THE SHEEP FROM THE GOATS, THE CHAFF FROM THE WHEAT

by Paul Henrickson, Ph.D.

tm. 2010

While these expressions rather grossly indicate the process of selection and rejection, they hardly indicate subtle distinctions in quality which enhance and ennoble other selection processes. After all, few are unable to tell the difference between a sheep and a goat, at least it is not difficult in the domestic varieties and who might not be able to tell the difference between the shells of vegetable matter that covers the fertile kernel. In the matter of aesthetic expression, however, the process is somewhat more complex. I would like to explore that area of investigation by selecting out from the collection of images in my image file those works, which in my opinion, do not qualify as creative works and adjoining them those works that are, in my opinion, creative works of art and in all cases offer reasons why I have made those decisions. ARE ARE NOT

I imagine that what will probably emerge from this short explanatory statement is that for a work to reach the level of being a creative statement it must take whatever the original reality level may be and extend, or mold, that original level to a different spatial position. Spatial was the word chosen in order to indicate that points of view can be considered as having locations in space.

10 In this exercise there is no need to identify the artists whose works these are as our major focus is not on their reputations (which might interfere with what we need to focus on)but on the qualities of the works themselves, the so-called aesthetic qualities. Pair #1 in this instance we have two figures representing a female human figure. On the left the anatomy of the body has been clearly distorted and moved into what may be seen as a composition of ellipses. We might, therefore, read from that that it was the artist s intention to tell us that what captured his imagination in the body that may have been before him. It seems, also, fairly evident that the body s potential as an erotic object was ignored. On the right we have a female body that very clearly delineates the various levels, types of flesh, and some suggestion as to the function of the body parts. It is an anatomical rendering of the human body that somehow borders on the possibility of its being a work of art primarily because of where it has been situated .not in a class room where anatomy is studied, but in a public space where, normally, not an anatomical item, but a work of art would be placed, therefore, those who decided to place it here may have been testing the observer s expectations as to the function of all such items when they are in public places.

Pair #2: The drawing on the left shows a woman with her head cradled in her arms and resting on a table. A not too close an examination reveals that even while the marks the artist has made show us what we need to see in order to understand what is going on, the marks, isolated from the subject matter describe nothing at all, but are simply what they essentially are without a subject matter at all, any subject matter at all. We might ask ourselves what our reactions might be were a few of those marks removed from the original drawing and placed on a new sheet of paper might be in terms of its being a work of art. The work on the right is very well known as is what passes for a philosophy that is intended to explain the apotheotic shift if focus from the elite in expression to the vulgar and the commonplace and which gets a mantel of acceptabilty with the normative POP ART . There are some examples of what people call Pop Art which I find much more interesting and acceptable which have not resorted to the level of the childish thrill of something. The third pair shows us on the left a Rabbi carrying a Torah and on the right a Coyote (slang in New Mexico for a mixed Hispanic and Anglo). The artist on the left who, normally an unashamed academic draughtsman, here has created a juxtapositioned veneer of color which, if one were to consider the site being a darkened smoke-filled synagogue pass for the experience of blurred vision . The burning piano, perhaps, a pictorial reference to hot Jazz is a composition of sorts of strait lines and unmodulated color. Subtlety rules on the left and is blatantly absent on the right. My guess would be that the probability of significant aesthetic reward lies with subtlety at least in this case. The fourth pair offers us an opportunity to go in many directions. Perhaps, primarily it instructs us in the manner of the many directions the term illustration might take us. Even for the casual observer the one on the right immediately tells us that this image is one conjured up from literary or, maybe, oral sauces. It is not an image experienced from direct contact, yet, I would wager, that even today there would be a significant number of people who would unblushingly admire the technical excellence in, for example, depicting the conformation of a horse s mouth, the historical accuracy of a shield or mace .or a dead kid a collateral casualty, as it were, although that term probably did not exist at the time of the incident or its depiction. By way of sharp distinction the one on the left is clearly the result of direct and sensitively perceptive vision and the recording of that vision. It would, I think, be a valid approach within the field of art criticism to judge the inherent values of these illustrative approaches to their intended audiences. I do not wish to take that job on in this paper. It is enough, I believe, for me to have pointed it out. For those who may object to being encouraged to think things out for themselves, rightly or wrongly, I can only state that I reject the opportunity to become a popular expert for I am as lost and as fumbling as the best of them. The fifth pair is a pair that really thrills me for the sharp distinction they make within the arena of depicted drama. While they both are examples of depicted drama it is the one on the right that exemplifies that chillingly vacuumed academic approach. How wonderful the artist is in being able to show us that one is a figure is a man, another is a bull and the scene is slaughter while the one on the

left leaves the viewer aghast at the ability of metal to translate, transmit to and inform the viewer of the meaning and torment of pain. The viewer is transfixed and becomes, himself, the embodiment of the orans, one with arms outstretched, helpless, in the attitude, perhaps, of prayer and often, although the definition doesn t expressly state it with mouth open. In any event this is, from my point of view the artists supremely successful works and far exceeds all his other work which I find academic, well behaved and, in comparison, dull. I wonder how the artist might have felt about this work. The piece mutes the argument as to whether the purpose of art is to move the spirit. The sixth pair of images presents, in some ways, a more difficult problem which may be because both are to a great extent, more than the previous images, no-objective. But even that term non-objective causes some difficulty for it could suggest not only that there is no object being depicted, which is the usual meaning of the term but could also be used to suggest that the non-objective work is not, itself, an object. Well, it is clearly an object, both of these and within the limits of our vocabulary we shall try to discover the differences between them. To begin with both works have similar colors, although, at first glance this does not seem to be true. The one on the left has 2 greens, 2 blues and an orange. The one on the right has two purples, a blue, a green and an orange. The one on the left is made up largely of straight lines, the one on the right of straight and curved. The one on the right has been arranged using one basic unit, a pin-wheel design. This has been quartered and dispersed to four corners. Both make squares. Copies of these squares were subsequently arranged in an alternating pattern both vertically and horizontally. The regularly of this alternating pattern emphasizes the plane nature of the original surface. It is in this respect that the one on the left significantly differs from that on the right. The original plane surface has been visually manipulated so as to create the impression of a crumpled piece of painted paper .or, something like that. Pair r #7 shows us greater than life size bronze door with images of people clinging or falling off and a giant figure on the lintel who might look as though he were thinking, but could also appear as though, since he is naked, he is sitting on a toilet and if not thinking at least abstracted. Some may have noticed that cats too are very abstracted when they defecate. The figure on the right, also bronze, I believe, but at least colored as a red apple might be. But it shows an apple core, wastefully eaten and seemingly discarded which had there been a real apple core would probably not have been immortalized as an adornment in a park. I think it a reasonable question to ask what the genesis of these works might be. It would, I think, not be difficult to imagine the source for the idea of creating an image of what turned out to be The Gates of Hell , for gates, Hell, nude bodies and the like have many earlier prototypes to provide an answer to origins. It becomes, basically, a matter of understanding tradition and variations on it so that any recent particular work might add insight to the theme. If we accept this source as an explanation and attempt to apply it to the apple core which also is greater than life size by many times more than the Gates we are forced to recognize the possibility that its creator recognized tradition but wanted to flout it because doing so also has a tradition and one might

conclude that following traditions is a virtue from which follows the acceptance of the bride who chooses a bright red wedding gown. We might also assume that picturing the Gates of Hell might be, in the lives of most human beings, a singular event. On the other hand it is not so rare to see an apple core lying about, but the size of this one and its position of having been subject to a monumental divination through it size and position forces upon us the requirement to explain the apotheosis of common place castoffs. Is this, perhaps, an example of impoverished imagination? Is this a puerile attempt at humor? What expenditure of funds was brought about in connection with this display of an apple core? Does the expenditure of any fund justify an action which appears nonsensical? Is its limited humorous appeal sufficient to justify the behavior? Is there, after all, virtue in a paradox? The eighth pair of images is more easily understood since it, like the pair seems to be explained by the organization of each. The one on the right a simple red circle with specs of blue randomly placed within the circumference and then a simple tinted background possessing little variation. The image on the left takes the basic theme of circle and shows us several variations upon that theme in a single color, brown, but with a breadth of variations from light to dark that offers visual stimulation and suggests some sort of logical progression. While it is hardly a fully explored or complicated thesis it holds s our attention for a significantly longer period time than does the red dot. At this point it may be argued whether the length of time of attention is a valid measure of value. In pair #4 the right hand image requires considerable time to digest all the visual information, and the technical detail as well as their purposes which enrich the observer s understanding of the meaning of the illustration. But the time to accomplish that is necessary if the work is to be understood. The left hand image in pair #8 also contains considerable detail, but it is not detail which references real objects which tell details about a complicated subject matter. It is detail which belongs only to the image on the paper and after the observer takes in that detail his obligation, if he is to understand what he is looking at, is to accept the image on its own terms, in its own realm of existence and not as reference to an object in yet another reality. I find the number 9 pair of particular interest, in part, because the most obvious characteristic they have in common is their shininess, one is polished brass, the other has parts of glimmering gold as well as the polished lapis. This characteristic is to begin with rather superficial, except that in the image on he left we see moving human figure and the reflections from the various polished facets of brass enhance that sense of movement whereas, in the example of the lapis bearded bull, presumably a very symbolic icon, perhaps meant to reference the dominance of a male political leader everything appears static, there is no movement, an important note to make if this figuration was meant to support the social status quo it might be remembered that leaders, no matter what their contemporary claims, do not want change, or are unable t bring it about if they wish to remain a leader. The moving figure on the left makes no obvious political statement. It merely depicts with considerable objectivity, but still with passion, what physically happens when a person walks from one place to

another moving the invisible air about. Together with the figure of Job above I find it a superb work of art In pair number 10 we have what is technically referred to as collage, that is, a collection of pieces (of something) brought together into some sort of composition. In the item to the right we have various images of things, or actual things, such as the doily cut paper and brought into composition which seems to tell story. What that story is we may not be sure and the value of the piece may be one which encourages the viewer to create his own story. We are able, more or less, to identify the items as items which originated from the real world. The item to the left has been made up of cut-up photographs, but cut up in such a fashion as to destroy any readily recognizable item from the real world. There do remain sufficient clues as to the original identities, but those identities are no longer important except as to some of their qualities, for example shape, color and value and how they play a non-subject role in the final composition. From that, then, comes the expectation that the viewer is thrown back upon his own abilities to sense and to perceive and to arrive at judgments from these experiences that will be consistent with is there within the work itself.