Words
MUSINGS
by Nathan Bartley, 2011
It was always evident to me the link between the mystical traditions of the east and the development of painting in the west from the nineteenth century into the twentieth. The breakdown of the recognizable image, whether due to the invention of the camera or the ideas of science, resulted in modern art, with its tendency toward expressionism, then geometry, then colour fields devoid of any suggestion of spatial illusion. This seemed like a liberation, and Clement Greenburg sealed the deal with his astute theory of "flat" and the recognition and guidance towards the merging of subject with object. The reality though was that artist's only co-opted the simulacrum of transcendence. The achievement of the high modernist period was a mime of mysticism and although consistent intellectually and aesthetically it remained closed to the whole picture. The allure of modern art was that it seemed that anybody could do it.. (which isn't true at all, but it looks easier to paint than, say, a Vermeer). Barnett Newman's voice of fire is an example of this, so too is Jackson Pollock's awesome piece Lucifer. The reductionist ethic did have its merits though. If applied to the human organism, the human systems and the mind this ethic would take root in society. The result of all this was a rebellion against big ideas, truth, and freedom. It was as if the modernist failure catalyzed a depth of cynicism that has continued up to this day. Irony, camp, facetiousness, and the feeling that truth is an unworthy pursuit pushed us further into a kind of post-modern malaise...life being considered meaningless, hopeless, so why not just have fun, forget the big questions, stay on the surface of things and comment on the material aspects life ....Jeff Koons comes to mind, his joyful superficiality was a perfect representation of the 80's. But honestly, the big questions have been asked from the beginning and won't be quelled by theories. The prison cell of the intellect, although decorated with fine modern art, is simply limited. Innocence, earnestness, courage, simplicity, transparency, silence.....this is the new cool. Peace, however corny, is still possible, love, despite the sixties, is never out of style. In fact, the progression into futility is an inevitable and required stage of a real spiritual evolution, en masse, or individually which is where my interests lay. I think about the impetus for Chinese landscape painting in the time of the dynasties. At that time painting was a reflection of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual practices. The merit of the work was in its discipline and subtlety, and in Japan, its economy of means. ..Ink, ..water, ..paper..... Simple.... Painting and calligraphy was also closely associated with chi, martial arts, and magic. Today, spirituality is as informed by science as it is by ancient traditions. My belief is that our scientific and more specifically quantum understanding is now mirroring what Marcel Duchamp was interested in in the early twentieth century. The ideas of chance, the observer and the observed, Advaita Vedanta, the unpredictability of matter, and the understanding of "oneness" are all coalescing. Nothing is determined, nothing is real, everything is determined, everything is real....here lies the paradox that marks our time. In Buddhist thought Hinayana states that first form must become empty, then in Mahayana, emptiness returns to form. And so considering all this, painting pictures for me has become an act of "controlled folly". Its like the old saying goes... before enlightenment chop wood, carry water, after enlightenment chop wood, carry water. The enlightenment referred to here being the high modernist period of western painting.