Concerning the Spirituality of Art

There was a really good article on nytimes.com, this is the link.

Hopefully it will open, but just in case I'm going to summarize. It's called "The Modernist vs. the Mystics" by Ken Johnson and appeared on 4/12/05. Seems there is a new show up at the Drawing Center in SoHo through May 21 (really hope I can get in for this, but it's not looking good). The show feaures the works of Hilma af Klint (1862-1944) of Sweden, Emma Kunz (1892-1963) of Switzerland and Agnes Martin (1912-2004) a US Modernist. The article is a review and highlights the contrasts between the artists... af Klint and Kunz were both Europeans who made art in a time and place where spirituality and mystisysim were popular among intellectuals. Martin is a product of the NY School and while there is an interest in Eastern philosophy and aestetics among this crowd, it's not really what they were about. Not overtly anyway.

But I digress because the contrasts, while interesting, are not what concerns me. Not for this fourm anyway. Here is an excerpt of the article:

"What has preserved the credibility of visionary spiritualism for many today is psychology: translating it into psychological not supernatural terms. The literally supernatural may be hard to credit, but it is believable that through art we can be in touch with dimensions beyond those of our day-to-day consciousness. By making or meditating on art, we may not only cultivate more refined aesthetic sensitivities but also release energies buried in the unconscious.

So if we feel something uncanny or hair-raising in the works of af Klint and Kunz, it may be because we believe that they were in touch not with real supernatural forces but with parts of the mind where extraordinary psychic energies reside. Though such places may be inaccessible for most of us, we may feel subterranean reverberations in response to certain kinds of art. "

My first response is that this is more in line with an Eastern aesthetic than anything mystical or supernatural. That aesthetic, and I realize that I am oversimplifying here, basically is ABOUT the experience of the viewer to the work, which is about the experience of the artist to the subject and not about the "I" that is common in western art. I am also put in mind of Navaho shamanic art, which was sometimes created specifically to heal a patient and not to allow us to admire the skill of the artist and the pretty trees.

What is pulling me is the relevance to studies in creativity. Why do people make art? And why one form of art over another? For example, I really hate landscape painting. Not viewing it, although dramatic sunsets really do put me off, but the making of it. For me art is about looking inward. My response of what I am seeing and experiencing and the manipulation of materials.

I just found the article interesting and want to comment on it to facilitate incubation. Lately I've been thinking about pursuing a PhD... and this is such an interesting area. I find it fascinating that art is pretty much overlooked in the creativity research.. I think the tendency is to take it for granted that art and artists are creative and have been discussed and analyzed a LOT throughout history, so why bother? Csikszentmihalyi is the only one that I can think of off hand that studies art and artists in relation to his work on happiness. (I know there are others, but I'm not bringing them to mind.) I know that there is resistance in the art community to creative studies.. I'll discuss that another time. But the connections between art and Eastern and North American indiginous art and aesthetics and spirituality and creativity are just so huge.. to me anyway.