darkness

Franz von Stuck - Inferno (1908)
(detail) VILLA STVCK

i get off the subway, where i was reading. on the up escalator. a noisy crowd comes down across from me, dressed up for saturday night out on the town.

on the wall behind them, i notice a picture. it doesn't belong here, is a thorn in the flesh of this early summer night, so warm and promising. it is outrageous, violent. it's an ad for a museum and no-one seems to notice it. whose idea was it to place this infernal picture of a dominant female figure, submissive men and fiery backdrop in this urban environment?

the picture draws my thoughts back into the book i'd read on the train. Dorian Gray, invincible, lives not his dreams but his nightmares, corrupting his youthful admirers, getting away with murder, escaping retribution, haunting opium dens, pondering his potential for unequalled debauchery.

i come up the stairs, making my way past smiling couples that group around a band of street musicians, playing out of all things Rossini's Thieving Magpie and all i can think of is Alex & his droogs engaging in random acts of gratuitous violence.

Alex & his droogs

for a moment, i feel quite out of place, travelling through the happy evening light, among the lively chatter of bars and market stalls shrouded in my little cloud of gloomy thoughts. but then fortunately i am not a teenager anymore - i can experience situations and the feelings that come with them without having to physically place myself in them, through literature.

what matters is not potential, there is far too much of it and life is too short to ponder it. what matters is what we choose not to realize. i think of it like an inverse allegory of the cave, maybe there is more out there, inside me, that i have not seen but i am better off only seeing the shadows of.

as A Clockwork Orange asks the question of how we can be truly good if we lack the potential to be evil, Dorian Gray asks the reverse question of whether we would realise out worst impulses if given the chance.

it seems to me that the cushy pillows of modern medicine, economic well-being, recreational substances, and city life - we choose to keep relations as close or superficial as we wish - all give us that chance but thankfully, for most of us the answer is still no.

the potential, though, exists, and art can be an outlet for it. so what draws artists to think about darkness, what drew me to the infernal image? maybe the fascination with what is in all of us, curiosity to explore strange possibilities, and discover beauty in them.
entertaining? certainly. educational? probably. boring? never!

i arrive at my destination with a smile on my face and spend a lovely evening barbecueing with friends.

selected quotations from The Picture of Dorian Gray

my italics

The aim of life is self-development. To realize one's nature perfectly--that is what each of us is here for. People are afraid of themselves, nowadays. They have forgotten the highest of all duties, the duty that one owes to one's self.

... a psychological study of a certain young Parisian who spent his life trying to realize in the nineteenth century all the passions and modes of thought that belonged to every century except his own, and to sum up, as it were, in himself the various moods through which the world-spirit had ever passed, loving for their mere artificiality those renunciations that men have unwisely called virtue, as much as those natural rebellions that wise men still call sin.

He sought to elaborate some new scheme of life that would have its reasoned philosophy and its ordered principles, and find in the spiritualizing of the senses its highest realization.

... But it appeared to Dorian Gray that the true nature of the senses had never been understood, and that they had remained savage and animal merely because the world had sought to starve them into submission or to kill them by pain, instead of aiming at making them elements of a new spirituality, of which a fine instinct for beauty was to be the dominant characteristic. As he looked back upon man moving through history, he was haunted by a feeling of loss. So much had been surrendered! and to such little purpose! There had been mad wilful rejections, monstrous forms of self-torture and self-denial, whose origin was fear and whose result was a degradation infinitely more terrible than that fancied degradation from which, in their ignorance, they had sought to escape;

... Yes: there was to be ... a new Hedonism that was to recreate life and to save it from that harsh uncomely puritanism that is having, in our own day, its curious revival. It was to have its service of the intellect, certainly, yet it was never to accept any theory or system that would involve the sacrifice of any mode of passionate experience. Its aim, indeed, was to be experience itself, and not the fruits of experience, sweet or bitter as they might be. Of the asceticism that deadens the senses, as of the vulgar profligacy that dulls them, it was to know nothing. But it was to teach man to concentrate himself upon the moments of a life that is itself but a moment.

Is insincerity such a terrible thing? I think not. It is merely a method by which we can multiply our personalities.

Such, at any rate, was Dorian Gray's opinion. He used to wonder at the shallow psychology of those who conceive the ego in man as a thing simple, permanent, reliable, and of one essence. To him, man was a being with myriad lives and myriad sensations, a complex multiform creature that bore within itself strange legacies of thought and passion, and whose very flesh was tainted with the monstrous maladies of the dead. ... Were his own actions merely the dreams that the dead man had not dared to realize?

Dorian Gray had been poisoned by a book. There were moments when he looked on evil simply as a mode through which he could realize his conception of the beautiful.

but is it? is it art?

i have had many discussions about this question, and none of them were boring. are there any criteria for art to be enjoyable or is it a feeling that just happens? i'll try to answer it from my perspective so that hopefully i'll hear of yours - i'm curious!

DOB original blue

so when does art speak to me? let me use the example of some well-known pieces. it makes for familiar ground and more colourful reading. i will use modern art because only in the 20th century was the artist liberated from the traditional task of depicting that which can be seen, to finally focus on that which cannot.
so i'm at this art gallery for a particular exhibition. there is a lot to see, a recurring theme seems to be this cutesy cartoon character. i don't think much of it, walk on.

Melting DOB E

somewhat later, i encounter its reincarnations, with grinning grills and sharp fangs, interestingly warped. a contrast of sorts. cute and dangerous, one and many, standard and weird, good and evil. that's probably it. a very familiar theme, nothing to see here, move right along.

Tan Tan Bo
Italian max

further on, with me barely noticing, different colours appear, wholly different colour schemes. ok, an extension of the simple idea of contrasts. the negative colour palette is slightly unnerving. standing a portrait on its head can make a smiling face look like it's frowning. a colour negative to me looks ... wrong.

then, a vast multipanelled, twistedly gorgeous painting. no cuteness, no straight-up good vs. evil. a comparatively tiny speech bubble at the center left, whose translation i sadly haven't found on the web so far, helps to understand what it is meant to say.
it's the discomfortingly fascinating unadulterated despair of the bile spewing, moribund DOB that doesn't seem to sit well with the cartoon character. and here it is, the clash of ideas, the juxtaposition of perspectives, the strangeness that makes me ponder a work of art even when i have long left the building.

Tan Tan Bo Puking aka Gero Tan

i can't exclude the possibility that, as i was viewing the exhibition chronologically, the earlier pieces (that i hadn't paid attention to) prepared me for the appreciation of art i experienced at the last one. the end result though, no matter if it concerns the last piece or the entire exhibition, is for me that i felt because i was interested. feeling art to me is linked to motivation, the challenge to grasp its content. the accompanying superflat style of the pieces adds to the content but, by itself, doesn't interest me. it is a technique of simplification that lets the unseen shine more brightly. it may make something look pretty but it is not beautiful. for me, beauty in the post-19th century sense emerges from the inside of an artwork.

Orange Eater

since the topic of this post is paintings, it is tempting to keep literally illustrating this notion. :) the munich museum of modern art has a room full with works of Baselitz, who, for some reason, at one point decided to paint upside down. one recurring subject is the orange eater, left. i haven't found anything online in terms of why he is interested in this subject, save for the usual babble along the lines of "the intense colour jumps out at the viewer" (read, i have no idea what i am talking about). so if you know why he paints those, let me know. i want to talk about another piece though.

Eagle, Remixed
masdearte.com

the eagle, by the same artist, is also a revisited subject. knowing that the artist paints upside down we can recognise that this eagle is soaring or landing. what intrigues me is that we can choose to ignore that knowledge and let the same eagle plummet, trundle downward, helplessly. that way we can conjure up a dualism that would be difficult to attain if the painting hung the other way round. add to this the fact that the eagle is a national symbol of germany and can be found displayed prominently in german parliament and in the german coat of arms and you may understand why i mention this piece. at one point it hung in the office of the then german chancellor Schröder. i wonder what his reasons were and if he thought the same way about it.

American McGee's Alice

how about computer games? people like them, they are commercially successful. is there art in them? i don't have time to play these days but i can remember back when i did, on occasion i was put in awe. one such example is American McGee's Alice. the premise is that Alice is in a mental institution due to losing her parents at a young age and we are playing for her sanity, inside her mind.

Beksiński 1981

i think the game does a great job of depicting that which we cannot see. something is tangibly wrong, door frames are all skewed, we walk into empty rooms that are suddenly full of strange creatures, objects fly around, and, every so often, the floor literally drops out from beneath our feet. we jump between ice floes of sanity that unrelyably keep us afloat over the cold sea of nothingness. this unnerving scenery evolves as the story unfolds. yes, i think there is art to be found here. still images, however, don't do it justice, it has to be played. a video capture of someone else's gameplay is the next best thing.

American McGee's Alice captured gameplay. mute the comment if you want

so i'm not a purist, i find art in many things. what, then, isn't art for me? i can think of a few issues with some pieces purporting to be art. the act of taking an everyday object, giving it a title and placing it out of context, in a gallery, doesn't make it art for me. i'm not saying that there needs to be skill in creating art. what i mean is that the mere act of provocation is not enough. it's too easy.
in the same way, stating the obvious, too, doesn't do it for me. if there is just one clever idea expressed in an obvious way i think, hm, neat, and walk on. if that single idea is used again and again it gets on my nerves. piling on clever ideas doesn't help. two ideas, even if they are different, disjointly united in one piece with no relation between them other than trying to impress the audience, might as well be hanging at different ends of the gallery.

one subject, one issue, one clever idea is not enough. there need to be at least two, and they need to interact, intersect, compete. which brings me back to Kundera's Unbearable Lightness of Being. in it, the character Sabina is an artist rebelling against socialist realism by having the true nature of the objects of her art break through the surface.

Sabina's paintings, past and present, did indeed treat the same idea, that they all featured the confluence of two themes, two worlds, that they were all double exposures ... On the surface, an intelligible lie; underneath, the unintelligible truth ... A landscape showing an old-fashioned table lamp shining through it. An idyllic still life of apples, nuts, and a tiny, candle-lit Christmas tree showing a hand ripping through the canvas.

i read this only recently and found my own idea of what i appreciate in art confirmed. it's good to be reassured.

---

ps: hunting down pictures for this post has been fun. through google image search, i found quite a few interesting pages discussing art. here's one, If you could own one peice of art (sic). googling "if you could own one piece of art" brings up a whole bunch more to look at. enjoy. and if you want, tell me your favourite!