2 comments on “Is the artist a “divine symbol”?

  1. Well done Peter. The personal experience you draw on in understanding your orientation to art is important, and greta to read.

    On a critical note, the claims that art is exclusively spiritual, mysterious and so on , does not fit well with the materialist view, a la John Berger (Ways of Seeing). For Berget, art is intended to comment on and reflect the artist’s preferences in representing the world. In this sense “representation” is intended to offer a contradiction to what is constructed as the world we see outside of art, where the representation “pushes” the viewer to re-orient themselves to the world by responding to the contradiction – the Hegelian/Marxist method. Ergo, material change can emerge from the new consciousness the art generates.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thanks very much Marcus for this review of my review! I drew a long bow in setting the review within a very autobiographical experience based context and in that sense it was less review. But the book spoke to those deep seated constructs we are both familiar with and that I needed to continue to unpack as I have done via MIECAT and some of my drawings. Your comments on Berger were very helpful and I will read him again with new understanding. It seems that there’s a host of lenses that artists have used and that have evolved eg Kandinsky to both “see” and imbed in their practice. Rothko is another.

      Like

Leave a reply to Marcus Breen Cancel reply