PROBLEMATIC AND PERPLEXING ANALYSIS:an

introduction to contradictions

by Paul Henrickson,

Ph.D. ©2009 tm.

Perhaps it is my advancing maturity that accounts for what I sense is a form of

creeping social virus attacking the social organization by attracting individual egos
and forcing them into high gear before they are ready for such an experience. I
refer, for example,to Paris Hilton who is said to be famous for being famous. It
seem that the very human characteristic for admiring achievement has, shall one
say, lost focus.

Or, perhaps it may be the mantle of naivity has shredded and fallen off leaving me
uprotected from the outrageous behaviors of claimants to non-existant titles,
thrones, university degrees and somethig approaching the fame of a Dolly
Parton’s bosom, so I now find everything suspect.

de Kooning, “Woman” (it’s the center one)I do not know whether deKooning and
Parton ever met. Maybe it makes no difference but it does illustrate the variety of
cultural expressions we have become subject to. There seems never a dull moment
and that moment seems to have been enjoyed 1,800,000 years ago…image no.3.

In the past, I imagine, I have for the most part simply taken people at their word. I
do know for sure that I respected authority much too much. Now, I can say, for
certain, I no longer do….at all which, I imagine, throws all the responsibility for
telling the truth from the non-truth, the good from the bad, back onto my shoulders.

I might add, as well, that I may nearly be approaching that edge of awareness
where I might even be able to detect the humor in what other-wise are tragic
situations…something more than laughing at someone slipping on a banana peel.
I now live in a most peculiar place. Not only is the name, Gozo, when heard by the
ear of an English speaking person suggestive of buffa comedic behavior on the level
of a Punch and Judy marriage or the apotheosis of Bozo raised from being an
individual to a community, the stage clown, expressions quite in line with the
likes of that naughty but provocatively attractive Jeff Koons and not too distant
from that full stop to sexual relations, Tracey Emin

whose unmade
bed,semen stains and all, we are asked to admire and which, I understand, won a
prize from the English whose forebears, my gosh, can one imagine?...were Puritan!

At art openings, the vernisage, as the French call them, one might gaze over the
collection of visitors to see a gathering of lonely, isolated social misfits. What keeps
them in apparent joyful communion is the terror of the void.[not unlike what art
historians have called “the Northern Aesthetic”] Regretably, the void is always
there and the only ones comfortable with themselves at art openings are those who
respect the discipline of criticism and exercise the faculties of analysis….but where
are they to be found?

These fallen autumn leaves, Koons, Brach, Nicole Smith, Paris Hilton, do not
reference the vital energies of a creative mind. Yet, very regrettably, they too often
represent (in the minds of the only partially perceptive) the entire constellation of
creative personalities where, in point of fact, they, these wannabe culural icons,
have only capitalized, taken free rides , on the more exaggeratedly extreme
characteristics of creative personalities. It seems that the most newsworthy items,
as selected by others, have, in my mind, missed the point…the truly creative
personality society rejects…they are too frightening.
There are two major types functioning on the social stage.There are the fakes who
do not know what they aught to know but wear the mantle of the sterotypical
expert,who will go to any intimidating extreme to avoid being finally detected .

Then there are those who possess the remarkable modesty of many truly creative
personalities which is often a safequard against detection as legitimately
creative personalities…realizing that to be detected is the equivalent to being a
potential object of sacrifice to the mediocrity of the contemporary concept of
excellence…everyone wants a slice of the god…but only after the crucifixion.

I do not find myself secure in attempting to describe, nor certainly to explain, the
apparent relationship between one person and another. In general, I suppose, it
has something to do with the attractor (whether intentional or not) having, or
offering, something the attractee needs or wants. It is, therefore, understandable
that some misunderstanding might arise if what one thinks one sees isn’t really
there , or, if there, is denied.

Perhaps it has always been so, most especially since art and religious practice
seeemed joined, whatever the religious organization it soon recognized the value of
drama. It is no secret that some individuals have been very successful in pulling
blinders over the already hoodwinked and promoting their mercenary values while
obscuring the real values inherent in creative art expression, but, I, along with most
others, am hard-pressed to clarify what those real values might be.

It is not that they do not exist, it is, rather, that the words may not yet have been
invented to describe them. But, in general, there are elements of real growth,
expansion, or perception in what one becomes after experiences of deep
involvement, a sensually better equiped organism. On the other hand, one
might never know what might trigger the collapse of preconceptions.

THE COMPETATIVE ART ARENA seems a

possible title for this photo, but it doesn’t indicate the inappropriate seductions that
parallel those that are indicated in the photo below and are going on in the one
above. There are few who seem to know there are special qualities inherent in
works of art and even fewer who dare try to communicate what those qualities are
so one settles for the mysterious, for a ghost story, for social and meaningless
witticisms, and thereby gets the attention of the reluctant audience must faster
than searching for the alert needle in the hay stack..

I am not at all sure that this title is adequately descriptive. There are times when I
have a great deal of trouble in synopsizing an idea, but if a picture is worth a
thousand words, as the Chinese tell us, then this image might tell us not to expect
too much. The male of the sepcies is so easily misled and the female , beneath it
all, so very practical.

Someone wrote me recently making a brief comment on some of the work

associated with the 2009 Malta Biennale which is one of the cultural formulations of
Dame Francoise Tempra the lady in the photo high bove, an Italian born widowed by
a British Baronet. I must admit, at the outset, that the effort to bring off any cultural
event that suggests comparative values, expertese and accomplishment, which
most exhibition venues do, is frought with a great collection of frustrating
accomodations all of which adversely effect the quality of the work that gets to be
shown and the public perception of their value.

Consequently the major objective of such enterprises must be the public

appearances of the organizers themselves ( a sometimes ego-satisfying
experience)and not the peculiar values of the art efforts (which are often lost in the
manner of exposition which frequently surpasses the mystification in the works
themselves).

This observation applies to all levels of the enterprise from those who conceived the
idea initially to those who respond to the call to select exhibitors and the exhibitors
themselves who, sometimes, confuse such recognition with appreciation and
understanding. On the other hand why bother disentangling all this when it may
simply be that the only reality is the reality that the individual recognizes. ..and
recognition becomes the creative act. BUT if that were really the case how
does one justify the reality of a Jeff Koons in the presence of a Vincent Van Gogh?
The only workable answer seems to be that the audience is tasteless, peurile and
stupid.

In short, most exhibitions which include the work of a variety of exhibitors

encourage superficiality of public attention which may be a defense mechanism
created to deal with the fatigue of trying to clarify the obscure. This is regretable. It
has all the appearance of farce. People, more or less voluntarily,gather to
ostensibly admire works they do not understand and , as after having attended
church sevice, leave feeling better about themselves ….it is not exactly like having
been paralytic for years suddenly taking up his pallet and walking.

Sonja of the Sinclair Stevenson Gallery, a widow of, I believe, a lawyer who, it is
said, was interested in establishing for Gozitan artists an exhibition venue for their
work. The building, an old stone farm house, offers a spaciously comfortable
environment. Many old Gozitan farm houses and the old forts, such as the

Cittadella, as well, are very handsome structures which, most

of the time these days, still await an exhibtion of work that might match their
informed and dignified presence. Thus far that has escaped both my and their
experience. And the reason for that lamentable fact is the reason for this essay
which, in plain language, is an essay on cultural fraud which is even more
rampant than bad taste. There is a difference between the two,….. bad taste is
defensable, fraud is not. But, in connection with all of this rethinking of values we
must still try to come up with a viable approach to making judgments. ..or are we to
accept the position of not making any judment at all?
As I understand Mrs. Stevenson’s situation she has made an agreement with the government of
Malta, or some hirelings of that government, for her to buy a second home (which is not allowed
in Malta for aliens) for a future investment income. It is clear she has neither the interest nor the
abilities to direct a gallerie’s operations. It is true that there have been, to my knowledge two
exhibitions held in that building. The first one was of the work of the Maltese artist Austin

Camilleri which was commented

upon by Dr. Raphael Vella of the University of Malta.
“Contradiction is, after all, the essence of painting, this strangely beautiful form of art that
translates the tangible qualities of the world into two, intangible dimensions. Why not? Austin
reminds us that we do not need to ‘understand’ paintings in order to appreciate them. In a
parallel way, one could say that we appreciate life without understanding it either”.
The comments certainly illustrate the value of a higher education and might also
demonstraight what J.J. Charlesworth had in mind when he observed “It seems that
the intellectual and political conditions in which contemporary art now exists are in
danger of making writing about it dysfunctional.”
I am completely sympathetic with the tight-rope balancing act an art critic must
preserve, or believes he must in small, or even large communities such as New
York, where angry letters to the editor threatening a withdrawal of the ad account
might cost the writer his job. When I was writing for The Sant Fe Reporter my
payment was $1.25 per article so my interest in writing had more to do with my
pushing my abilities to communicate difficult points than enriching my coffers. In
the final analysis I find nothing amiss in a critic developing a position and expanding
upon it in the face of the works he encounters in the galleries which touch, or do not
touch, his sensiblities.

However, that scenario is not the one which usually functions in the gallery scene.
As a rule, what one has on the one hand is largely an illiterate and aesthetically
blind, but largely faultless, because lazy, audience which, if it is capable at all of
making a judgment does so on the most elementary of levels. “I like it”, “I don’t like
it” “I do not understand it”. And the inadequacy of the ability to judge value is not
limited to the illiterate. I was recently criticised by a polyglot who claims 14
languages to his credit including Arabic and Sanscrit, that I failed, he claimed, to
appreciate the amount of time he had placed in the production of his graphic work. I
was as dumbfounded to attempt a response as I was when a prominent gallery
director in Santa Fe pointed out an Emile deHory copy of a Gauguin above his
mantel and held a post card in front of my eyes of the same painting and asked me
to state which was real.

This illiterate audience also includes the expert gallery directors who are very clever
at manipulating the ambitions of their buyers and taking advamtage of their
ignorance. It is a very depressing scene for one who knows that there is value there
somewhere but is intensely frustrated in the ways of exposing it and of
understandingly sharing it. In the end, because many are indifferent, the aesthetic
insight never gets even talked about much less revealed.

The audience is content to be charmed by a clever man or woman and later to brag
to their acquaintences that they got the work at a bargain. So what if Giotto
invented the solid human body. What’s so important about a solid human
body?...and so the point is missed. Besides, the bodies of bulls and antelopes at
Altimira appear fairly solid to me, so even the credit given Giotto must be qualified

to some extent. Altimira

 Virginia Miller of Florida, who certainly appears as
though she mght be a great deal of fun to know, has shown by her geographically
narrowly defined (Latin American artists) and carefully aesthetically varied
selections indications that she may be aware there may be some values in the
world of art production that are not focused on the bizarre, the comic, or the weird,
in short not directing her attention to the pre-peurile satisfactions of the eight year-
old.

At this point I think it important to indicate that I believe in two things relative to
this topic and they are: 1) there is a limit to the application of the concept to
democracy and 2) there is an elite….but the elite I recognize is not a social or
necessarily monied one….and, of late, they have seemed harder to locate in
whatever the area. There are real differences in the quality of perception. But, we
ask, who is sufficiently close to evaluate it?

Virginia Miller has, I think, made two reasonable decisions. One of them more
personal than the other, but both probably related to the economic considerations,
yet both also related to how artists, or those who might wish to be thought of as
such, employ the actions they make and the icons they create much as a girl plays
with paper dolls and creates a wardrobe of paper clothing and boys invent activities
for tin soldiers and sometimes replcate them in prepared miniature tin
forges.Activities which, in these examples, prepare the boys and girls for their
defined roles in life which for the girls is “look pretty and wear a lot of different
clothes in your life so that your fella doesn’t get bored”, an attitude not unlike that
of Salome and her seven veils; and the fella is to be brave, fight other fellas, get
killed, become a hero for the mental distraction of the girl with a large wardrobe.
Those artists, however, who practice their profession prior to establishing
themselves in a profesion as a girl plays with dolls or a boy with tin soldiers
generally do not evolve as creative practitioners if that practice is focused on
perfecting a technique…a meaningless, but perfect courtly bow to a royal figure.

The main and very important difference between the childhood activities of these
boys and girls and the artists , the truly creative ones, that is, is this: the paper dolls
and the tin soldiers are the symbolic devices of a segment of the ruling society
possessing a particularly selfish and pernicious view of mankind and to achieve its
aims imposes upon young minds these symbols of the roles they are expected to
play, while these creative artists employing the same system of the creation and
deployment of symbols attempts to carve out, mold, or “magic wand” their needed
expectations into existance. And from the point of view of the art critic, as I see that
role, these generative impulses of the artist must be uncovered and transmuted
into meaninful word symbols for whoever needs and cares to read them. That is
difficult.

I think the moral implications of the roles as I have attempted to describe them
above are obvious.

Gerhard Richter has made a profession out of

overkilling photographic images. This does not mean there are no creative aspects
to Richter’s work as has often been noted that which creates, firstly destroys, e.g.
forest fires.

Paul Brach repeats the circle time after time after time. One might say he wanted to
out do Joseph Albers. Actually he limited his variations, like some Talmudic mantra.
In this connection of concentrating upon a theme as though it were a form of
psychoticly performed emphasis I have witnessed his attempt to detroy the self-
respect of a highly aesthetically conservative Celt , the only non-jew in the art
department he goverened,with the passion of a mindwashed muslim intent upon
seven virgins. All this Paul Brach characterized
and dramatized his antigoyimism on a salary paid by the State of California. I had
had an appointment with Brach which is why I had witnessed this. I do not believe I
had arrived at the above analysis at the time of that episode, however. There may
be some who might ask whether I believe that the personality configuration of the
artist gets reflected in his work. At this point,leaving me some room to change my
mind, I would say the answer is inevitably, “YES”, and that while the work may not
solve the concern, whatever it may be, the work reveals that there probably is a
problem and, perhaps, what the problem is.

Joseph Albers had finally forced me to come to the

conclusion that his color experiments were a subtefuge and used them to achieve
ego-satisfaction at bargain-basement effort. In short, I find him over-reputationed
and not unlike Paris Hilton being “famous for being famous”.

Judy Cohen Gerowitz aka

Chicago seemed to me a middle-aged madame who secured her stable from the herd of pregnant
young fillies. ”The Dinner Party” requires a strong
stomach. I think I am not exactly sure why that seems so, but I suspect it relates to Chicago’s wit
at suggesting by the forms on the dinner plates that women should, or do, consume their wombs.
One description of the work is: "The Dinner Party elevates female achievement in Western
history to a heroic scale traditionally reserved for men." While I find this comment misleading,
having adjusted its wording to more closely fit a contemporary cliché, it is pointed, at least to the
best 180 degrees available, Is it possible that Chicago feels women have been misunderstood?
undervalued? unrewarded? Or is it that for some reason, for some personal reason, she feels
abandoned, 1) because she is a girl and may not wat to be and 2) she is a Jewish girl which in a
so-caled male dominsated gentile society may or may not be an advantage? After all, who was it
who dallied with Bill Clinton?
Does Chicago not yet realise that her fame rests primarily on “The Dinner Party” and that work
is a colaboration? Perhaps it is my fault for not knowing the names of her collaborators, but I do
not know the names of Jeff Koons’s employees either. Rubens used the same arrangment in his
studio, but we do know , and some reference, the names of some of those technicians and I
would suppose that it may have something to do with one’s concept of what a work of art is
supposed to be, at least for Rubens. Were we to add the suffix “& co” to signatures and
attributions our art historical information might be more accurate and our sophistication more
grand and some of the mystery surrounding the production of art dissipated.
There have been other monumental works of art that have been the results of a colaboration of
talents and technical expertise is a talent,and if my memory has not failed me there are few, if
any, that have not been created in an effort to glorify a political figure or regime and should this
observation be true and one accepts my premise that only works of art that work toward the
solution of perceived problems can be considered “creative” then the conclusion that only those
works which have been the effort of a single individual have the better chance of arriving at that
goal.
 R.C.Gorman was interviewed by telephone by Susan
Lawrence Rich . The article was published in “Radiance” in the Summer 1990 issue
and I read these words: “I
paint what I see; I don't think. I don't
have any message. I think it's so phony for artists to have
this huge meaning. I don't.” As charming, and innocent, as Gorman
probably is, he also possesses the vision of the small boy who saw that the
emperor was naked, and in true Indian comic fashion tells us “what you see
is what you get”.

Gorman’s admission that he finds “phony” that other artists have messages
in their works is quite probably a truthful statement. He could very well find
such a concern or interest beyond his areas of interest, or his capabilities
and, therefore, not believe in their legitimacy. However, I suspect that an
artist like the German expressionist, Kathe Kollwitz, the French cartoonist
Daumier and the American Paul Cadmus would disagree for all these people
do have a message to present…and these messages are not difficult to
ascertain.

However, when one leaves that work which is in some way based on
figurative illustation and enters the environment of Paul Brach or a Judy
Chicago, for example, we are, I believe, entering a world similar to that of
the circus huckster or 19th century snake oil salesman where most of the
effectiveness of the work, at least in terms of sales and a degree of notoreity
rests on the ignorance of the consumer.

What is missing in such an instance in the consumer is a developed aesthetic

system as important, for “the whole person” as environmental awareness,
the circulatory, nervouse or digestive systems are for the physical body.
Expressed another way, the language of the non-objective, non-pictorial
choices, the colors, lines, blobs and scratches all tell something to the
observer of the status of the work on many non-literate, affective levels. This
is, it must be said, is also true when there is a relatively recognizable subject
matter, as sometimes, can be seen in works that depict the same subject
matter but are by different artists.

Kollwitz Daumier Cadmus

These works by Kollwitz, Daumier and Cadmus are more than just images of
“pain and torment”, “political murder” and “nice to look at” for there are
used particular sets of marks which assist in carrying those messages across
that space which separates the work from the observer, in Kollwitz these
marks are frank, brutal, dark or light presenting a dichotomus world of good
and bad, In Daumier, a political act is highlighted, as I am sure it was at its
time, for dramatic purposes and not unlike the assassination of John Kennedy
in the lives of many of us. With Cadmus the marks reperesenting the figure
are delicate, caressing and intimate in their detail. Thus we have a
distinction made btween the subject of the work we are looking at and the
means used to achieve it, a distinction which proclaims an alliance, for a
specific purpose, of intent and method.This is the decision and the work of
the individual artist. It is his artistry.

But I doubt Gorman had any of these in mind when he said that. It was more
likely someone like Gerhaard Richter, Frank Ettenberg or Sam Scott where
the artists’ markings seem totally unrelated to a reality outside of
themselves, an egocentric style, if you wish, but I prefer the system to be
seen as one that builds toward an expressive graphic vocabulary. It is not
that one approach is better than the other, that a recognizable subject is
necssary for a message to be carried successfully to the observer. It might
be sufficient that the observers’ senses are stirred for a message to become
apparent at some level. But something is certainly apparent and that is that
the observers’ sensibilitites are not moved in the same way by the three
works above as they are by the three works below and I suggest that it might
be that some recognize some sensual meaning in the arrangement and
character of marks , now dissected from subject matter,which has the
singular intent of creating on a flat surface a particular sensual and telling
event not unike that suggested by Edvard Munch in his painting of a felled
and stripped tree trunk where the work screams out the extra nakedness

and freshly sharpened pain of having been flayed. Each

observer must check out for himself the ways in which he may be moved
differently by these two groups.

Richter Ettenberg Scott

At some point, I seem to remember, Gorman talked about how he mischievously (?)
drew six toes, (or were they fingers?), instead of the customary five and left the reader
wondering whether this was supposed to exemplify a creative act or not…while it
was mildly amusing for a moment, but only a moment, and for some became an
important conversational point one might still wonder whether it really is an
important aesthetic matter any more significant than Tracey Emin’s semen-stained
sheets which are, admittedly of some sociological and confessional interest. It is
beside the point, at least it usually is, and illustrates, if anything important, that
some artists do not work seriously and like the western-style snake-oil salesman will
take advantage of the gullible who offer themselves as victims. But, one might say
this in its favor, it provides an opportunity for comment, and extrapolating from the
buddhist-like consciousness of the totality of things assumes that analytical
distinctions and differences are ultimately meaningless.

At this point, perhaps, we will be able to separate the wheat from the chaff by firstly
acknowledging that all works of graphic art begin with alterations of the surface
used by the additions of lines, dots, smears, stains or globs.
On the critical level, one who writes critical reviews of art shows and lives in the
community he writes for is really in quite an untenable position. If one would like to
experience first hand the community response to a home-town parriah write what
you think straighforwardly.

It may also be true, as he claims, that he, Gorman, paints what he sees and that, as
he states, he does not think. With this last, however, I should have to disagree for
he does think, not, perhaps, in the way he meant it, but he does evaluate. Granted,
it is all rather superficial and would appear that he rather responds more readily to
opportunities to clown than to attempt to seriously state an observation on canvas
or paper.

Below are examples of artists having dealt with the phenomenon of human sight.

Earl Biss Karl

Benjamn
 background tile Op Art Henrickson’s

Creativity Puzzles ??

Henrickson: Set for opera “Pedro”. n.b. this is designed to fill the procenium area
blocking off the depth of the stage. There are three hinged areas in the desgn
which, when required by the script will open to reveal actionable areas….areas
where acton can take place on different levels.

A part of what those artists listed above are about has to do with the
observer/audience interaction with these composit symbol “events”…”Events” they
are because they are singular as opposed to continuous occurrances. It is almost as
though man needed periodic dramatizations inorder for his spirit to breath, or a
differentiating focus in order to evaluate. Perhaps it might be accurate to state that
the nerve endings for human sight are more actively engaged in these works than
in others where looking does not generate pulsating nerve experiences or, as in the
case of the stage set, the opening up of, or the closing of areas of space on the set
itself which becomes a part of the underscored definition of space offered the
audience. The space itself becomes a plastic medium.

There are, as well, other differences touched upon in the work of two painters, one
of whom., Hyman Bloom, references religious subject matter, much against the Old
Testament prohibition especially where living creatures are concerned,(except where
snakes are used as by Moses) and the other . Yaacov Agam, with no refereces to living
creature whatever but a concentration on the neural response of the observer. In
Agam’s work the observer is a pliant subjective audience not required to actively
participate because the natural behavior of his nervous susyem does the work…it
might be called a knee jerk response, but with the work of Bloom the observer must
actively participate and the deree to whch he does so may depend on his
accumulated experience and the instinct to evaluate.

Hyman Bloom

video on Bloom……..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJZ9NtMFaLs
Yaacov Agam whose works, to be fully appreciated must be seen by the observer
while the observer is walking past the work,so there is actually some voluntary
participation involved, but the physical response required to understand an Agam is
not the same as the mental activity required of a Bloom observer. This kinetic
involvment of the observer vis a vis an Agam is a necessary ingredient to
understandig the work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31RrhzqzzVU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFJRi5a5MAo http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=fP_z1OWP5lw

The critical difference between the works of Hyman Bloom and those of Yaacov
Agam is that with Bloom the observer must stand still, with Agam one must move.
Certainly fom this observation we must conclude that the participarion of the
observer is essential both cases, but one is evaluatve and mental in the one
instance and in the other while physically moving is essentially passive. “Give me a
thrill” it says like a flashing neon sign.

With Agam the required, or dictated, movement induces a sensation, in fact, it is a

sequential sensation, one image followed by another as the body moves in front of
the image. With Bloom physcal stillness on the part of the observer is nearly a
requirement and the sensual experience is deduced after a quiet contemplative
period. The observer’s movement with Bloom is an action of the mind not of the
body.

SOME OTHER PERPLEXING MATTERS

an Aboriginee work
 Aboriginee drawing, the

meaning of which, to non-Aboriginees, is unclear Here we have

another Aboriginee painting whch is visually more complexly developed than, for
example, this Paul Brach who, at one time headed the department of art at the The

University of California at La Jolla .

Below are shown a group of images focusing on one of the major differences in
which ‘decorated” flat space is treated. For the purposes of discussion, the
difference seems to lie with the presence, or aBsence, of a concern for repesenting
three-dimensional space. Although some base reliefs are included in this group and
some actual space is employed, it is not done so as a major expresive element as it
is, somertimes, in sculpture, architecture and dance. The letters near the images
translate as follows: A= aboriginee, S=stichery,V=Viking, C=Daniel Calleja, K=Book
of Kells,
S V C c

CC K
C V

K
As it easy for us to be mislead I thought I would use the photograph below showing
a pussy cat acting like he thought himself a muircat with whom it had been raised.
We think it funny, but I would doubt that pussy has a concept of his being a stand
up commedian. It does, I believe, illustrate the powers of peer pressures. When in
Rome do as the Romans…that sort of thing.

As we all, sometimes, discover, things are not always

what they seem, which brings me to the problem of how to answer William
Drsiscoll’s complaint that I did not even mention the time it took him to execute his
work…..as though “time” were a truly significant factor in aesthetic judgment…
although it, itself, takes time. This seems to be a very Puritian value.

Mr. Beamer rarely refers to the time he spends on a work, whch is, I am sure,
coniderable, but on the purpose of the time spent which is the relief of pain...and
this is quite a different matter from “time” itself…and still, that “relief from pain” is
NOT a proper primary matter for conideration if the topic is creative aesthetics, but
is, to make a point, in medical aesthetcs.Although in both of these instances, the
Beamer and the Driscoll, aesthetic response is an appropriate consideration since
both these men have presented their work to me, and to the public at large, for
comment.
 Billy Bob
Beamer’s “WordDust”. Beamer’s “word Dust” or “asemic” writing images
developed , he tells us, from his need to releve his awareness of physcal pain
through having to force the mind to use its enegies to focus attention on other
matters. I may not have expressed this phenomenon in appropriate psycho-somatic
language, but, it would seem, on the surface at least, to be similar to my growing
awareness how some artists use their involvment in the creation of works also as a
way of solving intense personal problems, e.g. Caravaggio, A.P. Ryder,and Paul
Cezanne. They may not consciously have known what the problems were, and we
may not with much certainty find out, but certainly the big body of evidence
suggests that this is the major goal with many artists. However, at a lecture
scheduled for the Cirque de Gozitano one artist bravely maintained that there
should never be a critcicism of art a suggestion which did not receive much
approval, but it did stir some thought in me. I rejected the idea that such a move
would put art critics out of a job as being too flimsy a concept to be give any
thought.

Nor could I accept the idea that critics are more important than the work the artist
produces for he clarifies , perhaps, its meaning for the vast mass, the hoy polloi,
which doesn’t undertstand what it is looking at, nor often cares to try, nor could I
place the critic in the role of prophet, as intercessor between (the common) man
and god. Besides, I haven’t identified much by way of clarifiction stemming from
critics even while, in some rare intances, they do, somewhat, suggest modes of
approaches to the problem.

Now, it might be maintained that Beamer’s attempt to relieve his personal pain
through intense concentration in the act of production has its response in the
observer’s possibly mildly hypnotic state of reverie as he indulges in contemplation
is as valuable an experience as the resurgence of learned patriotism in the bossom
of one gazing upon “Washington Crossing the Delaware” by Emanuel Leutze.
or Delacroix’s “Liberty Leading the People”

It is an error, I believe, to see the critic as an omniscent being. They are not, and
the work of the artist should not permanently be in the position of an occult icon.
But the direction of an artist’s efforts should be met half way by the observer’s
intelligently applied analytical perception. Mental exercise has a value quite
pecularly its own.

The observer may be mistaken and his conclusions subject to alteration even when
the artists are conscious of their own efforts, speak or write exploringly of what they
are attempting to do and even when they congratulate themselves audaciously
when they think they have found it. All this behavior I tend to view as legitimately
indicative of a real something going on…even if it is on the level of a holy grail the
search for which may have served a real purpose distinct from the finding of it. The
search is a very complex one and some treasures never do get found and colored
Easter eggs lie hidden under summer’s growth and autumn’s falling leaves. But it
must go on…this exercise in discovery.

As I have understood, one of the major area of concern lies in the area of, simply
put, the representation of a three-dimentional palpable space such as we see in the
political icons above to which service the manpulation of pigment is put, or the
explorations of how to search for and explore the inherent qualities in the medium
itself which we find in some places in some works and less often in entire pieces.

At this point I need to draw a distinction between two groups of art product makers.
One group making art product for a defined audience such as the commercial artist
or the magazine illustrator, and the other group of art makers making art products
as a result of their search for answers, or just for the delight of the search itself.
From this group is where I would expecty to find the creative artist.

William Driscoll reports that I have been remiss in not recognizing his creativity and claims I stated that
his work was as inseparable from creativity as oil was to water. While the imagry attracts me it is very
unlikely I would have said it even had I thought it, for my art criticisms start out being very, very private
affairs and like a cow I chew the matter over many times before defining a thought …and then I chew it all
over again. Rather, since I have no doubt that William is a highly perceptive person I think the conclusions
he attributed to me were, in fact, his own.He has, howverer, forced me to consider the issue and, as a
result, been successful in reaching one of his goals which is becoming the center of attention…preferably
admiring attention.

Since much against my will William has made me the recipient of much of his email correspondence with
Billybob Beamer, and others (none of whom I know) I feel, in some way, compelled to deal with it…
whatever “it” really is.I have only one image of a work by William, (illustrated below), and so am very
much inhibited from making judgments, but as William is also highly verbal there seems to be a
sufficiency of evidence of how he thinks. Additonally, anyone who is fluent in fourteen languages, as
William claims to be, must certainly have developed habits of thought, or a consistency of approach, that
would make the attempt to know fourteen languages successful.

Normally, however, the need to know so may languages is not great, unless, one is somehow assocated
with the world of diplomacy where the position of translator seems essential, but there, it is also essental
that in terms of performing well it is essential that if the translator has an opinion he DOES NOT express it
as a part of the translation. In this regard, it is notable that, for the most part, in his oral and written
communications William promotes the opinions of others and severely subjects his own.But that doesn’t
really say it for it might appear that William may ot respect his own opinions, for he certainly does, but his
are thereby subtly joined to those of others and any distinction being made between these opinions
makes it clear which is thought to be superior.

William felt his sensate responses (especially those which inform the intuitive intellect) untrustworthy.
Such a response is understandable in light of the severe conforming pressures exerted by one’s most
immediate environment as one grows up and as these sorts of pressures never do let up it may very well
explain why William may have found life on Gozo and his continually intense study of languages, some of
them, such as Sanskrit,hardly in mundane use, and his four to five hours of playing music alone in his old
Gozitan farm house, a release for the energies built up and normally expended in more “ everyday
newsworthy” and sociable behavior. This may be seen as an escape into intellectual and creative
minutaie which like the science fiction story “Flatland” by Edwin Abbott Abbott or “Alice in Wonderland” by
Lewis Carroll opens up entirely new worlds of experience. It is mental experience that is emphesized
here. In this sense, and, perhaps, in this sense only the highly detailed graphic work of Driscoll

Gozo is a small island with, perhaps, 30,000 inhabitants where the main occupations involve farming ,
fishing and other trades. Any involvment with ideas as such is anomalous. William has lived here for
many years and if my count is correct he has not left Gozo, even to go to Malta, for three decades.
Despite the offical government claim that English is a first language it is a claim very much over blown
and as soon as it is known that a stranger speaks English the price of anything goes up by 30%. There is
currently an anecdote in not too bad taste which tells of God offering to different cultural groups the Ten
Commandments which He claims will alter their lives for the better.

God went to the Arabs and said, 'I have Commandments for you
that will make your lives better.'

And the Arabs asked, 'What are Commandments? Can you give us
an Example?'

' Thou shall not kill.'

'Not kill?? No way! We're not interested.'

So He went to the Blacks and said, 'I have Commandments.'

And the Blacks wanted an example, and the Lord said, 'Honor
thy Father and Mother.'

'Father? Yo maan, can't tell who our fathers are, maan!'

So He went to the Mexicans and said, 'I have Commandments.'

And the Mexicans wanted an example, and the Lord said,

'Thou shall not Steal.'

'No steal? No steal??? Hey Senor, we no steal then how we

live, huh??
Gracias, but no!'

He went to the French and said, 'I have Commandments.'

The French wanted an example and the Lord said, 'Thou shall
not commit adultery.'

' Not commit ze adultery..?? Non, non, monsieur, we French,

we must Have ze Romance.'

He went to the Maltese and said, 'I have Commandments.'

' Commandments?' they asked, 'how much do they cost?'

' They're free.'

' We'll take 10.'

Driscoll has taken to forwarding to me some emails exchanged
between hm and Beamer.To one of these email exchanges William
Driscoll replied:

Bill,

That is exremely impressive. It is even closer to the infinite

vision that we discussed earlier in our correspondence,
because uniform in colour.. [To which
Leo Steinberg might have responded as he did about the work of
Paul Brach: “the invisibility of an encompassing, undifferentiated homogeneity,".

“It is even closer to the works of mine which I tried to

describe; whereas I used tight geometrical patterns, you use
a minute searching, vermiform line. The colour is tastefully
chosen.

I went for black on grey, and slightly greater dimensions,

but not much greater.

Thank you for this.

Best regards,

William”
I wonder what Driscoll might have in mind by the word “tasteful” and how he might
justify it historically in the context of art criticism. Greenberg also used it
extensively in a lecture at Western Michgan University, but it was clear, at least to
the discerning, that he had some part of his tongue in cheek.

The above, in blue, is from an email from William Driscoll to William Beamer
relating to BBB’s (Beamer’s) work.

I have only recently been made aware that the “dust works” are not the only
expressive venue he, Beamer, has employed. Here is another, quite dffferent
 , yet similar, similar because it also is, baically, non-objective in
the sense it does not (obviously at any rate) refer to the normally visible outside

world. Or this work by John Hoyland which rather does emphasize the
reality of paint through its three-dimensionality of its application (the paint’s
thickness is measurable by the naked eye) and, thereby, its “invasion” of the
observer’s space.

Frank Stella, in a videos comment where he evidnces his awareness of his own
limitations and defnceless positions, consciensciously defended his work against all
comers in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_rRCfRdmQ and,

additionally, what significance is this observer, (me), missing

when he tries to evaluate the work of Anuszkiewitz in the light of the

accomplishments of these artists already mentioned?
An interview with Saul Ostrow revealed the following:

SO That’s one of the biggest surprises, that over the last twenty years you’ve developed the intuitive
aspect of the work—they have become increasingly improvisational, and less programmatic.

FS Yes, in some ways they are. But it’s a bit tricky because if you look carefully, 99 percent of the stuff is
what I’ve always made, but I use it in a more improvisational manner. It’s all there—I hate to say this—it’s
made to order. (Laughter) Then, I disorder it a little bit or, I should say, I reorder it. I wouldn’t be so
presumptuous to claim that I had the ability to disorder it. I wish I did.

Since it certainly does appear that some artists are investigating or, rather,
reinvestigating, aspects of vision and, apparently make some little effort to
maintain a respectful distance from the work of others and it is expected we, the
audience, take these efforts seriously then is it not also reasonable that we ask for
what purposeful end are these investigations? Is there no other purpose in the
activity of art production than the exercise of accumulated energy, symbolically
oriented or not? If, as I certainly am tempted to believe, the value of art activity is
in the developing awareness of the artist himself and that there is little
consequence whether there is an audence, appreciative or not. Unless the
explanation is that mankind will take notice of anything so long as it is extraordinary
enough then what purpose does this multimillion dollar industry serve, most
especially when we have, for examples, the admitted success rate of a Frank Stella
and the miserable success rating, during his life-time, of Vincent Van Gogh? Is the
accomplishment of Stella, whatever it may be, greater than that of Van Gogh,
whatever it may be? Are comparisons legitimate?

Since I have only one image of Driscoll’s to reference I cannot make a similar
observation, which tells us, at least, one important matter. That matter is that
arranged competitions where there may a judge, or two or three, decidng what
works should be accepted for exhibition miss the point, usually miss the point, of
the original purpose of the creation. Not knowing what the original purpose of
creation was leaves the judges, basically, only one criteria of judgment which is the
relative effectiveness (whatever that might be) of one work as opposed to another.
Thus, this is a judgment most likely not even tangent to the original purposes
of the work’s creation. Therefore, if it isn’t truly pertinent why is it we have it?

Since the public, even some sophiticated members of the public, to one extent or
aother demands to know which work and which artist is the best of the whole flock.
It is, after all is said and done, a meaningless search but it has the one virtue of
simplfying the evenng’s cocktail conversation.
 This is one of William
Driscoll’s works which, for me at least, is demonstrative of several factors. I
consider these factors important for art criticism as the performance of the artist in
the development of the work seems, over the course of its history to range between
appearing casual and appearing intentional. This work appears highly intentioned
and focused as opposed, for example, to these sumi-e works which possess the
appearance of a spontaneous happening...they just appear , it seems, without
conscious effort. Is there any doubt why William Driscoll insists his work be
appreciated for the amount of time involved in its production? It has been this
comment to me that has virtually put a halt to any compensatory discourse
between us. The experience has reminded me of two incidents one involving an
intenationally known figure skater with 13 international awards to her credit who
seemed, almost pemanently incapable of extended rational thought and the filmic
presentation of the mental process of an idiot-
savanthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP3q-1oDlpI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP3q-1oDlpI clip from Hitchcock’s “The 39
A (

Steps” (Youtube 10/10)a spy thriller that centers around the extraordinary memory
of a man who, quite likely, doesn’t understand what he remembers. My concern is
with the perplexing association of the ability to learn 14 languages and,
concurrently, believing that the time one takes to accomplsh a work of art can be a
measure of its aesthetic value. And, associated with this odd coupling is the
expectation that the time spent by one individual on a project is a factor of cultural

obligation laid upon another. I am tempted to think that

there may be some associative connection between what we have come to know as
“the Celtic knot” and the fixed attention required to fathom them and Driscoll’s
intense concentration and long hours of careful production are the equivalent in
value of the mental attention requred to learn a lanuage, to say nothing of 14 of
them, correctly. There is, if my thesis is correct, some extraordinary and demanding
effort involved the motivation for which may still lie unkown. I flee in terror from
this morass to the gentle embrace of Pierre Bonnard and his work below.
In this work, it seems to me, we might have an truly extraordinary joining of the
“alexandrian aesthetic”, implied aerial perspective in the distance shown on the
right upper corner quardrant and a suggeted intricat patterning of circles, obliques
and rectangles the whole of which is suffused in a near palpable rainbow
ambiance….a remarkable work that ought to put to shame the academically
pedantic claim that “time taken” is a virtue …it isn’t even a characteristic except in
the sense it takes the observer timeto get some grasp on what it is he is looking at..

On August 18, 2009 (five moths before his 70th bithday) William wrote me the
following criticism:

“You made your reaction to my work abundantly clear when you first visited me and
failed to find anything interesting or worthy of comment about it, not even noticing
the amount of time that went into the paintings and drawings. The next time we
met, you said that "you can never go anywhere, because you are 'Celtic bound' ".
Then later, discussing creativity, you said that my work is to creativity as "oil is to
water".
“I have no need “ Driscoll continues,”to send any visual evidence, because I have a
file of favourable newspaper reviews in English, Italian and German. I also have
thirty-five years of admiration and praise from visitors to my twenty-five exhibitions
and from people to whom I have shown the work privately.

“On another level I was financially successful enough to retire, a significant fact in
today's art world, a fact that requires no defense.

“As a linguist, I also have a sharp memory for words and intonations, and I am quite
sure about all this. I know exactly how you initially reacted to my work. Later you
ignored it completely and treated it with silence. That speaks for itself.

“I did not require or wish for your admiration. And certainly not now.”

My present concentration is on the sort of cause and effect, or some other relation
there might be between William’s abilities in 14 langauges, the time he spends in
the production of tribal oriented platfroms for prayer or Celtic oriented control
systems together with his need for praise and his devotion to disciplined focused
exactness…. But I sense it may lead me to theunfortunate conclusion that would
mirror the pernicious relationship between Sigmund Freud, Gustave Mahler and his
wife Alma , where Freud, having left the door to homosexual expression open for
Mahler to pass through only after Mahler’s death does he send the consultation
billing to the non-Jewish wife. Suffice to say that I favor the explanation that Driscoll
suffers from not having, as an Irishman, been totally accepted in Boston as a
legitimate intellectual and that he may, mistakenly, feel that intense attention to
gramatical protocol and impeccable graphic detail wil be his pathway to salvation.

If such were true what might one imagine would happen to a George Rouault or
Vincent Van Gogh, or Edvard Munch, whose totality of their creative efforts were in
response to how they perceived the world inhabited by the homo sapien. There are
no homosapiens in Driscoll’s world.

However, this question of worth becomes even more complicated when we

encounter similar responses from different people. For example this Howard
Meyring below:
These, sumi-e works, it has been said, are the result of a very different type of
concentration. It is a concentration that is exercised in the moments, or unspecific
times, just prior to the application of brush and pigment to paper at which time, it is
hoped, the artist, so filled with the esence of his subject, will depict it in one brush
stroke. Apparently, with the Oriental approach a host of possibilities are filtered
through the mind before application as opposed, as in the Driscoll, to the steady,
disciplined control of the hand poised above the surface, as is a cat upon a prey, to
pounce upon the next sequential and definitional mark. But notice, there are
evidences of homosapian existence in these works. N.B. I do not consider such
evidence a requirement, only a characteristic.

There seems, to me, to be a difference, as well, in the consideration of the role of

the observer. In the Driscoll and Calleja approaches, and the Celtic and Viking as
well, the observer is expected to study, fixidly, the patterns prepared for him, not
too unlike that of a chicken whose gaze at a line drawn in the dirt will not waver
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M268UccYVCE wheras the viewer of the sumi-e
work is encouraged to ponder how he will shift from what he sees on the paper to
the possible intended meaning of the artist. From my point of view the second of
these functions is the prefered one. Educationally, these philosophies refer to the
differences between instruction and education, between following orders, receipes,
and protocolls and being open, evaluative and flexible and arriving, perhaps, at a
better than customary solution.

Driscoll’s comments regarding his understanding of my reception of his work

seemed to concentrate on two matters;[1] my having referenced the Celtic in
regard to its design qualities, which I did. If I did, merely as a notation on the
general “style” of the work and [2] my neglect of the amount of time it took him to
execute the piece,[in short, Driscoll wished to have me perform like a chicken,
perhaps, his talents as a linguist were side-tracked momentarilly and he mistook
Henrickson for Hen], a concern which I found irrelevant to art criticism and more
related to an idea of the proper moral work ethic. All of which might explain
(because Driscoll and I come from neighboring suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts),
that the Puritans had a more lasting effect upon the public consciousness than
expected and why I, being perhaps more undiciplined, or unamenable to it, was
greatly impressed, as a teen-ager, by the work of Hyman Bloom who, although
himself highly disciplined was certainly NOT a puritan, nor Bostonian.

Hyman Bloom, “Male Corpse”

It is a mark of wisdom, or so we have been informed, that one choses one’s

expressions to suit the audience. We are not often directly reminded that we also
chose the vehicle of our expressions to suit our purposes, or, as some might
express it in contemporary political terms: we are assured, or there is an attempt to
do so, that we should all have health care available to us which some see as a
placebo to encourage us to place our lives in some other person’s hands. It is not
presented to us as: “we want you to submit to our decision as to whether you live or
die.”

On the other hand, there is, as well, the theory that as some basic characterstics
such as gender and sexual preference, are decided for the foetus during the second
trimester the concept that one is free to chose one’s mode of expression may be
more complicated than originally thought. Morphological episodes that occur during
the nine month period of gestation do not, apparently, all follow the same pattern
and there are a range of different results. It would also seem that some of those
results do not at all fit into the social structure determined by authorities and there
are few members of any society will dare to suggest that those who function as
authorities are themselves, not fully developed human beings.

“Narcissism is destructive, alienating and self-defeating. Trance is a

psychic black hole, a reality wormhole.” This quote comes from Iona
Miller’s……….and struck me as being opportunely presented to me by those
forces that act upon us when we are ready to receive, or need to receive,
them. They are not the mundane answers to the time clock.
And this as well: Fear is the primary agent of mortification. Moving toward
the fear and pain--deepening it--brings one closer to the tranformation. It
feels like defeat and failure. Yet, to resist seems like madness--in fact, it
induces madness. Those with near-death experiences tell us that to embrace
death brings about deeper meaning and purpose in life.
Rotting corpses, decapitation, amputation, creeping, crawling worms and snakes,
and particularly noxious odors like the stench of graves are images which are
reported in therapeutic journeys, again and again. It is truly a journey through
"the Valley of the Shadow of Death."

Thus the psyche depicts the decay of outworn forms in preparation for new.
It can be a voluntary death, giving up the old order for the sake of
wholeness, the incorruptible body that grows from death. The infantile,
personalistic ego is eclipsed. The journey to the land of the dead
(collective unconscious) opens one to transpersonal life.
Life, Death, Love is the experiential nucleus of our existence. Ego-death
emerges from activated Thanatos, raw, undifferentiated consciousness. This
unformed consciousness -- which we often mistake for death -- is really the
essence of our vitality and life force. It is the energy we can use to
recreate ourselves in every instant of time. It reaches our awareness through
dreams (Hypnos) and the flow of our imagination.

It is the need to address the role of reassessing the “outworn forms”

Iona Miller mentions above that I reintroduce this image below.
 Some may have wondered why I included this
image (above) with the picture of the animal which produced it. I did so
because, to a great extent, if one were to judge the aesthetic values
inherent in the work, in this work and in the following works we might be

at some pains to arrive at reasonable criteria. (1)

(2) (3)* We, you, the reader and I, cannot be

certain that what we see we can agree upon and we have difficulty in
ascertaining that what we see the gorilla also sees. But even beyond
that, at this point in time, I know of no indication that the gorilla
might have, or could have, ideas of elaborating upon this image, an
elaboration which might indicate something about how the gorilla viewed
the product. This product may have been “play with soft pigment” or it
might possess imbued symbolic significance such as, one might imagine, be

the case with this work by Richter.

*1.Joan Miro, 2. Barnett Newman, 3. Joan Mitchel

Now, the question which comes up at this time is this: is the order made of visual chaos the order of the
observer or of the maker?

As a consequence to all this which I might interprete as “awareness” I miss, in much

of the works referenced above, any idication of a need to recombine…to be born
again. This, as I understand it, puts a full stop to their efforts unless we can identify
a development. If the gorilla were able also to demostrate an interest in a
development of his original image we would really have a important discovery on
our hands. However, it should be mentioned that, as an artist, I have often made
similar markings and, without doubt, if they were to be taken in isolation few would
be able to understand their significance. Their purpose for me, however, is to
reintroduce a flexability of attitude which might allow me to procede along the path
of continual invention. By was of contrast, it had been reported that Bougereaux

stated that for him a perfect painting was one where the marks of
the brush strokes were not in evidence”The painting should have the surface of an
eggshell”…or something to that effect .

The next step in this inappropriate logic would be to demand that the
surface of the egg shell is too rough, one is virtuous if one’s work is as
smooth as the membrane on the inside of the egg shell. I equate this
Bougereaux obervation to that of Doris Cross who in response to the
question what it was she found of value in the work of Harold Joe Waldrum
responded “ He lays the paint on very neatly”, or Leo Steinberg’s comment
on Paul Brach (again) “the invisibility of an encompassing, undifferentiated
homogeneity,".

By way of contrast I consider Cezanne’s comment about Monet (“Monet is only an eye,
but what an eye”) as being highly significant. While he suggests that Monet has an
excellent eye he also suggests, but I’ve never read that he actually said it, that there is
something more in the aim of picture making than the accurate recording of a sensual
experience. One, that is, that involves more than the translation from the third to the
second dimension.
This would place him in quite a different league than that of Vincent van

Gogh or Monet.

It has been reported, I no longer have the source, that a female gorilla in a
kitchen with her human friend and trainer was given instructions to perform
fifteen tasks which she performed. A human companion, I doubt, would be
unable to perform 15 tasks without, at some point in the middle of the
doing , asking “What’s next?” Gorillas are unable to talk…at least as we
understanding talking.

ON ANOTHER LEVEL:
If we accept the notion that any mark a person makes, or, for that matter
any gesture, however involluntary, a person makes in response to his
environment is exactly that…a genuine response to the person’s
environment conditioned only by how that person interpretes his
environment it then becomes the critic’s responsibility to try to reconstruct
that response in terms of expressively communicable word symbols that
touch upon the reader’s referential experience. Well, as the reader can
probably readily undertand there is, as the addage goes, plenty of room for a
slip between the cup and the lip.

When William Driscoll , an American expatriot in Malta wrote complainingly

that, among many other lacunae, I failed to express any appreciation for all
the time it took him to execute his drawings and that the comment, which I
do not remember having made, but may have done so, his work was
“involved with the Celtic” I was able to think of only one example , outside of
Michelangelo having taken four years to complete the Sistine Chapel ceiling,
where time had been an issue. That one concerned Edvard Munch and the
Norwegian banker who had commissoned a family portrait. The banker, as a
common banker would, complained about the price for the portrait when it
took the artist only thirty minutes to complete. Munch quipped that it took
thirty years for him to learn how to do it in thirty minutes was both deserved

and true. If there is anything to lament

about the significance contained in this anecdote it is that nothing is indicated
about the artist’s ability to perceive the differing psychological stances of these
boys and the impecably shining floor which indicates the banker could afford a
maid.
Of course, there are artists who seem to have no particular problem at all and the
performance of creative activity is seen as being really rather shallow…like innocent
and harmless entertainment. I am thinking of R.C. Gorman, Katz, Paul Brach, of
course, for Paul Brach the chief problem was to keep the Goyim out of his personal
and professional life, a way of keeping the inner circle inviolate, which is why the
lone Scotsman in the department at La Jolla was made to feel corporately
unwelcome.

This approach, that is, the creation of art as a tool for the accomplishment of an
other, usually psychological, goal involves our growing awareness of two things, the
creation of a symbol and the application of that symbol. As pattent examples, the
form of the revered crucific was born out of the very negative, as in killing a god,
today, it constitutes an extremely pervasive ,among many, object of worship as
does the Mogen Dovid, The Star of David, which originally was created , in its
interwoven triangular form, to indicate directions of influence, from the divine to
the human, down, and from the human to the divine, up.

Today, many of us who admire the work of some artists immediately

recognize the apparent characteristic of that work, that is, the basic
image which is the signature of that artist and, most frequently,
that is as far as our attention goes. It does not extend , nor can it
psychologically afford to do so, into the essential causes of the
imagry…why a Cezanne looks like a Cezanne. We accept that it does
look like Cezanne and we leave it at that…this, of course, is one of
the reasons why attributions are in error and, as I understand it, why
Bruce Chatwin was so extraordinary a person and who had his own
peronal ghosts with which to deal.
***
Top of Form
Bottom of Form