Teaser
Does writing the theory of relativity from memory make one a math genius?
Let us distinguish between outstanding memory capabilities and phenomenon of art, as we do between crafting the rook and playing chess…

…”Stephen Wiltshire, ma main man”

Do the innate absolute criteria of fine art judge Stephen Wiltshire’s art, or is it only the jealousy of one private subjective ego?
Stephen Wiltshire became famous after appearing in some TV show where he presented his remarkable photographic memory abilities. First, I would like to honestly state, that I am truly empathic and happy for his success and have nothing in person against him. He really seems like a cute guy. What I am more concerned about is the definition of art in regards to Stepen Wiltshire’s abilities. I’ll break this down to art’s three basic components, as I perceive them.

The three aspects of fine art

Formation

Stephen Wiltshire’s art scales from basic sketching lessons to advanced architectural drawings at the most. Some of his works are no more than elementary car design sketches or urban views. No innovation of technique and no originality in the perception of reality and it’s translation to art. Just plain sketching you might see scattered abundantly around the internet.
Have you ever seen an architect or a car designer selling their sketches as works of art for prices ranging up to 13,000 pounds? I suppose not.

Content

Plain urban views or different motive transportations. No depths of issues, no message, no meaning, no purpose; just some “pretty things” to gaze at.

Awareness

Having evaluated the first two ingredients of fine art and concluded that they sum up to nothing in Stephen Wiltshire’s case, we are left with the most important one of all.
How does an artist approach a work of art? Well, I assume that there are numerous subtle nuances which define each and every artist of the past, present or future, but the basic grid is the same: you approach art with deep awareness.

What is the motive, the purpose, the essence, the meaning? What is it that which you want to say and what atmosphere will help you convey that message? How will you create that atmosphere and how will the compositional architecture, color scheme, shape formations, light, textures and perspectives influence the atmosphere you are trying to create?

The deeper the awareness the deeper the message will be and the more profound the essence is. So also, the more subtle the philosophy and the more complex the theoretical aspects behind the art work, that much more spiritual awareness and conscious self-awareness must be respectively present in order to realize that work of art.

Let’s see…

On the other hand, when all you want is to copy something from one place to another – with no emphasis on the technique and style, with no intent of purposeful content, with no awareness to the derivative criteria of creation – all you need is the hand-eye coordination awareness, hence the basic instinctual human consciousness.

So far as the context of art is concerned, there should be absolutely no meaning to whether the copying is from another picture using a translucent paper or directly from nature, or as in Stephen Wiltshire’s case using the memory as the copying source. I mean, does writing the theory of relativity from memory make you a math genius?

…”So, you…you’re the Rain Man?”

Being the artist an autistic-savant automatically boosted the value of his art, simply because there has never been in the recorded history of art another one like him. People might have said to themselves: “Well, there is nothing unique about his art, in neither venue, but hey, he’s autistic and he remembers stuff… Oh hey, and it’s just like that guy in that movie… I mean, wow!”

Well-greased marketing also helped to obscure from the art establishment and the general public the fact that actually, so far as art and artistic standards are concerned, there is nothing here to make so much fuss about. Had any other non-autistic artist presented such art to any respected gallery or museum in the world, I think that he would have gotten the cold shoulder.

Plainly saying, in this day and age art is mostly a gimmick, which without the appropriate marketing will not see the light of day, not to mention fortune and fame.

findigart.com

Created by findigart On 07/30/09 At 03:17 PM

Should being an “artist” automatically excuse for immorality and capriciousness?

Triggering questions
Who said that art must gush from misery, struggle with God and misanthropy until the inevitable conclusion of insanity, catatonic apathy or a lonesome death in some filthy one-room apartment filled with dirty needles? Who said that art is a spring of all that which is incomplete, conflicted and chaotic? What is the value of art created by such artists? Is an artist who walks around whole and happy in the street of Berlin (or Cairo for that matter) will create shallower art than one who sits all day long and occupies himself with forcefully finding reasons to cut off his ear, or one that lives a wild and hallucinative lifestyle, consequent of a morally unrestrained mind, swept away blindly by destructive instincts and urges?

Must an artist destroy himself in order to create art? And what’s the relationship between art and the essence of life? And who even said that art is a means for the realization of this essence?

The purpose is destiny
I believe that art is not a purpose and not even a means; it is simply another thing that one does in life, same as cleaning the house or eating an apple. There is a higher encompassing purpose to life, which can be attained (perhaps and no doubt) only by some sort of practice for spiritual awareness practice and lucid intent. From that trunk, when its roots are deep and healthy, may sprout all sorts of branches, twigs, leafs and fruits, as much as the imagination is capable of.

A good blacksmith is also an artist. Everyone whom is granted with inspiration based upon deep concentration with the base of morality is an artist. It could be that the life of the plasterer, who fixed the walls in my house, carried him to a position that in terms of the consensus and the acceptable stigmas, is lessened of that of Jim Morrison or Picasso, for supposedly there is no reason for his ego to bloat. But indeed this is merely a stigma, because an ego can be bloated for no “real” reason at all and it is indeed bloated as a balloon for no real reason, except for it being itself. That is the ego’s sole purpose: to distract from the real purpose.

Façade of success
Jim Morrison, for example got a few successful years, which were merely a karmatic realization of the sub-conscious contents of his mind, and was captured in an abundantly sensitive and intelligent whirlpool of self-hatred. Out of this mental state he produced art – profound and intention-propelled words from the depths of the psyche, words that particularly in those days were a challenge over what is acceptable to say and how its acceptable to say it. He pondered in deep questions concerning death and turned his inability to find answers into a voyage of self-destruction, supposedly in the name of art, with the full realization that he is doing so.

I believe that even Morrison did not really believe Morrison’s bullshit and if he did than he was less sensitive and intelligent than that image that he bothered so to construct regarding his personality. Jean-Michel Basquiat is another fine example of a clearly intolerable relationship of a man with himself and with his place in the world.

The dawn of stigma
I sense that during the Renaissance era, when artists already started receiving a status of intellectuals rather than that of “plain laborers” or craftsmen at the most, a certain perception started to intensify within the collective sub-conscious, which defined the artist as a necessarily tormented creature, patently condescending, misanthropic, closed, hostile and captured in whirlpools of intense emotional outbursts. Of course as a result of all these he would necessarily be much deeper, extremely more sensitive and much more special than all others – The Chosen One. And of course the effect of that result the artist might probably be completely lonely, poor, miserable, dirty and dark.

For example, I don’t think that Van Gogh would have been less of an artist had he been less miserable and more optimistic and faith driven in the belief and recognition that art is not the purpose of his life and neither is his niece, his brother or his closest friend, but only Divinity and death, and that he among others, was chosen to become a lonely painter in this life, the same as his mama was chosen to become a housewife who makes great strudel and someone else in the Byzantine Roman empire – as a result of purification or defilement, ignorance or wisdom – was chosen to become a great archer or a mediocre tailor…

###

To be continued…

Created by findigart On 03/02/09 At 03:11 AM