Perception is beyond the organ

The logic of not painting eyes on some of my new, unpublished paintings – after Modigliani. It is written that Modigliani didn’t paint eyes of people he "didn’t yet know". Indeed, he didn’t paint eyes. My reaction – interesting – what do I think about that?

They might look

Well, first of all – portraits seem to me very difficult. It is unclear what creates a great portrait, apart from skills, obviously. But there is so much more in portraying than drawing – and if that is done with no proper training (which is pretty much my case) they might look a little bit kitschy. Therefore I omit painting details. They look just fine with the very initial sketch, or the very initial layer of paint – which quality is never again the same, if over-layered.

I paint what you see, not what you think about the painting

The theoretical response which I created for myself, to move away from Modigliani’s claim is that I would not like to impose any way of looking. I would like the viewer, or the represented, to be able to decide themselves, what is their opinion on the painting. Therefore the eyes remain raw, just as sketched – as if caught or briefly commented only with a quick, initial though of mine. I do paint them, but never finish.

The idea – influances the way of painting and the process – becomes a kind of manifesto.

It is as if to say that with the paint work, one might create a false image of themselves or the represented – which is obvious as art was (perhaps not always) a tool to mischief and manipulate in many ways and for many reasons.

My idea was also that this can be seen in the works of landscapes – the distance on the painting seems very small, yet in reality, it can represent a very long and distant road. Perception of distance is not easy. Depiction of distance is even more difficult. Perception is always subjective even if formed into an artwork or a piece of text. But when the way of perception is shared, with words or art – it can be understood.

Writing
I am posting all this texts for the case of self-growth, first of all, and secondly because I am eager to see how my approach and thinking will change with time. Is that the same thing? It was my surprise – and not purposeful design or career decision, to see how the linocut gradually become more specified, detailed and, just different. From the very first series to the one I am currently working on which is series XII – education.

No answer
Since around November 2024 I leave out parts of paintings, raw, just plain canvas. As if to let it breathe, maintain certain areas untouched or with a visible initial sketch. This, in my view let them be spacious in a very poetic way. Maybe it gives the viewer some other dimension, an invitation to interpret, to watch, to scratch himself and to be uncertian and just say "I do not know". The painter didn't know too. For me, it is always a search for storytelling – and you just can’t go on forever telling the story with every single detail. It is my deep hope, that maybe they will be seen as such – unclosed artworks, unfinished. To be continued, perhaps. A story that is "in the saying" – as if to say, the stories are good, they last. Because "stop" can also mean "bad".

"Enough" can mean "good" and "bad".

Imagination, the unknown is important.

Further, it is scary to think that one might steal eyes. Sight, or the way of seeing and looking is a very personal, and delicate thing we all develop on our own, with time.

For me
It is quite interesting how you can have a theory for anything. But it is not only justifying my own lack of skills. I am very hard working and extremely critical of myself. It is somehow more in the urge to remain naive. I recognize that I pretty much lost an artistic attitude recently (at least in my previous understanding of that word) and began an unfair battle between rationality and spontaneity. And so, a certain aspect of my activity is again closed, and there will be a lot of sadness in that.

If art is a meaning of ones life, and important aspect of life is "change", therefore art must also change. Or do I just rationalize violence?

Self-growth – a result of work of many people around me, teachers and other artists that I admire or that cause some little hamster to begin a new series of exercises in my head, running on the spinning wheel.

No animals were hurt during my work although the she-cat Sawa sometimes walks out with paint on her feet, and I am the one washing the floor.

Two major forms of art
It seems to me that there are two major forms of human creation. Architecture – with it’s coexistance of form and function and Music – with its ability to transport imagination, create dimensions and make "visible" the beauty of collaborative effort of diversity.

The victory of architecture is that in most cases you do not hear people say "oh what is the meaning of that".

The lost battle of music is that it perhaps reveals too much about ourselves.

Victory
Earlier I tried to understand how we perceive arts – as it was once created to symbolise victory, or a triumph. But this is long ago. Is it? Now, what causes art to be again more elitist is that it becomes a tool for science, research. And if you go to the gallery and art tries to beat you or to trick you, or makes you feel like a fool, what is the purpose? Education? Perhaps we need to pay more to the teachers, and let artists focus on a different things.

No real reason why I have this idea in my head.
Undoubtly, teachers deserve a lot more.

Notes for the future
I read quite some biographies of artists, so my head is dense with some quotes and ideas, that perhaps are sometimes wrongly attributed. The idea of masks – eyeless faces – is very much connected for me with Pablo Picasso, and incredible amount of art of African tribes, that unfortunately remain nameless for me.

My musical taste was for a long time in the genre of hip-hop, which left a deep mark on my psyche and which I learn to rediscover again, after a break. The idea of speaking to music, or talking to music, in my believe, comes from loneliness.

This probably comes from my observation of the story-telling that I mentioned – it is my personal, inner process of thoughts, a dialogue with my paintings, rather than a consistent development of some path or idea. They seem not to need an audience, as their creation is important for me. It is vey much freestyle. Quite lonely too. Perhaps the paintings are somewhat a record of that. And so, maybe this is what makes art so powerful, as, it remains.

As you might want to discover something new, I strongly recommend listening to classical music or instrumental music. It seems very primal, that this was the way how the music, or sound-making was experienced by our ancestors. Undoubtly it gives more space for thoughts, if compared to music that is composed of vocals and instruments.

Perhaps this is what art historians do.
It seems to me, that the next possible approach for art historians is to focus on understanding the currents, get in touch with the living artists and creators and try to transfer those ideas, sort of reproject them, onto artists that we all admire for better understanding of those who created the current history. Or maybe it is just like with a 2Pac hologram?

It seems a lot that we are still very much similar – and the transformation of various aspects takes a lot more than a glimpse. I do not know where this idea comes from. Oh wait, didn't I just neglected using art for science?

My final conclusion here is that perhaps painting is a skill that can be achieved, but seeing is what is fuc*king difficult and a lot more complex.

Laught is a great tool to build distance, to understand. But it can also destroy the importance of something relevant or constitute a basis for a destruction of authority.

Eyes
Maybe they are like sculptures.
At once, they were polichromed.
Eyes, at Modigliani’s.

Eyes are beautiful, delicate, fragile, very much like music – somehow out of this world.

Supplement

For a long time we see the web becoming more and more important – and so are all the communication technologies. We know how crucial it is to recognise who did what and how, if we use it. And so, who educates the code developers? Is web classless?

Just across the border is is war. What connects us? Because art is great in dividing.
Prejudices and fear is noraml, hate is wrog, violence is foolish. But hey... Education.

I recommend cloves. They are claimed to be good in fighting against parasites. You can crush and cook with water – add a little bit of sugar or honey – it is my power brew. Also great with lemon. You can also chew them, they are perfect for refreshing the taste.