Mens rea
The question is not, ‘what is the meaning’ of art, but ‘what is its utility to modern society’?
Most specifically for this exercise, the art in focus is the ‘visual image’. In this case it has several conspicuous uses. Firstly it is an uncontrolled market place like ‘drugs’, and perhaps the new cyber- currencies; and it is supposedly legal. Therefore the accountancy profession finds it very useful as an apparatus for holding/quarantining capital. Additionally it is the most effective carrier of subliminal information; a self evident tool for any who have something to sell, either ideas, information or products. ( see also: a personal voyage, over the edge of a flat earth – ‘mimetics’ )
Is this all there is to contemporary image making?
Is its charmingly entertaining effects, justified as an contribution to social intercourse or are these bucolic assets more of a distractor than a contribution to understanding our very complex reality? It appears incontrovertible that the role of the image in the learning process, which is such an essential part of acquiring ‘intelligence’, has been commandeered by ‘forces, unspecified’. Whether this can be construed as a malignant energy or just the effects of negligence, is a matter of personal disposition. This unacceptable situation may be convenient for those first 2 examples of the usage of ‘images’, but the cost is that we have lost access to the practice of enlightenment, through the visual language, which has played such a pivotal role in the evolution of our species.
Even prior to birth, the brain soaks up every nuance of experience it can access. Learning is an absolutely essential biological function and it only ceases at the point of death. It is however an attribute that can be hidden as an inconspicuous autonomous activity that is merely subconscious.
Some insightful revelations can be noted from recent work on robotics. This work has shown that, “rather than being fixed in configuration, the functional anatomy of the cortex displays activity-dependant plasticity on a time scale sufficiently short to play a role in perception, …”
For the creative this has subtle implications, especially when considered with other more revealing research. There exists compelling evidence that the brain adopts a viewer-centred, rather than an object-centred approach to visual representation.
What does this mean for the mere creative? It means everything. It illuminates the way the creative can respond to the technology available to them. It gives the most convincing evidence that the observer is the essential element in the experience.
What follows in the substance of this essay is supporting arguments and experimental results that define the democracy of ‘plastic perception’. The creative can expand their concept with these arguments but the real target is the ordinary observer. It is the art consumer that is being usurped by the autocracy of gallery art. My cry is to burn down these hypocritical institutions of false art. Give the public galleries back to the citizens. Our governments should not accept “the more you pay, the more its worth” value for any legal accounting function. The realistic commercial value of any work of art is its cost of manufacture, which is the same as any commercial product. Such a radical change would instantly restore the visual image to its moral role of enlightenment and return its authentic value to the society that produces it; if not to all of humankind.
The role of the visual image begins the instant the new born opens its eyes. The child needs to learn to see before it learns what it is seeing. In this process the visual language that an individual carries for the rest of their life is an extension of this ubiquitous process. Every individual fortunate to possess the use of their visual senses, has this unique tool embedded in their physiology. That it is mostly repressed, is a consequence of the ‘fear of freedom’ an individual experienced when confronted by the pressures of cultural conformity.
Occasionally this dangerous animal escapes, becoming manifest in the form of an iconic image.
It is released by the effect of either an inadvertent, or intentional act by one of the practitioners of the ‘visual language’. Sometimes the endgame is revolutionary because any extension of reality can have unexpected results. All practitioners in the ‘visual language’ need to appreciate what is at stake.
Understanding reality is at stake.
Information is at stake. Every individual is in danger of being drowned in a tsunami of misrepresentation and alternative realities.
Democracy is at stake. When we lack the information to discriminate between real and fabricated information, we become disenfranchised of our freedoms. Depending on the social and political environment we are born into, this opinion can be read as anarchy by some or free-will by others.
I confess to the crime of believing the visual language is the potential instrument that ‘technology age humanity’ has, to recover the lost practice of the iconic image. To the creative it is a call to get out there and cover the walls, fill the rooms and saturate the technology with images for the pure sake of creating images. Out of the chaos the iconic will emerge if the results are open to public scrutiny.
It is a revolution and this ‘Mens rea’ is a call to arms.
Out of the chaos and in spite of the art establishment, iconic images will emerge and be owned by the whole of the society. Creative’s and all around them, must fight this fear of freedom. Enlightenment is the reward.
Mens rea is a Latin phrase, meaning “guilty mind”. This is the mental element of an act. A guilty mind means an intention to commit some act. Intention is separate from a person’s motive.
What ever motive Puggy Booth had in beginning this diatribe, the intent is unequivocal; the graphic image belongs to humanity, it must be repossessed from the usurpers who have commandeered it.
A meaningful image is like a good poem. To quote Dylan Thomas (substituting image for poem); ”…it is a contribution to reality”. To paraphrase Thomas; [The world will never be the same once an iconic image has been added to it. An iconic image helps to change the shape of the universe, helps to extend everyone’s knowledge of ourselves and the world around all of us.]
A graphic image is stolen, if it becomes private property. When an iconic image becomes property it dies (is killed/murdered). When access to the public is denied or restricted, it is an act of piracy.
Who should be guilty in this state of affairs is for some higher court to decide. And let the offenders be damned.
The act of commodifying the ‘image’, is treason toward the whole body of humanity. Any culture, which includes images, automatically makes them public property. Elites may try to create a culture that they may take ownership of, but the culture of a society is public property and cannot be owned, bought or sold; unless a crime against that society is perpetrated.
An elite’s efforts to commodify the ‘image’ is rape or at least prostitution.
This does not imply that the creative is not entitled to claim ownership of the image.
In conclusion Puggy Booth does not only admit guilt to the crime as stated, but also must concede to the sin of pride without which no individual would dare to indulge in the search for enlightenment in the visual manifestation of their creation. The creative must be driven to achieve a meaningful contribution to this environment. But to indulge in the practice of any creative endeavour without a moral obligation to protect the integrity of the visual language is heresy.
It is a moral issue but a secular morality, which does not preclude any other religious beliefs, it is about the perception of reality, not the concept of god.
Although the ‘philosophy of art’ may appear a triviality in the world of violence, famine, flood and other catastrophes, it is not impossible that it may open a discussion that is not available to a troubled world, preoccupied with aggressively protecting their vested interests.