Artist - Bodhisattva - A Manifesto

sifusylvain

1. Artist - Bodhisattva - A Manifesto
Nyudo, Rev. Sylvain Chamberland
Paperback - Lulu.com (Jul 2008) - 104 Pages
ISBN 1435723201 - ISBN-13 9781435723207

This is a book I started writing in 1990, and recently re-wrote for the umpteenth(word?) time....

It has been a search in myself as I have had to answer the question repeatedly asked of me, "Why are you an Artist?"

The answer has evolved from snippets of conviction to a thourough search for deep truths for the dedicated "artist".

Thanks

Love and Respect

Sylvain

Thomas Hood · Posted: Mon Aug 18, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject:

Sylvain, how do art and the artist become one?

Tom

sifusylvain · Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: art and artist "become" one?

Firstly, I will offer the following: "Art" encompasses the entire experience of the activity of "destruction/creation" from conception to execution, display, viewing, participation, critical thought, and ownership, and any sub contexts between. "Art" is an experience, a communication, and a provocation.

An "Artist" is a sentient being capable of initiating, participating, and experiencing, "Art". Though this is a very complicit and intimate relationship of distinct “other” (differentiation of sentient being and the process of “Art”), they can be fundamentally "one" only through the realization that all experience results from perception of "other", which is impermanent and therefore illusory (a state of enlightenment). Even in the Buddhist sense, the entire "reality" of universes is a "result" of "creativity" and thereby an especially "other" giving "experience" to that which we truly "are", creative “being” capable of awareness. This is the situation of this mundane world, Samsara, the “state” of name and form, nama-rupa, differentiation, self and other. Just as “growing” is not a “tomato”, to confuse growing (a process) with the tomato (a thing) is a great fallacy.

As "artists" in this world, we function in "name and form" as distinct identities. So in this world, we are defacto "other" than our processes. "Art", being a process, is always other than artist, and can only be this way in this world.

This is also true for the same reasons for "artwork" or any "artifact" or physical trace left in the act of "Art". I believe this is why I have heard myself as well as others often proclaim that the resulting “works” produced by me have come to existence in a sort of channeling of process, energy, primordial “chord” to be manifest of its own “otherness”. The work often as much a surprise as a completion.

I am not sure I have even addressed your question, except to put some parameters to it. You may have some completely different idea of what you are asking. If so, I would like to read your definition of the question.

Thanks for asking....

Sylvain

sifusylvain

I would only wish to add the following to my response to the question of "oneness" of art and artist...

A more useful inquiry might be the sense of "truth" an artist seeks in all endeavors. In other words, how can we be certain our "output" is undefiled by personal conceits or influences or simple delusion. Or, for that matter, be certain of our motives in those very conceits.

What motivates "Art" in the artist?

I put to you that this is the crux of the book... Smile

And so, to answer this question properly would require, for me at least, to paste the entire contents of the book into this forum... Razz

mmmmmmm, sorry....

Sylvain

Thomas Hood

sifusylvain · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: agreed

I don't think we disagree...

When you cite the examples of Greek "art" and others, you are citing "works" of "Art". This is the distinction I tried to obviate in the form your question took.

The "Work" of "Art" or "artifact" is of course an evidentuary "container". In that it is the product of the function of Art through the Artist, it is informed by the life of the artist from whom it was created. So in this respect the artist work is very related to the artist.

However, "Art" is not a product or a specific.

Also, your citation that Buddhism is the search for "true" self, is slightly misleading. THe truth in Buddhism is without "self". "Self" is a construct of this mundane world state. And so to further answer this I put it to you that the "truth" is transcendent of "self".

So the "Art" works that create tremendous resonance of an age, a time, or an experience, though they may be manifested through a specific artist, are in fact communicating an experience other than the artist. By your own description these works function as communication of time, place, etc. and not the actual character or personae of the artist, but instead teh experience of that artist to whatever degree that artist was to achieve the language of that experience. Pretty wordy hunh? Smile

A point here is that it is far too easy to confuse artwork with artist. Certainly the artist has the credit or distrinction of revealing a truth, but that truth is transcendent of the artist and universal in some form. This is great "Art", yes? Relating to Buddhism, the historical Buddha taught very clearly in his culminating teachings that the "truth" he had attained (other), was not his and his alone. That in fact all of use have the "state" of Buddha within our lives, and need only to awaken to it. So to use the Buddha as analogy to artist, the truth the artist reveals, just as the Buddha reveales, is a universal truth that transcends the artist or Buddha.

Since the artist is a seeker of truths and constantly moving toward a universal truth, the artist behaves in many ways utilizing the Buddha-nature inherent in the artist. In Buddhism this is the life state of Bodhisattva. Here you have the crux of the thesis. How these function within the work of the artist, the society, how it is motivated and manifests, and how the artist must develop confidence in this is the subject of this book.

Thanks again.

Thomas Hood · Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: agreed

sifusylvain · Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: More... :-)

THis is great... Smile

I haven't heard or remember hearing of the author you mention, but my curiosity will lead me to find out more... Smile

I would like to posit an example with regard to this idea of "art(work)" identified with "artist", not to exhaust the argument, but hopefully to clarify further our diference of understanding.

Let us take the painting "Guernica" as a historic example. Whether you believe this to be an historic painting of significance or not, you must conceed its worldly reputation and significance to a great number of peoples.

Viewers have been oft recorded to "break-down", cry, and simply react deeply to this painting. This "Work of Art" speaks to people of loss, tragedy, political horror, personal pain, and myriad emotional, universal, and personal conflicts.

If it were not for the extreme amount of "information" available everywhere about the artist, many might well neither ask nor care who the artist is. The "work" does not "speak" of the artist.

However, if one is so determined, one can study the time period and the political realities and references within this "work" and attend a frame of reference to the artist in the hopes of judging or disserning the particular personae of the artist, vis-a-vis his political views, his emotional response, to those actual events motivating the work. At that point, the discussion shifts from "Art" to anthropology or egotistical reference. THe artist, even by this process of analysis, "Is" not the "painting", but in service to it.

We can admire Picassos's draughtmanship, his skills and even his sympathies, but the work is in service to something other than Picasso. This is what makes the work transcendent of Picasso, although presented through his unique lense.

Remember too, that "Atman" is not the ultimate, but also in service to "it".
Whether humans are "blown apart" into inumerable atoms or particles, the particles themselves are still part of this mundane world-state, and as such support the "name and form" impermanence. The OM or the Namumyohorengekyo, teh fundamental sounds, vibrations, intonations of "it" are only "real" and of utility to us in this world-state, where diferrentiation separates us from "it" even within our "selves". The OM or Namumyohorengekyo are tools to use in our present state to experience, to communicate with the ultimate, the Buddha-nature.

The "work" of "Art" functions like this. The work opens the experience of the transcendent via a conduit of a gifted moment or moments recorded by a sensitive and focused being, and through that beings worldly (Samsaric) "reality". That personal reality makes the experience all the more familiar to the viewer who is in fact in this same world-state.

To return to "Guernica", we may indeed discover many aspects of Picasso by studying the painting. It must be obvious though that whatever is "learned" will be of little proportion to the life of Picasso, representing only one event and one expression. Picasso is infinitely more than Quernica, and Guernica is infinitely more than Picasso. We can see many Eastern European conflicts of recent years in Guernica, the continued devaluation and disrespect of human life.

So, although we may continue to disagree on the idea of artist as "one" with "work" of Art, perhaps we can agree that truly "timeless" or "widely affecting" (input adjective here) works of art in literature or visual arts alike, though they may bring forth tremendous appreciation of the author or artists' insight, sensitivities, and accumen, communicate experiences far beyond the scope of the single progenitor of the "work".

Then again... Razz

Sylvain

Thomas Hood · Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:47 pm Post subject: Re: More... :-)

Penelope · Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 4:35 am Post subject:

I'm just following a train of thought here because I actually know nothing much about fine art except that I like looking at it and I love some artists more than others, although I am not sure why.

Caravagio, for instance, in my eyes, outshines all the others of the 'Italian School'. But that is a just a gut feeling...not an formed and accademic opinion.

Picasso's famous - Woman with a Letter - is an extraordinarily moving piece. I don't know why it always gets to me though, and brings a lump to my throat. It just does.

We often visit galleries, hubby and I, although neither of us is very informed about 'Art'. My favourite gallery is the one in Lille, France.

There is a splendid Sculpture Gallery there which spoils you for anywhere else. I have never seen any to compare.

Robert Tulip · Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:53 am Post subject: Re: More... :-)

sifusylvain · Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:40 am Post subject: Thank You

Thank You Robert! It is refreshing to hear a voice of reason. Smile

Sylvain

Penelope · Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:57 am Post subject:

I am reading this thread.....and there will be others....it is helpful...please continue......

sifusylvain · Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: TOm TOm TOm....

You Said: But notice, Sylvain, when you see a picture by Picasso you know that it is Picasso's immediately, without study of content and certainly without history.

No not correct. Have you ever seen a work by Georges Braque? I challenge you to differentiate a Braque versus a Picasso of the same time. Even so, this is not even academic. You are choosing a purely stylistic reading of a "work", and by so doing, reducing the work to mere lines and shapes without respect for its "content", which you then reduce again to "thing" ("bull", "woman", etc...). Your argumentation is full of contradiction and non-logical accumulation. I fear this excellent dialogue is becoming no more than contradiction, and a voyeuristic one at that.
I will respond to each statement you make one last time.

You Said: You know by line, form, bull, disjointed woman, shifted planes, etc., without analysis.

This the very definition of analysis. Puerile analysis of physical form and line. I already conceded that this type of "graphic" analysis results in forensic results pointing, with clues, to a progenitor. Is this ART???!!! No, this is simple and academic "analysis" of a "painting"(color, shapes, forms, on a basic support). This kind of analysis is why American art is dead. When the world wars decimated humanity in Europe, great artists fled to New York and their art reflected the inhumanity of the time. American artists took this as their starting point and drove "content" (meaning, significance, even the figure) completely out of their works. Their works were dead. The "Expressionists" manufactured a "content" of psychology to their works in an effort to replace what they had avoided. It never worked. It eventually led to Warhol. What a dismal state. For "Art" to return, it had to find "content", the unique communication of the image as communicator of sensation. The figure re-emerged along with "transmission" of "sensations" and the tabooed Americans recoiled. Now we have a desolate art presence in this country. How tragic! How pathetic. And it is through this facile analysis of works that this juvenile interpretation of "Art" continues.

You Said: It feels like Picasso, Yes? And it is significant because Picasso has conveyed this feel, not by any message he supposed he put into it.

No. It does not "feel" like Picasso. It "feels" like tragedy! Murder! Pain! Lyrical, dead, ashen, grave-like. These are sensations. Sensations unique to each person and universal in affect. This is the "Content" of Guernica. To be sufficiently anesthetized to sensation, and then to "analyze" the work, one can recognize certain graphic elements and features giving clues to a stylistic consistency and from that deduce a small group or individual craftsman. But at this point the discussion is no longer about "Art" is it? That would be the same trick as proposing that the "Iliad" is no great novel but simply a romantic yarn! Neither of which divulge a telling biography of the life of the author!

You Said: The relation between art and artist (in my opinion) is like the relation between telegrapher and fist. Fist is the individuality of the telegrapher expressed in the transmission and has nothing to do with message because often the message is in code unknown to the telegrapher.

What? "Fist" is in no way individual. This is why you can write it as simply "fist", a universal. Transmission however is very specific! Why is it specific? For the very reason you deny it, it is in the message carried by that fist! Does the fist land softly on the table, indicating impatience? Does it get thrown violently in the air as a declaration!? Or does it come crashing through the atomized check bones of your face, leaving no doubt the level of dissatisfaction of the "telegrapher"? The analysis of the "fist" may bring you to the fingerprints and the identity of the telegrapher, but the "message" "transmitted" could come from anyone, and by "foot" as well as "fist".

You Said: In talking about this matter (mostly to myself) I use reference to refer to the content of the message and revelation to refer to the disclosure of the individuality of the author. The reference is to a particular view of the Guernica air raid, but the revelation is the author himself.

If you can not concede that the "revelation" of Guernica is the inhumanity of humans to others, then I am afraid you are truly lost and have no understanding of "Art" in the slightest.

You Said: "Guernica" is not an easy example to discuss because, basically, it is a political statement and not art,

ALL interactions of human beings are by definition, "Politic"! I cannot accept that you should even write such an absurdity! Are you just playing the argumentative here? The ART is IN the statement!

You Said: but Picasso was a better artist than politician.

A communicator is always channeling language that suggests points of view. ART is all about "seeing" and that vision is always juxtaposed to all other visions whether blind or fully sighted. In the creation, viewing, and discussion, with self or with others, all communication is political insofar as communication entails "ways of seeing". An Artist is a politician, a scientist, a philosopher, an advocate, a critic, a seeker of truth, a purveyor of truths, a teacher, a counselor, a parent, a sovereign...a Bodhisattva.

You Said: Politics is not the art of telling the truth.

Oh yes it is. Politicians may use truths as foils and disguise, and later betray those truths for their own gains, but that does not change the fact that politics is a game of truths. Truth is always subjective. Politicians excel at discovery of popular truths to infuse their campaign rhetoric, whose only goal is popularity. The "art", be it good or bad is in the "content" revealed in the politicians actions either validating or violating those "truths".

You Said: I imagine that the Guernica raid was actually revenge for the reign of terror of communist death squads in Spain.

The air raids in Guernica were a result of an agreement reached between Hitler and Franco to offer a sizable town for a trial run of Hitler’s "Blitzkrieg" war machine, and a demonstration of Franco's alliance with Hitler while providing a bonus to Franco of riding him of pesky Basque people's resistance to Spanish nationalist controls. http://www.pbs.org/treasuresoftheworld/guernica/glevel_1/1_bombing.htm l

You Said: So I value it, not for its questionable politics, but for the individuality it conveys, and really, is "devaluation and disrespect of human life" possible without the denial of individuality?

So now you are saying that it is not a "political statement", but a work of "art"? It is the valuation of that humanity and the individual that drives monsters of power to annihilate them. Had individuals no value, they would pose no threat.

I apologize if at times this response seems rude or too direct. However, Tom, the statements you made are poorly informed, dubious in intent, and tremendously disappointing given the amount of considerations I have already offered.

Sylvain


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT