Altered States: The Barnes Foundation

The Dead Guy explains why he takes issue with the lack accessibility for low Income residents to the Barnes Collection and other Philadelphia public institutions.

http://youtu.be/5we6ZItTy28

From the Cave to Cyberspace: The Evolution of the Human Element in Visual Art

When we consider the creative capacities of mankind, specifically in terms of visual art, we should typically start with the artists and artisans themselves. Interestingly enough the more one examines art and art history, the more one begin to notice that the further back we delve into the emergence of the creative human being, the more anonymous the individual artist becomes. Prehistoric artwork such as The Lascaux cave, The Venus of Willendorf and countless other ruins and monoliths from around the world were created by many talented artists and artisans, yet a majority of them remain anonymous. Yet this is not surprising if we look at the role, or specifically the lack thereof, of the individual in early human societies. 

As we track the emergence of the creative human being we begin to see a trend where artists far and wide begin to acquire ever more autonomy and status within the context of more complex societies. Consequently, as the autonomy of the artist has grown it begins to fundamentally alter the artist’s relationship with conventional society. Evolving from one that, at one time, was so completely integrated that it rendered the artist essentially anonymous; while slowly developed into one that is so independent it then allowed the artist to represent what could be the paramount expression of individuality in western society. 

This I believe has transformed, and fundamentally altered, the dynamic regarding how an artist approaches their work, and subsequently, how the artist interacts with their audience. It is this fundamental shift in the function of the artist in society which has inevitably generated extreme hostility from the public for the self-aggrandizing nature of the contemporary art world. Perpetuating a profoundly incomplete view of what means to be an individual, and subsequently, what it means to be an artist.

Unfortunately western societies have evolved to view the individual, and particularly the artist, as being the antithesis of the collective within society, denying that the artist is inevitably bound, even in the abstract, to the collective through the language and symbols of human communication. What I mean by this is that artists, in order to be a truly great artist, must utilize our collective accumulated knowledge in order to thoroughly explore a vast amount of different themes and ideas, while utilizing our collective language of visual archetypes and symbol in order to engage mankind on the deepest level, the subconscious. In otherworld: 

“The individual is not an exception to the norm. He carries within himself and embodies the accumulated knowledge, skills and capacities of the collective. The individual is the conscious fount of the accumulated knowledge and experience of the collective… What is exceptional is the freedom and courage with which he explores, creates, invents, recombines and expresses the collective endowment in original ways.”  ~ WAAS (World Academy of Art and Science)

It is due to a chronic misunderstanding of what creativity actually is, which allows us to pervert the fundamental function of artistic creativity within our society. By designating creativity as a ‘skill’ or ‘talent’ possessed by a select few member of our society, we undermine the innate, and essential, creative abilities of the rest of the population. Inevitably this has allowed us to perpetuate an idea of creativity, the artist and the individual, which is not only incomplete but fundamentally flawed at its foundation. This distorted societal concept of creativity is incredibly pervasive, especially when it comes to the the way in which we approach fostering creativity within our society. And the artists themselves are far from innocent bystander in the persistence of such misleading ideas. 

Due to the increased autonomy of the artist within our culture, artists have moved further to the fringes of society, leading many artists into the blind alley of conceptualism, which has become increasingly misanthropic and nihilistic in their relationship with society in general; in its continued assault on the audience with vague concepts, meant to shock and confuse rather than communicate or engage humanity on a deeper collective level. The general public, who the contemporary artist has grown to view as Philistine, has developed an increasingly contemptuous attitude towards these inside jokes, if one could even call them that, littering the pretentious postmodernism of contemporary galleries, while only the affluent, not society at large, continue to perpetuate these dead art movements.

In this age of connectivity there is no excuse for artists to be so detached and condescending in their interactions with the audience. As we move into a new era of human civilization the art world, just like the society around us, will experience some unprecedented changes, particularly when it comes to how artists engage and interact with their audience. Audiences have traditionally viewed art only within the narrow confines of the sterile venues of the contemporary museums, which have become tiresome and lack the crucial engagement that our society is looking for.  

One specific aspect of art, which the audience has been excluded from largely throughout history, is the creative process itself, which would explain the overall societal lack of understanding and appreciation for the creative process in general. What I mean by this is in a traditional gallery setting the audience only gets to experience the final ‘masterpiece’. In seeing only the final work in a state of perceived perfection it helps to foster a misconception that artists are exceptionally gifted at creating forms which are prefect. And that, quite honestly, simply isn’t true. 

For far too long it has been considered taboo for artists to share their own creative process, out of an unsubstantiated fear that it will cheapen the work. These machinations, especially for the legions of contemporary conceptual artists allow artists to put more time in creating insincere concepts meant simply to shock and confuse, rather than genuine living artifacts. This idea that simply sharing your creative process with someone else could cheapen your work is a ploy, one meant to shroud the fundamental lack of vision with in the contemporary art world.  

Fortunately, we are begin to see a shift within the underground arts, which is helping counter this pervasive culture within the art world, and it is taking place before our very eyes online, throughout the numerous social networking sites that populate the internet. More and more artists are sharing the magic of their creativity with their fans and younger artists. These fully interactive artists are using numerous hashtags, which has helped to create, perhaps unknowingly, huge repositories of creativity in progress. Hashtags such as #creativity, #newartwork, and #WIP (work in progress) allow fans and artists access to a massive accumulation of documented creativity, incidentally helping to foster within others a genuine appreciation for creativity, and the arts, through direct observation. Not to mention a system of hashtags being used to create digital art groups of global artists sharing their work with each other. 

This new paradigm within the art world has many advocates throughout the social media world. Artist like Chet Zar have inspired hundreds of artists worldwide to share their artwork every Friday night with a hashtag he created (#fridaynightartdorks).  Unfortunately, many of these artist have been continuously marginalized and relegated to the scene of underground ‘lowbrow’/surrealism, which has typically been viewed as ‘illustration’ or  ‘too commercial’ to be high art, rather than celebrated for being the contemporary visionaries that they truly are. 

Artists like Chet Zar, Buddy Nestor and myself, love sharing the process of our work, not because we think we have to, but because we want to. The creative process, or what Arthur Keostler referred to as the ‘Act of Creativity’, not just the finished product, is precisely what fuels our own creativity. We enjoy direct interaction with our fans, and other artists, which is driven by a collective fascination with the creative process in general, which becomes a common bond. We are, as Chet had put it an interview with Juxtapoz Magizine, ‘process junkies’.  

There are also a growing number of artists whom also find joy in participating in ‘live’ art sessions around the world. Artists such as Guy Atchinson, Michele Wortman, Jon Clue, Chris Dingwell and Alex and Allyson Grey can be found painting live at galleries, events such as Burning Man or a number of the art/tattoo conventions. Painting without haste and taking time to speak to the many of the onlookers as they actively reveal the equally captivating process of their work. These are the artist who are engaging people on a very human level, forging new ways to creatively engage their audience with openness and sincerity.  

We must remember that just because artists tend to have a greater propensity for creativity it doesn’t mean they are the only ones whom possess such 'skills'. Furthermore, those in the contemporary art world, may not even possess any kind of exceptional mastership of such creative capacities; they might just be well versed in the conceptual theology of bullshit. And this is the poisoned pill that many accredited art schools sell to unsuspecting students.  

Edward De Bono once said that, “Far too many people believe that creativity is just being different. Being different for the sake of being different may attract attention but that is not sufficient value. True creativity must deliver real value.” The problem with the post-modern conceptual art movement is that it, even though it may deliver original ideas and concepts, it fails miserably at delivering value, except on a very superficial level to the affluent people that buy it, not for its value, but its ability to exemplify a privileged status.  

Artists are gifted people but not because they're simply creative. They are gifted because of a compulsion to create, refine and eventually deliver the imaginative, and visionary, realms in which they dwell; creatively. Art is an artifact, in the most beautiful sense. By using creativity and communication, an artist navigates through a window within what Carl Jung called the collective unconscious; at a specific time and place with the accumulated lexicon of symbolic language, and imagery, which allows the emergence of ever more novel forms. Therefore art is an artifact in the most fundamental sense, since it carries with it a specific collective history, language, and culture from which it was produced, preserving a living vestige to the society at large. And it is this which makes art a truly magical phenomena.