Review And Renewal For The Coming Anniversary

 In the impending twentieth anniversary of my automatic drawing, a specific moment very memorable it being so provocative, I am reviewing old journals and revising old ideas in order to comply a compendium of works and thought. It is also proving to be a reinvestment in my work for going forward.

As expected, there are things I remember contemplating and many things I don’t. There are things I recall writing about soon after which I could not touch on what they specifically referred to, the notions being so elusive. Some provocative experiences that I recall I see no mention of. I am seeing that many of my main motivating ideas over the years were clearly delineated in the earliest writings. As time goes on the ideas become more rarified, which require much rereading to figure what I was getting at. However what I am mostly uncovering is the development of a systemic methodology towards furthering the ecstatic response and the art that was all inclusive to it.

The entries fit into into a few basic categories, descriptions of the ecstatic experiences, methods that I developed to further go into such experiences, ideas around what ecstatic art could mean and how to incorporate those idea thematically into the work, along with ideas of general composition and a catalog of other poetic ideas and spontaneous visual imagery.

The first few months of doing this drawing were very intense. There were many unusual experiences and an endless flurry of thoughts. As this was not an artistic exercise towards any goal, rather a spontaneous but repeatable occurrence, it lived in a completely empty context. All previous notions around art making; source, meaning, metaphor and so on, were pulled into question by this void. And the intensity of the recurring ecstatic experiences challenged my internalized concepts of the nature of cognitive makeup through stark contrast. I was transfixed in this for several months, and recall that at one point making a decision to actively settle myself. I found an entry “30/3/03 This below zero temperature and lack of gravity is getting to me, I think I’ll come back down.”

The methodology for the work is non-linear due to the nature of the ecstatic experience, as delineated variously in the notes, specifically it being non-intentional. Because this draws so much attention to awareness of an internal landscape, it entails a dissonance when trying to apply a more objectified and analytical view to it, showing such to be non-functional to the internal inquiry. The furtherance of the ecstatic experience and the pictures that were being created through it could not stand separate in an artistic investigation nor creative statement, as a subject-object linear relationship was rendered inoperable to the task. It was something I had to actively let go of to go forward.

There is a phrase mentioned several times in the earlier journals, but one I do not actually recall, “direct metaphor”. This is about the notion I mention above. It implies a direct connection of the internal movement to the activity of the drawing and the resultant image. It also implies a lack of any intermediary interpreter of the work, even if that is a personal contemplation or conceptualization. The drawing is part of the experience as it also depicts the experience.

Viewing the artwork was also part of the ecstatic creative process. Even early on I found looking into the work would elicit an ecstatic response. This means that a measured look into the work would yield the automatic response for the creation of the work.  This became more and more pronounced over the years. And this further integrated and supported a subjective non-linear approach, where the process and results were indistinguishable. Again in the notion of this being a spontaneous action without intention, there was no reason to assume the image/object was the intended result of this automatic approach to art making. The idea of a specific intended outcome would lead to the “objective dissonance” mentioned before and block deeper investigation.

Now that I have established the non-linear characteristic of this process I need to go more into the elicitation of the ecstatic response and experience. Because even though I could only honestly view the work as non-linear, I have to write linearly. It is a systemically integrated approach which I unfortunately have to delineate bit by bit.

At the beginning, just poising the pen above the paper would elicit an ecstatic automatic response. There was no logic to this, but it was undeniable. In an effort to focus on what it was that was transpiring I began to find and develop other elicitations, although this was slow to start. i would focus on how it felt in my body trying to see where it would arise. I would try to hold different positions and degrees of relaxation to aide it. And through the effort at focusing on what I was doing physically, on the art, and perhaps on what was happening cognitively, different ecstatic experiences would emerge - alterations of my sense of being, of place and of presence. I figured early on to not expect or desire these occurrences, as that would have caused too much distress. They still came anyway. And I think somehow there were remnant memories of these experiences that I could utilize though reflection, on my body, my emotions, my thoughts to find them again.

So I began to collect things I could focus on to elicit the response, locations in my body, certain phrases, some memories and emotions, and of course the viewing of the work. The collection began to grow, but oftimes a focal point would also cease to function. I have noted some of these in the journal, but I know so many have come and gone that never were catalogued, but that doesn’t matter. What is of importance is that this was a functional, although very subjective, approach to the investigation of the work.

I want to emphasize the subjective nature of this as being systemic, in that a perceptual division of body, emotion and thinking is not very distinct in the elicitation of the ecstatic experience nor in the experience that comes, to the degree it does. For instance I would get notions of parts of my body thinking. Or a mental image would have an external presence as well as a localized bodily quality. Or an analytical thought would come with an extreme emotional response. None of this is very logical, but it was all FUNCTIONAL! It enabled an ongoing discovery and experience to deepen. And that it was rather illogical was further support for maintaining an open and focused attention on the interior landscape, as what would show up might do so in a completely unexpected way. So in this non-linear subjective systemic process I evolved and grew into the art.

I know defining art so far from an object or an observable event is a challenge for many. But I have developed inside a void so no rules outside of it need be applied. And as I have seen, such an exercise of external definition is a detriment to the process, or at minimum a distraction. So for me the art is the process and result indistinguishable by necessity, with a circular metaphorical approach needing to be applied. In other words, I paint the painting as the painting paints me and as I paint the shifting environment. Even in performances where there is no material media involved, ink is still being moved.