Archive for February, 2009

AM Silhouette

 

A. M. Silhouette

A. M. Silhouette

       (click on image for larger view)

Mezzotint from copper plate.

Tags: , ,

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 Figurative Works I No Comments

Sai

 

Sai

Sai

        (click on image for larger view) 

Drypoint on copper plate.

Tags: , ,

Wednesday, February 25th, 2009 Figurative Works I No Comments

Small Etchings (3″ x 4″)

"A Wonderful Bird..."         

   “A Wonderful Bird. . .”                   Piper Pair                              (click on image for larger view)

          

    N. of Trinidad                           Marine Wildlife

Tags: , , ,

Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 Nautical and Marine Images I No Comments

Art by Definition

It seems to be my nature to try to reduce things to their essence. I do this unconsciously. Concepts bubble away in my mind at low temperature until some quintessential expression surfaces which satisfies my need. One of the most difficult that I have ever struggled with is the concept of art. I have made my living within the art field for a considerable amount of time, and I still feel very cautious about trying to define art, or who is an artist and who is not.

Part of my difficulty comes from my training in science and engineering. These are  objective fields whereas art is subjective. In engineering, if something works … it’s right, if it doesn’t work …. it’s wrong. Degrees of right or wrong do exist, but that is the general thrust. In art there are so many individual points of view it is quite difficult to make generalized statements. Nevertheless I am compelled to try.

Art is what artists do, and conversely, an artist is a person who does art. I know that sounds so obvious that it’s silly, but if you accept this, at least we have narrowed the field semantically. Here is what my Webster’s New Collegiate says about art:

1.a: skill in performance acquired by experience, study, or observation.

b: human ingenuity in adapting natural things to man’s use.

and Webster says an artist is:

1.a: one who professes and practices an art in which conception and

execution are governed by imagination and taste.  b: a person skilled in one of the fine arts.

I rather like those, particularly the emphasis on skill and the line about “ingenuity in adapting natural things to man’s use.” But before going any further I should say that I am referring to fine art as opposed to commercial art. I’ll explore that distinction after this lament:

A trend in art schools and among the art intelligencia (professors, critics, curators, etc.) seems to urge an ever expanding definition of art. Increasingly diverse endeavors are included under this heading. In competitions where members of this group are jurors (and that is more often than not) they usually hang ribbons by works which are unusual or unexpected and therefore original, all other qualities being secondary. Craftsmanship and beauty are frequently sacrificed on this cross of originality. In their eagerness to comply, the budding young art students often create ugly, poorly executed, but unusual pieces. In fact, it often appears that what makes them so unusual is their aesthetic shortcomings. Beauty is derided as “pretty,” and craftsmanship is mere “technique” or “facility.”

Proceeding in this manner the art intelligencia has produced a definition of fine art of such breadth that it encompasses almost everything. This reductio ad absurdum (is that an oxymoron?) is diluting the whole concept of fine art. In some cases one can no longer distinguish art from a random happening, and the artist is indistinguishable from anybody else. I have also heard art defined as a process of self discovery. Again, a very broad definition, and probably true, but you might as well be speaking of life itself. Surely we can be more specific than that.

One school of thought maintains that in order for a work to be significant art, it should make a statement usually something of socially redeeming importance. I agree that art can do this, but I believe it is of secondary importance. By way of contrast, James A. McNeil Whistler, an undisputedly fine artist, composed and delivered what he called his “Ten O’clock Lecture,” which dealt at length with the subject at hand. In it he spoke of art as:

“She [art] is a goddess of dainty thought — reticent of habit, abjuring

all obtrusiveness, proposing in no way to better others.”

Instead of “statement,” I like the word “content.” A statement is best made with words in a left brained medium like writing with its capacity to be specific and express sequential development. Art makes use of images and is, therefore, right brained in nature. Art is much better for conveying or producing an immediate impression. This, in part, accounts for the difficulty of writing a comprehensive definition of art in the first place. Because of its very nature, art is easier to recognize than define.

Art critics reviewing shows try to express with words what is best done with the brush. The resulting verbal contortions are often amusing. Of course, I could be accused of attempting to do the same thing, in a general way, as I accuse the critics of doing in particular. This defining art is a tricky business. However, I will put forth my candidate definitions, but first something about purpose and skill that I believe bear on the definition.

A second school of thought is in some ways just the opposite of the “make a statement” people. The proponents maintain that an artist should never set out to do anything in particular, that serendipity should reign supreme. One should simply begin and let the vagaries of the medium suggest a path to be followed. Works accomplished in this manner have energy, vitality, and are expressive, displaying a spontaneity which is the true measure of the artist. Further, those who begin work with an intended purpose are not really producing fine art, but instead are making illustrations, and are consequently lowered in status to illustrators.

This approach, carried to its logical conclusion, produced the abstract expressionists. I do not deny the validity of this approach as I have seen fine works accomplished in this manner. Works of the abstract expressionists can be decorative and pleasing to the eye, but often lack content. One of the largest markets for such work is the decoration of corporate and government offices. Because of its lack of content, it can be hung in the lobby of their headquarters without running the risk of offending anyone.

The trouble with being guided primarily by serendipity is it minimizes forethought. On this planet forethought is a uniquely human quality. Products of forethought, or planning, have characteristics which are easily recognizable. A chimpanzee can paint with energy and vitality. His efforts might even be called expressive, but only a human being can create a work of art in which another human being can ascertain a reasoned thought process or purpose.

Many works by abstract expressionists have the look of something found in nature. “Organic” is a term often used to describe them. I have seen slices from a moss agate or enlargements of photos taken through a microscope that could easily pass for a painting by an abstract expressionist. To the extent that a work of art resembles a random happening I am bothered by the lack of human content. I like art which speaks of the artist, art that reflects the humanity of its creator. Art is, after all, something that is done by human beings.

rockwell018

How many times have you heard a person standing in front of a large abstract painting say, “Oh, I could do that.” The usual retort is, “Maybe, but you didn’t.”

Unfortunately, a large degree of truth exists in such spontaneous reactions. The abstract expressionist loses his uniqueness as an artist and human being. His skill is not readily apparent. In essence, the medium becomes the artist and the artist simply an applicator and that is something that most people can do.

Human endeavors are recognizable as human endeavors because they display intelligent purpose. When an archeologist goes into the field to search for evidence of ancient human presence, how does he know when he has found it? He knows when he sees the randomness of natural elements ordered in some way to serve a purpose. The particular purpose may not be apparent, it may be symbolic, but the fact that a purpose was involved is easily recognizable. The archeologist suspects  that human beings were present, even if only several stones are found in a straight line. When gazing at the night sky the human eye is quickly drawn to Orion’s Belt for the same reason. Three stars of equal magnitude, evenly spaced, in a straight line, it looks like the work of the human mind. Consequently, I see no harm in approaching a work of art with purpose. Serendipity is a valuable tool and it will add spontaneity to a piece, but it should not allow the medium to overrule the artist.

At this point I should separate art from other human activity. Art, fine art, tends to be symbolic rather than functional. It often tends to represent something rather than be something. It attempts to capture an essence. But that is not quite enough. It must also do this so as to create a harmony of its various aspects and elements. I suspect this relates to the structure of the human brain. Certain patterns and combinations seem to fit our brains better than others. A tune is more pleasing than a kitten on the keys.

If all artists are human beings, are all human beings artists? I think not. Since all human characteristics are distributed on a bell curve or normal distribution, some human beings will be better at creating the “fit” than others and they are the artists. It’s all a matter of degree, of course, and it’s entirely possible that no human is completely devoid of this ability, but the difference from one end of the spectrum to the other is pronounced enough to deserve a word to describe those with the ability, and that word is “artist.”

The skill or talent of an artist is most apparent when he or she displays control over the medium. When, through innate ability and/or experience, artists are capable of causing the medium to serve their purpose, it will be readily apparent to the observer. Works produced in this manner will have content. They will say what the artist intended, and they will say something about the artist.

Control over the medium can be carried too far, of course, resulting in a stiff or slick look, but most of the shortcomings I see are in the other direction. After all, mastering composition, perspective, light, form, and color takes time and effort, not to mention the handling characteristics of a particular medium. Many people would like to “leap frog” the whole process, but as an art teacher friend of mine is fond of saying, “the only way out is through.”

As for difference between fine art and commercial art, the distinction is fairly clear. When the artist selects the image, medium and content, then he or she is at least attempting fine art. How fine it is will depend on the artist. When someone else pays the artist to produce what they want, the result is commercial art. As usual, a considerable gray area exists. For example, where do you place a portrait artist? The art intelligencia will often stretch the term “commercial” to include any work an artist undertakes with an eye toward its eventual sale. They feel that the selection by the artist of a popular subject matter or style sacrifices the all important originality. By scorning popular subject matter and style as “commercial” and thus removing popularity with the art buying public as a measure of merit, the art intelligencia is able to control the nature of art that will eventually receive critical acclaim.

Dilbert

Pity the plight of the fine art student. Perhaps in high school they discover that they enjoy creating in art classes, and maybe an innate ability reveals itself. Consequently, they decide to become a fine arts major in college. There they encounter the avante garde of the art world who direct their efforts toward the unusual and bizarre. Upon graduation, they are focused on what is probably the smallest segment of the art market, which, in total, is too small for them all anyway. And whereas all of their fellow students were prepared by the university to survive financially in their chosen field, just the reverse is true for them. Plenty of exceptions to this scenario exist, of course, but it is a common enough story. The lucky will find work in related fields as art teachers, curators, critics, etc., where, if they persist, they may eventually become part of the art intelligencia and thus perpetuate the cycle. I once read in an editorial of a national fine arts magazine that less than one percent of those formally trained in fine art actually make a living selling their work. It is something that I have never been able to accomplish.

I started this discourse with the intent of creating a comprehensive definition of art. Along the way, I realized the impossibility of that task and I spun off on a few tangents while developing a rationale, but now I feel the need to carry through. Here are my candidates for the great art definition competition:

Art is a skillful arrangement of elements assembled by a human being to produce a symbolic essence of the human experience.

An artist is a human being who possesses the skill to arrange elements in an order that produces a symbolic essence of the human experience.

These are inadequate, I know, but they are the best I could do. . . .  with words.

“The things we deal with in life are usually too complicated

to be represented by neat, compact expressions . . .”

“. . . in any case, one must not mistake defining things for

knowing what they are.”

Marvin Minsky

R.L. Mason

On the road in Alaska, 1986

Revised 2007

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 23rd, 2009 Art by Definition 1 Comment

The Basic Law of Civilization

Most major religions of the world contain a system of morals and ethics, and many of them will claim that these rules were handed down from on high by their deity. The deity’s authority is therefore behind the rules and the deity or deities will mete out punishment or reward depending on the degree of adherence to the rules by the individual, group, or society. The deities, for the most part, are metaphysical syntheses beyond the reach of the five senses. They have no direct base of evidence in the physical world so they tend to be quite different from one religion to the next. However, if you toss all these religions in the air and let all their differences winnow away in the wind, are there any basic similarities that drop out, any kernels of truth? It seems to me there are.

When all the chaff is blown away, their systems of morals and ethics, at least on the very basic level, seem to be remarkably similar. Why is that? Could it be that all the various societies governed by all these various religions have some common problems dealing with life in the real world? And could it be that this set of common problems has generated a set of practical remedies which is necessarily very similar from society to society (”like conditions produce like results”)? 

Well, if that is the case, then the systems of morals and ethics did not really come from a supernatural source. They were generated here on earth! It would appear, therefore, that civilization has been pretty much a bootstraps effort and its rules were not gifted upon us. We got them the old fashioned way. We learned them. 

The Sun, beneficial as it is shining down upon us, did not provide for civilization. It provided the setting and climate in which life could begin and it sustains life, but what we do with life is up to us. We have to figure out how to get along, and all the other life forms must do the same. Civilization is an attempt to assure survival through cooperation.

The next question appears to be, what are the rules that comprise the code for living in a civilized society? The enabling legislation for civilization if you will. Can they be distilled to some essential expression which is succinct and easily recognizable as true? A number of philosophers have had a go at this, and I paraphrase three who are often cited below:

Immanuel Kant came up with what he called the Categorical Imperative:

You should always act in accordance with the principles which you desire to be universal.

John Stuart Mill blessed us with the Doctrine of Utilitarianism:

That course of action is most just that does the most good for the greatest number of people.

But, the one I like best, the one that says it the clearest for me is often attributed to Jesus Christ but may predate him. It’s the good old-fashioned Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I have also heard this referred to as Reciprocal Altruism which sounds a little less folksy. Reciprocal Altruism, however, implies that your actions toward others should always be positive, and yes, that would be included under the Golden Rule. But simply refraining from negative actions towards others would also be included under the Golden Rule and yet would seem to be excluded from Reciprocal Altruism. Those who expound on Reciprocal Altruism suggest a evolutionary or genetic basis. I would argue, however, that the Golden Rule is derived from experience. It’s memes not genes.

I note that all of these are based entirely on practical considerations and have nothing whatsoever to do with any deity. It would appear, therefore, it is possible to be a good and moral person in the eyes of civilized society without subscribing to any of the orthodox religions. Bigots may deny you, but society in general will not be able to fault your actions if they are always in accordance with, for instance, the Golden Rule.

I would like to raise this Rule to the position of eminence which I think it deserves, free it from the doldrums of Sunday School dogma. I would do this by renaming it. I propose that it should be known as the Basic Law of Civilization. However, I will  refer to it from here forward as the Rule.  

You cannot have a civilized society unless the members of that society, individually and collectively are, for the most part, guided in their thoughts and actions by the Rule.  If it is not expressed explicitly by a society then it is at least observed implicitly and when observance of the Rule is neglected to some extent, then civilization will break down to the same extent. In fact, there is a relationship between the Rule and civilization which is “hand in glove.” One almost defines the shape of the other. If a civilization springs into existence from the whole cloth of some previous jungle state then the Rule is bound to be operating to some degree, and the greater the adherence, the higher the civilization. That’s my personal view at any rate.

Is civilization worthwhile?

Professing adherence to the Rule assumes that the result, namely civilization, is worthwhile. Is it? In some ways this is a more difficult question to answer than how to bring it about and maintain it. In 1986 as I traveled through Alaska, I read John McPhee’s book, Coming Into the Country, in which he describes the lives of the “river people” living along the Yukon River between Eagle and Circle. Many of these people were trying to get away from it all, to get back to nature, to basics. However, none of them are able to go completely native. Even the natives were no longer capable of that, because to do without civilization entirely is an extremely difficult way of life. You must become almost an animal. I met some of these river people and they had managed at least for a period of time to distance themselves from civilized society, but they still enjoyed the products of civilization. They had their rifles, outboard motors, chain saws, and they bought bulk foods processed in some distant factory to supplement their hunting.

Humans are not well equipped to lead an animal existence. We do not have sharp teeth and claws like a cat, and we cannot run as fast. Humans must rely on their intellect and the tools we develop are reflections of that intellect. We are tool using animals.

If you are attempting to live off the land, then a large portion of your mental and physical effort must be directed to simply surviving. Just obtaining your subsistence occupies the majority of your time. This can be very rewarding, but you don’t have time to stop and build a rifle even if you were capable. A rifle is a complex product of other tools that must be built first.

The products of civilization make life a lot easier. Hence, civilization makes life a lot easier. When you are part of the warp and woof of civilization you can afford the time to think about things other than surviving. You can take a trip, write a book, create a work of art, or anything else that gives you pleasure or satisfies your curiosity.

I have read that during the siege of Moscow by Napoleon, and later during the siege of Leningrad by Nazi Germany, men of great learning, philosophers, musicians, and scientists, were reduced entirely to thoughts of survival. Civilization was breaking down and every waking moment was spent trying to figure out how to provide subsistence for themselves and their families.

I think it is fair to conclude, therefore, that civilization is worthwhile, and even though distortions will always exist to some degree, the very mechanism that permits these distortions, namely freedom from the drudgery of survival, also provides for the best that the human race has to offer. Culture and the advancement of knowledge are enabled allowing us to better understand our place in the Universe. In short, since civilization makes life easier, it is in the best interest of each individual to insure that it continues, and that is the real reason for being a person of good moral character, someone who adheres to the Rule. It is simply intelligent, long-range self-interest.

Isn’t it strange that this reason for being a person of good moral character is so seldom taught? You always get those other reasons, the threat of punishment, or the promise of reward, either here on earth or in some life hereafter. As if we were all small children. It seems to me that even a child could understand the practical reason, if we just took the trouble to explain it.

Civilization, to the extent that it exists today, has been hard won over a long period of time, but is probably more fragile than most people realize. We are still “proving up” here on the home star homestead. One way of looking at the history of the human race is as a progression of learning to live together in successively larger and larger organizations. First there were families. Then there were tribes and clans, followed by feudal states. Nations arose and eventually gathered together into alliances or blocks of nations, but attempts at gathering us all together, such as the League of Nations and the United Nations, may have been premature for our current state. I hope not.

If the Rule is the Basic Law of Civilization, then it applies to intelligent entities of any kind, and the degree of their adherence could be considered an indicator of their wisdom. For instance, it should apply to legal entities such as nations in their dealings with each other. Unfortunately, one does not have to look long or hard in this sphere to find violations of the Rule. Some of the most influential nations, the ones that should be pointing the way, keep slipping back to jungle mores such as “might makes right.” I’m afraid the world will not become a civilized society of nations until we choose as our leaders human beings who understand the Rule is The Basic Law of Civilization.

R.L. Mason

Mendocino, California

circa 2004

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 The Basic Law of Civilization No Comments

Boom and Bust

 

Boom and Bust

Boom and Bust

               (click on image for larger view)

Tags: , , ,

Monday, February 16th, 2009 Nautical and Marine Images II No Comments

Quietly I Go My Way

 

Quietly I Go My Way

Quietly I Go My Way

     (click on image for larger view)

Tags: , , , ,

Abandoned

 

Abandoned

Abandoned

          (click on image for larger view) 

As seen near Marshal, California in 1989

Tags: , , ,

Monday, February 16th, 2009 Nautical and Marine Images I No Comments

Moon Ship

The GAMBELLA

The GAMBELLA

(click image for enlarged view)

Moon Ship

It was a warm summer night and the schooner GAMBELLA stretched her pretty legs. Countless hours of my personal attention were paying dividends as she moved south with a nimble grace. The Bay* was smooth and flat. The tide was on the flood and a gentle breeze was steady over the port quarter. Then a full Moon rose over the East Bay hills and its muted light danced on the surface of the water.

Oh, to linger in that reflection,

A brief passage of near perfection.

Dream-like it was, but alas it was real.

It needed some water under the keel.

I knew we were running out of bay,

But didn’t want it to end that way.

I made an image to hang on my wall,

And in it GAMBELLA still stands tall.

The hiss of the wake’s trailing froth,

The creak of the rig working aloft,

These things I hear when I can see

The rare moment that transported me.

So when life’s voyage comes to an end

I’d make that passage once again.

And if to heaven I have gone

There I’ll sail her on and on.

R. L. Mason

Mendocino, CA

2009

* San Francisco Bay circa 1976

Tags: , ,

Wednesday, February 11th, 2009 Nautical and Marine Images I No Comments

Dark Horizons

Get the Flash Player to see this content.

To hear more  music by Rob Jenkins and Something Else click here.

RicksCard


Tags: , , , , ,

Sunday, February 8th, 2009 Nautical and Marine Images (video) No Comments
 

Categories

Meta