Ismism

Sorting and characterizing artworks and art periods into neat boxes, usually before or while they are busy happening, '-Ismism' in other words, is a charasteristic of the post-1900 art scene, often going hand in hand with manifesto writing.


It's the disease of our age and it is so difficult to get away from it, especially if your whole art training was bent on getting you to buy into the system. It tells one something about the self-consciousness and contrivedness involved. There is a kind of philosphical self-referentialness (lovingly called 'context' in Post Modernist philosophizing about art) underlying the development of Ismims historically that goes something like this:

>	This statement makes the point that there an artwork.
>	This statement states that there is a certain type artwork that shows it knows it is an artwork.
>	This statement states that there is a certain type of artist who likes to make a certain type of artwork that shows it knows it isan artwork.
>	This statement states that there is a certain type of artist that shows he/she knows he/she is making an artwork that shows it knows itis a certain type of artwork.
>	This statement states that there is a certain type of art critic/art historian who likes to observe a certain type of artist etc...
>	This statement states that there is a certain type of viewer who likes to observe a certain type of art critic/art historian who likes to observe a certain type of artist etc...
>	This statement states that there is a kind of viewer (fortunately not many of them yet) who cottoned on to this and now likes to observe himself observing a certain type of viewer who likes to observe a certain type of art critic/art historian etc...
>	Coda: This statement states that somewhere in this process of 'metafication,' growing more and more cerebrally topheavy, the original artwork got lost.

And methinks it has a lot to do with the process of manipulating the art market more than anything else.


Tournier* remarked that society has, from the Renaissance to the present, gradually moved from 'person orientatedness' to 'object orientatedness.' One of the consequences of this progression is (if progress it is) is the preoccupation with the philosophical preoccupation with the 'art object' and that causes the public to think of an artwork only in terms of its market value and nothing else. Underlying this is an education model I take serious issue with (which I will expound on another occasion).

An example would be an incident, not so long ago, where I noticed a framed drawing against someone's wall, and, recognizing the artist, went closer to get a better look, whereupon my host, noticing my interest, immediately moved to inform me what it was worth in monetary terms instead of embarking on a discussion on its visual merits. That was the only aspect about it that he could relate to.


How banal. But then, what would one expect when we live in a society where everything's worth, even those of people, is measured in monetary terms and the only time art gets any mention in the newsmedia at all is when it fetches a record price at an auction?


Jesus said "Unless you become like little children, you shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.' Do not think He was advocating childishness. He was referring to another aspect of children: their unselfconscious artlessness.

That is what I endeavour to produce:


Unselfconscious artless art.


Only time will tell whether I am succeeding...


*Paul Tournier, The Meaning of Persons

Æsthetics

Æsthetics and Meaning and Context are inextricably linked. You cannot divorce the one from the other without killing it. It easily becomes a quagmire I would rather not venture into...

Meaning

From a Christian eschatological viewpoint, the prognosis for this world we're living in is not good, but its Message offers a way out for those willing to take up the offer, not without sacrifice though. Hence pessimism and hope, anger and joy, fear and courage can coexist within the framework of this worldview, the one set being of the order of Things Temporary and the other set of the order of Things Eternal. At the basic level the meaning of my work fall into two categories - that which celebrates Life and Creation, and that which is Prophetic.

Viewed from a Christian perspective, the meaning of existence is not tragic, but heroic. Even when we lose we win. I continually endeavour to let my work reflect that.

Intellectualizing

Intellectualizing often goes hand-in-hand with manifesto writing: it becomes the self- or critic-constructed filter through which the viewer looks at your art. I see my art as the product of a quiet  meditative process, hence the need for extended periods of solitude and privacy I accord myself to be able to produce it. It cannot necessarily be explained in words. I try to structure my work in such a way that it has many layers. The surface ones may entail a device, a gimmick if you wish, that draws the viewer into the work. Then, before the gimmick loses its hold on the viewer, a second aspect to the work catches the eye, then a third ...and so on. In that way, I can't see why all good artworks, even the most profound ones, can't be accessible (up to a point) to the most unsophisticated viewer. Oswald Chambers remarked that all deep oceans have shallow shores. If there is nowhere any shallowness to be found it could be an indication of a mentally unbalanced personality.


The cerebral per se is therefore something I actually try to bypass in order to access something deeper and more precious - communion with the viewer, sharing of an experience - the realm of the spirit, feeling and intuition, that hard-to-define hard-to-capture non-verbal 'something'. By the time the intellect starts to kick in, most of the work's impact and meaning should, if it is a successful piece in my book, have discharged itself to the viewer.


It has become apparent to me over the years that most people do not actually look at artwork anymore. They look 'past' it, 'around' it, through it to what they perceive to be the more important issue that connects to it namely the status it is thought to impart.


To intellectualize is to perform a post mortem on the experience (which is what critics make a living from, explaining why they love it so much), not to create a necessary precondition for it. That explains why T.S Elliot said to one of  his critics on a certain occasion that he (the critic) understood his work better than he did himself.

When I create I don't analyze, when I analyze I don't create. It just happens ...albeit with years of experience and practice behind me. I am not pretending it comes easily.

Ideas present themselves to me, often instantaneously, as if given from Above. I 'see' it in my mind's eye, and simply set out to execute them. Well, not so simply really. It can be a titanic struggle. One intuitively know beforehand if you are onto something good or not without having to justify it intellectually. Merely  realizing the sometimes daunting initial vision, rather than enriching the work with more intellectual content, is what I find most difficult.


Paul Klee's famous Twittering Machine more or less sums up what is wrong with intellectualizing:

 

Paul Klee. Twittering Machine. 1922

Manifestos

As a rule I am not in favour of putting out manifestos about my art as I see it as unduly self-limiting, placing unnecessary restrictions upon oneself. It is, to use a distinction drawn by Paul Tournier in his book The Meaning of Persons, of the order of the personage and not of the person, placing yourself voluntarily in a tomb. I am evolving, and so are my views and approaches to art.


About the only thing I am prepared to state about my art by way of a manifesto is that it reflects my Christian worldview ...but in ways not always obvious or predictable. I intend, in the course of time, to create a separate blog where I will give a fuller exposition of those views.

Welcome to Willemus' Blog!

This blog was is a companion to my website www.willemus.co.za and was specially created to give my visitors a forum where they may leave comments. The only thing I don't like about it is that the posts appear in reverse chronological order, the last post being at the top. Well, that is blogging for you. Or maybe there's a way to change it? I'm a bit of a newbie at blogging I confess. I will wellcome tips and advice!

My intention is to copy and paste every new entry I make in my 'Views & Thoughts' section on my website to this blog where comments and further interaction may take place. The reason I am doing it this way is because my website serves as a marketing tool and I worked very hard to create it so I want to keep things 'tidy' there and do not want it marred by potentially nasty comments and controversy that detract from its prime purpose. I nevertheless welcome feedback, free discussion and comments, both positive or negative, provided that it happens here and is subject to the following conditions:

• Comments will be thoughtful, polite and composed with care, giving due attention to spelling and punctuation. The odd typo is forgivable.
• Comments show respect to me and my guests. No rudeness or cyber-bullying will be allowed.
• If a comment is badly written or contain rudeness but nevertheless makes a valid point, I will remove it but post a comment explaining why I removed it and request that the commentor make another post where the comment is presented in better taste and form. I do not shy away from dissenting views or criticism of my work or views though. That is to be wellcomed - it is healthy and necessary for my growth, if at times painful...

I have already made several comments in my 'Views and Thoughts' page on my 'Willemus' website ready to receive comments and will post the full text of each topic one by one so as to allow comments to be made on each individual topic raised. In time I will post more 'Views and Thoughts' as they arise.

I am looking forward to hear from you all. Enjoy the visit!

Willemus