Showing posts with label quantum physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label quantum physics. Show all posts

Friday, 17 June 2011

DO YOU HAVE TO SUFFER FOR YOUR ART?

Creativity and the Shadow in a Dualist World
An Article




Most people who ponder the meaning of artistic creativity ask themselves whether hardships and suffering are conducive to good art. It is still very much an open question and therefore worthy of more contemplation. In the following, I will talk about the nature of creativity in general as well as attempt to address this controversial topic from my personal point of view. One of my guiding themes is the dualist nature of reality which echoes the way we orientate ourselves (up/down, light/dark, good/evil, positive/negative, etc.), but is also responsible for the fact that our minds are incessantly taking sides (if one thing is perceived as positive, its opposite will undeniably be negative). Another theory that governs my thinking is the Jungian concept of the Shadow. It is the part of our psychological reality that is not readily accessed by every day consciousness, yet another truly significant consequence of the dualism I've been talking about. Not only does it play an important role in the artistic process as subconscious material tends to surface when you express yourself, but I will also argue that it plays an important role in truly meaningful art as it mirrors the collective shadows that make this reality into such an intriguing place to be.

I did not have a happy childhood, but my parents were professional photographers and so I got used to hearing arguments about imagery, and looking through photomagazines became a favourite past time of mine. My mother tried to encourage me to be creative, but all that I remember of that is that she wanted to prevent me from using any premade drawing patterns and insisted that I exercise the faculty of observation instead. I was emotionally blocked and probably not particularly creative, although I obviously had a talent for artistic expression that was encouraged at school. When I think back I find it rather curious that I was the only one at school who was any good at drawing. Because I had no challenging competition, my abilities in this area were never questioned. I have no doubt this gave me the confidence to enter the the world of art later on in life.

To begin with, I didn't have the confidence to make fine art. I was admitted to Helsinki University in my native country where I studied philosophy and the history of art for a few years. I was rather good at analyzing other people's work, but at some point I had to ask myself whether my approach was in fact purely intellectual and not emotionally attuned. I also wondered whether there was a well of creativity somewhere deep within myself that I had yet to discover.

I thus set out to uncover my stealthed emotions and find out about any potential creativity that might be lurking in the subconsciuos mind. I made it through the entrance exams in an arts college in the South of France where I did a year of general arts. After this, I was accepted to a college in Normandy where I did graphic design for a year and illustration for two years. Looking back, I think it would have been rather nice to have gotten a proper fine arts education, but if I am to be honest it was probably illustration that helped trigger a sudden ability to express myself artistically. While studying my dreams I was jolted into a spontaneous, rather illustrative, symbolic expression that has been mine ever since.

Curiously, creativity was not encouraged at L'Ecole des Beaux-Arts. I found that most teachers were geared into negativity and praise was rare. This made it very hard for me to find any joy in what I was doing, and completing the assignments was incredibly laborious. I was young and stubborn, yet I only persevered for four years until returning to Helsinki University. This time I took up comparative religion and wrote my MA thesis in 1999 about the ontological status of creativity within the New Age movement. I wanted to know all that there was to know about creativity, but this time I took the intellectual approach and only used this particular form of spirituality as a pretext for my research.

I had noticed, that creativity was an often talked about phenomenon in New Age circles, and that it seemed to own a rather peculiar status. This status was ontological, which means that there is an assumed equation mark between creativity and the basic nature of reality. In other words, in this view creativity is a fundamental to life. I found that the arguments went back to Quantum Physics and the idea that on a sub atomic level there is a boundless sea of creative potentiality waiting to come into existance. Especially the quantum physics David Bohm and Danah Zohar did a good job in demonstrating this viewpoint. From an esoteric point of view, it is the mysterious spiritual force called Kundalini that owns the same ontological status within every human being. This is an ancient sanskrit term adopted by the East looking modern spiritual adepts, and it is commonly thought that “rising the Kundalini”, in other words awakening a dormant subconscious energy, enhances creativity and over all well being, as well as helps connect with higher levels of consciousness. In fact, this force is interlinked with evolution itself (and by this I specifically mean the evolving mind or consciousness although in a general sense it covers all of life). It appears that this force is always active to some extent, which accounts for a general ability to be creative. Various blocks within the human energy field prevents this force from functioning in a harmonious way. Over stimulation of the Kundalini force can, on the other hand, have disastrous results. The unprepared psyche could go into psychosis, nor would the body be able to handle such a powerful energy. Personally, I find this a totally fascinating and very rewarding theory about the nature of the psyche.

Over the centuries, various esoteric cosmologies have pointed to the idea that reality sprouts from one source, a divine “all that is”, the very matrix of reality, and that in fact, the created and the creator are one and the same. The artist, who is the obvious exemplary of creativity, would be the conduit of reality's basic tendency to manifest creativity out of pure potentiality which in a paradoxical sort of way is underlying reality but of it at the same time. The rise of individualism instigated philosophy that pondered the real nature of the subject and the object, and how this dualism was part and parcel of evolutionary progress as, in Hegel's terms, thesis and antithesis gave rise to synthesis.

Modern spiritual views have found a scientific argument in the research done by the quantum physics, especially the theory that the observer of a phenomenon will affect the nature of the observed object. Without going into all the complicated details and consequences of this way of thinking, I wish to bring out the rather exciting thought that the creative person is intrinsically connected to the creative product. In a sense we cannot avoid expressing ourselves precisely the way we truly are unless we manipulate our products in order to ingratiate ourselves with someone else. By expressing yourself authentically, be it through suffering or joy, you are expressing what really is in a deeper existential way. The division between subject and object may thus be an illusion, if we are to believe the idea that dualism is just one of the mind's way of making sense of reality. One might even go as far as suggesting along with many esoteric thinkers that we create our own reality, yet this time I will have to leave this open to interpretation. Nonetheless I urge anyone who is seriously interested in the subject to allow themselves this thought experiment. Personally, I have found dualism to be the very fabric of the messages I wish to bring forth in my art and writing.

Esoterics aside, I think that as soon as you look at creativity as an inherent part of being human, it changes your perpective altogether. To me it is very much a force that can never be completely eliminated, and it will always look for an outlet in one way or another. When you think about it, creativity really does sprout in the most dire of circumstances. It is literally all around us. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, especially known for his theory on the flow creative moments, has remarked that the less options people are faced with, the more likely they are to be creative. This suggests that restrictions can be beneficial to creativity. On the other hand, if the mind is very shattered and unable to focus, you are not very likely to enter the flow characterized by great creative inspiration.

Although we are naturally creative and have a complex civilization to show for, it is also quite clear when we look around us that some people are incredibly creative and some are much less so. My impression is that people do need a driving force, a real fiery passion, in order to be truly creative. I don't really think it matters what this driving force is. It could be a general desire be expressive of the self and to communicate this with others, or it could be the sense of “mission” so that a certain topic becomes the goal of creative acts. Emotional dysfunction can be a hindrance, but it seems that it isn't necessarily responsible for creative draught. I was in my teens when I started to have a very pressing need to write about my own lack of emotional connection. In actual fact, a lot of what I wrote was insightful and creative, and when I didn't write I felt disconnected from a mysterious and indefinable inner source. Later on, I equated creativity with being able to create images, but I can now see that the reason I felt this way was that I had more trouble finding my personal visual expression. Once I found it, I was able to churn out a great deal of artwork about my emotional process, and this was a goal in itself. When I had reached a point in life where I was emotionally open, I also felt that I had said all there was to say about the really important things in life. Part of it was being less emotionally tormented, and part of it was a feeling that spiritually, I knew where I stood and had no pressing desire to explore it further through my art. On top of this, I also felt exhausted from years of hard work in putting up exhibitions. Since my health has always been frail, in fact there was much suffering involved in getting the art to the public.

There is a kind of luminous state of mind, a state of something that could be divine inspiration. I have felt it sometimes, either writing or coming up with imagery. I dug up so much emotional material after years of working with myself that I got rather swamped in it all and I do feel that in a sense all this obscured some of the luminosity. We can only be what we are at any given moment, and in the end it is all part and parcel of the human condition and life in the widest sense of the word. I believe that one can get very self-absorbed and sollipsistic about certain shadows, and lose sight of what is truly important. It's easy to think one has a mission of sorts when it's really only serving an egotistic purpose. Yet sometimes I feel a need to express a problem of the collective shadow as if this issue has relevance in a greater sense and has an illuminated quality about it.

There was indeed a turning point about ten years ago. I had been very driven to create images that expressed the conflict I experienced from living in a dualist reality. However, rather than being torn by this conflict, I sought reconciliation and acceptance. My pieces expressed a tension between a belief in a higher form of reality and the real life struggles to survive physically and emotionally. The paradox that came out of this tension is what I believe makes my pieces unique. Apart from attempting to uncover my own “Shadows” in the Jungian sense, a medical condition I deal with since childhood was the reason for many of the negative feelings I was experiencing. Nonetheless, I felt I was making pictures in which other people could mirror themselves, and people did indeed buy my all of my art. I trusted that even if they didn't know why a piece attracted them, they could sense my intentions subconsciously, but also make up their own story whenever necessary. It was all about sharing with the aim of helping others to understand their own difficulties. And hardships do help me understand more about life and the human condition. Yet it also goes without saying that some circumstances are overwhelming and stifling, and for instance financial difficulties often stop artists in their tracks.

My medical condition was, however, also responsible for the fact that I had to change from drawing and painting to collaging. My view of reality was at this point becoming more complex, and it seems to me that this was also reflected in my art. Did I still have anything valuable to say? I keep on going, realizing that my life's work was always going to be more about understanding the shadow side of life rather than pointing to the sunshine, and I accept this as a fact about my life's purpose. Although in reality I embrace both sides of life, I feel an urgency in helping to clarify the issues about the human psyche that make things go wrong. In fact, even creation itself can entail a bit of suffering as I struggle to focus and get it right. In my case, I believe suffering has been a prerequisite to the creation of my art – it is art with a message about the human condition and ways to improve it. I think it is perfectly possible to create art which is not based in suffering and only in passion, but I would question its deeper significance in this time and age. However, I believe there is nothing wrong with a piece of happiness on your wall or in your space if that's what makes you feel better about life. In the end, all things are relative in a dualistic world.

© Vivi-Mari Carpelan 2011. Any anauthorised use of this article is strictly prohibited.

The factual references in this article were taken from my MA thesis:

Carpelan, Vivi-Mari 1999
Vid kreativitetens källa. Kreativitetens ontologiska status inom den nyandliga världsbilden
Avhandling Pro Gradu, Religionsvetenskapliga institutionen, Helsingfors Universitet

Relevant Literature:

Bohm, David 1998
On Creativity. Edited by Lee Nichol. London & New York: Routledge.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly 1996
Creativity. Flow and Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Hanegraff, J. Wouter 1996
New Age Religion and Western Culture. Esotericism in the Mirror of Secular Thought. (Studies in the History of Religions, vol LXXII). Leiden, New York, Koln: E.J. Brill.
Mokerjee, Ajit 1983
Kundalini. The Arousal of the Inner Energy. London: Thames & Hudson.
Sannella, Lee (M.D) 1987
The Kundalini Experience. Psychosis or Transcendence? California: Integral Publishing
Zohar, Danah 1990
The Quantum Self. Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New Physics. New York: Quill.
Zweig, Connie & Abrams, Jeremiah (ed.) 1991
Meeting the Shadow. The Hidden Power of the Dark Side of Human Nature. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.

Artwork: "Beckoning Shadows II", abstract photograph, all rights reserved 2011

Friday, 9 January 2009

Beauty, Truth and Art


Yesterday was the opening of my first one woman show of photos, in a real gallery founded for photography only. I've been feeling tired and disconnected from everything so it was a somewhat arduous undertaking. When I left the house a snow blizzard suddenly hit me hard and all my make up ran down my cheeks. Needless to say I wasn't terribly happy when I reached the train where my mother waited for me.

The photos were all taken a year ago in Kansas where there was little else to do but visit a big manmade lake and research all the quirky details that the creation of this lake had caused in the landscape. During that long period of cold winter months I also got to witness the land as it changed depending on the very unusual weather circumstances. The photos can be seen on my website or on Flickr. Just before the opening a journalist was asking me about it all, and all I could think of saying was that during this time, I went through an inner process as a photographer while nature went through its own processes. I mumbled something about the way abstract photography is fascinating because you know that it has reality as its base, and how the digital era allows you more easily than before to make a simple photo into something that extends into the arena of art. I'm not sure this really came across right. Another journalist called me today and I still didn't have the presence of mind to simply say: it's about the process of discovering beauty in unexpected places.

It does indeed require a special state of mind to notice something that you can capture or turn into a piece of art. First of all you have to be mindful. My cat Marius has now forgiven me so when I pet him he starts to pur. It reminds me how terribly important it is for me to witness my cats' happiness every day, and every time they come to me to spend quality time I make an effort to switch off my absentmindedness and be truly present to them. There is no knowing if I will still have this kind of moment tomorrow or next week... These moments make life worth living even when you feel disconnected and tired. Mindfulness is thus what makes life meaningful. Without it you have nothing. It may not make you into an artist, but you can at least appreciate the beauty inherent in all natural things.

I read and responded to an interesting topic about an experiment conducted in Washington D.C. Joshua Bell, who is a famous and talented violinist, played in the subway like any other street musician. The point was to see whether busy people running off to work would recognize the beauty in his performance and whether context creates art. You can read more about it here. The comments are also well worth reading. Some people did feel that the context was a bit unfair to those who didn't pay attention to the music - how much can you really ask of the poor Americans who are so busy making a living in a country where this is especially accentuated!

Anyhow, I personally think that context is always present in everything we do - perhaps I might even go as far as to say that context cannot be separated from the product because everything we ever do is dependent on a whole bunch of elements to do with time and space and things that are meaningful in relation to these.

It seemed to me that people confused beauty with art. I do not think beauty necessarily equals art. There is ugly art that provokes and helps people re-evaluate their lives. The object of art is to awaken people to something, and this can be about aesthetic values as well as concepts. However, I think beauty is inherent in life, it equals truth. Untruth, denial and deception cause ugliness unless this ugliness becomes intentional through the filter of an artist. I also think that people have more and more trouble being mindful about life, because of all the trivial obligations that we have been programmed to put our minds into. You have to clear your mind of preconceptions, theories and any other form of mind clutter in order to really look and hear. People are not educated to do this. The brain does get programmed into certain tracks very easily. Even I as an artist have to remind myself at times to be present to something really lovely, for instance the happiness of my cats when they come and want to spend time with me. I remind myself, that I may not get to see that beauty tomorrow, so I must not waste the moment. I am lucky to have time and education to do this, but how many people do?

I think that to some extent context helps to wire people’s minds into appreciating art, because they know to expect it. They are then more able to de-clutter their minds and pay attention. I think it’s obvious that the beauty in L’Enfant Plaza where the performance took place was there whether anyone saw it or not. The reference to the koan about whether or not a tree makes a sound when it’s falling if there is no one there to hear it is interesting. The beauty was there in the reality as we know it, though maybe in a deeper ontological way it existed only to the extent that someone was able to pick it up. (Ontology is the basic nature of reality). Let me extend this thought a bit to embrace ideas surrounding the nature of personal truths. But before I go on, let me just say this: stop running around making money like crazy and reconnect with what is truly essential in life! But it’s up to each and everyone to decide if they want to, of course… Perhaps experiments like this help people realize they may have a choice in this regard.

I think serious methaphysical studies and as far as I understand quantum physics and the like also agree that there really is no objective truth. In other words, there are only subjective filters of our subjective minds. We can agree on certain things and that makes them "objective", but ARE they really objective? What is the real nature of these things we can measure? Quantum theory tells us ultimately there is nothing but a field of potentiality. You could argue that science has proven this or that. Well... sure, there are measurable things. But there are also things that are still measured very badly if even at all due to a lack of proper tools. We are surely not at the height of human evolution (that was a Victorian idea, haha...). I'm not one to read much anymore so I can't say what the latest findings are, but it was pretty clear to me back during my student's days that there is no absolute unarguable proof of the existance of an objective reality. It would then mean that truth is relative to each human being.

Can we trust other people's perception of reality? What can we really say about other people's intuitions? I think, that many times other people are really off course: sometimes other people's intuitions are not intuitions at all but delusions and misconceptions that they and possibly a whole bunch of people take for "truth". So it's a tricky thing but it seems to me that truth is really relative most of the time and that absolute truth is forever beyond our reach until we have some experience of enlightment or something of the sort. In my opinion we are really in the dark here but I think we can know more, it's just a matter of learning, intuiting, being open, maybe the time period we live in...

However, who is to really judge that someone else is wrong? You may encounter a person who is totally intolerable from your point of view, who wants to convert you to their beliefs etc. And it may definitely be detrimental to you (and to them I may add) and a community could agree (though often doesn't) that it is not morally sound to try and convert others by way of superiority, authority, manipulation and the like. So the result is there is some kind of truth in that situation that is agreed upon by many but it may be far from the truth of who that person really is in a much deeper, wider or even ontological sense. (Ontology = the basic nature of reality).

Art is thus to a great extent about people's ideas as well as their deeper intuitions and perceptions about life. I think other people's intuitions can show us "something", and that it is often very valuable to our understanding of things as well as enjoyment of life and the creation. In this world, pondering, speculating and feeling is quite central to our existance and it's all very well and fun for many of us, but it doesn't mean it's the same in some other possible world. These intuitions also vary, so cannot be taken for "truths" in my opinion.

It's certainly a question of paths to the truth but that still doesn't make the "ultimate truth" that someone might arrive upon exactly the same as that of someone else. C.f. the idea of enlightment! As far as I know mystical experiences have similarities but they are not always the same. Who knows, really? There are many theories about how we are co-creators of the world through the subjective filters of our individual selves, and that is how "God" expresses him/her/itself. I've looked into it and personally don't see any contradiction there. I do think that we are truly all in it together in a fuller sense than what appears to be. I do think something can be real and unreal at the same time, but it depends what level we're talking about. If we're talking about the physical reality that we all perceive similarly (not quite the same, only similarly) things are more solid (compared to realms of a different type of frequencies or whatever you want to name it). The laws of nature make dualism have a strong hold. But what do we know about higher spheres - provided you believe there are any? Again, many report that they know of these higher spheres. If someone doesn't perceive them it obviously doesn't mean that they don't exist. We know that from history already! The same goes for both art and beauty. Just because people don't notice them or perceive them as such, it doesn't mean they don't exist. So in a paradoxical sense I'd say that even if reality is dependent on a subjective perception and we live in a reality that is agreed upon and in which we collectively contribute to the space of art, philosophy and scientific innovations, there are ways of seeing that are not available to all.

Artwork: "The Freak", digital photograph by authour, all rights reserved 2008
Visit this page on my site for more: