A Case for Complex Aesthetics - from Cheryl Penn

[Marie Wintzer]

I knew Cheryl was working on this boekie and it kept me waiting in excitement. I wanted to see what the Arthur Rimbaud Symbolist School of Subtle Aesthetic Obscurity (now the School for Complex Aesthetics) was really about. I enrolled in the School quite a while ago, without knowing much about it, just because everything that is coming out of it has a very strong appeal to me.

Reading this book is a little bit like watching the master at work. We follow her into the studio and we learn how she works. When touching the cover, we imagine the meter(s) long painting, the picture shaping up layer after layer, and we see her cutting it up into pieces when it is dry (or not) :-)) (the cover is a piece from a large painting depicting Complexity, one of the Women Who Hold Up the World).

The building blocks of the School are all there, dissected out to the smallest word. Complexity is broken down and laid on the table. This to me is one of the essentials and basics of Cheryl's work. Getting to the bone of a concept, stripping it of its multiple layers. And then it's all hers. With those building blocks in hand, she can now re-do at will. 

Painting on maps or printing on paint are two examples of these processes. Maybe the easiest to understand and to apply? Chopping up huge paintings and thick, labor intensive artist books might be other examples. On the photos for this blog I have included two of Cheryl's cards (the orange ones) because I think they make an excellent Case for the School. They came with a note saying "This is a piece of large painting I cut up. I'm thinking about how we make decisions when we don't have all the facts, or when we think we understand what the situation is, but we don't know the full picture. When we only have a piece, we think we know the whole?". This is classic SSSAO, IMHO :-))

Do Aesthetics naturally derive from these processes? I'm not sure. They probably don't. Finding an interesting concept and extracting ideas from it is one thing. Building again and turning it into a piece of work that is also aesthetically pleasing is much more difficult. I know, because I am very often struggling with this part of the creative activity. But this is why we have schools, to learn from the masters!

On the same line of thought, can Simplicity derive from Complexity by the action of tearing down and re-capturing? I think this was mentioned on De Villo's blog about this same book, and I can't remember what we concluded, but it is definitely something I would like to put up for debate. Where to now? says the last page. Invert, Reverse, Back... in other words, restart, begin again. The Circuitous Nature of Aesthetics.
Thank you for this amazing book Cheryl, the essence of your work is all in there and I will go back to it very often!

[cheryl penn]

I have been reading a lot lately about the difference between seeing and looking. The interesting part – some people say – if you look, you will never find because you are approaching something with an idea.  For me that is EXACTLY the reason WHY you find.  Ideas, Memes, are all around – we access them to create.  Aesthetics too is of course a HUGE variable.  Interestingly there has also been much analysis in the linking of aesthetics, information processing and information theory. Co-creatives – FOR SURE!  De Villo - yes! :-) X

[De Villo Sloan]

When I tackled this book for the first time, I tried to find a quote by Walt Whitman. I think it's in "Song of Myself" and about this exact cyclical quality of building in complexity, shedding to simplicity, and then the process building up again. I think it reflect's Cheryl's core theme for the book.

[cheryl penn]

Hey Lisa – nice to see you here :-)  – the unexamined life is not worth living – GREAT quote! I had forgotten that one.  Marie – yes, I see what you’re saying – I DO tend to see the whole process as one continuous action. Dissection and reconstruction – and I use these terms in their positively creative sense are creative acts – not so?  The act of aestheticizing them – I see that as an extension of the acts by the artist.   They flow into each other?  To SEE – not just to look, is to de-construct I think? To take apart something complex and break it into simpler parts? That I think is the way to find essence? Moving from the forest to the single tree and back again. I suppose this boekie was about aestheticizing process mostly.That process is complex - you know my main 'trade' is in ideas :-)  Intuition. Another vital element.  I don't think it is by accident that many great artists ultimately conclude their careers with minimal abstraction.  The complexity they bring is inherent - it is many years of work, refining and process in one single, simple brushstroke?    :-) X

[Marie Wintzer]

Thanks DVS. Reading the comment it just came back to me that the Book of Ether (remember that one?) is part of the Book of Mormon. It deals with the confusion of languages, the Tower of Babel, also a central element in SSSAO I believe, and not a coincidence.

Lisa I think you may have got it! wow...

[De Villo Sloan]

I meant to write: A new, artistic "Book of Mormon" for our time - likely to inspire a return to minimalism on a massive scale.

[Marie Wintzer]

Extra special treatment = for extra special boekies :-)) Glad you like it!

Yes, I would like to discuss this. For sure. And the School WILL remain in business. The way I see this is that Aethetics are not inherent to the rest of the process. They do no simply occur just by unmaking and redoing (and all the other mechanisms of dissection and reconstruction). It's something additional, you have to bring it yourself. So I see it as two different pots :-)) And the concept of going towards simplicity via complexity is also rather difficult to grab. But I think I see that it is "not impossible" :-)) I need to think about it a bit more.....

[cheryl penn]

Hey Marie - wow - great blog!!! - As usual :-) - REALLY glad we're friends! It means I'm entitled to extra special treatment in this department :-). De Villo said he did not think the book was about aesthetics - its COMPLETELY about aesthetics to me - well, my branch anyway :-). I think one comes intimately to simplicity via complexity? I know that sounds like a contradiction - you're prepared to discuss this? I want the School to remain in business!!   :-)) XXX

[Marie Wintzer]

Complexity