Friday, March 10, 2006

The Slide Turned On End: Abstraction & Microaestheticism


Art or Amoeba? Maybe They Aren't So Different After All

The strange resonance of abstract images has never been fully explained. Some critics have argued that no image can be truly abstract, as every mark on the canvas resembles something already seen. Abstraction, then, is not so much an aesthetic experience but a game, almost as childish as the old peg-and-hole boards. A viewer’s pleasure comes from deciphering the seemingly indecipherable, much like a child triumphs over finally seeing the round peg as round, and finding its corresponding hole. Abstraction is a game of vague resemblances, and an activity in the high subjectivity of personal response. One viewer may see a geometrical shape as an anvil, another as a blocky bull’s head, and still another might see it as a piece off a fender. Viewers know that their interpretations vary, so they have the double satisfaction of both creating something concrete out of an abstract, and knowing that concrete is all their own. In that way, abstraction again seems to tap into our toddler-dom: young children revel in figuring things out, and revel all the more when something is all theirs. Merely watch two toddlers in a sandbox, and inevitably you will hear a possession-battle: That’s my pile! Don’t use my shovel! Abstraction is a sandbox, shovel and bucket that is always all your own.

Or perhaps we accept--and even support--abstraction because it does not aim to trump the world’s order. So many human endeavors try just that—we have homes cleanly divvied up by geometry, ruled language, and behaviors that aid in giving the whole human race an air of dignity and coordination. If one glances down from a descending plane to a metropolis below, the success of human choreography is evident. Roads run straight or curve with fair warning, cars weave in and out of building but rarely into them or each other, people bustle towards goals which further the project of people-bustling. The lack of chaos is remarkable, considering the natural anarchy in each individual by virtue of individuality alone. But, of course, the order humans impose upon the world has nothing on the world itself. Should nature act up, we are, even now, at a loss. Abstraction acknowledges all that, and seems to taunt the world with its vying disorder. If our order can’t control the world, perhaps our disorder can cow it into submission. “You think that earthquake/plague/scant resources is chaos? Well getta load of this!” So says the abstract artist to all uncontrolled phenomenon.

While these theories have their validity and certainly their share of worthwhile implications, a new theory of abstraction has recently appeared that aims to traverse all that treacherous topography between the physical and metaphysical. “Microaestheticism,” a term coined by Dr. Markus O’Hara, is the study of abstraction as an innate desire for our smallest origins. This theory attempts to bridge the longstanding and perhaps mutually preserving gap between art and science. O’Hara sums up its basic starting point: “Humankind yearns for its amoebaean roots, hence, Abstraction.” Microaestheticism asserts that abstract images hit a primal cord in us because they strongly resemble microorganisms. “Or, the smallest bits of us” O’Hara adds. We’re sitting in his office in Concord, Massachusetts. O’Hara—a biologist by trade—explains his entry into the art world. “I was on my way to a conference on DNA lithography in Illinois, when I got lost. I stopped at an art museum, called the conference directors, and realized that I got the day and time wrong. I missed the damn thing” O’Hara gives a little shameless smile, acknowledging that brilliant minds are allowed leniency in planning and daily alertness. “So I figured, what the hell, I’ll look around for a bit I guess. And what I saw there was nothing short of remarkable,…” At this point, O’Hara is clearly ready to launch into a dog-eared tale of the humble beginnings of Microaestheticism. It’s clear that his enthusiasm for his idea, and its story, never abates even in repeated retelling. O’Hara, a rather shrunken looking man in his mid-sixties, is fond of spreading his arms wide to show how wide-reaching his ideas are. He does just this at his opening line “I saw science and art merge once and for all…”

O’Hara claims he glanced at a work of abstract art—a Kandinsky, he thinks, and was immediately struck by how similar it was to some of the rare amoebas he was working with at the time. “I thought I was hallucinating. I mean, here was something precisely like what I had under the slide just that morning!” So precise was the resemblance that O’Hara thought he had lost his mind. “I nudged this person next to me and said—I mean, I realize how absurd this is now—I said “is that a blown up slide of Grayson’s amoeba, I mean, is that the guy’s er…inspiration?” O’Hara reports that all he got in response was an “I think not” and some advice about brushing up on his at history. O’Hara however, was sure that he had hit upon something significant. “The more I walked around looking at this so-called abstract art, the more I felt like I was looking at a bunch of blown-up slides turned on end.” O’Hara was sure that there must be some explanation. When he returned back to his university, he quickly arranged a sabbatical to study this phenomenon. “I lied to the department. I said I was going to study a new way for extracting antibodies from fungi—specifically truffles. There’s no way I would get a sabbatical to look at a bunch of art.” O’Hara is clearly pleased at his effortless deception. “Those morons heading up that department haven’t a clue. I used all the truffles they ordered for me to make dinner for a group of art critics.”

Clearly, these truffle dinner-parties were a success, because soon O’Hara had created a buzz among art critics. By this point, O’Hara had his firmed up his idea. “I realized we humans probably react to art because we must, in some subconscious way, recognize it. Even abstract art. What I’m saying is I think we can sense the tiniest part of ourselves, and our origins—the cell, platelets, and our ameba ancestors--in these images. And I think that’s what resonates with us when we view abstract art. We are, in a sense, recognizing the bits.” At first blush, this hardly seems like the type of theory to garner any sort of following. The fact that it has might be more a reflection of the art-world’s permanent scramble for the “new” rather than a reflection of its merits. Still, O’Hara is prepared for resistance. “Look, I know this theory is hard to accept. We all want to believe that we appreciate art because its “beautiful’ or somehow or another special and apart from out daily lives. But the fact is we appreciate it because its life—only magnified.”

I must have dropped my neutral reportage face because before I knew it, O’Hara was leading me down to his basement, where he housed his “evidence”. “Look at this” O’Hara produced a glossy photo of a striated blob. “This is a virus—the common flu, to be exact. And now look at this.” O’Hara now pulled out a reproduction of Paul Klee’s work. “Is that uncanny or what?” There was a slight resemblance of line quality, but uncanny seemed like an overstatement. Always alert to skepticism, O’Hara supplied the explanation. “If that virus was just a hair turned right, and caught during a moment of replication, it would match the Klee painting exactly.” O’Hara went on to compare a who’s who of abstract art to what he assured me was a who’s who of bacteria, protozoan, and cells. Here and there the resemblances truly were uncanny, but what that proved remained obscure.

But if O’Hara is right, does this mean the death of art? Couldn’t we just blow up microscopic images to experience a more direct and accurate connection to our “bits” as O’Hara refers to them? Isn’t art just inaccurate biology in O’Hara’s view? “No.” O’Hara seemed as if he had been waiting to hear this, and before summing up the most sweeping virtues of his theory, he again threw his arms wide (strange that a man so concerned with the very small would be so big in gesticulation). “We still need the handmade rendering of the micro. What artists choose subconsciously to paint might indicate what we as humans need to confront inside us. If artists start depicting white blood cells up the wazoo, maybe biologists need to study those more intently. Art could, in this way, spur science on to greater discovery.” Here, O’Hara paused, as if even that feel-good message of the art/science bond wasn’t quite all-encompassing enough for his taste.“See, I think of infinity and the great unknown as being not in what’s outside, beyond, and bigger than us, but in what’s in us. In the smallest little bits of us. The bits of the bits of the bits. Beauty’s not the big, the grand, the God, it’s the tiny little antibody battling an itty bitty virus. That’s biology. And now we know that’s art as well.”

11 comments:

beths front porch said...

McFawn, this entry reminded me of something I'm interested in discovering: the human genome of sadness. I think the way to find and show this is through art. Is this a blend of art and science? Science petrifies me (who knows why). Art makes it comprehensible. ~ Beth

Anonymous said...

Do you think it would be an intellectual challange for you if you took a time out for one or two entries in your interesting bogg, to try or just once attempt to express your thoughts in no more than twenty sentences or just two or three paragraphs?

I regard Simplicity;Lucidity,and Clarity as the bullhorns in the night warning the writer or the reader of the need not to get lost in the minds inner journey.
I really respect our English language, and your curiosity into the wide spectrum of perception and qualitative analysis. Yet I regard your thinking not as passionate,but just analytic.

Your essays are embedded with complex abstractions bordering on the academic and self-serving journeys into a sargasso sea of words somewhat adrift from the immediacy of reaction. I still think of Nikos Kazenzakes writing in the voice of Zorba to his friend in England from his room in Greece: Come quick, I just discovered a beautiful blue stone! Of course, his friend wrote back: I' can't do that, I am writing a book.

McFawn said...

"Bogg"--is that a purposeful typo?Not so subtle a dig if it is.
I would be more than happy to take you up on your challenge of writing a briefer entry. Thus far, though, the purpose of this blog has not been to create a pithy, simple, instant payoff for the reader. Brevity and simplicity may be easy on the reader, but they leave no room for sublimity, irony, and self-revision--what I consider my "bullhorns."
Can't say that I like being called "just analytic"--you might be missing something there if you don't pick up on the irony and self-undercutting in these essays. But I was flattered by "adrift from the immediacy of reaction." All the writing I care about is just that.
Thanks for coming by.

Michael Cross said...

OK, so I originally put this under the wrong topic, being new to blogging. So, here it is, and related to the right topic! Michael.

I enjoyed reading this. Have a look at this link to one of my paintings (6 ft. by 4 ft.) which is actually done from sampling a iece of another of my abstractions, and painting it into a pattern.

http://www.michaelcrossgallery.com/cartouche.JPG

Everyone sees their own primal image here, but for me it takes me back to watching under a microscope as a child while my shrimp eggs hatched. I have been investigating patterns and basic primal images for some time now through my paintings and drawings. Thanks for references to others' related ideas.

Michael Cross

Anonymous said...

Hi all!. Alone on Valentine's Day? Live adult chat Find sex partner in your area! Free offer
Enjoy

Anonymous said...

A man who dares to atrophy anyone hour of every now has not discovered the value of life.

[url=http://www.standtruefamily.com/profile/AmandaPerry]Mark[/url]


Linda

Anonymous said...

We should be careful and particular in all the advice we give. We should be signally aware in giving guidance that we would not dream up of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to avoid giving counsel which we don't tag along when it damages those who transport us at our word.

table saw

[url=http://table-saw-59.webs.com/apps/blog/]table saw[/url]

Anonymous said...

A gink begins sneering his insight teeth the earliest often he bites on holiday more than he can chew.

Anonymous said...

To be a good charitable being is to from a make of openness to the far-out, an cleverness to group uncertain things beyond your own restrain, that can take you to be shattered in uncommonly exceptional circumstances pro which you were not to blame. That says something uncommonly impressive about the prerequisite of the principled life: that it is based on a trustworthiness in the up in the air and on a willingness to be exposed; it's based on being more like a spy than like a jewel, something somewhat dainty, but whose acutely particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.

Anonymous said...

Distress ferments the humors, casts them into their right channels, throws off redundancies, and helps species in those secretive distributions, without which the solidity cannot subsist in its vigor, nor the man dissimulate with cheerfulness.

Anonymous said...

awesome blog, do you have twitter or facebook? i will bookmark this page thanks. lina holzbauer