Learning to Un-see
>> Wednesday, May 22, 2013 –
abstract,
Ellsworth Kelly,
internet,
re-see,
Robert Irwin,
seen,
unsee
Ellsworth Kelly |
If
you’ve spent any amount of time on the internet, especially on the
pabulum-pushing, top-ten type sites like Buzzfeed, et al, you’ve likely come
across a version of this phrase: “you won’t be able to un-see this!” This
usually refers to a visual double entendre, or unfortunately candid celebrity
snapshot. This is supposed to be a bad thing – perhaps in the “so good it’s
bad” sense – but nevertheless, bad; a thing you’d like kind of like to “un-see”
once you’ve seen it.
Several
things that I’ve seen recently caused me to wish that I could un-see things –
in the sense of retaining a mystery of unknowing; of not recognizing – and
subsequently, taking in the formal elements alone, without social, cultural,
art historical, religious, or even corporate or institutional reference, or
definitiveness. I suppose my question became: can this tendency be undone – can
things, definitions – be un-seen? Do I already un-see things without knowing
it?
Robert Irwin, Black, 2008. |
Two
twentieth-century artists quickly came to mind, when I considered
this question. One of them was Ellsworth Kelly – mostly because he is never far
from my consciousness, being someone I consider an artistic soul mate. And of
course, because I believe he is uniquely prescient in being able to “un-see”
things, nearly at will – and then being able to see them anew. And that’s when
Robert Irwin came to mind. Several years ago, I read the book Seeing is forgetting the name of the thing
one sees, and though I remember few specifics from the reading, a few
lessons burnt their way into me, one of which was, you need to relearn your
seeing, and reeducate your eyes, and thus your brain (or is that vice-versa?).
Kelly was an Irwinite seemingly at birth; I’m a disciple; yet I’m positive that
all of us need to get better at 1) un-seeing, and 2) re-seeing.
I’ll
give you a very specific and recent example of what is meant here. This week,
while driving to the studio, I was studying a bumper sticker on the car in
front of me. It was a longish, purple blob – landscape-like; horizontal – above
which a white, grass-like shape popped up – like a “Kilroy wuz here”, but with
only his flattop haircut showing. Puzzling over these shapes, and why they were
an appropriate sticker for a car bumper, I noticed the text “Do It Twice
Daily!” and still it remained puzzling. Finally, I realized it was a stylized
toothbrush: beautiful bubble broken. (It’s likely the text is what pierced the
bubble finally; text has a powerful way of doing that). And immediately I wished I could un-see the toothbrush.
Here’s
where the average, normal person would have lost interest – unless he
hadn’t yet brushed his teeth that day, or he was a dentist nodding in agreement.
But the purple blob and weird white grass shape were intriguing, and I wanted
to return to the mystery that had popped and been lost. This is the re-seeing of a seasoned
artist interested in formal elements: what artistic plant might this seed
develop into? Once these basic materials (line, color, shape, etc.) are
taken back to the studio, or sketchbook, and reworked over and over (as long as
they seem useful or interesting) then the action starts reversing: returning to
another sense of un-seeing; divesting these basic elements of all, or most, or
one of the references listed before. This is the re-seeing as un-seeing. And
it’s partly out of a desire to return to the pure state before the realization;
an almost child-like mystery of a before-unseen thing: the “what is that -”
question without the adult judgment of accumulated references, encapsulated in
“-supposed to be?” This is also a crucial part of an artistic education which assists all artists, even those interested in “realist” or literal
interpretations of the world. Even a portraitist needs to un-see the sitter
before she can re-see or reassemble the picture before her; the piece-to-be.
Recall those middle-school drawing lessons preaching the logic of breaking the
world into cubes, spheres, pyramids, and cylinders. Paradise
regained after paradise lost.
Once this skill is developed, I’m positive one
can begin seeing immediately past “toothbrush” and “text” directly to the basic shapes
and other formal elements in everything around them – without losing the
ability to avoid walking into trees or signposts – and know everything is
potential, vigorous seed for inspiration, rumination, and perhaps eventually,
finished work. This is related to what I’ve come to value about being an
artist: that “polyglot” ability to take absolutely anything, and use it to feed
one’s inspiration. The skill of un-seeing is an important component of that
ability. And suddenly not only does a toothbrush become a landscape, but a
landscape might become a toothbrush. The bubble has been broken, but who wants
to stay locked inside the tension of a bubble, no matter how beautiful? Learn
to reproduce it; since art is artifice, after all.