. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

In my view, James Elkin (painter, professor, author) has, in the course of his many books, set the agenda for artists who, in their artwork, seek in some way to portray religious, spiritual, and/or sacred ideas in ways that are still resonant in the contemporary art world. In Elkins' view (taken from his On The Strange Place of Religion in Contemporary Art, there are five basic ways to mix religion and contemporary art:

1. create conventional religious art
2. create art that is critical of religion
3. create art that sets out to create a new faith
4. create art that burns away what is false in religion
5. create art that creates a new faith, but unconsciously

In the course of discussing #3, Elkins touches upon a relatively well-known painting by Alex Grey, the Holy Fire triptych. Elkins aligns Grey with what he calls "NRMs" -- new religious movements. NRM art, to speak generally, is treated with a mix of ignorance and skepticism by the larger art world. If it is not lumped in with the 'New Age' movement (and all related sub-movements) then it is seen as having, at best, a very loose relationship with the art world (the 'art world' as being defined as the conventional channels of distribution such as galleries and museums). But Grey's work, Elkins reminds us, is not considered 'Outsider Art', for reasons that probably have to do with the technical talent Grey's work exudes. Or as Elkins writes:

Grey's work is technically accomplished, so it cannot be claimed to fulfill the criterion of lack of formal training; but in other respects it fits the common criteria of outsider art: it is eccentric, iconographically idiosyncratic, heartfelt, obsessive, free of irony, and it is seldom considered as fine art. By those criteria, it should be a kind of outsider art, but it is rejected even there....The main reason Grey's ... work is not accepted as fine art is [the] sincerity and openly declared beliefs.

The existence of 'openly declared beliefs' may seem like a trivial point to some, but I suggest it is a crucial factor in the reception of artwork by the larger world. Earlier, Elkins writes of Grey's long and passionate artist statement for Holy Fire. Anyone familiar with Grey's work knows of his three books that, to various degrees, forcefully declare his own view of his artwork, his intentions, his influences, and even what meanings of his artwork are.

Now, I personally do not find a lack of irony or an abundance of sincerity to be problems when it comes to artwork. At least, these two factors are not immediate deal-breakers for me. There are artists who lack both, whom I love and detest, as well as artists who have both in spades, whom I also love and detest. It all depends upon the artist. The art world is the last refuge for harmless ambiguity of this kind.

But I do have to say that because I'm so familiar with Grey's three books -- having read his Mission of Art many times, as well as digested the substantial articles, forewards, and commentary upon his work in the other two books -- because of what I call an 'over-exposure' to his own intentions, I actually don't get a lot out of his artwork anymore. I find the meanings in his work to veer too closely to the 'prepackaged' zone. What I usually appreciate, when I do take the opportunity to contemplate his work, is the supreme technical capacities he has to depict human bodies in their full artery-meets-veins-meets-muscles glory. His work Praying captures energy on physical, mental, and contemplative levels in a way I find astonishing. I've seen this piece in person, when I went to one of Grey's first major gallery openings, in the Chelsea district of NYC, back in fall 2002.

But in other works, the literalism of the icongraphy (actual religious symbols/figures), the literalism of the depicted states of consciousness, the optical illusions (such as the album cover for The String Cheese Incident), and the descriptions of his own intentions that he readily offers tend to remove a good deal of the mystery for me. And I think it is partly attributable to the fact that Grey appears to be fully conversant about his own intuitions. His work can too often be explained in simple language, thus quickly conceptualized, described, and intellectualized. I deeply respect his talents, as well as his mission to authentically depict his own interior visions through his work.

But I guess I want more sense of 'semi-conscious intuition'. I want artists to be less able to talk about their intentions (not completely unable, but often at a loss for words). I want artwork to, at the very least, be open to many meanings, thus fulfilling the basic concept of 'polysemy', a requisite for our contemporary world. We rather like a degree of ambiguity, don't we? Not dissociated ambiguity run amok of any possible sturdy interpretation. But instead artwork that has affinity to shifting meanings and an ability to suspend disbelief. At the very least, artists ought be scrupulous about what they say about their artwork.