On Spiritual Visualizing

On Spiritual Visualizing
by A. Robert Malcom

     One of the things which have come to mean so much to me is the recognition that the purpose of an artist is far more than has generally been considered.   An artist is, by the fact of 'showing' that which is of importance to that artist, a Spiritual Visualizer, a person who has undertaken the responsibility of elucidating moral ideals. In effect, this means the practicalizing of the personal, of giving meaning to the material of the universe - NOT, properly, in any supernatural or fantasy mindset, but by dealing with reality, by integrating the non-material with those materials with which the person possesses and has,by that possessing, given importance to. Note that to elucidate is not to moralize like a philosopher, but to act as a visualizer - to show possibilities in the world around us, according, properly, to a rational being (that is, a human being acting according to its nature). Note also that this personalness is in contrast with the social, which is the political, which - properly - is the ethics of dealing with persons qua persons, individuals together as aggregates. And note further that this integrating is not just the short-term of item by item, but the long-term of the being as a whole dealing with its purposefulness.

     Spirituality pertains to the mindfulness of a person, the non-material aspect of reality that DIRECTS the usage of the material - NOT, as so often presumed, opposes the material. There has always been a despairing of the attainment of goods, yet the plentitude of the goods and their variety enriches our lives - so it seems only fair to utilize the 'this earth' attitude to justify the 'good life' and mark the accumulation NOT as being frivolous, but as having real depth to the well-being of the living. One could say it makes for the practical application of the ethics of viable values... it falls in line with Rand's assertion of aesthetics being 'the technology of the soul'. While she used the word 'Art', I in turn (since she equated aesthetics with art) use the broader term, because I consider the utilitarian aspects as much 'technology of the soul' as the contemplative aspects. Spiritual needs involve 'meaning in life'. This covers both short term purposes as well as long term. As much of importance, it pertains to the real world, NOT the fantasy of some 'other world', or of the notion of the 'supernatural', which claims an incompetency of humans, that they are incapable of knowing on their own,and thus must remain perpetually as over-aged dependants - children - instead of the self-responsible independent adult... from a psychological standpoint, spirituality means operating at a high level of consciousness - engaging in self-awareness and self-examinations, integrating the issues of values and life... it is considering how one experiences existence - not thru the delusion of faith and negation of the mindfulness - but thru consciousness committed to its own growth, cultivating the ability to see reality in all its manifestations, and as such remaining truthful to 'that which is', emphasizing the difference between believing and knowing. This means reliance on the mind - which involves the issues of independence, self-responsibility, the contrasting of meekness and self-assertions. This, in turn, involves the courage to treat oneself and one's convictions with respect. The end result is living purposefully - creating one's own meaning of and to life, and being a participant as opposed to being an observer. It also raises the issue of integrity, which involves the issue not of how perfect we are in integrity but how concerned we are in correcting breaches.

      Spiritual comes from the word, 'spirit', which meant 'wind', referring to one's breath, 'wind of life', as it were.. there is a sense of it when the phrase 'he/she has spirit' or 'the horse is spirited', meaning there is much life in the individual, be it human or animal. So, from the beginning, there was a recognition in reality of a non-materialness involved within the fabric of reality. The major error of understanding it came with the notion that there was such a thing as the supernatural, a supposed realm somehow 'outside' reality which 'somehow' affected reality. But since the universe is the sum of that which exists, there can be nothing 'outside the universe', that the notion is a fantasy bourne from the times of primeval ignorance, when there was little understanding of the nature of reality, or how it operated, and virtually no understanding of the self, of the mind, and how it functions. The consequence of pandering to that fantasy was that there arose the notion, again false because of its non-reality orientation, that the spiritual must, then, pertain to dealing with another 'life', one which must be more desirable than the squalor that abounded among the humans of ancient times. The consequence proved to be a very deadly one, as instead of attention being paid to learning more of its true nature, and the improvement of being human and living in the world, the focus turned to demanding acceptance of the squalor as a normalcy, imposing the most evil notion possible to foist on to the ignorant and innocent - the damning of them for the mere fact that they existed, that they were human and as such should be ashamed of being such. One doesn't even give a cockroach or a dog that distinction, nor rats or snakes... only the hatred of one's fellow humans would produce such an abomination, hatred which sanctified domestication of humans - physically as in slavery, and mentally or spiritually as in slavery as well, instituting the false dichotomy of a mind/body split which had one part supposedly 'warring' against the other, and demanding that the 'mind' part be concerned with matters NOT of the real world, but of some 'realm beyond the grave', where all the desires could then be had that were not to be had in reality. This misunderstanding of what 'spiritual' really means persists yet today, despite the overwhelming evidence that life in reality is and can be most wondrous and not to be despised.

     The thing which must be most remembered, the idea most important, is that 'existence exists'. This is not an idle statement, but the prime axiom, one so prime that even any attempt to refute it requires its usage - and thus its acceptance. What does this axiom mean? it means that what exists has ALWAYS existed, and always will - that something cannot, by its nature, come from 'nothing' (which is not some other 'kind of something' but is merely a designation of the absence of something. The second thing which must be remembered is that, by its nature, what exists is integrated - that there are no contradictions in reality, that when one is perceived, then there is a need to check premises, for one or more of those are in error. This integratedness is important to remember with regards to spirituality, for it is the hallmark which, in reality, removes the notion of any mind/body dichotomy, and which points out that if one is perceived, then there is an error in the perceiving. This also points the way that a 'spiritual visualizer' helps in practicalizing the ethics of being human - by showing examples of the integratedness between the non-material and the material of reality... of, as it were, 'being as one with the universe', an integrated aspect of it in living and flourishing as humans.

Spirituality means recognising that life simply 'is', a normal aspect of existence within the universe, and that whatever meaning is applied to it - is PERSONAL, which one gives to oneself, and directs as such, as one's own 'captain of soul'... creating, as such, one's own destiny. One way to help in doing this is to understand what aesthetics itself is all about - the science of beauty - involving order, proportion, balance, harmony, and grace... this way, one can learn to discern those aspects of the utilitarian which lead one to appeal to them and desire them, even if only as visual aspects of reality which remind one of interrelationships with the world at large. That is, one could say, the purpose of it being within the crafts - and why those crafts themselves are used within the created realms of the renderer, the artist. This also involves understanding that there is a spirituality of productiveness, of the utilitarian aspect of survival for being human. Productiveness is a form of practicalizing ethics, with the spirituality involved in the qualification of that productiveness - especially from the personal standpoint of the individual. Productive ability is a moral value - and, like all values, a course of virtue is required in order to gain and/or keep it. This means recognising that all "work is an act of creating, and comes from the same source - from an inviolate capacity to see thru one's own eyes", Rand wrote. A businessman/woman, fully as much as an artist, or artisan, is an exponent of spirituality. Moreover, since there is the key factor of integration involved, an artist or artisan, fully as much as a businessman/woman, has to be involved in the material of the universe. One could well say that Art, like any legitimate area of endeavor, has a life-sustaining purpose - and that its creation demands objective, reality-oriented thought, with then embodiment of that thought in a physical medium. This further means that there is no such sense of opposing the 'spiritual' versus the 'material', that no rational area may be pitted against another - that ALL proper arenas or fields require thought AND action - that ALL exemplify the integration of mind and body, as is the naturalness of the universe. Remember - there are no contradictions within the universe, and if one is perceived, then there is a need to check the premises, for one or more of those are in error.

     As a spiritual visualizer, it should be clear that an artist, then, should show purposefulness - which means productiveness, either directly thru the metaphorical examples, or indirectly thru passages of effects. This last would mean the showing of progress thru the various stages of developing of whatever was being shown. Using metaphoric relating, the moralness of being productive can be made visual - not propagandistically so, but as a natural course of events AS SEEN IN THE UNIVERSE THAT IS THE RENDERING. This is emphasized because it cannot be stated too much that purposefulness involves, as Rand pointed out, 'remaking the earth in the image of one's values'. Further, that this in turn implies the recognition that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INTRINSIC VALUES, that the earth simply is, and as such simply is material to be used.

     What is 'intrinsic value', or is there really such a thing? The first thing to remember is that there are two strains to the notion - the 'good-in-itself' conception, and the 'sought-for-its-own-sake' conception. The good-in-itself view considers that intrinsic values are packed within the allegedly valuable thing, and that this is independently of and thus unaffected by the existence or condition of all other things, persons, and interests. The sought-for-its-own-sake view considers that intrinsic values are what are sought NOT as means to or constituent of any other ends. In other words, the alleged intrinsic value turns on a person's reasons for seeking something, rather than on the nature of the thing itself. The problem is that the discovery that something is sought for its own sake says only something about persons' motivations in pursuing those things - and says nothing about the propriety of the questing or the actual value of the things sought. In other words, the sought-for-its-own-sake version - representing persons' attitudes towards their ends - cannot deliver objective value. This is because when intrinsic value is characterized solely in terms of the reasons for which something is sought, the embrace of intrinsic value collapses into subjectivism. The good-in-itself version, however, is even less defensible.

     Why is 'good-in-itself' not true? to begin with, why not just repose the question and ask, 'what is it? what does this alleged value refer to?'. When this is done, it becomes noticed that most often what is considered as intrinsic value is expressed by what it is not - it is NON-relational, it is value APART from a thing's consequences, it is INDEPENDENT of other aims. But negative depictions are not sufficient - to claim a value is different from other types is only to emphasize part of the issue. There is also needed an explanation of what the VALUE is - what it consists of - an explanation of how the term 'intrinsic value' qualifies under the more general term, value. Without this, there are no grounds for accepting its existence. The so-called 'evidence' boils down invariably to claims that intrinsic value is self evident. But the absence of objective evidence for it, alongside with the completely subjective basis for claiming or asserting it [eg - their feelings or intuitions], leaves no grounds for crediting its existence. Advocates insist intrinsic value can be spotted, but provide no satisfactory account of how - and thus no means of verifying the claims. This failure, then, exposes the doctrine's latent subjectivism, and its therefore lack of viability. Denying intrinsic value may seem harsh, especially if one agrees that some of the always considered ones - beauty, freedom, life, and so on - are quite wonderful indeed. However, denying that these are intrinsic values does not deny that these are valuable. Nor does it preclude their being especially valuable, carrying significant ramifications for other values or for the propriety of various actions.

          If the foundation of values is not intrinsic, what is it? Values arise from alternatives... specifically the alternative of life and death - without that, there would be no need for values. 'Life' is the yardstick, so to speak, on whether something is considered good or bad, or an action considered right or wrong. 'Life', in other words, makes the concept of value both possible and necessary. This means that values have basis in facts - the actual relationship to an organism's life - and thus provides for a firm basis for ethics which are objectively true. A value, as Rand pointed out, is 'that which one acts to gain and/or keep'... and while values benefit, there is a difference between a value and a benefit. Not all benefits result from the beneficiary's actions - certain salutary events can and do occur without any effort on the part of the beneficiary. Other benefits, however, require effort on the part of the one being benefited - thus a value is what one ACTS to attain. Values, however, are not self-evident - a person cannot spot a value AS A VALUE in the same manner as, say, can be spotted a tree as a tree, a chair as a chair, or a blade of grass as a blade of grass. What may look like a cool and refreshing drink, for instance , might be very toxic - and a fierce looking animal may be perfectly harmless and good to have around. In other words, what makes something of value may depend on facts about it that are not immediately or necessarily readily apparent, making it crucial to understanding what it is that would make or render something of value.

     Why is it that VALUES are so important to an artist? For one thing, it has to do with that universe within which is shown in every work rendered. What is or is not within the boundaries of the canvas displays the morals of the artist. At first glance, this does not seem to be so - but consider the implications of the fact that what is included within is so because it is considered to be of importance, and what is considered to be of importance stems from one's value, which are the source of importance. If, as shown, there is no such thing as intrinsic values, that the elements of reality simply exist and as such are there to be ascribed value by those wishing to make use of the components, then whatever is shown within the confines of any work of art is an expression of what the artist considers to be of importance, and as such, what is of value to the artist. Now, there are values and there are values - a value, as said, is what one acts to gain and/or keep - and the only values worth pursuing would, therefore, be those which are VIABLE VALUES, values which pertain to enhancing the well-being of being human, values which aid in the flourishing of being human. This is the task of being a spiritual visualizer - to show these possible viable values and how the materials of existence can be utilized to incorporate those values into the reality of each person's life.

     It should be noted that while the goal of life sets the standard of ethics, the identification of this standard does not, by itself, tell everything which is needed to be known in order to achieve that goal. Just as knowing one's purpose requires a standard of measuring as to whether that purpose is being advanced or not, so too a standard must sometimes be supplemented by more specific instructions or information. In this case, the objective, life, is a long-ranged, widely encompassing project. Countless discrete actions can affect an individual's life, and recognising the exact nature of their impact often requires sifting thru layers of subordinate values and interlocking aspects of one's welfare. Actions' net effects are often not apparent. To say that life is the standard of value is, while important, extremely abstract. If the identification of this standard is to provide fruitful guidance, what is then needed is more specific instruction. This is what normative ethics provides. Illustrating this normativeness is what being a spiritual visualizer is all about.

      It is not enough, however, to be concerned with values - in so far as being a spiritual visualizer. There is more to life than sustenance - there must be flourishing to be living life as human qua human. This has to do with the fact that what makes a life good is its being led in a life-furthering fashion. This is to say, a life-enhancing living. How to go about this, how to integrate possibilities of the material to this, is what a spiritual visualizer does - showing possibilities of successfully being in that world in which the flourishing resides. The issue, though, is how the person then manages that which is within the person's control, within the realm of that person's choices - and this entails all the social strata of viable living, that is, above the sustenance level. Moreover, this is a sum-plus in that the furtherance of this life-enhancing action tends to increase the well-being more and more, so that the end result will be greater than what had been before [all other factors or situations being equal - namely those matters which are NOT under the person's control ].

     Visualizing the flourishing, however, is but a momentary slice of possibilities - flourishing refers to a person's COMPLETE physical and psychological health over the span of a full life, and is an active process that can be achieved only by a person's efforts. But these possibilities enable one to better crystallize that furtherance, thus providing a form of guidance of possibilities - which fuels the person's creativity in adapting other possibilities to that person's ends of the life-enhancing living.

     How, then, does a visualizer go about the visualizing? To illustrate, let's take a theme, and ask questions about it. Consider 'coffee'... perhaps the first image which might come to mind is that of the western campfire, wherein the cowboys are sitting, in cool morning air, and they're drinking their coffee...... another image which might come to mind is that of the evening, a dinner, and coffee being served in a romantic setting of two persons...... still another might be that of the woman on the porch, wrapped in a robe, sipping a cup as the sun comes over the hill. There are many further questions which come to mind... which sex - why - what difference does each respectively engender...what age of the sex... again, what makes a difference - why..... morning or evening - which and why.  All these questions are there because each of these options make for a difference in the presentation - in the theme as it is shown. Remember, the borders of the rendering defines a universe, and it is what is within that defines what is considered of importance respective to that universe.

     One thing which comes to mind in this is - if what is shown within the borders of the rendering comprises the universe, what is to prevent usage of fantasy in the presenting? For one thing, it has to do with the fact that while this rendering is a universe of its own, to be effective in communicating, there has to be a referencing to this, our own real universe.  Therefore, anything which is shown in this rendered universe can only be of value to the extent that it properly adheres to this, our own, universe's so-called 'laws of nature' - and the recognition that any other visualization is meaningless within that context. A second thing to consider is that there is a crucial difference between imaginating and fantasizing - the former utilizes the aspects of reality to formulate new ideas and applications, including some possibles yet to be - while the latter plays around with impossibles, and as such becomes psychological studies rather than contemplative works.


     So then, having established, in effect, that there is a crucial difference between fantasizing and imaginating, the issue becomes one of utilizing that imaginating. Consider, for instance, "First the Sand...", a pen/ink rendering of 30 x 40 ... it may be seen on the sister blogsite of www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com . In it, there is, in the foreground, a sandy shore, with a mound with sea grasses (on the left), behind which is a bent over figure of a female in the process of making sand castles, behind which is the foaming waters of a surf crashing, and the surf waves behind that. The sea itself, of course is behind that, with an offshore high-rise on the horizon, and a jutting piece of forested land on the left side. Now, the original had postulated two figures, one being a mother and the other a toddles playing in the sand. Why the change? To begin with, the use of a toddler playing in the sand is such an old cliche that to bother with it entails a conformity as it were - even as with the original idea of having the mother with the toddler, as in a family affair - though that would be better, even as it would not, however, adhere to the theme/title (why wouldn't it have adhered - because it would not have given the clarity of the implication of the toddler, or either of them, as engaging in something which would lead to the future of a building as architect - a single figure is thus needed). To have, however, a more mature female, a woman (as noted by the bushiness of her pubes) doing the sand building WOULD make for a difference and an advancing of imaginating because it would be more the unexpected than any of the others - and far less expected than a male figure of any age. Now, why this presentation instead of, say, one in which the sand castle building is being done in a sandbox of some kind, in the backyard, with the tall skyscraper seen behind a series of houses surrounding the backyard? For one, in doing the seascape viewing of the event, there is a starkness, a cleanness of the event, without any of the conventionality as seen in the surrounding houses - here, in other words, is a view which could be on any world, especially one in which the notion of furtherance with a female engaging in the future of what conventionality poses as a 'male' dominating position of endeavoring. Further, by having the building off on the horizon, in the clarity of the edge of everything, there is also the implication of a furtherance beyond merely another building - a furtherance of 'reaching out' as it were to much more, perhaps yet another world, as evidenced by the circle in the sky which could be anything from the sun to a moon to another world off in the distance. Now, why the more or less horizontalness of the waves crashing onto the shore? Why not an angularity instead? - because it implies that there is a barrier of sorts over which one crosses to reach to the distant future having an angularity implies a sort of road or pathway leading to that distance. Why is the distant building so less than strongly shown - because it is the future, with an objectified view yet one in which the details remain open to whatever changes is found later to be needed, from whatever set of circumstances might become involved. As the theme/title says - "First the Sand..." - this is a beginning, with much in the way of implication as to the conclusion possibilities.

     Beginnings can take many forms. For instance, in the rendering, "First the Sand...", what difference would have been achieved if the figure was omitted, and there remained on the beach only the forms of the sand castle? There would still have been the human element, the conscious act of creation, in a universe showing possibilities - but there would have been the indifference of what kind of being did the work, the sex, the age, and yes, even the race would have been omitted - and the theme/titling would have reflected a time element, one of a passing, as it were, of the sand objects having been abandoned. What, too, would have been a difference if, say, the scene had been elevated, seen from a height far above the eye level?  What if the time of day had changed, and a long shadowing had been rendered?  What if the sky was not clear, but full of clouds? What if the vegetation were not so full, but sparse, or even barren? Each presents a beginning, as such - yet each presents a DIFFERENT beginning, and signifies a different presentation of the possibilities and their chances of success. As a spiritual visualizer, these are mindfulnesses which need to be taken into account, because each presents a metaphysical importance distinct from the others. No, this is not to suggest the best is the lushness, and that barren is to be neglected as being of no real importance - but it is to suggest that context is needed and mindfulness is to be aware of the contexts involved, if the really import of what the artist considers to be of importance is thus rendered..... else there is an ambiguity there which lessens what may have been intended.

     One of the things which might have been noticed was that the rendering was done in pen/ink, not - as to be expected - in acrylic paints. This was partly because of the love with working with the possibilities of textures which can be transcribed with the fineness of the pen. Too, there is the metaphysical issue of absolutes being implied here - the ink and the paper constitute black and white, yet all manner of shades come forth from these ultimate absolutes, a reminder, in effect, that grays are indeed composed of blacks and whites. Consequently, there is, in me, a competing issue - that of black/white, or color - and each proscribes different 'sense of life' issues, and thus provides good contrast to the psychologicalness of these differences. Many years ago, did a still life of a bonsai, two in fact, one being black/white and the other in color - just to show how different the understanding of the subject can be depending on which is shown, what is being marked as different in emphasis. It was an exercise in this, just as this is, in effect, the same - a personal judging as to what is best in presenting the theme/titles. As a spiritual visualizer, which most shows that essence - that is what determines whether color or not.

     The first issue to be given concern in each work is what is considered as the 'universe' within which is done the work. This is the space of the canvas or illoboard or such between the edges. Here is where one gives the metaphysics of the work - what kind of a world is to be shown. Is it a world of recognizability, or is it one of flux? Is it one of identity, or is it of impossibilities? Is it to be a life affirming, or is it to be one in which life is a disparage? Is it one in which this life includes the human, or is it one which marginalizes the human, or is it one in which the human does not exist? Is it a world in which the fundamentals are as they are in this real one of ours, or is it a world in which the trivial consists of the whole? It would seem that these issues were to have been taken care of in dealing with the ethics of the work - but no so, as these ethics need be placed within the confinements of this universe, and therefore it makes a difference as to how these ethics can function relative to the given universe as presented. This becomes more particular when the idea of what constitutes fantasy versus what constitutes imaginating - and to be sure, the two are distinctly different, with different accommodations in being able to deal with the visualizing. Much comes from the initial biologicalness of the evolvement of the cognitivness of being human - the recognition that what evolves is as such because of its practicalness in furthering survivability [ and here am not referring to the 'feelers' as mutations go, but the enduring ones that carry on the various species, especially humans]. Remember, while reason is the fundamental means of human survival, it has to be learned, and along with this, appreciated for its importance, NOT as a so-called 'necessary evil' frame of mind, but as an integral aspect of the flourishing as being human. Therefore, it becomes imperative that the discards of the irrational are seen for what they are, and not mourned as something to be wished for even if not possible to be in reality. It should also be added that this should be such that the reality is to be DESIRED, in the full recognition that it is of immense more enjoyableness than whatever fantasy was wanted beforehand - and that this is the consequence of self-responsibility, of ably and wantingly accepting the capacity of being able to deal in the world, of understanding the difference between the earned and the unearned - and the inhumanness of the latter.

     If postulating a rational universe - that is, of one as which is the real - becomes the norm, and the showing of the possibilities as the proper mode of thought regarding presentations, what is, then, the issue of deciding the importance of what is to presented? That is, is it a grand landscape of the projected world as desired to be in, or a still life of a minutiae within that world, or a presentation of alternatives according to diversed views of the nature of relationships - which to do.... and why. Here, the matter becomes more a case of where one's own focusing is in terms of interests, skills - and what is to the individual as artist considered of prominent importance. There is, to be sure, merit for any of the positions, as each reinforces the pro-humanity, enlarging on the 'showing' possibilities as envisioned by Rand. As noted in the 'sister' site [ www.visioneerwindows.blogspot.com ], there is a developing wealth of diversed applications - some are landscapes, some are still life, some are at first glance animal studies - and others are as becoming erotic presentations - all upholding the joy of flourishing as being human, yet not all in the same realm as of importance to the showing. Why is this - what is it which within the sub-consciousness brings forth such differentness? A very good question, one which needs much thought and introspection to come to answering. For now, suffice to say it was at least at first a means of expressing a showing in many otherwise overlooked examplings of the fundamentals of moral presenting.   Time of doing has some bearing as well, as with so many ideas coming forth, there is a need to decide how much is to be spent in doing presentings, and how much is needed in the complexities - especially of such as grand landscapes - if the fullness of the proposition is to be achieved. The mind, to be sure, indeed needs itself a shifting in terms of dealing with complexities - and this allows for the trivial to be of worth doing, even as other more complex notions form into consciousness. Like muscles, there is a stretching and there is a contracting - both needed to achieve maximum results on the long term. As time goes on, though, there will inevitably be a shifting to some form of specialization, concentrating on select areas to further that arena - leaving the rest to others to enlarge as they would conceive.

     In engaging in this visualizing, in seeing, as it were, the world thru the eyes of 'theming', it must be remembered that in so doing, many visuals will come to mind without prompting, and it can - to those used to introspecting - be disconcerting not to be able to identify those aspects of the visual which the abstract theme/title brought forth. But not to worry - this means that for the artist, as much as for the viewers, the act of contemplation is there - enough, for the moment, that there is a visualization for the theming, and, to that extent, can give forth some sense-of-life reasoning for thus. Remember, ALL WORKS OF ART HAVE THEMES, even if the theming is no more than the sense-of-life without further introspecting, and as such has no given theme/title even [as is so oft the case with most artists]. Seeing the world thru the eyes of theming - seeing metaphoric relationships among all that comes before the artist's viewing, whether thru the eyes, or thru written or heard words, or even thru hearing, whether the sounds of, say, birds or music - is a learning, an automatizing of the skill of integrating the abstract with the concretes. In so doing, after a time, it becomes the same as if with walking - no conscious thought given to it.     It is worth taking note that there is more to Aesthetics than just the utilitarian and the contemplative - and that there is more to Art than just the 'fine arts'. There is, for instance, the decorative arts. In the evolution of humanity, the first instance of the aesthetics of contemplation was with the realm of decorating - particularly one's own body, and particularly with simplicity of forms as noticed among the reality around the persons of that time, even if within the confines of, say, the evening hours when so much is in 'outline' form. It was the first attempts at providing something just a bit more than mere utilitarian - something in which there was a specialness added - not so much in sense of ownership, but as if of a greater valuing than if without. It goes hand in hand with the increased sense of aesthetics involved with the making of whatever object at hand - a bowl, for instance, where the craftsmanship has improved from the rudimentary to refined of form, and now added the decoration of enhancement. To a degree, this can be said to have a sense of contemplation, if only in appreciation of the geometrics involved, but as these were not a seeking of likeness, there was nothing in the way of the sense of contemplation as is understood today.

     Decorative arts stand in between these major directions of utilitarian and contemplative in that there is an increasing of more than mere utilitarian to the objects, yet not so much as seeking renewal in abstract contemplating as is found in the re-presentative works. Tt holds its place thru the design factoring, savoring the sense of beauty in forms and colorings, and the arrangements of such, as to increase the valuing, as said, of the objects on which these decoratings took place. To some utilitarian works, as time went on - architecture, for instance - the aesthetics of design becomes overwhelming at times, far away more than needed for the mere utilitarian of the objects. Yet, even so, the field of endeavoring is that of utilitarian - high craftsmanship, if one wishes to say. If the designing is so far into that where the utilitarian is not practical, as in some fancy bowls with open holes so as to not hold liquids - still, as per the concept of that object being a bowl, it falls into the utilitarian [and as such, a poor utilitarian, as its prime purpose has then been disrupted and/or distorted [usually in a flawed attempt to imitate art and seek to be included in another field, even as there is little to any contemplativeness other than the decorativeness... remember, for contemplativeness, there must be cognitive visuality - re-presentativeness - in order to see any grasping of theming].

      In discussing issues of visualizing spirituality, one of the things which comes to mind is the question of 'scenes', whether to have them as studies or to consider them as works in themselves. To me, this is a given, that scenes are means to ends and not ends of themselves. If there is a strong interest in the visual, then there is internally to it a theming going on which needs be brought to consciousness, explored, and utilized to better place the composition in accordance to that theme/titling. In many cases, this would entail a shifting to including other material which would aid in the theming, rather than the work as a stand-alone. Otherwise, there is then within the work an idea being expressed, an issue of importance being noted, which needs, as said, be brought to consciousness for better metaphorical extrapolation.

      Often the case may be that there are many variations on theming, which can bring confusion to the artist, in that some may be seen as minor ones, not to be bothered with, or others being in conjunction with another theme/titling which at least in first glancing be considered as a better or more universal one. This usually takes place with someone who had only recently began the understanding of the theme/titling metaphoric relating, and thus sees a number of similars in the visualizing. The best way to getting the precision needed for the best compositions is then to make sketches of these variations, and set them alongside each other, that they be viewed as a group - thus allowing them all to be focused on at the same time. In that way, the ones which better express the theme/titling will come forth more pronouncedly, and the others can then be reconsidered as perhaps overlays to be added to the work in some fashion, or reworked into different theme/titlings which bear similar to the original one. Sometimes, too, these variations are expressions of needing a more complex and/or a larger work which is then capable of incorporating these variations within the one work - a mural or picture window sized one, perhaps, thus allowing theming to be rendered over the whole area instead of one major and then expanded to filling space. So long as didacticness is not being employed, this can bring forth a much more powerful masterpiece of the theme/titling - a major work, in other words. A bit of caution is to be noted in this, however - the mural, properly, is still in the grand scaping, not that of the usually given of murals, a hodgepodge of assorted bits much like a collage instead of an integrated work.

     There is another aspect to all this so often overlook in discussions, and that is the point of view of these presentations. It should never be forgotten the artist is the one from which these view stem, and it is as such a spiritual visualizing of the artist's personal with the primary import to the self. This means it is not a didacticness, but an expression of personalness... as a guide to others in their respective aspirations - possibilities as it were. What teaching comes is as a consequence, not as a prime directive. Showing a positive view of life and its appreciating is not always an easy task without getting into didactic works - essentially propaganda works. While it is true art is for contemplative purposes, propaganda is like hitting on the head with a sledge hammer - too intense to do more than emote over, thus not allowing any deeper concerns [if indeed any are there].

        The key issue is that the image is for contemplation - that is, for viewing time and again with the gaining of new insights from the work each time. That which is worth contemplating, in the manner of enriching one's life, or adding to the flourishing of one's life, must then by its nature be positive - that is, a gain to the viewing of one's life. This is not to say that there are negatives to one's life, for of course there are always adversarial aspect to living, some of which can be tremendously influencing on the health of one's being - yes these, by the nature of life living, are not the norm nor can they be else there'd be no life to begin with. This holds true even with those few who begin their existence as humans under much negativeness - for, as in all living organism, where one begins is the playing field, and it is different for each and every, and further, is the point of exercising one's survivability - to the extent of it being how well that is achieved for that person which counts for the success or not of the flourishing for that individual. This, then, presages the contemplativeness of any work, and the affinity or not gained from viewing any work. This is emphasized because so often it is presumed a pro-life viewing is of a Pollyanna nature, which is not true.

Discuss this Article (4 messages)