Sunday, March 29, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Psychology and Alchemy
Monday, March 16, 2009
Vom dem dreyfachen Leben, ch. IX
It has occurred to me with my studies and conversations with like minded individuals, that painting is a process of externalizing subsets of information not only for ourselves to “view” , but to also take in information as to the reaction of “others” and the “outside world” to the information we have presented. No one can argue that symbols existed, and can be full of meaning. As some of my other post’s allege, various symbol sets are collective, meaning we share many of the same icons and symbol sets. This process of projection then reinterpretation based on “other” or the “outside world” projections, has to be away of interpreting location with in the internal architecture, and adding to or taking away from, the validity on the information presented.
This is a similar process to how we come about any information. I am able to remember being young and trying to understand how one makes friends, eat, sleep, attracts others , date etc etc. And if you take any of this kind of information and one is honest, there were many failures prior to success. The basic idea is projecting an idea outward and seeing how it worked, if one was unsuccessful the information would then be re-internalized , knocked around a bit then with new information attached re-project it outwards in another attempt. This kind of process would continue till there was some success or we choice to see ourselves as failures, and just simply quit.
This this idea in mind one would be able to go back and see where an artist was, based in their externalization of the given projection. All one would need is an education of collective symbol sets. Adding to this idea , it is my opinion there have been various “artists” that were conscious of this function. So in this regard where able turn the tables. After all one is forced to place lines, even where there are none, or they are only “seemingly” there.
Please understand, that this idea I have, ( if I am right ) is much more then just subliminal projection and interpretation. And after all, ” sometimes I cigar, is just a cigar.”
Sunday, March 15, 2009
athanor : 24 by 30 oil on linen.
This is a painting a did a few weeks back as a mock up for a the cover of my first book, but I now have a new one which I like a great deal more. Thought I would at lest post an image of this one somewhere, so it have some-kind of life.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
” What the old philosophers meant by the Lapis has never become quite clear. This question can be answered satisfactorily only when we know exactly what the unconscious content was that they were projecting. The psychology of the unconscious alone is in a position to solve this riddle. It teaches us that so long as a content remains in the projected state it is inaccessible, which is the reason why the labours of those authors have revealed so little to us of the alchemical secret. But the yield in the symbolic material is all the greater, and this material is closely related to the process of individuation. ”
When he says ” lapis ” he is referring to the ” Lapis Philosophorum “. It is important to understand that when talking about alchemical symbology , that it is just that, symbols. They were not talking about metals and materials necessarily, they were talking about the materials as symbols. This is a language to and for the self, a way of seeing the internal. This is why most of us respond in the way we do to certain icons and symbol sets.
That being said, lets us also say that you and me are individual , but we both own the same symbols and icons with the collective unconscious. There may be infinite variations , but they are all based of certain central types, and these occur universally. In this particular post I am not proposing that we are all connected , I am summarizing a way in which I see how art can and does work. That when one delves into the depths of ones self to then bring out images, it is not surprising that when we do this in a honest way that some people respond strongly to the images. And this then it would be possible to cause change to occur with the observer….
Would the real Hieronymus Bosch please stand up ?
Now with that said , let me also relay another part of Jung’s book, that is equally important to consider.
Psychology and Alchemy , by C.G. Jung . page 99
” People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own souls. They will practice Indian yoga and all its exercises, observe a strict regimen of diet, learn theosophy by heart, or mechanically repeat mystic text from the literature of the whole world–all because they cannot get on with themselves and have not slightest faith that anything useful could ever come out of their own souls. Thus the soul has gradually been turned into a Nazareth from which nothing good can come. Therefore let us fetch it from the four corners of the earth– the more far-fetched and bizarre it is the better ! ”
This is not to say that the study of such things are fruitless, it is to say, that remember that in the end, it is you that is the focus of the study.
Friday, March 13, 2009
I have only just begun to brake the surface of the study of classical iconography in relation to medieval and contemporary art. A subject base that is extremely large and fairy expensive to study.
But one thing has occurred to me thus far. That by braking the ‘code’ ( if you forgive the word ) of iconography or symbolica we can in fact miss the point of a statement or meaning behind a painting or artwork. To try and further explain my thoughts on this I will take a small turn of the road of education. If one sees a painting and one is able to understand that there is some short of information stored with in the symbolism , but one is unable to bring this information immediately to consciousness one is more likely to investigate the information. To say this in another way, If Bosch wanted us to immediately know what was being done within the art work, then he would have put definitions on it, which I might add that be did at times, as in the study of his ” The stone of folly ” or sometimes called ” The Extraction of the Stone of Madness “, the inscription reads, “Meester snyt die Keye ras - myne name is lubbert das” (Master, cut away the stone – my name is Lubbert Das). Lubbert Das was a comical character in Dutch literature at the time. But even past the inscription, there is much more information with in the symbolica.
On the front of the triptych ” The Garden of early Delights ” we see the world with in it’s creation , this again gives us definition as to the information with in, but does not show or tell us all. From my own experience , one watches the painting and is ‘drawn-in’, and in that way one begins to play with the information or images, in turn one starts to travel though it, one is now have a conversation with the information or images. Statements are made, questions asked and things begin to unfold. It is this relationship that is the intent behind iconography. But if one already knows all that is with-in the information behind the symbolism , one is not able to reach this form of interaction with the information.
It is our own journey within the artwork that is the point , and where the most information is.