Characteristics of Cubism, Futility of Technique

Characteristics of Cubism

Many artists do not deal with anything. The “art geniuses” deal with “artistic issues” which are of interest only to the art critiques and a hand full of artists, and by that narrow the language of art – the language of shapes and colors, the most universal language possible – down to a collection of petty conflicts and dilemmas with tedious solutions that are of no importance to anyone, at any scale. Few are the artists who deal with issues and problems concerning the whole of humanity and the essence of existence, probably just as few are the people who really care about others of their kind. So, the characteristics of Cubism in this example are, in a sense, the characteristics of vanity.

Synthetic Cubism of its own Characteristics

Perhaps the beautiful thing about the art of the Middle Ages, for example which was mostly religious, is that it really served a purpose. There is no doubt (I think) that they are primitive, and there is no doubt that utilizing different solutions and revelations from the course of art along the ages might assist in conveying messages in a more articulate, advanced, attractive, credible, authentic and diverse manner. However, I feel that in the great efforts of escaping the conditioning and fixations of the archaic and institutionalized art and of creating new “art languages” every alternate day, perhaps unconsciously art has gradually become a tool in its own hands and nothing more.

The characteristics of Cubism as an art language are as futile as last year’s snow if they are not put into essential use of propagating a purposeful message.

Kahnweiler, what?

For example, problems in the field of analytic cubism interested only Picasso, Braque and a hand full more of copycat Cubist artists and the enthusiastic art critiques and interpreters who found some new “artistic issue” to mess with as a child would have with a new toy. But actually all that toy does is distracting the mind from the simple truth, that there is no real essence in analytic cubism. It is merely an anal fetishism of that hand full of artists who were to busy in being artists and not as much so in being humans. Brass tacks, who cares about the fairly-artistic and vital-scientific “problem” of expressing three-dimensional forms upon a two-dimensional canvas?

And even if and when I bother in great exertion to discover the hidden abstract (excuse me for saying) facial features behind the title: “Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler”, then what? Who cares to discover that at all? What am I supposed to do with this discovery? Who cares about him, anyway? Hence, the Cubistic portrait of the chap was not meant for anything expect for being a tool in the hands of Picasso, with which to disintegrate the “real” nature into another “real” nature which he defined. That’s all. No one else cares about that.

Call Cubism, I’ve got a malfunctioning horsiness

Does a blacksmith manufacture Cubist horseshoes which do not fit any horse only for the sake of forcefully inventing and then solving some problematic issue in the field of perceiving the interaction between the three-dimensionality of the horse and the multi-dimensionality of horsiness? No, he does not. Similarly, you can imagine a situation where you stand in front of someone, engaged in a conversation, and that someone does not cease to blather pointlessly, only because he is so busy in utilizing language for the sake of finding new ways of utilizing that same language.

There is nothing wrong in the endeavor for enriching the language, whatever it is, when that language has a purpose of conveying a message. This is its only purpose. Hence, raised the inevitable question for me: what is the message of cubism as an art form and why are everybody so blindly enthusiastic about the characteristics of Cubism as if shedding light upon the technique of Cubism itself will infuse life into it’s futility of essence.

Accessing art

I think that many people are recoiled by art. They fear from it because in the course of generations – initially fueled by the insecurity of the Renaissance artists and later on by their followers – it transformed from a simple creative practice into a sophisticated trade of philosophical contemplation in the hands of some arrogant intellectual elite, and therefore ceased to serve the people. The fear of the artists from being “of the people” as blacksmiths and not “elitist” as philosophers caused art to lose its integrity and to turn into an empty and useless tool.

What makes art accessible to the common people has got nothing to do with whether or not it is created from common day to day materials. The problem is that not only that the different forms of modern art are the opposite of user-friendly, but on top of that the manufacturer does not even bother to supply minimal instructions for the buyer. If you studied art and you are ably clairvoyant and good in seeing through pillars and walls, then you’ll understand it and if not then ‘ts’yo’problem.
You may stand there at that gallery and gaze at your will like a drowsy cat, while you take caution not to admit your ignorance if you are an intellectual, and admit it with a jaw-breaking yawn if you are truly wise.

Every doing, every product in this world serves all, this is why it was manufactured to begin with. Art is an exception to that rule; it is the only field which serves only itself and its products are consumed only by the fashion clerks of contemporary art.

The boundaries of art

The picture expresses pictoriality, the theme of the painting is the method of paintings itself and the theme of the sculpture is sculpting… could it be that the message is “message” and that a dog is made out of a “dog”? does medicine exist for the sake of its own self, or rather for the sake of curing the ill? Is the purpose of a scientific research to amuse the mind of some physics geniuses or rather to discover for the benefit of humanity and a better future?

So the essential characteristics of Cubism as of any other artistic technique will always be limited by the innate boundaries of any language or form of expression.
You cannot explain a term using the term itself. You cannot exceed the boundaries of painting by painting, not to mention exceeding the boundaries of reality by inventing an illusionary alternate reality. Painting about painting is parallel to talking about talking or languaging about language upon langiging the linguabenge – art is not a method for attaining the ultimate truth or changing reality. At best it can serve as a mediator between the artist’s mind and spiritual awareness to the masses and if that artist is indeed a spiritually striving person, then people will benefit from his capacity of spirit and philosophical outlook of life and death. This is reality.

Hand in hand

Tell me a story, interest me, take me with you on a fascinating journey and teach me some lesson. Waken inspiration within me, make me think, feel and grow up as a human being. Make me look at art, eye to eye and learn from it about myself, because art without a purposeful message is like a good-looking stupid girl – nice to look at but no dialogue. In this case I’d rather drink my coffee by myself – Starbucks offers a pretty good Cappuccino and not to bad of a chocolate croissant.