PROCESSESSING CONCEPT tm.

© 2007
by Paul Henrickson © 2006

Not long ago someone on an internet chat page challenged me with the statement that the
only currently worthwhile contemporary art was that known now as “conceptual”. He
was so enraptured by the idea (of concept) that he was unable to see that the particular
arrangement of letters was only a symbol of a “concept” and that a real concept was
really much more elusive than the naked Jeff Koons going at it with a porn queen… his
wife, or so we’ve been informed.

I will have to admit that my concept of what art is is very tangential to the displays of a
nude Madonna on the streets of New York or a belated Madonna/Koons follower a 56
year-old Chinese assistant professor at the Jiangsu Teachers University in Beijing who
introduced several nude people into the classroom, some young, some in their 70’s, some
in their 80’s, and himself took off his clothes and invited the students to do the same,
actions which, in short, have encouraged the Chinese university to open for discussion as
to what may or may not be a proper environment for research. While the Chinese
University administration admitted that everything is available for research ( a highly
acceptable concept) they did question whether the class room was, in this case, the
proper venue. I have pondered the possible meaning of all this nakedness and have
wondered whether it has anything to do with the sometimes recurring social concern for
the hypocrisy of conventional thought Considering the status of many aging bodies if
the analogy of truth and nakedness gets carried too far I may be forced to adopt a new set
of beliefs to say nothing of experiences.

For my part I am bewildered, or is it amazed, by the unexpected route the lexicon of

human experience has taken and have decided to see what it offers and where it takes one
in the adventure of an intellectual break down. In its way it is allied with the work of
Doris Cross who, as she considered herself a “destructuralist”, used dictionary pages as a
vehicle while she dissected and dismantled their original intent in order to offer illogical
alternatives, BUT, fate fooled her and she ended up yielding to the dictates of structure..
Doris Cross, “Ambassador”
Doris Cross: “Odd”
Cross described her concept in the following way:

The word itself is the mark. It is the image. Words are organic life-designs. To begin
to understand this life, one must have recourse to form. Specific to art, form
acquires and gives rise to new systems. In this instance, a system of reduction to
feel its configurations toward resolution. I see the dictionary columns as a body of
words exclusive of their definitions. My process consists of leaving “found words”
precisely where they exist in the columns of Webster's Secondary School
Dictionary, © 1913 edition. The “found words” then comprise the statement. Words
as objects, textures, movements, spaces, sounds; words supporting words, even as
a column is built of mortar and stones.

And finally to illustrate my point that Doris, eventually, found it desirable to

reassemble the parts of what she thought she had destroyed, making a new
organization let me show you this one:
…where the aesthetic seems to be making references to early medieval manuscripts

She says:
The word itself is the mark. It is the image. Words are organic life-designs. To begin
to understand this life, one must have recourse to form. Specific to art, form
acquires and gives rise to new systems. In this instance, a system of reduction to
feel its configurations toward resolution. I see the dictionary columns as a body of
words exclusive of their definitions. My process consists of leaving “found words”
precisely where they exist in the columns of Webster's Secondary School
Dictionary, © 1913 edition. The “found words” then comprise the statement. Words
as objects, textures, movements, spaces, sounds; words supporting words, even as
a column is built of mortar and stones.
The word itself is the mark. It is the image. Words are organic life-designs. To begin
to understand this life, one must have recourse to form. Specific to art, form
acquires and gives rise to new systems. In this instance, a system of reduction to
feel its configurations toward resolution. I see the dictionary columns as a body of
words exclusive of their definitions. My process consists of leaving “found words”
precisely where they exist in the columns of Webster's Secondary School
Dictionary, © 1913 edition. The “found words” then comprise the statement. Words
as objects, textures, movements, spaces, sounds; words supporting words, even as
a column is built of mortar and stones.

It would seem admissible to consider that the more visually experienced and the
more culturally aware in other ways as well a person becomes, the more eclectic his
own production. Given this thought, how then, one might well ask, does one account
for conceptually impoverished work such as one might consider the following? Or
have I been missing something?

Albers Albers Andre Brach

Brevik, Joan of Arc Hartung Johns Koons Matta

Mitchell Rothko Rauschenberg Sol

Tobey Chicago Warhol

…if it is conceptually impoverished. Is it?

But let is continue in another direction:

Stephen Scott Young, “My Secret” Andrew Wyeth, “Afternoon”

The young fellow, my correspondent, was so enthralled with the idea of “concept” that
he forgot the breadth of its application condemned anything before Jeff Koons and the
opinions of those people who hold Koons and his work in contempt.

If we take, for example, the first image we have here of a young pubescent Negro girl
seen sitting somewhat defensively and exhibiting a sort of challenge to anyone who
might think of molesting her. Those statements describe the concepts transmitted to the
observer, even while whether they were the ones intended by the artist may still be open
to question.

Another similar to the suggestive power of that image is the second one, showing us
another Negro female approximately 10 – 15 years older than the first, who still appears
to reveal a caution in the way she moves through the world as her left hand slowly feels
its way to the corner of the building. To the extent that the subjective power of these
images successfully portray a social environment not known to many of us is a measure
of the artists’ ability to illustrate and elaborate upon a concept of human behavior.

These are only two examples, one from each 0f the work of two different artists, yet, how
easily one might, on not too superficial an examination mistake them for the work of the
same artist. Which one that might be is of no concern. To the extent that this confusion
exists how might it be possible to determine which of the two might be the more creative
artist, Young or Wyeth or, is the entire matter of degrees of creativeness a frivolous
intellectual invention that plays no role in the production of art? If “creativeness in art”
is irrelevant shouldn’t one then be satisfied when the technical excellence of any select
individual, or group, or class of technically accomplished persons, class, probably, since
the individuality of any single person is no longer relevant be sufficient? It might be
something like, perhaps, those products of the Japanese method of teaching the violin
where scores of pupils are doing precisely the same thing at precisely the same time and
doing it in precisely the same way and achieving precisely the same results?.

If it is the technical excellence which satisfies and not individual differences in focus,
interest or attitude, then there is little difference in value between the work of Wyeth and
the work of Young and one work is as aesthetically valuable as the other. In fact, there
may even be an argument in favor of the Young being superior (but we have already
eliminated the idea (concept) of superiority so the question is irrelevant) to the Wyeth
because the Young was not discovering and applying a new solution to a pictorial
problem (for that is an entirely different concept entirely),but adapting one already
discovered by Wyeth, or someone else, to an already recognized pictorial problem and
thus, was an example of superior technical application…a technical application
unburdened by trial and error. Oh my! if such is a virtue wherein does the acclaimed
virtue of Paul Cezanne lie, or A.P. Ryder, Michelangelo Buonarotti, or the six year-old
who switched from the base-line to a new (for him) interpretation of space?

Well then, if being a perfect technician had a limited virtue and virtue also attaches itself
to “experimentation”, then are we justified in concluding that all those experiments
throughout the twentieth century were virtuous merely on the basis of their being
experiments? Isn’t it reasonable to expect an end to experimentation and to see some
studied application of the results of all this experimentation? The answers are “yes” and
“yes”, or maybe they are “no” and “no”, but the answer goes on to tell us that the greatest
virtue of all is in the process of evolvement. It may be a question of what? where? and
how? for the next appearance, the next attraction. And it is this evolvement which
suggests a certain vain fashionableness which had been the subject of a Hollywood film
some many years back called, I believe. “Think Pink”, no!, rather it was “Funny Face”
with Audrey Hepburn and Fred Astair, two very accomplished performers who actually
lifted a commonplace theme into the realm of acceptable entertainment. Whether it was
moral to bring value to the rescue of the vulgar I do not know.
Audrey Hepburn in “Funny Face” a film that recounted the fashion industry’s effort to regain creative vitality by
appealing to the draw of the fatuous. To clarify the issue, the fashion industry was in a slump and some felt some
gimmick need promotion, not a really creative solution, but a gimmick, something, they felt, every right-thinking
woman would fall for and so they settled on the color “pink” No woman in her right femininely contriving mind could
resist the opportunity to revile a woman not in pink

One of the classic examples, and there are many, of what is called “conceptual art” is
the next image by Karl Benjamin showing a square surface broken up into two somewhat
integrated shapes characterized by complimentary colors, orange and blue. Ah!, what has
happened, as it will inevitably do, I have fallen into the trap of employing a word, in this
case, “complimentary” which has its own various uses referring to various concepts, such
as: something “complete”, “perfect”, “a quantity”, “an amount”, “either of two parts
needed, “a full membership” .”an amount by which an angle falls short of 90 degrees”
and mathematically “a set of a universal set that completes a set”. My gosh, how we do
make life complicated, I suppose the word “compliment”, as used in this present instance,
comes from the formation of what some call a color wheel –it isn‘t a wheel at all, of
course, because it doesn’t move, but it is somewhat on its way to being a wheel because it
is a circle, and in any event someone arrange the colors of the rainbow (thank God we
have some thing that actually exists in nature to refer to) in chromatic order from red
through orange to blue and purple and it just happens that the blue and the orange in this
circle fall opposite each other and become, because of this accident, complimentary to
each other. Opposites, yes, of course, that is why men and women are complimentary
because they are opposites and together they do sometimes form a whole…something
complete, or so we have been told… ah, now I get it! Well, that much makes sense,
some what.
Color wheel

If, for the sake of argument, we accept the Wyeth/Young as a group and the
Benjamin/Neuman as a group and consider them as complimentary, but only for the time
being, and also recognizing that we do not even have the semblance of a circle when we
lack other groups between to illustrate the concept.

Both the Benjamin and the Neuman works fall within what is generally agreed upon as
examples of “conceptual art”. That is, at least, what some people call it, but what is the
concept they illustrate. Let us try to find out by first describing what it is we see. In both
cases we see canvasses, one very large and the other not so large. Both have simple
geometric forms breaking up the surface of the canvas, One has more complicated
configuration than the other, but not very much so. If we use the number of angles as a
measure the Neuman has four interior angles, that is, not counting the angles of the
perimeter of the canvas, and the Benjamin has 10 On that measure alone, then, the
Benjamin is about 2 and ½ times as complicated as is the Neuman. But who counts
angles when one is responding to the aesthetic character of a work? What is the nature of
an aesthetic response anyway?.

Of these paintings by Benjamin and Neuman both of them have two colors, one has blue
and orange and the other a very dark midnight blue and a medium value red. In over all
configuration one is square and the other is rectangular. Fortunately for the presence of
the human figure we can get a feel for the size of the Neuman and one might guess the
height to be about 20 feet. This together with its vertical orientation could suggest
motion, at least in so far as one needs to move one’s head in order to encompass the
whole work. Now, this last mention is a factor of aesthetic appreciation that appears not
to be an element in the Wyeth or the Young works. The observer is not obliged to move at
all which might mean that kinesthesia was not one of the artists’ considerations. Hmmm,
that is interesting, that as critics we may be obliged to consider factors the artists did not.
Karl Benjamin Bernard Neumann

How much further can one take this analysis of the works of Benjamin and Neuman. We
have discussed the size, color, complexity. I think it might be legitimate to consider what
they may have had in mind when they did what they did.

The following is an excerpt from an exhibition catalogue:

By this point in time Benjamin is exploring the subject of his future work, the
phenomenon of color/form as an entity in and of itself. It is precisely that these
formal components function as subject, and the decisive omission of representational
subjects, that mark Benjamin as a classic modernist painter.

Benjamin understood and explored the way in which language underlies our manner
of seeing. (well, that language underlies our manner of seeing is certainly true)
Having already freed the object within the work, shifting from implicit representation
to robust nonobjectivity (notice the use of adjectives here ”implicit” and “robust” and the
application of negative and positive attributes to they nouns they describe,”implicit” connoting something
hidden and :”robust”: an “all-American forthrightness”) came as he detached the painting
simultaneously from pre-formed associations with depiction and verisimilitude. (This
statement was from the internet description) and seems to be a surprisingly
complicated way of saying that the artist stopped looking at a reference subject
separated from the canvas to paying attention to what was happening on the canvas
itself, a change, which I imagine is somehow described in the phrase “non-objective
art”. If this is the case, and I believe it to be so, then all one needs to do is to look at
the work and determine what it is we see without referencing it to some theoretical
object not on the canvas. On which case it seems, there is an objective to
nonpobjective art and that objective is to experience sensually the work of art ads
opposed to understanding it intellectually as a symbol.. of anything else...
In 1959, a traveling museum exhibition called "Four Abstract Classicists," curated by Jules Langsner,

presented West Coast artists John McLaughlin, Frederick Hammersley, Lorser Feitelson and Karl Benjamin

as underrated successors to the geometric experiments of Malevich and Mondrian. (I wonder in just what

ways these artists are underrated. We shall have to take a look at the work of Malevitch and Mondrian )

Karl Benjamin--the youngest, most playful and perhaps least known of the group--has for the past 40

years continued to toy (an interesting choice of word) with sharp contrasts of shape and color, inventing

complex patterns of trapezoids, triangles and interlocking oblongs. This selection of works from the '50s

and the '90s confirms both Benjamin's art-historical importance and the brash (sic?) vitality of his ongoing

explorations.

With considerable chutzpah, (is the author calling our attention to Benjamin’s ethnic background?)

Benjamin impulsively varies cleanly demarcated shapes and juxtaposes harsh, pungent colors, sparking

his forms into a kind of kinesthetic dance. With their decorator shades, upbeat primary colors and

unabashed flirtation with patterning, his works seem important predecessors of the Pattern & Decoration

movement. At the same time, they anticipate the geometric and color experiments of recent artists such

as Jim Isermann, Penelope Krebs and Karin Davie. (by Duncan Philip)

Piet Mondrian Malevitch Benjamin untitled “Interlocking Forms”

Working from these examples alone I think it may be possible to say

that Benjamin has advanced the work of analyzing the non objective characteristics of what has become

known as the Suprematist movement, but I ask, is this an advance in perception? This last example
certainly is for it is apparent that the eye is engaged for a much longer period of time and, additionally,

the eye is encouraged to play, jump around a bit, and to refocus so that, a times, it is able to discern the

big reddish square in the middle and the parts of blue-like squares along side..

But Malevitch also did these examples for which he is not as well known

as he is for the “White on White” which has become one of the icons for the so-called “conceptual” art

movement”. It would be much more acceptable, I believe. To simply state that both Malevitch and

Benjamin were exploring the ramifications and implications of designs based on geometric forms. When

one considers that there were nearly three generations between Malevitvh and Benjamin, that is

Malevitch died at the age of 87 when Benjamin was ten years old, one might reasonably expect significant

changes in perception to have taken place. And they are there. However, I would urge there be some

reservation in regarding the comparative advances (?) offered by other artists such as Hyman Bloom

concerned with other matters, or Arthur Deshaies

whose shifts in emphasis is toward the more visually complex, with Deshaies the hard-edged forms now

appear to be overlapping and with Bloom there appear to be altogether fewer edges to begin with and

those that are there seem to have their sharp distinctions obscured and in some instances there are no

edges whatever which, in the case of the Rabbi’s face makes him appear to be one with his clothing. All in

all the Bloom seems to possess a pollen-like bloom (the pun is intended) that is totally absent in every

image we have seen this far. This observation encourages me to ask how it is that this new dimension of

aesthetic interest relates to our understanding the concept of concept. If the development of overlaying

shapes and the obfuscation of outline are new conceptual developments where does this place the rather
singular nomination of minimalism to a separate category identified as “conceptual”…as though other

aesthetic considerations were devoid of ideas, concepts that is? The term “conceptual art” is not helpful.

Certainly, it appears to me that the inclusion of the idea of atmospheric distortions such as the view of a

Rabbi in a candle-lit synagogue possess a richer array of concepts than does the Malevich. The criticism I

am leveling at the occupation of art criticism applies not just to the term conceptual art, but to many

other terms as well which have served to confuse the reading public and to encourage a superficiality and

sophistry in discourse which hasn’t helped anyone except, perhaps, those who make money on the use of

words. If there is a distinct aspect of art production which singularly deserves the title of “conceptual” I

have yet to identify it.

Additionally, if we back up a little and reconsider the Bernard Neuman, the one with the four interior

corners and we then turn our attention to the untitled Benjamin with the two vertical blue stripes and the

maroon background we see there are 8 interior corners corresponding to the two ends of the vertical

stripes. I am aware that this is a simple observation, indeed, it is very simple, but it is critical to

establishing the thinking process which I believe necessary to understanding how people experience an

aesthetic response, or what might be said to constitute one.

In any event, the next two paintings, the Hyman Bloom and the Arthur Deshaies both contain the colors,

red, blue, yellow, green, white and black. For the comfort of the purists I would like them to know that I

am aware that black is not considered a color but for this discussion we are calling it one. In short, both

paintings have six colors.

If we then look at the Hyman Bloom and the Arthur Deshaies we can immediately see that they both are

vastly more complicated than either the Benjamin or the Neuman and between the two of them the Bloom

is the richer one in terms of the orchestration of visual elements. The proof of this statement can be most

readily seen in the seeming depth suggested in these two paintings/ Now, to speak of depth in connection

with a two-dimensional painted surface seems about odd at first, but what is meant when it is used in the

connection with two-dimensional work is the “appearance” of depth. The appearance can be brought about

in several ways. In the traditional Renaissance work it is brought about by what we call linear perspective,

that is, the organization of vision so that the mind reads the organization of what is seen so that depth is

understood even while it is not there. It is all a matter of how the eyes see or how they have been taught
to see, for not all social groups see two-dimenional works in the same way. Some primitive groups do not

render space at all , but consider the reality of size to be a ruling factor in representation. While the

western man would show a human being in the foreground as larger than an elephant in the back ground,

the primitive could not because he KNOWS the elephant is larger and would, therefore, draw him larger

and the visual effect of spatial distance would not be a matter of concern to him.

Something of this role of concept in the execution of works of art can be seen in these to works by a 6

year-old. Actually, they were done by the same person within a thirty –minute period of time.

I am unsure which of the two came first, but, in theory, the simpler concept is illustrated with the one on

the left which shows us what we call a “base line” where the idea is that everything attached to the earth

can be found rising from a horizontal base. In the drawing to the right the concept of a base line had given

way to an extension of the idea of land into one having depth, so that we are able to understand that the

duck with the nest of eggs sits between us, the observers, and the tulips in the background and beyond

them still are the trees on the hill on the horizon. It would be unfair, I believe, to conclude from the

above examples that the adult primitive who had no conception of space had a mentality less developed

than that of a 6 year-old, but we can legitimately conclude that the originating concepts were different

and whether or not one concept is superior to another has yet to be determined..

Al Held is quoted as having said:

". . . the best abstract painting transforms its formal qualities into metaphors for truths
unavailable to direct perception. In the world we live in, nonobjective art is the unique
vehicle to try and discuss things like: How do things come together? How do multiple
and contradictory truths exist in the same place at the same time? The formal qualities are
important to me only in the sense that they're metaphors for the way I see the world."
(Grimes).
Personally, I would go further than Held in this description and state that the process of
making a work of art is something more than a metaphor (making a work of art is, after
all, a real action in its own right although it may be similar to or parallel to behavior in
any other field of action and therefore, appear metaphor-like.

Al Held:”untitled” & “Quatrocento XIV”

Alamira cave painting, c.15-20,000 tears bc

Approximately 20-25 millennia separate these two works and we cannot doubt that whatever concept man
has of squares, or whatever varied meanings with which a square might be invested, the interest seems to
have a long life. nb: the Altamira frescos to the left show two larger squares each made up of 9 smaller squares, but
the squares are colored differently. The images are not very clear but it seems that there are three values of colors,
light, medium an dark and there are there of each value in each of the two large squares but they are not arranged in
the same way. In so far as I know we do not know whether these compositions are decipherable in terms of
language as we know it. The one on the right is a 20th C. Work by and was not intended to be a vehicle of
language other than the visual experience itself.

If, however, one were to judge the level of creativity, or, for the time being let us use the word “complexity” of these
two works it is apparent that he Paleolithic works is conceptually more complex because it has not only grouped the
squares into a new and different formation , but may also have provided some additional significance about which, as
yet, we know nothing, in the arrangement of the color values of the nine small squares

I suppose that this sort of wordplay may have influenced Jeff Koons in his choice of a
series of photographs of himself and his wife in connubial bliss and to consequently
present the results as works of art.

But if one speaks of concept again does it not appear that the processes which account
for the two Helds above were real processes resulting in real products that are something
more than symbols of an organization but offer the real thing? There is a problem here in
that we have some difficulty in distinguishing what is “real” from what is not “real”
.Some religious instruction tells us that having lustful thought about another man’s wife is
as bad as actually having her. Aside from the fact that a woman might want another
woman’s husband is overlooked we then have to confront the proposition that my initial
antagonist was correct when he vehemently stated that the idea, that is the concept is
more important than the conceived object and being so we can then dispense with the
object. I can just imagine an art gallery opening with cheese, white wine, a crowd of
patrons all discussing the concepts and with nothing on the walls. I can also imagine a
mass of law suits charging professors of art of having failed in their duties toward their
students. and the cases being dismissed on the grounds of there being a lack of evidence.

Is one , then , allowed to think that these ‘works by Koons are not the real thing? Well,
they certainly appear to be real, at least in the most obvious sense of that term. “real”, that
is, were we there with them were we to pinch one of them I think we might expect a real
response, also were we to join them in their play we might also expect a real response…
of some sort. Are we getting then to the nitty gritty of the thought of those who have
promoted what they call conceptual art. In other words, are these people saying “get rid
of the pretence of art, no fake painted trees, nudes. gods, goddesses and wild lions. “get
rid of the ‘art’ in the art activity and give us the real thing…no more pretence.”…and thus
the nakedness referred to earlier. If this is what they are saying then they seem to have not
understood why the ‘art’ in an art activity is so captivating why the illusion is so
wondrous. It explains why Baryshnikov seeks to hover in mid air, why Monserrat Caballe
, this hugely fat woman, sounds so delicate, why Pavarotti’s notes sometimes make the
air vibrate with sympathetic resonances, why Rodin touches our humanity in his “Gates
of Hell” and why that Romanian, Ivan Mestrovic makes us feel Job’s pain much more
than the Biblical passage does.

Mestrovic: “Job” Rodin: “Gates of Hell”

 Koons is not unlike the prostitute who promises but is unable to deliver because he is an
unbeliever, that is, he does not seem to believe in, or want to believe in, the power of art,
or erotically based love, to communicate to us sometimes those rare and sometimes
sublime moments of understanding…revelatory moments. His work suggests he may
have heard about it, but, unlike Bernini, may never have experienced it..

I am frankly at a loss as to understand what Koons’ “concept” may have been in this
photo of his handsome self and a sow and its young, but it does make a neat transition to
this bronze by Sandy Scott once exhibited in the Columbine Gallery in Loveland,
Colorado. (I am sure there is a linguistic connection somehow or other between all these
images but I just can’t quite bring it to the surface).

Sandy Scott : “Eat More Beef”

As for the bronze version of this family tarasuidae( this word makes one wonder
whether pigs understand Latin (I suppose those pigs do since we have something called
‘pig Latin’ and pigs are called with the word “sui” repeated several times…”sui.sui.sui”
and they come running as a rule).

I find it perplexing on the grounds that the artist chose an edition of 50 of these
presumably anatomically correct examples and wondered whether the market for so
many really existed. Perhaps that was of no concern to those involved any more than the
misleading information that the 37” sculpture was “over life size”. Even I, in my rather
limited experience with swine, have seen a sow that was five feet tall on all fours and as
long as a cow. In all of my experiences with pigs not one was simple and objectively
involving. All my encounters with them have been subjectively colored, from having
been peed on by a frightened piglet to being charged by a defending mother. I must ask
what possible concept could be behind this bronze pig? I am actually personally
challenged to do a pig that does have some conceptual content and probably include in it
some oblique reference to Koons’ peccary interests.

I have no doubt that Koons’ work is conceptual, but is that adjective sufficient to tell us
anything else about his work, I mean, in the same way that the terms “realistic”, “cubist”,
or “neo-classical” do about other works? I know that this question places the burden of
legitimacy on the vocabulary rather than on the work itself, but if we can prove the word
“conceptual” illegitimate, or at least inadequate, then we can probably think up a more
descriptive one..

The term “baroque” refers to a style of art which followed that of the Renaissance and if
we accept the Random House definition of the term,”baroque”, we will almost
automatically become heretical in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church for the
Baroque was, almost by definition, parented by the church in response to the religious
concepts of Martin Luther. The Random House definition associates the “baroque” with
“bad taste”. I do not. But let us see how this discussion evolves.

Perhaps the best exponent of the Baroque is, was and ever shall be Gianlorenzo Bernini
who was in addition to being a painter, was a sculptor, theater designer, and architect.
He, however, was not alone in that multifaceted characteristic, Michelangelo was also all
those, with the exception of being involved in theater he was, however, a poet.
Gianlorenzo Bernini: Portrait Bust of Cardinal Scipione Borghese

Now after more than three hundred years I am certain that in the minds of most liberally
educated individuals there exists a still-living and softly palpitating concept associated
with the name of Bernini. Certainly all those faithful Roman Catholics, of whom there are
millions, who pilgrimage to Rome have experienced the highly emotive works which
exist in the Vatican and in St. Peters itself. The extent of Bernini’s contribution to the
spirit of his times, I think, cannot be exaggerated. Granted, he had a great deal of help, he
did not, as Michelangelo largely did, work alone . This differential fact should lead us to
a clearer understanding as to what it is that constitutes an artistically creative production.
In studying the work of Bernini it may be at times more difficult to determine what he did
and what his assistants did. Michelangelo had few assistants and as I understand it those
he had did preparatory work and were not involved with the finished image. It might,
therefore, be legitimate to conclude that Bernini’s major contribution to art was that of a
developed and mature definition of a style and a “style”, by its very definition, tokens an
adherence to some formula. Michelangelo’s contribution and his struggle was to bring a
theological concept in line with a graphic illustration of the concept. by means of
aesthetic, that is sensual, references, as opposed to the Reformation’s somewhat greater
emphasis upon textural analysis and had very, very little, to do with style.

There are innumerable evidences of this and in the determination of what is and what is
not creativeness in art these approaches must be a measure. Additionally, we might ask
ourselves which is the more creative act, the production of works according to a theory or
the development of the theory itself. And this question brings right back to the central
thesis of those who support “Conceptal Art”. Maybe one would be better off to simply
separate one’s analytical abilities which depend so much on words from the aesthetic
awareness of a work But if we so that how do we then share our appreciation of a work
and the sharing of our perceptions is as important as the perceptions themselves, it
sometimes seems. The other approach, as the literary supporters of conceptual art have
frequently revealed, leave us with a thoroughly bogus and farcical intellectual structure
mimicking the pretentious seriousness of a scientist. which has been largely successful in
thwaughting response.

In regard to Bernini’s stylistically heightened production one can only awesomely admire
his ability to cultivate the observer’s sensibilities to the softness of flesh and the agitation
of clothing worn by a person undergoing spiritual trauma. The reality is, I suggest, that
spiritual trauma is experienced within the individual and very rarely, if ever, is it reflected
in the movement of the garments the person wears. This is what has been called “an
artistic invention”.

Bernini Bernini . “Ecstacy Saint Teresa

Such superior visual and tactile awareness and the technical ability that supports its
effective presentation must, I believe, be matter for admiration. However, it should be
mentioned at this point that there have been serious doubts expressed about whether,
ability not withstanding, marble should be made to look like flesh.

Michelangelo, who was no mean technician himself who, by the conjunction of his
symbolism, raises important philosophical questions concerning man’s relationship to
God which seems to have been something which didn’t seem to concern Bernini very
much except in so far as Bernini’s characters simply submit to God and raise no further
questions. So, it seems, that the question as to what extent and in what ways
philosophical thought should govern artistic performance is a very real question and does
effect production. So important were these questions during the 16th and 17th Centuries
that much to their discredit the Lutherans destroyed church organs, to say nothing of both
sides of the religious controversy burning social undesirables such as witches and
homosexuals.

The question as to whether art aught to be used to inspire awe in the cause of some one
political development or another seems often to be raised, probably because the
politicians keep bringing it into the political arena as was done, for example, recently
with the work of Mapplethorp which developed into a very real threat to the survival of
The National Endowment for the Arts. I think the matter was relatively successfully
solved after some bitter accusations and that the argument that the arts should be an area
where the freedom of dissent should be protected was again affirmed…at least for the
time being.

Mapplethorpe: “Black and White Heads”

If one grants that Bernini was highly creative in the way he induced, in the mind of the
beholder, the “sense” of movement could we go so far as to say that he anticipated
Alexander Calder. That might be a little tricky, but still worth considering….or more
possibly Boccioni? It might, at least, be said that movement as a concept appears to have
been of some concern to all three of these artists. This might also be said to have been of
some concern to Bernini as an architect when he designed the colonnade for St,. Peters
and when Frank Lloyd Wright designed the Guggenheim Museum in New York and some
of his private residences. The difference here is the difference between architectural
movement as applied to a poltico-religious organization where the “arms of the church
welcomes you to its bosom”. and one applied to the experience of movement in an a-
political environment where the focus of the experience of architectural movement moves
from an exterior magnet to an interior experience as in the Guggenheim Museum in New
York. But while the interior of St. Peters is
still an awesome experience there are some who, with justification, claim that all the
other art works which occupy the interior spaces of the building the sense of space and
interior movement has been diminished. It was just such an observation that led Frank
Lloyd Wright to make sure that the art works on exhibit in the Guggenheim would not
compete with this concept of interior space. See below.

Now, it seems appropriate, in

an aside, to call our attention to the Chapel of St. Chapel and to reconsider what concepts behind this assembly of
materials might have been

Or this which, regrettably my HP system did not allow me to identify (so much for technology) but which certainly
evokes one of the more acceptable aspects of human dignity:
Unidentified
F.L.Wright, Robie House, corner

F.L.Wright, Robie House

Alexander Calder, Mobile Boccioni Bernini: Portrait, Louis XIV

Or even, if the reader can be generous to the author, this puzzle work by Henrickson

where eye movement is induced by the integration of

colors and patterns. This example is the archetype of others designed by the author and available through The
Creativity Packet <www.tcp.com.mt> as educational tools.
Bernini’s Colonnade Bernini’s Colonnade

F.L.Wright, Robie House F.L.Wright, Guggenheim Museum

“Movement”, then, is a concept that, in art, takes many forms. The major point of this
discussion being that the word “concept”, even in its connection with conceptual art, is
a seriously misleading misnomer and the passion that this young fellow feels for the
word, and whatever the concept he may hold about that word is something from which,
we hope, he might evolve. He along with many others.
THE STRUCTURE OF REALITY, or the duality of existence, that is, God and Satan,
good and evil, the beautiful and the ugly, ….now that is an interesting one. However, I
think it will be easier for me to begin with DISCIPLINE AND EXPRESSION.

This image below by R. Kenton Nelson entitled “Wendel’s Cellar” a 36”x24” oil on
board is as good a place to begin with as any. At one time it was exhibited at the
Mendenhall Gallery in Pasadena.

When I saw this illustration in the magazine “Art and Antiques” I had to look several
times to see whether or not it had been the work of someone whose work I knew. In a
sense while there seem to be individualized elements in the subject which more

specifically places it in that special spot where Wendel has his cellar this work also
references other works somewhat similar, or somewhat dissimilar, but, like a family,
everyone is related somehow.
 Stuart Davis Balsamo

Edward Hopper

Arthur Dove .”Cows in Pasture” Marsden Hartley. “Berlin” Jacob Lawrence. “The Street”
Stella, Frank 2001

One of the major characteristics of the set of works above beginning with R. Kenton
Nelson is that there is a shrinking of the visual content of the work except when we arrive
at the more recent pieces by Frank Stella, one done near the first year of this century
where the concern for minimizing the aesthetic events to conform to a somewhat
prevailing, at one time, concept of subject matter, i.e. to use as little of it as possible. In a
very real way this movement towards what some call non-objective or more specifically
“minimalism”, art illustrated a subtler development that even today, has not yet fully
integrated itself into critical consciousness, that is, that the real “subject” of a work is
what is going on in that work…the subject of the work, then , is not what it might depict
from the outside world, but what the neural connections are that are set in motion when
one looks at it. This one of the main reasons why the “conceptial art” movement has
failed intellectually because it has mistaken what the essential character of subject in a
work of art may be. .To remove or to include a reference to a realty outside the work
itself is irrelevant. The subject of a work of art is not the “birth of so and so, the death of
so and so, elephants being attacked by lions, the subject of a work if art is its structure.

This is a major and viable and highly significant shift in critical consciousness and one of
its beginnings was certainly with Monet who tried NOT to look at the objects at all but
ONLY at the light that bounced of the objects in front of him.

Claude Monet, The installation of Monet’s “Water Lilies” at “L’Orangerie museum

Monet, “Water lilies”

Actually, most of the adherents of the minimalizing point of view would probably have
worded that description differently, more like, “dispensing with the irrelevant.” Well, it
would appear that at least Frank Stella ultimately came to the conclusion that something
that is a bit more than the least has some thing of virtue.

In so far as Monet was concerned, my guess would be that he really didn’t give a fig
about water lilies themselves, though they were a pleasant addition to the garden, but that
it was mainly only the way light bounced off and around objects associated with the
water. It wasn’t even the water itself that was important but rather the interaction of
molecules of light….so the subject matter was never the water lilies.

Veloy Vigil: untitled acrylic on canvas

Pierre Bonnard “Interior with Table”

At this point our dealing with the meaning of the word concept becomes somewhat more
involved, for now the matter of time, or of sequence, or of approach impinge upon our
efforts to understand the artist’s intent.

One half century passed between the death’s of Bonnard and of Vigil and while they both
lived to maturity Bonnard lived longer than Vigil by 14 years.

In the meantime, however, between the death of Bonnard and the death of Vigil we have
the aesthetic involvements of all those mentioned above. The emphasis with them hovers
like flies on the question of minimalism. “How minimal can we, or should we,. get?” A
few generations back Malevitch produced a painting entitled “White on White” which
showed a tilted off-white square on a right rectangle. Later, perhaps in response to this
concept of being minimal someone produced a cartoon, I believe it was in The New
Yorker Magazine of a white canvas on the museum wall with the title of “Cow in a
Pasture. The Cow has Eaten all the Grass and is Now Gone”. Well, that is certainly an
example of the concept being superior to the work.

There have been some fruitless, but nevertheless mildly entertaining events presenting g
themselves in the guise of serious appreciation. Take for example a recent Museum of
Modern Art announcement concerning a 1948 Pollock. By the way, I find these money
games quite beside the point and entirely distasteful.
Brice Marden: “drawing” Brice Marden in one of his 4 studios

Marden painting with a stick J.Pollock: “No5,1948” Odd Nerdrum:”SelfPortrait”

More than a half century separates Jackson Pollock’s painting (center) from the Marden
“painting with a stick” episode (left) and the Odd Nerdrum (he’s a Norwegian and the
jargonist word for “prick” in Norwegian is “nerd”). I must ask this question: if there is
virtue in advancing concepts (and I do believe there is) what concept has been and what
are being advanced in this group? If anyone finds it difficult to formulate a response then
they (we, perhaps,) have been successfully flimflammed into silence.
Frankly, perhaps the major value in them is that in some of us we are enjoined to
comment and evaluate and I will not argue with the proposition that to try something out
may have a value in its own right. Although, to qualify that response I would add that I do
find more potential value (not the $140 million recently paid for that Pollock) , even in
the Marden, than I do in the distasteful egotistical phallic self-worship of this modern day
Viking who enfolds his ego in the admirable Rembrandtesque technique. I wonder if it
might be a carryover from the prow of the Oseberg ship.

” :
Henrickson “Thrust” Oseberg ship prow

Jackson Pollock at work.

In 1956 Pollock dies at the age of 44. To my knowledge there has never been
any indication that he ever failed to take the occupation of painter seriously. Yet,
while I feel I must ask myself whether Marden and Nerdrum are taking that
occupation seriously. I recognize the potentially profitable investigation into what
might be discovered aesthetically if one uses a stick as a tool I need some help
from Marden in learning what he may have discovered. As for Nerdrum, while his
Rembrandtesque technique us certainly commendable I also need assistance in
discovering just what concept of general value is here being displayed. Nerdrum
really puts the matter of concept to the test

Recently, a thoughtful acquaintance sent me this note about creativeness. I wonder whether he was telling
me that I was not one of ½% mentioned by Hewlett as being “essential”. Such a terrible blow to my ego.

Hi there Paul...

I was searching the Internet for a paper presented by William Hewlett,

creative co-founder of Hewlett Packard. I haven't found it yet, but I did
read it a few years ago on the Internet. It dealt with Creativity in the
workplace, and how this was a major "plank" in the Hewlett-Packard
"platform". The particular part I was looking for was to the effect that
most of the creative ideas generated lead to "nothing" except about 1/2
percent of them (or was it 1 1/2 percent?). However, that 1/2 percent
could be so awesome and "seminal" in effect and importance, and at
such a fundamental "intrinsic" level, the active persuit (sic?)of that 1/2
percent was beyond worthwhile, it bordered on essential.

By the way, it isn’t that I find the male organ of no interest, it is simply in the way
Nerdrum presents it. I, too, have done something of the sort

Malevich, “White on White”

 …. and, as a matter of fact so did Malevich, although it would be correct to say that at
least Malevich has called our attention to the subtle distinctions apparent in variations of
white.

Easier to deal with is the work of Vigil who, it appears, had accepted all that information
and tried, somewhat hesitantly, perhaps, to re-inject the patterned surface construction of
canvases with some recognizable subject matter from what we generally call “the real
world”, While Bonnard had fully accepted the real world, as a world, and had quite
purposefully decided, somewhat like Monet, to ignore certain of its aspects in favor of
focusing on the emanations of color energy from the objects present in that world. It
made no difference to Bonnard how those objects related to each other except in terms of
these color energies, whereas Vigil’s inclusion of a subject matter seems to tell a narrative
of some sort. For example, it is of no interest to Bonnard or to us, as observers, what that
woman wants who is at the window looking in. Bonnard has rejected story telling and
contrary-wiseVigil is looking somewhat in that direction. Had Vigil lived another 14
years he too may have decided more in favor of exploring the formal aspects of art
production. So it would appear that a concept can be as elusive an item to fix on as
many other matters taken in depth.

So, where does all that leave us in regard to the meaning (s) of concept? The term
“conceptual art” is, at best, a misleading one for it seems to be saying that other art forms,
interests, expressions, and concerns were without concepts, without ideas. That is
unacceptable because it is not true. A more appropriately descriptive term would have
been “the art of diminishment”.

What might be complimentary to the art of diminishment? Would the “art of enrichment”
do?

There recently came to my attention a short article in The New York Times (Art &
design section October 4, 2006) featuring Red Meyer, identified as an artist who has
elicited some interest among observers of his “scar prints“.
Ted Meyer, “Lost Finger Due To a Band-Saw Accident” photo by: Bill Crandall

Meyer, we are told , sees scars as “evidence of healing and resilience” and could, thereby,
legitimately be considered by those who traditionally use the term as it is generally
understood as “conceptual”, the idea that these prints can also be viewed as medically
valid data. Some time in the very late 50’s I used some discarded hospital xrays, some
actually still had the patient’s name on the film which I used as an etching medium. The
patterns I saw in the xray print also tempted me to experiment with them to see what
altered images I might obtain. In fact, I am today reusing some decades old photographs,
cutting them up and creating a new reality out of them. By reality” I do not mean the
“reality” of the images the original photographs had as subject matter, but the reality of
their new relationships with the new organization.

A photographic montage by the author

It is that, as I understand these problems which actually makes all the significant
difference between, or should I say “among” the various examples of conceptual art. Was
 it Duchamp’s intention upon exhibiting a ceramic urinal as a work of art or the same
object as a urinal that made all the difference? Is the question worth asking?

I can accept that Duchamp may have wished to demonstrate that the formal qualities in a
urinal had aesthetic relationships to formal qualities in something which was intended to
be a “work of art” and that his desire may have been to demonstrate that to be able to
separate the onerous attachments associated with a urinal from the admirational
attachments associated with a work of art is an important distinction. The notion does
give support for the concept that it is “all a matter of viewpoint”.

If one were to shift the subject from abstracted art-based aesthetics to the erotic the
difference may become clearer. That which often is the focus of erotic attraction may, at
times, be the source of repellence which may gave been one reason why Jeff Koons
behaves the way he does,. These discussionary offshoots also suggest that aesthetic
judgments may be based as much on momentary need as on absolutes. Or, as we see here
with the varying responses of the King and Queen of Norway to a nearly nude Brazilian
dancer, it seems these aesthetic responses have something to so with personal taste, and
something to so with the moment.

Their Royal Highnesses, the King and Queen

of Norway visiting Brazil. As I recall, the King’s Sister , Princess Ranghild married a
Brazilian business man.

.Yet. Lautrc’s comment to the woman offended by his painting showing a woman
adjusting her stocking in the presence of a man also spoke to differences in points of view
when he told her that the man was her husband and the woman was getting ready to
out.. The painting remained the same, but the view points seemed to make a great deal of
difference in how one looked at the work. The adoption of a moralistic view about works
of art seems to miss the point of the art. In judging the work of art as an art object as
opposed to its being a social artifact there are some very clear distinctions to be made.

Lucien Freud’s portrait of Elizabeth II is a case in point. If, as Keith O’Connor, who
posted a web site on this painting and the subject, has pointed out, this portrait is a record
of the relationship established by the two principle actors in this scene, the subject and
the painter, is true, one can only surmise that the Queen was not amused. His claim that
the work is “masterpiece” is highly and readily contestable. That attribution can only be
accepted if the subject of the alleged masterpiece is disappointment, dis-eased, deceived.
and disaffected. I wonder of Lucien Freud had misplaced his charm.

Lucien Freud, “Queen Elizabeth II”

The subject of this essay started out being aspects of the concept of concept and it may
not have got very far along the path to a solution, but, I would hope, at the very least, that
it has opened up some venues of thought.

Paul Henrickson,
Gozo, Malta, 2006
”.

“Hello, I am an Israeli. I want to apologize, I don’t know if even what I did was wrong
or right, but when I was in Israel six months before I killed six Arabs at night with a
gang of other Jewish settlers. At the time I believed we were fighting for our
homeland to keep from the Arabs, but perhaps now that I am here in America I
realize that maybe that killing is not right way, and I want to apologize. Thank you.”