Page 3
E S S A Y S
By The Number
e4
M O M E N T U M S
T h e S e r i e s
A timeless point wherein decision is freely made without apprehension, unreflectively
and directly integrated. No longer subject or object, nor observer and observed.
A phenomenon, an awareness without parts, without summation.
BACKGROUND
By the early 1980’s Ralph Travis and Robert Anton had been good friends for nearly fifteen years. During this period a rather ambitious collaboration between the two had already begun a couple of years earlier, and would continue for several more before reaching a rudimentary completion in 1987.
Since their first chance meeting at a Los Angeles hotel in 1970 where Bob painted at an easel set up in the lobby, a time when Ralph was an inspector for the LA Fire Department, both men soon discovered that many mutual interests and experiences existed between them. Together they shared commonalties that sparked a blending of their individual talents and knowledge. The union resulted in a decade-long art project which saw the creation of scores of original acrylic paintings, each designed to provoke thought, debate, or even controversy.
Due to the untimely death of Mr. Travis, who succumbed after several years of a degenerative illness, the combined artworks entitled “Momentums” remain a lasting document of an attempt by two artists, via art, to make sense of a seemingly chaotic albeit wondrous world.
Bob Anton has neither the intention nor the authority to continue the MOMENTUMS series as an artistic endeavor, the controlling interest of which belongs to Ralph’s widow, Carol. The inheritors of her late husband’s “legacy-in-art” can add little to the works that, for both men, reflected the same degree of soul-searching, of grasping for an ever elusive sense of objectivity. Instead, it is Bob’s sole desire that for posterity’s sake, these scant writings about a shared vision, written by the surviving “partner-in-grandiose-crime” might shed some personal insight towards understanding why any two people would produce such a seemingly odd assorment of paintings.
Explanations often run the risk of being pedantic, and apologies are offered should any of the following seem to profess lofty wisdom or great knowledge, only a little of which is purposeful. A rationale, with strong undertones of satire and self-critical humor, more appropriately details the ideas behind the series.
Since their first chance meeting at a Los Angeles hotel in 1970 where Bob painted at an easel set up in the lobby, a time when Ralph was an inspector for the LA Fire Department, both men soon discovered that many mutual interests and experiences existed between them. Together they shared commonalties that sparked a blending of their individual talents and knowledge. The union resulted in a decade-long art project which saw the creation of scores of original acrylic paintings, each designed to provoke thought, debate, or even controversy.
Due to the untimely death of Mr. Travis, who succumbed after several years of a degenerative illness, the combined artworks entitled “Momentums” remain a lasting document of an attempt by two artists, via art, to make sense of a seemingly chaotic albeit wondrous world.
Bob Anton has neither the intention nor the authority to continue the MOMENTUMS series as an artistic endeavor, the controlling interest of which belongs to Ralph’s widow, Carol. The inheritors of her late husband’s “legacy-in-art” can add little to the works that, for both men, reflected the same degree of soul-searching, of grasping for an ever elusive sense of objectivity. Instead, it is Bob’s sole desire that for posterity’s sake, these scant writings about a shared vision, written by the surviving “partner-in-grandiose-crime” might shed some personal insight towards understanding why any two people would produce such a seemingly odd assorment of paintings.
Explanations often run the risk of being pedantic, and apologies are offered should any of the following seem to profess lofty wisdom or great knowledge, only a little of which is purposeful. A rationale, with strong undertones of satire and self-critical humor, more appropriately details the ideas behind the series.
FOREGROUND
The MOMENTUMS Series is (was) a mostly-philosophic, pseudo-religious, quasi-scientific approach to, and interpretation of, objectified human reality. The motivating premise is based upon certain evidences that the entirety or wholeness of everything is not a collection of interrelated components. Rather the Universe is a unified, on-going process that, at one and the same time, is neither part of, nor separate from all that is.
The name MOMENTUMS refers to various forms of what might be called, “human inertia”. Cultures and belief systems that, once set in motion, tend to remain consistent and staid. In most cases, social contrivances (governments) resent and resist any changes that directly affect them. In similar context, change itself may represent something that resists inception and implementation. That due to social friction the courses of human events, for long periods, tend to remain static and true to established, well intrenched ideals.
Simultaneously, other and equal aspects of humanity demonstrate a dynamic, ever evolving momentum carrying humanity towards an unpredictable, perhaps spectacular destiny.
The name MOMENTUMS refers to various forms of what might be called, “human inertia”. Cultures and belief systems that, once set in motion, tend to remain consistent and staid. In most cases, social contrivances (governments) resent and resist any changes that directly affect them. In similar context, change itself may represent something that resists inception and implementation. That due to social friction the courses of human events, for long periods, tend to remain static and true to established, well intrenched ideals.
Simultaneously, other and equal aspects of humanity demonstrate a dynamic, ever evolving momentum carrying humanity towards an unpredictable, perhaps spectacular destiny.
MUDDLED GROUND
Much of the thought behind the series derives impetus from combinations of Eastern and Western philosophies. Abstractions that suggest the grammatical conjunction "and" does not and cannot exist between (or separate) things. One is all, all are one. Because language is so limited in its ability to explain such concepts, we are forced to use terms that are less than accurate. Thus “Part Of The Whole” -- the title of the Harp seal painting -- struggles to describe a totality of events rather than portray mere pieces to a puzzle. No thoughts and feelings, as if these were distinct, one from the other. All thinking includes our emotions, all emotions involve our thoughts. We often criticize ourselves unfairly for inappropriate behaviors that we falsely believe sprang from unthinking, impulsive feelings. In reality, we simply choose, for better or worse, one set of thoughts/emotions over another.
Just as the terms space and time frequently and incorrectly include and to separate one from the other (one cannot exist without the other, each is a reflection of the other) the philosophy designed into the MOMENTUMS series grapples with a very human world where space/time, thought/emotion, past/present/future all operate as a simultaneous moment/event. As a single, living, evolving process independent of human perception. That we, as conscious, sentient entities glean, via our physical senses, only a small portion of the “true” reality about us, of the composite states referred to as the noumena of existence. But despite this axiomatic observation, individuals live and work within whole societies based upon beliefs and conclusions which portend to understand and describe the authentic and exact nature of the very universe itself. The idea that flawed premises lead to false conclusions, a common university lesson, is a fundamental axiom which continues to elude the bulk of humanity.
In this context, the term objectivity meaning, “to view from afar” or to witness something without bias or prejudice, is a meaningless word. We cannot remove our minds far enough away, where they do not remain irrevocably influenced by past, experiential limitations. Human brains operate according to past memories and experiences, and are strongly bound by such. Images and things beyond our personal acquaintance are difficult, if not impossible, to fully comprehend. Especially the interrelationships that exist among seemingly disparate elements. The difference between sympathy and empathy.
Our very presence in the world influences what we observe and how we see everything. It affects the outcome of situations where results are estimated, anticipated, and always indeterminate. As concerns the old puzzle about the tree that falls in the forest and whether it makes noise if no one is there to hear it, the event is certainly “heard” when one personally witnesses the fall. But especially because the event is reportable to others not present.
Just as the terms space and time frequently and incorrectly include and to separate one from the other (one cannot exist without the other, each is a reflection of the other) the philosophy designed into the MOMENTUMS series grapples with a very human world where space/time, thought/emotion, past/present/future all operate as a simultaneous moment/event. As a single, living, evolving process independent of human perception. That we, as conscious, sentient entities glean, via our physical senses, only a small portion of the “true” reality about us, of the composite states referred to as the noumena of existence. But despite this axiomatic observation, individuals live and work within whole societies based upon beliefs and conclusions which portend to understand and describe the authentic and exact nature of the very universe itself. The idea that flawed premises lead to false conclusions, a common university lesson, is a fundamental axiom which continues to elude the bulk of humanity.
In this context, the term objectivity meaning, “to view from afar” or to witness something without bias or prejudice, is a meaningless word. We cannot remove our minds far enough away, where they do not remain irrevocably influenced by past, experiential limitations. Human brains operate according to past memories and experiences, and are strongly bound by such. Images and things beyond our personal acquaintance are difficult, if not impossible, to fully comprehend. Especially the interrelationships that exist among seemingly disparate elements. The difference between sympathy and empathy.
Our very presence in the world influences what we observe and how we see everything. It affects the outcome of situations where results are estimated, anticipated, and always indeterminate. As concerns the old puzzle about the tree that falls in the forest and whether it makes noise if no one is there to hear it, the event is certainly “heard” when one personally witnesses the fall. But especially because the event is reportable to others not present.
THE HIGH GROUND
Major societal considerations, such as those that govern the basic welfare of its citizenry, should be social contracts shared by Human Civilization as a whole. Providing for the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as munificent allocations of financial revenues, cannot be left to the personal interpretation of individuals whose views of life (opinions/actions) have been forged by esoteric truths, exaltation, and revelation.
It is precisely our similarities, our mutual needs and desires that bind all people into a singular group, albeit one composed of many different interests and abilities. Further, we should rejoice in the inherited or chosen differences that make each person a unique individual. A person always linked to the Society of Humankind as a whole. But one who is never defined by, or whose identity is dependent upon, a group that for whatever reason, exists as its own authority, responsible to none but its own members.
It is precisely our similarities, our mutual needs and desires that bind all people into a singular group, albeit one composed of many different interests and abilities. Further, we should rejoice in the inherited or chosen differences that make each person a unique individual. A person always linked to the Society of Humankind as a whole. But one who is never defined by, or whose identity is dependent upon, a group that for whatever reason, exists as its own authority, responsible to none but its own members.
GROUNDLESS
Only fully integrated “wholes” comprise what is already complete. Never parts, components, pieces, bits, sections, compartments, intrinsics, essences, particulars, or details. The bolt, useless without a nut. Weapons minus all accompanying munitions, projectiles or other paraphernalia.
Imagine two identical photographs with a single difference. One is full color, the other black and white.
It would be foolish to argue the inherent superiority of one picture over the other based solely on the value of its color or lack thereof. The difference is not one of quality, but of information. Or put another way, of how closely it may approximate our shared view of what is “real”.
Personal taste aside, the color photo is probably more authentic. It captures a realness to which most persons could relate. The black and white photo, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, might well be voted the more beautiful. The black and white pictures by the famous photographer, Amsel Adams, are considered the equal of any shot in color. But which is closer to our concept of reality? Again the color photo contains more information in terms of a wider range of colors and hues. Since our eyes perceive an entire universe of countless colors, the color photo is perhaps the more interesting. But not necessarily.
This does not, however, imply the color picture is better and the black and white an inferior duplicate. Rather, the color version simply displays an additional quantitative value, and not one of a qualitative distinction. The more values we ascertain something to possess, the greater the possibility of our understanding its true nature -- our own as well.
By contrast, suppose a photograph of a modern roller coaster could somehow be shown to a farmer living in medieval Europe. For the befuddled individual in question, this is an example of a situation well outside his realm of experience. How closely does the photo resemble his view of reality? In similar fashion, everyone today comprehends only those portions of the world with which they are already familiar. Every moment of every day we are, like the medieval farmer, surrounded by scenes and sights that remain either invisible or incomprehensible to either our recognition or appreciation.
Imagine two identical photographs with a single difference. One is full color, the other black and white.
It would be foolish to argue the inherent superiority of one picture over the other based solely on the value of its color or lack thereof. The difference is not one of quality, but of information. Or put another way, of how closely it may approximate our shared view of what is “real”.
Personal taste aside, the color photo is probably more authentic. It captures a realness to which most persons could relate. The black and white photo, from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, might well be voted the more beautiful. The black and white pictures by the famous photographer, Amsel Adams, are considered the equal of any shot in color. But which is closer to our concept of reality? Again the color photo contains more information in terms of a wider range of colors and hues. Since our eyes perceive an entire universe of countless colors, the color photo is perhaps the more interesting. But not necessarily.
This does not, however, imply the color picture is better and the black and white an inferior duplicate. Rather, the color version simply displays an additional quantitative value, and not one of a qualitative distinction. The more values we ascertain something to possess, the greater the possibility of our understanding its true nature -- our own as well.
By contrast, suppose a photograph of a modern roller coaster could somehow be shown to a farmer living in medieval Europe. For the befuddled individual in question, this is an example of a situation well outside his realm of experience. How closely does the photo resemble his view of reality? In similar fashion, everyone today comprehends only those portions of the world with which they are already familiar. Every moment of every day we are, like the medieval farmer, surrounded by scenes and sights that remain either invisible or incomprehensible to either our recognition or appreciation.
GROUNDBREAKING
All of the foregoing is for the singular purpose of illustrating how little we really know about what is truly happening around us. Compared to the total number of colors (values of light) in existence, of varying frequencies and wavelengths, our limited eyes register about the same percentage of these as a black and white photo displays the full spectrum of colors normally visible to us. This metaphorical ratio is not an exaggeration and if anything, understates the case.
Also in this context, it might be said that, although engulfed within an infinite variety of colors, we see only in shades of black, white, and gray. An actual rainbow fills the entire sky with its broad bands of numberless hues, yet our restricted sight detects but a narrow arc of dull grays.
Also in this context, it might be said that, although engulfed within an infinite variety of colors, we see only in shades of black, white, and gray. An actual rainbow fills the entire sky with its broad bands of numberless hues, yet our restricted sight detects but a narrow arc of dull grays.
LOSING GROUND
Civilizations continue to be hierarchical because different governments proclaim their ability to see a wider range of colors, a broader spectrum, than is viewable by others. The idea that everyone sees the same rainbow, despite the colors, appears to be a fact lost on -- or ignored by -- most bureaucracies and institutions.
The conflicts and neuroses that arise and are sustained by misconceptions, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings, result in misbehaviors on a massive, often lethal scale. The question remains unanswered -- is perhaps unanswerable -- as to where the many human momentums, in terms of an ever progressive, ever creative, ever destructive lifeform, will ultimately lead.
A “dead-end” for the human race, either self-inflicted or imposed by a natural (geological/cosmological) disaster, remains a distinct probability sooner or later. On a more positive note, the potential of the species is both unlimited and unimaginably glorious. Some form of omnipotence is not an unrealistic prospect. If we can only survive our "infancy". And the tantrums that go with it.
The conflicts and neuroses that arise and are sustained by misconceptions, misinterpretations, and misunderstandings, result in misbehaviors on a massive, often lethal scale. The question remains unanswered -- is perhaps unanswerable -- as to where the many human momentums, in terms of an ever progressive, ever creative, ever destructive lifeform, will ultimately lead.
A “dead-end” for the human race, either self-inflicted or imposed by a natural (geological/cosmological) disaster, remains a distinct probability sooner or later. On a more positive note, the potential of the species is both unlimited and unimaginably glorious. Some form of omnipotence is not an unrealistic prospect. If we can only survive our "infancy". And the tantrums that go with it.
GAINING GROUND
The MOMENTUMS series is a very optimistic appraisal of human foibles. The artworks suggest, by their very nature, their very existence, that a desire for understanding propels the human spirit. That, although greatly different “world views” persist, especially those of a religious nature, most opinions, observations, and beliefs need to be acknowledged as inherently flawed or, at best, incomplete. An understanding (and acceptance) that many strongly held notions require revision via a cohesive melding of all other ideas. Additionally, that this need is essential and self-evident.
Truth is uniquely human in nature, and is subjective and narrow in its definition and description of our World Universe. The only objective truth is change. Certain other philosophic/religious truths involve separate issues better left to politicians and theologians.
Creativity versus an entropic decline into nonexistence. A Black Hole of nothingness versus a material, time-based recycling process of birth, death, rebirth and re-death.
Truth is uniquely human in nature, and is subjective and narrow in its definition and description of our World Universe. The only objective truth is change. Certain other philosophic/religious truths involve separate issues better left to politicians and theologians.
Creativity versus an entropic decline into nonexistence. A Black Hole of nothingness versus a material, time-based recycling process of birth, death, rebirth and re-death.
GROUNDWORK
It is important to note that the original acrylic painting entitled “Part Of The Whole” was irreversibly altered a few years after reproductions were made, both in the form of 2000 unsigned posters and 350 signed, limited edition prints. Furthermore, that the artist Anton changed, significantly and forever, the physical appearance and artistic statement contained in the first rendition of the painting.
The only surviving evidence of this initial version is in the form of the aforementioned posters and prints. Additionally interesting is that a number of the museum-quality prints remained unsigned at the time of Mr. Travis’s passing. Many of the unsold but signed prints are still in the possession of either Robert Anton, the surviving partner, or Carol Travis. Thus two versions of the high quality prints presently exist (are available for sale). Namely those with the signatures of both Ralph Travis and Robert Anton, and those with the signatures of co-producer Anton and, as witness in Ralph’s stead, Carol Travis.
With regard to rarity and scarcity, the remaining posters and prints represent a “limited edition” in the most accurate sense of the term. It is impossible to produce any additional posters or prints identical to those already made. No image exists from which copies can be photographed and printed. Cloning could be attempted, but the results would be less than satisfactory, let alone unethical.
These former “reproductions” are, in actuality, multiple originals that exist in an extremely scarce quantity. They are all that will ever reveal the painting in its original form.
An intriguing sidelight concerns the reason Mr. Travis felt the need to change the painting. His constant, consistent desire to express complex ideas in simple ways had run full course, in that the image of this particular seal pup alone was deemed statement enough. The separate scenes within each of the eyes were then considered redundant and unnecessary. At Ralph’s request, they were painted over and the fur made to appear matted and “wetter”.
The only surviving evidence of this initial version is in the form of the aforementioned posters and prints. Additionally interesting is that a number of the museum-quality prints remained unsigned at the time of Mr. Travis’s passing. Many of the unsold but signed prints are still in the possession of either Robert Anton, the surviving partner, or Carol Travis. Thus two versions of the high quality prints presently exist (are available for sale). Namely those with the signatures of both Ralph Travis and Robert Anton, and those with the signatures of co-producer Anton and, as witness in Ralph’s stead, Carol Travis.
With regard to rarity and scarcity, the remaining posters and prints represent a “limited edition” in the most accurate sense of the term. It is impossible to produce any additional posters or prints identical to those already made. No image exists from which copies can be photographed and printed. Cloning could be attempted, but the results would be less than satisfactory, let alone unethical.
These former “reproductions” are, in actuality, multiple originals that exist in an extremely scarce quantity. They are all that will ever reveal the painting in its original form.
An intriguing sidelight concerns the reason Mr. Travis felt the need to change the painting. His constant, consistent desire to express complex ideas in simple ways had run full course, in that the image of this particular seal pup alone was deemed statement enough. The separate scenes within each of the eyes were then considered redundant and unnecessary. At Ralph’s request, they were painted over and the fur made to appear matted and “wetter”.
For The Unrepentant, Materialistic Entreprenuer
Normally the value of multiple originals as defined by the “art world” at large, command much higher prestige and prices than an equivalent multitude of photo-mechanical reproductions, which can be printed in unlimited numbers. The stated promise (albeit printed but equally meaningless) of an artist, art dealer, or gallery is usually the only guarantee a buyer (investor) is granted as regards the limited aspect of his or her purchase. With regard to posters or inexpensive prints, no promise of any kind is customarily required, due to the cheap nature of the product. But what about posters that capture an image of something which no longer exists? The question of value is not so easily answered or dismissed.
Whatever values are ultimately established for these specific prints and posters, they represent a fascinating and rare collection -- eggs for which no chicken exists -- where the parent work has been lost, destroyed, or permanently altered. Many collectors will certainly appreciate the fact that, upon ownership, they do not simply possess a copy of another person’s original painting.
Whatever values are ultimately established for these specific prints and posters, they represent a fascinating and rare collection -- eggs for which no chicken exists -- where the parent work has been lost, destroyed, or permanently altered. Many collectors will certainly appreciate the fact that, upon ownership, they do not simply possess a copy of another person’s original painting.
FOR THE WELL GROUNDED
Although the MOMENTUMS series was not completed, the collection was never conceived to have a precise ending point. Various ideas were often discussed about how to best display the paintings in the event of a public or gallery showing. Likely some form of media or medium that would metaphorically connect all the themes of all the paintings together.
Strong in our mutual belief that art alone never changed anyone’s mind about anything, let alone impact a whole culture, and that artistic works were and are always a product, the sum of civilization, never its inspiration, the chief goal of the series was to provoke thought and conversation. Especially in adding to a person’s internal dialogue, and perhaps create a question where only an assumption of truth existed prior.
In a final analysis, the series was overly ambitious and perchance slightly arrogant. A noble effort that did not require correctness to secure its virtue.
Regardless of a final verdict that, in the future, judges the series as a compendium of classic works or allows them to wither on the trash-heap of forgotten mediocrity, the paintings endure as a tribute to compromise and cooperation between two, diverse personalities. That what was accomplished on such a small scale could, just maybe, in the absence of stubborn attachments to obsolete absolutes, be a cause for hope. A hope that, for the benefit of all, humankind itself should endure. Overly ambitious being an understatement.
Robert Anton (about 1999)
Strong in our mutual belief that art alone never changed anyone’s mind about anything, let alone impact a whole culture, and that artistic works were and are always a product, the sum of civilization, never its inspiration, the chief goal of the series was to provoke thought and conversation. Especially in adding to a person’s internal dialogue, and perhaps create a question where only an assumption of truth existed prior.
In a final analysis, the series was overly ambitious and perchance slightly arrogant. A noble effort that did not require correctness to secure its virtue.
Regardless of a final verdict that, in the future, judges the series as a compendium of classic works or allows them to wither on the trash-heap of forgotten mediocrity, the paintings endure as a tribute to compromise and cooperation between two, diverse personalities. That what was accomplished on such a small scale could, just maybe, in the absence of stubborn attachments to obsolete absolutes, be a cause for hope. A hope that, for the benefit of all, humankind itself should endure. Overly ambitious being an understatement.
Robert Anton (about 1999)
Fig. 1. Part Of The Whole. 1981. Acrylic on canvas.
The following essay was penned by Robert Anton (me) in 1990. The commentary represented my strong feeling that literary, philosophical presentations should accompany the artworks created for the MOMENTUMS series. A non-collaborative piece of writing, this particular compositon was designed to encourage Ralph Travis to write his own personal thoughts about individual paintings and the series as a whole.
Unfortunately, Ralph was a man of few words, though he read voluminously and had great respect for the ideas of many thinkers. Perhaps a reluctance to detail the notions contained in art whose themes already bore his own sweat and tears, sprang from a distaste for explaining what he perceived as the verbally unexplainable. That imperfect words might lessen the impact of a universal visual medium.
Upon reading this particular essay, Ralph gave it his tacit approval and proclaimed the work as “interesting”.
e5
THE COMPLEX FACE OF SIMPLICITY
A Brief Observation On Alternative Ways Of Seeing
Title: Part Of The Whole
An Original Painting
by
Robert Anton & Ralph Travis
-----------------------------
Original Unaltered Version
-----------------------------
From The Series:
M O M E N T U M S
Copyright ©1980–1990
Anton / Travis Co-Productions
Title: Part Of The Whole
An Original Painting
by
Robert Anton & Ralph Travis
-----------------------------
Original Unaltered Version
-----------------------------
From The Series:
M O M E N T U M S
Copyright ©1980–1990
Anton / Travis Co-Productions
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."
-- Dr. Carl Sagan
For those interested:
Q: What is wrong with this painting?
Fig. 2.
While the reader ponders what, at first glance, may seem a rhetorical question, a quick update is necessary.
The limited edition, signed prints and limited-run posters are all that remain of how this particular painting appeared at the time of its initial reproduction. For all intents and purposes, the original image no longer exists. The artwork itself was extensively reworked and altered, including both major and minor changes. This was done for three reasons:
1) It was decided that the painting itself should be updated to reflect the social-political resolution to the triangular scenario portrayed by the seal pup as a whole, and the separate images contained in its eyes. The face of the animal alone was deemed sufficient for representing the issues involved.
2) The first edition, signed prints, and unsigned posters already produced would serve as a forever-limited aesthetic -- albeit commercial -- product. The only surviving evidence of a preexisting work. Due to this forced scarcity and the virtual loss of the original painting, the monetary value of all such prints is, in theory, greatly enhanced.
3) That future reproductions of the "new" original painting are henceforth possible without diluting the integrity of the previous edition. That each of the two separate images can exist as a historical complement, one to the other.
So then, to repeat to the question, what is wrong with the painting? With either its content or context? Or maybe its message, if any?
This question is not concerned, first of all, with a right or wrong answer. Were a value judgment sought, it would be an easy task to separate opinions into at least two conflicting camps, such is the controversy of the subject matter. But suppose for a moment that a substitution of objects were superimposed over the painting, replacing its various elements with very different images.
Instead of the seal pup, the face of a prehistoric, generic dinosaur now filled the picture. The eye on the left contains a smoke-belching oil refinery. Within the right eye, an exhaust-spewing automobile. The title of this imaginary painting is “Part Of The Whole”. Sound familiar?
Question: Would this version of the painting have been viewed differently in the 1950’s rather than today? In the 1940’s, the 1960’s?
Nowadays, few would have difficulty accepting or understanding the congruent elements of the dinosaur version. Older children especially would recognize the cause and effect relationship portrayed by the scene. A leap of reasoning might even suggest that if the problems of air pollution and fossil fuel consumption are not soon resolved, Mankind could come to the same end as the dinosaurs -- extinct!
This dinosaur formula is proposed as a clue towards seeing in a different (though not necessarily better) way. One possible solution to the query over what is wrong with the painting may lie in a re-phrasing of the question itself.
The limited edition, signed prints and limited-run posters are all that remain of how this particular painting appeared at the time of its initial reproduction. For all intents and purposes, the original image no longer exists. The artwork itself was extensively reworked and altered, including both major and minor changes. This was done for three reasons:
1) It was decided that the painting itself should be updated to reflect the social-political resolution to the triangular scenario portrayed by the seal pup as a whole, and the separate images contained in its eyes. The face of the animal alone was deemed sufficient for representing the issues involved.
2) The first edition, signed prints, and unsigned posters already produced would serve as a forever-limited aesthetic -- albeit commercial -- product. The only surviving evidence of a preexisting work. Due to this forced scarcity and the virtual loss of the original painting, the monetary value of all such prints is, in theory, greatly enhanced.
3) That future reproductions of the "new" original painting are henceforth possible without diluting the integrity of the previous edition. That each of the two separate images can exist as a historical complement, one to the other.
So then, to repeat to the question, what is wrong with the painting? With either its content or context? Or maybe its message, if any?
This question is not concerned, first of all, with a right or wrong answer. Were a value judgment sought, it would be an easy task to separate opinions into at least two conflicting camps, such is the controversy of the subject matter. But suppose for a moment that a substitution of objects were superimposed over the painting, replacing its various elements with very different images.
Instead of the seal pup, the face of a prehistoric, generic dinosaur now filled the picture. The eye on the left contains a smoke-belching oil refinery. Within the right eye, an exhaust-spewing automobile. The title of this imaginary painting is “Part Of The Whole”. Sound familiar?
Question: Would this version of the painting have been viewed differently in the 1950’s rather than today? In the 1940’s, the 1960’s?
Nowadays, few would have difficulty accepting or understanding the congruent elements of the dinosaur version. Older children especially would recognize the cause and effect relationship portrayed by the scene. A leap of reasoning might even suggest that if the problems of air pollution and fossil fuel consumption are not soon resolved, Mankind could come to the same end as the dinosaurs -- extinct!
This dinosaur formula is proposed as a clue towards seeing in a different (though not necessarily better) way. One possible solution to the query over what is wrong with the painting may lie in a re-phrasing of the question itself.
What is missing in the painting? Is it incomplete?
If the mental jump is made such that the “Whole” of the title refers to more than the mere sum of the painting’s constituent parts, an interesting perspective is possible. A certain school-of-thought holds as its premise, that no ongoing process exists within a vacuum. That everything resides in context with everything else, and all things derive their meaning and value from that same context. Everything affects and is affected by, all that is.
The Harp seal controversy remains noteworthy and newsworthy because it conflicts with the contemporary “world views” of most first and second-world societies, only one of which involves added pressures on stressed ecological systems. The dilemma in question soon spreads into the public consciousness. An awareness that tends to divide and alienate people not just along socio-economic lines, but philosophical ones as well.
One interpretation of what might be missing from the painting is a totality of all the elements that are either directly or indirectly, affected by the three parts of the overall image. Regardless of different personal opinions concerning the Harp seal situation, all might agree with the position that something is somewhat askew with the whole affair. Something seems out-of-sync with the general flow of sympathies felt by an increasingly concerned citizenry.
Just as determinations tend to dwell on whether proposed solutions to problems in-progress are right or wrong, rather than focus solely on end results, assessments need not be necessarily positive or negative. It is always the case that many ingredients are involved, numerous and differing, but equally valid points of view, such that few if any participants experience complete or enduring satisfaction.
In further regard to the Harp seal impasse, jobs are at stake, and impotant to native men and women with families. On the other side of the world, furriers were vandalized, threatened, with many forced out of business altogether. Simultaneously great strides were made in the campaign for animal rights, and the general public grew more aware of international ecological concerns. Ultimately, however, all are moot issues better left to activists adroit at debating the pros and cons of human tribulations. It was never the wild-eyed notion that a single painting (or a hundred of them) should propose the resolution to anything.
Another well known problem has long persisted for artists. On occasion, some have attempted to overcome -- even solve -- the enigma in question. But only to be frustrated in their endeavor.
The inability of artists to include themselves within their artworks, to reveal the person engaged in the creative process itself, represents a significant flaw inherent to all artistic expression. It was for this very reason that Bob felt a literary component, written by the artists themselves, would be a helpful adjunct to viewers of the MOMENTUMS series.
If an artist could paint the entire universe, could include everything he or she saw or might imagine, the painter would still remain outside the canvas. Even should the artist render their own physical image into the work, they will always remain the detached renderer. In this context, everything is part-of-the-whole.
Among the long list of intrinsic limitations shared by all humans, one in particular deserves emphasis as part of this commentary. That no matter the depth of thought, the expanse of insight, the passion in our behavior, the thinkers and seers and doers exist forever removed from a consummate appreciation for all the stuff that is happening around them. That what we so casually refer to as "reality" is merely a thin slice, not even a whole piece, of all that is going on.
In conclusion, it is hoped that all the paintings, prints, and posters of the Anton/Travis MOMENTUMS series might be scrutinized (and judged) by virtue of the same alternative perspectives that were designed into the artworks themselves. Certainly that no great wisdom or preachy truths were ever the intent. In some sense, the painting Part Of The Whole serves as an example of the methodology used while producing the series. Where much effort was aimed at keeping analysis critical, but agendas minimal.
So what's wrong with the painting? One answer might well be the posing of yet another query: “How does one make a painting from scratch?”
The Harp seal controversy remains noteworthy and newsworthy because it conflicts with the contemporary “world views” of most first and second-world societies, only one of which involves added pressures on stressed ecological systems. The dilemma in question soon spreads into the public consciousness. An awareness that tends to divide and alienate people not just along socio-economic lines, but philosophical ones as well.
One interpretation of what might be missing from the painting is a totality of all the elements that are either directly or indirectly, affected by the three parts of the overall image. Regardless of different personal opinions concerning the Harp seal situation, all might agree with the position that something is somewhat askew with the whole affair. Something seems out-of-sync with the general flow of sympathies felt by an increasingly concerned citizenry.
Just as determinations tend to dwell on whether proposed solutions to problems in-progress are right or wrong, rather than focus solely on end results, assessments need not be necessarily positive or negative. It is always the case that many ingredients are involved, numerous and differing, but equally valid points of view, such that few if any participants experience complete or enduring satisfaction.
In further regard to the Harp seal impasse, jobs are at stake, and impotant to native men and women with families. On the other side of the world, furriers were vandalized, threatened, with many forced out of business altogether. Simultaneously great strides were made in the campaign for animal rights, and the general public grew more aware of international ecological concerns. Ultimately, however, all are moot issues better left to activists adroit at debating the pros and cons of human tribulations. It was never the wild-eyed notion that a single painting (or a hundred of them) should propose the resolution to anything.
Another well known problem has long persisted for artists. On occasion, some have attempted to overcome -- even solve -- the enigma in question. But only to be frustrated in their endeavor.
The inability of artists to include themselves within their artworks, to reveal the person engaged in the creative process itself, represents a significant flaw inherent to all artistic expression. It was for this very reason that Bob felt a literary component, written by the artists themselves, would be a helpful adjunct to viewers of the MOMENTUMS series.
If an artist could paint the entire universe, could include everything he or she saw or might imagine, the painter would still remain outside the canvas. Even should the artist render their own physical image into the work, they will always remain the detached renderer. In this context, everything is part-of-the-whole.
Among the long list of intrinsic limitations shared by all humans, one in particular deserves emphasis as part of this commentary. That no matter the depth of thought, the expanse of insight, the passion in our behavior, the thinkers and seers and doers exist forever removed from a consummate appreciation for all the stuff that is happening around them. That what we so casually refer to as "reality" is merely a thin slice, not even a whole piece, of all that is going on.
In conclusion, it is hoped that all the paintings, prints, and posters of the Anton/Travis MOMENTUMS series might be scrutinized (and judged) by virtue of the same alternative perspectives that were designed into the artworks themselves. Certainly that no great wisdom or preachy truths were ever the intent. In some sense, the painting Part Of The Whole serves as an example of the methodology used while producing the series. Where much effort was aimed at keeping analysis critical, but agendas minimal.
So what's wrong with the painting? One answer might well be the posing of yet another query: “How does one make a painting from scratch?”
Copyright ©1990
Anton/Travis Co-Productions / Series MOMENTUMS
Anton/Travis Co-Productions / Series MOMENTUMS
Fig. 3. Certificate for the limited edition series.
|
Fig. 4. Postcards (before folding)
|
Evolution of a Logo
Shown below are the preliminary sketches that were intended to produce a single, finished design. Since Ralph and I were equal partners, the completed logo had to be something with which we both could live. Worthy of interest is how, in the end, a sudden leap was made from all the previous drawings and we went directly into the final version centered below the rest. It's funny how things work themselves out sometimes. I think my other favorite was the infinity symbol broken into two parts: an "m" and its shadow.
Fig. 5.
|
Fig. 6.
|
Fig. 7.
|
Fig. 9.
|
Fig. 10.
|
Fig. 11.
This was also a nice design that I liked a lot. Ralph did, too.
|
Fig. 12.
|
Fig. 13.
|
Fig. 14.
|
Fig. 15.
|
Fig. 16.
|
Fig. 17.
|
Fig. 18.
|
Fig. 18a.
|
The final designs. The man and woman are adapted from
the drawings etched into the record which was placed
with the Voyager spacecraft on its journey into space.
Note the hummingbird inside the whale.
Speaking of whales...
the drawings etched into the record which was placed
with the Voyager spacecraft on its journey into space.
Note the hummingbird inside the whale.
Speaking of whales...
Captain Paul Watson & The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
Credit: animalplanet.com
|
Fig. 19.
|
Credit: animalplanet.com
|
"We know what we're doing to the whales. But what are we doing to ourselves?"
-- Paul Watson, 1987
Fig. 20.
It's not about whales. It's about everything and everyone on the planet. Questioning how we treat our fellow creatures who share an equal invitation to inhabit the Earth, is inexorably tied to our humanity, and ultimately to our survival as a species. This is also the story of a brief but fruitful collaborative relationship that grew out of the Harp seal painting. How a young Paul Watson and his new Society were struggling to acquire funds in their effort to thwart both whaling and the skinning of Harp seal pups as part of the fur industry.
When presented with the option to use Ralph Travis and Robert Anton's (MOMENTUMS) image of the seal pup, Paul and his people welcomed the opportunity and enthusiastically adopted the artwork as an official fund-raising tool. Via the sale of posters, prints, buttons and tee-shirts, which will be displayed here, thousands of dollars were raised that helped defray the high cost of fuel and other expenses while sailing on the high seas looking for whalers. Yes, these are the same people who are now on TV with their own show, Whale Wars. It was fun (and exciting) working with Loretta Swit (of MASH fame) who was also involved at the time and a big supporter of the slogan, "Real people wear fake fur." It's an interesting whale of a tale that includes some fascinating background trivia that fans of the show (or those familiar with it) might find both entertaining and informative. How sad a commentary is it that, after all these years, some countries still hunt these magnificent creatures? The question is entirely rhetorical.
When presented with the option to use Ralph Travis and Robert Anton's (MOMENTUMS) image of the seal pup, Paul and his people welcomed the opportunity and enthusiastically adopted the artwork as an official fund-raising tool. Via the sale of posters, prints, buttons and tee-shirts, which will be displayed here, thousands of dollars were raised that helped defray the high cost of fuel and other expenses while sailing on the high seas looking for whalers. Yes, these are the same people who are now on TV with their own show, Whale Wars. It was fun (and exciting) working with Loretta Swit (of MASH fame) who was also involved at the time and a big supporter of the slogan, "Real people wear fake fur." It's an interesting whale of a tale that includes some fascinating background trivia that fans of the show (or those familiar with it) might find both entertaining and informative. How sad a commentary is it that, after all these years, some countries still hunt these magnificent creatures? The question is entirely rhetorical.
Fig. 21. An original button from the early days.
|
Fig. 22. March, 2004; the slaughter still continues.
|
Fig. 23.
Hundreds of these buttons were sold,
along with tee-shirts and posters. It was a proud time for me. |
Fig. 24. Other artists' prints were sold, also.
|
Fig. 25. Paul's original business card.
Fig. 26. Early cover of the merchandise catalog.
|
Fig. 27. The Society's original donation receipt.
|
Fig. 28. Paul looks like a troublemaker.
Making trouble for bullies! 1982.
|
Fig. 29. March 25, 1983.
|
Fig. 30. March 27, 1983.
|
Fig. 31. Announcement flyer said it all.
|
Fig. 32. Our shirt among others. Cool.
|
Fig. 33. The classic bumper sticker from the 1980's.
Fig. 35. A woman's or young girl's tee. Very cool.
|
Fig. 34. Credit: acsonline.org (american cetacean society)
|
where went the great whales
where the dolphins and the fish
where went the people
haiku by Lindsey Jane / Australia / 2015
Godspeed (and long live) Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd Society.
Fig. 36. Finding humor in tragedy; sometimes it's laugh or cry.
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU3
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
On page NOU4, the current status of
the ill-fated MOMENTUMS Series is
explored in detail. A real-life mystery
tale complete with pictures.
the ill-fated MOMENTUMS Series is
explored in detail. A real-life mystery
tale complete with pictures.
