information

e-mail xymyl@nothing.net

not quite an artist's statement...
I haven't decided as yet to take on the mantle of an artist, the yoke of an artist or even the title of an artist. I dislike being asked what I "do", because I do many things. Now, If I was *forced* to assign an artistic style to my work I would probably have to go with "Science Fiction Folk Art" - until the choke hold was released. It isn't entirely accurate, but good enough in a pinch.

not quite questions
If you have questions about my work - they are the answers. Turn them into statements about yourself. If the psychoanalysis you receive from my work does not seem accurate to you, then you may have a legitimate question. If you ask me a question about yourself or my work, I will do my best to answer it.

not quite original
No one can be totally original and totally (or even partially) understood. My work is reasonably original and reasonably understandable, but certainly not designed with either of those outcomes as aims. You won't totally get it but you can buy it, so you will have it whether you get it or not.

not quite names
For the most part the names are just for reference purposes. The vast majority of my work is untitled, but I have assigned names that match the more obvious features of the piece. In rare cases, I consider the name to be integral to the meaning of the drawing or painting.

not quite a manifesto
In general, people like to categorize everything so that there are words to associate with concepts and objects. This specificity is a time saving tool. It keeps us from having to mime everything in daily life.

Sometimes specificity can become a burden, especially when the information regarding a certain thing obscures what it actually is. Søren Kierkegaard is often quoted as saying “Once you label me you negate me.” I’m not sure of the original context of this statement, nor am I sure that it did indeed come from him, nor am I willing to do the research that would be required to find out. Suffice it to say that a confident person would not be likely to indicate that their personal value was so fleeting as to be snuffed out by a casual encounter with another’s taxonomy. Therefore, I am assuming that Kierkegaard was not very confident, thus not likely to state unbiased information, thus quite likely to have said something of the ilk of the preceding quote, thus unworthy of my time and attention. I could be wrong, but my current opinion is of greater importance to me than ruminations on the speculations of what may or may not be true regarding someone that isn’t even alive and didn’t seem to have it all together when he was.

The point that I am (finally) approaching is this: We are not changed by the opinions of others unless we allow that change or we are physically unable to resist a forced change. Let’s use as an example a person who is labeled as “worthless” by others. This person may be of low enough self-esteem that they begin to believe this label to be true. They may have felt negated, and they might actually physically negate themselves by some means of self disposal. As another example a person of formidable self-worth, yet unable to move or speak is stuffed in a box labeled “incinerator”. These two examples could be extrapolated and expounded upon to cover pretty much every aspect of how labeling can negate.

The negation could rarely happen immediately because depression is not usually instantaneous and the cleaning lady doesn’t usually get in until after hours.

One label that is thrown around to a point of desensitization is the label ART. Most dictionaries have several definitions of art, ranging from “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance” or “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium” to “Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks” and “Skills and techniques”.

Personally I think the saturation of the meaninglessness of the term “art” has reached its apex. That’s right, a meaningless saturation apex! Being an artist doesn’t mean anything, it certainly doesn’t make you anything special. On some level everyone is an artist. No matter how banal ones expressions may be, a person cannot help but create something. They cannot help but influence the feelings of others. Even if that influence is just creating a sense of tension or chaos when they enter the room, they have created a unique and recognizable expression that moves people to discuss the work of that artist. They may wait until the artist has left the room, but any publicity is good publicity to an up and coming “edgy” irritation artist. The fact that individuals are recognized for their own particular creation (whether that creation is boredom, chaos, chewing loudly or anything really) shows that nobody can be totally unoriginal. So to say that your “art” is “original” is about as useful as saying nothing, except that it takes up everyone’s valuable time, so it is even less effective than saying nothing. Unless your art IS wasting peoples time, then good job! I’m sure nobody out there does it quite like you, and one day you will find your market.

People say that if you increase your vocabulary you will better be able to express yourself. That would be true if most people were smart and knew the same words as you. But sadly, even the most educated people just end up using more words in imprecise ways. The handful of people who know how to properly use pretty much every english word have to make constant compromises with their speech just to communicate. And a little news flash: the english “sticklers” are just people who are too oblivious to see that they are championing a losing cause. Yes, there are certain things that irritate each of us about the way others use language, but the “rules” will eventually change to accommodate the masses, just as they always have. So, if you’re “right” about some “proper usage” or punctuation scenario, just remember that in 10 or 20 years you will open a book and the rules will have changed to require what used to be “wrong” and the same people you “corrected” will still remember the story and laugh at you velocitously at anecdote parties.

I used to have a ponderous vocabulary, but I quickly learned that you use language primarily to communicate with others, not to write clever notes to yourself (although those notes are funny). Dumb it down and vague it up if you want to communicate.

Dumbing it down is difficult for many of us (I guess it’s a good thing that there aren’t THAT many). There is a certain voluntary cheapening or lessening of one’s self, an elective negation. One needs to decide how many scoops to take out of one’s own heart. What it then comes down to is, how many labels we are willing to accept.

I have always preserved the part I consider to be my “art” (whatever art may be), a visual documentation of “original” thoughts. Something from me, by me and for me, in a language that doesn’t change and doesn’t require labels or translation. On my end it doesn’t change, although I must say that the WORD “art” has changed for me over the years, and has - like so many words that have fallen before it - lost all meaning to me. I don’t mind if other people use it, if it still has meaning to them. I don’t mind if they use other words that don’t apply to what I do, to describe what I do. Even words like “abstract” or “contemporary” that have no descriptive value whatsoever don’t really bother me that much. I will still use such words with many qualifiers to convey a properly developed generalization to an academically inclined noggin.

So I will sometimes call my work “art” even though it may not be art by my definition or perhaps anyone else's. In the past, I have even tried to assign it an ism. I’ve tried Altruistic Depressionism, Objective Associationism, Artism, Artlike Documentationism and many others, but the fact is that none of those describe what I do. What I do describes what I do. I have never made a work of “art” for anyone else, I’ve just done what I wanted to do for whatever my reasons.

I always destroyed and trashed all of my school art projects immediately after the teacher graded them and handed them back to me. This usually resulted in a lower score, going from an A or A+ to a B, C or D instantly. I always wondered what made it so precious to the teacher when it had no meaning to me. Did it have meaning that was somehow negated by its new assignment to be trash? That didn’t make any sense, because it was always trash to me, from the moment the teacher gave us the assignment my process was all about how fast I could destroy the evidence of my compliance. I think the meaning the teacher saw was in the idea that he was helping young people see the value of art in their lives, so when he saw me throw away something created with thought and care, it hurt, and he made a quick show of the fact that he was upset. So, since my audience was visibly affected and could even put a score on it (B,C,D), it must have been art, but it was probably performance art (whatever that is).

If you take exception to what I say here, please read the following response to what you are probably thinking:

If I am understanding you correctly, you indicate that all people have limitless possibility and that it is simply the narrow field of vision of others that acts as a restriction to the full expression of their being.

While it is true that we cannot fully comprehend every aspect of the nature of everyone (or anyone) around us, it makes sense that we would get *some* real data if we were to engage in even the simplest form of communication. It makes sense that this data, if seen without the filter of cultural, experiential, emotional, and philosophical baggage would be a more accurate depiction of the individual than that seen through such a filter.

What you describe is akin to the Schrödinger’s cat experiment (with people instead of a cat). I have no problem waiting to see what someone will prove to be or if they will indeed prove to be anything. I have no problem seeing the infinite potential in others. Sadly, they often fail to see even a fraction of that potential in themselves. However, since I don’t need them to be anything, they can be whatever they wish to be. Of course, since they have a choice, they could choose whatever they wish to be, regardless of what I may choose for them. All that restricts them is their power in relation to their own environment.

It seems to me that the people to whom you are referring are simply the people who either consciously or unconsciously choose to use a filter. An individual who uses these filters generally does so for protection of some sort. One person may feel the need of a confidant so they may manipulate data to make themselves seem similar to another person. The person who has become the confidant also has a need, the need of acceptance, so that person plays along for fear of rejection. They both chose to negate a part of themselves to appease a need that was more powerful at the time. When the need is sufficiently satisfied, they will no longer see things eye to eye, because they never did in the first place.

Two of the most popular filters are based on guilt and insecurity. Many people live their entire lives wishing to be better than others, but never really being sure. Their parents may have told them they were smart, the teachers may have told them they were smart. But they are either smart enough or educated enough to suspect that they are not quite as great as they have been told. But they play this role, and in fear of being shown up, they try to undercut others in either bold or subtle ways. Often people are too insecure themselves to challenge this individual or they are willing to put up with it to avoid a scene. Sometimes a guilt filter combines with the insecurity filter to develop an “evil philanthropist” - a person who only does good deeds to salve their conscience or to show others that they are something they really are not.

Obviously some preconceived ideas must be harbored if you are going to be capable of making any expressions regarding an experience you are having or indeed interacting with that experience. But many suffer from the inability to let go of preconceived notions when solid data confronts them. Often they do not even notice that they have been clearly informed. I am very familiar with this type of person, and I know some of it is just obliviousness, some of it is selfishness, some of it is lack of thinking ability, some of it is lack of education (I’m not talking about school, I’m talking about life), and some of it is programming such as through the sources you mention (television, reading materials, music and so on).

When someone has no hidden agenda, has no glaring need, has no need to see similarity of thought or action in others, has no need for validation, and has little to no insecurity (whether for real or imagined reasons, or for no reason at all) why would they be expected to communicate in the way you describe? Or do you expect that they would?

You say, “What it comes down to is that we are not solid, immutable selves.” I understand that many people “search” for themselves, and many people are unduly influenced by the wills of others. I’ve never had to search for myself because I have been totally self aware as far back as I can remember, and I’m sure I must have been before that time as well. If anything about me changes it is my choice, I like it that way, so I keep it that way.

I don’t disagree with you that most of what is published, whether as art, science, literature or just entertainment is of little to no interest. And it is true that most things look like other things. Everything has to look like something. If you want to see great things you need to search for them. There are great things everywhere, but they are all partially or totally obscured by trash.

I believe (artistic) creations can have intrinsic worth that would be of value to anyone who allowed their personal worth to show through. I hate the idea of an artist negating themselves for money. That’s part of the reason I don’t strictly call what I do art. It is all just for me, but after that, it can be for someone else too.

--Xymyl