Put This In Your Pipe And Smoke It!
I hate to be quoting things at length, but I felt compelled to present this long passage from an 1891 essay on Symbolist art by the French critic and artist Albert Aurier (1865-1892):
"To sum up and conlcude, the work of art as I have evoked it logically, is
1. Ideist, since its unique ideal is the expression of the idea;
2. Symbolist, since it expresses the idea by means of forms;
3. Synthetic, since it writes out those forms, these signs, according to a mode susceptible to general comprehension;
4. Subjective, since the object depicted is not considered as an object, but as a sign of an idea perceived by the subject;
5. And (as a consequence) decorative--inasmuch as decorative painting, as the Egyptians understood it and very probably the Greeks and the primitives, is only a manifestation of an art that is at once subjective, synthetic, symbolist, and ideaist.
And decorative painting is, properly speaking, true painting. Painting can have been created only to decorate the bare walls of human edifices with thoughts, dreams, and ideas. Easel painting is an illogical refinement invented to satisfy the fantasy or the commercial spirit of decadent civilizations. In primitive societies the first attempts at picture making could only have been decorative.
This art that I have tried to legitimize and characterize, this art that may appear complicated and that some chroniclers would gladly call deliquescent, can therefore, in the last analysis, be reduced to the formula of simple, spontaneous, and primordial art. Such is the criterion of appropriateness in the aesthetic reasoning I present here. Ideist art, which had to be justified by abstract and complex arguments because it seems so paradoxical to our civilization, which happens to be both decadent and forgetful of any initial revelation, is therefore, irrefutably, the true and absolute art. Not only is it legitimate from the standpoint of theory, but it is also, in the last analysis, identical to primitive art, to art as it was intuited by the instinctive geniuses of the dawn of humanity."
I love this passage not only because it manages to use the word "deliquescent" but also for it's succinct and rapier sharp (leave it to the French!) stab at defining the true nature of "decorative" art. And I must relate a story from my past to illustrate why this makes me so happy:
From 1993-1998 I lived in San Francisco. During these years I was drawing on a kind of idle basis, only when the mood really struck me. Usually I would go to a cafe, take a shot of espresso, and just randomly blast out some ink drawing in a notebook, without trying to muddy up the inspiration with forethought. Some interesting things came out of this, but it was few and far between. I did, however, enjoy doing art very much, and did build up a stash of drawings that I was proud of in my naive way. Now there was a kind of gallery zone near where I used to be a barista, on Sutter Street, above downtown. I used to walk in this zone, looking at all the shitty art in the galleries and wondering what it would be like to show my drawings. As the galleries would trail off, there was this quiet area of random hotels, flats, and liquor stores, and the last gallery was a place that had prints from engravings in the window. The walls were lined with them as well, kind of Picasso derivative line style art, some actual cool stuff which if I remember right was minotaurs and weird doctors injecting people with giant syringes. My memory is shaky on the art, but I do remember thinking it was kind of cool, but also feeling that my shit was better. For a while I used to only stare at the yellowing prints in the window that seemed to never get sold. But one day, I don't know what kind of wild hair got me, maybe had an espresso too many, I decided to bring my notebook full of weird mythic demonic ink work and just show it to whoever was running this gallery. There was a hunched over dude in one of those crochet type woven sweaters, a white sweater, sitting on a wooden desk in an alcove in the corner, his hands pressed tight against the edge of the desk, arms locked out, head jerking a little bit, talking to the air in bursts. He was old, but his hair was a crazy bright orange red color. Not sure if he dyed it or what, but it seemed quite strange. I was the only one in the gallery, and I walked around staring at the Picasso type stuff on the walls, feeling my stomach jumping around. Finally I made my move, played the young artist kid, honestly asking him to just have a look at my art and tell me what he thought. He actually hesitated, and got this momentary tic of frustration in his withered face, as if there were a bunch of customers clamoring for his prints, instead of the empty nothing silence and just quiet breeze drifting in. Finally he decided to be generous and to look at my art. I spread it on the desk and he flipped through it. His mouth opened a bit to reveal his yellow old man teeth, he took in a breath, and managed to say, "oohhhh, decorative art", in this nasally voice, perhaps even attempting to make it sound kind. After that, I only remember some vague statements he might have made, like "keep working on it" or some such bullshit. Well, he didn't become the badass old mentor cool guy artist my mind had cooked up at first as the outcome to this encounter. I walked out of there with one resolve: old man, I am going to fucking destroy shit with my art, I am going to surpass your shit-stabbing Picasso imitation sad-man art, and come back here some day to urinate in your face in a triumphal arch of golden laughter!
Well, I didn't quite get to work on it too soon, and I certainly didn't get as deep into drawing as I am now with revenge in my heart. What got me into this is something he never could have taught me anyway.
I only recently remembered this whole event, and thought how it could have happened differently. He could have given me some choice words of inspiration, words to cherish for years to come. But he just didn't care. Strange that someone who had the power to offer something so simple on his part, yet so potentially helpful on mine, refused or was unable to do so. He was so caught up in (what I imagined to be) his festering little world, his worn out, tired take on "modernism" that he couldn't be bothered to consider the strange, mystical lines I was birthing from my subconscious, as art. Maybe he hated me just for being a kind of carefree young punk just striding in off the street.
It is interesting to me, the potential reasons for my continued resentment of him. for him. Mainly, it is the ignorance and bigotry he displayed in his slight on "decorative" art. How can a trained and experienced artist use the term "decorative" in that way, as a dismissive term? In fact, it is a staggering display of ingnorance of the origins of art itself. So I guess he never read Schuster (see my Patterns That Connect journal entry) or Gombrich for that matter. Is this a disease brought on by modern life itself, an aberration spread by industrialisation? The Symbolists tried to heal the situation, but they were swept away finally by the Great War, many forgotten, some co-opted into Surrealism and Expressionism.
The situation is improving, at least in art. It seems that Symbolism is having a major resurgence, due to the mass popularity of new underground movements, starting with grafitti and street art and blossoming in the "low-brow" world. Artists are not afraid to tap into ancient forms, to be unabashedly decorative, calligraphic, and to tell stories in their work. These graphics can give us strength, can be totems for life, and serve purposes that ancient art used to.
I wonder if that bitter man has passed on. Maybe next time I go back to California I will try to find that shop. It is almost certainly gone. But if not, if by some strange miracle that man is still there, I will have some interesting things to say to him...
resident clubs:







flora and fauna:






cabinet of curiosities:



watercolor wizard, golden age mastermind, kind human being, friend:

"...the labyrinth of invisible pathways which meander all over Australia...are known to Europeans as 'Dreaming-tracks' or 'Songlines'; [and] to the Aboriginals as the 'Footprints of the Ancestors' or the 'Way of the Law'.
--Bruce Chatwin