Form Porn
If you follow the progress of an individual artist, you will discover for yourself one piece which epitomizes the artist's mastery of his craft. I emphasize 'for yourself' because it is truly 'you' whom you discover. The artist-and the work of art-for that matter, are but means to an end. What I call the artist's epitome piece is not necessarily the artist's masterpiece, which is probably a settled matter with famous artists, anyway; it is rather the pinnacle of the artist's focus of attention, in which is concentrated-in one work of art-a career peak-of-achievement. The sad irony is that the artist doesn't appreciate his achievement, leaving the rest of us wondering, "Why didn't he do more like it?"
Art is a craft (not a liberal art) however, the key work of art cited above might be compared to the post-graduate dissertation published by a graduate professional who, afterwards, goes on to greater achievements. It is a stepping stone. Indeed, this debut statement may be cause for embarrassment later in the professional's career. It is a breakthrough, a testament, a stand taken by the professional. The artist's quintessential piece is such a stand. It is a commitment, a pledge. Normally, I am satisfied to identify the artist's quintessential piece-without comment-merely enjoying it for the excitement of discovery. My latest "discovery" makes it impossible (for me) to hide.
It has become a pattern (for me) recognizing the subject artist's moment of absolute mastery -and which demands acknowledgment. It is useful in explaining, by example, phenomenology -another of my interests. My position on phenomenology is that, as there is no consciousness without an object of consciousness, neither is there (inversely) an object without consciousness. The novelty of the “reality is in the mind” paradox has long worn-off since first postulated. What may appear to be a circular argument, is what (I argue) epitomizes the artist's quintessential expression of competence, the key object of his artistic oeuvre. It is the coupling of an artist's mastery over his craft, in a unique expression-within his complete life's work-and which, incidentally, includes the third-person observer who joins the artist in the moment of absolute creative consciousness. That's you (and me).
Let it at last be said: consciousness is creative. I have read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in its entirety. I read it much the way I scrutinize an individual artist's life work: one page at a time, beginning-to-end. I must admit most of what Kant wrote I do not understand, with the exception of one paragraph, which lucidly demonstrated (to me) his entire philosophy of phenomenology, which is, that reality is in the mind. In that moment of scholarly insight it all made perfect sense, and I wondered why I had found it necessary to read the whole book for just one paragraph, other than that without having read the whole book, I would not have discovered the quintessential paragraph which elucidated the whole of Kant's philosophy of mind.
In other words, it was the quintessential product, the distillate which made it all worthwhile. It brings to mind a line by a poet of the sublime, who wrote, "And out of the blinding brightness of the crown grew an eye..." in speaking of the Divine immanence. This allusion bears on the matter of conscious objects. Provided data tells us that in his cognitive decline, "Kant experienced classic hallucinations (such as seeing people or objects that weren't there), visual disturbances and perceptual anomalies." This circumstance goes directly-literally-to the matter of mind and reality. There is a metaphysics and there is a physics of reality. For Kant, perception became more than a paradox. It became a disability.
Abstraction in art is, in the broadest definition, a perceptual anomaly. Whatever else maybe said about abstraction, one thing that it is not, is what is traditionally called “real,” or realism; artistically speaking: academic representation. Abstraction is never real. The abstract work of art is always a figment of the imagination. That is its most distinctive feature, the proverbial “elephant in the sacristy.” Where Kant comes into the picture is in the matter of cognitive ability, or disability, the perception of what isn't there (in reality). Going beyond philosophy of phenomenology, works of art-abstract works of art-can be beautiful, sublimely beautiful in the visionary sense, and yet a hallucination.
The painting by the artist Charles Sheeler, titled “Flower Forms” (1917), is such a vision of sublimely beautiful nothingness. It is currently in the collection of the Terra Museum of American Art, in Evanston, Illinois. If you thought you knew Sheeler, “Flower Forms” will come as a surprise. If the work is not better-known, it is because it is a hothouse variety, a true artistic cultivar, not some stray prairie wildflower. "Flower Forms" is voluptuous. If I were a psychologist, I might venture an analysis of the Freudian symbolism of its sensuous forms. It actually appeared in a history of early 20th century modernism, published as an expert exegesis of the bifurcation of Cubism into the decorative figurative abstraction of Matisse, opposite the abstract figurative style of Picasso, and resolved by Americans (like Sheeler) in a distinctive style of non-figurative abstraction -which is, incidentally, beautiful.
That in itself is an achievement. Consider: abstract art which is beautiful to look at, and as thoughtful as it is beautiful to see. My choice as quintessential piece is nothing like Sheeler's familiar repertoire of stark industrial and urban scenes, the familiar jagged shadow patterns and hard edges which lend Sheeler's art a modern-ist, Art Deco effect. “Flower Forms” gives the lie to the alleged provincialism of early 20th century American art. "Flower Forms" transcends the grit of American materialism, part of a long-standing counter-movement in American literature, philosophy, and art. That this style of beautiful abstraction never caught-on, unlike Abstract Expressionism, is probably because it goes against the grain of deep-grained American common sense. As they say, if it sounds too good to be true, it's probably not; analogously, if it looks too good to be real, it (probably) is not.