I Still Love Abstract (& Expressionistic) Art!

I Still Love Abstract (& Expressionist) Art! (2015)

Published by ?

Abstract art:

A product of the untalented

Sold by the unprincipled

To the utterly bewildered

Al Capp (1909-1979)

The ‘witty’ quote above by the American cartoonist, satirist and certified curmudgeon, Al Capp, sums up succinctly the negative attitude towards non-figurative/ representational art more than 60 years ago which unfortunately, is still prevalent today.

Indeed, in stark contrast to the formulaic and conservative approaches by local figurative and landscape painters who continue to, decade after decade (copying photographs and other reference materials) peddle the same trite, romanticized views of the local populations and situations that only serve to reinforce the exoticization of the self as ‘the Other’ (read: localized form of Orientalism) or to elicit nostalgic longings for an idyllic or imaginary past that never was. A person looking at an abstract (& expressionist) painting is confronted by something that is immediately disconcerting, utterly alien and seemingly indecipherable. The loud colours, bold expressive strokes and unclear forms do not conveniently coalesce into something recognizable or even likeable. As a result, one is not able to automatically fall back on the pointless act of describing what is evident to others and to themselves as many are wont to do when viewing representational art. As unrecognizable as it is unattractive to those accustomed to clear and accurate depictions of the human form and our surroundings skilfully rendered by the figurative/ representational artists (assisted by their photographic references), abstract, expressionist and non-figurative art offers no opportunity for airing platitudes about the wonderfully high fidelity made with such technical dexterity by the human hand, an aptitude that is favourably compared to a small contraption devised to, with the help of light, mechanically (now digitally) capture in detail, what or where the shooter happens to aim its lenses at, with the click of a button. Of course, who could fault their inability or their refusal to see beauty or anything of substance in presumably, raw, senseless and chaotic strokes, incoherent forms, impulsive daubs and wild splashes of paints that do not correspond to the mundane and the recognizable? The evolution of art, with its thousands of years’ history in the East and West did not prepare for such a decisive break from the traditional and the academic.

If artists do see fields blue they are deranged, and should go to an asylum.

If they only pretend to see them blue, they are criminals and should go to prison.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)

It must be pointed out that figurative/ representational art began very much in the service of depicting the gods and the rulers as perfect, powerful and beautiful beings while lesser ‘others’ are mostly presented as diminutive, with warts and all to highlight their inferior status of servitude. From the god-rulers of Mesopotamia, the Egyptian Pharaohs and other rulers of ‘great’ civilizations in Asia right up to ‘classical’ Greece, which made the Renaissance in Europe possible after the so called ‘Dark Ages’, figurative/ representational art have always had religious and political propagandist functions which continues to this day. The artists of non-figurative art themselves had to resort to philosophy and theories from other fields of study to explicate their positions and to justify their actions. This so-called new art was something that was totally unanticipated and even till today, unwelcomed by many unaccustomed to having their art explained to them or worse, expected them to interpret and rely on their ‘personal’ readings of the works on exhibit. Instead, they had expected nay, demanded that art serve and celebrate them; by pandering, confirming and elevating their views about the world and themselves unambiguously.

“Frankly, these days, without a theory to go with it, I cannot ‘see’ a painting”

Tom Wolfe (Author of The Painted Word, an amusing diatribe against modern art, especially

Abstract Expressionism in America in the 70’s)

That is precisely why figurative/ representational art continues to be popular and widely appreciated. Underlying the many different approaches to contemporary figurative/ representational art today is the element of pop with its references to commercial and mainstream cultures. Today, popular sentiments and issues are now presented in an odd mixture of the saccharine, fantastical and even horror. Its practitioners too are spared from having to vigorously defend themselves from constant vilification, misunderstandings and accusations of artistic charlatanry because what these painters produce requires no great leap of imagination, intelligent guesswork or even (much) emotional input from its viewers. Today, we continue to hear the usual dismissive reasons artists turn to abstraction or expressionism because they ‘lack the aptitude for drawing and painting realistically’ without realizing that, beginning with the Impressionist, Post-Impressionists, Expressionists, Cubists, Abstractionists, Suprematists, Constructivists, Futurists, Dadaists etc, all had started out as figurative/ representational/realistic artists and found their artistic visions stifled by the approach. Against a long tradition of making realistic images and religious icons for the purpose of reification, glorification and propagation of the ideas and ideals according to the powers that be, they felt held back from expressing something new, different, personal and deeper which drove them to make a conscious decision to break free from the traditional, the formulaic and the academic. Due to the profound changes brought about by the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, the discovery and colonization of non-European countries, the Industrial Revolution, Psychoanalysis, the rise of new spirituality and political fervour, the European outlook changed accordingly as much as the outlook of the non-Europeans which it came into contact and subsequently subjugated. Therefore, artists had to find new ways to express new meanings, emotions, sensations and realities they’re encountering, discovering and experiencing around them. They had to search for words to a new language that had not yet been spoken to describe the disconcerting, to address the alienating and to celebrate the now expanded vistas of their consciousness of a new and ‘deeper’ reality. They resort to the ‘primitive’, primordial and intuitive as means to give form or to justify their subjective visions. Some turn to ideologies (Anarchism, Socialism, Fascism etc) to express their radicalised views while others turn to psychology and even mysticism, whether the eastern or the western variety but usually claimed to be backed by new scientific discoveries. Looking to the past and outside of western society, their quest to uncover what lies behind an increasingly alienating reality of industrialization or as means to penetrate through the stifling and artificial ballast of modern life, many became iconoclasts and pioneers in various forms of non-figurative art, expressive and non-objective approaches that would collective be known as ‘Modern’ art. The legacies of modern art movements and their practitioners continue to inspire artists today to find their own unique approach to expressing themselves as well as the truths that guide them instead of another’s.

“I must create a system or be enslaved by another man’s;

I will not reason and compare: my business is to create. “

William Blake (1757-1827)

The idea of the artist as an unique individual whose innate talents, originality of vision and artistic ingenuity distinguished them from being merely skilful craftsmen can be traced back to 14th century Italy during the time of the Renaissance where names such as Michelangelo (1475-1564), Da Vinci (1452-1519), Raphael (1483-1520) just to name a prominent few, were considered ‘superstars’ supported and celebrated by their wealthy patrons which included merchants, bankers, the clergy and members of the ruling establishment. Prior to that era, there were hardly any craftsmen celebrated by name that we can recall. Indeed, these were artistic ‘geniuses’ who nevertheless, served the self-aggrandizing agendas of their patrons and political masters while reaping the rewards for work well done. However, the romantic image of the artist as a misunderstood, eccentric, immoral, delirious, visionary or tragic genius working outside of the establishment, culminating at its apogee, Vincent Van Gogh (1853-1890) the archetypal ‘outsider’ artist, began during the Romantic Period. A non-coherent arts and cultural movement, it rose against the rigidity and academicism of Neoclassicism which had fossilized into dogmatic aspects of the establishment in the late 18th century and 19th century Europe. Diversity of expressions, subjectivity of thoughts and a non-conformist attitude were actively promoted. This was of course due to the tremendous changes that were taking place in Europe at that time as mentioned. Subscribing to the subjective outlook, with precedence given to intuition over intention, the emotional aspects of art was emphasized. While the rise of scientific thought helps us to understand how the world works, the metaphysical aspects of reality was neglected, thus the Romantic Movement also championed spiritualism over scientism. Another feature, though not exclusive to Romanticism is the emphasis on individual agency and freedom from tyrannies of all kind. It is also in nature and the embracement of the natural that autonomy and freedom can be realized. That which is opposed to nature is unnatural. And what is that which is opposed to nature?

The answer must be ‘civilization’.

According to the entry in Wikipedia, “A civilization most broadly is any complex state society characterized by urban development, social stratification, symbolic communication forms, and a perceived separation from and domination over the natural environment.” (Emphasis added). If we look back at the so-called great wonders of the world and the achievements of all ‘great’ civilizations from time immemorial, which of these numerous but crumbling vainglorious structures and monuments that were NOT built by exploiting the labour of the subjugated or funded by the spoils of war and taxation? What were the functions of these great wonders of the world other than the glorification of tyrants, the victorious and ideas or ideals of the ruling classes in highly stratified societies? ‘High’ art and culture; the ideas, customs, values and practices of the so-called elites of any ‘civilization’ reflects and justifies the unnatural relationships where members of an imaginary ‘superior’ class or caste lords over the ‘inferior’ strata of a society which they however needed to constantly keep in check by pain of punishment, coercion or rewards. In opposition to these, the Romantics gave preference towards rusticity and the folkish with their unpretentious, simplicity and selfless communal spirit. The Romantic credo of returning to nature and embracing the natural is further indication of their negative ‘feelings’ towards the proliferation of artificiality and unreality of modern society, a permanent feature of ‘civilization’. Romantic artists see nature as a force that inspires both awe and fear due to its indescribable beauty. The violence of its unfathomable powers dwarfs the best and the worst of human achievements combined. It’s been written that romantic painters like J.M.W Turner (1775-1851) was a huge influence on a group of French artists, later derogatorily labelled as the ‘Impressionists’. Influenced by Turner’s unusual approach to painting his landscapes etc, these painters were to become the forerunners of modern art.

Civilization is what makes you sick!

Paul Gauguin (1848-1903)

Van Gogh, who studied the basics of art briefly, led a pathetic life of poverty and misery that ended tragically without attaining a modicum of financial stability or artistic success, is romanticized as the quintessential modern man ill at ease with his surroundings and himself who sought refuge, meaning and truth in the liberating act of painting. And painting, in the age of photography and other mechanical reproduction of images from life would inevitably move away from the figurative and representational to the emotive in Expressionism and later, the subjective in Abstractionism. Our appreciation for figurative/ sensory/ representational art stems from our ability to recognize and relate with the ideas and emotions which it tries to convey without much ambiguity. Before the advent of photography, drawing and painting were effective in documenting people, places and events. Moods and states of mind were carefully expressed through creative poses, dramatic lighting and imagined situations. Even the placement of specific objects within the composition delivers in subtle ways the intended messages or to amplify the atmosphere surrounding the subject. While the emotive aspects are present in works of figurative/ representational art, albeit subtly hinted or explicitly flaunted through compositions, colours, objects, situations, sceneries and the symbolic within its objective framework, it took artists like Van Gogh, who became the most well-known among his post Impressionists peers’ years after his death, to break the recognizable into the experienceable. The result was, that painting became a personally wilful act of expression of the artist’s psyche. Painting is no longer a tedious chore of building, layers upon layers of oil paints to dress up an idea or emotion for the patrons or the salons, but a direct, spontaneous and ‘courageous’ act of denudation to arrive at the explicit, the truthful and the personal.

Liberated from the shackles of thousands of years of traditions and fickle palates, the artist finally learnt to paint for him/herself.

‘Painting is a faith, and it imposes the duty to disregard public opinion.’

Vincent Van Gogh

The ‘fin de siècle’ was marked by profound changes in the European world due to influences of Romanticism. The French Revolution (1789-99) and the resulting disillusionment of its bloody aftermath, the widespread alienation that followed the Industrial Revolution (1760-1850) with the growing mechanization of various industries in society replacing the pre industrialized way of life displacing the masses were also important factors that have contributed to the shifts in thinking and behaving. And our behaviour rather, is very much subjected to our unthinking, especially our subconscious according to the so-called science of Psycho-analysis. The personalities we trained to adopt from young and the assortment of persona we assume in our daily transactions with society masks the private unresolved traumas, fears and longings which we have not been able to recover from or refused to outgrow. Without realising or addressing these psychical wounds and deficiencies, we overcompensate, project or sublimate our energies in order to function ‘normally’. However, to the observers of human behaviour, humanity is a walking, talking libido bloated from existential indigestion and stunted by infantile sexuality. Almost all of our actions are desperate acts to distract us from boredom, irritation and melancholia. For some, they block out thoughts of the purposelessness of existence and the terror of their impending demise with mindless pursuits, childish amusements and hedonistic pleasures while others try to conceal their true puerile selves by presenting a façade of authority, rationality and religiosity. However, behind the elaborate pretences are nothing but carefully crafted alibis and rehearsed responses to hide the putrid melange of restless drives, inferior/superior complexes and insatiable animal appetites ever eager to feast or to be fed. And fed ‘id’ did. Advancements made in the field of science and technology was directed towards improving and innovating modern weaponry. We learnt how to be efficient in killing so as to inflict the highest number of casualties in the process. However, we made no improvements when it came to our own states of mind and emotions. We projected our worst traits onto others to avoid dealing with our unpleasant selves, we over-compensate our existential insecurities with a puffed-up sense of nationalistic, racial and religious pride and we religiously sublimate our cynical frustrations into righteous indignation at the perceived ‘transgressions and humiliations’ caused by others to avoid obliterating ourselves utterly. In our lapses of reason and thoughtlessness, we are easily riled up and led by the nose into fulfilling the nefarious agendas of those who, from seeking power, maintaining power to expanding their powers.

Mechanized warfare led to unprecedented destructions on a wide scale and unimaginable loss of lives in WW1 (1914-1918).

Philosophers, psychologist and social scientists began to unbutton and examine what was wrong underneath the ‘haute couture’ western civilizations had worn for centuries and found its once pink flabby corpus now dis-eased and gangrened. They were presented with two alternatives, remedy or surgery. Those who chose the former, return to the classical past again to search for ‘cures’ while others opted for a complete break explored other alternative paths which included Non-western ideas, civilizations and even spiritualities. Those who looked to the classical pasts for inspiration resurrected heroic ideals and scientific achievements as means to stress the superiority of western civilizations. They also revived western tribal myths to emphasize the distinctiveness of their racial bloodline. With parts borrowed from here and adapted from there, not to mention the creative license taken by spin-doctors and propagandists, this blue-eyed blonde Frankenstein is ready to be presented to the world as the establishment’s new poster boy. Now all they needed was to visually camouflage this bastard of a chimera to make ‘it’ look perfect, powerful and beautiful. This newly constructed image must be made appealing and desirable enough to capture the hearts and minds of the masses. Like thousands of years before, the visual arts were summoned again to play its role to reify, glorify and propagate the ideas and ideals (or rather illusions) peddled by these new ruling classes of ‘naked’ Kaisers with their entourage of fawning little Napoleons and rapacious mini dowagers looking solemn in their ‘new’ clothes. Just like the ending of that fairy tale ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ by Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875), the masses went along with the pretence and supported the illusion that a vain but simple minded ruler was not wearing any clothes for fear of ridicule or worse, punishment. It only took a small child to expose the elaborate charade. When artists presented to the world a totally different and personal views that do not correspond to those held and demanded by these fascists and nationalists, they were immediately branded as unpatriotic, treacherous or subversive and their works denounced as corrupt, alien and degenerate. And practitioners of non figurative/ representational art (collectively categorized under the term Modern Arts) were the most degenerated of them all. The first undertaking of any totalitarian regime to inculcate blind obedience is by denying access to information or views contrary to their versions of objective truth. If one were to look back at the beginnings of all totalitarian regimes since time immemorial, it was the intellectual classes (writers, thinkers, poets, artists, educators etc) that were the first to be singled out for obliteration. Their outputs were banned or burned, they were imprisoned, rehabilitated or executed. In his speech at the Degenerate Art exhibition (Entartung Kunst) in 1937 which showcased pieces haphazardly grouped together from some 16 000 works (modern, abstract and non-representational) seized by the Nazis from German art museums, Hitler triumphantly proclaimed that "works of art which cannot be understood in themselves but need some pretentious instruction book to justify their existence will never again find their way to the German people". (See ‘Degenerate art: Why Hitler hated Modernism’ http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24819441). This was after the Nazi’s book burning campaign a few years earlier. How and why were these particular artistic expressions singled out to be vilified and condemned by the powers that be?

Why make such a concerted effort to denounce and discredit artists who refuse to produce art in figurative form, especially the neo-classical style that is so favoured by the powers that be, as though they were pornographers and enemies of the state?

"It is not the mission of art to wallow in filth for filth's sake, to paint the human being only in a state of putrefaction, to draw cretins as symbols of motherhood, or to present deformed idiots as representatives of manly strength”.

Adolf Hitler

(Excepted from a speech made at a National Socialist Party rally, Nuremberg, September 11, 1935)

With the continuing collapse of modern fascistic and totalitarian regimes since the 2nd World War, one can only conclude that the non-figurative/ representational artists so hated by the likes of Hitler and other psychopathic dictators with their rabid supporters were only painting the TRUTH of what they saw; the stinking rot underlying all totalitarian systems and the mindless filth propagated by the ruling classes to zombify the masses, who with the encouragements of their half-witted mothers, gladly sacrifice themselves as obedient pawns and faceless cannon fodder in a rabid display of nationalism and racial superiority all for the irrational sake of maintaining the powers of their own enslavers and exploiters.

True art is brave. It sacrifices much to keep that precious little which is art. It tests the boundaries of human capacity for beauty, it defies conventions that cripple the human spirit, it challenges man’s inhumanity to man.

(Statement no. 9 taken from artist Lee Joo For’s ‘An Art Manifesto’)

“Maybe among the observers here, there are those who long for stirring art that give life to conditions. Those who visit surely have his or her own philosophy about art, What is art for? Whom is it for? Is art for community more meaningful that art for art’s sake? Or art for development? Art for the nation? Art as an identifier of race?

That which gives forms to the soul?”

The above was taken from the speech given by Syed Ahmad Jamal (1929-2011) who was then the president of the now defunct Malaysia Art Association at its inaugural exhibition in 1981. Looking back at our less than a century-old history of western-influenced visual arts, we will find that many of our pioneer artists before and after the Second World War did not receive formal instructions in art. They learned informally from those who were trained in art academies abroad through drawing and painting sessions or from schools where these graduates taught.

The Nanyang Academy of Fine Art (NAFA) graduates, Angkatan Pelukis Semenanjung, later SeMalaysia (APS) which was formerly the Majlis Kesenian Melayu, and the Wednesday Art Group (WAG) just to name a few, all had help to contribute to art making in those early years. Printed materials available on art and artists are especially influential sources of reference and inspiration. Many of our early artist learned by imitating the strokes, forms and styles that caught their fancy to produce works which conforms to their biases of what constitutes as ‘beautiful’, ‘artistic’ or ‘new’. Some became experts at the styles which they’ve adopted while others developed from there to arrive at something they could claim as their own. Many of these individuals were successful in their practices with their paintings acquired by private collectors, corporations and national institutions. Later, the British Malayan government sent Malayans abroad under scholarships to acquire technical and administrative skills to serve in the various departments and agencies that was established in the course of governing the country and continued after Merdeka in 1957 until today. A number of our senior painters who specialised in non-figurative art (a variety of expressionist, abstract and abstract expressionist approaches, usually incorporating local elements or motifs) are Tay Hooi Kiat (1910-1989), Koh Sui Hoe, Syed Ahmad Jamal, Abdul Latiff Mohidin, Yeoh Jin Leng, Ibrahim Hussein (1936-2009), Jolly Koh, Cheong Lai Tong, Lee Joo For, Ismail Mustam, Sharifah Fatimah Zubir and Siti Zainon just to name a few who were also educators and writers. When Syed Ahmad Jamal together with his fellow artists were taken to task by the more conservative painters of figurative art for introducing and championing expressionism and abstractions, two important modern art movements which they deemed as being ‘alien’ to the cultural milieu of this side of the world, the National Art Laureate rationally posited that their embracement of the abstraction and expressionist idiom was a ‘natural’ development from the loose atmospheric watercolor painting styles that were already practiced by many early local painters. He refuted the claim that it was merely a borrowed idiom or a fad from the west where he and his fellow artists received their art education, rather it was something that was already present in the local spiritual traditions, citing the flow, rhythm and the stylized forms of Islamic-Malay and Chinese calligraphy. Niranjan Rajah, media artist and curator of the ground breaking exhibition ‘Bara Hati Bahang Jiwa: Expression and Expressionism in Contemporary Malaysian Art’ at the National Art Gallery in 2002 wrote in the exhibition catalogue that “Semangat, Amok, and Adab concepts from the Malay world view, have resonated with and against incoming expressionist tropes (language, themes, expression, etc) enabling both their assimilation and their transformation into a new indigenous forms.” (Emphases added).

The non naturalistic and aniconic approach, resulting in highly stylized and decorative arts and crafts of the Malays was due their observation to the prohibition in the Quran. Expressionist, Abstraction and abstract expressionism were therefore seen as dynamic and powerful ways of conveying ideas, messages and emotions while observing the interdiction set by the religion. These artists did not shy away from addressing issues and events of the day, with some producing works in reaction to the May 13 incident, that dark chapter in the modern history of this nation. A handful of them especially Lee Joo For and some members of the Anak Alam collective (founded by Abdul Latiff Mohidin, Mustapha Ibrahim and Ali Mabuha) wrote manifestos, acted in plays that explored pertinent social issues or staged happenings that questioned the creeping bureaucratization, unbridled commercialization in society as well as the increasing degradation of the natural surroundings due to industrialization which began in the 1970s. They continued to explore themes related to being and existence, the universal and personal in non-figurative/ representational ways, even adopting geometrical forms into their works. They celebrated spirituality without the pedantic posturing or moralizing platitudes and saw life as process of unfolding and becoming, not a series of photorealist frames of particular events.

Fast forward a few decades, one can conclude that things have not changed much. The same old prejudices and misconceptions remained and local abstract, expressionists and abstract expressionist artists, contrary to reports of profitable sales, increasing popularity of its practitioners and large numbers of its adherents, continue to be a minority in a scene saturated with figurative painters, young and old, still saddled with ideas based on the popular, banal, mythical and parochial behind their clichéd metaphors, orientalists’ projections and nostalgic sentiments.

This exhibition entitled ‘I LOVE ABSTRACT ART’ is a modest attempt to restate and reaffirm the curator’s interest and commitment to non-figurative/ representational art. The 12 artists in this exhibition, namely Mohd Yusoff Osman (Yusoff Volkswagen), Thangarajoo Kanniah, Ahmad Shukri Elias, Riaz Ahmad Jamil, Abdullah Jones, Chee Eng Hong (E.H Chee), Dennis Chan, Badruddin Syah Abdul Wahab, Iszuan Ismail, Fathullah Luqman B. Yusuff, Syahrul Niza Ahmad Zaini (Charown) and Goh Lee Kwang were singled out to be showcased here and highlighted for their deep commitment to an art form that has never really gained much acceptance, comprehension and even appreciation. They continued to work in their own way regardless of the demands of the market with its changeable trends and at their own pace when so-called interests in non-figurative/ representational art waned. Their spirit of individuality and integrity embodies the art attitude that should serve as an inspiration for all serious art practitioners to see that painting is no longer a tedious chore of building, layers upon layers of paints to dress up an idea or emotion for the patrons or the salons, but a direct, spontaneous and ‘courageous’ act of denudation to arrive at the explicit, the truthful and the personal.

Liberated from the shackles of thousands of years of tradition and fickle palates, the artist finally learnt to paint for him/herself.

Back

The artist who paints but to please, ends by pleasing all but himself, but his own soul. He is the biggest fool of all.

(Statement no.3 taken from Lee Joo For’s ‘An Art Manifesto’)