Artist's Interview: Part 4
Artist's Statement | Biography | Narrative Bio
Site Index | | Translate | Contact Us
Q: How do you feel about art being abstract?
A: It seems appropriate to my expression, to the things that I want to express, and to my attitudes and beliefs about art and life.
Q: Does abstraction without linguistic or written explanation hamper the viewer's ability to readily comprehend the message being communicated?
A: The purpose of titles and written explanations is to more or less explicitly state how the artist (or writer-viewer) thinks, feels about, or understands the work in question.
Art, however, is phenomenological, it exists in the same way that natural phenomena like trees, clouds, people or things do: they just are. How we judge them, appreciate them, feel about them; what we see in them or otherwise consider, or fail to, is not what these phenomena are --that is to say, those things do not exhaust them, do not ultimately define them and do not affect them as such. Those kinds of things, our judgments, perceptions, are in the nature of gossip unheard by its subject. Our opinions, points of view and significances with respect to phenomena affect us, affect our view of things, and perhaps the larger consensual view of them shared by others, and indeed seem even to change the thing itself, the object of our attention; but they do not, actually, for these phenomena have their own identities, essences and existences apart from our thoughts about them. Tomorrow we will encounter them again and perhaps they will look very different to us, perhaps we will see things in them we never saw before, or maybe we will see them in a different light, from a different point of view. We would have changed, our perceptions would have changed, but the thing itself remains itself still, in all its ineffable, inscrutable, unfathomable being; and our judgments, beliefs and feelings about it say more about us than they do about it; for the thing, as phenomenon, acts only as a reflection to us of ourselves.
Q: ...Or is it the "natural" aesthetics that subconsciously allow us to comprehend the message even if we do not consciously realize it?
A: There is a wide range of viewers, with a wide range of sensitivities, experiences, educations and perceptions; and it is a wise artist who does not insist in exclusively owning his works, or on claiming to know them best, but who allows for and rejoices in unlimited responses to and interpretations of his work; for then, like a parent regarding his strong and independent child, he knows he has indeed created a living phenomena, a prince in the world, instead of a Cinderella. It is this creation of a living phenomena in the world --indeed, in all of Creation and beyond it-- that is at issue with the artist, not the fashioning of a perfect tool to propagate his messages, his interests, and his inevitably limited points of view.
Let the artist's creations be inspirations to others; let them be released by him unconditionally, in love; disinterestedly, that his creations may be as sovereign, free and fine as the soul that created them, and even more so. And let him not be overly concerned about whether his work will be understood or sufficiently appreciated, but let him trust that it will, by those who with pure heart and clear soul can see. And let us remember, regarding the viewer, that phenomena, such as people and artworks, being inexhaustible, exist simultaneously in different manifestations.
No doubt there are varying degree of comprehension that go on with viewers, some at unconscious levels. In fact, I do believe this is a common occurrence: that we are influenced by artworks and plants and stars, and other such subtle or distant things in ways and extents to which we consciously may not be aware. One would expect that the sincere call of the heart would be heard from afar, and its influence widely felt. We are unlimited spiritual beings. We are all aspects of the One and are always intimately, inextricably connected.
Q: Your web page mentions "psychology" and "...resurrection and transcendence through the use of the rectangular mandala form as the combined symbol of nature and the human psyche." I see some of the imagery in your works as figurative. Could these images be representational of humanity and human psyche?
A: I have used some imagery in my work which self-consciously alludes to natural forms and even to the human figure, specifically "The Birth of Venus: XX," which was in part a visual pun on the series' title, as little "proto-Venus" makes its appearance in the last painting in more or less etheric corporeality. Perhaps other paintings in that series may be viewed as having figurative allusions too: "The Birth of Venus VI, VII." These images are perhaps best considered in lyrical, poetic terms, as rhyming, even musical forms within the series' abstract context.
In the Rhapsodies series there are also paintings which may be seen as somewhat figurative: II, III, V, X, XIII, but they offer other clear and compelling interpretations as well. And of course, the Ode to Nature series has different paintings suggesting natural forms and perhaps even figures. These have as much to do with playfulness, humor and light irony as with offering parenthetical commentaries on the continuum-like qualities of elasticity and fuzzy edges of seemingly polarized, well-defined art categories.
Q: ...Or perhaps they are spiritual energies that traverse dimensional boundaries?
A: That may be a seen in them by viewers. The paintings neither contradict nor forbid such an interpretation, and as for me, I allow all views.
Q: I am curious if you subscribe to the psychoanalytical teachings of Jung, Freud, etc.?
A: I have found psychology interesting and insightful in the past as a doorway into subtler, deeper, and higher aspects of ourselves than allowed for by the biochemical machine paradigm of conventional western science and medicine. At present, nonetheless, it seems to me that psychology does not treat adequately of spiritual matters beyond our temporal, human manifestation. I would be most interested in a psychology of the eternal, transcendental soul as identified with God consciousness, if there could be said to be such a thing.
Q: One psychoanalyst in particular, Mindell I believe, describes human consciousness as a "river of thought." Do you have any ideas on consciousness and its relationship with metaphysical models?
A: Consciousness is another one of those terms that is loosely used to mean a variety of things, ranging from awareness, to different mental states, to essence prior to etheric manifestation, and other things. I have lately been reading some fascinating channeled material by a new friend in Canada, Les Harwood, 5 whose passage on creation I have quoted on my website's index page. A mutual friend, Bill Davidson, (also Canadian and also a channeler) whose book, Relationships of Transformation is available for downloading in his Guest Gallery page on my site, recently sent me a self-published book by Les Harwood, The Esoteric Self, which I have found simply amazing in its clarity and unprecedented information on all aspects of our spiritual natures and of Creation in general. Unfortunately, the book is not available through bookstores, but may be ordered from the author.
Q: Speaking of consciousness, one studying the abstract must consider the unconscious. In relation to sacred geometry and new age metaphysics, dreams are a significant part of understanding the human psyche. Does any of your imagery come from your dreams?
A: My imagery does not come from dreams. It has in the past come from semi-conscious doodles on note pad sheets arriving without active, conscious bidding nor design. The thing is that I have paid attention to these visitations, honoring them as the gifts and inspirations from a higher, wiser self, and have set myself to studying them, understanding them as best I could, and in as many ways as I could; and I have kept faith with them by lavishing my interest, attentions, material resources and pains on them, highborn and noble guests that I have considered them to be.
Q: What are your thoughts on the validity of OBE's (Out of Body experiences)?
A: It may by now be clear what my thoughts may be on such things, but I will state that I do not consider out of body experiences unusual, and feel that we in fact do that sort of thing during our sleep regularly, and while awake at times. We are much more than our bodies and brain. We in fact consist of any number of bodies nested together, with the physical body representing only the densest one. There are our emotional or astral body, our mental body, our spiritual body, and it goes on from there, each one subtler, finer and of higher frequency, our physical manifestation being the effect, not the cause of our other bodies.
Our souls normally reside in our physical body, but in fluctuating degrees. We may easily expand outwardly to encompass a greater sense of self beyond the physical body, or we may leave the body temporarily, or for good upon the body's death. It is said there is a thin silver cord that tethers us to the body allowing us to return to it right away if necessary during out-of-body travels. If this cord is severed we may wind up comatose: the body alive, but nobody home... These things have long been studied and extensively documented by various investigators and published in many venues.
