Aesthetics

Synchronicity
Art Criticism tm. © 2007

By Paul Henrickson, Ph.D.

© 2007.

Paul Henrickson: “The Towers” 1987

INTRODUCTION
I need to relate a story about this painting. It was, as you see, finished in 1987, or thereabouts. When I
moved from Santa Fe to Pojoaque in 1990 I brought it with me and hung it on the wall behind my desk One
day which I retrospectively recall as being significant, I looked at it and frankly wondered why it seemed I
had chosen, or rather allowed to emerge, the subject matter of a city in the midst of an explosion of some
sort. It seemed useless to me to pursue that matter any further and I dismissed the thought. In November of
1999 I had made my decision to leave New Mexico which I loved dearly but now had become a place
where the racial and cultural perspectives were too alien for me to encompass.

Some time in the early spring of 2000 I had begun the task of sorting belongings and boxing up books and
other goods in preparation for the movers that this painting along with others were standing, well-
supported, on their edges slowly began to move as I stood amazed and helpless to intervene as it fell
against the sharp corner of a cabinet creating an 8” tear in the upper center of the painting. It was more than
a year after I had moved to Malta (June 2000) that my neighbor across the street called me over to see the
television broadcast of the twin towers being hit by air crafts. I wondered why, at the time, I was not
surprised, even unmoved. Now I know.

There is very little, if anything, about this that I am able to prove but what interests me is the possibility, if
not the probability, that some minds, at some times, are able to break through the barriers which create the
impression of sequentiality….meaning by this, that what appears to be the order of events resulting in
theories of cause and effect may be a misinterpretation.

Somehow, the above rather vague thought outline touches upon the various developments within the fields
of the expressive arts. In some cases the individual artist develops something significant from something
very commonplace, in others, the artist casts about and is forever bewildered, others take a very safe and
very narrow path and depend upon the ignorant gullibility of a public to sustain them and some take
something potentially very grand and minimalize it, sucking it dry of all communicative meaning by
trivializing it. But what seems strikingly important is that in the ultimately most creative artists is a
compelling force, of some type which direct the individual to a destiny. I am not speaking of talent, for
that, up to a point, is a given. I am speaking of something more akin to the fate of the ancient prophet
Habicuc who, in opposition to his will, was forced to go somewhere he’d rather not. Donatello created a
very good work, and one with a sense of humor that is generally overlooked, when he created what is
popularly known as “Pumpkin head”. You see Habicuc was physically transported through the interference
of a strong angel who had grabbed him by a lock of his hair and transported him through the air to a spot
several hundred miles away. Donatello, therefore, pictured Habicuc as being bald. There is no account of
Habicuc having been dropped along the way so the baldness is Donatello’s humor or an expression of his
disbelief.

Donatello: “El Zuccone”

.It is, today, as I see it, the function of the art critic to help lead man’s attention back to legitimate
sensibilities. and to use language as a clarifying tool …at least wherever possible.

Synchronicity is a word psychologist Carl Jung used to describe the "temporally

coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung spoke of synchronicity as an "'acausal
connecting principle'" (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct
causality) a "‘meaningful coincidence’" or as an "‘acausal parallelism’". Cause-and-
effect, in Jung's mind, seemed to have nothing to do with it. Jung introduced the concept
in his 1952 paper "Synchronicity — An Acausal Connecting Principle",

ADVOCACY REPLACES REVELATION

By way of illustration and I hope clarity, for the purposes of this essay “aesthetic” refers to the entire
collection of affective responses available to an individual when confronted by an object, or experience, for
which intellectual tools are either not available, inadequate, or nonexistent.

My present hypothesis is that art criticism is a concentration of energy involving both the aesthetic and the
synchronistic in the process of assessing value. The critic, as I understand his function, needs considerable
psychological insight into the history, sources and uses of imagery. That is, he does, if he views his
responsibility as critic objectively. Many of the following statements are, in part, criticism of criticism

The following was written by Jon Carver in reference to the work of Paul Shapiro, a practitioner in Santa
Fe, New Mexico, and was published on the web site of the Zane Bennett contemporary art site:

“So let fall the tower of babble before the abstract (in what way(s) is Shapiro’s work “abstract?”Is Carver
aware of the definition of the word “abstract” and can he defend its use?) painting of Paul Shapiro. His vast
quontumscape scenes neatly resolve categorical issues of abstraction. (What are these “ issues of
abstraction”?)Like Richter he creates gestural abstractions that paradoxically appear to deny the hand. And,

as Richter claims, Shapiro finds his source in nature* *. Shapiro has arguably (finally) advanced the now
*
historic cause of abstract painting in a way that hasn’t been seen before.* Rather than style he has
chosen, like contemporary physicists (and Aristotle) to turn and face the void. In a sense he might be the
only abstract painter since de Kooning or Joan Mitchell (I wonder how Carver would go about analyzing these
two very differently oriented people) or is he just tossing these names in with the intent, similar to that of the sand man,
to make us little boys sleepy?)to live up to the existential challenge without, like Richter or Motherwell, taking

cover in the decorative.* *”

Richter: Color Motherwell: de Kooning Mitchell

untitled
* The structure of this sentence is misleading. It seems to be telling us that Richter is talking of
Shapiro whom I doubt he knows. In any event, what I have read of Richter’s self analysis suggests
that he, Richter, is well aware of his limitations. I do not know whether Carver intended to inject this
ambiguity or not, but it does no service to the reader but does tend to support the over-all impression
that Carver writes to fascinate and create allegiances as opposed to clarify.
* I have not edited out the explanation as to how Shapiro is supposed to have advanced the cause of
abstraction. It had not appeared. The reader, I imagine, is expected to fill in the blank. This is not the
function of expository writing, but then Carver’s writing is not expository, but purposefully vague
and propagandistic and intended to cast the aura of greatness over artifice that has failed to reach
the level of mediocrity. in short, Shapiro’s work represents the antithesis of creative behavior
dependent entirely on venues worked out by others before him.
 * “taking cover in the decorative” is the phrase here that I object to on the grounds that (1), “taking
cover” seems pejorative in the sense that one may be seen as retreating from some encounter. I
suspect that this is probably the intent of the writer, Carver, for in general, it is part of conventional
thinking that “the decorative” is somehow less worthy than (being ‘brave” and) exposing oneself to
popular criticism, or exposing “reality for all the brutality it is”, or has . It is conceivable that the
“decorative” could be likened to the “polite” and that aspect of behavior in social terms is not only
boring, but on the surface it is also meaningless and leads to hypocritical behavior and the formality
of superficial politeness. Although Carver may have thought he had neither the space nor the time to
elucidate his thought on that matter he might have tried to be more keenly selective. Statements that
encourage the audience’s reference to categories or groups of responses, such as in racial profiling
often lead to misunderstanding. The passion and impatience of adolescence has no place in
responsibly mature society, yet, it is the way most political behavior is conducted and, after all, the
process is after all the process.

One of the results of Carver having introduced the subject is that it has helped me to reconsider the
relationship, for example, between the “primitive” (style) ”sophistication”(style) and the
“decorative”(style). Below are three examples of how I believe these three aspects of maturation are
related.

Carver seems to mix the two procedures and consequently we need :

A SECOND LOOK AT SOPHISTICATION

It is not the Cambodian architecture I would like you to look at but its interesting juxtaposition with
the rough rock in the right foreground that is placed on a prepared stand, the Greek influenced
Scythian work and the Hopi Koshari to the right. In terms of vocabulary understanding, the defining
of terms, we go from the primitive, to the sophisticated to the ultra sophisticated which has returned
to a level of the primitive in its effort to present a complex concept in terms easier to comprehend
than would be the case were all aspects, individually, to be presented sequentially. The simple roman
cross, by way of example, means more than just two lines at right angles to each other. In fact, most
of the time when one sees it one doesn’t think in terms of geometry, but the entire panoply of the
Christian tradition, a very complex set of ideas. In terms of contemporary art forms the Koshari
could well be replaced by a Brancusi and the argument might not be any clearer for not many of the
experience of seeing the compressed package of limbs and head that comprises that little bundle. In
terms of the Koshari, it becomes, largely, a decorative object for those who have no background in
understanding its parts. One might with justification conclude that Brancusi had recently seen such
a new born and had been impressed by that aspect of its form and that this impression found its way
into his understanding of it. My experiences with new borns has enriched my understanding of the
Brancusi. A doctor having had more experience with seeing new borns may have no affective
response to the young one what so ever. His mind may simply summarize the experience in terms of
chemical designates. Perhaps, after all is said and done, it is the purpose of art to sensitize, and
“humanize”, the human being by injecting the affective into the objective.

Some where I read the description of a mother bear , having given birth to a cub and was seen
removing the birth sack with her mouth and licking the cub dry with her tongue, but the description,
which, I think, comes from Wilfred Owen was this: “licking it into shape”, as though the mother
 bear was seen as being a sculptor forming the new born from out of the birth sack something with
four legs a head and a tail. In such a way science differs very much from art in that science attempt
to “stick to facts” and to describe accurately while art prefers to inject meaning, mostly affective, into
experience. Some have thought that it was this affective aspect of an event that gave meaning to the
fact of the effect.

What appears to be a rough rock in the temple picture for the sake of this argument can be
considered primitive, that is, barely formed, the Greek-influenced Scythian work or as Greek work
commissioned by the Scyths, shows the sophisticated awareness of anatomical structure of both man
and horse. The Hopi Indian koshari is quite basically geometric, but the presence of the details, the
parts of the costume, the details of make-up , the held instruments all have a role in a story-telling
piece and it is that detail which takes the piece beyond the realistic representation of the horse that
we see, into a much more complex concept and in that sense is beyond the sophistication of visual
detail. This is also true of the Brancusi, for the process of simplification that is apparent in the
Brancusi embodies a knowledge not strongly visually evident or immediately determined or
inumerated in the work. In that sense both the Brancusi and the Koshari are sophisticated and while
a considerable amount of anatomical knowledge is evident in both the horse and rider it may fail to
reach the level of sophistication UNLESS the observer brings to the work more awareness than the
piece itself seems to possess. On the surface the Koshari is primitive because of the manner of its
construction, while the Greek piece is technically sophisticated but intellectually primitive unless
other factors are brought to bear on the matter.

Brancusi: New Born

A “PRIMITIVE” TO “SOPHISTICATED” PROGRESSION

 1. 2. 3. 4.
The sequence of images here is to demonstrate the development on a flat surface of the
representation of an unbroken spatial continuum. It is illusory. It is not real, but it is there. We must
ask: how can something not real be anywhere? And the answer might be that there is never anything
not real, but in a situation such as this we must distinguish between types of reality…perhaps very
much the way Alice in Wonderland was required to do,

If one accepts these distinctions what should it tell us about a work such as this one by Hans
Hoffmann?

Hans Hoffman: Bald Eagle

It could be argued that since the paint on the canvas is real, as are the canvass and its stretcher and the spots are measurable,
which process is accepted by some as an indication of reality that this work is real. However, popular and thoughtless
terminology insists on referencing this result as “abstract”. From what is it abstracted?
Albert Bierstadt, “Yosemite”
The Bierstadt is more abstracted…and severely so. Abstract, in the sense that the final look of the
Bierstadt is the result of the collection of all the visual phenomena the artist abstracted from the
scene before him…or the one he imagined being before him.

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT
If Neanderthal man created any form of art, no traces of it have yet been found. But with the
arrival of modern man, or Homo sapiens, the human genius for image-making becomes
abundantly clear

From the analytical structure of the human body and its subtle reference to its heavenly
origin (the star) which we see on the left we come in one astounding leap to the image of the
decorated woman and if “creativity” can be determined by the degree of difference it would
seem that the woman has it head over heals over the man. But then we have this intriguing
and somewhat mischievous image of a Neanderthal from whom we may have received some
of our DNA which appears to offer something even more provocatively creative…what
next? It begins to appear, the longer such discussions take place, that there is a certain
inadequacy with the vocabulary. Definitions no longer really define. There seems to be a
crack or a spill over involved. The line –(the defin-iting line)—between reality and
nonreality has got a bit blurred, or maybe just moved a mite to the left or right.
The triangle has a range of meanings distinct in cultures as close as the Hopi and the Arapaho, or as diverse as its interpretation by the
Western economist (The Greek letter Delta, signifying change). Yet, the act of the interpreter translating their culture’s symbols into a
communicable form is the absolute, universal, primitive act. Dorothy Dunn
 The Indian artist may say of the contemporary artist that they are in forgetfulness of their origins, and the contemporary artist may
refer to a child like quality of the Indian’s painting. Nonetheless, to Dorothy Dunn they are both primitive art, or better said, a
primitive act, and both have their reason for being. “Each aspect which characterizes Indian painting as a primitive art has its own
reason for being. Likewise, certain of these same features qualify Indian painting as modern. This seeming paradox may well be in the
fact that international painting, for reasons of its own, increasingly evolves forms and styles, even concepts, not unlike those long and
deeply developed by Indian artists.”

The idea has been expressed that the American Indian painter may see the white man’s naturalistic
attempts at representation as “primitive” in that being naturalistic they do not embody the
sophistication of accumulated understanding associated with “geometric” symbols. This being the
case it would seem not a thoroughly satisfying analytical route to make aesthetic judgments based
solely on formal appearances.

There are some things I need from Carver; among them would be an explanation as to what he means by “
the categorical issues of abstraction”?, what are “gestural” abstractions? From what are these abstracted?
What is it about Shapiro’s work that hasn’t been seen before? Physicists are facing some “void”, but what
“void” is it that Aristotle faced when it seems, to some at least, that he rather emphasized the reality of
things as opposed to the “idea” of things. In what way(s) does Shapiro not “take cover in the decorative”
and in what ways do Richter and Motherwell ? And finally, is Carver telling us to forget words altogether
(“let fall the tower of babble”), including his own unknotted string of pearls in regard to the process of art
criticism?…a process which, if communication is to take place, rather depends on words…not loosely
strung together.

Such a description that Carver supplies leaves this reader breathless for a pause, a ‘gasp’ really, of
meaningful fresh air. It is a style of rhetoric that begs reason. Like the current pop-news-service
descriptions of Paris Hilton and the late Anna Nicole Smith , fame are its own credentials and no one need

Paris Hilton and friend Anna Nicole Smith

know the what for which one is famous. It is true that there are qualities in Joan Mitchell, Gerhard Richter
and Phillip Guston which are similar to some which are somewhat detectable in Shapiro. There are also
similarities between the Mitchell work and those works that have been offered us by Desmond Morris.
However, what is the meaning of all that? should acceptance be granted out of some generosity of spirit?
Any thing goes? …and it is unmannerly to apply intelligent analysis?

Joan Mitchell: “Cous Cous” Gerhard Richter :”Clouds” Philip Guston “untitled”
 (nb) by an associate of Desmond Morris. additional
examples below. Is art production a matter of intelligence as we know it?
It seems to be in the nature of man, and perhaps other creatures as well, to look for the unusual, the
outstanding and once detected there are a variety of efforts to do the bloody thing in…kill it for its
difference. Such is one of the more outstanding characteristics of the ideal idols come to life, the pattern
for self-destruction laid out plainly for us by our corporate social being characterized by a mass-mind
consciousness that thrills at military parades, firework displays and the approaching celebrity death.

SHIFTING A POINT OF VIEW

There is nothing at all unusual in one artist learning something from another nor is it to be despised. Even
Raphael is reported to have generous enough of spirit to acknowledge his debt to Michelangelo. What is
unusual is the emergence of a truly independent spirit with a compelling perception of a new coalition of
aesthetic elements. That is rare.

Rahael Sanzio: School of Athens, Heraclitus Michelangelo: Jeremiah

Raphael’s “School of Athens”

It is more clearly apparent that Raphael learned something from Michelangelo’s more
dramatic use of contraposto when we compare that one figure of Heraclitus in the front
and center left with nearly all the other figures in the Raphael composition and it has been
thought by some that Raphael introduced this figure into his own more classically
composed work simply to irritate Michelangelo who had earlier stipulated that no one
should be allowed in the Sistine chapel until his work was finished. From my point of
view it is quite surprising that Raphael had so little regard for his own work that he was
willing to introduce a disharmonious element into it just in order to tick off another artist.

And it is just this point I wish to stress that in judging a work of art from the point of
view of its aesthetic success, as well as its genuineness, it is of great importance that all
the work’s parts work intelligently together. Raphael may have thought himself clever in
being able to make a sort of pastiche of Michelangelo’s drawing ability and to introduce
it into his otherwise totally harmonious work, but actually all he succeeded in doing was
destroying the effect of his own work and sullying his own character. A truly creative
artist cannot behave in this way…without degrading the respect for the medium and his own
creative inspiration.

THE EYE OF THE FLY

That, whatever “that” is, can only come from the intense probing into the elements of
individuality and the motivations of self realization. Although it is possible to make a
pastiche of anyone’s work, as the Norwegian Odd Nerdrum has done of Rembrandt it
takes little honest reflection to understand that Nerdrum, next, for example, to John
Marin, Arthur Dove, Gustave Baumann, Vincent Van Gogh, or even a Christian Krohg, is
merely a clown….but a technically very good one.

John Marin Arthur Dove Vincent Van Gogh

Gustave Bauman Christian Krohg Odd Nerdrum

While technically very good indeed Nerdrum (oddly enough this surname, if that is what it is, has all
the appearances of a nomen omen, in that in Norwegian the first syllable of that word (nerd) means
penis and Nerdrum not only seems to live up to his name in this second self portrait but also, in his
special way, his own gloriously special way, contributes to his own degradation as a person and

artist and that of his culture. as does Koons

In each of the above works (with the exception of the bottom two) there seems, to this
viewer, no question whatever as to the certainty of the artist’s determined and
purposeful acceptance of his aesthetic, that is the “formal”, decisions he makes.
There is no doubt in the mind of the observer that all the graphic events which take
place on the flat surface make total sense within the context of the work.

That recognition, however, to some significant extent depends on the observer’s

visual sophistication in understanding the visual language of his culture. Not all
individuals from everywhere can experience that. This means that the artist and the
observer of the art already possess certain common expectations and attributes. To
be perfectly honest, this is also true of the bottom two works, to which, however, has
been added an additional quality, one that might be described correctly as
pornographic. Such images,

Roman: bronze New Mexico : Petroglyph, nd Rubens:Resurrection,1616

however, also have a history

and illustrate some enduring characteristics in the human experience.

I would not have the reader believe that I object to looking at other people’s
anatomy. It really all depends on whether or not I am prepared.

INTELLECT AND INTELLIGENCE and

TECHNICAL EXCELLENCE AND SEARCH
Even within a culture there are times, as when one first gets introduced to the works
of the impressionist Monet, when a readjustment in the expectations one holds of
what one might, or should, see, needs to take place.
 or
Monet: Garden Monet: Sun breaking through fog

Monet: “Parliament”

Monet: “water lilies”

Monet seems to have been investigating the nature of the insubstantial
Masaccio: (1401-1428)Rendering of the Tribute Money”

” Giotto: (1267-1337)Meeting at the Golden Gate.

In the intervening one and a half centuries the accomplishments of Giotto to realize the
sense of solidity in physical objects has been broadened to include an awareness of the
atmosphere in which those objects exist. A development that might be seen as parallel
between Romantics and the neoclassicists of the 18th century and the impressionists of the
19th might provide us pause to consider whether there are not divergent and conflicting
drives within the realm of the graphic arts and what, if they exist, they might signify. In
short, is an art drive, enumerative, that is with the mind set of an accountant, adding up
every pertinent unit, or is the mind set that of a gestalt, considering the entirety of an
event. Of course, it should not be forgotten that when an artist chooses to explore the
potential of an expressive graphic element, such as a square (Albers), a circle (Brach), a
line (Mitchel), etc., and thus, by choice and definition, limits the parameters of the
universe with which he works, adequate judgments as to the artist’s creativity become
more difficult and complex, perhaps, no even possible.

Such a confinement, or limitation, of critical measures also lends support to the oft, very
oft, repeated assertion that works of social commentary are the only pertinent examples of
creative expression (Arthur Danto on Gerhard Richter) and novel uses of formal elements
are overlooked. In the case of works that bear little reference to representation their being
assigned to social issues is made very much easier…if more problematic.

Turner: “Shipwreck” Turner: “Snowstorm”

Petersen's new paintings are like pages from then her

studio, each day looking and exploring, listening to
what was trying to speak in this line and that shape,
this color and that constellation. Some of her forms
are quiet -- staring or sitting alone. More are in motion,
with an occasionally anxious but usually confident,
even frenetic energy. They assemble and meet,
tumble and spin. Even in shocked immobility or
reverentially still, they seem busy. Petersen's line has
a marvelous assurance and suppleness. It
demarcates and displaces, asserts or retreats. It can
swing into the arc of a hummingbird's flight, or harden
into an oar or pole, or the armature of a chair or table.
Her passages and fields of color have fluid identities
as well. They can have a prayerful stillness; they can
coalesce and thicken, and, like a watchful parent,
stand above the animation in their midst; they can
squeeze around and between the fragmented, even
broken, yet oddly complete forms, locking them in.
 Vita Petersen's new paintings are like pages from the
journal of an artist who has spent a lifetime in her
studio, each day looking and exploring, listening to
what was trying to speak in this line and that shape,
this color and that constellation. Some of her forms
are quiet -- staring or sitting alone. More are in motion,
with an occasionally anxious but usually confident,
even frenetic energy. They assemble and meet,
tumble and spin. Even in shocked immobility or
reverentially still, they seem busy. Petersen's line has
a marvelous assurance and suppleness. It
demarcates and displaces, asserts or retreats. It can
swing into the arc of a hummingbird's flight, or harden
into an oe armature of a chair or table. Her passages
and fields of color have fluid identities as well. They
can have a prayerful stillness; they can coalesce and
thicken, and, like a watchful parent, stanabove the
animation in their midst; they can squeeze around and
between the fragmented, even broken, yet oddly
complete forms, locking them in.

a Petersen's new paintings are like pages from the

journal of an artist who has spent a lifetime in her
studio, each day looking and exploring, listening to
what wasto speak in this line and that shapthis color
and ellation. Some of her forms are qui

ing or sitting alone. More are in motion, with an

occasionally anxious but usually confident, even
frenetic energy. They assemble and meet, tumble and
spin. Even in shocked immobility or reverentially still,
they seem busy. Petersen's line has a marvelous
assurance and suppleness. It demarcates and
displaces, asserts or retreats. It can swing into the arc
of a hummingbird's flight, or harden into an oar or
pole, or the armature of a chair or table. Her passages
and fields of color have fluid identities as well. They
can have a prayerful stillness; they can coalesce and
thicken, and, like a watchful parent, stand above the
animation in their midst; they can squeeze around and
between the fragmented, even broken, yet oddly
complete forms, locking them in.

THE ROLE OF THE OBSERVER

Michael Brenson, a critic of art criticism has made the following observation:
“art criticism, as a whole, is in trouble.”

“I believe that art criticism is failing miserably to meet the challenges of this time,
and that art and artists, and indeed the artistic culture of this country, are suffering
as a result. American art, artists and art institutions are struggling, and because so
few critics have been willing to participate in this struggle and examine their role in
its development and outcome, art criticism, as a whole, is in trouble.”

This statement presupposes that there is a legitimate and even a necessary function
for the art critic. But how can this be, we might ask if the artist, the sole arbiter,
presumably, of what comes out of his studio is someone who knows what he is
doing? These days, at any rate, artists do not have overseers to determine whether
what they producer is legitimate, valid, or good….or do they? The critic does
function as one who, in the long run, does function as a determinator of what might
be allowed to appear.

If the artist can, legitimately, be considered a barometer of his environment and if

this is his primary function, as opposed, for example, to his being a interior
decorating consultant, then he stands in relation to the rest of society as a prophet ,
or, at least, if not one who foretells the future , one who describes the present in
“graphic” terms.

In the light of this observation I would describe Paul Shapiro as an unfocused

dilettante, Paul Brach as a rigid jailer at a site where diversity is rejected in favor of
consistency, Hyman Bloom as a well-trained, disciplined and cautiously obedient
servant and Picasso, Nesjar, Warhol and Koons as opportunistic conmen who offer
the ignorant glitter rather than a gem.

Vita Petersen's new paintings are like pages from the journal of an artist who has
spent a lifetime in her studio, each day looking and exploring, listening to what
was trying to speak in this line and that shape, this color and that constellation.
Some of her forms are quiet -- staring or sitting alone. More are in motion, with
an occasionally anxious but usually confident, even frenetic energy. They
assemble and meet, tumble and spin. Even in shocked immobility or reverentially
still, they seem busy. Petersen's line has a marvelous assurance and
suppleness. It demarcates and displaces, asserts or retreats. It can swing into
the arc of a hummingbird's flight, or harden into an oar or pole, or the armature of
a chair or table. Her passages and fields of color have fluid identities as well.
They can have a prayerful stillness; they can coalesce and thicken, and, like a
watchful parent, stand above the animation in their midst; they can squeeze
around and between the fragmented, even broken, yet oddly complete forms,
locking them in.
or:
Seurat:”Model” Henrickson: “portrait” Henrickson: “a lad “

Please note, that in each of these works, (the drawings just above), there has been established a
premise, a visual premise, I imagine we must call it. To begin with the works are limited to black
and white and in some instances with some gradations in between, or, to be perfectly exact there
may be no true “black” in the Seurat at all…and no true white either. In the drawing on the right
there is no value change at all, yet, there sometimes appears a deepening of tone as marks
approach each other.

In each case the “look” of the work is starkly different. In the Seurat the basic texture is one of
softness and although there is a level of indistinctness the outlines of the objects are still quite
clear and the observer would have little difficulty in pointing out where “edges” of things might be.
With the “Portrait” in the middle that description would not hold. There are few, if any, outlines
whatever, yet, the sense of their being there is present. The separation of object and space is
defined by the absences of those separations. In “A Lad” we see that it is composed of nearly
only of defining line separations.

What these observations tell, I believe, is that at some point the artist has determined to say what
he has to say in the graphic mark equivalent of French, Finish or Somali, that is, in line, smudge,
space, or dot.

That observation, I hope, brings us to the point where I can state that when an artist chooses to
invent a new visual language of communication he not only embarks on a program of drastically
diminishing his audience, but coincidently, encourages the development of the misapplication of
critical comments and the offering of bogus insights. This has led, I believe, to a general mistrust
in the process of art criticism because there has failed to be developed that crossable bridge
between a new vision and an acceptable explanation.

By way of a reverse example, what today western man might call a primitive savage, say from
the Sentinel Islands, may might not be able to translate a Caravaggio painting
Caravaggio: “Lute Player”
with its high degree of highlight and shadow back into an experience he has known, or a drawing
showing a small object such as a bug in the foreground and an elephant in the background, but
on the paper the actual comparative sizes are reversed may not be able to see the drawing as
representing “reality” because for him the bug IS small and the elephant IS big….and he feels the
drawing should reflect THAT comparative reality. Considering the nature of human need for self-
respect and confidence in one’s worth this absence of an agreed upon conceptual reality also
encourages the growth of duplicity and hypocritically staged performances on both the parts of
the artist and critic.

There was a time, I read somewhere, when Picasso expressed genuine surprise that works he
had executed, which he did not care for, were enthusiastically received by the public. The context
of the report seem to support the interpretation that Picasso may have been testing the public’s
level of acceptance and thus was created this great gulf, chasm., of communication between the
producers and the consumers and there arose, in that ambiance of nebulousness a new breed of
conman who knew how to manipulate the pretensions of the ignorant wealthy and the socio-
politically ambitious. "In art the mass of people no longer seeks consolation and exaltation, but those
who are refined, rich, unoccupied, who are distillers of quintessence, seek what is new, strange, original,
extravagant, scandalous. I myself, since cubism and before, have satisfied these masters and critics with all
the changing oddities which passed through my head, and the less they understood me the more they
admired me….Picasso

CRITICAL RESPONSIBILITY
"It is one of the jobs of the art critic to undo that sticky web of confusion…if he can.
It was a friend of mine who provided me with the more complete quotation which appears below
made also the following comment
:
This will probably hurt the sincere artist, the one who believes that he is searching for the "omega point"
(sorry about that Teillard de Chardin) of the art form in which he is sadly and often ridiculously wading,
poor toad in his swamp...chasing mosquitoes with his pens, brushes, violins and chisels... thinking that he is
a bull chasing Europe.
This artist will never reach an Omega point of art, this does not exist. He will console himself by believing
that he contribute to its search (the omega point). He will be sincerely unhappy, and this will make him feel
misunderstood, and he will make a fool out of himself trying to justify the "why of the how" of his work, of
his "Oeuvre Originale". But then there is a way out, and this kind of artist sometimes get the help of an art
critic, a journalist, a gallery. He will sign a pact with the devil, he will trade his honesty against fame, and
he needs fame more than he needs money (and the gallery knows it). This kind of pact works, the next
morning our artist will see him self in the mirror, and discover that he has become the living angel of
creativity, he will believe that he really deserves his fame. Poor fool...
And then there is Picasso, who's no fool, who dips his feather in urine to write the above text, or I would
even say that he literally pisses generously over his critics and clients, telling them that its champagne, they
know that it is only piss, but they still lift their arm in the air and jump up and down singing "It's
champagne, it's champagne, and from the best... Ahhhhh, Ohhhh...., this Papa, this Pablo..., this Pipi, this
Picasso..." Well all this people cannot without being ridiculous fire the jester they hired, because he knows
all their dirty little secrets, how they create (yes they are creators as well, but looking for the Omega
"Coin") fame and how they sometimes destroy it, they even know who's hand is in who's pants...sorry I
mean pocket.
Yes and there is Picasso, who loved to be famous, who loved money, who loved women or it would be
more amusing to say that he was famous for being able to have at the same time one of his hand in a
women's pant, and the other in her husband's pocket(on his wallet). And they would scream their fake
ecstasy over the roofs.
Yes there was Picasso,who was honest enough to say that he was not honest (I know it sounds like that
Athenian saying that all the Athenians are liars)( this precision is given so that you don't think that I am
dishing out some syllogism that most of the people will overlook), a Picasso who loved women ( yes, it is
never said enough) and money, Picasso who, had he taken the stony way up, instaid of taking the easy way
down, would have become somekind of a Bougereau, and would have been quiet happy with himself, he
would have been despised, but would have kept his head up, he would have waited in the other world, just
like Bougereau is doing now for the last judgment of all artwork. But so far allmost nobody had the guts to
point out the obvious, most of the art in our Museums of Modern Art is trash .One of the reasons is again
associated with the second world war and the nazis. They told us that some art is degenerated and that good
art is the one of people like Bougereau. But nobody wants to be associated with the nazis, just as nowadays
germans oppose anything who goes against their right to smoke, but if Hitler would have smoked, it would
have been ages that they would have tried to forbid smoking all over the world.
And that is enough for today.

Adolphe Bouguereau: The First Kiss”

Just by way of some clarification there are some startling examples of how aesthetic
perceptions have changed over time. 700 years ago when ancient Greek and Roman
sculptures were being unearthed the vision we had of them was that they were made
of white marble. Our view of them was then conditioned by their being largely
revealed by light and shadow, form, undercut, protruberance and certainly NOT, as
we have relatively recently learned. by their having been painted in full color a
performance, an aesthetic decision on their part that many of us today would find
ghastly, reprehensible and ugly….in short, lacking in “taste”. What that accident of
the earlier discovery did, however, was to give birth to a new way of looking at three-
dimensional form and with out it we might never have had Henry Moore.
A Greek Harpie

Henry Moore: Figure

MAKING COMPARISONS
Some years back Jarry Saltz wrote about what he had observed as a result of an exhibition of the
world of Camille Pissarro and Paul Cezanne and made, I think, some very valuable observations.
The design of the exhibition had probably helped a great deal in pointing up some similarities and
differences in the approaches and the results obtained by these two artists.

Saltz’s conclusion that Cezanne was, by far, the greater artist. Pissaro was, of course, very good,
but he did not possess the grandeur of Cezanne. These are conclusions that need investigation. I
do not disagree, but my agreeing with Saltz mean little more than we both see something in these
two artists that means something to us. It doesn’t tell us what that something is nor even that the
some thing is the same something.

My observation of the characteristics of both painters is that they are both about equi-distant from
“reality” wherever and whatever that may be, and that the differences might begin to be described
in the following way. Pissarro’s canvasses, as here illustrated, are by an large significantly cooler
in color tone that are those of Cezanne. Pissarro’s canvasses also contain a narrower value
range. This might lead the observer to conclude that of the two personalities Cezanne had the
greater struggle in overcoming whatever frustrations he endured. Pissarro does present the
observer with a mild, and also an attractive, environment. The observer perceives no threats
depicted, suggested, or extant on some subliminal level. The same comment can, however, not
be said about the responses elicited by Cezanne’s canvasses. There is no ominous something
portrayed in Cezanne’s canvasses so it cannot be said that apprehension is a subject, yet, it
seems to be there. Whether that is an occult expression emerging from some inner anxiety on the
part of Cezanne one might not know, for sure. While that hypothesis is legitimate what
relationship does it bear to art criticism? It seems to me that it bears a great deal of significant
relationship since the paintings are products presented to our consciousness and we are
expected to respond to them. If what I had suggested is correct and these works display not only
landscapes from the real world, but the personalities of the artists themselves, but what reason
do we justify our having arrived at a decision suggesting that one of the personalities is grander
than the other…or, as the title of Saltz’s article claims…unequal?

On the other hand if we ask the question which of the two artists is offering the greater challenge
to the growth of our visual perception we may come up with a different kind of answer…and for
different reasons.

If we ask the question which of the two artists more effectively represented the goals and
aspirations of impressionism our answer might be quite different.

In the first choice the response might give weight to the explorative (at the risk of possible failure),
In the second, to the conventional.

I consider the increasing absence of viable sensual connections with real experiences to be
threatening to mental health on the individual level and in terms of the community at large
awesome to contemplate. Many of us have been amused when a child asks of parenting adults
“Are we there yet?” “Are we having fun yet?” but those questions, especially the second one,
speak of that break in the connection between cause and effect. Jung’s definition of synchronicity
suggests not so much that there is a real difference between cause and effect on the one hand
and coincidence on the other, but that, the difference may have described the way we have been
functioning in the past and that, for future effective response to existence we may need to make
usable connections with more advanced modes of perception….modes of perception, perhaps,
that will allow us to “bridge the synapse” between one reality ”package” and another.
That effort, I believe, will take a great deal of self-examination, a great deal of self confidence and
a great deal of flexible ingenuity in applying the parameters of discipline.

One might say, “well, who the hell cares, if artists want to fool each other and their followers, let
them, it has nothing to do with me.” Such a conclusion would be a serious mistake for as much
as I encourage diversity of opinion and insights I am quite totally aware of the need for a
consensually secure base for any culture to maintain a confidence in its decisions. In this
respect we may only look at the fate of those our culture have created to be gods and goddesses
on earth. I have in mind, Marilyn Monroe, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Anna Nichol Smith and
thousands of wannabes. Our culture has encouraged them to believe in an attribute that was at
best temporal and when it and our culture failed them by tiring of their novelty culture contributed
to their destruction and they were finally toe -tagged. From my point of view that is no way to care
for a family.

I came across an interview between Jordan Essoe and Jeff Kelley. Here it is.

By Jordan Essoe

Jeff Kelley is an art critic and Curator of Contemporary Art at the Asian Art Museum of
San Francisco. A professor of art theory and criticism at UC Berkeley from 1993-2004,

KELLEY: That's right. Hence the sense of cynicism around your generation. It's a way
of protecting yourself from a lack of authentic experience. I would say, however, that I
don't think authenticity is a quest. I think it's just a consequence, or an effect, of just
working for a long time. The extent to which I feel authentic at all is very closely
related to all of the times that I have felt inauthentic. I think cynicism is the most
significant and unfortunate consequent of this stage of mass media experience.
Cynicism protects us from what we feel, or from when we don't feel, and when we
can't feel. It makes what we can't feel fashionable by giving it an ironic tinge and
making it cool. It's essentially smartass, but it is in a way that is so commonplace that
it doesn't seem defensive. Sometimes I think maybe the best I can come up with is
just being the opposite of cynical. And you don't always know where that's going.

It’s the highlighted green sentence I most appreciate. I believe I do so because it leaves us
all some room in which to grow, develop and form ourselves in response to our experiences.
This being the case, it would seem to me that considering the mid=set, experiential
background of artist is essential. How then, does a keen awareness of the existential
background of a creative artist integrate into the technical procedures he uses and that total
effect upon an observer…and his existential background. I reject the notion that suggests “it
is all up to the individual”. I find that too facile. I do not find it unreasonable or inconsistent to
expect as much effort from the observer to understand what is being observed as the creator
put into the creation. Perhaps, it might be considered, that the entire process of arts, its
creation, its comprehension and effect is justified entirely by the degree of empathy it
engenders.

STABILITY AND REVOLUTION

When Michael Brenson mentions the term “deconstruction” I immediately felt the rush of
memory, irritation and a kind nervous excitement as when I first heard it when Doris Cross, at one
time a Brooklyn housewife turned artist whose husband left her for a belly dancer, explained to
me that her aim as an artist was to deconstruct the construct of cultural expectations, so she
chose a 1913 dictionary to begin her work, (like a termite in an ancient house), of dismantling
(other people’s) cultural expectations.
I had no idea why she chose to invite me to dinner that evening in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and served
up a small plate of steamed green beans. Doris had some difficulty in using vocal language. It
could have been a physical abnormality, I supposed, or, I thought, from time to time, more likely
some care in choosing the precise word she needed in order to get the idea across, or, perhaps,
a combination of the two of them. In any event, I ate the beans and listened carefully and
increasingly asked myself, what is it that this woman is talking about?.

Years later I told her what my reaction had been and she smiled appreciating its significance and
the history she and I had by then experienced. Well, Doris was certainly destructive in taking,
what she probably considered was a worthless and out of date dictionary at any event and
proceeded somewhat at random to select a heading from any of its pages and systematically, but
flavored with insistent intuition, to cross out those words she didn’t like.

About every two or three months after we both, separately, had moved from Cedar Falls to Santa
Fe and she and moved into an apartment attached to my house, she would show me her latest
work and ask for my reactions. Since she and I had at the earlier Iowa time, been members of
the same faculty at The University of Northern Iowa I felt complimented that she thought I could
help. Certainly my approach to the problem was very much more academic than was hers. She
had, after all, been a student of Hans Hoffman…now, she seemed to have chosen me.

The more I saw of her work the more entranced I became, not so much at what she had chosen
to destruct, but what she was beginning to reconstruct, although she said that she had known
nothing about those things I saw in her work, and I often had the feeling she was ambivalent
toward my conclusion that she was now re-constructing and not destructing. The idea that she
was destroying something, during a time when it was fashionable to destroy, made her a heroine,
a brave little charming Jewish woman.

What did I see? Well, to begin with, there were many rather subliminal references to classical
Greek material, and the association of meanings between words that usually only an etymologist
would know. These occurrences gave rise, in me, to a more serious reconsideration of how
people know what they know, and to allow the consideration to develop that, perhaps, what we
today value as education is merely a decision to act to overlay, cover-up, obscure, what the
individual knows instinctively, as though, and I hesitate to say so, it became dangerous if one
remembered an earlier life. There is an advantage to politicians to being able to control the
memory of the masses.

Now, having said that, I hasten to add that out of the destruction of what was there may come a
new reconstruction that offers the opportunity to be richer, more satisfying and more equitable.
Western civilization did that in the millennium between 4thC ad and the 14th C .ad. I would have
little hesitation in maintaining that the differences in aesthetic perception between then (the
classic period) and now (after 1850) have been very rewarding. If the present fascination with the
destruction of social values such as one sees in the work of Jeff Koons and Borat ( Sacha Baron
Cohen) ends up with an enriched reconstruction I can only approve the process…at least from a
distance. It will be the responsibility of the non-Koons and the non-Borats to make a better
arrangement of the material remaining.
 These were the first works of Doris I obtained
from her and she told me they were the prototypes for her large group of dictionary column works. However since in the
back sides they were dated 1983 the dating must be in error. At one time Doris had a young woman come in to help her
get her work in order and she was still, at that time, living in my Santa Fe house and I had nearly daily contact with her.
Doris never indicated any dissatisfaction with the woman’s work, but the dating simply doesn’t work out for it seems quite
unlikely that more than a decade passed between the time she had invited me for a plate of steamed green beans and the
production of these works.

The point I wish to bring out, at this time, is that in the course of our frequent conversations I happened to mention to her
and, somewhere I also published, the comment that the illumination she was creating for these columns was much like
the decoration of Gothic Medieval manuscripts. She evidently took that to heart for as one can see from the two examples
above to the three below she has begun to reconstruct from the destruction she had earlier imposed. Not at all unlike, it
seems, the historical development of that pre-renaissance period, first comes the destruction of the classical order and
then comes the Romanesque and Gothic reconstruction which responds to a greater variety of aesthetic demands.

Doris never talked to me about her responses to the teaching of Hans Hoffmann except, I believe I remember, that she
thought him a better teacher than a painter.
I do not believe that Doris Cross was any the less perplexed by her own
difference from others, or the destructive/creative processes she was subject to,
than either Michelangelo when he worked on the Sistine Chapel or Caravaggio
when he moved , seemingly like a grass hopper, from the literary, symbolic
rendering of religious subject matter as it appears in “The Rest on the Flight Into
Egypt” to the breathtakingly august composition of “The Entombment”. One might
try to forget the subject matters, if possible, and the weakly intellectual
enumeration of anecdotal detail and the carry over of Gothic symbolic usage
generally associated with “The Rest on the Flight Into Egypt”, and simply become
aware of the ponderous significance of placing a human body forever away into
the grave and how the elbow of the man in red and the jutting corner of the slab
might be seen as proto-expressionistic. All that aside, it is the fact of change
itself, how it is accomplished, and why, that concerns us. And at times it seems
to me that the function of an art critic may not be too different from that of the
phosphorescent or bioluminescent red microbial tide that lights up the dark sea.
Enough at least for some to see movement in the midst of obscurity.
Caravaggio: “Rest on the Flight to Egypt” Caravaggio:”The Entombment”

Rolf Koppel “Self Portrait” I have little doubt that

this jutting elbow in this photo by Rolf Koppel is a descendant from the image
that appeared 400 years ago.

Although subject to many of the enculturations members of groups inevitably

experience (you must be like us to be with us) there were moments that were as
refreshing to her as they were to me when she was simply Doris and her
perceptions shone through the veil of those culturally imposed habits. That is one
reason why I see something similar in the photograph she chose to have made of
herself emerging, and/or retreating, into a drawing and the tabular rasa portrait I
did of her.
 Karl Kempton : photograph of Doris Cross Paul Henrickson: “Portrait of Doris”

There is an interesting, at least for me, anecdote in connection with this portrait of Doris that
involves her son Guy who has finally some of his energies focused on legitimate production when
, as editor of “The” magazine he called for pictures (of any kind) to use in the publication. I sent
in a photo of this painting of his mother. Never a word did I hear. Of course, I believe I know the
reason for this and his reasoning is the same as Paul Brach’s. “Ignore them and maybe those
who are not us will go away…if not, we must find ways of eliminating them”. In my experience
with Paul Brach he was most notably a racist, an ethnocentric Jew who wanted no one but Jews
around him, therefore, the Scottsman was persona non grata on two counts, first of all he was not
Jewish and secondly his aesthetic was fairly closely fixed on the objective representation of
objects. At the time that I was with Paul Brach I was unaware that in my own ethnic background
there was evidence that linked me to the House of David through Theodore Makir, the Archjudiarc
of Narbonne. Had I known I would have looked for an opportunity to challenge Brach’s behavior.
What, if any role, one’s ethnicity plays in aesthetic decisions, and I do believe that at some point
and in some ways it does play a role, but exactly how I am unprepared to say. I do have several;
hypothesis running around in my mind, they haven’t been still long enough for me to evaluate
them. It is certainly clear, however, that in areas where definitions are open to interpretation there
you will find a Jew. It could well be that this is why, among some, the Jew is regarded as the
earth’s salt, or rather, since that gives the wrong impression “The salt of the earth”.

An anecdote in that regard. In the middle seventies Joseph LaVoie, a Roman Catholic priest, and
I were on our way to Jerusalem and stood waiting for directions to board the plane when as we
stood there each in our traditional western garb, levis and a black Stetson, he with a crucifix and I
with a crucifix and a Mogen David a man from about 40 feet away moved solely toward us never
taking his eyes off me and stopped ten feet away and without an apology, or introduction said
only “Why are you wearing both?”. Well, I knew what he meant. Why should I have known
what he meant? I answered’ “Christ was from the House of David, why shouldn’t I wear
both?” His response was interesting. “You must be a Jew only a Jew could give an answer
like that.” And he walked away.

MAKING COMPARISONS
Perhaps we might extend and amend this thesis to say that there is nothing anyone does
that hides who he is as one might justifiably conclude that in his interview with Barry
Schwartz of the 23 people mentioned by Brach in any accepting manner 15 of them are
Jews. The exclusionary character of Brach’s social nature is illustrated in the character
and breadth of his graphic production. In short, it is narrow, very narrow indeed. I will
give him credit, however, a great deal of credit, for being neat. He is very much neater
than Hyman Bloom, for example, whose technical execution while expressive cannot be
considered “neat” and whose breadth of expression ranges from dismembered cancerous
human limbs and decaying corpses to brides in all their glory and chandeliers in
Synagogues.

Hyman Bloom: Corpse Synagogue Rabbi

STABILITY AND REVOLUTION

Even a geometrician rarely if ever limits himself, like a damaged shellac record to the
same phrase over and over and over again. By way of startling contrast to the work of
Paul Brach.the work of Bradford Hansen-Smith should make the point.

If the thesis that an artist, if he is a “true” artist, doesn’t hide his deepest sources of inspiration
then we might look again at the range of Brach’s expression:

Paul Brach and five sets of circles

Bradford Hansen-Smith (his) “wholemovement” web site is on-line

Actually, that time was interesting from another point of view as well. There were three places of
worship set aside for the religious. Roman Catholic, Episcopalian and Jewish. The Romans
pushed giving to the poor, the Episcopalians announced a “happy hour” and the Jews gave a
history lesson.. that should tell us something. Certainly we might question the real intent of the
question “So, Where is it written?”

WHERE?
LEO STEINBERG WROTE IT: "I’m over here to see Paul Brach’s show (at
Flomenhaft Gallery). Back in 1964, in Art International magazine, Steinberg called Brach’s
simple yet opaque paintings "the invisibility of an encompassing, undifferentiated
homogeneity," Only someone with a Talmudic (schule) education could say this with a
straight face and those without such an education accept it as a compliment. In point of fact
Steinberg spoke the truth, Brach has very little to offer.

Perhaps it is inevitable that no matter what one does or what one makes, he reveals
himself, whether it is the mother doing housework and caring for the children, or
governing a country and standing before an easel it is by what they do you can know who
they are. It is the obligation of the critic to attempt to unravel the various clues which
exist in the work of art that reveal the character of the producer. .Paul Shapiro is a tragic
character who is seen hopping from one art style hot plate to another and so superficial in
his understanding of the obligations he has as an artist he can do no more than, as his
indulgent and self-indulgent appraiser Jon Carver tells us, is make a “gesture”. He desires
the adulation but will not endure the pain. This is not unlike the “gesture” of a town
mayor handing over a cardboard key to the city to a visiting celebrity (or Guy Cross turning
over the front page of “THE” to Paul Shapiro, or far that matter one Maltese artist employing the prestige
of a bank to advance his own reputation as an artist. What intelligently aware person would accept the idea
that a banker automatically knows good art from bad? Or, in the case of the Norwegian Nesjar that the key
to being famous is being known to know famous people.).

An artist exhibiting the fact he receives support from banks. The art work, of course, stands in the background. A transmuted Picasso
stands on an American campus through the agency of a Norwegian functionalist.

or for that matter, a university presenting someone with an honorary Ph.D. It is all
symbolic . It is not real. No effort, no work, no “blood sweat and tears” have gone into
any of Shapiro’s work

What is the result when someone believes in something that is not real? Well, the
psychiatrist, R.D. Lang has described that in his study on adolescent girls. The
employment of language that disguises reality, as in euphemistic language, encourages
the development of the mental disease known as schizophrenia. That is a very broad
allegation but I believe it makes the point.

QUEST OR CONSEQUENCES
There was one saving act on the part of Picasso that clarifies it all but it has not been
widely disseminated. It reads as follows:
In art the mass of people no longer seeks consolation and exaltation, but those who
are refined, rich, unoccupied, who are distillers of quintessences, seek what is new,
strange, original, extravagant, scandalous. I myself, since Cubism and before, have
satisfied these masters and critics with all the changing oddities which passed
through my head, and the less they understood me, the more they admired me. By
amusing myself with all these games, with all these absurdities, puzzles, rebuses,
arabesques, I became famous, and that very quickly. And fame for a painter means
sales, gains, fortune, riches. And today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But
when I am alone with myself, I have not the courage to think of myself as an artist in
the great and ancient sense of the term. Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt were great
painters. I am only a public entertainer who has understood his times and exploited
as best he could the imbecility, the vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries. Mine
is a bitter confession, more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being
sincere."

from an interview with Picasso in Il Libro Nero by Giovanni Papini (1951), translated in Robertson
Davies, What's Bred in the Bone (New York, Penguin, 1986 ) pp. 406-407.

RESPONSE AND REVISION

What is real?

(In regard to changing perceptions of the “real” a short observation of the work of Carl Nesjar is available
through The Creativity Packet , email: prh@tcp.com.mt)
In terms of the artist’s internal development one of the most intriguing examples is that of
Paul Cezanne. A look at some of his early work and that of his later mature work tells us
that he had moved dramatically from the greatly involved emotional romanticism to that
of a dispassionate observer. One could ask: just how difficult was that development?

Or, what a relief for him to be shed of the nonessential and the
distracting
These works are arranged, I believe, roughly in chronological order. They show not only
a shift in subject matter from the highly dramatic to the dispassionate, but in color as well
from strong contrasts to high value and low contrast. It is this shift, we suspect which
provides the clue to what Cezanne seemed most to admire about the “art of the
museums”, that is works that were soundly structured and “classical” in their
composition. His aim, I believe, was to attain that structure AND to attain to the aim of
the impressionists. This may explain why he described Monet as “only and eye, but what
an eye.” Cezanne wanted both the classical sense of structure and the impressionist sense
of air and light. Seurat may have tried for the same effect, but the results are more formal,
more contained, more precise and consequently less “real”.

In terms of the artist’s internal development one of the most intriguing examples is that of
Paul Cezanne. A look at some of his early work and that of his later mature work tells us
that he had moved dramatically from the greatly involved emotional romanticism to that
of a dispassionate observer. I would suggest that this development mirrors a growing
detachment from mundane events. The testosterone level no longer presents a chemical
interference to his studies in optics.

Seurat: “Jar de Bouffon”

GENETIC PROGRAMMING OR ANALYSIS?

Mark Finger: Easter Drawing age 6/7 Mark Finger: Easter Drawing age 6/7

It may come as a surprise to some to see crayon drawings by a child in a serious discussion on art, but it is
precisely because this is a serious discussion on art that these two works are here. The happen to
demonstrate what has been identified as a normal and sequential development in the way minds of this
maturity regard the representation of space. In the drawing to the left we a base line, that is a horizontal
presentation of the flatness of the earth upon which we stand.. In the drawing on the right the base line had
disappeared in favor of a stretching out of the base line from a here to a there and ending up as an horizon
line. The objects represented on earth are also represented as being at different distances from the observer.

These demonstrate a real development in perception. I do not believe this graphic device was taught this
boy, he came upon this solution as children of that age generally do. If one were to compare this
development with the development illustrated above with the works 1 through 4 (above) demonstrating a
similar progression there might be reason to compare the instinctual development in an individual with a
stylistic development within a society over a period of about 500 years. We might ask what the significance
of the development might be no matter where it is it takes place. We can be sure of only one thing and that
is it is a development at least within the western society

By and large today, that is, in the first decade of the 21st century we see a not minor role where the
emphasis in graphic representation is again on the flat surface EVEN while some individuals within the
group manage to introduce elements of spatiality as in the subtle works of Billybob Beamer.

VISUAL DESTRUCT / SENSUAL RESTRUCT

What are the differences in looking when we look at the world outside of ourselves and
we look at the world as presented by the artist?

FRANZ KLINE and PIERRE SOULAGE

Some of the understandings we may have gleaned from all these destructive processes
might be present in the works of these two artists. The discovered elements of visual
researches and the psychology of vision artists such as these may have given us might
provide others with the raw material of a reformation of a visual grammar and we may, in
fact, be in the process of launching a truly great advance in visual cultural experience…if
we are careful.

In all the works depicted below the qualities observed in the above mentioned names are
there as well. In some cases they are more evident than they are in Shapiro, Franz Kline,
for example, and I am using Pierre Soulage as a foil, in this case, in contrast to Soulage
presents a very subtle dimension to painting. Both of them work from the base of a white
field using black as the medium of expression. In the Soulage we basically are aware of
two levels, the whiter, the black surface on top. It is only with the illustration on the left,
with the introduction of the maroon that we might be getting the suggestion of an
intermediate level, but, for some reason, with the Kline, where there is neither the
addition of a third color or the hint of extended blacks into grays we still seem to get the
impression that these violently heavy strokes varying from the very thin to the very heavy
create a nervous and very active tension and the suggestion of a very active interchange
of energies within a defined space. Nothing in the works themselves are doing this, but
an understanding of how the eye works accomplishes the effect. If one were, for example
to compare one of the Kline’s to Rubens’ where Rubens’s very active canvass suggests
the same sort of activity within a defined space but uses human and animal figures in
combat to accomplish it. The readable figures, of lions, horses and men, help the observer
to understand the action. With Kline there is no such assist and the observer is left on his
own to figure it out.

In so far as I am aware Kline never made a clarifying statement to that effect but Agnes
Martin did, as she stated, leave it up to the observer. I am not exactly sure that that
resolve is at all fair.

Three works by Agnes Martin. The artist stated that it was up to the viewer to determine
what the works were all about. It is true that some people are shy, or otherwise reluctant
to talk about their work. I can understand the hesitation for it is truly rare that one comes
 across an individual who is both free of bias and intellectually equipped, in the
vocabulary sense, to follow a line of argument. I was once successful in that attempt
with a school superintendent who turned deep red when he learned he had been bested
and was not rehired. The intelligent response would have been to have promoted me. But
that too raises an interesting question…why should the exercise of intelligence be so
abnormal?

Is there something about the very nature of (any) society that does what Jose Oretga y
Gassett described as the operations of the mediocre mind to strive wherever, whenever
possible to reduce the effectiveness of the outstanding?

It probably would have been helpful to all of us for us to have had a word from martin
about her work and maybe she did say something somewhere at some time, but for the
most part we are left, (as she wanted), left to our own devices.

If it had been her intention to force the viewer into assessing his own responses to her
work and not to be encumbered by someone else’s thoughts on the matter then she risks
many chances at not being understood. On the other hand maybe she felt it wasn’t
anyone’s business what she had in her mind . She appeared to be a very independent
woman. If that is the case, however, her behavior begs the notion that art is a means of
communication. Well, be that as it may she may have been successful in communicating
the idea that she wanted no communication.

So let So let fall the tower of art babble before the abstract paintings of Paul Shapiro. His vast

Three images by Franz Kline

Rubens an analysis a la Kline of the Rubens

This black and white freely interpreted rendering of Ruben’s composition might clarify some of the values I
see in Kline’s “gestural” works.

Three works by Pierre Soulage

In both of these instances, Kline and Soulage, we have ample evidence that the artists were well-focused on
what it was they were doing. There is no exception to their being personality differences between them
which may, and probably, does account for the feelings of genuineness they both give us. And while it
probably is entirely possible to trace the graphic genealogy of their approaches to some other previous
artists that particular DNA has become so a part of their aesthetic expression as to become inseparable
from the totality of their work. They have then, fully incorporated earlier influences

The following three statements excerpted from a statement by Arthur Danto

(with my editorial corrections in this color and concerns and questions
in green)
Hegel was the father of art history as the discipline through which we become
conscious of the way art expresses the uniqueness of the time in which it is made.
Is there a single “uniqueness”, or a collection of them at any epoch?
It strikes me, for example, that Andy Warhol was exceptional in seeking to make (an
aspect of) the reality of his era (personal environment) conscious of itself through his
art.

How can Hegel be correct and Warhol an exception unless everyone else except
Warhol and Richter are non-artists?

Gerhard Richter was a product of these various tensions. But like Warhol, whom he
resembles in profound (in what ways profound?) ways, he evolved a kind of self-
protective cool that enabled him and his viewers to experience historical reality as if
at a distance. It has not been my impression that Warhol experienced contemporary
history at a “cool” remove.

Richter's body of work calls into question many widely held attitudes about the inherent importance of stylistic
consistency, the "organic" evolution of individual artistic sensibility, the spontaneous nature of creativity, and the
relationships of technology and mass media imagery to traditional studio methods and formats. While many
contemporary Postmodernists have explored these issues by circumventing or dismissing painting as a viable
artistic option, Richter has challenged painting to meet the demands posed by new forms of conceptual art, in the
process confirming the vitality of painting as a mode of expression. ( sfmoma,2002) The implication seems to
be that painting, as it has become known, is no longer a viable medium of expression and that those
who employ it really have nothing of importance to say. This statement appears to be similar to
those of American politicians who would like to keep disparate groups within the same party,
creating thereby a coalition. Richter’s work has the same quality and importance as a contemporary
news reporter, partly descriptive of an event and moderately a contributor. The event, in Richter’s
case is the fracturing of those values which made what achievements there are possible. Richter’s
accomplishments will become more clear, perhaps to his disadvantage, when the reconstructuralists
begin to exhibit their work

What KIND of reality is “historical” reality anyway?

This statement appears to be saying that work that does not fit the definition cannot
be work that proves the definition, ergo, it is not, then, art. I thought definitions
were supposed to tell us what things were, or were trying to be.

On the other hand Shapiro who has gone from Marsdon Hartley/David Barbero type landscapes into, or out
of, oriental collaged calligraphy and here, into the exray mysticism of a graphic version of the interior
blood-stream journey depicted by Otto Klement in “Fantastic Voyage” where Shapiro offers us vague
images from an unknown source (such sources do not have to be known) into which he has introduced two
lozenge-shaped objects whose meaningful role in the composition remains obscure. They are there in all of
the canvasses, not unlike an oriental chop used to make sure that all later observers know who has had
something to do with this important work. Their presence perplexes me for their lack of sophistication
mixed with Shapiro’s strong ambition for recognition seems to suggest some arrested emotional
development. ..something like the fascination 10 year-olds had for finger rings with secret compartments,
codes, disappearing ink that were so fascinating in 1940.

Carver also managed to include the name of Gerhard Richter in discussing Shapiro and I wondered just
what it was he might have had in mind. I think it is true that Richter and Shaprio do have something in
common. I doubt that it has much to do with their aesthetic development but everything to do with their
political development for, it seems to be, that they both demonstrate Bresjnev’s comment to Jaime Wyeth
not to underestimate the power of an image. Image wise, Richter is the more powerful, but they both
appear to be either a product of or are an agent for their respective ethnic and national political orientations,
Richter the German and Shapiro the Jew and either they, or their supporters, have chosen the field of
aesthetics to make their political points. What they both have in common, however, beyond that, is a non-
reconstructive interest in their deconstructive processes. Shapiro destroys the structure of western aesthetics
by practicing aspects of it mindlessly and Richter by angrily reenacting the disappointing failure of
National Socialism. I wonder whether Carver had been aware of those possibilities or whether he was
simply responding to some vague instinct. This does not mean that I discredit instinct. On the contrary, I
very much value it.

The bewilderment some conscientious observers may possess might be gleaned in this image of a young
man standing before a Karl Benjamin.

Daumier: “Print Collector”

It seems that size exists in direct proportion to significance., Where as, maybe, the size of Beamer’s work,
some times requiring the aid of a magnifying glass, (provided by the
artist and somewhat reminiscent of a cartoon by Daumier), does the opposite.

Karl Benjamin

Should we talk about a brick wall?

Even the frivolity of Miriam Shapiro has greater graphic significance than these meandering maroon
gonads of Paul Shapiro.

SELF-RESPECT AND VALIDATION

Where as it might be said that Paul Shapiro is chameleon-like in his manner of change, that is, he adopts
whatever background or environment he thinks he is in, the result, of which, of course, is that the essential
Shapiro is obscured in the multiplicity of costume change, or, perhaps, the chameleon is the essential
Shapiro.. Donald Fabricant, on the other hand, someone whom few know, made a dramatic shift and an
aesthetically cohesive one toward the end of his life moving from the unbelievably academic painting of
the 1920’s into the bosom of Juan Miro in one fell swoop.

Works by Donald Fabricant

Shapiro,P after Marsden Hartley/Barbero period and Shapiro as an orientalist and. below Shapiro , perhaps
as Roberto Matta with just a hint of the comic strip approach with the recurrence s of the maroon lozenges.

Three images by Paul Shapiro

Two works by Miriam Shapiro

Three images by Paul Brach

As for Paul Brach, his brand of ethnocentricity aside, his work was correctly described by a functionally
illiterate, but astute, a VERY astute, observer as being, from among all those shown above the least
valuable as an aesthetic experience. And, after all, what else might be expected of a picture than that it BE
an aesthetic experience.

Barry Schwartz interviewed Paul Brach for the Smithsonian Oral History archive. I can imagine how that
idea came about. The Oral History Archive’s purpose, according to what they tell us is to

It is a rather lengthy interview during which Brach recalls nearly all those he’d even met who were any
body. As I was struck with some underlying similarities between them aside from the fact that they all had
something to do with art so I copied down the list of their names. Here it is: Leo Casstelli, Roy
Lichtenstein, Raushenberg, Jack Gelker, Miriam Shapiro, Joan Mitchell, Larry Rivers, Mike Goldberg,
Harold Rosenberg, Clem Greenberg, Helen Mothewwell, Robert Motherwell, (motherwell was a student of
Meyer Shapiro, Bob Irwin, Ed Kleinholz, Larry Bell, Mel Powell, Max Kozloff, Lucy Lippard, Marcia
Tucker, Judy Chicago, Andre Emerich, Jasper Johns, Carl Morris, Bob Morris, Ed Fry, Alan Kaprow, Henry
Gedzehler, Peter Selz, Ed Klienholz, Ashile Gorki, Willem de Kooning and Matta were also mentioned but
not as direct associates. Brach exhibited the same sort of political maneuvering as chairman of the art
department at the University of California at San Diego and was actively seeking the support of other
department members in urging the one lone Scots to leave. What balanced view of creative effort the
students at La Jolla might have received was difficult to imagine. In that environment, so egotistically
defensive, not even Hyman Bloom would have been allowed to survive, being much too good an artist to
be allowed exposure to “unencumbered” minds.
Bloom: David w.Goliath Apparition of Danger” The Medium

I came across a short (2,300word) article by Jonathan Goodman remarking on Brach’s 1997 exhibition at
Steinbaum and Krauss. What I found particularly outstanding were the following remarks: “The show
made it clear that Brach continues to make intellectual perception a major underpinning of his art, even
when he is addressing a favorite, and often romanticized, theme: the beauty of the Southwest.” “

“Brach's intelligence enhances the calculated beauty of his art; he is also confident enough about his work
to poke fun at the general enterprise of image making.”

“ Yet, for all their conscious beauty, the paintings are about perception -- what happens to natural forms
when they are seen against various hues. The results of Brach's experiments are spectacular. In the oils
the halos shift from orange to reddish orange to rose to purple to red, and a similarly subtle movement in
color and tonal value occurs in the pastel versions. Indeed, the latter have a remarkable delicacy in which
the differing circles of color both bracket the mountain and embody worlds that feel quite complete in
themselves.”

I suspect that there may be something different in the way I perceive things, for the only intellectual
materials I finds In Brach’s work are the circles and circles are an intellectual concept as are, to some
extent, controlled variations in value and in hue, but in the final analysis Brach’s works exhibit an
impoverished intellectual activity and, to pun somewhat on his fascination he seems to be “going round in
circles” There is more intellectual material in Miriam Shapiro’s work than in Paul’s Having said that I
should hastily suggest that intellectual material as such may not be the most contributing characteristic to
any effort involving creative expression. In fact, the rather rigid definitions of wither of those activities
suggest that .they are mutually exclusive. Intellect is involved with established and agreed upon systems.
Creativity is involved in the discovery of new relationships in which respect it is perfectly clear that
Billybob Beamer is several laps ahead of Brach and both Shapiros…but who makes comparisons?
Three images by B.B. Beamer

Henrickson: Sangre de Cristo Mts Beamer: untitled ( 6”x6”) Henrickson: Reef

Here with these three works (top row) by Billbob Beamer we have, I believe, a distinctly more complex
fellow who appears fascinated with the infinitesimal. Some works are often no larger than 2 and ½ inches
square. And, we have learned that, at times, Beamer provides magnifying glasses for those wishing to
inspect the work I am not sure whether I should, or not, but I find that accommodation rather amusing. It is,
I find, not unlike the machinations of those whose public conversations are whispered and which require
the listener to move and bend closer which also achieves a certain intimacy, or those with eye make up so
elaborate that in order to recognize the person one is talking to one must move nose tip to nose tip or
otherwise get a whiff of pheromones.

It is an interesting observation that while in Beamer the viewer is encouraged to get real close, in Martin,
whose work, on the surface at least, would appear to be equally non-objective seems to produce quite the
opposite effect, that is, it repels the viewer, or rather the viewer is rejected.

Now, that observation leads us to wonder to what extent is it truly possible and to what extent is it truly
admissible to explain, and to accept, the existence of works of art on the basis that they represent the
person’s range of existential reaction and as observers we simply leave it at that and let the matter lie. Can
a proper critic properly do such a thing?…simply say “well, this is the way he/she is.” On the other hand
where is it written that we are obliged to know, label and pack away all knowledge, as though they—the
knowledged—had no rights to existence of their own. Where would knowledge go if left unaltered by the
human mind?

Let me try another way. There is an indication in Beamer’s work that the various graphic approaches to a
visual experience begin to show evidence of an existence of a life of their own within, or behind, the veil of
indefiniteness and obscurity which characterizes them. Thank God that Beamer shows evidence of an
interest in search and experimentation on a seriously employable level, otherwise this nose tip to nose tip,
eyeball to eyeball confrontation, even with a magnifying glass would fail. In a sense experiencing some of
the work of beamer is like following the line of thought suggested in the 1884 novel “FlatLand” by Edwin
Abbott. The subtle invitation to “come closer to me I want to get to know you” differs from the Henrickson
approach sdvising others to “stay at arms length I can see you better that way” who attentively searches for
the orchestration of marks, smudges and stains that will enlarge the graphic vocabulary in directing the
viewer’s attention to aspects of neuronic, that is, physically rooted or related vision, as opposed to
variations on graphic themes unrelated to anything else but themselves. Henrickson is still attached to
some objective criteria whereas Beamer seems not. It remains to be seen whether an art so detached from
outside references can survive. In the meantime one might wonder whether those characterizations are
related to the fact that Beamer is, I believe, Virginian and Henrickson a Bostonian and what works
societally among people may also be the approach to the production of art…another possibility of art being
an expression of its producer.

Someone recently sent me a video on the subject of a very young hippopotamus orphaned by the flooding
rains in the Indian Ocean area which after having been rescued by zoo keepers was found to have made a
really strong bond with a male tortoise, seen, it was supposed, as a surrogate mother. Are the inner, survival
instincts so powerful they can overcome the evidence of one’s senses?
Additionally, I need to ask whether the tortoise which is usually a solitary animal may be
experiencing a response of togetherness unknown to its breed whereas the needs of the
young hippo which is generally with its mother for four years is determined to acquire the
psychological nourishment it requires and the possible indifference of the tortoise is of no
matter whatever. Belief in the structure of the relationship, at least on the part of the

A Story Worth
Seeing (268 KB).msg
hippo, is all that counts. When and why did society find it necessary to
have art critics anyway? My guess is that it may have something to do with the
acceptable ordering of the experiences of existence. My second guess would be that we
destroy what we are unable to order.

I am not at all certain that the relationship between the Hippo and the tortoise could be
correctly termed symbiotic. I think the tortoise would probably get along very well with
the hippo. What can be said about the tortoise is that it appears to be both flexible and
tolerant. Flexible enough to tolerate an unaccustomed and dependent interference in its
accustomed isolation. Maybe Agnes Martin is a wise woman after all and simply refuses
to deal with the matter of taste and like the tortoise she’ll go her way and let those who
need to cuddle up do so.

This is a form of social theater where the drama of human exchange is interwoven with the intimacies of
graphic marks and, I believe, erasures as well, These are more, or are they less?, than cabinet works
requiring a withdrawal. Closeted to the extent that obeisance is a requirement. If art is a measure of man’s
relationship to the outside (of oneself) world then, perhaps, the occupation of social work, at least for
BillyBob Beamer has been intimately informative.

When one reads some of Beamer’s poetry with some of the words, once there, having disappeared, or,
perhaps, never brought to enunciation, we may, perhaps, have a similar aesthetic interrelationship between
the poet and his audience as we have with the image-maker and his observer. In order to participate fully in
the Beamer creative experience one must be willing to get close…get real close.
The question that follows is: Is it legitimate art critical practice to reference the personal experiences,
concerns and cultural background of the artist, or is the concern of the critic only with the graphic events
taking place on the surface or stand before him, or can the final look of a work of art be separated from the
artist’s experiences?

If one grant that the experiences of the artist and the quality of the work he produces cannot reasonably be
separated what matching, soul-mate qualities must be present in the critic…to say nothing about those who
read the criticism. Does this whole relationship suggest a mind/aesthetic/experiential/responsive culture of
its own…a singular gestalt identifiably separate from another group? Certain critics, then, might become
the high priests of certain occult cults of aesthetic sensibility with followings of their own, appropriate
ceremonies devised and the coming of age ceremonies.

The critical focus that seems o be forming in me is related to the personal experiences of the artist as I once
detailed in the CD book “In Broad Daylight”.

The above drawing, a cartoon, showing myself in danger of being consumed by the anthropomorphized
mantis is the result of a comment I had made in a published criticism that appeared in a local Santa
Fe weekly, The Santa Fe Reporter. Shelby Matis had exhibited at Hill’s Gallery a collection of
large (more than life-sized) brightly colored constructions which made me feel as I walked among
them that I was in immediate danger of being grabbed and consumed and that in the program
describing the work of the artist I had stated that I felt perhaps the letter “N” had been left off from
her surname, so that it aught to have read “mantis”. She asked me to visit her studio (I was unsure
that I would leave it alive) and it was during that visit she confided in me that at 16 she had been
raped. And that, in effect, I had picked up on that experience which had, even after 15 or 20 years
not left her reservoir of creative reference. Does this anecdote illustrate the communicability of art
forms or is it merely an unusual coincidence?

In the early sixties I wrote a paper, which is still available if anyone wants to read it, entitled “Caravaggio
and Sexual Adjustment.” To my knowledge, it was the only work, until then, that attempted to
prove through Caravaggio’s creative work that he had been giving graphic and symbolic
expression to his sexual concerns. The broader implications of the study suggest that only those
works which deal with who one is are works that are the most informative and effective. Paul
Shapiro may achieve his aim of being Santa Fe’s bet known artist, but it won’t be because of his
art, and Paul Brach is already in the Smithsonian collection of oral history accounts which makes
more sense than his being in the National Gallery.

.
Three images by Paul Henrickson

Three images by Paul Brach

As for Paul Brach, his brand of ethnocentricity aside, his work was correctly described by
a functionally illiterate, but astute, a VERY astute, observer as being, from among all
those shown above the least valuable as an aesthetic experience. And, after all, what else
might be expected of a picture than that it BE an aesthetic experience.
Barry Schwartz interviewed Paul Brach for the Smithsonian Oral History archive. I can imagine how that
idea came about. The Oral History Archive’s purpose, according to what they tell us is to

It is a rather lengthy interview during which Brach recalls nearly all those he’d even met who were any
body. As I was struck with some underlying similarities between them aside from the fact that they all had
something to do with art so I copied down the list of their names. Here it is: Leo Casstelli, Roy
Lichtenstein, Raushenberg, Jack Gelker, Miriam Shapiro, Joan Mitchell, Larry Rivers, Mike
Goldberg, Harold Rosenberg, Clem Greenberg, Helen Mothewwell, Robert Motherwell, (motherwell
was a student of Meyer Shapiro, Bob Irwin, Ed Kleinholz, Larry Bell, Mel Powell, Max Kozloff, Lucy
Lippard, Marcia Tucker, Judy Chicago, Andre Emerich, Jasper Johns, Carl Morris, Bob Morris, Ed
Fry, Alan Kaprow, Henry Gedzehler, Peter Selz, Ed Klienholz, Ashile Gorki, Willem de Kooning and
Matta were also mentioned but not as direct associates. Brach exhibited the same sort of political
maneuvering as chairman of the art department at the University of California at San Diego and was
actively seeking the support of other department members in urging the one lone Scots to leave.

What balanced view of creative effort the students at UCSD (La Jolla) might have
received was difficult to imagine. In that environment, so egotistically defensive, not
even Hyman Bloom would have been allowed to survive, being much too good an artist
to be allowed exposure to unencumbered minds.

Bloom: David w.Goliath Apparition of Danger” The Medium

The following are additional works by Congo:

With the drawings I was able to prove that the chimpanzee brain is capable of creating abstract patterns that are under
visual control. To put it simply, the position of one line influenced the position of the next line, and so on, until the
drawing was considered (by the ape) to be finished. If I placed geometric patterns on the paper, these altered the
position of the animal’s lines. In this way I was able to demonstrate that the chimp was able to balance a picture, left to
right, and was able to develop a visual theme and then to vary that theme….the Mayor Gallery

There may be, or there may not be, some tongue-in-cheek motivation on the part of Desmond Morris to
present these works by Congo. I suspect there was a little mischievousness involved, but the point,
nevertheless is well taken if what Morris intended to do was to point up the difficulty in making judgments
about a large segment of the works of graphic arts with which we, the public, are confronted. All that is true,
except, when an artist does it he does it, I think, in an effort to open up the chest of expressive resources. It
is rare that I can see a blot and not wish to formalize it in some way. God must have had a similar
r4esp[onse when he created everything out of nothing.

I should like to suggest a plausible standard by which one might make judgments about certain works of art
FOR, to begin with I fully recognize the value in deformalizing activity designed to make one’s aesthetic
responses more liberal. It is not unlike the barre exercises a dancer undertakes before a performance. The
basic motivation for picture making is communication and some are always searching for a better way of
making a point. In some instances it takes rather an extreme and very personal form.

One wonders whether man is the only creature with the neurotic need to explain himself.

Graphiti: a corporate expression , not unlike that Prison art: tattoo: is this a last ditch stand to protest that
of pissing canines.”I’m here too.” one belongs to something…after all?