This Page is About My Art and My Philosophy on
Art.
If you have a MFA, peruse at your own risk!
1. As I mentioned before, my art is
non-objective. It is neither of something or about something. It just is.
It is pure art, unfettered by being about or of anything else. It is not
diminished by having to be pondered by some ambiguous content it may have other
than itself, nor having to be evaluated as to how true it depicts some other
physical reality. It is its own reality and its content is only itself, a
work of pure art, nothing else. Each created work, is in a sense, a 'new
reality'.
2. The computer is my primary tool. It is the
most fantastic tool ever devised, better even than the wheel. Please
note that artists create art, and that tools do not. Artists create art, tools
do not. Artists create art, tools do not. If
you use the term "computer generated art" in my presence, I get very angry since
I am still quite immature even at
my advanced age of 75.
3. Most paintings have objects on a background,
or what is called positive space and negative space. My work
usually does not, or maybe just has interchangeable positive and negative
space. What I intend, is to have my
digital paintings to be the object, and the wall to be the background.
4. Horizontal and vertical lines represent
stability and strength. I don't use them. I use mostly diagonal and
curvilinear lines. This has something to do with "art should be representative the
times in which we live".
5. My art is extremely complex or maybe too busy, again representative of our life in the fast lane.
6. I love color, and I try to use all hues, all
values and all intensities in each work of art. That's ridiculous.
It can't be done. Well, I try anyway.
7. By the way, I used to teach college
mathematics. Now I use that knowledge to create a new art form.
Isn't that just too weird. You can't create art from complex mathematical
formulas. Right? Well, maybe you can't.
The basis for nearly all my work is mathematics. I
use an antique fractal software program (circa 1998) to
create the initial image. Due to the nature of my very own long, involved, and
unique formulas, even the initial image lacks the normal
characteristics generally ascribed to fractals. If the images lack the normal
characteristics of fractals, are they still fractals?
Then I use virtual painting techniques and image manipulation software to finish
the original digital painting.
Is creating art with mathematics and virtual tools O. K.? Is it really art? Is
it politically correct? Have
you ever seen stuff like I do in any highly respected art gallery or museum? I
haven't. Of course, I don't
get out much.
8. Technology is advancing at an incredible
rate. I have used paper, canvas, PVC, vinyl, transparencies, satin, Sintra,
Plexiglas, tile, and glass. I have used dye based inks, pigmented inks, UV
cured pigmented inks, oil based inks, and dye-sublimation techniques. Each year,
new ways to present art become available. It is like choosing a cell phone
company and the best phone.
Drives me crazy!! Currently, I am just publishing my art on canvas.
9. My ideas and work are in constant flux. They
change (hopefully improving) year to year, month to month, and
even sometimes from one original digital painting to the next.
10. I like to use the terms; original digital
art, or original digital paintings. I avoid the words "print" or "Giclee",
both of which
give the connotation of copies. Even if I create 100 identical images
using a digital method of some sort, none of them are copies or a copy of
anything else. Each is an original. A Macpherson original digital
painting one could say. Traditional painters don't like that concept.
They believe that you can only have one original, which is true, USUALLY.
So, if I show you two exact signed and dated images on canvas and the data used
to produce them has been destroyed, such that no more can ever be made (unless
somehow you copy them), which is the original and which is the "copy".
Original Renoir etchings are all originals. Unfortunately, I only have a copy
and not an original of one of his, since it was not printed by Renoir, even
though it was printed from the original plate.
11. My work is evolutionary in that it involves the use of the computer rather than the brush. It is also evolutionary in that very few works are created to just be themselves and not of or about something else. That is, I know of no major art movement that is of art that is purely itself (at least not two dimensional art), excluding, perhaps the efforts in the early 1900's. Of course, other artists have made "non-objective art", but it is the most ignored art form and therefore has the greatest potential for artistic discoveries. I guess it is also revolutionary in that my work is based and created from mathematical algorithms. I like to call my work Post Contemporary Pure Art. I also like to think that I am a visionary artist. I definitely am not creating art that is in favor with the art critics or galleries. I know of no gallery in the world that specializes in what I call pure art, art that is just art itself and not a picture of something or a statement about something else, and at the same time created from mathematics. I think that qualifies me as a visionary artist, and one who creates new realities. Please note that I did not say a good artist or that my art has value. I merely stated that my art is original in concept and execution, but although I didn't realize it, I think it maybe partly a continuation of the work that originated with the Blue Rider Group. I wish it wasn't a continuation, but that's the breaks. Until today, 22 Sept. '07, I thought that it was purely my invention. ;-(
12. One last item. I do not care for the majority of the works that are popular to folks who love "modern" or contemporary art. I object to most of that ilk on both esthetic and ethical grounds. Why? I'll explain.
a. Modern art states that art doesn't have to be beautiful. I state that art doesn't have to be ugly. Those two statements, although both true, lead to totally different imagery when followed to their natural conclusions.
b. Most modern art is negative! This is because a work about domestic violence is much more powerful than a work about domestic tranquility. Modern art says that the more powerful the art, or content, or statement the better the art. I say that the more positive the art the better. Again, totally different and opposing views on art which lead to totally different imagery.
c. Most modern art is about the "human condition". Combine this effort with the above criteria, and what do you get? Usually the seedy or vulgar or violent side of the human condition. For my taste, this is not anything I want to have pushed on me. I want my art and the art I buy to give me a RESPITE from the human condition, not rub my nose in it. I want my art to effect the viewer emotionally, not cerebrally, and in a positive way. My art is intended to enrich the soul and not drag it down. I don't want the viewers to think about anything other than the work itself and hopefully enjoy it and admire it; only for it itself, period, and not something else that it refers to or depicts or eludes to.
d. For those of you who are advocates of the contemporary art movement, try real hard to remember if any work of that ilk has ever made you feel good. Have you ever seen a work that says something, i.e. its content, that you didn't already know, or that you haven't seen and watched being discussed to death on the 5:00 news? All of the content that you see in modern art is not only readily available elsewhere, but in most cases it is forced on us, for instance every time we watch TV. I create art and appreciate art that gives me a respite from the human condition. I guess most people watch Monday night football instead, and that is also great. I just happen to really be into art.
e. And last but not
least. If one creates something for others to view, and it angers them,
disgusts them, shocks them, or otherwise causes them discomfort, then in my
opinion, he or she is deliberately harming the viewer. I suppose, one
could rationalize that he is causing them to think or something, and that it is
beneficial to the viewer in the long run. I am just guessing, as I don't know
why one would want to cause others discomfort. So, like I mentioned before, I
object to modern art (generally) on both aesthetic and ethical grounds.
Cheers,
John Charles Macpherson, September 2007
