Statement

“I’d rather have questions I can’t answer than answers I can’t question” - Max Tegmark

I am a humorous, idiosyncratic, anarchic, irreverent artist, and a closet moralist who cares about society. There is an emotional attachment that drives the focus of my art. As a contemporary artist I will produce sculptures, time based work and installations that explore, critique, comment on and will challenge the politics, behaviors and beliefs both of the individual and the ideologically driven collectives within society. My perspective as an artist informs the project, shaping how I observe society as well as the assessments, judgements and interpretations I make of it. An emigrant from the UK and now Australian, I observe from within the society, alternatively, I simultaneously view it from an alien position, as an outsider looking in. What I try to achieve, could be described as a violent artistic expansion in which energy is transmitted outward, psychologically, emotionally, politically, materiality, which includes beauty, attraction, shape, colour, form, texture and the tactile.. My methodology for making is such that the work is not of a concept prior to the making but is one that is developed by the making, I do not know what work will be produced as it is intentionally risk orientated with failures and success. It is the identification of mass media propaganda together with the lack of political awareness and bigotry in society, that the contemporary artist can challenge the beliefs and behaviour of the individual and the ideological driven collective.

Knowing Art through the Self-Deceiving Mind

Introduction

The art of deceit and self-deception, according to Plato one has to discover the true nature of the self. Art can show you how, by the encouragement to think the same way, a world that less attuned minds cannot see. Dismiss the normal vision as untrustworthy, have faith in the imagination and accept deceit and self-deception. (Abrahams, 2013) This paper is a short analysis of the subject with a number of sections that are relevant to the visual art society, which are the fate of the artist statement, the authoritative voice, Mike Kelley and repressed memory syndrome, the art critic, evolution biology of self-deception, deceit how it is received, analysis of three pieces of art, conclusion.

The Artist Statement

The artist statement, the anguish for every artist of what to say and to whom is it addressing, they considered by some to be essential, many fail as they are full of art speak aim to a worldwide audience. Below is a truncated interview between Damien Hirst and Sarah Borusso, it featured on his website and depending on your personal take on Hirst at least it is different.

‘Damien Hirst what do you mean, an artist’s statement?

Sarah Borusso Just a statement of purpose or... it’s up to you really, we run them just to give a context to your work... It’s kind of up to you.

DH I really like the piece that Nauman did: the true artist helps the world by revealing mystic truths.

DH Art allows you to go off on the wrong track without going mad! – That’s an artistic statement’ (Hirst. 1997).

A normal statement selected at random from an Art School is this one from the CGU (Claremont Graduate University) Writing an Artist Statement ‘in the third semester, they write a five page statement, in the fourth semester, they write a one-page statement”. An example, How – ‘Method is, it seems to me, a natural growth out of a need and from a need the modern artist has found new ways of expressing the world about him.’ Jackson Pollock (CGU. n.d.).

There are a large variety of books and websites that ‘tell’, how and why the importance of writing an artist statement, little notice is given to the theoretical understanding. Michael Belshaw (2011, 124) questions that the published artists’ statements, since the late 1960s, that such texts have received little attention in theoretical discourse. Whilst intentionality is principally is for the philosophy of art, they are more at home in the history of art.  There was a period that statements could be presented as artworks under the rubric of Conceptual Art. It has been a burden of the modern artists to explain the work as satisfying their own unique intentions. The artist statement seem on the one hand to be authentic, personal accounts of an artist’s practice that not only warrant a privileged place in the discourse on works of art but also imply a meaning or an originating idea to which only the artist has access. However, this privileged position shows that the artist is the least best placed person to illuminate their practice simply because such a position cannot be shared, and hence understood, by others (Belshaw 2011 125).

Treated with some caution the history of art scholar is always aware that the artist may hold spurious if not wholly incoherent ideas that would not stand up to academic scrutiny and hence could not be cited (Belshaw 2011 125). Whilst we understand an artist’s statement to be an account of their work, artists rarely discuss their individual works, and when they do discuss them they tend not to mention specific features — instead they make general claims about the wider conditions and concepts of their practice. Rita Nolan (1974) has argued that not only does such theory appeal to no authoritative readership, artists’ statements have no claim to being true or false: ‘They do not report perceptions of their works, or their working, for they rarely mention perceptible features. They are conceptual in character but not in the truth- regarding way that statements of scientific theory are conceptual in character’.

Little ‘business sense’ is taught to emerging artists to get your message out there, in simple marketing speak do you use a shotgun and just hope to hit something or a rifle where you aim more precisely. There is naivety from the emerging artists, unknowing and confused a seed for their self-deception, towards the commercial world, in that it is perceived as some type of enemy.

The Authoritative Voice

What is Authority by Mikhail Bakunin written in 1871, states hat he does not reject all authority, on the matter of boots he would refer to the bootmaker and so on for specialised skills? That he would not content himself with consulting a single authority but several and compare their opinions. He does so because it is imposed on him by his own reason, as he is conscious of his own inability to grasp a very large portion of human knowledge. The same reason it forbids him to recognise a fixed, constant and universal authority (Bakunin.1871). Who and what authority dictates what is good art. The critic Jerry Saltz states he is not educated, however he has authority by writing for New York magazine, and he has been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize three times. Saltz is clear on his approach to criticism, “I'm looking for what the artist is trying to say and what he or she is actually saying, what the work reveals about society and the timeless conditions of being alive.” (Thornton. 2008 174-175).

Is art criticism that clear and free of ambiguity of course not? The following is an extract from ‘The Tate” education research “Contemporary Art and the Role of Interpretation”, for students up eighteen years old. ‘In Jacques Derrida’s The Truth in Painting on two responses to Van Gogh’s painting Shoes, 1886 (Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam), he questions the interpretations of philosopher Martin Heidegger and the art historian Meyer Shapiro. Heidegger places the woman who wears the shoes as a peasant. Derrida notes that Heidegger is actually using the painting to support a particular ideology. In turn, Shapiro uncovers Heidegger’s ‘error’ by stating that the shoes were not country shoes but city shoes. ‘As Schneider states, it becomes a struggle over who ‘control[s] the truth of the shoes’. Derrida challenges both interpretations: what if the shoes are not even a pair? The more we look the more doubt enters into our mind (Charman 2004, 4)’. Who determines who is the authority, is it the critic, the philosopher, the artist, the teacher, the audience? Who is the authority to explain the repressed memory syndrome of the artist Mike Kelley that poses some interesting aspects of his deceit and self-deception?

Mike Kelley and Repressed Memory Syndrome

Mike Kelley’s masterpiece More Love Than Ever Be Repaid, 1987, that he created by sewing together dozens of crocheted dolls and handmade stuffed animals he found at flea markets, which Kelley saw as homespun affection that had been tossed away. In 1991, the Hirshhorn Museum in Washington devoted a show to soft toy stuffed animal pieces and for the first time Kelley invited his brother George, who did not appreciate the works as Kelley suspected he would not. Though one incident, George was asked by a local reporter asked if Mike had ever been sexually abused. George nearly threw a punch. Stating that their parents were strict and so were the nuns at school, no such trauma. George told Mike who chuckled at first only to say, ”Good, It’s supposed to be funny.” (Crow 2013)

Kelley in conversation with John Welchman, gave some explanation about the reaction to the stuffed animal works. His previous work with craft materials, American folk art as a given structure, he was trying to explain what the formalities were as you never look at it formally, as it is a pre-given. Kelley was shocked that the read coming trough was something to do with child abuse, which he never expected. Not only was his work about it but they indicative that he was abused and that is why he made such works. Kelley never made any biographical work in his life, however he accepted the observations as people always know best, so he said ‘I am going to embrace it’ so he started to make biographical works, so he intimates. So all those popular stuffed animal works that everyone loved to death, he had to stop using. He did not know he had been abused and after some research that he self diagnosed himself to have repressed memory syndrome. Kelly felt he had to relearn in making work so to bring in the history of abuse. That’s the theory victim. (Kelley 2005) From then on rather than quell the scrutiny he stepped into the role, toying with critics and waffling on between memory and myth in his life. He felt he had to abandon works with stuffed animals, as there was nothing to counter pervasive psycho-autobiographical interpretations of these materials. (Crow 2013)

Further on in this conversation, the two discuss Kelley's remarkable career, focusing on his large-scale video work the Extracurricular Activity Projective Reconstruction series, started in 2000. An ambitious project, the series is a group of 365 videotapes and video installations related to his 1995 sculptural work, Educational Complex. Brought about through restaged photographs of activities found in high school yearbooks and newspapers, the videos address issues of repressed memory, abuse, and the culture of victimization.

He once based a series of staged videos, played cacophonously in a carnival-like setting at a Gagosian Gallery, on found images from high-school yearbooks, and noted that he found “Slave Day” particularly inspiring. Why? “It’s where people are demeaned and have to wear ridiculous costumes and are sold on an auction block.” He was obsessed with abjection and failure. (Swanson 2012) Here, the casualness of Mike’s observations belies his trenchant critique. He forces his audience to recognize the forms of repression inherent in the differential of social class. Moreover, he refuses to idealize the aesthetics of subordinate classes. Rather, he showed how they too could serve to discriminate against those with even less status. This, of course, offers a sceptical understanding of aesthetics in general and of art education in particular (Miller 2012).

Post the lost repressed memory syndrome did Kelley create new art that was more honest or was it deceitful if he was not abused? What does the aesthetics of stuffed crochet animals tell us before and after his comments?  Is Kelley to be believed that his art previous to the abuse is a self- deception to him, therefore is it a deceit to the audience or can we accept both. Did Kelley become a victim to the audience? Has the audience become a victim of the artist?

The Art Critic

On September 7, 2011 the Guardian came out with scathing review of Kelley’s show at the Gagosian London. The review was written by Adrian Searle ‘Mike Kelley: It came from Planet Bunkum’ and to quote a small part “ The whole thing is hokum, bosh and piffle” and so on comparing the work to Hammer horror movies, ending “but at least they were fun”(Searle, 2011). The review continues with put down after put down. The next night Rafael Jablonka, Kelley’s dealer in Cologne realised Kelly was in a “destructive shape.” On January 29 2012 Kelley was found dead (Crow 2013). After Kelley’s death Searle wrote a review of the Kelley retrospective at the Stedelijk museum Amsterdam “At his best, Kelley is as direct as he can be obtuse. In this exhibition, I kept losing the plot as well as my way, only to be brought up short by an incident in a video, or an object, a drawing or moment that thrills me, upsets me, makes me wince. Kelley at his best had real edge.” (Searle 2012)

Evolution Biology of Self-deception  

The philosophy of self-deception has made room for the scientific research perspective in the field of the Evolutionary Biologist. The central claim of Robert Trivers, that in the first case, self-deception evolves in the service of deception, that it serves to better the fooling others. As there would not be any cues that go with consciously mediated deception. Second is by keeping the truth in the unconscious the process of deception is rendered cognitively less expensive, as against having cognitive overload with the effort of trying to make the lies merge with the truth. The third is when the deception is detected; it can be rationalized as being unconsciously propagated. That self-deception is built on pre-existing science of biology (Trivers 2011 4).

We seek information and act to destroy it from its biased input to organising it around false logic, to misremembering and the misrepresenting to others, the mind continually distorts information in favour to appear better than one really is. By the misrepresentation to others it is understood to be the primary reason for the distortion of the self to self. (Trivers 2011 139) We more easily remember the positive about ourselves and either forget the negative, or in time neutralise it, or even make it a positive. We tend to think that our memories gradually degrade in time like a photograph, though memory is reconstructive and easily manipulated, and we continually re-create our own memories. Memory distortions are more powerful when motivated to maintain our self-esteem, to excuse bad decisions, thus to maintain the illusion of improvement (Trivers 2011 143). Simple examples are the avoidance use of the first person when lying, using “they” or “people” a to use fewer extreme positive and negative terms with the preference for general knowledge answers.

An example for a positive behavioural outcome is that for people undergoing physiotherapy while listening to Bach’s music in a major key, they recover more quickly than those without music (Trivers 2011 132).

It follows that the learned distinction between imagination and belief depends in practice on religion, tradition, and culture. Below are quotes from a Philosopher, a dictionary and a Psychoanalyst. The philosophical approach is that ‘self-deception is the acquisition and maintenance of a belief (or, at least, the avowal of that belief) in the face of strong evidence to contrary motivated by the desires or emotions favouring the acquisition and retention of that belief’ (Deweese-Boyd 2012). So what is belief, ‘an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof, and something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion’. ‘True, is in accordance with fact or reality’. ‘Fact is a thing that is known or proved to be true’ (Oxford Dictionaries. n.d.). A further aspect by Psychoanalysis ‘follows from the recognition that when a phantasy is not taken to be real or given the status of a belief it might be consigned to the imagination. But what is and where is the imagination in any modern model of the mind?’ (Britton 1998)

Deceit and How it is Received - the Magician vs the Adulterer

A simple analogy of the different reactions to the receiving and becoming aware of deceit could the happy Magician vs. the extreme of the Adulterer. The magician Keith Barry performance Brain Magic on Ted Talks shown Feb 2004, clearly demonstrates the pleasure of deceit. Barry tells the audience how easy it is to deceive them and asks them all to join in with this experiment. He proceeds by asking them to follow his actions exactly folding one arm over the other and interlocking their fingers. He then makes a statement that if he had not deceived them they could do this and twits his arms to a normal position, while the audience can not do so, they are all deceived and oh what fun (Barry. 2004). They are part of a group and sharing in the experience without individual embarrassment.

The opposite the enjoyment of magic is the very personal effect of deceit when one spouse informs the other about an adulterous relationship, for the innocent spouse this is the worst deceit of all (Trivers, 101, 2011). Three elements, a reversal in fortune a child presumed to be your own is not. Second the betrayal rests on a bed of lies wilful deception that may have gone on for years and you have played a part in all of this by believing the lies. Finally the deception is in all directions sexual lies inevitably have encompassed others, dozens maybe, who know a side of your life that you do not, increasing the public shame, probably the most devastating deceits (Trivers 110, 2011).

The imagination creates deceit and self-deception, it is clear that the artists use such to great effect in adding meaning to a work. How can they not when it is in everyone’s DNA as part of our evolution success. It is a positive for the artistic works though depending on the audience’s beliefs and judgement, the response and can be different as evident with the analysis of the following three works.

Analysis of Three pieces of Art

The Royal Academy London in September 1997, the artist Marcus Harvey exhibited a portrait of Myra Hindley one of the ‘Moors Murderers’, who along with Ian Brady who were convicted of being child murderer’s killing 5 children, then buried them on Saddleworth moor. Such was public opinion about the portrait that the public revolted against the Academy. Various groups, including Mothers Against Murder And Aggression, accompanied by one of the victim’s mother, protested outside Burlington House of the Royal Academy for the work to be removed. Windows were smashed and eggs and ink thrown at the painting, damaging it (HSC 2012). The gallery placement of the painting was at the end of corridor which one could only enter some distance from the painting so when on first viewing, it was clearly defining it as a portrait of Myra Hindley. The fact that the painting was in fact a large number of children’s hands prints, only became evident when viewed closer to the painting. This was clearly an intent adding to the multiplicity of the deceit.

A more subdued response and an unnerving experience when seeing the works in a gallery are Gerhard Richter paintings of the Baader-Meinhof group that he based on newspaper and police photographs, reworking them into dark, blurred, and diffused images (Gerhard Richter 2011). Richter hoped that, "by way of reporting," these paintings will "contribute to an appreciation of [our time], to see it as it is" (Moma n.b.) Although the deaths were officially deemed suicides, there was widespread suspicion that the German state police had murdered the prisoners. Without Richter, it is doubtful that we would now be thinking much about the Red Army Faction (Woolen. 2001). This group is held responsible for thirty-four deaths; without the knowledge of recent German history would the works still be powerful works of art, why? How can an outsider understand the Psychological affect on the German population because of the unification, as an East German Richter struggles with it. How would portraits of the 9/11 terrorists be received?

Though many other examples could have been included, this is interesting given the date and whom it is by, and the deception is so obvious only when pointed out. The painting by Goya The Third of May 1808 was completed six years after the event though often Goya would complete a work in a single session sometimes of ten hours. The scale and the perspective are inconsistent. The dead bodies in the foreground are depicted from above, though the rest of the composition is along a central horizontal axis. The main figure if he were to stand up is a giant. There appear to be two light sources one illuminating the firing squad from behind and the second from the lantern normally a disbursed light, the light is primary on the central martyr figure. An 1813 engraving by Miguel Gamborino The Shooting of the Monks at Murviedro is so similar, that Goya must have had the print in his mind (Bohm-Duchen 2001). This work by Goya is accepted in the Art World as one of the great masterpieces in the history of art, the deceit is accepted as a necessary inclusion in the work.

Conclusion

We can understand more about art by the understanding of human behaviour. The artist deceives by the inclusion into a work something that does not exist, and viewer imagines the object portrays something that by their self-deception they want to believe in. There may well be serious consequences outside of the arts, for art it is the essential component, the artist and viewer playing with their own self-deception. If imagination is truthful, then art itself is the deception.

In an article by Simon Abrahams using the works of Northrop Frye as a basis, that to discover the true nature of the self, art shows how, by the encouragement to think the same way. The method he suggests is deception. (Abrahams. n.d.).

Alan Singer, professor of English literature, has recently explained how times are changing and that modern thinkers are more likely to suggest that "the flexibility of mind implicit in the self-deceiver's disposition" may be an aspect of reason worth cultivating. Of course, if true, then Cervantes, Shakespeare, Flaubert and all the other creators of self-deceiving characters in literature have always known the truth. As have painters and sculptors. (Abrahams n.d.)

Bibliography

·      Abrahams Simon. 2013. “EPPH – The Imaginative Advantages of Self-Deception.” Accessed May 18 2014. http://www.everypainterpaintshimself.com/blog/the_imaginative_advantages_of_self_deception

·      Barry Keith. 2004. Keith Barry: “Ted Talks, Brain Magic,” Feb 2004.Accessed May 10 2014 https://www.ted.com/talks/keith_barry_does_brain_magic

·      Barry Keith. 2011. “Deception with Keith Barry Part 1”, Aug 31 2011. Accessed May 19 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iksNX6p-KJk

·      Bakinin Mikhail. 1871. “What is Authority” Accessed May 21 2014. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/authrty.htm

·      Belshaw Michael. 2011. Artists’ statements: fate of the name, word and image: A journal of Verbal/Visual Enquiry, 27:1, 124-133, DOI:10.1080/10400419.2012.676980 Accessed May 27 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676980

·      Bohm-Duchen Monica. 2001. The Private Life of a Masterpiece. Los Angeles. University of California Press.

·      Britton, Ronald. 1998. “Belief and Imagination, explorations in psychoanalysis. London. Routledge. Accessed May 23 2014. http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cd2FAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=distinction+between+imagination+and+belief&ots=-Y0pyCC8Gq&sig=cWy-EQQQr2E-qfINrCa4U-Ax6LA#v=onepage&q=distinction%20between%20imagination%20and%20belief&f=false

·      Charman Helen, Ross Michaela. 2004. “Tate Papers, Contemporary Art and the Role of Interpretation.” Tate. Accessed May 10 2014. http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publications/tate-papers/contemporary-art-and-role-interpretation

·      CGU (Claremont Graduate University). n.d. “Writing in Art: Introduction”. Accessed May 26 2014. http://www.cgu.edu/pages/7483.asp

·      Crow Kelly. 2013. “The Escape Artist- The Wall Street Journal” Accessed April 25 2014. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324678604578340322829104276

·      Deweerse-Boyd, Ian”Self-Deception”,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) Accessed May 20 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=self-deception

·      Gordon Molly. (n.d.) “How to write to write and use an artist’s statement”. Accessed May 26 2014. http://www.mollygordon.com/resources/marketingresources/artstatemt/

·      Hirst Damien. 1997. “Damien Hirst Texts.” Accessed May 19 2014.

·      http://www.damienhirst.com/texts/1997/feb--sarah-borruso

·      HSC Visual Art Resources. 2012. Accessed May 22 2014. http://hscvisualartresources.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/marcus-harvey/

·      Kelley Mike. 2005. “Mike Kelley with John Welchman” accessed April 20 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrGsIopapFk

·      Leslie Ian. 2013. “The Economist – intelligent life – Are Artists Liars.” Accessed May 21 2014. http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ideas/ian-leslie/are-artists-liars?page=full

·      Miller John. 2012. “Mike Kelley (1954-2012)” art-agenda. Accessed May 15 2014. http://art-agenda.com/reviews/mike-kelley-1954%E2%80%932012/

·      Moma. “The Collection. Gerhard Richter.” Accessed May 22 2014.

·      http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=79037

·      Nolan Rita. 1974. ‘The character of writings by artists about their art’, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 33, no. 1 p. 71.

·      Oxford Dictionaries. n.d. Accessed May 25 2014. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief?q=belief

·      Gerhard Richter. 2011. Exhibited London. Tate Modern. Exhibition (viewed Nov 2011)

·      Searle, Adrian. 2012. “Mike Kelley: the nonconformist’s whole life is here”. Guardian Accessed March 30 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/dec/18/mike-kelley-nonconformist-whole-life-here

·      Searle, Adrian. 2011. “It came from planet bunkum”. Guardian Accessed March 30 2014. http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/07/mike-kelley-exploded-fortress-solitude

·      Shermer Michael. 2010. “The pattern behind self-deception.” Accessed May 18 2014. http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_shermer_the_pattern_behind_self_deception

·      Swanson, Carla. 2012. “Hell on Wheels.” NY mag. Accessed May 28 2012. http://nymag.com/arts/art/features/mike-kelley-2012-3/ 

·      Thornton, Sarah. 2008. Seven days in the Art World: W. W. Norton Co.

·      Trivers Robert. 2011. Deceit and Self-Deception. London. Penguin Books.

·      Welchman, John C. 2013. Mike Kelley – Themes and variations from 35 years. Edited by Ann Goldstein, Eva Meyer-Hermann, Lisa Gabrielle Mark. Munich. Prestel.

·      Woolen, Peter. 2001. “Leave-Taking.” London review of books. Accessed May 22 2014. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n07/peter-wollen/leave-taking

·      Pamela Meyer. How to spot a liar. Jul 2011. Accessed May 21 2014