THIRDEYEJ[0]EL


A Sweet Assembly of Decadence
April 19, 2009, 23:27
Filed under: bullocks, Daily Chronicles

WARNING: THIS IS A SHOW OFF POST! PLEASE SCROLL ON IF SUCH LUXURIOUS INDULGENCE SHALL CAUSE THEE TO COVET. PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE ME. I AM BUT EXPRESSING A PROVISIONAL JOY AND EXCITEMENT OF WHICH MY CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCE OPULENTLY PERMITS ME. THIS IS ALSO AN UPDATE FOR MY DEAR MUM! MUM, SEE HOW TIDY MY ROOM IS!



Jizz in my pants on a boat like a boss
April 19, 2009, 14:59
Filed under: bullocks, Daily Chronicles

The Lonely Island – I’m On A Boat (ft. T-Pain)

The Lonely Island – Like A Boss (ft. Seth Rogen)

The Lonely Island – Jizz In My Pants



AN ESSAY ON ALEX GREY’S “CHRIST” – TYPE “ALEX GREY” TO VIEW
April 19, 2009, 05:02
Filed under: A Lateral Projection, Ponder-Wonder Quotes, Testimonials

screen-capture

 

THE 19th SACRED MIRROR: CHRIST

Jesus said, “When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same… then you will enter the Kingdom of God.”

Gospel of Thomas

 

Created during the early 1980s, Alex Grey’s painting of Christ is part of a twenty-one life-sized framed images, the installation of the Sacred Mirrors series, currently residing in the Chapel of Sacred Mirrors. Just like the other images, Christ is forty-six by eighty-four inches and presents a life-sized figure directly facing the viewer, arms to the side and palms forward. “This format allows the viewer to stand before the painted figure and “mirror” the image. A resonance takes place between one’s own body and the painted image, creating a sense of “seeing into” oneself” (Grey 32). The series of twenty-one paintings can be divided into three sections: Body, Mind, and Spirit. Grey sought to present a journey-like experience as viewers progress through the Great Chain of Being — and the experience is essentially this: the unfolding and developmental sequencing from the lower to the higher modes of knowing and perceiving. It is as Wilber notes, the transpiration of the different eyes: “the eye of flesh, which discloses the material, concrete and sensual world; the eye of the mind, which discloses the symbolic, conceptual and sensual world; and the eye of contemplation, which discloses the spiritual, transcendental world” (Grey 9). Viewers progress from sensibilia (phenomena that can be perceived by the Body), to intelligibilia (objects perceived by the Mind), and in breaking the ego, activates transcendelia (spiritual perception). The Christ painting is situated in the spirit section alongside a painting of Avalokitesvara and Sophia. And although the artist’s medium is almost always sensibilia — for the work is within the realm of matters: paint, canvas, linen etc. — the critical question, as Wilber puts it, is this: “Using the medium of sensibilia, is the artist trying to represent, depict or evoke the realm of sensibilia itself, or the realm of intelligibilia, or the realm of transcendelia? … we add the crucial ontological question: “Where on the Great Chain of Being is the phenomenon the artist is attempting to depict, evoke, or express?” (Grey 10).” 

 

“In the Sacred Mirrors, Christ is shown resurrected, surrounded by golden light, with two angels: Gabriel (left) is holding a book on which a symbol of the trinity appears; Michael (right) exhibits the compassion that subdues evil but does not kill it. A flaming infinity band of love encircles the Sacred Heart, and whirling six-pointed stars on either side of Christ’s head refer to Christ’s mystical origins. The six-pointed star symbolizes the primal unity of heaven and earth and the divine Father and Mother. According to the Gnostic Gospels, Christ taught that the Godhead was both male and female; he referred to both his heavenly Father and Mother (which has become the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit).” (Grey 38)

 

Grey’s Christ is spiritual in the deepest sense. Thus, in answering the question posted previously, it is situated on the highest hierarchy on the Great Chain of Being. It does not seek to merely portray a highly stylized Jewish messiah, nor two calm-colored angelic figures, nor random placement of mystical religious symbols; it does not seek to educate the eye of the mind and provide intellectual nourishment nor does it seek to merely disclose “the world of ideas, symbols, concepts, images, values, meanings, and intentions (Grey 9)”; rather, “it springs from the dimension of nondual and universal Spirit, which transcends (and thus unites) both subject and object, self and other, inner and outer… Art created in this nondual awareness offers direct access to nondual Spirit” (Grey 14). It is as Grey intends it: “to realize and activate the essential truth that [Christ] was ([as]we are) “The Word made flesh” — a direct channel for the love and healing energy of God” (Grey 37). As Beckett recapitulates — concerning spiritual arts in general — “This understanding may well be activated, intensely so, but in the activating a real change takes place. The vehicle, to repeat the image, moves on its own. Whatever the conceptual insights that accrue to those who practice their religion, the pictorial power comes non-conceptually. It effects what it signifies… but the mind may be aware only of the impact of some mysterious truth. This is the essence of spiritual art. We are taken into a realm that is potentially open to us, we are made more what we are meant to be” (Beckett 7).

POST-MODERNISM: SEEKING EVOLUTION RATHER THAN REVOLUTION

Before understanding Grey’s Christ, I believe it is essential that we first come to terms with the  context and conventions that which inspires the aspirations of the artist. Plunged in an era of ‘ism’s, the “Post-Modern Age is a time of incessant choosing” (Jencks 7). Once in Modernism we see the repudiation of all traditional styles that preceded it, and this is evident in the various art movements that sprang like mushrooms during that era: cubism, surrealism and the notorious dadaism to name a few, now we see yet another tide of change. An overture that seeks “to take stock of the old as well as absorbing the shock of the new” (Collins 9). We, as Collins notes, “stand at a point where it may be avant-garde to be rear-guard. We are searching for a design vocabulary which extends beyond basic language and basic structure.” And in this search, confusion is inevitable. The job at hand is thus to eclect traditions from the past and present. If successful, it “will be a striking synthesis of traditions; if unsuccessful, a smorgasbord” (Jencks 7). This characteristic of eclecticism does so little at alleviating the confusion than it is at exacerbating it. Notice Jencks’ apparent lack of definition for the value of the word “successful.” Who, where and what are the defining line(s)? Thus here, amidst the confusion we see that it is the bearing of subjectivity in which we are so open to that ultimately and fundamentally sets us assail, as Jencks notes, on a scale “between inventive combination and confused parody… often getting lost and coming to grief.” Nonetheless, upon this plane of infinite possibilities the combination and permutation of the past and the present grants, one cannot deny the “great promise of a plural culture with its many freedoms.” Indeed, “pluralism, the ‘ism’ of our time, is both the great problem and the great opportunity” (Jencks 7).

 

For some, Post-Modernism killed Modernism. For others, it is an extension. My opinion lies with the latter. Taking a cue from Efland, “if modernism is the style that repudiates past styles, then the postmodern style that repudiates the modern can be seen as maintaining the modern tradition” (Efland 11). From this logic, how can one movement repudiate another while maintaing the essences of the repudiated? It is only reasonable to view Post-Modernism as an extension of Modernism. In Postmodern Art Education: An Approach to Curriculum, Efland forwards Jencks‘ use of hyphenation “because [Jencks] believes that post-modern art still contains many aspects of modern art, but these have been added to, adopted, or embellished… [thus] by hyphenating the word, “modern” maintains its integrity as a word” (Efland 31). Defining Post-Modernism, Jencks claims that it is “that paradoxical dualism, or double coding, which its hybrid name entails: the continuation of Modernism and its transcendence” (Jencks 10). In this convention of confusion, Alex Grey finds himself ‘eclecting traditional Sacred Art and Psychedelic Art — a fusion which produces the unique Visionary Arts of the Sacred Mirrors

 

SACRED ART: SPIRITUAL HEALING

… the Now of our present life and the mystical closeness of God can seem in opposition. The Now is down here, material, busy about many things, pressured. The Mystical is up there, spiritual, free floating… St. Augustine held that the human heart is restless until it finds rest in God” (Beckett 5).

 

In The Mystical Now Art and The Sacred, Beckett highlights the disparity between religious art and spiritual art. According to his theory, “religious art, that most demanding of the genres, may bring us to prayer by virtue of its religiousness rather than by its art” (Beckett 6). How one is effected by the art depends on his/her depth of faith. Religious images are seen as art that instigate the viewers to pray. They “do not necessarily take the believer any further. They do not per se, deepen the faith of those who contemplate them – they [merely] activate it.” Thus, the quality of the art is not of highest priority. Beckett’s case illustration of the Russian Orthodox use of the ikon best exemplifies how the art “is in itself an act of profound faith [as] the artist prays and fasts, preparing his or her heart for the work of devotion that will be the painting.” Wilber, in regard to Grey’s Sacred Mirrors series forwarded Michelangelo’s selfsame belief: “…it is not sufficient merely to be a great master in painting and very wise, but I think that it is necessary for the painter to be very moral in his mode of life, or even if such were possible, a saint, so that the Holy Spirit may inspire his intellect” (Grey 12). 

 

Spiritual art on the other hand, is “the artistic depiction/expression of [the artist’s own soul, right up to the point of union with universal Spirit and transcendence of the separate self or individual ego], particularly in such a way as to evoke similar spiritual insights on the part of the observers” (Grey 13). As Beckett points out, “it is this truth… that makes spiritual art so important to us. It is not a substitute for religion, but for those who have no other access to God it is a valid means of entering into that numinous dimension that alone makes the ‘incomprehensibility’ not only bearable but life-giving” (Beckett 9). 

 

Grey’s Christ is both religious and spiritual in its essence. Though non-believers may comment on the 2-dimensional cartoonish portrait as one of a severe lacking in artistic skills, the radiating light from the Christ’s  head and body are sure reminders to believers that “[He is] the light of the world,” John 8:12. It is as Beckett notes: “By illustrating, [the image] reminds, and the believer wants that reminder, takes it gladly and uses it as a means to God. For the believer as such, the actual quality of the art is unimportant – the work stands or falls by its ability to raise the mind and heart towards truths of faith” (Beckett 6). Upon further contemplation on the Christ figure, the light begins to encapsulate the viewer, and the art does not reside in simply raising the “mind and heart towards truths of faith”, but transcending the realms of sensibilia and itelligibilia, these truths of faith is alleviated into the realm of transcendelia. In my personal experience, and perhaps this is by and large due to the way the Sacred Mirrors book is designed, to lead from body to mind, and mind to spirit, and the juxtaposition of Christ in between Avalokitesvara and Sophia, I suddenly felt a deep connection from within my own personal faith as a Christian and to that of the other faiths — as if breaking out of my comfort zone, the cage in which I was brought up to believe in that if I leave, I will go to hell… my spirit wandered and contemplated the idea — and this was an area I had never dreamed to venture — that perhaps just like many rivers that lead to the selfsame blue expanse we call “sea”, so does our religions lead to one universal Godhead. The experience was bewildering and I must admit that I’m still in that phase of confusion. Echoing the words of Beckett, “[perhaps this] is also why so many people unconsciously fear and resist art. We may not want to become aware of suppressed and unrecognized aspects of ourselves… fallen creatures, ego-lovers, nomads in a world that we both love and feel alien to… ‘We have forgotten who and what we are.’ And art… ‘makes us remember that we have forgotten.‘ This is painful. It is also our best means, apart from direct contact with God, of discovering that interior integrity” (Beckett 9). Reiterating Grey’s purport, Christ is essentially a painting for viewers “to realize and activate the essential truth that [Christ] was ([as]we are) “The Word made flesh” — a direct channel for the love and healing energy of God” (Grey 37).

PSYCHEDELIA: PEEPING INTO THE ANTIPODES OF THE MIND

“On June 3, 1976, we simultaneously shared the same psychedelic vision: an experience of the Universal Mind Lattice. Our shared consciousness, no longer identified with or limited by our physical bodies, was moving at tremendous speed through an inner universe of fantastic chains of imagery, infinitely multiplying in parallel mirrors. At a super-orgasmic pitch of speed and bliss, we became individual foundations and drains of Light, interlocked with an infinite omnidirectional network of fountains and drains composed of and circulating a brilliant iridescent love energy. We were the Light, and the Light was God.”

Allyson and Alex Grey

 

According to Robert E.L. Masters and Jean Houston’s Psychedelic Art, “the psychedelic artist is an artist whose work has been significantly influenced by psychedelic experience and who acknowledges the impact of the experience on his work” (Masters 17). Both authors furthers the idea that the provision of “intelligence, feeling, imagination, and talent” (Masters 18) is made by the artist and not the chemical. The psychedelic experience is merely another experience, though the artist may draw inspiration from it just as he or she draws inspiration from any other experiences. “Where artists of the past traveled to the ends of the earth, these new artists travel inward, to what Aldous Huxley called the antipodes of the mind – the world of visionary experience” (Masters 18). 

 

In the case of Alex Grey, his artworks aren’t so much as a fusion of psychedelia and spirituality as it is  a derivation of one from the other. Though psychedelic substances does not necessitate a spiritual experience, and hence give birth to spiritual art, its potential to do so is unquestionable. Though to some, psychedelic experience is merely the feeling of a distorted consciousness, many however regard the alteration of consciousness as a means to withdraw from the individual self and to be in tandem with the universal self, “a transformative contact with the Ground of Being” (Grey 31). Hence, psychedelic experience isn’t just the experience of a distorted mind but rather, a mystical one. As Masters and Houston note: “The art is religious, mystical: pantheistic religion, God manifest in All, but especially in the primordial energy that makes the worlds go, powers the existential flux. Nature or body mysticism: the One as an omnisensate Now (Masters 81).” And in very much the same way shamans employ methods of “intoxication, sex, nudity, physical abuse, and self denigration” (Grey 18) to contact the spirit world, one of Grey’s “portals to the mystical dimension” is psychedelic drugs. Reiterating what I said before, spirituality is in Grey’s case, derived from psychedelia. His psychedelic visionary artworks in the Sacred Mirrors series is thus also, his spiritual mystical artworks. They all convey “the spectrum of consciousness from material perception to spiritual insight; and function… as symbolic portals to the mystical dimension” (Grey 31).          

 

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF VELZY TO GREY

 Born Alex Velzy, young Alex had demonstrated extreme concern towards the polarity that existed within the self and the universe; a monomania towards the opposing forces of spirit and matter. For the most part of his adolescent years, he was “consumed by the idea that the conflict of opposites was the underlying principle of the cosmos” (Grey 20). This lead to various formalized insights regarding polarities, chiefly the polarity of life and death. As Jung has noted, “Just as all energy proceeds from opposition, so the psyche too possesses its inner polarity, this being the indispensable prerequisite for its aliveness… Both theoretically and practically, polarity is inherent in all living things.” Similarly, the philosophy of Taoism states that the macrocosm as well as the microcosm is constructed on the principle of complementarity expressed as Yin and Yang (Grey 20). This monomania towards polarity, evident even in his early artworks — as early as 5 years old! — slowly consumed him, driving him into madness. Essentially, it was as Grey exclaims, “a search for ‘something’.” Perhaps it was to gain insightful understanding of the two opposing forces, perhaps it was find a place between the two forces, perhaps it was to discover a language unbounded by the principles of polarity… “As the polarity pieces developed, Grey’s shamanic method of personal realization, or what could be interpreted as a descent into madness, was greatly intensified” (Grey 20). This however, ended with Polar Wandering, a pilgrimage to the North Magnetic Pole where he ran nude in circles after the needle of a compass which, due to the convergence of magnetism, had spun hysterically. In regard to the out-of-body trance state he experienced within himself while performing the ritual, Grey expressed: “I felt I had dissolved into a pure energy state and become one with the magnetic field surrounding the earth” (Grey 13).

 

“After I returned from the North Magnetic Pole, flat broke, I realized that my performance were an exhaustive desperate search for ‘something.’ And although I called myself an agnostic existentialist, I challenged “God, whatever that is” to appear to me. Within twenty-four hours the following two life changing events occurred: At a party I took LSD for the first time. Sitting with my physical eyes closed, my inner eye moved through a beautiful spiraling tunnel. The walls of the tunnel seemed like a living mother of pearl, and it felt like a spiritual rebirth canal. I was in the darkness, spiraling toward the light. The curling space going from back to gray to white suggested to me the resolution of all polarities as the opposites found a way of becoming each other. My artistic rendering of this event was titled the Polar Unity Spiral. Soon after this I changed my name to Grey as a way of bringing the opposites together.” 

Alex Grey

 

This theme of ‘resolute’ polarity became one of the many themes apparent in the Sacred Mirrors series. In Christ, the existential polarity of good and evil as depicted through the symbol of the trinity on a book Gabriel (left) bears and the demonic serpent upon Michael’s (right) foot form the base of the triangular shape in which the Christ figure and the angelic figures form, combined. These opposing forces however, is given very little regard as the angels’ gaze are on neither but rather, adjusted upward towards the messiah’s head, the zenith of the triangle. Thus, Grey conveys the idea that the struggle of polarities are but base concerns in the light of divinity. The spiritual or universal, is nondual. When contemplating on Christ, “the viewer momentarily becomes the art and is for that moment released from the alienation that is ego. Great spiritual art dissolves ego into nondual consciousness, and is to that extent experienced as an epiphany…” (Grey 14).    

 

A BRIEF COMMENTARY ON CHRIST 

One of the common traits of Post-Modernism is the practice of “appropriation”. “Loosely, appropriation refers to the artistic recycling of existing images” (Getlein 553). In the case of Christ, the central figure of the messiah is Grey’s recycling of existing Christian images. Appropriating the messiah to incorporate numerous other symbols (i.e. the Eye of Providence, the Star of David, the Holy Trinity etc.), Grey thus creates a Christ figure that is both familiar and alien at the same time. The figure retains nuances of old conventions of portrayal as such the long curly hair, thick beards, robes, and the use of halos but nonetheless offers novelty in that we see the replacement of nail-holes with the Eye of Providence symbol, illumination of scars and Grey’s own unique “infinity band of love.” Reiterating Jencks‘ definition of Post-Modernism art, it is “that paradoxical dualism, or double coding, which its hybrid name entails.” Interpreting “paradoxical dualism” as “nondualism”, Grey’s Christ depicts essentially the contradictions as non-contradictions: the old as new and the new as old, both sides assimilated as one. 

 

This concept of nondualism, “polar unity” as Grey coins the term, can also be seen through the depiction of space within the image. Here, finite space coexists with infinite space. While space is depicted through the radiating light, lines that converges toward the figure’s heart, the somewhat cartoonishly painted figure and the highly symmetrical balanced posture (even the robe draping to the left is balanced with the float on the right!) makes the image appear extremely flat. Ergo one may actually see depth and no depth at the same time; space and no space simultaneously. Furthermore, there are four triangular shapes in the image, all which functions as not only symbolic conception, but also arrows that imply lines that direct the viewers point of sight. As mentioned previously, the Christ figure along with the two angelic figures forms an illusionary triangular shape with the head of the Christ at the shape’s zenith. The other three traingulars can be found on the messiah’s palms and on the book. Note that all three of these triangulars point upwards towards the messiah’s head. It is only natural that the viewer, facing the life-sized image of Christ, winds up contemplating on the messiah’s face… staring deep into the figure’s illuminated eyes and have them stare back, activating — if even for a moment — the viewer’s spirit into the realm of transcendelia.

 

“The artist must train not only his eye but also his soul, so that it can weigh colors in its own scale an thus become a determinant in artistic creation” (Grey 13). What impresses me the most of Grey’s Christ is not merely his ability to select and mix colors of high values but rather, the ability to illuminate them. At close inspection, one will notice that upon the messiah’s skin are thousands of small stripes of brushstrokes, lacerations of colors such as light blue, green, indigo etc. – colors that has very low intensity. Up front, these strokes of random colors look extremely out of place upon the brownish-yellow color of the figure’s skin. From a distance however, the effect of “optical color mixture” sets in. Loosely speaking, it is the effect of the eye blending different colors that are close together to produce a new color (Getlein 99). Thus, instead of weird nonsensical colors randomly scattered around the image, the viewer’s eyes registers them as one color: the color of illumination. It is the kind of color that looks like a bright light, glowing off the surface of the Christ. I personally find Grey’s incorporation of this optical illusion technique to be extremely captivating. 

 

SOME CONCLUSIONS

“A shaman is one who embarks on a path that challenges the norms of society – its values, imagery, and scared cows – in order to achieve the healing powers and wisdom that are its goals. He or she stands in opposition to society’s highly developed, mutually agreed upon perception of reality that forms the collective dream of sleepwalking humanity.

Transculturally, the shamanic process involves an initiatory phase in which the shaman meets his/her animal allies and descends to the underworld. After confronting death in some dramatic event he/she is “reborn” and ascends to the higher worlds to meet helpful spirits. Along the way the shaman receives his or her healing powers and visions” (Grey 18)

Carlo McCormick

 

I personally love the shaman analogue McCormick draws to that of Grey’s transfiguration. More than the artworks, my deep appreciation towards Grey lies within the story of his life as an artist. The constant questioning; the passion and drive in search of that “something”, as McCormick compares it to the shaman’s path, which placed Grey at the brink of Madness; the necessary strides of confusion… Whenever I look at Christ, or any images from the Sacred Mirrors series for that matter of fact, it is not the transcendental abilities of the images that inspires me — though I do not deny the fact that Grey’s mastery in expressing the Spirit is no less than profound — but rather, the transfiguration which is so immanent behind every brush stroke. The transfiguration of a confused boy, a boy in search of that “something”… I don’t really know how to explain this feeling I get when I look into Grey’s artwork. Somehow, whenever I flip through my Sacred Mirrors book, I don’t feel alone… I feel… understood.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Beckett, Wendy. The Mystical Now Art and The Sacred. New York: UNIVERSE, 1993.

Collins, Michael. Towards Post-Modernism. New York: New York Graphic Society, 1987.

Efland, Arthur, Kerry Freedman, Patricia Stuhr. Postmodern Art Education: An Approach to Curriculum. Virginia: The National Art Education Association, 1996.

Getlein, Mark. Living with Art. 1985. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Grey, Alex, Ken Wilber , and Carlo McCormick. Sacred Mirrors The Visionary Art of Alex Grey. Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 1990.

Grey, Alex. Transfiguration. 2001. Vermont: Inner Traditions International, 2004.

Jencks, Charles. What is Post-Modernism? 1986. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1987.

Masters, E.L. Robert, and Jean Houston. Psychedelic Art. New Jersey: Balance House, 1968.



MY FIRST REAL DEAL
April 19, 2009, 04:38
Filed under: A Lateral Projection, Daily Chronicles

My lecturer, Stepeh Shipps, offered me USD100 for my “Mirror” artwork! The negotiating process was just down right retarded. He had offered me USD100 and I said free at first… he suggested we make it 50-50 and so he’ll give me USD50. I was reluctant (who the fuck sells his own artwork to his own lecturer?!) but then obliged to think about it. Next day, I agreed with USD50. He said he really wanted to give me USD100… I still said no… and then we came to a consensus of USD75.. but he end up giving me USD80. It was an exhilarating moment. I recall him saying “thank you” and how happy he was… I recall myself looking like a fucking retard, smiling all the way and mumbling my words… overwhelmed with joy!

 

dsc00418
dsc004201

dsc00421

dsc00422

dsc00423

dsc00424

dsc00425

 

Basically what I did was create two 25 equal sized squares which forms 2 large boxes. On the left hand side, I would capture the flux of the different derivations of the word “imagine”… these words are still confined within the laws of the English language. When viewed, you know what it is saying. Then, I’ll randomly replicate any of the boxes from the left hand side onto any of the boxes on the right hand side. Defying all laws which governs understanding… It is what I call “an attempt to capture the essence of an idea”. Take it as you may!



A CONVENTION OF CONFUSION
April 19, 2009, 04:12
Filed under: A Lateral Projection, Ponder-Wonder Quotes

The two polars by which the production of artworks are governed — assuming that there’s even such a thing as vague as “art” — has well been the great debate amongst many artists, within and without. At one end, art is considered solely the product of intuition. That is, the immediate derivation of the soul, unrefined and raw in all of its essences. Conversely, the opposing end dictates the productions of art as the exclusive manifestation of intellection. From this angle, the production of art is a meticulous act of careful calculation, contrived in all respect. Yet, in today’s convention of confusion — and I say this in respect to our post-modernistic need to ‘eclect’ as a way of life, and thus as a way of art — the world can no longer be seen through simple binary lenses. Dualism: black and white, good and evil, male and female, is but a faltering conception. Not so much of a revolution as it is an evolution of the mind, we have now become aware of the shades of grey. And while it is without doubt that some may find it within their capacity to transcend such limiting means of perception and understanding — that is, to be able to operate on a higher level free from dualism — or, in uniting both polars, achieve a state non-dualism, I find myself frustratingly at the basest of understanding… merely, though with unyielding belligerence, struggling within these shades of grey. My state of confusion needs not the clarity of words since, as you will soon discover, the language of “dots and lines” upon which my artworks are built upon are the better communicator. 

The following artworks were made through the course of a semester for my Introduction to Visual Arts class presentation. They are based on the theme “imagine” as assigned by my lecturer, Stephen Shipps. 

 

 

WEIRD CREATURE?

img_0046

“Imagine”? Is art merely the reproductions of the pigments of my imagination? 


 

 

CURVILINEAR

img_0048

What if it was, instead, to MAKE my viewers imagine? Deconstructing the image above, isn’t all there is on that piece of paper mere variations of lines? Where does the power of suggestion lie? Where does my role end and where does my viewer’s role begin? Is ART simply a sport bandy within the court of imaginations?


 

 

EQUATING ART

img_0050

I don’t think it is as simple as toying with imaginations… But what is it? What is ART? Shipps said it can be anything… in today’s world, but it is not everything. If that is the case, isn’t it about nothing?

 

 

 

THE DEFINITION OF ART 

img_0049

Is ART bullshit?

 

 

 

MIRROR

img_0044

Wait… perhaps it is purely about ideas? If so, shouldn’t the two sides show/depict/convey the same thing? How come it is easier to comprehend the left box instead of the right? Is ART limited to the selfsame laws which governs the utilization and combinations of symbols just as in other languages? But is ART that restricted? If however it is not confined to “humanly made understanding”, then these two boxes are, as its title accrues, mirrors images…

 



A SLIPPERY LIAR…
April 19, 2009, 02:03
Filed under: A Lateral Projection

 

It is as Alan Trachtenberg, distinguished professor of English and American Studies at Yale, accurately recapitulates, in his essay “Reading American Photographs”, that the nature of the camera carries with it an innate mechanism “bound to record nature in the raw.” 

 

tidur

The camera is just a device. Mechanical or digital, the fundamental principles that governs the mechanisms of image capturing is essentially the same. At the flick of the shutter, light that bounces off the surfaces of objects enters the camera through the aperture (an opening in which its size may vary, allowing different quantity of light to enter), reacts with the photographic film at the back (or in the case of digital photography, the ‘image sensor’) and thus forms a latent image. This latent image is then processed and developed into a visible print – very much like the operations of the human eye. The process is a scientific one and it is strictly binary. That which is present gets captured, that which is not does not. It is not within the capacity of the device to obscure the truth, to select which light to receive and which to not. Whatever the camera is pointed at it captures, it does not have a mind of its own. 

 

Taking a cue from James Agee: “The camera is just a machine, which records with impressive and as a rule very cruel faithfulness…” This “cruel faithfulness”, as Agee notes, is essentially this: when a photographer uses a highly light-sensitive celluloid, sets his aperture to the lowest stop (wide open) and sets his shutter speed to the slowest — in capturing an object in a brightly lit room — he’s bound to produce a white washed picture, or as the appropriate term goes: an “overexposed” picture. Thus here we see that when all factors are nullified — when the photographer doesn’t manipulate the relationship between the aperture, shutter speed and photographic film — the camera captures only the essence of sight: Light. This “cruel faithfulness” shows us that everything we see is nothing but a variation of light bouncing off objects. And if fundamentally this is what the camera does, how then does the camera lie? From this point of view, does it not suffice to say that it is not within the camera’s capacity nor is it within its nature to lie?

 

In “A Way of Seeing: An Introduction to the Photographs of Helen Levitt,” James Agee claims that “it is doubtful whether most people realize how extraordinarily slippery a liar the camera is.” However, unlike Marita Sturken, who in her essay “The Television Image: The Immediate and The Virtual,” simply accuses the “television [as having] a slippery relationship to the making of history,” or Christoper Phillips, who in his essay “Necessary Fictions: Warren Neidich’s Early American Cover-Ups” is quick at blaming “photographic image [as occupying] an increasingly unstable place in the systems which today generate cultural memory,” Agee however, was not so shallow as to immediately hold the “camera” as the sole culprit, guilty for being a “slippery liar”. Rather, he brings the role of “the operator” into perspective. In his words: “[what the camera records is] precisely what is in the eye, mind, spirit, and skill of its operator to make it record.” Stripping the many facades we coat the device with, in its essence, the camera is nothing but a tool; a mediator which has absolutely no control over neither input nor output. Just like any other mediums, it acts as a bridge that aids with the manifestation of ideas, translating them out into the material world. Thus, to call “the camera” a slippery liar is the tantamount to calling “the gun” a murderer; it is simply absurd. As Agee suggests, the line separating the camera from the operator, the photograph from the photographer is not so thin as to blur distinctions but rather, it is a thick line that conspicuously distinguishes appliance from applicator. 

 

Before I proceed any further, I believe it is crucial that I first answer this question: “In which level of truth am I talking about when I talk about ‘the truth’ and hence the obscuring of it?” It is without doubt that truth resides in many levels. At its basest, the camera is most effective at deconstructing the high value we place on “sight”, parodying the human eye to show how visual sensation is nothing more than the receiving of a melange of bouncing lights. To operate on this level of truth however will require the marginalization of the world into a dull plane of nihilists. At a higher level however, the singularity of “the truth” branches into infinite “isms”. These armies of intellectual pluralities such as, to name a few: absolutism, relativism, objectivism and subjectivism are constantly in an infinite struggle of subduing one another. In this scale from zero to infinity, my definition of “the truth” is essentially this: the reality of being. That is, since the camera is but an object in the world of “matters”, and its operations are strictly confined within this world, the capturing of the truth: the reality of being, can thus be interpreted as also the capturing of the existential material state of things. In other words, it is as the saying goes: “What is real is only what you can see.” Whether or not this “truth” shall invoke a higher level of truth that transcends mere materialism is a different story all together.

 

From this perspective, I would like to contest Agee, who in his essay freed “the camera” from blame of perjury and had instead, victimized “the operator”. And while Agee’s line of thought may well be an evolution of Sturken’s and Phillips’, whose prejudice was solely against “the camera”, I would like to further Agee’s line of thought by exonerating not only the camera, but the cameraman withal. Take the picture “Pak Lah Tidur” for example: what the picture shows here is nothing more than a figure that had, once in history, wore a red traditional Baju Melayu and a kopiah, placed (or had them placed) a cardboard and a file in front of it, and had its eyes shut with its pinky in its nose. Notice here that the picture, the product of the camera and the cameraman, is nothing but a display of facts: that that figure, an object, had once existed in history as clearly as the other objects surrounding it. Hence, at this level of truth, the central figure in the photograph is not a “he” but merely an “it” amongst the many “its”. The element of light, and its derivations such as “colors and shades” or the lack of them as reflected by the objects are all the viewers may ever extract; the element of “time and space” (how long did the figure shut its eye? What is the relative distance between the objects surrounding the figure?), or anything apart from that which is derived from the element of “light” (such as “gender”), the picture is unable to show. All it shows instead, is the plain truth that these objects “existed” upon capture. 

 

This being the case, how then can the camera and the cameraman plot a lie? If since the camera is only capable of capturing the existence of matters, the reality of beings in which truth is defined, how then can the cameraman make the camera not show this truth since by doing so is to NOT show the existential material state of things? (In response to any questions regarding the concept of partial truth, I stand firm with the fact that it is irrelevant since there is no such thing as partial existence). Thus, recapitulating a claim I had previously made: “it is not within the camera’s capacity nor is it within its nature to lie .” Expanding on a parallelism I made previously: just as it is in the collective nature of “the camera” to capture “light data” when operated appropriately, the destructive nature of “the gun” is solely for the purposes of murder or begetting damage; just as the camera cannot be used to uncollect “light data”, “the gun” cannot be used to give life. Thus, it suffices to say that given such a nature, the photograph (before any digital manipulation) is in all truthfulness, purely a sheet of “light data” that reproduces, very factually, the truth — the existence, or what I call the reality of being — of the objects it captures. For this matter of fact, the nature of the medium is essentially the reason why even if the cameraman wills the camera to lie, it can’t. In other words, the operator cannot be blamed for being a “slippery liar” because ultimately, there’s no such option for him or her to do so. 



Live Lavish
April 19, 2009, 01:21
Filed under: Daily Chronicles

A combination of jordan’s and air force, me sneakers are wicked sick! Period.



World of Warcraft
April 19, 2009, 01:14
Filed under: bullocks

picture-1

 

It is pretty obvious I’m not doing too well in this alternate reality… LOL




Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.