Pietervoogt.com

Some thoughts and some quotes about art and life.

Click on the pictures for info about them.

Please help me to correct my english, mail me.

First we got rid of sentimentality, then we got rid of emotion. But this is digging for truth, not building something new.

Che fare? What to do?

"Action painting has to do with self-creation or self-definition or self-transcendence; but this dissociates it from self-expression, which assumes the acceptance of the ego as it is, with its wound and its magic." -Harold Rosenberg, 1958

Herbert Read used the former quote to clarify this one, by Hannah Arendt (1958): 

"This inherent worldliness of the artist is not changed if a "non -Objective art" replaced the representation of things; to mistake this non-objectivity for subjectivity, where the artist feels called upon to "express himself", his subjective feelings, is the mark of charlatans, not of artists.  The artist, whether painter or sculptor or poet or musician, produces worldly objects, and his reification has nothing in common with the highly questionable and, at any rate, wholly inartistic practice of expressionism. Expressionist art, but not abstract art, is a contradiction in terms."  

When Yves Klein presented his "empty gallery", Le Vide (1958) he in fact organized a complete happening, including special guests, and blue drinks, just like a classical painter would arrange colors and details to contribute to the expression of maybe one idea. I am not against seducing a public with superficial effects, as long as it is part of a more penetrating study of art and people. (It may be corrupting to study corruption, but it is just as dangerous not to study it. )

Maybe it is ethically better to consciously corrupt than to be unconsciously corrupted

Yves Klein is in my view an example of an artist who wanted to embrace the world: he was looking for universal symbiosis. I don't like that! I think many modern artist work in this way: they try to escape their limits too quickly, randomly experimenting and confusing their surprise with insight. I believe in gradually becoming conscious about your limits and possibilities, and through that become more free. Modesty isn't always lack of ambition. "Land Artist" Robert Smithson said: "In art it is better to show limits than have illusions about freedom." This is how Spinoza, who didn't believe in free will, believed it was still possible to become more free: by slowly integrate more and more elements of the universe in your consciousness. I like to be ambitious, not desperate.

If I have to choose between Plato (pointing up straight to the heaven of essence) and Aristotle (pointing down to study the manifold beauty of earth) I will choose Aristotle.

Plato: 'Let's leave this place.' Arie: 'Calm down, old man!'

However, this still is discovering, not building.

Figurative painting teaches me: to recognize beauty in small things, to train my eye, to value the world that is not me, to see how parts contribute to the whole,  and to find a balance between discipline and giving chance a chance. Figurative painting makes story-telling and symbolism possible. You can give expression to ideas as in a cartoon, an allegory or a classical vanitas. It can incorporate the language of the body, of signs, architecture and many artforms.

On the distance between life and art: studying your own emotional reactions on colors/forms/scenes in front of a painting is easier than studying them in the confusing environment of daily life. The distance between art and life does not only accommodate reflection, it is also a consoling experience in itself. Like in a computer game, it is the dream of being involved and still being free. The museum or gallery environment, like the frame of a painting, is pushing you gently towards the involvement, but you can always leave.

The difference between the artist looking for quiet (rational) reflection and the artist looking for overwhelming (emotional) experience (reflected in the taste of their public) is superficial. Just like the search for symbiosis and the fight for independence, these tendencies are based on the same desire for harmony.

I once thought that it was old fashioned to look for harmony. But the concept of harmony acknowledges and accepts the diversity of subject matter, more than a concept like essence, unity or truth or even conflict. I think conflict is overrated in modern art. Harmony suggests a living, sophisticated integration while avoiding simplification. But of course harmony can be explained in terms of conflict, just like conflict can be explained in terms of harmony. Is it a dance or is it a fight? The language of scientists is full of this sort of shifts from objectivity to subjectivity. Molecules wanting to do things, trying very hard and failing, but giving birth to new structures.

In art as in science, reductive analysis should not have reduction as a purpose, but in fact greater complexity and intelligence. Spontaneity should not be lost in that process. Spontaneity isn't a romantic ideal, it's a every day reality. It is that which functions so well that is doesn't need conscious correction. What we call a spontaneous gesture of the hand is also a very complex, well integrated process, involving many muscles and nerve signals and processes in the brain. Rationality and spontaneity are two forms of intelligence, but their integration is a great challenge. 

Very idealistic people are generally bad in communication. In that way they can stay pure and naive. Very cynical people are also bad in communication, in that way they can create misery and make their world view reality.

Behaving responsible is seizing power.

For slaves, the illusion of free will is consoling.

For safety reasons, I based my pride on nothing.

If I would find God, I would dissect him.

For me, the meaning of art is in the contradiction between escapism and confrontation. Animals can enjoy life, suffer, or do something to change their situation. But humans can change their situation without really changing it: they can escape in dreams. They can dream about money if they don't have it, and they can masturbate if they can't have real sex. Most likely this ability to dream was developed for two reasons: first to reduce stress, and secondly to find creative solutions for problems: in fantasies different scenario's can be evaluated. In art, we see the same two tendencies. Stress-reduction/escapism is found when we talk about decoration, beauty, esthetics, but also in the content: religion, erotic themes. At the same time artist have always found ways to influence reality through art. Images were used to tell the difference between good and bad, to warn for bad behavior. In portraiture and statues one could become immortal or show status. Both sides of art have had their criticism: escapism, decoration, formalism, kitsch were considered just as bad as ideological art, moralism, commercial advertisement.

Technical comments on painting

Picasso, commenting on Matisse trying to improve his drawings by copying and redoing him, said: usually it turns out that the first was the best. There is nothing like the first sketch. Interesting enough, this is true for painting as well, but in a different way. If you try to improve a brushstroke, you usually make it bigger and wipe out other brush strokes. If you pretend that the first brush stroke didn't happen and just do another (smearing trough, or in a clean layer over, the other brushstroke, that doesn't matter) you will see that the architecture of the painting remains clear. This is, of course, only a valid advise when you wish to think in terms of brush strokes -there are many other ways to apply paint. However, the universal lesson is this that it is best to go rigorously for what you want in stead of trying to improve something that is second class.

"He painted a picture, either oil or watercolor, in a way that was uniquely his own. It can perhaps best be described as a perpetual upsetting and restoring of balances. Cezanne began by sketching in pencil the dark outer contours -- the areas of shadow -- of the principal forms. With the first light pencil stroke he was in effect upsetting the balance of the empty canvas, and he had to restore it with another stroke -- a diagonal in one direction counterbalancing a diagonal in another perhaps, or a vertical counterbalancing a horizontal. An examination of a work abandoned at this early stage reveals that the rhythmical relationship of the principal masses has been established before objects have even assumed a recognizable form.

"At the same time that he made these first sketching indications of contour, Cezanne began putting next to them unconnected dabs of color -- a red where an apple would be, a green, complementing the red, next to a contour that would become a vase. He was here not only modulating the forms with color so that volumes gradually emerged from the shadowed contours, but also building a color composition. The first touch of red became, in effect, the keynote of the composition; from this point on, the composition grew according to what Cezanne called the 'logic of color,' involving another complex scheme of balancing and counterbalancing -- this time of colors rather than contours -- throughout the canvas. This explains why Cezanne did not pause to complete any single part or object in its entirety, literally advancing 'all of the canvas at one time.'" - Richard W. Murphy in The World of Cezanne, 1839 - 1906, Time-Life Books, 1968

Related topics in this section of my website:  Happiness

Home    Art Links