Printer-friendly version
 
 

Homepage

Texts Menu

Main Menu

The Integrative Style
 

[version 2] A first step towards integration

The final aim of art

I think that the final aim of art is not just to arouse feelings -positive as well as negative-, but to bring the spectator/listener closer to the real sense of his existence. I don't mean positive feelings in the simple sense of the word, but in the final effect. E.g. alluding to the fundamental tragedies of existence can be cathartic, as long as one can feel, by implicit or explicit contrasts, that one's ability to cope with it and to surmount it is more likely than one sometimes fears. Beautiful art is always positive for me, but I know that this notion can so easily be caricaturized and ridiculized.

I think this is the final aim. The creativity is to be found in the process of conceiving what could affect us. Not necessarily in the virtuosity of the craft. But this remains of course (too) vague as a definition.

To me, most of all, Art involves faithfulness toward Beauty. Therefore, I choose Aesthetics, in its philosophical conception, as a major value.

The Art of Images, particularly painting, sculpture, drawing and, more recently, also Digital Art must hold on to this faithfulness. And it is the artist's duty to accept a mission, that of creating forms which have not existed previously. Play the role of a God and create, create, create...

More than adding forms to the world, the task means creating a new world of forms in a Neomorphic Universe.

This is how the greatest spontaneity functions. An interplay of emotions, no doubt, nonetheless one in which they are neither the whole nor everything. In order to be an artist, one must be passionate. Not to be consumed by passion, but to tame it. To this end, as Ernst Fischer says in "Von der Notwendigkeit der Kunst, Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1959": In order to be an artist, one needs to tame, control and transform experience into memory, memory into expression, matter (I would say, idea) into form. (Paulo Renato Rodrigues)

It is not a hidden meaning that the artist of images communicates to the spectator of his work, but the emotions and feelings experienced in the act of creation. In the words of Fernando Pessoa, the greatest poet in the Portuguese speaking world,

"... As not to have any hidden meaning at all
Is the only hidden meaning of things,
Stranger than every strangeness,
Than the dream of every poet
And the thought of every philosopher,
Is that things are truly that which they appear to be
And there is nothing meant to be understood.
 

Indeed, here is what my senses have learned on their own:
Things do not carry meaning, but existence.
Things are the only hidden meaning of things."  (F. Pessoa)

Style Considerations

- On surreality

For me, the artistic style of the Digital Surrealistic Art selection on this site seems a little bit too explicit, and charms too much blatant and undemanding associations.

This kind of art is a little bit too tributary to photography to be considered as 'true' digital art. When you visit the Abstract Art Webring, you'll find some examples of art coming closer to that, although, strictly spoken, they are not 'surrealistic'. Perhaps the quality of "noospheric art" is applicable to each authentic and innovating kind of art.

The sheer fact that digital art is to an important degree tributary to photography, is not an argument for me. Although classical art is much closer to nature's figurativity, it's still considered as art. Anyway, I think it's the result that counts, and that's the emotional, aesthetical (= the same word als emotional in Greek) effect on the spectator. I think this is the only final aim. The creativity is to be found in the process of conceiving what could affect us. Not necessarily in the virtuosity of the craft. But this remains of course (too) vague as a definition.

Going down to a New-Age-like iconography is, in my opinion, too restrictive and too soft to satisfy the aspirations of the Noospheric ideal. On the other hand, radical avant-garde comes closer to that vision of globality.

The boundaries between surrealism and soft New Age are not easy to define, and are even changing with our states of mind. The criterion is neither the ease by which such images can be constructed, nor their superficial, "sweet" perfection. It depends from the nebulous border between presenting deceptive illusions and provoking an enhanced ability to cope with life.

- The 'Noospheric' dimension of Art

In music I find modern genres much more "noospheric" than most of classical pieces. But when you define "noospheric" as 'evoking a vision of globality' I do hesitate. Just provoking emotions by playing with lines and colors is not enough for me, although it can be very stimulating for one's mood.

A few weeks ago I was sitting in front of large painting of Jackson POLLOCK in the Moma. Just spots and drippings, no references, nothing that in the faintest way comes in the neighbourhood of anything figurative. Yet I was fascinated by the monumentality and the strength of the composition or maybe even the absolute absence of composition. After a while I felt the essential classicism of that painting: it became a contemporary version of the ancient masters. I don't think it provoked emotions such as joy, anger or anything alike. The sensation was rather mystical, in the sense that I strongly felt the pictural testimony of the complexity of the condition humaine in the period he lived in. It was brought to me by a genius. [Michel FLAMME]

And I think that just depicting pain, death, absurdity and helplessness is as simple as hysteria: trying to obtain emotional effect by just showing the tragedy and the dearth, in stead of suggesting or trying to realize a solution -a much more exacting charge.

- The 'Sexual' dimension of Art

The difference between mean erotism and the artistic use of the female body is not allways easy to make. To make the distinction, I'll use the same criterion: a superficial illusion vs. a deeper evocation of existential messages. Not only in art, but particularly in real life sexuality -and the employment of bodily forms and behaviour in general- is perhaps the richest symbol that we have. Ancient sects and traditions were most often imbued with sexuality, and it is an impoverishment of modern culture that this most evident experience is locked up in the bedroom, and any suggestion of it outside this cubicle is blamed as mean decadence. Although the prevalence of eroticism in the art can perhaps in part be explained as a compensation for the absence of sexual rituals and symbolism, and prudery in general, I think that erotic evocations are more than just sexual hints. In its sexual imagery it strongly appeals to some of the most fundamental, nonsexual emotions and realities in our psyche, including mutual acceptance and consolation, unconditional and blind confidence, the message that despite conflicts and mutual deceptions we are still prepared to retry togetherness over and again, the awareness that life's happiness only can be found in constructive interaction, etc.

But moreover, I think the female body is much more than just an erotic incitement. In its (relative) likeness to the perfection of childish beauty, its suggestion of tenderness and vulnerabilty rather than agressiveness and harshness, it reminds us of a perfect world, a constructive and positive future, or at least of our aspiration to such a reality. I think that this is not only the case for men, because also the female artists, including those in my digital art selection, use more female figures than masculine. And, last but not least, we may not forget that humans are most probably very sensitive, on an instinctive and archetypal level, for bodily shapes and signals -a kind of artistic message abstract and "non-soft" arts have only poor accessibility to.

- The 'Mystical' dimension of Art

There is also the mystical, 'magic realistic' dimension. Abstract art is often fascinating, but lakcs -at least for me- too often that thrilling suggestion that other things, other dimensions than real are possible. Abstract art is of course very creative, of should we rather say innovative. It creates an new, fictive reality. A completely other world. But surrealistic art is sur-real, i.e. enough real to seem actual, but suddenly we discover unusual details that suggest unexplained but apparently realistic aspects we never thought of before. We discover new possibilities of our own reality, rather than completely new but unattainable irrealities.

The process of aesthetic emotion

The integration of several forms of perception, and the multiplicity of levels of interpretation is fundamental for Plastic Arts. When this complexity is seized in an unsophiticated expression, we come close to perfection.

The experience of the artist

Art evokes me. It makes me feel. Sometimes it makes me feel happy, sometimes sad, sometimes it gives me a feeling of wonder. When I make something, it has to make me feel. If it doesn't, it gets tossed or gets filed away for tomorrow. I think my approach is very simple.

I do like to read about what others think too, because it makes me think a little deeper. [Marilyn JALBERT, alias "Lunamoon"]

[version 1] Original texts

Dear Kris,

Very interesting [surrealistic] art selection. Nevertheless, this kind of art is, to my humble opinion, a little bit too tributary to photography to be considered as 'true' digital art. When you visit the Abstract Art Webring, you'll find some examples of art coming closer to that, although, strictly spoken, they are not 'surrealistic'. Perhaps the quality of "noospheric art" is applicable to each authentic and innovating kind of art. The integration of several forms of perception, and the multiplicity of levels of interpretation is fundamental for Plastic Arts. When this complexity is seized in an unsophiticated expression, we come close to perfection.

Going down to a New-Age-like iconography is, in my opinion, too restrictive and too soft to satisfy the aspirations of the Noospheric ideal. On the other hand, radical avant-garde comes closer to that vision of globality.

For me, the artistic style of the Digital Surrealistic Art selection on this site seems a little bit too explicit, and charms too much blatant and undemanding associations.

[Michel Flamme, 20.01.02]

Dear Michael,

you put forward some very interesting ideas, inviting to reflection. So, here reflection comes.

First of all, the sheer fact that digital art is to an important degree tributary to photography, is not an argument for me. Although classical art is much closer to nature's figurativity, it's still considered as art. Anyway, I think it's the result that counts, and that's the emotional, aesthetical (= the same word als emotional in Greek) effect on the spectator. I think this is the only final aim. The creativity is to be found in the process of conceiving what could affect us. Not necessarily in the virtuosity of the craft. But this remains of course (too) vague as a definition.

I'm very sensitive to abstract art (more than perhaps you think of me; and in the near future I will open a second collection of abstract noospheric art, and even of classical noospheric artworks, from Bosch & Dürer to Delvaux). In music for instance I find modern genres much more "noospheric" than classical pieces. But when you define "noospheric" as 'evoking a vision of globality' I do hesitate. I think -as modestly as you do- that the final aim of art is not just to arouse feelings -positive as well as negative-, but to bring the spectator/listener closer to the real sense of his existence. I don't mean positive feelings in the simple sense of the word, but in the final effect. E.g. alluding to the fundamental tragedies of existence can be cathartic, as long as one can feel, by implicit or explicit contrasts, that one's ability to cope with it and to surmount it is more likely than one sometimes fears. Beautiful art is always positive for me, but I know that this notion can so easily be caricaturized and ridiculized.

Just provoking emotions by playing with lines and colors is not enough for me, although it can be very stimulating for one's mood. And I think that just depicting pain, death, absurdity and helplessness is as simple as hysteria: trying to obtain emotional effect by just showing the tragedy and the dearth, in stead of suggesting or trying to realize a solution -a much more exacting charge.

I know that the boundaries between surrealism and soft New Age are not easy to define, and are even changing with our states of mind. The criterion for me is neither the ease by which such images can be constructed, nor their superficial, "sweet" perfection. It depends from the nebulous border between presenting deceptive illusions and provoking an enhanced ability to cope with life.

An analogous problem -that you don't refer to- is the difference between mean erotism and the artistic use of the female body. To make the distinction, I'll use the same criterion: a superficial illusion vs. a deeper evocation of existential messages. Not only in art, but particularly in real life sexuality -and the employment of bodily forms and behaviour in general- is perhaps the richest symbol that we have. Ancient sects and traditions were most often imbued with sexuality, and it is an impoverishment of modern culture that this most evident experience is locked up in the bedroom, and any suggestion of it outside this cubicle is blamed as mean decadence. Although the prevalence of eroticism in the art can perhaps in part be explained as a compensation for the absence of sexual rituals and symbolism, and prudery in general, I think that erotic evocations are more than just sexual hints. In its sexual imagery it strongly appeals to some of the most fundamental, nonsexual emotions and realities in our psyche, including mutual acceptance and consolation, unconditional and blind confidence, the message that despite conflicts and mutual deceptions we are still prepared to retry togetherness over and again, the awareness that life's happiness only can be found in constructive interaction, etc.

But moreover, I think the female body is much more than just an erotic incitement. In its (relative) likeness to the perfection of childish beauty, its suggestion of tenderness and vulnerabilty rather than agressiveness and harshness, it reminds us of a perfect world, a constructive and positive future, or at least of our aspiration to such a reality. I think that this is not only the case for men, because also the female artists, including those in my digital art selection, use more female figures than masculine. And, last but not least, we may not forget that humans are most probably very sensitive, on an instinctive and archetypal level, for bodily shapes and signals -a kind of artistic message abstract and "non-soft" arts have only poor accessibility to.

There is also the mystical, 'magic realistic' dimension. Abstract art is often fascinating, but lakcs -at least for me- too often that thrilling suggestion that other things, other dimensions than real are possible. Abstract art is of course very creative, of should we rather say innovative. It creates an new, fictive reality. A completely other world. But surrealistic art is sur-real, i.e. enough real to seem actual, but suddenly we discover unusual details that suggest unexplained but apparently realistic aspects we never thought of before. We discover new possibilities of our own reality, rather than completely new but unattainable irrealities.

But as that dead theologian said in an apparition to his old pal, expecting some cues about final reality: "Totaliter aliter", I think things are much more complicated than we can imagine here and now. That's probably the most important "mission" of art...

[Kris Roose, 20.01.02]