kundalini
I love these images not because I am an expert on Yoga, alternative medicine, or Indian culture, but because they form a self-sufficient cosmology of form. They have an internal logic that is self-justifying. Each part of these images is meaningful and can be explained in terms of its relationship to the other visual elements of the picture, and its meaning in the system in which it was created. But anyone who is not interested in or knowledgeable about kundalini yoga and or tantric chakras or Ayurvedic medicine can still see the beauty in these images.
In projects past and present I have tried to acheive this level of sophistication and self-sufficiency. Of course, there are major differences - I am trying to invent a personal cosmology of form, whereas these are the product of many individuals, an entire vast history of medicine, religion, and culture. Also my cosmologies are not "about" anything, but rather relate more to the "misunderstanding" element when an uninformed viewer looks at these kundalini images. However, because my images do not refer to a pre-existing system of thought, there is no "misunderstanding." Someone who had knowledge of kundalini-yoga could listen to my interpretation of these images and tell me where I was "wrong." But I cannot tell a viewer they are wrong when they interpret my images. I can perhaps say - no, I intended this or that - but when we look at intention we find I might have meant one thing at one time, and a different thing as I was finishing an image off, with some tangential thoughts in between, and a fourth interpretation when I re-visited the image later, with much forgetting and revising. Yes, intent is not a single fixed thought, but a weaving of many threads of thought. Perhaps if all the possible threads are brought together, including the threads created by the viewers, we may see that they HINT at a "complete" interpretation, but this is all there is. There is no universe of perfect univeral form that Plato hints at - though I deeply identify with this idea - it is certainly an instinct that is essential to a mind that operates through the use of symbols.
Anyway, this is really nothing new, but with Perceival I am attempting to create a series that puts this process of interpretation on the surface.
I also must admit that some of these forms appear in my art just because I dig the shapes- the interwoven snake, the mandala-type symbols, the geometrically-enhanced biomorphisms, anything lotusesque... What is the appeal of symbols from a different culture? Does a lack of familiarity allow us to project our own meaning onto a symbol? Some of these symbols succeed in communicating part of their intended meaning even though we are unfamiliar with their cultural background. How do they do this? Is it the universal part of human nature? Some of the symbols fail to impart any meaning. Why? What is the role of orientalism in my regard for these images? How does this process work - to regarding something as an "other" culture and fictionalize it? How is this process negative? How positive? Is it possible to see orientalism as something larger - not only as east meets west, but a basic human instinct that we see in everyday situations - the process of dealing with the unfamiliar, the role of fantasy in everyday life, the urge to find a new way of thinking, the fascination with new visual forms?
Some of these images are from the book "Kundalini - the arousal of the inner energy" by Ajit Mookerjee, given to me by the great teacher D- B-, and others by the great teacher G- I- (that one's easy - bugle passages? frugal scrimmages?) I recommend this book.
Click on these images and take a look!
2 comments:
F.,
I am really interested in what you said about orientalism and whether or not it has any positive sides to it. The problem with orientalism is that is so much linked to colonialism that people from the west try sometimes too hard to stop their romantic perceptions of the east. But sometimes, I feel, with some of my friends that have visited Egypt that they were too influenced by Said's Orientalism book. I sometimes wish that hadn't read it the first time they visit "the orient", so to give some room for mis-perception and romantic thoughts. There's something special that should not be ignored about Romanticism and Orientalism. Sure, people do not want to repeat the mistake of colonialism, but in the mean time, we live in the present and colonialism was the passed (this is questionable though). However, I think that to be aware of orientalism is important. But it should be a flexible awareness. I think afterwards people become even more aware at the differences within one culture, which becomes fascinating. Orientalism can for sure exist in one culture. I have witnessed Egyptians before who do orientalize their "own" culture.
I have never read Said's book - just heard people talk about it. But, you know, I spent a lot of time in Japan and have been to China and Korea as well, so this issue was very much on my mind for quite a while.
Sometimes I feel like reading "theory" can damage the ideas growing in your mind. Plus I feel that by reading about colonialism or orientalism or racism or any other kind of discrimination through perception... that, that people start to have this idea that because they are aware of it, that they are not part of it, that they can somehow avoid culpability just through knowledge. But I don't think that's right. When I was in China especially I was absorbing a lot of culture and sharing a lot of my culture with the artists I was hanging out with. In some ways, this can certainly be criticised as an extension of the colonialism that has been such a huge part of Chinese history. But I think there was a lot more going on...
Post a Comment