Roy Lichtenstein achieved his artistic breakthrough relatively late in life, at a time when he was almost 40. His breakthrough consisted of painting motives from comics. How could a motive from a comic be art? Lichtenstein had experimented with various styles before, but once he painted his comic motives it became immediately clear to him that he had discovered something real, that he made an actual artistic discovery, that his paintings were a revelation what art could be. Indeed, his comic paintings became an immediate success, and together with Andy Warhol´s soup cans and the like they established New York Pop Art (ironically, Warhol had done paintings from comics as well originally, but as soon as he discovered that Lichtenstein did the same thing, he turned to other motives which would make him even more famous). Lichtenstein´s paintings consisted of relatively few colours, but they were tasty and bright, saturated and a pleasure for the eye. They were actually destined to become pop-ular. He expanded his motives and his style throught his career. His paintings would become allusions to Surrealism, or to Picasso, to Matisse or to Léger. His famous brush stroke paintings, icons of Pop Art all the same, were allusions to Abstract Expressionism and to Action Painting. Lichtenstein also made sculptures, of his brush strokes or of his explosions, i.e. something you would not consider a motive for a sculpture. But such was the tacit humour that you had in all his art. Eventually his oeuvre was full of citations from the history of painting. He was one of the most successful American artists, with many of his paintings becoming popular and printed as posters in huge quantities.

Pop Art was the last movement in art that managed to establish a universal signifier and a universal paradigm, a concise statement and a concise diagnosis of the world as a whole. Ideally, this is what you would expect from art. Yet such expectations have become frustrated afterwards, and ever since the 1970s or so. Therefore one might consider Pop Art as the last true triumph of an art that was somehow avant-gardist and somehow “stronger” and more intelligent than the world, than the society it sprang out of, that was ahead of its time. After Pop Art, developments in society seemingly became more turbulent, more intelligent and more avant-garde than art, with art merely trying to catch up with those developments, with art becoming an intellectual by-product of social developments. Art reflects on society, and society had changed at the time when Pop Art came into play. It had become a consumer society, a society of mass consumption and a society of (fordist) mass production. A wealthy and seemingly pacified society. The artifacts that sprang out of and circulated in society had changed – with the standardised mass consumer product, i.e. Warhol´s soup cans and Brillo boxes, becoming the emblem of society. Clement Greenberg´s sharp distinction between Art and Kitsch became blurred. Artefacts of the popular – i.e. consumer products and advertisement, comics, movies, fashion, music, etc. – were oscillating between Art and Kitsch, respectively they were neither (high) art nor addressing a stupid sentimentality as does the Kitsch. The Popular became a category of its own. Therefore it seems a natural consequence that art becomes poppy. Vice versa, in the later 1960s popular music or the cinema (“New Hollywood”) even became distinctly artistic. At any rate, Pop Art, in essence, reflected on the Popular. Although Pop Art was innovative and something new, it was not extremely avant-garde. Neither it was obviously critical and expressing an Unbehagen in der Kultur that intellectuals, and various types of people, have been lamenting ever since about so-called consumer society. Rather than that, Pop Art even seemed optimistic. In general, Pop Art reduced itself to being a diagnosis of its time, and little else. And in doing so, Pop Art did it perfectly right. In refraining from being judgemental, Pop Art preserved its charismatic enigma of leaving everything afloat. Andy Warhol left it open whether his art actually meant a lot – or practically nothing at all; whether it was full of meaning, or devoid of any. Therefore his art has the quality of great art – as it remains vibrant, oscillating, alive, present. Pop Art serves as an examination of the depth of the supposed flatness it seemingly portrays. It is, as any great art, an enigmatic clash of dimensions that finally cannot be explicitly sorted out, neither by our intellect or by our perception or imagination.

Pop Art has been deemed superficial. On the one hand because of its boldness and simplicity. Nevertheless, it was due to this boldness and simplicity that Pop Art became a success and a landmark within art history (Pop Art actually surfaced not in New York but in Great Britian and was pioneered by artists like Richard Hamilton, David Hockney or Peter Blake – yet British Pop Art was, in a way, too reflective, too thoughtful and too nuanced, too hesitant to reach its full maturity). On the other hand, politically conscious people may feel offended especially by the superficiality of Pop Art´s leading proponent and, moreover, the defining artist of his time, Andy Warhol. Although Warhol was able to artistically capture an entire age and to establish universal signifiers, he was unable, or unwilling, to reflect on what happened in the second part of the 1960s in America (a time when Pop Art was past beyond its prime, however), notably the Vietnam war, the civil rights movement, the race question. Truly, Andy Warhol was not a particularly critical or politically conscious person (and neither Pop Art had been of such qualities). His primary motive was to become famous, a celebrity. And it is true that all his art remained superficial. Warhol himself acknowledged that and at time lamented it. But his art was superficial in a highly evocative way. According to Dali, the genius spiritualises everything. And Andy Warhol spiritualised superficiality. That is no mean achievement. Superficiality is even something that is universal. The Vietnam war and the opposition against it, the Black Panther movement or the feminist avantgarde were things that happened in some space and in some time and that were linked to vocabularies that are somehow outdated. The consumer society (and the desire for fame) still persists. Also Lichtenstein´s art is less superficial than it appears to be. Apart from the mastery of execution and the humor and the versatility of the intellect that keeps his art highly alive, Lichtenstein´s art is evocative, almost an epiphany. His art clearly expresses what painting could be and what painting could be about. And it comes in an unexpected way. It catches by surprise. There is sophistication to it, but it is also easily approachable and tangible for a larger audience. That´s what art should be and should do. The white space of the empty canvas is an abyss. The metaphysical abyss of art. It confronts imagination with what could be, with what could reasonably happen in art. If you are lucky and very imaginative, something will rise up from this abyss that tells a greater truth. This is what happened also In Roy Lichtenstein´s case.  

It was a good idea of the Pop artists not to try to comment a lot about the change within society they reflected on – the transformation into a consumer society. Many intellectuals and wannabe-intellectuals could not evade that trap. However, the transformation into a consumer society is a historical change far too profound for anyone to truly grasp. It is a transformation that will likely have its effects on the rest of human history. Time and again, there is voiced a concern about the “superficiality” consumer society supposedly brings about. But, obviously, what consumer society brings about is something that is good. If anyone laments the superficiality of consumer society, it, well, is probably due to his own superficiality or inability to see and adapt to larger patterns. As already noticed, the Popular became distinctly more artistic in the later 1960s, epitomised for instance in the Beatles´ album Sgt. Pepper´s Lonley Hearts Club Band, arguably the greated and most universal piece of popular music of all time (the iconic cover was done by a true Pop artist, Peter Blake). With Sgt. Pepper the Beatles wanted to express the sentiment of their time, that is to say of carefreeness and of joy. Rightfully, Sgt. Pepper has dominated the lists of best albums of all time, also the famous List of 500 best albums of all time by the Rolling Stone magazine. Yet recently, Sgt. Pepper got positioned in distinctly lower ranks by the Rolling Stone magazine. Much more dominating are now albums by people of colour and by women (notably hip hop records). The best album of all time is now considered to be What´s Going On by Marvin Gaye. I have listened to What´s Going On several times in trying to understand what would be so great about it, but I still can hardly remember anything from it. I do not catch why this album should be super, musically. However, the Rolling Stone magazine is fascinated because What´s Going On deals with racism, police brutality or the Vietnam war. Well, okay. In championing for What´s Going On the people from the Rolling Stone magazine obviously think they are very thoughtful. However I do not think they truly are. The Vietnam war, racism and police brutality against Afroamericans is not something that is truly universal. Nothing of this actually affects me, or anyone I know. When the Beatles want to bring cheerfulness and joy it deems me a lot more universal. Meanwhile I have travelled the world a bit, and I have witnessed that most of the “oppressed” people in this world are conformists all alike. They are not very “conscious” and they are not very interested in politics. They are interested in consumer products. If they have consumer products, they´re happy. They bring them cheerfulness and joy. Therefore Pop Art is universal art. And Sgt. Pepper´s Lonley Hearts Club Band is the preeminent popular music album of all time.

Jörg Immendorff, Daniel Richter, Albert Oehlen, Katharina Grosse, Arnulf Rainer oder Sigmar Polke, die derzeit in der Albertina Modern präsentiert werden, sind zweifelsohne erhebliche künstlerische Talente und echte Maler. Sie haben ihren Platz; das kann man nicht bestreiten. Allerdings kann das, was derzeit in der Albertina Modern gezeigt wird, nicht mithalten mit dem, was derzeit im BaCA Kunstforum hängt (Robert Motherwell). Während im Kunstforum Kunst hängt, die sich auch radikal will und sucht, hat sich die Kunst in der Albertina Modern ein wenig aufgegeben oder zumindest vernachlässigt; sie ist zwar Kunst, aber als Begleiterscheinung innerhalb der Gesellschaft; nicht eine, die sich triumphierend über die Gesellschaft erhebt und die Gesellschaft und ihre lärmende Aufdringlichkeit in die Schranken verweist. Allein bei Albert Oehlen scheint man da was aus dem Urgrund – bzw. dessen epistemologischem Korrelat: den Geistestiefen bzw. dem transzendentalen Imaginationsvermögen – aufzusteigen haben; etwas, das sich noch dazu in einer rätselhaften Überdimensionalität, in die wir nur partiell Einblick haben, zu entfalten scheint, so wie das bei letztgültiger Kunst ja ist (bei Albert Oehlen scheint man also, gemein gesprochen, etwas Aufsteigend/Emporkommend authentisch-voraussetzungslos Schöpferisches zu haben). Aber ich weiß nicht, ob Albert Oehlen das auch so versteht, oder aus dieser Intention heraus malt. Heidegger hat vor geraumer Zeit gemeint: Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht. Rettung (einen Ausweg für die Philosophie und für die Entfaltung des Geistes, für das authentische Denken) hat er dann deswegen in der Kunst gesucht, freilich in ihrer vergeistigtsten Form (Hölderlin). Seit in etwa dem Tod von Heidegger in den 1970er Jahren kann man aber wohl sagen: Die Kunst denkt nicht. Man kann allgemein nicht feststellen, wo die Kunst heutzutage groß oder tief denkt. Das ist ein Substanzverlust, der nicht einmal genau bestimmt ist. Er wird von den Kunsttheoretikern (die korrelativ dazu ihre beste Zeit auch hinter sich zu haben scheinen oder die zumindest nicht die gegenwärtige ist) in ziemlich äußerlicher Weise umkreist. Sie scheinen vergessen zu haben, dass Kunst eine Erscheinungsform des Geistes ist und dass ein Aufstieg oder Abstieg der Kunst daher notwendigerweise ein Aufstieg oder Abstieg des Geistes ist bzw. ebendarin zu suchen ist. So kommt in der besonderen Malerei von Robert Motherwell der Geist zum Vorschein, der sich selbst begegnet – deswegen ist sie außerdem auch rein als Malerei besser als Malerei, die weniger Geist verkörpert. Damit der Geist sich selbst begegnen kann, muss er sich extrem vertiefen. Der Geist muss in die Malerei stürzen und in den Abgrund der Möglichkeiten, die in ihr liegen. Nur dann kann Malerei den Geist des Betrachters absorbieren und ewig lebendig sein. Indem in ihr ein ahnungsvoller Abgrund gähnt – der aber das reine Imaginationsvermögen und dessen offener Raum und dessen lebendige Sogwirkung ist. Die Malerei muss also denken, die Kunst muss also denken, nur in dieser Bewegung eröffnet sich in ihr der abgründige, absorbierende Raum in all seiner unermesslichen Tiefe, aus der dann Motive an die Oberfläche gespült werden und das ganze dann einigermaßen fixiert wird. Man hat im echten Kunstwerk das einigermaßen Fixierte und Eindeutige, das im Offenen oszilliert, die klare Konturiertheit und intellektuelle Präzision in der Bestimmung der Gegenstände der Welt, die dann aber gleichzeitig wieder in der Offenheit und Rätselhaftigkeit des Welthintergrundes verschwimmen bzw. mit ihm verschmelzen – gleichzeitig wird durch diese Beleuchtung aber auch der tiefere, rätselhafte Welthintergrund fassbarer und konkreter gemacht, der Scheinwerfer auf ihn draufgehalten. Durch die Kunst wird also Licht, in der Kunst erscheint die Welt. Indem sich die Kunst z.B. bei Motherwell durch das intensive, suchende Denken geklärt hat, erscheint sie in ihrer reinen Form. Das Charisma der Malerei von Motherwell bzw. aller so genannter großer Malerei und großer Kunst liegt darin, dass in ihr scheinbar voraussetzungslos und unmittelbar was erscheint. Dem Künstler ist es gelungen, zum transzendentalen Imaginationsvermögen vorzustoßen und das transzendentale Imaginationsvermögen anzuzapfen, das dann der reine Hintergrund ist, in dem das reine Motiv erscheint. Und beide verweisen unmittelbar aufeinander. Das ist dann die Perspektive der Erleuchtung. Dass ein Motiv in einem Hintergrund erscheint, ist die Struktur der Welt. In der Perspektive der Erleuchtung erblickt man, wie sich Motiv und Hintergrund ständig wechselseitig durchdringen, interdependent sind, sich ineinander spiegeln und dadurch ihren jeweiligen rätselhaften Wesenskern ein wenig erhellen. Das heißt: man sieht dann die totale, dichte Struktur der Welt, in ihrer fraktalen, aufeinander verweisenden „Unendlichkeit“. Man meint vielleicht, die Erleuchtung sei etwas Undurchsichtiges, Geheimes, ein Geheimnis aus dem fernen Osten. Aber im Wesentlichen sieht man in der elementaren Kunst die Welt aus einer solchen erleuchteten Perspektive. Es sind reine Motive, die in einem reinen Hintergrund erscheinen und sich beide wechselseitig durchdringen. Die Erleuchtung ist die höchste Stufe des Denkens und der Verwirklichung des Geistes. Heidegger hat sie gesucht, sie aber nie ganz gefunden, dafür aber in interessanter Weise in all seinem philosophischen Streben umkreist. Heute scheint es nicht mehr so zu sein, dass nach einer solchen Möglichkeit gesucht wird, in der Kunst und anderswo. Bei Basquiat begegnet sich (vielleicht nicht ganz das Denken aber) zumindest die expressive Fähigkeit zum Malen selbst. Basquiat war scheinbar das einzige gewichtige Genie, das nach dem Tod von Heidegger in der Malerei aufgetreten ist, während vorher dauernd gewichtige Genies in ihr aufgetreten sind. Es ist aber zu früh gestorben, als dass man sein Gewicht tatsächlich beurteilen könnte. Ich frage mich, warum solche Vertiefungen in der Kunst nicht mehr stattfinden, angestrebt werden oder zumindest nicht gelingen. Trotz allem Nachdenken über diese Frage habe ich immer noch keine befriedigende Antwort gefunden, warum die Kunst nicht mehr denkt. Die herkömmlichen Erklärungsversuche – der Überdruss der Kunst an sich selbst angesichts einer unästhetischen Realität; die Erschöpfung der inneren Möglichkeiten der Malerei; die Nivellierung durch den Kunstmarkt; die Gravität und Pfadabhängigkeit des Niveauverlustes in der Kunst und in der Kunstrezeption, der sich verstetigt; der sozialistische/feministische Unsinn von der Überflüssigkeit des Genies – scheinen letztendlich ungenügend (auch insofern das alles Mächte sind, die als solche Gegenmächte produzieren würden), da sie äußerlich sind, und scheinbar nicht das Zentrum der Kunst betreffen. Denn das Zentrum der Kunst ist das Denken, ist die Begegnung des Geistes mit sich selbst und ist die authentische Begegnung mit dem transzendentalen Imaginationsvermögen, aus dem alles entspringt und aus dem heraus alles originär erscheint. Das Zentrum der Kunst liegt im Subjekt und im Geist, also in Territorien, die von der Gesellschaft und vom Zeitgeist relativ wenig beeinflussbar sind/sein sollten. Damit liegt das Zentrum der Kunst aber auch im Gehirn. Vielleicht haben die Mediennutzungsgewohnheiten und die Akkulturationen in den letzten Jahrzehnten die Gehirne verändert und die Subjekte deformiert, dass aus ihnen kein Tiefsinn mehr rauskommt/entspringt. Oh ja, so wird das sicher sein! Aber –

Tension, forces, confinement and liberation are transcendental categories. In his signature works, Robert Motherwell paints ovals and thick bars that seem to express just these transcendentals, although they officially are Elegies to the Spanish Republic (the ovals are meant to be testicles of a bull, likely in a fight). They are breakthrough paintings, at any rate. An artist has managed to break through the wall and construct his own territory, or energy field. Another one of Motherwell´s series are the Opens: largely monochromous paintings with rectangular interferences that truly open stuff up and dynamise things (they would become more complex over the course of the years). Another transcendental category, very basic, probably that of encounter. Although Robert Motherwell had initially studied philosophy and likely was the most philosophically educated among the Abstract Expressionists, the metaphysics expressed in his paintings seems to come more tacit than in those of many of his peers. They are, probably, metaphysically less strong, bold and important than the paintings of Pollock, Rothko or Newman. But Motherwell was, above all, a supreme abstract painter, i.e. an artist. His intellectual purity expresses itself in the purity of his painting. He is a dweller on the threshold were art remains art and art becomes metaphysics. Or, he dwells in both of them territories.

The truth-seeker strives to get to know ultimate reality, the most fundamental reality. If this quest is philosophical and metaphysical, it will also involve introspection. Therein, the truth-seeker will also encounter the truth of his own mind, as an integral element of that reality. Such a quest for truth will lead to purification. If you are lucky, you will finally encounter a purified vision of fundamental reality and a purified vision of the mind. Mark Rothko aimed at expressing “universal truths”. In the world of his time, there were no universal truths anymore. Actually, only in medieval, in ancient, in atavistic times there have been lifeworlds and experience realms that were wholly integrated in themselves, unitarian and universal (or so we are inclined to think). Ours is a time of partial truths and accumulations of expert knowledges. Since man cannot bear living in an environment of partial truths, Rothko sought for expressing universal truths, yet at the basis of a contemporary, appropriate worldview and knowledge about the world. (And, I reiterate, what is likeable about the Abstract Expressionists, respectively about modern artists, is that, in apparent contrast to contemporary artists, they wanted such things.) For Rothko, the artist has the task to create a “plastic equivalent to the highest truth” and not to reproduce the specific details of a certain object. Since he was also seeking for truth in art, i.e. the medium in which truth can be expressed in specific ways, he was seeking for an absolute power of painting in itself, revealed not in reference to something, but in reference to itself. Rothko struggled a lot. Like the other major Abstract Expressionists it took him many years, decades to come up with the ultimate results that then became his signature paintings. (Because of this, the art of the Abstract Expressionists, and of the moderns in general, has the charisma of being born out of a transcendent effort, of having been through something, whereas contemporary art has not and therefore deems intellectually powerless.) If you want to get to know reality and the reality of your mind in a fundamental way, you have to be very active and contemplative. It will require great effort. You have to progressively deconstruct traditions, inherited knowledge, ideologies, affiliations, etc. You will finally encounter a vision in which there will be not very much to see. It will be some rather undifferentiated primal ground. Yet out of the primal ground emerges everything; virtually, the primal ground contains everything. In terms of the reality of your mind, you will encounter the primal ground of the power of imagination, the basic capacity of imagination. If you have managed to encounter this in such a fundamental way, you will finally be in control of reality and of the power of imagination. You will have achieved versatility. You will be enlightened. The signature paintings of Rothko are expressions of fundamental reality and epiphanies of the purification of mind.

The primal ground is something primitive and tranquil, but also, and foremost, something extremely sophisticated and very active, agitated. The individual visions of the primal ground are somehow similar to each other, but they are also different and differentiated from each other. Also Ad Reinhardt and Barnett Newman came up with visions of the primal ground (respectively practically all the Abstract Expressionists sought to come up with such a kind of thing, with something primordial). I personally prefer Newman over Rothko. Newman´s signature paintings contain the “Zip”, a narrow vertical flash that emerges over an undifferentiated ground. Such truly is the basic structure of the world: a motif emerges out of, or within, a background. With the right mindset, you understand them both. (“Enlightenment” means: you can permanently switch between motif and background, you oscillate between motif and background: this is then the desired vision of (an internally highly differentiated) “unity” of all things.) Rothko´s paintings are more unclear. They are less internally differentiated. It is said that Rothko wanted to express the Sublime, the Divine, or that he wanted to express harmony. He wanted to create pacifying environments. He wanted to do something  purely meditative. In contrast to this, Newman´s paintings are actually unsettling, even terrifying. They express the IN THE BEGINNING was the word, the Let there be light. They express basic creation, they express the event, something that rips, something that tears apart. Newman´s paintings express the Logos. With the “Zip”, the possibility of narration, of rationality, and therefore of eternal agitation, uneasiness, turmoil and tumult enters. Rothko´s paintings are pre-narrative. They are more oceanic or, if you may, they are more mud-like. Rothko´s paintings are more formulaic, they are more boring, they are weaker. They are, in their repetitiveness, even a bit silly and a bit stupid. But Rothko´s paintings are considerably more popular than Newman´s. Rothko is some kind of household name; Newman is not. If you are into sarcasm you may think this is so because Rothko is “less intellectual” than Newman. People do not want to be confronted with the Logos, especially not if it comes as an aggressive flash. They want to be lulled. Yet, first and foremost, Rothko, maybe more than Newman, actually has managed to create something truly iconic. Rothko´s paintings are more like – paintings (Newman´s actually are more conceptual). Maybe more than Newman´s, Rothko´s signature paintings are iconic, like Warhol´s soup cans, Dali´s Camembert watches, Raphael´s little angels in the Sistine Madonna, Michelangelo´s Creation of Adam, Leonardo´s Mona Lisa, or Duchamp´s urinal. If you have managed to come up with something iconic, then you have most likely triumphed over other frailties that there might be. In his comparative superficiality, Rothko is perhaps more profound, deeper, universal than Newman. (Superficial as I am, I still prefer Newman over Rothko.)

Clyfford Still makes the rest of us look academic.

Jackson Pollock

I reiterate: If you want to see the world aright, you need to get in mimetic touch with that that is different from you, you need to embrace the other. By permanently and consecutively embracing the different, the other, your vision will become more and more complete, your vision will become more and more one. There will be no more internal stratification inside you, just an open field (with, to be true, largely heterogenous elements, yet their boundaries will become fuzzy and blurred, i.e. open for interaction). E pluribus unum, or so they say. Clyfford Still was very different, very otherwise. Clyfford Still stands in the corner of another room, enigmatically. It is not easy to decipher what such a figure actually wants to say, it does not directly communicate; it is vibrating and humming in itself, obviously it is alive, but most obviously it is something different from us and from anything we commonly know. Clyfford Still is very original and very different, very unlike anything we know. Maybe it is us who are different – and forsaken – , and he is the one more close to the Real Thing, to the real Real. Or so we might think. Jackson Pollock said, Clyfford Still made the rest of the American painters look academic. He was a forerunner of Abstract Expressionism, developed his “style” in reclusiveness, and he disliked Abstract Expressionism once it had become fashionable, and, as he saw it, sterile and formulaic. So he withdrew from the scene. Ideally, Still´s largely monochromous paintings contain flame-like, wedge-like or eye-like elements that shake up the silence of the undifferentiated primal ground, but add another silence into it, or a language that mumbles, partly comprehensibly, partly unintelligibly. They are the (relative) silence of Otherness, the enigma of Otherness. While the other Abstract Expressionists come up with something vivid, or Barnett Newman comes up with a flashing Zip, out of Clyfford Still´s primal ground emerges some primal, originary Otherness. Silent, though not mute, reclusive. An all-over eye, that seems to envision the entire scene and its beyond. It is face-like, like the paintings of another one who was a radical Other: Wols. The paintings by Wols and by Clyfford Still are like faces of Otherness. We gaze into them, they gaze into us. In some way we do meet, in some other way we don´t. Very different, very otherwise, all that. What is striking is the in-your-face character of these painted faces, of the paintings both by Wols and by Still. They come unfiltered and unmitigated. The poststructuralists (Derrida) say that presence does not exist, but the paintings by Clyfford Still and by Wols are of an unmistakable presence. They seem to be presence itself. They shake up poststructuralism. They confront any systems of meaning with some strange, evasive super-meaning; or with an ultra-meaning and an infra-meaning. They are an extension to ordinary meaning. Clyfford Still probably was the best abstract painter who ever existed (or, upon reflection, Mondrian might have been). Yet, maybe therefore, he is not, or cannot be, a household name like Pollock, Rothko or de Kooning. There seems to be an additional level of abstraction to his paintings; in his paintings there seems to be a meta-level of abstraction and Abstract Expressionism. This is what the ordinary eye cannot truly bear: the eye of radical Otherness, the faces of radical Otherness. The art of Clyfford Still exemplifies radical Otherness.

Concerning Lacan´s “Great Other”, I do not know how individuals like Clyfford Still could be intimidated by the uncanny complexity and intransparency of any “Great Other”. Rather, it will be them who intimidate any other Great Other. If we take the “Great Other” to be language, customs, artistic styles – in the final instance: God – i.e. stuff that preforms and predetermines the individual and its modes of thought and expression, then individuals like Clyfford Still function in some way as the register of the Real to the Symbolic register that holds the Great Other. I.e. they are what evades the register of the Symbolic and predetermined language and modes of expression. They are something else. They are the Great Other to the Great Other. They are originary, and they seem to be primary to the register of the Symbolic (or, they seem to be an uncanny return of the Symbolic that has digested itself and now confronts the Symbolic that is still in place with the radical alterity that lies (not only) within the Symbolic (but in all the registers) – so, in some way they are near to the closure of the entire system of the registers). Lacan says the Great Other is barred. Although we may be inclined to think so, the Great Other is not complete and not identical to itself, just as we aren´t. The Great Other is barred. This kind of non-identity you seem to have in the art of Clyfford Still as well. But this non-identity seems to be much more natural and identical to itself, not as helpless as the non-identity in the Great Other, or inside us, whose non-identity evolves out of our inability to come to terms with ourselves. This is so because otherness is the inherent nature of it, and of such individuals who serve as the Great Other to the Great Other. Their otherness and alterity is primary. They are their own Great Other. They embody their own alterity, they are the embodiment of alterity. They are in natural touch with the other – and therefore with the entire universe. The common categories are: the self and the non-self (the other). But inside them, the self and the other are not separated. (You gotta keep em separated, sing The Offspring. But such individuals, who serve as Great Others to the Great Others, they do not.) Frank Stella says that Clyfford Still´s art seems to come effortless, originating from another place. In this effortlessness, it is unlike any other painting, and Clyfford Still is unlike any other painter. Clyfford Still himself says, in his paintings there should be expressed the amalgamation between life and death. What could be more different, more otherwise to each other than life and death? In the paintings of Clyfford Still you gaze into radical alterity, into radical Otherness.

I reiterate: the goal of the creative process is to enable a transformation. The supreme creator attracts matter of all kind, internalises it, makes it his interior; via heavy intellectual concentration, via introspection, under its own weight and gravity it collapses into a black hole; this will open up a hyperdimensional channel through ordinary spacetime fabric, a wormhole; which will then eject the transformed, channeled, dimensionally challenged, warped interior in a complete other region in space and time, via a white hole. This is, then, a true transformation. Though we have recently managed to detect black holes, no one has ever seen the astronomical object of a white hole. But in creative processes, in the arts, you can, from time to time, encounter white holes. The signature paintings of Jackson Pollock, the drip paintings, are probably most exemplary of such white holes.

Pollock, a ruminative, cautious, uncommunicative fellow, seeked to gain access to the spiritual, the “unconscious”, via ancient symbols, totems, and the like. He was less interested in “figuration” or “abstraction” per se but wanted to express his interior via painting. He also wanted to paint “American”, for which there had been no actual template at that time. Well before he had come up with his drip paintings he already had been the only American artist who was able to free himself from the hitherto predominant European influence and to paint in a truly independent manner. He was the only American painter at this time who was able to achieve this. Like Picasso, Pollock was a great painter in the classical sense. Laypersons may suspect Pollock´s or Picasso´s paintings as “something a child could do”. But it can not. Both Pollock and Picasso were great painters that were in need to push boundaries. Via their breakthrough inventions, they seemingly eliminated boundaries and created a new spacetime, a new dimensionality, where stuff unfolds in all kinds of manners, according to the logic of these dimensionalities. That´s when they became greater than just “great”.

Pollock was explosive and highly energetic all along, but he was also highly introspective and creatively introverted. He was sucked into the abyss of his own creative introspection. When he finally channeled through the wormhole and released his energy through the white hole of his drip paintings, he actually managed to “fully express himself” and “turn his inside out”, to fully deliver, via his action painting, his “unconscious”. There is no distance anymore between himself and his paintings, between his expressions and that what is expressed. That was something new again. From a black hole nothing gets out and into a white hole nothing gets in. A white hole is a permanent explosion. Pollock´s drip paintings are said to be both ecstatic and monumental. They are both dynamic and frozen in a statuariness; they are, creatively, tranquil and calm. The are complete. They are, maybe, the world process from a God´s perspective. From a more mundane standpoint – which is yet extremely elevated and something in its own right as well – Pollock managed to do paintings that cannot be counterfeited or duplicated. What a wormhole! What a white hole!

Black holes, white holes and wormholes are logical, though dimensionally different from spacetime as we know it, or they are spacetime in reverse. Their core, their most interior, remains mysterious nevertheless. Scientists suspect that around a singularity anything can happen, as the common laws of the physical universe break down at this point. In the drip paintings of Jackson Pollock, anything happens.

Pollock, they noted, had a unique perception. He could see moving things and movements per se. He could see things from all angles. He had a superdimensional perception. Art, they demand, should let you gaze into another dimension. In the case of Pollock you see the entire dimensionality of the creative process. That is to say: let your stuff, via introspection, collapse into a black hole, dimensionally channel it though a wormhole, and release it through a white hole, unexpectedly, in some completely other part of the universe. This makes, then, a true transformation.

Banksy time and again creates tasty and adequate images like that of Leanne the chambermaid, the Bomb Hugger, the Radar Rat or the black girl that overpaints the swastika on the wall that Banksy had painted there before. He is quick and handy to react to stuff like the corona crisis and he wants to show to people in distress that someone is there, someone cares for them, someone wants to bring a little relief to them. Occassionally he creates iconic images like the Balloon Girl. He acts like a very good publicity agency. One of that kind that time and again receives prizes for very good and creative adverstisements and advertisement stunts. What he does is creative, but not abysmally creative. It is a bit superficial, but not very superficial. This is a trap he skillfully avoids. If there are complex global or social issues, Banksy will adress them in a simplistic way. He acts like a world conscience. Like a single individual that cleans the atmosphere. Jeff Koons said that when he had to visit a modern art exhibition at school it had irritated him so much that he felt he never would want to have anything to do with art in his life. Based on that, he later decided to do art that will not unsettle people and will never make them uncomfortable with themselves. Banksy does not seem to be far from that either. As it appears, Banksy, in general, wants to make people feel good and comfortable with themselves. In a way that they do not really need to change or to grow: they are more or less super just the way they are. Including their aptitude to be concerned over global problems, war, racism or inequality. People, in general, are very concerned over global problems, war, racism or inequality. Never underestimate their capacity of people to be concerned over such issues. If this still does not make you feel good and feel very, very comfortable with yourself, then, well, it is quite likely that Banksy will start sucking your dick or give you a foot masssage. He will do everything in his power to make you feel good. Like his graffitis are often showing children, Banksy also does art that is interesting for children, and for the whole family. His Dismaland – A Family Theme Park Unsuitable for Children is particularly enteraining for children. That is no mean achievement, of course. Banksy is also good to the art world. In somehow mysterious and therefore interesting ways that can be talked about (without the need for more sophiticated intellectual analysis nor knowledge) he acts like a sparring partner to the art industry. Today´s art world likes to question, critisise and subvert itself (especially it delights on „institutional critique“) because it is insecure as the true creative potency within art (that is identical to itself and complex enough in order not to permanently need to „critisise“ and „question“ itself) has withered for some unknown reasons. Therefore the art world is in need to do something else. Not least as there is a lot of money involved in it. Banksy´s  stunt to have his own artwork destroyed at a Sotheby´s auction further increased its market value. Not a bad desicion. There´s a film about Banksy called Exit Through the Gift Shop. I haven´t seen it, but I have seen the gift shop at the current Banksy Wanderzirkus exhibition. It´s a huge gift shop, and you can buy even a Banksy lavatory seat there. If you´re an artist and people like your stuff and want to buy it, that´s cool. Turn it into a commodity, no problem. However, and especially if you drive it to such extends, it will interfere a bit with your anti-capitalist aura and contaminate it. If you willfully accumulate riches that way in order to donate it to charity, then it´s, of course, cool again. Banksy is nice to everyone. There is not so much mystery about Banksy actually. It is a well-dosed, meticulously constructed mystery, as it may occasionally appear. The true identity of Banksy is unknown. We will assume that Banksy deeply cares for people and their problems. Of course, he will also need to care for himself. There is nothing wrong with caring for yourself too. The mystery of Banksy however is that it can also be seen – in a non-contradictory way – as a publicity agency and a machinery that is exclusively devoted to increasing its own market value and widen its spheres of circulation. That is probably not what it is. But that is the true mystery that it poses.

Recently I have been to the Moco Museum in Amsterdam. The Moco Museum is devoted to the most contemporary art, notably to that of Banksy, and to present this art to the younger generation. It is full of stupidities, but I have to say that I liked the museum. It was a pleasant experience I still cannot, however, fully decypher. It took me more by surprise than the Rijksmuseum. I cannot finally decypher contemporary art either, but finally I like this age of apparently mindless oddities and idiosyncracies that colonise the museum space and that make today´s art. It is probably better than the age of Abstract Expressionism or Surrealism. Modern art was mysterious, but it was also identical to itself. Today the atmosphere is more fluid and probably also more enigmatic. Maybe art has never been as mysterious as it is today. It is probably that mixture between bluntness and underdeterminedness that makes it cosy and immersive. That it resists to be truly immersive although art usually calls for immersion. Its mysterious superficiality that gives it a light weight. It is an intellectual riddle and it opens the space of imagination, actually wider than ever before. A society that can afford to render its art so ineffective must have reached a very high level of civilisation, sophistication, rationality and complexity. It must be a very interesting and stimulating society. As always, I have failed to thoroughly describe it. Such is the essence of mysteries. Mysteries invite us to an ongoing journey.

I feel there was a time when I experienced loftier minds, relatively unloaded with politics, fashion and chic. They encouraged the endurance of a great tradition and protected important development in the arts. I recall spirited, productive discussions and arguments (…) Raise the level. We need more connoisseurs of culture.

Helen Frankenthaler, 1989

Helen Frankenthaler (1928-2011) was a very good-looking woman. She also was the leading female figure in Abstract Expressionism. Frankenthaler was a pioneer of colorfield painting. In contrast to the strict, formal or energetic painting of fellow Abstract Expressionists her signature style (as the specific innovation she brought into the domain), was light, lyrical and seemingly lacking „finish“. Fellow female artist Elaine de Kooning referred to her specific style actually as „Abstract Impressionism“, and Frankenthaler´s art also bridged Abstract Expressionism with Art Informel. Other Abstract Expressionists – like Joan Mitchell – were more critical and rejected Frankenthaler´s art as unserious and incoherent. Helen Frankenthaler had studied under the auspice of Hans Hoffman and had produced substantial paintings, yet her initial ignition she would receive from the explosive innovations by (the then little known) Jackson Pollock (whom she had met in private). She wanted to do something similar. At the same time, in the early 1950s, she dated Clement Greenberg, the art critic that provided an intellectual framework for the (self-) understanding of Abstract Expressionism. Greenberg, Hofmann, Pollock and many other men (including her father) had been fond of Helen Frankenthaler as an artistic spirit. In 1952 she achieved her own artistic breakthrough with Mountains and Sea. Her specific soak stain technique would then be adapted and further developed specifically by Morris Louis. In contrast to the often complicated and/or short lives and tortured personalities the Abstract Expressionists often had, Helen Frankenthaler´s career spanned decades and seemingly was more in line with the light touch and the lyricism of her paintings.

Abstract Expressionism had been a good and a heroic undertaking. It was deeply introspective and an investigation into the deep structure, the deep possibilities and virtualities of paining, and of art in general. It was meant to produce something significant – and it finally did. There is great room for romanticism in the history of Abstract Expressionism. The artists that would develop Abstract Expressionism gathered in New York in the 1940s and 1950s. They were a small scene, and they formed informal relationships to each other and inspired each other (as at least it would later turn out, they also competed with each other a lot and despised each other a lot). It was a quiet scene, as Lee Krasner noted in retrospect. Many of them came from humble backgrounds or from places completely unappreciative, if not antithetical, to modern art like Wyoming (in the case of Jackson Pollock). Many of them lived and worked in extreme poverty for many years (an exception being Helen Frankenthaler who came from a well-to-do family). Yet the spirit of avant-gardism was in the air and would electrify them. They longed for a breakthrough innovation, which finally came with the drip paintings by Jackson Pollock around 1950. Pollock´s work expressed exuberant, vivid creative energy, a radical and relentless approach and a grand and precise intelligence that provided an intellectual framework for the art. Within that framework the Abstract Expressionists found room to operate and to develop their own specific, and quite diverse, solutions, some of higher significance, some more derivative. The relentless intellectual propaganda efforts by Clement Greenberg had made at least Pollock moderately popular (tough not rich) with time, yet it was the tragic death of Pollock in 1954 that suddenly elevated Abstract Expressionism to mythic proportions and created a sense of the extreme importance and gravity of the movement in a wider audience. With Abstract Expressionism, America seemed to have managed to also become a leader in the arts; the center of the Avant-Garde seemed to have shifted from Europe to America, from Paris to New York. Abstract Expressionism became the next big thing, on a world scale. Yet many of the Abstract Expressionists remained tortured souls. In a way, their radical gesture and quest for the divine, even if it is culturally approved, does not match with society. The Abstract Expressionists had been concerned with the seemingly decreasing room for maneuver to come up with genuine stylistic innovations and to produce something meaningful in modern painting. With Abstract Expressionism, they then thought, they had laid a foundation for genuine ways of painting „for the next thousand years“. They seemed to have been in error. Pop art, that followed after Abstract Expressionism, was the last movement within modern art that was unquestionably significant and intellectually superior. From the 1970s on things have become more blurry.

The most significant figures within Abstract Expressionism were Jackson Pollock, Barnett Newman, Willem de Kooning, Robert Motherwell (to whom Helen Frankenthaler was married from 1958 to 1971), Mark Rothko and (as a more shadowy figure) Clyfford Still. Yet there was also a significant number of female Abstract Expressionists, apart from Helen Frankenthaler they were Elaine de Kooning, Joan Mitchell, Lee Krasner, Grace Hartigan or Hedda Stone. The (male) Abstract Expressionists are said to have cultivated a macho-attitude, including an attitude to look down on women. However, no clear picture emerges concerning a clear racism or sexism within the scene. The (male) Abstract Expressionists longed for a viewpoint of the most elevated order, and so they consciously strived for a „white male“ intellectuality – as the supposedly clearest intellectuality and the least entangeled one in mundanity – and they rejected particularities and the voices from the „others“ (so it has been said about them). That is actually not stupid or evil, especially if you can, after all, keep your shit together nevertheless. At least inside the scene the woman of Abstract Expressionism obviously did not find themselves truly belittled by the male Abstract Expressionists, who often were their husbands or their friends. Some years ago I read a book, Abstract Expressionism: Other Politics, by Ann Eden Gibson (from the 1990s) that tries to shed light on artists of that era excluded or forgotten because of their race, gender or sexuality. It introduced me to an actually practically forgotten artist who made some astonishing work (and achieved success at her time with it), the afroamerican Rose Piper (aunt of the more prominent performace artist Adrian Piper). At the recent exhibitions on Helen Frankenthaler (Kunsthalle Krems) and Abstract Expressionism and Art Informel (Albertina Modern) I got me biographies about Jackson Pollock, Lee Krasner and Helen Frankenthaler. Especially delighted I am about a 700 page biography about the Ninth Street Women, the leading women of Abstract Expressionism (written by Mary Gabriel). I am very interested in that exciting, artistically relevant period and how especially women thrived in it. I also need to study the modern jazz scene that thrived in New York as well, more or less at the same time.

*

Women in the arts. In 1971 the ARTnews magazine came to publish a special edition on women artists. It also contained an essay written by art historian Linda Nochlin, Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?, that tries to explore the reasons for the absence of women in the canons of great art. It is said to have had a great impact on feminist art criticism, and it has been republished, as a 50th anniversary edition, by Thames & Hudson last year. The question about the (relative, actually absolute) absence of women in the canons of (great) art is indeed a striking one. Have there been fewer female artists than male ones throughout history (i.e. a smaller pool of female artists of whom only a tiny fraction would rise to greatness at any rate in relation to male ones)? Apparently yes. But how much does it matter? Have women artists been neglected and underappreciated within („male dominated“) art history? Likely yes; yet also likely not in a way that art history would need to revolutionised and profoundly reconsidered if women artists finally got their fair share when significance is attributed. Is it „the institution“ or „gender stereotypes“ that pose insurmountable obstacles to women if they want to become (great) artists? Likely yes, yet likely they are not insurmountable. Or have there been great women artists that have remained completely unknown? If there had been more than just some very isolated few, then likely not. At the end of the day, it seems, there have been no great women artists in art history because there have been no great women artists.  As Linda Nochlin admits: The fact, dear sisters, is that there are no women equivalents to Michelangelo or Rembrandt, Delacroix or Cézanne, Picasso or Matisse, or even, in very recent times, for de Kooning or Warhol, any more than there are Black American equivalents for the same.

If there actually were large numbers of „hidden“ great women artists, or if there really should be different standards for women´s art as opposed to men´s – and one can´t have it both ways – then what are the feminists fighting for?, she then asks.Well, feminists fight for the empowerment of women; plain and simple. They fight for balance between the sexes. The first line of Linda Nochlin´s argumentation about why have there been no great women artists is that is has been made institutionally impossible for women to achieve artistic excellence. For instance, nude models were unavailable to women artists. Yet much more examples – or any examples – for why it should have been institutionally impossible for women to achieve artistic excellence she does not offer. While institutions may discriminate against people they do not make an individual success impossible (notably greatness and genius are not institutionally tought and they are, intrinsically, anti-institutional and iconoclastic and develop, for the greatest part, autodidactically). She rather goes on in suggesting that women are generally oppressed by patriarchy and therefore hindered to achieve equal successes like men. Yet how generally oppressed women are in patriarchy seems not that clear either. Patriarchy needs not be that oppressive, monolithic, determined, malicious and identical to itself that it flat out denies women the possibility to engage as artists (or in other domains). Feminism though, or at least feminists, tend to see patriarchy in that fashion more often than not. In a way, they tend to accumulate assets of oppressedness on women´s behalf, if they don´t try to monopolise the privilege of being oppressed quite exclusively for women. Also Linda Nochlin identifies the „victim“ as patriarchy´s favorite position for women. Although, after you have observed it for a while, it rather appears as the favorite position for women in the feminist discourse. But if the artist in question happens to be a woman, 1,000 years of guilt, self-doubt and objecthood have been added to the undeniable difficulties to being an artist in the modern world. I understand what she wants to say. But first and foremost I would like to see a thousand year old woman artist that has never experienced anything else but guilt, self-doubt and objecthood. (Repeatedly Linda Nochlin talks about women being plagued specifically with guilt. Why?)

There is also a second line of argumentation in the essay: „deconstructing“ greatness. As Linda Nochlin cannot find „hidden champions“ of great art who are women she can uplift, she decides for another strategy to balance the sexes: to subvert and downplay, if not to demolish what is behind that disturbing „Greatness“. For instance, she considers „genius“ and „greatness“ as fuzzy categories. While „great“ may be a shorthand way of talking about high importance in art, it seems to me always to run the risk of obscurantism and mystification. How does the same term „great“  – or „genius“, for that matter – account for the particular qualities or virtues of an artist like Michelangelo and one like Duchamp, or, for that matter, within a narrower perimeter, Manet and Cézanne? (she writes in the 2006 reappraisal to her initial essay). To be honest, the shorthandedness and the intention to obscure and mystify „greatness“ rather lies in her own (weak, pathetic) argument. It is your task to sort that „mystery“ out. Genius and greatness she considers overly as qualities attributed by others, by the outside world (for instance the man´s world attributing genius and greatness mostly to other men), and that one is mostly able to develop in oneself due to privileges (for instance being born into an artist family, a rich family, or being born a boy, not a girl). Stories about the prodigousness of great artists at an early age (or thereafter) she suggests as being fairy tales of the Boy Wonder or as such stories, which probably have some truth in them. She derides „common“ notions of genius that consider it as something „innate“ or a „golden nugget“ inside someone, that is immutable and impossible to supress (i.e., in the case of women, also not by „patriarchy“). Instead, she insists, genius and achievement are much rather dynamic activities, something that needs to be developed – and some environments are more supportive and provide more development opportunities than others.

Yet that genius still needs to be developed is something no serious voice would truly deny (and actually genius and greatness are not something that is shorthandedly conceived and obfuscated as something „divine“ and little else; they are subjects that have been extensively studied and written about. And as a professor for art history at Yale, Linda Nochlin should actually know about that.) And granted: there is a role of the environment – but it is still the individual that develops to higher or lower levels. If greatness or genius is something that, primarily, has to be developed (as opposed to being a static essence or „gold nugget“) why did not more painters reach the height of Picasso or Caravaggio (since this is what they usually strive for (at least in former times))? Why did not other artists – of any sex – who were not that super good at painting come up with other strategies to make profound artistic statements, as did Marcel Duchamp? (S)cholars will have to abandon the notion, consciously articulated or not, of individual genius as innate, and as primary to the creation of art, hopes Linda Nochlin. Yet, for that matter, genius is, primarily, eventually, innate, a static essence, and (for that matter) a „golden nugget“. In order to be developed, or for the development process to reach it, it needs to be there in the first place. Maybe, after all, genius is a quality that appears more often in men than in women. (In the enlightened discourse it is easily considered antediluvian to attribute actual differences between the sexes to anything else than to („socially constructed“) „gender roles“ and „stereotypes“ (that need to be, or can be, overcome). But there is no reason to rule out the possibility that differences between the sexes are not innate, eventually invariant and firmly rooted (in „biology“)). Creative individuals, though, as they say, are „genderfluid“, and usually radiate both masculine and feminine qualities: Creative women are more assertive, rational and determined than average women; creative males are more intuitive, gentle and empathetic than their male peers. I actually don´t know how much patriarchy can „fuck“ with a truly creative woman – and how much the rest of society actually wants to have her subjugated; and not, much rather, elevated.

It is irritating how much (a certain branch of) feminists likes to see little else in genius and greatness than arrogant masculinity. Maybe to attribute (neutral) qualities like greatness and genius to the „phallic“ and to the masculine is less a problem within the „official“ („male-dominated/centered“) discourse, but rather a problem within the feminist discourse. A genius and a great person is also not someone concerned with masculine erectness or with being a powerful, godlike creator that creates ex nihilo. A genius usually is someone who – highly independently from what´s going on or is indicated around him – gets immersed into something, develops a need to explore that domain and to know everything about it, who will identify deep problems within the domain that sHe wants to adress and to solve. This sHe will also see as a moral duty. With the extremely playful intellect of the genius, sHe will maybe rather try to arrange and rearrange things within the domain (rather than to „create“ – and what is „creation“ anyway?). From this comes the selflessness, the extreme independence and the determinedness of the genius (as a genius: as a person sHe might be driven by more mundane motives like money, fame or ego-gratification all the same). I happen to like these qualities, since they simply are greater than the indifference, the opportunism, careerism and the neglect that prevails in the human realm. In some others, these qualities might cause jealousy and disdain, and they might even like the genius (and its beneficial nature) not to unfold. They might mask it under the guise of feminism, for example.

*

Life is a mystery. Genius, as they say, too. Why there have been no great woman artists seems a mystery as well. Light may be casted on this mystery though if we think of the male:female ratio in the audiences of extreme metal, noise, or free jazz concerts. Extreme metal, noise or free jazz concerts usually enjoy an audience with a male:female ratio of 13:1 (and concerning the artists who play such types of music the imbalance is distinctly more pronounced). That may seem insignificant, but maybe is not. Stuff that truly happens outside society, attracts outcasts and introverts, is highly experimental and performs beauty in (an abrasive) disguise – i.e. true, complex beauty – marks territory that, for some reasons, is not a sucker for females. The abyss of very abrasive, non-conformist creativity is a place where few females dwell. Why is this so (and still remains so)?

We may consider: extreme metal is fearsome. And women are frightened and intimitated. Women like to be frightened and intimitated all day long. They make a cult out of it (a twisted branch of that is feminism). Heavy metal, noise, free jazz are abrasive, and women loathe the abrasive. This may be because women likely score particularly higher (or are more pronounced) than men on the (Big Five) personality trait of agreeableness. Women are more dedicated to fit into a society, respectively to create environments that are friendly, non-confrontational and non-violent. There is perfect reason to that because if archaic violence breaks out women are more likely to become overpowered by it than men. Women are more „sociable“ because they more strongly rely on others (males and females) for their self defense, and more „empathetic“ since they want to reduce the potential for aggression and violence that could turn against them. Most importantly, they are more sociable and empathetic because they need to raise (and protect) children and establish stronger bonds to them. Women are also mothers, whereas fathers are („technically“) more distant figures in the reproduction process. Women are actually a dualistic, a dyadic sex, they psychologically and mentally live in a duality, in a dyade with their (prospective) children. An artist, Georg Baselitz, once suggested that women actually may not be that interested in men. They are interested in their (prospective) children.

In their dedication to create non-violent environments women develop and incorporate their well-known gimmicks like hugging, kissing and complimenting everyone, chit-chating about trivial, inoffensive (above all: interpersonal) subjects, giggling and laughing and seductively touching others (notably males). It is true that the empathy of women is empowering, but first and foremost, in their survial instinct, they try to weaken everyone. In trying to signal they are deserving of protection they weaken themselves and make themselves smaller than they are: in order to vice versa weaken others (men and women) and to weaken the entire collective. Especially loving and sympathetic they are when a fellow woman has qualities to receive (a status enhancing) protection by the collective (e.g. women being much more obsessed and willing to kiss ass of a distinctly beautiful and shiny girl than actually may be men); especially fiece (and, often, fiercer than men) they become when a fellow woman tries to break out of the collective or challenge its (hallucinated) integrity. They are so obsessed with the upkeep and maintainance of „patriarchy“ that, upon reflection, one does not know whether they are only the accomplices of patriarchy, or its true creators.

Whereas men´s methods and weapons of self defense lie in tool-making and strategy, women´s methods and weapons of self defense lie in psychological manipulation. Tool-making and strategic thinking require a sense for abstraction and a dedication to (inanimate) stuff that truly is different from oneself (therein, it requires intellectual transcendence). Psychological manipulation lies in the manipulator trying to convince a fellow human being that they are (in an intimate way) „the same“. And it practically needs to stay away from intellectualism and abstraction, since introducing intellectualism and abstraction basically ruins psychological manipulation (psychological manipulation needs to appear/be distinctly identical to itself; intellectuality/rationality introduce additional layers within a process that confuse, reveal, or cast doubt). Psychological manipulation requires that those intented to fall prey to it remain unreflected and abstain from rationally analysing what is inflicted upon them. Therefore, women abhorr abstract and analytical thinking, intellectual reflection and trying to establish a meta perspective on something. When they encounter such qualities, they feel pulverised and they´ve got to get away from the situation. Yet all these qualities are necessary if you want to do great art.

Among heavy metal fans, there are females too. It is just that the more extreme or the more progressive or experimental a metal act gets, the less it usually attracts (also male, yet in relation to them) female metal fans. Whereas differences in approach seem to reveal themselves already on the general level. Metal is a music to get immersed into and to become very dedicated to. I remember how we, the metal dudes, were analysing with great passion certain guitar soli, song structures or the specific innovations in style drummers like Dave Lombardo or Vinnie Paul brought into Thrash Metal. We learned the lyrics by heart (and many of them I still know, although I may not have heard the specific record for over 20 years). We wanted to know everything about our favorite bands (just like, granted, girls want to know everything about Nick Cave or Adam Lambert et al.). Yet the metal girls, in general, used to remain (what would appear as:) more superficial. They did not dive that deep into the matter, and they did not form bonds to it by graving for a more abstract as well as a more concrete, a theoretical as well as a practical understanding of it. So, it is not surprising that they hardly became musicians (artists!) themselves.

(Also, women do not form bands. Because women do not form groups. Although they seemingly have less osmotic personalities, men are more casual at becoming buddies and at collaborating in a friendly, casual way. They have a greater group instinct. Women have (girl)friends or they may form cliques. But they do not, exactly, form groups. This is maybe so because women are a dualistic/dyadic sex, and so they form dualistic/dyadic bonds (i.e. projecting themselves and their (prospective) children in others). They have less tolerance, or appreciation, less instinct for (unity in) diversity, e pluribus unum: and that is the essence of groups. They have a greater (egocentric) power instinct and they can become frighteningly more competetive against each other than men. (Likely since they are less inclined to see stuff at a more abstract level) they take everything more personal and therefore are more easy to fall out, in intransigence. It has been said (not least in Linda Nochlin´s Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?) that women are hindered in their careers because they confront powerful networks of men. But women do not form networks.)

Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? has inspired publications on the absence of women in diverse professional areas. There is also a publication about Why Have There Been No Great Women Chefs? I could not read it, but it has also always bewildered me, why – although traditional patriarchy identifies a woman´s status as being a mother whose place is the domestic kitchen at least – the great chefs, as well as the intellectuals on pedagogy, overly are still males. I recall, in my childhood, in the 1980s, the great chef had been Paul Bocuse. Today it seems to be a guy named Jamie Olivier. Although women cook „with love“, they still do not seem to cook „with profession“. They may cook with the heart, but still not with the intellect (and therefore only with a semi-passion that does not open new perspectives on the subject in question). (Paul Bocuse I remember because it was my dad who regularly liked to watch Bocuse à la carte on TV, not my ma.)

In their dedication to tool-making and developing strategy, men need to think in abstract terms. In abstraction (and in tool-making and strategy) there is proximity to the inanimate. Therefore one might be inclined to think that males are necrophiliacs who love the dead. Whereas females are biophiliacs who are drawn to humans, animals, nature, harmony, the divine, genesis and birth. According to Helen Frankenthaler, the greatest thing art can do is to convey a sense for being alive at a certain time. Yet if there is no sense for abstraction and a need to theorise on something and to view things from a meta perspective, it is doubtful how robust and reliable, how comprehensive your interest and your attractedness to something actually can be. In order to establish „object stability“ I guess it is required that there is not only an emotional bond to it but also an intellectual bond, that you develop a mental representation of something – that actually confirms the others´ proximity to oneself, but also its seperateness and containedness in itself. Such mental representations are necessary for intellectual pursuit and for the creation of (true) art (in fact, (great) art is about delivering mental representations about stuff). If you do not experience the world on such a level, (great) art, and, more profoundly, interpersonal/object stability becomes a more difficult exercise. On that account, women actually may not be truly drawn to other humans, animals, or nature. They only experience it as an extension of themselves. Women are not interested in art; or anything. Women are, through their empathetic and sociable disguise, only interested in themselves (and their (prospective) children).

Because women are only interested in themselves (and their (prospective) children), they are not truly rescued in the object world; and neither in themselves. That women live in a state of fear due to the violence of men is only part of the issue. Since they are deceptive and manipulative in nature, women do not even trust themselves. They are frickle and the reason for what, on the outside, frequently appears as a pure random walk through life they call and mystify as „female intuition“. The „now you see me, now you don´t“ behaviour of women is part of their manipulation toolbox, creating a backlash against themselves, imprisoning them in a permanent state of emotional confusion and an insecurity of their inner selves. As an apparent consequence, … the voice of the feminine mystique with its potpurri of ambivalent narcissism and guilt, internalized, subtly dilutes and subverts that total inner confidence, that absolute certitude and self-determination, moral and esthetic, demanded by the highest and most innovative work in art. Such is the deep answer Linda Nochlin eventually provides on the question for Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?

(It is, by the way, striking how (certain) feminists are drawn, if not addicted, to the notion of masculinity as something frighteningly monolithic, shielded by total inner confidence, absolute certitude and the like (although total inner confidence, absolute certitude and self-determination probably has never existed in any person, man or woman, alive or dead). They are fond of this, and they are intimitated, feel crushed by this. The next moment, they feel compelled to ridicule and undermine, if not destroy that idea, envisioning the male sex as colossaly frail, and men´s total inner confidence as a fake identity, an actual blunt arrogance that just masks a deep inner insecurity. Their views on their own sex are, then, a mirror image to that; envisioning women as strong, powerful, intimitating etc. on the one hand, and weak(ened), intimitated and dependent on the other. An in-between, balance, there is none. There just is this oscillation between ambivalent narcissism and guilt. Yet between such extremes, in balance, this is where life actually dwells, and where there is normality. (Granted, true balance is an abnormality again. Normality is actually: „so, so“. Yet life in itself means and brings about: „win some, lose some“. The more balanced („wise“) an individual is, the more sHe will adapt to that.) (A certain branch of) feminists, by contrast, seems very much in love with the idea and the emotions of total inner confidence, absolute certitude and self-determination that they want to establish/maintain in themselves; notably by weakening the total inner confidence, absolute certitude and self-determination in others (notably in their „adversaries“: males). It is yet the archaic female strategy to „establish balance“ by weakening everyone, and so – and although they strive for masculinity (or at least for the „privileges“ that masculinity brings) – feminists appear, in a way, as the most effeminate women of all.)

The point she is obviously missing is that genius – or any accomplishment – is not a matter „inner confidence“. As an illustrative example, the greatest writer of the 20th century, Kafka, had pathologically low self confidence (he obviously suffered from an avoidant personality disorder). Which is why he wanted to have his ouvre destroyed before his death. Yet he had created it in the first place; like Emily Dickinson or Emily Bronte had. He had been aware of, and haunted/plagued by the enormous significance of his thoughts and visions even before he had written his major works, which he then created in a considerably hostile or neglectful environment. Yet he also had friends like Max Brod, and in a circle of established writers and cultural figures he was, despite having published little and being practically unknown, treated like some kind of god.  Most, practically all, people have other people who are (highly) supportive. At least in private environments (in which we end up living all the same) individuals, and also „lonely“ geniuses, usually find protection; fuck the world. The loneliness of geniuses and Great individuals yet is something inherent to them. Great artists, so it says, radiate an aura of profound solitude.

(Total) inner confidence or (absolute) certitude are not required to do something great or genius (maybe they are rather a hindrance to it). Confidence is matter of the personality. Genius is a matter of the mind. The genius mind is a very good mind, and so geniuses do have very good personalities. Yet, empirically, only partially. Apart from their incandescence, they may be as neurotic, frail, unloving, competetive, disordered or even psychopathic as anyone else may be. Developing genius and greatness in oneself, developing (new ways in doing) great art, is painful, is born with pain, for anyone. The path of the loner is full of horrors, Agnes Martin, a fellow female poineer of Abstract Expressionism and Minimal Art and a contemporary to Helen Frankenthaler, noted. It is, likely, not so much a matter of how „confident“ and „determined“ you are while you are walking this path, but whether how much it is your path that you walk, driven by a consequence that lies inside you (and that may haunt you). (Total) inner confidence or (absolute) certitude is something that you obtain with time – when you have created something great, genius, or of substance. Then you live in the realm of ideals – respectively your mind does. The world does not look the same anymore, and the struggles in this world become more distant to you. The realm of ideals is pacified and timeless. Yet, living and succeding in the material world may just become more alienating and a greater struggle. 

Geniuses and artistic souls are isolated and alienated from their environments, yet they are also distinctly more connected to it and sympathetic to it (i.e. there are factors of great instability in their lives, but also of great stability). The characteristic of genius is probably not extreme creativity, but that it is an extremely penetrating mind, being able to come to unique insights, or establish unique connections (and their confidence, certitude and self-determination actually is their stubbornly penetrating, restless mind). The genius and the artistic soul lives in a distinctly more connected, more meaningful world, that sHe tries to translate to his fellow humans. From this comes the usual sweetness, tenderness and friendliness, the tolerance and the mellowness of the genius (as a genius: as a person sHe may be quite different). Since they are so much more receptive to (inner and outer) stimuli, and a need to create, geniuses are restless and they live, if we may say so, under permanent stress. They often are „tortured“ and have complicated, uncomfortable lives. People suffer. Yet „genius suffers the most“ (says Schopenhauer). Often, it is other people that make them suffer („hell is other people“ one of them once said lol).

Geniuses may encounter praise and approval in their lives and times, yet they may also, and easily, encounter an enormous amount of ignorance and neglect. Just like women! True artistic creation of any kind is a very lonely process, a totally selfish act, Helen Frankenthaler put it, yet that is also a totally necessary one that can become a gift to others. The true artistic genius, first and foremost, (and therein probably not wanting to make a top-down „gift“ to others, or seeing her work and motivation as „selfish“ but rather as selfless), wants to bring joy and enlightenment to others and wants others to participate in his richer and more meaningful world. Often, this gift is not wanted. In the contemporary era, an annoying disrespect and disapproval for genius comes from the feminist rhetoric, that does not see the sweetness, the importance and the enrichment of the world due to the gifts of the genius and the great artist, but that primarily (if not singularly) views the „white male genius“ as a principle for the erection and maintainance of an ideal of a loveless, self-congratulatory masculinity, which it therefore wants to overthrow (to erect an ideal of their own loveless, self-congratulatory feminity, as it occasionally seems). Because of their uncanny, mixed-at-best experiences through history, I think geniuses should start a #MeToo movement too. Unfortunately, they are too isolated and dispersed over space and time. They cannot even truly found a collective. 

The feminist notion of the greatness of women being squandered or made more difficult to achieve for them due to patriarchy at least does not completely take into account that great people/women are distinctly more competent than society. Why should a great woman succumb to a weak shit like patriarchy, or a completely weak shit like „sexist“ jokes or mansplaining? Greatness, more or less by definition, means that one is bigger than the environment. Geniuses, like psychopaths, are not even actually humans. Like psychopaths, geniuses cannot effectively be intimitated nor controlled by anyone, for their inner lives and motivations are distinctly different from those of ordinary people. Whereas the psychopath follows the drive that comes from his abnormal ego, the genius follows the drive that comes from her abnormal mind; therein, both cannot even effectively control themselves or adapt themselves to social norms and expectations (hence the occasional „tragedy“ of such people). The (occasional) feminist notion on genius also partially fails to take into account that geniuses and Great people, inherently, are addicted to difficulties. And the greater the difficulties they encounter get and the more they get driven into themselves, the more powerful and productive geniuses usually become. (Great) Genius, also more or less by definition, is a mind that wrestles with difficulties no one has been able to overcome so far. Geniuses see a problem, or witness an uncanny atmosphere – others usually also do: but they become immersed in finding a solution to the problem, or coming up with solid stuff that creates other atmospheres. They want to clean and rejuvenate the atmosphere. Geniuses and Great individuals thrive on difficulties.

(Granted, it seems situational whether or how much genius or Greatness may unfold. For instance, a high proportion of geniuses has been Jewish – at least since the 19th century: when Jews did become „liberated“. Yet if I try to figure out Jewish geniuses before that time solely Spinoza would spring to my (partially educated) mind. Geniuses and Greatness seem to appear clustered in space and time, in tandem with unusual historical eras. You may think of ancient Athens around the time of Periclean democracy, the Renaissance, the Age of German Idealism/the Goethezeit, the Golden Age of Islam a thousand years ago or Vienna a century ago; the golden period of Spanish painting or of the Dutch masters (when Spain or Holland had been on the height of their power). Great art and innovation in general is something that does not happen. Art in Latin America/Argentina, for instance, has steadily produced stunning and worthwhile things; yet stubbornly it so far has never managed to transgress the threshold to true innovativeness and high intellectual significance: it has remained epigonic. Not least in our time, and obviously on a worldwide scale, great art there isn´t either. Maybe the postmodern subjectivity actually (on a deep level) isn´t ingenious, or is lost and confused by its own complexities and patchwork character.)

Is genius a quality that is rarer among women than among men? According to research a minimum IQ of 125 is needed in order to exhibit genius. And maybe the threshold is even lower, or does not exist at all. With a more moderate IQ you can be a genius as a comedian, an actor, a pop musician, a sportsperson, a politician, a criminal – or a scientist, artist, philosopher all the like. There are, in absolute numbers, plenty of geniuses around – with plenty of them being female. Maybe one person out of ten thousand truly is a genius (which makes a lot of geniuses in this world). Greatness at intellectual pursuit, i.e. to create something of high intellecual significance, yet requires great intelligence, being very erudite, being able to keep a lot of things together and put them in a perspective, operating at a high level of abstraction and differentiatedness, and genuinely thinking at the level of theorising. Greatness necessitates an intellect that relates to an IQ of, say, 160 or higher (your score at IQ tests may however vastly be different, especially if you are an artist). Greatness can also happen without genius; without genius greatness may then be „eminence“. Greatness, in general, is more associated with a distinct breakthrough and establishing a new level of human understanding (geniuses just may – primarily – remain singularly creative and distinctive). Yet the higher the IQ gets, the smaller is the percentage of females in the respective cohort. Very high IQ societies like Prometheus (IQ 160+) or Mega Society (IQ 175+) have few (if any) female members. In a way, like the historical canons of Greatness. (A common experience among people of this intelligence is, by the way, that they frequently are „not wanted“ and rejected by society. Society is as racist and sexist against them as can be; and in relation to them, society´s oppressive force is not patriarchy or capitalism, but its mob rule.)

Today, many established artists are female. And as far as I can see their outputs are on par with those of male artists. Women thrive in the art world of today. Ok, great. The downside, however, is just that art and the art world today is not Great anymore. There isn´t a IQ 160 level of Greatness that is dominant anymore, but an IQ 140 level of Smartness. Great minds are, for mysterious reasons, absent from today´s art word; it´s „smart“, intelligently adaptive people who run the place. Hence, it is also more easy for women to thrive in the domain. Art is not Great anymore. The disturbing „Greatness“ has been demolished and dethroned. Greatness is a dethroned emperor. And, inside the wire, they even seem to delight on that! Today I believe that it is safe to say that most members of the art world are far less ready to worry about what is great and what is not, nor do they assert as often the necessary connection of important art with virility of the phallus … There has been a change in what counts – from phallic „greatness“ to being innovative, making interesting, provocative work, making an impact, and making one´s voice heard. There is less and less emphasis on the masterpiece, more on the piece, Linda Nochlin writes in her postsrcipt and reappraisal to her essay 30 Years After, in 2006. Greatness has been effectively subverted by the feminists, and the lobbyists of diversity; and with her essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists? Sister Linda has laid a foundation for that. That´s where we stand today. We´re liberated. We don´t have to be Great anymore.

Upon reflection, I actually have to admit: Women, you are cool. Nice, how you played that lol. And actually, you did the greatest job of all. By weakening everything and everyone you, once again, elevated us to a higher level of societal progress. Qualities like beauty, harmony, intellect, stimulation etc. are good when they appear in art. Yet is even better when they appear as characteristics of society! Today we may not live in a peak period of art, but we live in a peak period of society (notably as concerns the position of women and children, non-western cultures, and minorities). The Renaissance produced better art than is produced today. Yet society today is better than in the Renaissance era. Heck, by weakening everything and everyone women, once again, elevated us to a higher level of societal progress! In the labor division between the sexes women´s call may be not to create culture. Women´s call may even be the more noble, the more sublime one: it is women who build civilisation.

*

There has been a solo exhibition on Helen Frankenthaler at the Kunsthalle Krems recently which presented artworks from all periods of her career in a chronological order. I have been especially delighted yet by her ultimate works from the 2000s. Now there is another exhibition on Abstract Expressionism and Art Informel at the Alberina Modern which also more extensively presents art by Helen Frankenthaler (and Joan Mitchell and, notably, Lee Krasner). I have to say that I like Helen´s reduced, pacified large canvas color field paintings from the 1960s and 1970s presented in the Albertina better that most of her (signature) paintings (from the 1950s) presented in her solo exhibition. Her latest works from the 2000s still strike me most. They are very reduced, almost monochromous. An art that you may find stupid, but these works display great taste and an exactitude that you feel that it cannot be transgressed. She has reached the gound and became identical with the mysterious abyss of imagination, it appears. There seems nothing „behind“ it anymore. It is like the colour field finally coming to itself. With Rothko, as it has been indicated and as would spring to mind, this has nothing, or only little, to do. It does not have the mannerism and not the intellectual framework (therein the high intellectual significance) of Rothko´s paintings. Yet while it does not have the intellectual gravity and cultural significance, the icon character and the symbolic character, the objective weight and the highly distinctive signature style of Rothko´s art, it does also not have its repetetive mannerism. It shines as subjective and private. Yet it is subjectivity and privateness of the highest order and of the highest (true) self-containedness. It has reached the ground of imagnation and mastery the artistic process is aimed at gaining access to; it has amalgamated with the ground, as it throws up simple, pacified and contained images and visions, aesthetic clarifications of the (frameless) ground; in privacy, in silence, in self-containedness (via having reached the ultimate objectivity), in solitude. It cannot be disturbed by anyone or anything from the outside anymore. Maybe it is beyond the good heroic quest for the absolute that characterised Abstract Expressionism. Maybe it is a more „feminine“ amalgamation with the ultimate principles. Maybe a trajectory leading to such a final result has lied within the calmer, more unagitated style of that artist all along. Eventually, Helen Frankenthaler seemed to have reached the Nirvana. Virgo Heroica Sublima.

Today I believe that it is safe to say that most members of the art world are far less ready to worry about what is great and what is not, nor do they assert as often the necessary connection of important art with virility of the phallus – haha, fuck you. Get a life, (wo)man. Actually Helen Frankenthaler worried about what is great and what is not a lot during her artistic career. She was melancholic (and underwent, like many creative people (and notably the Abstract Expressionists), frequent bouts of depression) as she felt that hers was not a time where art was great, or can be great. The greatness of the Old Masters seemed out of reach, intangible. Rubens was her favorite painter. To her, Rubens was the principal painter of vitality and of the flesh, exuberant, positively and in the most cultivated way indecent and obscene. Helen Frankenthaler´s notion of greatness in art was that great art delivers a charge that strikes the viewer. And, to her, Rubens was supercharged: the greatest painter, and the wettest painter, who had ever lived. Helen Frankenthaler came to the conclusion that art´s greatest purpose is to convey the sense of being alive at a certain time. Yet times are a-changing. While great artists like Rubens or Shakespeare had managed to convey that sense of being alive in their time, the 1950s in New York were a different time, that required the artist to come up with different solutions. Shakespeare and Rubens were probably greater than any other artists, but the 1950s were not their time, in which their specific art could be convincing. Jackson Pollock and Arshile Gorky, in their combination of exuberant creativity and creative virility and a sharp, precise intellect, she though considered great masters of her time – though maybe not as great as the masters of the older times. Alas, men again.

Raise the level. We need more connoisseurs of culture, at any rate. And get a life, (wo)man.

Disclaimer: There is some irony, some bluntness, some exaggerations in this text. They should primarily be understood as reactions to the questions that the essay by Linda Nochlin (unintentionally) leaves open or provokes. I am usually sympathetic with the underdog, but the then-underdog attitude and heuristic expressed in the 1971 article has become quite more powerful today, and the powerful need to be questioned. Also, feminists usually like to „challenge“ patriarchy and the status of men and to become „uncomfortable“ to them. Well, challenge accepted. It´s a heyoka empathy thing.

Disclaimer on disclaimer: The deep irony of the piece however is that the provided explanations for gender differences actually seem quite plausible. Not that I actually want it to be this way. I am rather indifferent on whether one sex is superior, inferior or equal to another. Concerning this human realm, I am mostly a neutral observer.

November 2022

Right now, there is an exhibition on David Hockney in Vienna. I only had a vague knowledge about David Hockney before (now it is somehow less vague), yet on the spot I alluded Hockney´s paintings to those of Alex Katz. That is what, vaguely, came to my mind before joining the exhibition. What also came to my mind is that Alex Katz must be somehow more profound than David Hockney. Yet why would Alex Katz be more profound than David Hockney? That is not a mean question. And therefore this reflection should be about rolling out, collecting ideas, why someone like Alex Katz would be more profound than someone than David Hockney.

Both Alex Katz and David Hockney stem out, or had a distinct encounter with poop art. The style of painting and the use of colour is bold and simple. Katz` portrayal of humans is close-up and distinctly flat, almost two-dimensional; Hockney portrays people in a reduced but less idiosyncratic and recurrent fashion … Why would Alex Katz be more profound and make more sense than David Hockney?

(Right now I realise that I just mistyped pop art as „poop art“! Lolroflmao! I am not negative about pop art; on the contrary, I consider it the last movement in modern art that actually had a brain – yet for comedic reasons I do not want to correct it but leave it as it is, there above.)

A possibility may lie in Clement Greenberg stating that the original problem of painting is how to depict a three-dimensional, spatial world (or, as we might add, a four-dimensional spacetime) on a two-dimensional canvas. We might add that artistic genius somehow seems to gaze into additional dimensions. These additional dimensions cannot, by human measure, exactly be quantified and located, unlike our three-dimensional space/four-dimensional spacetime. Distinguished works of art seem to offer glimpses into these higher dimensions, present an imprint of how higher-dimensional objects would reveal themselves in three-dimensional space/four-dimensional spacetime. They are mysterious imprints, related to the capabilities of genius and genius insight being usually referred to as „mysterious“. Due to this mysterious, dimensional insight it is possible to reveal – or offer a glimpse – at an inner, actual „essence“ of that which is portrayed. That is, then, a „metaphysical“ insight, and the highest point of art – to be the „actual metaphysical activity“ (as says Nietzsche, with reference to Schopenhauer).

We also might think of the blank canvas confronting us with the „deep structure“ of painting/art. The „deep structure“ of art is the Experimentierfeld ihrer Möglichkeiten, the field of experimentation in order to bring out new possibilities of expression that make sense in the universe. This field of experimentation, this deep structure, is necessarily additionally-dimensioned. It is a space of apprehension and intuition of additional dimensions and of both lucid and enigmatic signals that stem out from those dimensions. To bring out this lucid and enigmatic signals of additional dimensions is the noblest goal of art. (We may also say that this deep structure and field of experimentation is the space of imagination itself. Yet products of imagination do not necessarily make sense in the universe; they can be stupid, or bad art, all alike. The deep structure and field of experimentation is, in a way, a space of transcendence, yet referring to the finally and ultimately meanigful, the transcendental. It is a framed space.)

Alex Katz, nevertheless, reduces three-dimensional humans to two-dimensional ones. That´s the gag. And he does so in a highly distinctive and expressive manner. Probably this came as a reflection on the Greenberg dictum, probably not. Yet you sense that he had experienced the dimensionality of the deep structure, the field of experimentation, and managed to come up with a solution that tames the deep structure´s abysmal dimensionality, that he had managed to come up with a new signifier – for a signified that, necessarily, remains obscure (that concerns both for the signified of the imaginative space of painting or the Greenberg dictum as well as of the humans portrayed – in their enigmatic, both deep and flat, hidden and revealed etc. presence and essence). You sense that Katz had gone through and seen through something. He has come up with something, with an erect signifier, that makes sense in the universe.

Reduction is, of course, nothing new to painting and art. Reduction and reducedness are parts of existence and, when entertained properly, have their own specific charisma in art. Think of Minimal Art! Objects/sculptures of Minimal Art usually have an enigmatic, allusive, evocative presence. Although they, first and foremost, usually are nothing but – present. They are silent, artificial, uncommon yet all-too-common, elaborated as well as primordial. They are unterdetermined. They are, sheerly, present, and signify presece. And therefore they adress man´s/woman´s/diverse´s faculty to derive meaning and arrangement from that sheer presence. Are we, or do we prefer, to live seperated and unterinterested, maybe hostile to that which is present around us, or do we try to establish communion, etc.? In their unterdeterminedness and silence, these objects are usually mildly uncanny. Alex Katz` flat, unterdetermined figures are mildly uncanny too. This unterdeterminedness is a condition within existence. We, for the most part, live in a world that is unterdetermined and silent, full of opaque and intransparent people and objects. When investigating them, or when trying to establish communion, they may provide insufficient response, getting us nowhere, because they are opaque and intransparent to themselves too. And then again, it may be otherwise again. Alex Katz´ paintings are profound because they confront us with that with that character of the world, and of humans, oscillating between flatness and depth, lack of imagination and provoking imagination in the eye of the beholder. Therefore they have metaphysical quality.

Hockney seems not that profound. His style is not a stylistic innovation, his style is more a personal style/Personalstil. An artistic style of high order is a theoretical achievement trying to be a foundation of how artistic expression can (ultimately) be meaningful and definitive (like science). Therefore stylistic innovations of high order, like Cubism, Surrealism, Dadaism, etc. usually come in with theoretical manifestos. (It is pleasant that the exclusiveness with which masters of modern art treated such styles as absolute (i.e. thinking that true art is exclusively Cubist/Surrealist/de Stijl etc., or it is not) is now rather a thing of the past – yet it is unpleasant that their heroic endavours of producing an art that is profoundly rooted in some meanigfulness and whose creativity had undergone a hard-to-achieve actual transformation is now a thing of the past too and has given way to, well, a more democratic but lighthearted and noncommital opportunism that rather characterises the present state of the art.) Katz has achieved a personal style that nevertheless is of theoretical quality and stands as a landmark in painting. His stylistic innovation makes sense in the universe. Hockney´s style is not that profound and remains, if you may, a personal style (maybe because of this Hockney is actually quite a diverse painter).

Hockney is, however, let us reiterate, a quite diverse painter. He is also famous for his landscapes. He touched upon many, and diverse, genres throughout his career. He is autonomous (to say he has always been avant-garde may be an overstatement, since, e.g. painting in a figurative way at a time when abstraction ruled the place, as he did, reveals some autonomy, but not necessarily avant-gardeness). He came out with his homosexuality and tried to find artistic means for expressing it at a time when homosexuality was still considered a crime in England and could be persecuted by law. His Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures) from 1972 has been auctioned for 90 million Dollars in 2018 and is therefore the most expensive artwork of any living artist. I do not know, however, how such a reverence is justified in that case. Alex Katz` paintings are rarely auctioned for more than a million dollars, more commonly, the best selling ones go away for half a million dollars. He does not only portray humans but is also often painting flowers, landscapes and architecture.

Once in my life, in 2005, I have been to the prominent art fair in Basel. Alex Katz was quite prominent at that Art Basel (also prominent was Tom Wesselmann who had passed away before). Before me, there was an elderly couple who had come across a Katz. She said to him: „Alex Katz. We should have ourselves portrayed by Alex Katz as well.“ They must have been filthy rich. It immediately struck me that they´re flat, as in the portraits of Katz, as well. Probably with not very much knowledge about the glorious deep structure of art. Although, as I realised, that would be not their fault. I became remorseful. I do not like to think lowly of people, I prefer to see only Buddhas and so the space of imagination opened whether they are actually quite ok guys, yet the encounter was, although somehow seemingly revelatory, too brief and so the space of imagination seemed to become blurred and fading away almost in an instant. Found my way upstairs and had a smoke. Then somebody spoke and I went into a dream.

Addentum: Probably it was that couple from Basel that paid 90 million Dollars for the lackluster Portrait of an Artist (Pool with Two Figures). Yet, that could be. HA! Hahahahahaha.