The
Evolution of Art
PETER: Do you agree
with Keats that 'A thing of beauty is a joy forever', or that 'Truth is beauty,
beauty ... truth'?
GRAHAM: No, I
don't! And neither do I agree with his
near contemporary, Goethe, who said: 'The eternal feminine draws us up'.
PETER: Oh and why is
that?
GRAHAM: Because the
feminine aspect of life is merely a temporal affair and, except in the erotic
sense that Goethe probably intended, only serves to draw us down towards the
beastly rather than up ... towards the godly.
When one makes love to a woman one is in the feminine world, which is
inherently sensual, and consequently turning one's back on the world of
spiritual striving. One's
responsibilities there are feminine and, hence, negative, not masculine and
positive. Baudelaire defines the
situation well when he says: 'Love greatly resembles an application of torture
or a surgical operation', and, later, when he goes on to record: 'There are in
every man, always, two simultaneous allegiances, one to God, the other to
Satan', and proceeds to define the latter as a 'delight in descent' involving,
amongst other things, woman, he directly refutes the aforementioned maxim of
Goethe - at least as it may apply to moral standards!
PETER:
Which is, I suppose, only to be expected, since Baudelaire was an ascetic
Catholic and not, like Goethe, a hedonistic Protestant. But, really, I asked you a question about
Keats and still haven't received an enlightening answer.
GRAHAM: I told you that
I didn't agree with Keats' lines, and my reasons for saying so are similar to
my reasons for not agreeing with Goethe's oft-quoted line - namely that, like
the feminine, beauty isn't eternal, and therefore is incapable of being 'a joy
forever'. You see, beauty appertains to
appearance, an attribute which is quantitative and, hence, temporal. Truth, on the other hand, appertains to
essence, an attribute which is qualitative and, hence, eternal. To write: 'Truth is beauty, beauty truth',
like Keats, is to write nonsense from any higher or objective point-of-view,
seeing that essence and appearance are forever antithetical, and therefore
incapable of being reconciled. The
beauty of a beautiful woman is apparent, whereas the truth of a truthful man is
essential, and never can the two attributes be harmonized, let alone become
equal. For whereas the former leads down
to sensuality the latter leads up to the spirit. Only a dualist could confound them and
strive, no matter how self-deceptively, to reconcile the two in one equation. Yet as Baudelaire said somewhere else: 'The
more a man cultivates the arts, the less he fornicates. A more and more apparent cleavage occurs
between the spirit and the brute'.
PETER: Doubtless that
is true within certain limits. But
surely it also contains a contradiction, since the arts are more often apparent
than essential, and thus more aligned with beauty than with truth?
GRAHAM: Traditionally,
and on the lowest artistic levels, that may well be
the case. But the highest art,
especially during the last century or so, is primarily
concerned with truth, not beauty. The
criteria of artistic excellence have changed, in accordance with the dictates
of evolutionary progress away from the natural, material world towards a
supernatural, or spiritual, one. To be
concerned overmuch with beauty, in this day and age, would hardly help to place
one's work in the vanguard of artistic progress. Rather, one would be producing anachronisms,
only fit for the most popular or old-fashioned appreciation.
PETER: But the fact
nevertheless remains that art is largely apparent, if only because it
stands outside the self and obliges one to contemplate it from a distance.
GRAHAM: Ah, if you are
specifically alluding to the art of painting, then that is undoubtedly
true! But, you see, modern art utilizes
appearance in the service of essence to the extent that appearance can be so
utilized. Of course, one is going to be
at cross-purposes to some extent, and this is an unfortunate limitation of art
as we currently understand the term. For
no matter how much the artist may strive to convey truth as opposed to beauty
in his work, appearance inevitably remains tied to the sensual, temporal,
material world.
PETER: Then what is the
point of the artist's working at cross-purposes with himself if the end-product
is going to fall short of perfection, as defined in terms of the essential?
GRAHAM: The point is not to attain to perfection, as just defined,
but to intimate of it, no matter how crudely, by utilizing apparent means. Improvements from the spiritual point-of-view
on the physical constituents of art are always possible and continue to be
made, whilst its content can likewise be improved upon through increased
abstraction. Where painters were once
dependent on heavy frames and thick canvases, not to mention stodgy oils, they
now have access to much lighter frames - assuming frames are used at all - and
thinner canvases on which less materialistic pigments, like acrylic, can be
applied. On the content side of artistic
improvements we find a progression from, say, the religiously pictorial paintings
of Tintoretto and Rubens to the completely abstract
paintings of Mondrian and Ben Nicholson via the bare
interiors of Protestant churches, as revealed by de Witte and Saenredam. Thus, in
the material context, we find that the materials used in modern paintings are,
on the whole, less materialistic than those used in the paintings of earlier
centuries, whilst, in the spiritual context, we find that the subject-matter of
the best contemporary works is far less apparent than with paintings at any
previous time, and therefore signifies a closer approximation to essence. An abstract painting may not constitute
essence, or spirit, but it is at least a superior symbol of essence than could
have been attained from a representational or pictorial work of religious
objectivity, as produced in earlier centuries.
PETER: But surely art
conceived in terms of abstract painting must inevitably reach a dead-end, if
what you say is true, with a maximum approximation to essence beyond which it
cannot evolve.
GRAHAM: Oh, indeed! And, to all appearances, this is what has happened. Or, more accurately, painting has attained to
its consummation in the pure abstractions of masters like Mondrian,
Kandinsky, Nicholson, Klein, et al., beyond which no
reasonable progress is possible. What
began with Turner and the Impressionists in the nineteenth century has attained
to completion in the twentieth. Indeed,
whenever I look at an Impressionist painting these days, whether by Monet, Sisley, or Pissarro, I am
conscious of looking at crude abstract art, at the beginnings of a process of
spiritual development that was furthered and brought to perfection in the
twentieth century. The Impressionists
thus become for me somewhat primitive, I might even say too materialistic and
apparent for comfort. I prefer the
superior developments of Mondrian, Nicholson, et al.
PETER: Then, assuming
these developments have attained to a climax now, it would seem that art has
got very little left to do and is essentially a thing of the past.
GRAHAM: When conceived
solely in painterly terms I agree that that must undoubtedly be so. But to imagine that art ends with painting
would be to underestimate its evolutionary capabilities, since moving from the
canvas to the air or electric-light bulb is as inevitable a progression as was
the one which led from the cave or wall to the canvas. Like biological evolution, which takes the
form of successive transmutations of species, art also changes its constitution
in the interests of both survival and aesthetic improvements, with the latter
consideration dominating the former in this day and age. Thus light art, as reflected in fluorescent
tubing and various types of light bulbs, becomes the successor to painting ...
as a better means of approximating appearance to essence. An abstract arrangement of slender neon
tubing provides a superior spectacle to abstract painting ... to the extent
that it conforms to a less materialistic context, both as regards content and
materials. The slender transparent
plastic tubing is less materialistic than a canvas, with or without frame, and
the light, created by electricity, is likewise less materialistic than the
pigments utilized in the creation of paintings, which congeal into hard layers
of paint capable of being touched. But
you can't touch electric or neon light, since it is an impalpable medium
diffused throughout the tubing by the process of molecular action on
chemicals. In the case, for example, of
fluorescent lighting, it is the electron bombardment of phosphor that produces
the impalpable glow. Thus light art is
far better suited for an approximation to essence than painting, and has
accordingly superseded painting in this respect.
PETER: But isn't light
art a kind of sculpture rather than successor to painting?
GRAHAM: Doubtless some
of the more cumbersome light works, involving bulbs and tubes, can be regarded
as a kind of modern sculpture. But I
incline to regard most light works as a step beyond painting, rather than as a new
manifestation of sculpture. And I do so
because, fundamentally, sculpture is a tactile art and must remain so ... if it
isn't to become transmuted into something else.
Modern sculpture, as produced, for instance, by Henry Moore, Barbara Hepworth, Archipenco, Arp, Brancusi, and Viani, remains fundamentally tactile, and especially is
this so with such outdoor works as are accessible to the public. A large bronze by
PETER: So, presumably,
to contemplate sculpture instead of to touch it would be as absurd, in your
view, as to touch paintings or light works instead of to contemplate them?
GRAHAM: I didn't say
that, although I am in no doubt that, traditionally, sculpture should be
touched as well as contemplated. If,
however, we prefer to contemplate than to touch sculpture these days, that is
simply a reflection of the spiritual bias of the age, which induces us to treat
matter more spiritually, as it were, than our ancestors would have done, and so
elevate sculpture to solely optical appreciation. Probably it would be bad form now for people
to go about touching sculptures, particularly those housed in galleries, since
the solidity experienced by their fingers would contradict the modern
preference for spiritual or partly spiritual interpretations of matter, as
upheld by contemporary science, and only serve to remind people that matter is
still solid, after all. Doubtless they
would be more willing to touch sculpture in Marxist-Leninist societies, which
are materialist, than in quasi-transcendental ones, if you follow my drift.
PETER: Indeed, though
whether they would be encouraged to do so is another matter! However, getting back to the subject of light
art and assuming, for the sake of argument, that such art does indeed signify a
step beyond painting rather than a new type of sculpture - how can it be
improved upon if it is to intimate more closely of essence in the future,
bearing in mind that it will always be tied to appearances no matter what
happens?
GRAHAM: Well, what
applies to painting applies no less to light art, so that the progressive
reduction of its material side will constitute a mode of improvement, as, no
doubt, will the progressive expansion of its spiritual, or abstract, side. Thus what is all the time happening on the
macrocosmic plane of contracting suns and on the microcosmic plane of expanding
spirit, is also happening in art, with regard to its
changing constitution. The diabolic side
of art is reduced in proportion that its divine side increases. Consequently, where light art is concerned,
the next obvious evolutionary improvement will free light from the plastic
tubing, or whatever its material envelope may happen to be, and place it in the
air, in the sky, in space. So not only
will light be free of the plastic tubing, it will simultaneously be free of the
support wall or floor or stand on which the tubing rests. Now with this contraction of its material
side will come an expansion of its spiritual side, as light is concentrated
into purer and brighter globes, with the convergence towards one central point
in space of the beams of numerous searchlights or equivalent powerful lighting
apparatuses, like a convergence to Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point.
PETER: Thereby taking
light art outdoors?
GRAHAM: Yes, although
there will also be scope for indoor light shows of a progressively more
transcendent order, which may involve the projection of kaleidoscopic colours
onto walls or ceilings. But the most
spectacular effects with light will be outdoors, and should come from laser
beams projected into space as an approximation of appearance to the ultimate
essence of pure spirit in the future transcendental Beyond. There have already been a number of
laser-light works on display in the West, particularly
PETER: Presumably not
only with regard to the light-producing mechanism, but with regard to the
appearance of light in the sky as well?
GRAHAM: Yes,
undoubtedly. For
essence, conceived transcendently, would not be phenomenal but noumenal and therefore totally beyond appearances. The Spiritual Globes that should issue from Superbeings, at the transformation point from the
post-Human Millennium to the transcendental Beyond, could not be detected as
visible presences looming large. For the
spiritual world is necessarily invisible to the senses, since antithetical to
what is sensual. Traditionally, we have
realized and acknowledged this fact by conceiving of ghosts as impalpable,
scarcely perceptible entities that float aloft like transparent clouds. Our egocentric status in the past did of
course lead to ghosts being anthropomorphized, or given human form, as though
the spirit was patterned on the entire physical body and stemmed in bodily form
from the body with death! This, of
course, isn't the case. For, in reality,
it is only the most noble organ of the body, namely the brain, that truly
produces spirit, and then only in its higher, or new-brain, part, which, translated
into psychological terminology, we call the superconscious. It is from this new brain/superconscious
symbiosis that, with transcendence, spirit will emerge as the climax to the
post-Human Millennium, and it won't have human shape for the simple reason that
- apart from the aforementioned absence of divine spirit from the body in
general - the human body will have long before been superseded by the
artificial supports and sustains of the Supermen and Superbeings
respectively.
PETER: Then,
presumably, ghosts were figments of the imagination and little else?
GRAHAM: Yes, though
inevitable figments, given the evolutionary limitations of the age of religious
objectivity, with its notion of man being made in God's image and the
consequent fact that spirit was believed capable of surviving death and
returning to its Maker. But these
beliefs would now be incapable of standing up to logical, rational opposition,
which is why they should be discarded, like a dead husk. If at death the spirit dies it is because the
body, being mortal, has killed it off, snuffed out something that would have
been capable of lasting for ever if only it had been given more adequate or
long-term support. For spirit remains
dependent on matter so long as it is insufficiently cultivated to manage
without it, which is to say, until transcendence is achieved as the fruit of so
much spiritual striving ... carried out in collective and extensively
artificial contexts. But whether,
depending on the age into which one was born, one's spirit is destined for
immortality or not, the fact nevertheless remains that, being essence, spirit
is aligned with truth and isn't therefore capable of being detected, like
beauty, on the plane of phenomenal appearance.
Consequently all attempts to depict transcendent spirit, whether by
paint, electric light, laser beams, or whatever, are intrinsically contrary to
the truth of spirit as noumenal essence, and can only
be misleading from a strictly subjective standpoint. Even the Hindu conception of God as the Clear
Light of the Void is fundamentally inadequate, since it presupposes appearance
and consequently induces one to visualize, in the mind's eye, some clear light
shining in the 'heavens', like a purer kind of star, perceptible to sight. Yet that isn't what the Omega Absolute would be, nor even the Spiritual Globes that will precede the
ultimate unification of pure spirit. One
could never know the Omega Absolute in the sense of perceiving it. One could only conceptually experience
essence as pure spirit, which would be the condition of Heaven. Light art, however, will always remain partly
tied to Hell, no matter how sincerely it is used to intimate of Heaven. For one will always see it, just as one can
see the hell specific to our world if one looks up at the sky on a clear
day.... Contrary to traditional belief, there is not one hell but literally
billions of hells scattered throughout the Universe, which correspond to
individual stars. Our star is therefore
but one of millions of petty hells which revolve around the great star at the
centre of the Galaxy - part of the overall pluralism of the Diabolic
Alpha. Given the limitations of the
ancients as regards the true extent and nature of the Universe, it is possible
that the Creator was abstracted from the sun rather than from the central star
of the Galaxy, which, then as now, would have been too remote to be seen. However, this is a debatable point, since it
is well known that primitive societies have responded differently to the
concept of a 'Creator', doubtless by abstracting from different cosmic
sources. Thus if some of them, like the
Aztecs, referred religion directly to the sun, others, like the Jews,
abstracted from a something assumed to be the sun's creator - quite possibly
the central star of the Galaxy. Hence
when the sun is regarded as Creator, we get polytheism. For the other stars that can be glimpsed in
the Galaxy or outside it are likewise regarded as gods. But when the sun is considered as merely a
part of nature, and not its sole creator, we get monotheism, and can surmise
that the religious sense appertaining to the Creator will be abstracted from
the central star of the Galaxy, since that would probably be the star
responsible, directly or indirectly, for the creation of such minor stars as
the sun, and need not be known to mankind to be placed in a creative role. The important thing to remember, however, is
that when we refer to 'the Creator' we are primarily referring to a creator of
this world and, by implication, everything naturally in it, not to the Creator
of the Universe. For the latter would
have been created from an explosion of gases giving rise to the star clusters
we now refer to as galaxies. Yet such a
Creator, or First Cause, would have no relevance to man, and could not be
prayed to as something that was believed to exist in the Universe. Only the stars exist there, and if it was the
case that ancient man, with his cosmic myopia, abstracted the Creator either
from the nearest star or the unglimpsed central star
of the Galaxy, then there is no reason for us to attempt to equate it with all
the stars. After all, the Lord's Prayer,
beginning 'Our Father ...', suggests a relative rather
than an absolute frame-of-reference, doesn't it? There is no reason for us to doubt that there
are other 'Fathers' in the Universe, or that other peoples or whatever on other
planets haven't likewise prayed to their specific 'Father', during the period
of evolutionary time in their historical destinies when such a prayer was deemed
relevant. For the post-dualistic
civilization of the future, however, no such alpha-oriented prayer could
possibly be relevant, since people would be exclusively concentrating their
religious attention on the cultivation of spirit in an omega orientation, not
referring back to a cosmic creator for assistance or forgiveness. Religion at that fortunate epoch in time,
beyond the tyranny of priests and all those who would uphold alpha in the face
of ongoing omega, would be purely subjective, not abstracted from the
materialistic objectivity of the external cosmos in objective illusion. And art, you can rest assured, would be
superior to what it had ever been in the dualistic and transitional
civilizations of the contemporary West.
PETER: Although,
presumably, it would still remain tied to appearance, and thus be no more than
a crude intimation of essence?
GRAHAM: Yes, and that
would apply to holography no less than to laser art, since holograms, as
three-dimensional reproductions of objects projected into surrounding space
through the use of mirrors, would still be apparent, if the nearest thing to
the ghost of an object. A telephone, for
instance, can be projected into surrounding space in this way, positioned no
more than a few feet above the ground.
PETER: I have actually
seen this done, and felt very tempted to put my hand through the holographic
'phone, in order to verify that it really was an illusionary projection and not
a factual reality. But as other people
were verifying that fact, I was content merely to gaze at it, charmed and
intrigued by its pale-green luminosity.
GRAHAM: You behaved
wisely! For holograms, being a form of
light art, are primarily there to be seen rather than karate-chopped. Of course, they are novelties within the
context of dualistic civilization, and so they will remain. But the next, wholly post-dualistic
civilization will develop them to unprecedented heights and take a special
pride in them, a pride commensurate, one might say, with the extremes of
scientific subjectivity, in which a wavicle theory of
matter will probably come to replace the compromise particle/wavicle theory of twentieth-century physics, and art forms
seemingly reflecting this new theory duly be accorded a place of honour. Doubtless a hologram through which one can
put one's hand will be more suited to the spiritual bias of transcendental man
than an impervious object! And the
translucence and gem-like lustre of the hologram will provide him with an
aesthetic foretaste, as it were, of the still higher art of the Superman, which
won't be external but internal.
PETER: To what, exactly, are you alluding here?
GRAHAM: The internal visionary experience induced by LSD, or some
such hallucinogenic stimulant, which will constitute the highest possible use
of appearance put to essential ends. For
whereas the hologram, no matter how translucent or bright, still remains tied
to the external world, with hallucinogens like LSD, however, art is brought
into the internal one, into the lower reaches of the superconscious,
where it is closer than ever before to essence.
Here, in the spiritual landscape opened up by LSD, the Superman will
apperceive the translucence and gem-like lustre of the utterly passive,
crystal-clear contents of his visionary superconscious,
the spiritual contents of the transcendent psyche.
PETER:
You mean, he will be apperceiving a kind of internal hologram, or series of
internal holograms?
GRAHAM: That is
probably not very far from the truth!
Although, in his case, there will be no holographic apparatus. And consequently 'art' will attain to its
apotheosis in the maximum approximation of appearance to essence ... achieved
through the complete internalization of the former. Every Superman will become an artist, the witness
of his own psychic creations.
PETER: Like watching an
internal television show?
GRAHAM: In a sense, though television programmes are usually
negative, or active, whereas the visionary contents of the superconscious
are purely positive and, hence, passive, like a hologram. What holography is to LSD experience,
television is to dreams, which are always active. Watching television is rather like dreaming
externally, dreaming, one might say, objectively instead of subjectively. Looking at holograms, on the other hand, is
rather like tripping externally, tripping objectively instead of
subjectively. A confusing distinction
perhaps, because the external objective ends with material reality, whereas the
internal subjective really begins with the spiritual reality of the superconscious. Thus dreams, which appertain to the subconscious, are ever
objective, while the visionary contents of the superconscious
are subjective, in accordance with internal reality. Dreams, you see, are rather like the
idealistic abstractions from the external material world of religious
objectivity. They distort and
reinterpret external reality. The
visionary contents of the superconscious, however,
strive to illuminate internal reality, which is purely spiritual and, at its highest
levels, completely beyond appearances.
Beauty still clings to visionary experience, but it is a beauty through
which the light of truth shines as an intimation of things or, rather, essences
to come. Eventually, with the advent of
the second phase of millennial salvation, the light of truth will eclipse the
illuminated beauty of LSD visions, as the Supermen are transformed into the Superbeings of spiritual communality, the true and ultimate
earthly communes in which new-brain clusters, artificially supported and
sustained, will meditate their collective way towards transcendence and, hence,
the heavenly Beyond. What LSD was to the
Supermen, intensified meditation will be to the Superbeings
- a meditation in which not appearance but essence will prevail, as the
full-blown superconscious experiences the undiluted
truth of post-visionary spirit. Here
life will be completely beyond art. For
no longer will the mind be in need of guidance towards the essential through
the exploitation of progressively refined-upon-appearance. It will be in the essential, and
accordingly almost at the long-awaited goal of spiritual striving. Almost!
For the earthly paradise of Superbeings will
be superseded by the transcendent paradise of Spiritual Globes, and they, in
turn, will expand into one another in the heavenly Beyond, to form the ultimate
paradise of the Omega Absolute. It is a
curious fact that truth, oneness, pure spirit, and transcendence will not only
be the attributes of ultimate divinity, they will also be the attributes of
Spiritual Globes on route, as it were, to the Omega Absolute. They will even be the attributes, to a lesser
extent, of the Superbeings. They won't be unknown to the Supermen. And neither will they be completely alien to
transcendental man, who will glimpse them but faintly through the barrier of
his human psyche. That is why, as a
Transcendentalist, I speak to you of these matters in the hope that you, too,
will find a place for them in your psyche.
PETER: Those words
aren't wasted on my ears, for I am not deaf to truth, like so many people. But perhaps I shall become blinder to beauty
than formerly, and therefore disinclined to agree with John Keats that 'Truth
is beauty, beauty truth, that is all ye know and all ye need to know'? There's no beauty in his words for me now, and
neither is there much truth. Like you, I
have become deaf to illusion. I see and
hear only truth.
GRAHAM: That is
better. But it will be even better when
the time comes for minds like yours to experience truth, and so escape from the
senses. Until such time, let us be
content to improve and refine upon art - of whichever kind.