experiences (physical or otherwise) can be shared with others. Through art we can excite unfathomable desires and transmit endless emotions, but we must be careful for art can also be used to snuff desires and numb or dull down emotions (kitsch art). Adorno once said “People give their approval to mass culture because they know or suspect that this is where they are taught the morals they will surely need as their passport in a monopolized life” (6. 80). This quote really explains why there is harmful and tasteless art. Adorno is saying that uneducated people with a concrete view on their reality tend to cling to socially acceptable standards, and judge art through societal views as opposed to “distancing” themselves from the art.
The concept of “distance” is one that has always fascinated me. I had never thought about the fact that as artists, we do something that would seem very strange to most people, and distance ourselves from the art we make and see. This theory of distance was brought to my attention by Bullough who said there are different types of distance. The first thing we think of when distance is mentioned is actual distance between things, “actual spatial distance, i.e. the distance of a work of art from the spectator” (1. Bullough 297), but there is another type of distance which is called “Temporal distance”, and is defined by Bullough as “remoteness from us in point of time” (1. 297). He says that “ this distance appears to lie between our own self and its affections, using the latter term in its broadest sense as anything which affects our being, bodily or spiritually e.g. as sensation, perception, emotional state or idea” (1. Bullough 298). This concept makes perfect sense and can be applied to any form of artwork. To truly see a work for its artistic qualities distanced from one's own personal reality is to be a critic of the highest regard. This is the separation I had mentioned in the opening statement, when I requested you suspend your current view on reality to catch a glimpse into mine. I was asking you to distance yourself.
Art helps us to remove the mask of every day life temporarily. The masks we all wear around for others to see must be broken for us to touch on what lies beneath. “Mask literally means “a temporary front-side” that emphasizes the characteristics of the object customarily taken to be different from “the true self” the unpainted, unfeigned face of the person wearing the mask.” (8. Megumi, 231) This idea of a mask applies not only to our true self (atman), but also to art on many dimensions. The mask which the socially acceptable world has given art is that it must be beautiful to be pleasing, yet death and suffering have been the subjects of countless masterful works throughout history . The mask of money which has turned art for some into nothing other than a price-tag and a fetish of monetary value or the mask we construct for the concept of beauty, when really “Beauty is a pledge of the possible conformity between the soul and nature, and consequently a ground of faith in the supremacy of the good.” (7. Santayana, 30). Even with visionaries like Santayana to blaze a trail for us, we still get caught up in defining art by its masks, when really we should just be appreciating it for what it is; a selfless transmission from one person to the world. We are but dust grown to consciousness, and we must always remember that the dust around us is real, but the consciousness aroused within it (our atman) stands apart from this reality, and should never be underestimated or confined by it.
With the realization of the atman (soul) comes the wisdom that one must be accepting of others opinions, for each of us views reality in a completely different light that is not wrong or right, only different. Mary Devereaux once said “All vision is colored by the “spectacles” through which we see the world... all seeing is "a way of seeing” (4. 381). We must be conscious of and willing to accept that other people wear different “spectacles” and learn from these differences when realized in others. It is the difference in all of us which makes life interesting and art so important as a transmitter of these independent views.
Art can transmit any number of things from emotions to illuminations on life etc. and when seen in this way, art has a direct relation to speech. “The activity of art is a most important one, as important as the activity of speech itself” (3. Tolstoy, 171). Speech (like art) is a means of transmitting data from person to person, yet art can accomplish this and much more. The biggest difference between the two is the fact that through the understanding of distance, a piece of art can do much more than a letter or a sign. A work of art can transmit its embodied meaning. It can touch on extremely raw emotions in a pleasing way by fogging the temporal distance (Bullough) in an aesthetically pleasing way; coaxing the viewer deeper into contemplation of the meaning of the work. Some artists are so skilled at hooking the viewer with aesthetically pleasing fog that the viewer may catch themselves mesmerized by the beauty of a piece with horrifying or disturbing subject matter.
The limitations of art's ability to transmit experiences is endless, but we must be careful what we let in. Some things can never be unseen, and as a distanced observer of a work of art, you may find yourself appreciating pieces which are morally or ethically repugnant. “Certain kinds of enjoyment, regardless of their effects, may themselves - lead one to ask not just about what one may become, but about who one is now.” (2. Devereaux, 109) This reflection on the self is essential to appreciating other's art, as it is your reality which you must suspend in order to respect the artist for the reality they have expressed. Yet to express this inner self is a trick in itself, and it is the semiotics of art which helps us break down its basic processes and principles. Like spelling and grammar for writing, semiotics forms the basis of all art, yet semiotics can only go so far as to give us the foundation to stand on. When we embrace the creator in each of us as well as the building blocks to transmit this creator, we can rise far above these rules and guidelines of art and reality which define them as such and touch on the very essence of our being.
Kant said “The beautiful is that which, apart from a concept, pleases universally” (1. 280), but I disagree completely! The idea is a nice one, but cannot be true for the simple fact that the inner self creates a different reading of the object in question for each of us. Though we are all connected in a hindu sense of brahman, we all have different aesthetic tastes which we have developed through our individual expirences. Tolstoy puts this plainly into context when he said “ There is and can be no explanation of why one thing pleases one man and displeases another, or vice versa” (3. 167). This statement shows the inherent flaw in Kant’s claim of universal beauty... we all see the world through different colored spectacles so a work can never truly please universally.
I hope that through this satment you now have a greater understanding of my views on art and beauty, as well as the inner self we so readily forget in our complex and distracting lives. My hope is that through my works, I might enlighten some to my reality and create some good in the world. I have chosen to dedicate my life to art because it is a passion that grows in me by the day. Though my body will pass on, my drive to create will never die. Thank you for taking the time to come to a better understanding of me and my work. I leave you with a quote, Tolstoy had it right when he said "There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: the regeneration of the inner man", and this regeneration starts by the realization of the self. Once life's mask is realized as such, all else will follow.
I hope you enjoyed this trip into my reality, now go, create something good, and ENJOY your trip through life.