One year at dA: a retrospective look.

“More and more, we know more of less; until there will come a time when we will know much of nothing, and nothing of the whole.” Bernard Shaw


Sometimes it seems like a good idea to stop and look back. It seems simple, but strong forces move us forward, instead. Think of how often you stop to see what went wrong with your previous relationship. We prefer to move on. We’d rather find another love. And yet we sometimes wonder why we become dangerously repetitive in our relations. Looking back is, many times, difficult.

Or, for instance, take our modern notion of progress. It seems to discourage this turning around to look patiently backwards, even if momentarily. We all know it from the vocabulary we use everyday. We easily know what a “backward” country is. I myself come from one such allegedly “backward” country. Or, we can think of our responses to very sorrowful situations. At the death of a relative the best sympathetic advice we hear provided is simply, “to move on”. We moderns lack much temporal depth. Even our sense of time follows the forward tic-tac, tic-tac, of our watches. Looking slowly at Dali is quite healthy in this respect.

But this is a strange way to be. It is as if we planted and planted incessantly, and rarely stopped to meditate on, and enjoy, some of the harvest. For even bad harvests teach us something. Of course, we all “know” we do in fact “move on”; but moving on through clearer and healthier paths is only made possible by acquiring a retroactive ability. This journal is an attempt at exemplifying this archeological outlook. Here I will reflect on the nature of my own gallery, and if time allows, another journal will reflect on those many deviants who kindly and lovingly shared this first year with me. I must confess I was also moved to write it because I was tired of looking at my last journal which celebrated my birthday each and every single day. No wonder we celebrate it only ONCE a year! We cannot be recollecting ALL the time.

So the guiding question for this journal would seem to be something like this: as I look at my gallery, where do I stand now? In other words, I come to ask myself retroactively; what have I done? who have I become?. Or rather in a better, more precise, formulation; who is it that is displayed in these works? And although I cannot know many things about this creative process -----fortunately creation is still quite mysterious to us humans------ nevertheless I can say at least one thing for certain in my case. It looks as if I am a “varied artist”.

Why is this so? Because you find within my gallery multiple color drawings, black and white drawings, and paintings which go back for many years. But that is not all, you even find lots of photographs ---an extremely new form of expression for me-- which move from nature, to conceptual, to abstract compositions, to architecture and even cityscapes. Just listing it all makes me a bit tired! In Spanish we have a funny word for someone who does everything; the word is “todero”. This pejorative word literally means a person ---–usually a man--— who believes himself to be skilled in everything! Well, it looks as if I were a “todero”. But for the sake of politeness let me call myself a “varied” artist.

And to complicate matters even more, but I will spare you this, I am primarily a political philosopher. The king of “toderos”, or so it seems. But more seriously, I know quite well the need for specialization. I have learned of this need even more during the last years preparing my PhD, specializing in the work of Charles Taylor and Aristotle. Nonetheless, my life and my artwork seems to point to the dangers of overspecialization, a type of blind specialization that sees the trees and not the forest; a blinding overspecialization which is very characteristic of our modern times. No wonder it is we who have created the microscope and the telescope. Both sacrifice the breadth of vision by sticking to a limited area of analysis. Perhaps it is time to seek more wide-angled lenses.

So I wonder a bit and struggle to find some general sense in my gallery. I guess you also do, at times. You might want to try to do this exercise for your own; this is part of this exercise, to motivate you to do so. Maybe you will surprise yourself and us. But I myself am guided by the most basic question of all: what does it regularly mean to be called a “varied artist”? Here is how a conversation which elucidates this might go: “So tell me, what kind of art do you do?”, I am asked. I candidly respond, “Well, a quite varied kind.”. The response could very well be: “what do you mean?” This journal tries to respond to this critic who just cannot get what I mean. The issue is important because behind this response there lies, I believe, much more that is left unarticulated. The natural response “What do you mean?” implies, in a sense, something like a lack of authenticity and uniqueness. This question politely hides other ones such as: “Have you not found your own language yet? What are you waiting for? And in my case with the add-on, you’re 37 already!” In a sense, the critic is asking you to tell you in what area you are going to specialize. They do so out of concern for you because they sense that specialization is the key to success. In part we are rightly worried because variety without depth is deeply troubling. Endless variety is shallow. For instance, we all know the stories of many average actors and actresses who have become poets and singers and entrepreneurs and designers and political activists and, the list goes on.

So you see, if all this is true then varied artists like myself are in a huge dilemma. People visit our deviations and leave wonderful and endearing comments; but some of them might feel something is missing. They might still want the one big deviation, the ONE that will become a Daily Deviation. They want the ONE unique style. They want the ONE, just as Morpheus. But herein lies the problem. We varied artists think very differently. This is OUR own powerful uniqueness and authenticity. I will try to explain this –though it is not easy--- by thinking up two basic defenses that varied artists could come up with.

On the one hand, for sure, as a varied artist one can argue that one is not THAT varied as some might think. For, as I have said, it would show quickly if one were too varied. Very bad works might follow other very bad works. One would face the critique and say: “You just have to look more carefully. Yes, there are many drawings in color and in B&W and paintings but they are ALL abstract.” This would be a good defense. Or, for instance, one could continue, “Yes, there are many photographs, but they primarily seek to make you think rather than merely perceive.” Another good defense. But I am convinced this is not the best response a varied artist can make to such a critique. The best way to argue against such criticism is to show why the questions posed originally hide some VERY troubling assumptions. Those who link specialization with authenticity and originality are not prone to ask themselves whether such a connection is not deeply problematic in our era; an era in which the very existence of the planet ---as a dwelling for living and for good living-- seems to be at stake.

Our modern capitalist world drenched in technological understanding is all for specialization. One specializes in some particular software, one specializes in some particular technique, in one particular style, in one particular author, in one particular part of the assembly process. We all know of the extreme absurdities that might follow; ”I specialize in eating the greatest number of hot dogs” But, on the other hand, it is naïve to believe that one can do away with specialization. Specialization IS extremely important both for political reasons. as well as for economic reasons. Leaving aside the political arena, Adam Smith lays down the basis for a capitalist society on the crucial development of the division of labor. He writes in his The Wealth of Nations the following words:: “....by reducing every mans business to some simple operation , and by making this operation the sole employment of his life, necessarily increase very much the dexterity of the workman..” If it were not for economic specialization, we would not enjoy the goods we do as moderns.

Specialization guarantees efficacy, in particular economic development and progress. Competition, efficacy and time constraints require division and specialization for our economy to work well. But fortunately, the arts, and even more importantly the humanities as the core of a liberal arts education, need not -----and should not---- follow the paths laid out by economic models. So, as in previous journals, we ask; how can we gather at least some minimal distance from what we take for granted on a day to day basis as the modern specialized beings we have become? This journal points to some different paths, which even if not easily available for us moderns, still allow us to see the dangers of our tendency to overspecialize. To understand my point you might think of at least three analogies.

The first contrasting example is that of sports. When watching the Olympics one tends, as a modern, to remember the 100 meter dash as the crowning race of the entire event. The cameras and newspapers will let us know if any records were broken in this culminating race. This seems natural for moderns; we desire to be the fastest. In contrast, few know who is the current gold medalist in the 10 000 meters (and, ironically, the winners in these races all come from “backward” countries that run at a “different pace”.). But more importantly, few of us regard with much interest the decathlon or the pentathlon. And yet, the decathlon is THE sports symbol which stands against the dangers of overspecialization. If physical education is a crucial part of our education as citizens, then a pent-athlete might be better prepared for the real world than a 100-meter sprint athlete. How can this be so? To see my point just reflect briefly on the following view of Greek sports. In Kitto's, very introductory, but very beautiful, The Greeks one finds the following perplexing words:

”A sense of wholeness of things is perhaps the most typical feature of the Greek mind….. It was arête (note: the Greek for “excellence” that the games were designed to test --—the arête of the whole man, not a merely specialized skill----- the regular events were a sprint, of about 200 yards, the long race, the race in armour, throwing the discus and the javelin, the long jump, wrestling, boxing and chariot racing. THE GREAT event was the pentathlon; a race, a jump, throwing the discus, and the javelin, and wrestling.. Needless to say the marathon was never heard of until modern times. The Greeks would have regarded it as a monstrosity.” (pg. 174)

Specialization can indeed lead to monstrosity; herein lies the importance of diversification in thought and creativity. For the pent-athlete can defend his or her country much better than one who can simply run real fast. Our Colombian soldiers, who die daily, are real pent-athletes.

A second area that is quite telling is that of health. Think of family doctors today. Currently, there is a worrisome lack of family doctors in Canada. One of the reasons, it seems, is that a family doctor does not earn the same amount of money as a specialist does. We have grown so accustomed to this way of thought that we take it for granted that this is according to justice. You do not take the time and effort to specialize, well you must earn less. But I rather think that another more important reason for this lack of family doctors lies elsewhere, it is not primarily economic. Family doctors are little recognized, specially, among their colleagues. Their lack of specialization signals their, alleged, inferiority. Being a neurosurgeon, that is to be a real doctor. Skills which are part of the family doctor are seen as secondary; for instance the human ability that family doctors developed over decades. They knew how to treat the patient. But now patients are clients. Would you rather be a client in health-related areas?

But not only does this seem to be the reality of the medical profession itself, it governs as well the patient-doctor dynamic. Illness is compartmentalized and for each different kind of inflammatory process we have a dedicated specialist. That would not be much of a problem, if it indeed worked as much as we would like it to. Jokingly, I would tell one dear doctor, that if my knees hurt too much, I had to look for the “knee-ologist”. He was extremely bright, and we laughed together. We might have even lost sight of what an inflammatory process is. However that may be, this partition of illness corresponds to an analogous partition of our bodies into more and more atomic elements. No wonder one finds the following words in certain doctors who see serious problems in the way we view medicine, and our bodies, in our modern technological era:

“When doctors have medical meetings the nephrologists speaks of the kidneys, the gastroenterologist speaks of the stomach, the neurologist speaks of the brain, the orthopedist of the bones , etc….. They believe they are speaking about the same patient because after their appreciation of the parts, they believe they reconstruct him….. The mistake is in the conception; it is not by fixing the parts separately that one fixes the parts or the whole.” (Julio Cesar Payán; see also the beautiful work of Edmund Pellegrino)

A conceptual change is required. Perhaps varied artists can allow for this change, if only in a very small way. Varied artist may be a kind of indicator.

Or think still of a third analogy. Suppose you wanted to learn a new and different language than the one you naturally grew up with. I was a teacher of English for over a decade, so I have seen the desire we have to become bilingual as a signal of growth and greater psychological depth. How odd then is the following thought: does it make sense to say that you would rather specialize in English and not learn French and Spanish and German.? This would be very odd indeed. If one had the natural abilities, then one would naturally desire to learn as many as one could. No wonder Pope John Paul II was so admired for his linguistic command. But don’t get me wrong. Of course, one wants to know one’s language well ---–how many of us even know our own language well!----- but my point is that it would be absurd to think that being a polyglot is worse than being unilingual. You would think so, right? But again the realities of politics are set against this diversification. Just think about the difficulties underlying Canadian bilingualism; or the desire of the USA to defend its unilingual policies. I mean, there is even law in my dear Colombia that makes it officially a Spanish speaking country! As a young person would say: “Yeah, like we are going to be invaded by English speakers”. And I will not even go into the history of our modern views of language itself for this would take us too far off.

Perhaps these three examples have allowed you to rethink the issue of overspecialization and its dangers. But as in previous journals, I do believe artists and philosophers can work together to open some minimal possibilities for our current conceptual blockages which do not allow us to walk as we could. Philosophers have long ago criticized overspecialization in the modern era. One finds such critiques in Rousseau, Schiller, Hegel and Marx (specially, and dramatically, in his earlier works.) In his beautiful Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man ----a must read for any artist----- Schiller writes about our modern fragmentation, a fragmentation which severs our relation to nature, to others and to ourselves. He writes:

"Man himself eternally chained down to a little fragment of the whole, only forms a kind of fragment; having nothing in his ears but the monotonous sound of the perpetually revolving wheel, he never develops the harmony of his being; and instead of imprinting the seal of humanity on his being, he ends by being nothing more than the living impress of the craft to which he devotes himself, of the science that he cultivates. This very partial and paltry relation, linking the isolated members to the whole, does not depend on forms that are given spontaneously; for how could a complicated machine, which shuns the light, confide itself to the free will of man? This relation is rather dictated, with a rigorous strictness, by a formulary in which the free intelligence of man is chained down. The dead letter takes the place of a living meaning, and a practiced memory becomes a safer guide than genius and feeling." [link]

Fragmented we become dehumanized; the real is broken down. As a consequence, we are broken down. Not puzzling about our actual fragmentation, we lose the freedom that allows for our mutual perfection; "The dead letter takes the place of a living meaning."

Similarly Aristotle speaks of a very important human excellence, that of practical wisdom with its complex nature which relates the practical and the theoretical in a way that action becomes better guided. As he puts it, the lack of practical wisdom with its holistic outlook, resembles a “owerfully built man, (who) if deprived of sight is apt to fall heavily when he moves about.” (NE VI, 1144b10) The powerful are dangerous, but the powerful, blinded, the more so. Practical wisdom lies at the basis of a recovery of a truly liberal education, an education which makes us freer citizens capable of guiding our actions more wisely. (See Politics, VII, l333a3l-b4.) (For liberal arts see in general: [link])


To sum all this up, looking back at my first year at dA I have found that I am a kind of a varied artist. I have tried to give you a small and very inadequate map to try to understand the mental and conceptual stance with which you might approach the gallery of a varied artist such as myself. But that is the least important thing; perhaps now you will be weary of overspecializing without understanding its complex nature and its inherent limitations. We varied artists are truly more like the decathlon athletes, than the 100-meter dash athletes. Of course, MY gallery would not be the winner of the decathlon in the Olympics; but one thing is for sure, it at least points to the fact that overspecialization is dangerous in an era of technological marvels. To put it bluntly, in our current age I would rather be 8th in the decathlon, than 6th in the 100 meters. Perhaps in many more years I will even win a medal.

More seriously, failing to see the whole ---–being told constantly that there is no sense in trying to grasp the whole---- we can destroy the whole without even noticing it. We destroy it from the start, because we begin by overseeing it. Instead, it might present itself as a motivating possibility which we might never grasp as humans. Turning back archeologically we might gather new eyes to see what we have grown accustomed to dismiss. I sense my life itself has become a serous critique of overspecialization, it provides a challenge to those who find certainty in their limited depths. Microscopic and telescopic outlooks are needed, specially in our scientific age; however, wide-angle lenses --–though they are not without distortions themselves---- are in greater need today. The work of professor Charles Taylor, and his deep involvement with art is here exemplary. The work of Professor Pangle, and his defense of a truly liberal education, is exemplary as well. We artists could learn much from these words:

". . . it is obvious that the study of great books cannot be confined to the texts traditionally labeled 'works of political theory.' The poets, the dramatists, the theologians, the scientists (especially insofar as they have transcended the narrow and artificial limits of so much contemporary science) must be attended to with painstaking care. The study of great books is necessarily, then, in tension--I would say, in a fruitful and invigorating tension--with the artificially exaggerated boundaries of specialization that so unfortunately sunder the contemporaneous 'university' into a kind of congeries of intellectual ghettoes." Thomas Pangle, The Ennobling of Democracy.


THE GALLERY OF A VARIED ARTIST

Journals

1. On the City, Graffiti and Property [link]
2. On trees, deep ecology and poetry [link]
3. On Radical Linearism: some working ideas. [link]
4. On Space, Western Architecture and 9/11 [link]
5. On political moderation, the founding of communities and deviantART’s current situation [link]

Flowers



Nature



Drawings B&W



Architecture



Drawings Color



Conceptual



Drawings B&W II: Radical Linearism



Abstract



Compositions



Paintings



Cityscapes



Drawings B&W III: Radical Linearism



Street art



M.



Colombia



Macabre



Amelo14