Apocalypse and wallpaper

The most comfortable communication to the nothingness or in religion oure conscience is the
mysticism.(the act of becoming one with the universe or diety) Esp the mysticism without ritualizing
itself.

2nd paragraph – PHILOSOPHY IS NOT POPULAR AMONG AMERICAN PAINTERS? WHY?

METAPHYSICS OF THINGS – BRANCH OF PHILO THAT EXAMINES THE FUNDAMENTAL NATURE OF

REALITY, INCLUDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUBSTANCE AND ATTRIBUTE AND BETWEEN
POTENTIALITY AND ACTUALITY. EXISTENCE, PURPOSE, TIME EVENT AND MANY MORE

3rd paragrapgh with picture

He was talking about a new approach to painting, typified by the works of artists like Jackson Pollock (fig.1). For
Rosenberg, a Pollock painting was best understood not in terms of compositional quality or representational capacity
but for how it registered the process of its own creation. According to him, ‘What was to go on the canvas was not a
picture but an event’; he named this activity ‘Action Painting’.

4th paragraph the new painters stand in between Christian science and Whit’s man ‘gang of cosmos’

It was impossible for Rosenberg to divorce the look of the finished product from the process of its production. To say
that the object was the act itself meant that the borders of the work opened – the artwork was no longer a thing unto
itself but a time-bound artifact of human activity, a trace of an action. The painting persisted as an object but it would
now always point back to the moment of its creation and away from itself toward the wider world. Or, as Rosenberg
put it, ‘the new painting has broken down every distinction between art and life’. 4 The world beyond the artwork’s
traditional frame became part of its very constitution. Critical language would have to consider embodied processes
of both creation and reception, as well as what effects these might have on how a work of art can and does make
meaning. In opposition to major critical trends of the day that held that the subject of art was art itself, Rosenberg
sought a way to express the connection between art and life, to describe the activity of art-making in its personal and
practical dimensions.

Pikes peak-highest summit in rocky mountain of north America bust parang sculture ng head

Ineffable too great or extreme to be expressed or described in words.

Siblilline – having a secret meaning.

Dramatic dialogue- Definition: Dramatic Monologue/ Dramatic Dialogue: a literary device used
to reveal a character's innermost thoughts and feelings to the reader through a poem or a
speech.
Most comfortable communication with the NOTHINGNESS IS MYSTICISM complete empty is
absorption of unity with the deity.

Philosophy is not popular among American painters? Explanation Philosophy of art, the study of
the nature of art, including concepts such as interpretation, representation and expression, and
form. It is closely related to aesthetics, the philosophicalstudy of beauty and taste.

Lacking verbal flexibility ito yung naipapahayag nila hindi ito picture of a thing but a picture of a
self. It doesn’t reproduce Nature; it is the nature. Art today is the same as it always has been.

Pantheism all forces in the universe are god.

Christian science : Christian Science is a set of beliefs and practices belonging to the
metaphysical family of new religious movements. It was developed in 19th-century New
England USA by Mary Baker Eddy, who argued in her 1875 book Science and Health that
sickness is an illusion that can be corrected by prayer alone
1 god no trinity, spiritual healing through knowledge and prayer

Whitman- The poem Kosmos enlightens its reader about the immeasurable and unimaginable
dimensions and compositions of the universe. Literary devices that facilitate the reader's grasp of the
illuminative concepts abound through out the entire poem. The line: "Who includes diversity and is
nature" (Whitman, Line 1), opens it with a redolent and informative tone, which is typical of a teacher
or monologues speaker. It appears to be a good reminder of what is generally meant by the word
cosmos. This familiarizes the reader with the speaker's unique and astounding picture of the
cosmos. The heart of the poem contains even more theoretical and abstract description of the
physical and mental universe. That is most efficiently exemplified when the speaker says, "Who, out
of the theory of the earth, and of his or her body, understands by subtle analogies all other theories,"
(Whitman, Line 7). This line introduces an idea of multiple theories regarding the workings of the
universe and its constituent objects. A reader might approach the world with a preconception that a
single absolute law governs everything but Whitman enlightens h...

The test of any new paintings is its seriousness- and the test of its seriousness is the degree to
which the act on the canvas is an extension of the artist’s total effort to make over his experience.
Megalomania obsession with the exercise of power, especially in the domination of others.

Juztaposition- the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect.

Apocalypse and Wallpaper

The most comfortable intercourse with the void is mysticism, especially a mysticism
that avoids ritualizing itself.

Philosophy is not popular among American painters. For most, thinking consists of
the various arguments that TO PAINT is something different from, say, to write or to
criticize: a mystique of the particular activity. Lacking verbal flexibility, the painters
speak of what they are doing in a jargon still involved in the metaphysics of things:
“My painting is not Art; it’s an Is.” “It’s not a picture of a thing; it’s the thing itself.”
“It doesn’t reproduce Nature; it is Nature.” “The painter doesn’t think; he knows.”
Etc. etc. “Art is not, not not not not…” As against this, a few reply, art today is the
same as it always has been.

Language has not accustomed itself to a situation in which the act itself is the
“object.” Along with the philosophy of TO PAINT appear bits of Vedanta and popular
pantheism.

In terms of American tradition, the new painters stand somewhere between

Christian Science and Whitman’s “gangs of cosmos.” That is, between a discipline of
vagueness by which one protects oneself from disturbance while keeping one’s eyes
open for benefits; and the discipline of the Open Road of risk that leads to the farther
side of the object and the outer spaces of the consciousness.

What made Whitman’s mysticism serious was that he directed his “cosmic ‘I’ ”
towards a Pike’s-Peak-or-Bust of morality and politics. He wanted the ineffable
in all behavior—he wanted it to win the streets.

The test of any of the new paintings is its seriousness—and the test of its seriousness
is the degree to which the act on the canvas is an extension of the artist’s total effort
to make over his experience.
A good painting in this mode leaves no doubt concerning its reality as an action and
its relation to a transforming process in the artist. The canvas has “talked back” to
the artist not to quiet him with Sibylline murmurs or to stun him with Dionysian
outcries but to provoke him into a dramatic dialogue. Each stroke had to be a
decision and was answered by a new question. By its very nature, action painting is
painting in the medium of difficulties.

Weak mysticism, the “Christian Science” side of the new movement, tends in the
opposite direction, toward easy painting—never so many unearned masterpieces!
Works of this sort lack the dialectical tension of a genuine act, associated with risk
and will. When a tube of pain is squeezed by the Absolute, the result can only be a
Success. The painter need keep himself on hand solely to collect the benefits of an
endless series of strokes of luck. His gesture completes itself without arousing either
an opposing movement within itself nor his own desire to make the act more fully
his own. Satisfied with wonders that remain safely inside the canvas, the artist
accepts the permanence of the commonplace and decorates it with his own daily
annihilation. The result is an apocalyptic wallpaper.

The cosmic “I” that turns up to paint pictures but shudders and departs the moment
there is a knock on the studio door brings to the artist a megalomania which is the
opposite of revolutionary. The tremors produced by a few expanses of tone or by the
juxtaposition of colors and shapes purposely brought to the verge of bad taste in the
manner of Park Avenue shop windows are sufficient cataclysms in many of these
happy overthrows of Art. The mystical dissociation of painting as an ineffable event
has made it common to mistake for an act the mere sensation of having acted—or of
having been acted upon. Since there is nothing to be “communicated,” a unique
signature comes to seem the equivalent of a new plastic language. In a single stroke
the painter exists as a Somebody—at least on a wall. That this Somebody is not he
seems beside the point.

Once the difficulties that belong to a real act have been evaded by mysticism, the
artist’s experience of transformation is at an end. In that case what is left? Or to put
it differently: What is a painting that is not an object nor the representation of an
object nor the analysis or impression of it nor whatever else a painting has ever
been—and which has also ceased to be the emblem of a personal struggle? It is the
painter himself changed into a ghost inhabiting The Art World. Here the common
phrase, “I have bought an O.” (rather than a painting by O.) becomes literally true.
The man who started to remake himself has made himself into a commodity with a
trademark.