Contemporary Art/Buddhism
Arch Stanton
I tried posting this at a Zen group without much effect, so here goes.
I was wondering if anybody here is a fine artist, designer,
illustrator, etc. and if/how buddhism effect your work. I know of a
few artists, mostly painters and mostly from the 50's and 60's, who
listened to Watts or Suzuki or saw the Dalai Lama and these things
influenced their artwork. However, few of these, if any at all, ever
talked about meditation or taking vows, or attending retreats or
temples. In many ways, it seems Buddhism was engaged only
superficially-- perhaps for asthetics or other ideas-- much in the way
some pre-impressionists pilfered the bold lines, patterns and
decorations of Japanese prints. Do you make deliberately make
"buddhist" art? Do you hold to conventional iconography or explore
contemporary ideas? Or do you see your art as the inevitable result of
your spiritual practice-- your art being little more than your wet
clothes after walking through a fog.
I'd really like to know what people think about this. For me, I'm not
sure I want people to see my art strictly as buddhist art but it seems
more and more inevitable that in order to talk about my work, you have
to talk about buddhism.
Cheers.
ma...@bobs.me.uk
If you define art as that which pays attention to the perceptual
situation; that a 'work' is the byproduct of that attention and the
means of maintaining it then I'd say that such an Artist would be quite
close to the concerns of some one with a comitment to the buddhist
project.
The Artist comes up against the issue of subject matter 'what' to pay
attention to. A buddhist, of course, has the dharma.
Both, potentialy, have access to hightened states of consiousness both
seek some kind of access to the truth. samatha~vipasana.
I've resently made some thing for the North london Buddhist centre and
produced an artist statment about it giving the work a possible arts
title and a possible buddhist title I then asked the viewer to come up
with their own and share it by adding it to a list.
As maker or viewer, the truth of the work In the end is experiential and
subjective however you contextualize or concretise it.
Bob
In article <1126283038.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Julian
> Hi,
>
> If you define art as that which pays attention to the perceptual
> situation; that a 'work' is the byproduct of that attention and the
> means of maintaining it then I'd say that such an Artist would be quite
> close to the concerns of some one with a comitment to the buddhist
> project.
>
> The Artist comes up against the issue of subject matter 'what' to pay
> attention to. A buddhist, of course, has the dharma.
>
> Both, potentialy, have access to hightened states of consiousness both
> seek some kind of access to the truth. samatha~vipasana.
>
> I've resently made some thing for the North london Buddhist centre and
> produced an artist statment about it giving the work a possible arts
> title and a possible buddhist title I then asked the viewer to come up
> with their own and share it by adding it to a list.
>
> As maker or viewer, the truth of the work In the end is experiential and
> subjective however you contextualize or concretise it.
>
> Bob
http://dean.edwards.name/lzb87/
Arch Stanton
Julian,
I love your work! But let me ask you, I noticed that you didn't
explain your Lotus Sutra project on the site, but I did see a brief
explanation elsewhere. Is this a conscious decision? Often, I feel
uneasy about adding to the heap of thoughts, ideas, explanations, words
and theories about art in general, and about my art in particular.
Arch Stanton
For any who are interested: http://www.artandbuddhism.org/
The site has some interesting essays about art and buddhism.
Julian
There is no straight forward answer to your question since...
a) The site as presented at this time is a trial primarily to
establish suitable image resolution that provide a reasonable
compromise between quality and download speed.
(The current 100k isn't good enough to read and with broadband
becoming standard 250k will be better, the original scans are 50m)
b) There is about 20% of Book13 online at the moment but when
the project is complete the first 12 books, which are written in English,
will provide some kind of lead up and explanation.
c) "Propagating the Lotus Sutra - Requital of a Buddhas favour." is
probably as full a description and explanation that I can provide
without prompting.
d) I share your misgivings about "thoughts, ideas, explanations, words
and theories about art in general, and about my art in particular."
e) I've only thought about this for a minute or two and I've got one
eye on the Test match.
f) There is no point f.
Julian
> Hi,
>
> If you define art as that which pays attention to the perceptual
> situation; that a 'work' is the byproduct of that attention and the
> means of maintaining it then I'd say that such an Artist would be quite
> close to the concerns of some one with a comitment to the buddhist
> project.
>
> The Artist comes up against the issue of subject matter 'what' to pay
> attention to. A buddhist, of course, has the dharma.
>
> Both, potentialy, have access to hightened states of consiousness both
> seek some kind of access to the truth. samatha~vipasana.
>
> I've resently made some thing for the North london Buddhist centre and
> produced an artist statment about it giving the work a possible arts
> title and a possible buddhist title I then asked the viewer to come up
> with their own and share it by adding it to a list.
>
> As maker or viewer, the truth of the work In the end is experiential and
> subjective however you contextualize or concretise it.
You mention the North London Buddhist Center...
would that be the place in Holloway Road,
and is your "thing" still there?
(I pass the place twice a week on route to from and to Kentish Town.)
Julian
Interesting link, cheers.
Julian
ps. I share your view on Bobs comment.
Arch Stanton
Art could be a forum for "expounding the dharma" just like rock music
(see http://www.alteredstate.com/lyrics.html), or maybe it just wakes
people up to reality without any reference to buddhism at all.
Take John Cage, one of the most vocal artists about zen: he wore "zen"
on his sleeve (see
http://www.newalbion.com/artists/cagej/autobiog.html) yet admitted to
not meditating or going beyond the cursory interest of someone shopping
for flour. Currently, you could look at Mariko Mori (See
http://www.headlightjournal.com/art-reviews/mariko-mori/synthetic-dreams.html)
as someone who is immersed in buddhism and swings from being subtle to
blatant all in the same show. Or look at Tehching Hsieh (see
http://www.one-year-performance.com/menu.html) who likes to challenge
our notions of art and life without the need to reference buddhism.
Certainly the door is open and one can go in any direction. But it is
a discussion, both here and in the contemporary art world. Western
artists appropriating buddhism and eastern artists appropriating
western ideas, and then an exchange of reappropriation goin both ways.
ma...@notspamagainbobs.me.uk
Hi
Almost as soon as I'd posted I deleted it as It was in the wee hours and
I wanted to edit it so was suprised to see a response. Thanks Arch.
Julian, that is the place on holloway road and it's still up. The work
shown at the NLBC is a depature for me. I have no images of it at
present but a site that shows some of my earlier work is here if your
interested www.remnant.ndirect.co.uk
Interesting links guys.
Here's the reworked post
Hi,
If you define art as that which has payed attention to the perceptual
situation, that a 'work' is therefore a byproduct of that attention and,
the proccess of its making, the means of maintaining it, then I'd say
that an Artist with such a perpective would be quite close to the
concerns of some one with a comitment to the buddhist project.
The Artist comes up against the issue of subject matter 'what' to pay
attention to. Discovering ones subject matter may be via the proccess of
making and the happy accident. If you start off with buddhism as your
theam this dosn't preclude the possibility of stumbaling across the
truth as you engage with your subject matter in the proccesses of making
art. Isn't that what buddhist do to maintain their attention on the
perceptual situation via the contemplation of the dharma; the dharma in
this case being a kind of art work. If you express truth in whatever way
dosn't this elide all groupings or affiliations. Isn't this when we know
we've succeded in making art.
Both traditions, potentialy, have access to hightened states of
consiousness both seek some kind of access to the truth via this subtler
form of being. (samatha~vipasana.)
Having resently made something for the North london Buddhist centre and
produced an artist statment about it giving the work a possible arts
title and a possible buddhist title but then asking the viewer to come
up with their own and share it by adding it to a list the question you
pose has been on my mind. An artist friend often asks why art isn't
enough why I need buddhism. My answer at the moment is that for me they
are non different.
As maker or viewer, the truth of the work In the end is experiential and
subjective however you contextualize or concretise it.
Bob
Uncle
Having posted I deleted again as it being in the wee hours I wanted to
edit post. So suprised to see responses.
The work is still up and the NLBC is on the holloway road. Its something
of a departure for me as I've been doing longer term instillational
projects documentation of an early one of these can be found at
www.remnant.ndirect.co.uk/
Here the reworked post and thanks to you both for the positive comments
& interesting links!
If you define art as that which has payed attention to the perceptual
situation, that a 'work' is therefore a byproduct of that attention and,
the proccess of its making, the means of maintaining it, then I'd say
that an Artist with such a perpective would be quite close to the
concerns of some one with a comitment to the buddhist project.
The Artist comes up against the issue of subject matter 'what' to pay
attention to. Discovering ones subject matter may be via the proccess of
making and the happy accident. If you start off with buddhism as your
theam this dosn't preclude the possibility of stumbaling across the
truth as you engage with your subject matter in the proccesses of making
art. Isn't that what buddhist do to maintain their attention on the
perceptual situation via the contemplation of the dharma; the dharma in
this case being a kind of art work. If you express truth in whatever way
dosn't this elide all groupings or affiliations. Isn't this when we know
we've succeded in making art.
Both traditions, potentialy, have access to hightened states of
consiousness both seek some kind of access to the truth via this subtler
form of being. (samatha~vipasana.)
Having resently made something for the North london Buddhist centre and
produced an artist statment about it giving the work a possible arts
title and a possible buddhist title but then asking the viewer to come
up with their own and share it by adding it to a list the question you
pose has been on my mind. An artist friend often asks why art isn't
enough why I need buddhism. My answer at the moment is that for me they
are non different.
As maker or viewer, the truth of the work In the end is experiential and
Arch Stanton
philosophy and theory. In the past, I enjoyed reading Foucault and
Deleuze and others, but now I find their words so dull and dead. Its
not that I don't understand them, but rather that writers like these
seem to perpetuate further attachment to thoughts and thinking. I
would rather read Dogen's Shobogenzo or reread a sutra than become
entwined by the big ideas of contemporary art/theory.
I just read an interview with sculptor MIchael Joo, who uses buddhist
elements in his art. He had or has some work at the Serpentine Gallery
in London. One had a giant buddha head from Afghanistan surrounded by
video cameras. In the interview, he didn't really talk about buddhism
but instead kept the discussion on ideas of perception and our culture
of visual information.
Arch Stanton
Thanks for the pics. The screens are very interesting....(pause)
In light of everything we've said in this discussion, it is at this
point that I (or someone) might describe the work and what is
interpreted from it-- all in the language of art-speak! To relate this
"moment of pause" to buddhism, it is similar to the moment when one
hears the Heart Sutra's "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" and
then..(pause). After this one can analyze the semantic structure, the
history of buddhist rhetoric, the context of early Indian philosophy,
but it is now spiraling further away from reality.
I suppose for every one Mahakashyapa, there are a thousand others in
the assembly suspended in wonder, confusion or disgust.
Uncle
"Arch Stanton" <gga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bob-
>
> Thanks for the pics. The screens are very interesting....(pause)
Yes I use the word Hiatus to discribe the effect the work has on the
space.
>
> In light of everything we've said in this discussion, it is at this
> point that I (or someone) might describe the work and what is
> interpreted from it-- all in the language of art-speak! To relate this
> "moment of pause" to buddhism, it is similar to the moment when one
> hears the Heart Sutra's "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" and
> then..(pause).
without substance or permanence ultimatley futile the intrinsic nature
of the 'thing' is not the same and not different from the conditioned.
> After this one can analyze the semantic structure, the
> history of buddhist rhetoric, the context of early Indian philosophy,
> but it is now spiraling further away from reality.
>
> I suppose for every one Mahakashyapa, there are a thousand others in
> the assembly suspended in wonder, confusion or disgust.
Wanting to posses but not being able to. Wanting to negate but unable to.
Ambivalence, even a desire to ignore that which can't be grasped
(grasped).
The work often produces a reaction. A desire to touch. Or slightly
scared and then a wish to confront fragility by acting. To bring that
sence of paused-ness to an end. To not be confronted by the 'things'
nature but not quite able to end it. Eventualy people seem to get over
their initial reaction to the point of ignoring the work, or as if they
can't quite see it any more.
> As an artist, it seems nearly necessary to read up on a lot of
> philosophy and theory. In the past, I enjoyed reading Foucault and
> Deleuze and others, but now I find their words so dull and dead. Its
> not that I don't understand them, but rather that writers like these
> seem to perpetuate further attachment to thoughts and thinking. I
> would rather read Dogen's Shobogenzo or reread a sutra than become
> entwined by the big ideas of contemporary art/theory.
>
I found that it has taken some time for my arts education to wear off
and to have a sence of the potential of the experiential. That it is
only this spontaneious upwelling of or even desent of vision or contact
with some wisp of the mythic that seems to condense into 'subject
matter' that isn't some kind of an illustration of theory. The emotive
in me responds directly to this bypassing interlect like some one who is
presented with a good meal realizing they are ravonous. How such
experience or contact arise ??? but on some level doing some work even a
sketch book seems to help a whole lot. Or a jornal.
Paying 'attention' is an emotive act.
I think that there is too much of Blakes specture & emination in the
arts establishment/culture. Thus on one hand every thing needs a book of
rules of how to approach the meaning of the work and on the other so
much froth. I some times find my self feeling deflated when returning
from a contempory arts show and in fact go less and less.
His idea of the realm of imagination seems to echo the idea of the
rupaloka in Buddhism. Accessing this realm? Perhaps being rooted in a
tradition has something to do with it to.
> I just read an interview with sculptor MIchael Joo, who uses buddhist
> elements in his art. He had or has some work at the Serpentine Gallery
> in London. One had a giant buddha head from Afghanistan surrounded by
> video cameras. In the interview, he didn't really talk about buddhism
> but instead kept the discussion on ideas of perception and our culture
> of visual information.
In uk I always seem to see Buddha figures in the background of tv progs
and films.
If you have any online documentation of work? or if I missed the link?
It's early am now so having waffeled on long enough bad spelling and all
I'm off to bed.
Arch Stanton
here: I'm actually in my senior year at an art school here in the
states... and I'm working on my thesis now. My preoccupation with the
topic of Buddhism and contemporary art is, well, a big deal for me
right now. Similar to that deflated feeling you mentioned, when I
leave a critique I feel like I need to renew my vows or read a sutra or
meditate. I watch professors and students alike ferociously grasp at
the slightest idea-- anything that fits their own agenda, their likes
or dislikes, their own narrative of the world. Of coursea thesis is
suppose to be focused, so right now I'm looking at perception and the
various ways we see the world, how we gather and organize information,
etc. No doubt, I'm immediately told to read Freud, Jung, and a
half-dozen French postmodernists. I have read from them, but I find
little that hasn't already been considered in buddhist sutras. Not to
mention that the underlying assumption for most of these is the
monopoly of self-identity over the range of experience. But that all
seems trivial to the main point: that proving and arguing these things
through logic does little except to reinforce each persons' position.
Hmmmm... its time to sleep. Thanks again for your thoughts.
Julian
A friend...
http://www.gre.ac.uk/~ma04/art/latex.htm
Uncle
Bob