SIMON WEIR

On Simon Weir’s “Sensual Ontographic Assemblage (Portrait of My Wife)” by Anastasia Spugova.

A picture as a concrete art object is an experiment. In the process of the experiment the artist visually acquaints the viewer with the external or internal experience they have experienced. Often the meaning-creating intention in art is to work with a “super” reality, or surreality, that is self-sufficient, reliable, independent of the author and the viewer. One cannot invent this surreality, nor make it obey. To find this reality is an eternal problem of art. However, the question arises of what the author of the work is referring to, is this the same reality (metaphysical space, the world of eidos ....) or an illusion. Illusion, as a concept is completely opposite to reality in its ontological sense. Illusion by its definition gives a distorted perception of feelings, phenomena, objects. Verification of either ontology is impossible. What the artist is faced with, what they work with, remains only as guesses, because we can’t know for sure. Assuming the ontologies are so different from each other, laid down in the basic concepts of a work of art, it seems impossible to conduct a full-fledged study of the picture. The risk of losing meaning seems to be inevitable. Surprisingly, the picture itself gives a way out, at least a hint from the current situation. It contains the concept of the illusory nature of an image, regardless of its figurativeness or abstractness. At the same time, reality - the reality of the picture as a material object - combines, in a paradoxical way, both ontological motives. Bearing in mind such coexistence of connotations, we should investigate further. Let’s assume this painting was created by the artist touching a self-sufficient, independent surreality. In an identical way, the possibilities of the picture will also be considered, where the interpreter works with their own allusions, intuitively subordinated to their personal subconscious.

Let’s proceed with the analysis. Surreal aesthetics can be perceived as a variant of another reality with unique symbols, with its own spatio-temporal laws. The artist does not have power over what is happening, he is a witness to a mysterious space. The picture in this case serves as a window to another specific reality. Together with the author, we observe in the picture an eco-system consisting of biomorphic creatures. Among them are found both representatives of our animal kingdom (tiger, snail, cat, parrot), and mythological creatures (the head of a human lion, snout-mask of a dragon). The interactions of these creatures are very different from what is familiar to us. The principle of these interactions is paradoxical in its connections and comparisons. The given parameters of the sizes of the creatures balance them among themselves. A giant snail becomes the central element of the image. It serves as an architectonic element in the construction of the composition. A vascular system resembling the organic root system of trees, growing out of the snail connects, and possibly nourishes, representations of predators: the anthropomorphic head of a lion and a tiger emerging from a dematerialized wall. This scene is devoid of natural landscape. 

The credibility of the scene is reminiscent of an animalistic photo-documentary frame snatched from metaphysical reality with its current laws of nature. Particular attention should be paid to light, the source of its origin is not known. We recognize it as a bright, midday light in the open air. However, this is only an assumption, because there is a possibility this “other” metaphysical reality lacks sun, air and other elements of our natural world. 

The artist, as an independent observer, does not give an interpretation of what he managed to capture. Instead, he transforms the "kinesthetic" experience he has experienced from contact (involvement in) with "super" reality into a work of art. The cultural codes of the unknown world are transmitted for further reading to the viewer. In the act of contemplation, the picture will give the observer an interpretation. Despite the literal nature of what is visible, each subject will give meaning to personal experience. The viewer's assessment and awareness of the transmitted moment will be compared not with the surrounding world, but with their own experience of reality. It is important that the picture itself in this case, with its whole concept, involves just such a method of perception.

Consider a certain illusory phenomenon with which, we assume, the artist interacted. The nature of objects fixed on the canvas is a sensual mirage in the space of the subconscious. The author captures visual images as reflections of his experience of past events. The past is experienced in an artistic-unconscious act of creativity. Giving out a figurative reaction to the memory, the past transfers to the future, and the present supplements and at the same time competes with the present, the actual. One of the main conditions of the artist’s work is his observance of the necessary distance to the occurring phenomena in the space-time labyrinths of his own self. The painting, reacting with the nature of illusory images, begins to reveal the deceptiveness of visible reality on the canvas. Thus, focusing on the shadow, we detect the presence of light. Consciousness begins to illuminate the picture and even endow the light inside the picture with special properties, such as brightness, saturation, etc. When understanding the fictitiousness of light, the attitude to space also changes. The mind refuses to mentally complete the architectural environment in which the objects are placed. There is a feeling of a chamber scene. The shadow turns into a curtain canvas. It covers an inscription, “fear of reality,” suggesting the earlier presence of a person. There is a feeling of illusion that if you cover the entire canvas of the work with shadow, then figurative images will dissolve in the space of the picture, and in their place, words will appear as objects. Perhaps the words will form a textual commentary explaining the image. Or perhaps the text will be a metaphorical, poetic (literary) work, illusory images of other memories. 

After close inspection, the meta reality or higher reality (free from human command), and as its opposite, the world of illusions (which obeys a person’s influence), both appear equally important for the author, for the viewer/spectator and for the work/picture itself.

This is possible due to the viability of the art object. The picture itself begins to reveal the necessary meanings and becomes a self-sufficient phenomenon. 

A picture as a concrete art object is an experiment. In the process of which the artist visually acquaints the viewer with the external or internal experience he has experienced. Often the meaning-creating intention in art is to work with a “super” reality that is self-sufficient, reliable, independent of the author himself and the viewer. This reality cannot be subjugated to oneself, nor invented. (One cannot make “super” reality to obey him, nor one cannot invent his own reality) To find this reality is an eternal problem of art. However, the question arises of what the author of the work is referring to, is this the same reality (metaphysical space, the world of eidos ....) or an illusion. Illusion, as a concept completely opposite to reality in its ontological sense. Illusion by its definition gives a distorted perception of feelings, phenomena, objects. Verification of both theories either ontology is impossible. What the artist is faced with, what he works with, it remains only to make guesses, because we can’t know for sure. Assuming the theories (why don’t you use ontology as well?)  are so different from each other, laid down in the basis of the basic concepts of a work of art, it seems impossible to conduct a full-fledged study of the picture. The risk of losing meaning seems to be inevitable. Surprisingly, the picture itself gives a way out, at least a hint from the current situation. It contains the concept of the illusory nature of an image, regardless of its figurativeness or abstractness. At the same time, reality - the reality of the picture as a material object, combines in a paradoxical way both theoretical ontological motives. Bearing in mind such coexistence of connotations, we should investigate further. For instance, let’s place this painting into particular circumstances of the experience the artist have had from touching /or getting involved with self-sufficient, independent from anyone super/ “higher”/ or meta reality. In an identical way, the possibilities of the picture will also be considered, where the author works with his own allusions, intuitively subordinated to his personal subconscious.

Let’s proceed with the analysis. Surreal aesthetics can be perceived as a variant of another reality with unique symbols, with its own spatio-temporal laws. The artist does not have power over what is happening, he is a witness to a mysterious space. The picture in this case serves as a window to another specific reality. Together with the author, we observe in the picture an eco-system consisting of biomorphic creatures. Among them are found both representatives of our animal kingdom (tiger, snail, cat, parrot), and mythological creatures (the head of a human lion, snout-mask of a dragon). Interaction principle of the creatures is very different from what is familiar to us. The principle is paradoxical in its connections and comparisons. The given parameters of the sizes of creatures balance them among themselves. A giant snail becomes the central element of the image. It serves as an architectonic element in the construction of the composition. A vascular system resembling the organic root system of trees. The snail connects, and possibly nourishes, representatives representations of the predators: the anthropomorphic head of a lion and a tiger emerging from a dematerialized wall. This scene is devoid of natural landscape. The credibility of the scene is reminiscent of an animalistic photo-documentary frame snatched from metaphysical reality with its current laws of nature. Particular attention should be paid to light, the source of its origin is not known. We recognize it as a possible bright, midday light in the open air. However, this is only an assumption, because there is a possibility this “other” metaphysical reality lacks sun, air and other elements of our natural world. The artist, as an independent observer, does not give an interpretation of what he managed to capture. He transforms the "kinesthetic" experience he has experienced from contact (involvement in) with "super" reality into a work of art. The cultural codes of the unknown world are transmitted for further reading to the viewer. In the act of contemplation, the picture will give the observer an interpretation. Despite the literal nature of what he saw, each subject will give meaning to his personal experience of what he sees. The viewer's assessment and awareness of the transmitted moment will be compared not with the surrounding world, but with his own experience of reality. It is important that the picture itself in this case, with its whole concept, involves just such a method of its perception.

Consider the option of a certain illusory phenomenon with which, we assume, the artist interacted. The nature of objects fixed on the canvas is a sensual mirage in the space of the subconscious. The author captures visual images of reflection on his experience of past events. The past is experienced in an artistic-unconscious act of creativity. Giving out a figurative reaction to the memory, the past transfers to the future, and the present supplements and at the same time creates competition for it (the present, the actual). One of the main conditions of the artist’s work is his observance of the necessary distance to the occurring phenomena in the space-time labyrinths of his own self. The painting, reacting with the nature of illusory images, begins to reveal the deceptiveness of visible reality on the canvas. Thus, focusing on the shadow, we detect the presence of light. Consciousness begins to illuminate the picture and even endow the light inside the picture with special properties, such as brightness, saturation, etc. When understanding the fictitiousness of light, the attitude to space also changes. The mind refuses to mentally complete the architectural environment in which the objects are placed. There is a feeling of a chamber scene. The shadow turns into a curtain canvas. It covers an inscription informing earlier the presence of a person here. There is a feeling of illusion that if you cover the entire canvas of the work with shadow, then figurative images will dissolve in the space of the picture, and in their place words will appear as objects. Perhaps the words will form a text commentary explaining the image. In another case, the text will be a metaphorical poetic (literary) work that responds to the illusory images of memories. The viewer becomes involved in the process of involuntary feeling of someone else's experience acquired through personal experiences of memory. An artist, as an individual, gives rise to a unique world of meanings. The illusion that has arisen as a reaction to life is relevant for both the picture and a viewer.

The picture appears to have multiple meanings for different, contradicting with each other concepts/experiences that are obtained by the author. 

Meta reality/higher reality is free from any human, same as its opposition, the world of illusions, which obeys a particular person’s; after close inspection both appear equally important for the author, viewer/spectator and the work/picture itself.

This is possible in the case of the viability of the art object. The picture itself begins to reveal the necessary meanings and becomes a self-sufficient phenomenon in the context of existence / our world laws. 

Anastasia Spugova

Art Critic, Russian Academy of Arts, The State Tretyakov Gallery and Moscow Museum of Modern Art, Moscow, Russia.

===================================================

Simon Weir responds:

Anastasia Spugova intuits the ontographic ambitions of the painting, and to this I should add that insofar as an artist creates a real object that is only accessible via the sensual object created by the perception of the withdrawn real object, the painting, painter and observer are equally separated, except the painter must nonetheless find influential contact with the withdraw real object.

This observation was anticipated back in my 1996 text “On the Softness of Meaning” which I will repeat here in full.

“On the Softness of Meaning
The meaning of any work of art, of any experience for that matter, appears quite different to each person. While one person sees the family tree, another sees the mystic olive. I have heard it surmised that each person sees a fragment of the total meaning and reads their ‘part’. Instead, I believe each person sees the meaning, and it is the meaning itself that conforms to the mind of the recipient. We understand our experiences based on what we know already, and it is against these mental structures that we compare reality. These structures are more or less often rebuilt, and when they are, we see ‘with new eyes’, and aspects of experience take on new meaning; the meaning of the work of art will then conform to these new mental structures. All people, as we know, can look at something in more than one way; so it is possible for a person to see in a work of art multiple and even contradictory meanings. The softness of the meaning of a work of art is a measure of its effectiveness, and its elasticity a measure of its greatness.”

Hence I reassert today: long live the elastic art of ontographically objective weird realism !

Objects are comprosed of objects. Since Freud, we have been discussing ourselve as comprised of conscous and unconscious urges. And modern neurophysiology has determined that the unconscous is not a singularity, but a multiplicity of independent affecttive specialisations. Hence, we may see within ourselves many competing urges that are voicing, in their ways, their perspective. We can take on different perspectives on subjects, apprehend different uses for objects, if we consider these to be objects in their own right, we see our personalities as synthetic, selective and artificial unifications of these disparate urges and perceptions. Hence an image of a singular person is often more acutely seen as a living multiplicity where the whole is weaker than many of its own components.