In some cases, the images I make and do include familiar visual content (such as human figures, and so on), while, in other cases, the images are entirely abstract, without any obvious reference to familiar visual content. It may be felt by some “viewers” that they are “drawn in” to the images that include familiar content, whereas they are not thus “drawn in” by the entirely abstract images. This sense–of not being “drawn in” by unfamiliar, or abstract, imagery–is the result of relating to the images from the “position” of the “viewer” who presumes to be separate from the images. Indeed, people characteristically look at art from a presuming-to-be-separate “point of view”– and, in fact, people tend to look at one another, and even everything altogether, from that same “point of view”.
The image-art I make and do is not in the conventional mode of art as “object” separate from the “viewer” as “subject”. Rather, the image-art I make and do is about the egoless Perfect “Space” of Reality Itself, or egoless Coincidence with Reality Itself. Thus, the image-art I make and do is not purposed to provide the means for the conventional “objectification” and analytical (or merely detached) “onlooker” viewing of art.
The image-art I make and do–whether or not it includes “recognizable” content–is not “objective” space. In contrast, art as it is usually made is explicitly conceived as “objective” space–standing over against the “point of view” of the observer, as “object” to the “viewing-subject”. That is the conventional notion relative to art. That is Alberti’s space. Alberti described the surface of a painting as a kind of “window” through which the “viewer” would see the “outer world”. Thus, by his description, not only is the surface of the artwork representational–representing something “outside” itself, or beyond and past itself–but it is “objective”. In other words, Alberti was describing art based on “point of view”.
I have given the title “Alberti’s Window” to the suite Geome One as a means of pointing out that the image-art I make and do is, in fact, not Alberti’s kind of space, not the traditional space of Western art–which (first) “objectifies” the surface of the artwork, and (then) uses various devices to draw the “viewer” into the “objectified” surface. Such is the fundamental convention of art-viewing into which Westerners have been educated.
The indivisible coincidence of the “viewer” (or the “subject”) and the work of art (or the visible “object”) is fundamental to the communication I am making in Alberti’s Window. In contrast to the “window” described by Alberti, the Geome One suite is not rendered via the conventions of perspective. Thus, the imagery of Alberti’s Window is not based on the presumed “difference” between “subject” (or that which sees) and “object” (or that which is seen). Rather, I have made Alberti’s Window as a communication of the absolute coincidence (or utter non-“difference”) of “subject” and “object”. Such coincidence (or non-“difference”) of “subject” and “object” is the transcending of “point of view” altogether.
In creating Alberti’s Window, I made photographs of the view through a window as the visual starting-point–like a sketchbook, and a key to unlock feeling-memory–and, then, I made complex abstractions in response to all of that (and more). However, in its final form, Alberti’s Window is not merely “landscape”. Indeed, it could be said that Alberti’s Window represents the transcending of conventional notions of landscape. The imagery in Alberti’s Window does not follow the rules of perspective, nor does it presume the usual “subject”-“object” orientation, as if actually looking through a window to “outside”. In Alberti’s Window, the surface itself is the domain of the event that is the image.
Thus, the imagery of Alberti’s Window is not merely about the natural “world” in and of itself, nor is it merely about the natural “world” as it may be perceived. Rather, the imagery of Alberti’s Window is about the perceiver, the “knower”, the experiencer–and the transcending of the usual experiencer’s reduction of Reality to “subject”-versus-“object”, the transcending of the ego’s impulse to “objectify” all perceptions.
My every work of image-art is made to convey and assist the egoless comprehension of Reality Itself. If you participate most profoundly in the images I make, you can tacitly feel and enjoy the process of that comprehension.
When people speak about art, they characteristically speak from the “point of view” of presumed separateness from the art. They are viewing art as an “objective something” (over against their separate “point-of-view” position), and (thus) talking about the art from a distance.
The real aesthetic process and experience is a matter of participation–not a matter of “objectifying” and explaining art. However, in the common “world” of the present time, the non-participatory ego has become absolutely divorced from the apparent “object” that is the “world” altogether–and even the (Intrinsically, Non-“objective”) “object” that is Reality Itself.
My image-art specifically transcends the ego’s impulse to “objectify”. My images are not merely intended to be either a description or a criticism of the ego-position. My images are intended to subvert the entire “field” of egoic awareness (and of ego-culture, or “point-of-view” culture)–and, thus and thereby, to directly free and enable the “viewer” to transcend “point of view” (or fixed space-time-“locatedness”) and (on that basis) to feel and perceive beyond the “field” of “objective” limitations.
Thus, it is helpful for people to understand that they need not approach the images I make and do in the conventional manner, which is based on standing in the ego-position. My image-art carries with it a calling for people to go beyond the ego-position and enter into egoless coincidence with Reality Itself. My image-art is a means to serve that process–through unguarded feeling-perception and full feeling-participation.
My intention in creating image-art is to use the “aesthetic experience” of “significant form” as a means of moving people, by means of their feeling-response, to go beyond “point of view” (or the uninspected paradigm of separate “subject” and separate “object”).
Therefore, right participation in the image-art I make and do requires at least a tacit understanding that the “surface” space of the images I make and do is not “objective” space. Rather, the “surface” space of the images I make and do is the Perfectly Subjective “Space” of Reality Itself. For this reason, it is not necessary that I introduce familiar visual content as a means of drawing the “viewer” into the “surface” space.
The “viewer”–prior to “point of view”, or ego-“I”–is already in, of, and As the “surface” space of the image-art I make and do. The “surface” space of the image-art I make and do is not “objective”. The “surface” space of the image-art I make and do is Perfectly Subjective–and must be discovered to Be So. Thus, I use the image-active means of the “aesthetic experience” (and the means intrinsic to “significant form” itself) to draw “viewers” beyond the separative position of “point of view” (or ego-“I”), into the Inherently and Perfectly Subjective “Space” of Reality Itself–through artistically governed perceptual presentations.
There is a mode of right participation in the image-art I make and do which is not merely a play upon the “subject”-“object” condition of conventional egoic perception. I do not expect people to undertake a lengthy course of study or to develop a sophisticated philosophical understanding in order to view the images I make and do. Right participation in the image-art I make and do is, primarily, a tacit (or wordless) feeling matter.
Fundamentally, the images I make and do are simply to be felt. It is the perceptually-based feeling-response–and not merely an intellectual understanding–that is required. When you are viewing the images, take the time to simply, tacitly feel them–without trying to think of something to say about them. You do not have to “figure them out”. Simply participate in the images, by means of unguarded feeling-perception.
You do not have to apply any intellectual means in order simply to look at the image-art I make and do. In fact, the intellectual approach is, basically, a method for keeping the art “objectified”, and keeping yourself separate from it.
Altogether, the “viewer” is called to participate in the image-art I make and do by means of feeling-responsiveness, rather than by means of talk. Well-considered discussion of art certainly has its legitimate purpose–but if you make talk the primary means by which you experience art, then you are no longer able to experience the art itself.
In this scientific materialist epoch, everything is so “objectified” that, as a general rule, people no longer presume there is any necessity to truly participate in art (or anything else). The dominance of scientific materialist dogma, and over-reliance on intellect (and strategies of control) altogether, have led to people becoming completely dissociated from the Inherently egoless, Non-separate, and Indivisible Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State That Is Reality Itself. So people imagine that Reality Itself does not even exist anymore, that Reality Itself is somehow “locked away” in outdated “religions”, that Reality Itself was, in fact, a myth.
Reality Itself is not a myth. I send the image-art I make and do into the “world” to serve everyone to Awaken from this hellish dissociativeness that is the ego-“I” (or space-time-bound “point of view”). My images are a means for people simply to respond in a feeling manner, to Awaken into the Perfectly Subjective “Space” that is the “surface” space of the images I make and do.
By participating, in an unguarded manner, in the image-art I make and do, you allow yourself to be positively and deeply affected (and, at least for the moment, changed) by the art. Typically, people do not allow this to occur–and, in fact, the understanding that the purpose of right and true art is to positively and deeply affect and change the “viewer” has largely been lost (especially in the context of gross “public reality” culture). Rather than talking about the art, interpreting it, explaining it, simply look at it, and–by means of perceptually-governed feeling–openly participate in it. That simple looking and participating is how you gain real access to the “aesthetic experience” of “significant form”. Indeed, the “aesthetic experience”–which is a kind of ecstasy (or of standing prior to separateness, prior to the ego-“I”, prior to the space-time-“locatedness” of “point of view”, prior to “objects”, and prior to the limits of “objectified” world)–is the fundamental and necessary purpose of right and true art.
The constant effort to interpret and explain–or the notion that you must first comprehend elaborate interpretations and explanations, before you can participate in the art–actually becomes a means of detaching yourself from the participatory perceptual feeling-experience of the art itself.
My image-art is sacred–in the most profound sense of that word, the root-meaning of which is “set apart”. My image-art is not sacred in the “religious” sense–not at all. Rather, it is sacred because it is offered as a means of serving the Awakening to That Which Is Great, or Reality Itself. My image-art has nothing to do with “religion”. My image-art is about the inherent sacredness, the intrinsic holiness, or set-apartness, of Reality Itself–“set apart” not meaning “separate”, but meaning “rightly protected”, such that access to it is granted only under right and appropriate conditions.
Right participation in the images I make and do requires the transcending of egoity. How do you do that? Feeling-response is the means. It is not that feeling-response allows you to “enter into” the domain of the image-art I make and do. Rather, feeling-response awakens you in, of, and as the very context–or “surface” space–of the image-art I make and do. Therefore, right (feeling-perceptual) participation is the means by which the “viewer” can be already in, of, and as the “surface” space of the image-art I make and do–rather than having to be “drawn in” by some particular characteristics of the artwork (such as visual familiarity).
The importance of unguarded and feeling-responsive perceptual participation is the reason why I fabricate images in monumental scale. If an image is “smalled down”, the “viewer” can, in some sense, consume it, or contain it, or control it. Thus, the largeness of the images is entirely intentional. The monumentality enables the art to break down the barriers that ego generates to keep itself separate. If the art is big enough–in every sense, not only with reference to physical size–then the “viewer” cannot merely “objectify” it, and the feeling-responses will inevitably come to the fore.
There is a great difference between, on the one hand, picking up a work of art that is printed in a book at the rather small size of, say, 8 x 10 inches and, on the other hand, being suddenly confronted by a twenty-foot gorilla. I am not saying that the images I make and do are like fierce and threatening gorillas–but a twenty-foot gorilla immediately cancels anything you might want to say, and your feeling-responsiveness is such that you have to “deal with” the situation. So it is with the monumental images I make and do–the “viewer’s” positively unguarded feeling-responsiveness will inevitably come to the fore, replacing the “explanation-mind” that would otherwise tend to “objectify” the art and keep it at a distance. Nevertheless, the right, and true, and truly unguarded perceptual feeling-response to the image-art I make and do is not a “fight or flight” response (as when faced by a twenty-foot gorilla), but, rather, it is the ecstatic response of non-separate and non-dissociative coincidence with the Perfectly Subjective “surface” space of the image itself.
My image-art, in every respect, calls for participation. Such participation is not merely a matter of going beyond the surface of representational art, as in Alberti’s space. My image-art is not pointing to something beyond itself. My image-art is created as a pointer to itself—As a manifestation (and As an intrinsically Perfect Moment) of Reality Itself.
Therefore, the perceptible “surface” space of the image-art I make and do is the Perfectly Subjective “Space” of Reality Itself–Which Exists in only one place, Reality Itself. Whether or not I use familiar visual content, such as human figures, and so forth, it is still the same “Space”–the “Space” of Reality Itself. My image-art is not pointing to something else–even though, paradoxically, it may (because of sometimes somehow familiar references) seem to be doing so.
Try to enter into the “surface” space of any of the images I have made. Where would you possibly go? You cannot “get into” that space, because it is not the space of “point of view”. In order to be in the “surface” space of the image-art I make and do, you must transcend “point of view”–and perceptually-based feeling-response is how that is done.
Feeling-response is pre-verbal. Feeling-response is not merely in the world of the unconscious, as depicted in surrealist art. Rather, fundamental feeling-response is in the very context of perception itself. Perception itself is the pre-verbal domain of Reality Itself, the Indivisible and Non-separate domain of egolessness. Therefore, the domain of right feeling-participation in the image-art I make and do is not the domain of depth-ego (or “internal subjectivity”), but the realm of perceptual seeing. Unguarded perceptual seeing–enacted via unobstructed (and inherently “self”-forgetting) feeling–is the always immediate means of being “always already entered” into the “surface” space of the image-art I make and do. And that “doorway” of unguarded perceptual feeling-participation is the always immediate “doorway” to Reality Itself–Which Is Always Already As Is.
Reality Itself is always the “surface” of existence.
Reality Itself is always immediate to the perceptual view, as long as “point of view” is transcended.
Reality Itself Is Where and As you Really Are.
The ego-“I” is always one foot (or more) away from the “Surface” that Is Reality Itself.
The ego-“I” is always living in the illusory presumption that “objects” are “not-self”.
My image-art is not made and done to reflect and entertain the ego-“self”.
My image-art is made and done to perceptually embody–and, thus, by means of the “aesthetic experience” of “significant form”, to communicate–the Inherently egoless, Non-separate, and Indivisible Self-Nature, Self-Condition, Self-State, and Perfectly Subjective “Space” That Is Reality Itself.