Back to the Wall
When I first read Sartre's "Being and Nothingness" it would be an understatement to say I was perplexed. After attending his play No Exit, on the other hand, I was not. It is all about freedom -or not (being free.) What I looked for from Sartre was a rational explanation of the phenomenon of Modern Art. What I came away with was an understanding of the Human Condition in the 20th Century. It's all about making tough choices -or not choosing.
I'll admit I was too demanding. I had a lot to learn. None but a strict formalist would deny that what is distinctive about Modern Art is the human, all too human, condition of the artist. As incidental, circumstantial, and material, as the artist's condition is to his art, like the proverbial elephant in the sacristy, it is hard to ignore. Since Vincent van Gogh, the artist's (any artist's) mental health is a factor in his (and every artist's) artwork's assessment.
Since Vincent, the artist's condition has expanded to include more than mental health. My own art is concerned with homelessness, another state-of-being of the human condition. "There but for the grace of God go I" is how I atone for conscience. Most of my writing about my own art is an apologia for being unable to do anything, in fact, about homelessness.
To do anything about homelessness, that is, but painting. I tell it, that is to say, I show it, like it is in my painting. I am a realist and, as a painter of reality, I don't cover up or make excuses for the sorry state of the homeless. I don't blame the victim -but I also don't avert my gaze in disgust.
It's a fascinating subject once you get past the hypocrisy. What touches a nerve is the implicit cause of homelessness, the misfortune, and the human failure that led to this state-of-being. What happened? If you look closely you will pick-up on details, such as litter, revealing clues to the causes, the contributing factors, of a subject's homeless state.
Glass bottles, for instance, or big, aluminum cans. They tell on the homeless subject's alcoholism. An empty cup probably means the subject is a drug addict. Junkies are always desperate for money to buy a fix. I find it impossible not to conclude that the homeless subject's condition is a result of substance abuse.
Yet more telling (because more obvious than the paraphernalia of substance abuse), are the victim's rags, stolen shopping cart, his laying down passed-out on the sidewalk. How can anyone live this way? Because they are not free to escape their situation.
Most of the figures in my paintings are laying down on the ground. A few are sitting on the sidewalk. Very few are on their feet. They are mostly passed out, or catatonic. If on their feet, they are staggering, lurching, exhibiting uncoordinated movements, twitching, itching, head-in-hands sobbing.
Another artist of note who appears to be concerned about the Human Condition of substance abuse is Wendy Kveck. The artist's painting "Munch" (2014) is exhibited, as part of a survey of contemporary art, at the Barrick, in Las Vegas. "Munch" is in oil paint, thinned with turpentine, on canvas. It looks to the viewer to be about 36" wide by 48" in height.
At a glance "Munch" looked to me like the work of Soutine, one of the Montmartre artists of the post-World War I decade in France. Yes, it's that good! It's also that bad, meaning what it says about the human condition, that is. Great painting - sorry statement.
Soutine was an unashamed alcoholic, and the effect of his condition on his artwork is an established condition for the appreciation of his work. Soutine's ungainly figures - much like "Munch" - suffer from impaired motor control. They look uncoordinated, almost spastic, as if in the throes of an attack of delirium tremens.
The irony is that Soutine painted his affliction with a steady hand. His style is robust. He, truth be told, was not. He was not in good health when he painted his greatest masterpieces. The art of Soutine is great. The backstory is troubling. We love your paintings, Soutine, but the pleasure we take in them makes us feel guilty.
Would I sacrifice great art for a healthy artist? Likewise, we are a little concerned about the subject of Wendy Kveck's painting. Besides the fact that it looks like a Soutine, what else about it suggests substance abuse? Well, the title, for one thing. As anyone who lived through the 1960s knows, "munchies" refers to the Marijuana munchies.
And as such we read "Munch," by Wendy Kveck. Quoted here, in part (verbatim), from the gallery notes posted next to the painting: "This vision of women expressing emotions around food plays an ongoing role in her oeuvre." It is the bottom line, "emotions around food," that summarizes the problem.
"Emotions" is a vague term including, or included in, psychology. I won't beat around the bush. The impaired motor control expressed in the painting, plus the title, reminds me of the behavioral syndrome of compulsive eating that immediately follows the smoking of Marijuana. And, Wendy Kveck is known for dealing with eating issues (conflicts) in her art.
That's what I call telling. Hints. Clues. Signs. Compulsive eating is a frequency on the compulsion spectrum, which includes smoking, drinking and drugs. It is also a charade, a game of talking about what cannot be said, while being shown openly. This makes it a serious matter for everyone. It is serious art.
They say that Marijuana use doesn't necessarily lead to narcotics, but that in every case of narcotics addiction, it began with Marijuana. It should be added that before Marijuana use came critical trial of drinking and smoking. It all started with a choice.
Marijuana is more difficult for the underage to obtain than alcohol and cigarettes, which may have been tried first, at home. And, to close the circle, emotional (psychological) eating issues preceded the trying of smoking and drinking.
Both of which are (when no longer minors) easily obtained by affluent adults. Add to the preceding circumstance that Marijuana has been decriminalized, and true substance abuse becomes a risk for everybody. It is a risk because the cycle is hard to escape. And, the cycle repeats itself.
No Exit. It's a trap. It is a drama about the un-free condition of compulsion, and the expressionistic rage that goes with it, both common denominators of Modern Art. I would go so far as to make it the essential trait of the Modern Artist. Art tells on the artist's condition. The artist tells on the Human Condition.