Robert Berry

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

Aesthetic appreciation

Although some people have little knowledge of structure in form, they have a natural propensity for recognizing the aesthetic qualities in art, so to some extent, whether they are aware or not, they understand structure objectively and identify with its fractal content. In other words, the overall promotion of aesthetic appreciation is linked to an objective understanding of form. From an artist’s point of view, the elements of volume and plain – among other considerations within the fractal order, such as rhythm, spatial relationships and gamut – contributing to the basic structure of form, are a method of coming to terms with the objective merits of a subject’s shape and its potential aesthetic value. A dialogue between objectivity and subjectivity is taking place. As an artist it is my intention to imbue the forms in my paintings with an objective quality that will hopefully emit to the viewer, through subjective means, the aesthetic essence of the subject.

Conceptual art

‘Conceptual’ is the broad term given to the majority of contemporary art we are experiencing today. In conceptual art, the idea or ‘concept’ is considered the most important aspect of a work. In many instances its role is to expound popular intellectualism – to make a moral point or subversive statement – and often relies on visual shock to get its point across, not necessarily the quality of its two or three dimensional images. Aesthetics, in turn, is often left out of the equation. In fact an anti-aestheticism is often required to achieve the desired affect. Beauty is, in this instance, an ugly word.

Does this mean exponents of conceptual art are opposed to beauty or aestheticism? Even hostile towards it? If conceptualism is considered to represent the direction visual art is heading nowadays, where does this leave aesthetics? Perhaps time will tell, for there certainly seems to be something missing here – maybe a general refinement of perception? In academic circles, writes John Armstrong, Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Melbourne, aesthetics has fallen out of fashion “because it seeks to cultivate sensitivity rather than impart technical knowledge,” (Here’s Looking at You, Weekend Australian Review, June2-3, 2008). Indeed, there are many academics, as well as gallery directors and art critics, who regard the figuratively ‘obvious’ as old fashioned and lacking in subjective meaning. Perhaps it is they who lack the ability to objectively read the structure in figurative art, or are just commercially biased. Either way their aesthetic perception and subjective relationship to the work is impaired. Has the modern audience of visual art lost its ability to see beyond the surface; to experience the aesthetics that a work of art is capable of offering? Or have artists themselves lost their ability to impart an aesthetic essence through their creations? Probably the blame is equally shared, for twentieth century audiences and artists alike may have been steadily imbued with this indifference by the rather materialistic circumstances of our time. Is our tolerance for bathos growing along with global warming?

Order in the Chaos

Going back to student days … a particular lecture I attended, by Artist and Art Historian Ian Armstrong, was probably the most influential of all for me in four years at art school. It was a lecture about drawn movement in paint which emphasized drawing structure and the Renaissance concept of ‘relating bodies in space’, citing artists such as Rembrandt and Titian as some of the major exponents. I was truly ‘blown away’ by it, so at the first chance I visited the Victorian Art Gallery – not far away – to experience for myself work that had relevance to these concepts. There were many, but one in particular stood out; a small Rembrandt painting of a middle-aged man (I forget the title). A strong presence from 300 years past, and the structure was evident, but there was something else in that painterly texture, a subjective force perhaps, almost spiritual.

Jackson Pollocks Blue Poles was also in the Victorian Art Gallery at that time. Looking at this painting, with its heavily impastoed surface, I was surprised to find myself experiencing a strong aesthetic reaction to it, similar to the emotion I had experienced with the Rembrandt. How could this be? Two artists, so far apart in time and concept, one figurative, the other abstract. Was there something in both of their methods that linked them together – a common ground?

Fractals—The Fingerprints of Nature

It wasn’t until some years later, in 1998, that some of those questions were answered. Dr Richard Taylor, then at the University of New South Wales researching Nano technology, chaos theory and its fractal content, conducted an experiment with Blue Poles. The results were astounding proof of a strong fractal content within Pollock’s painting method, showing that Blue Poles, when examined in its various layers of successive construction, was loaded with relative fractal shapes and movement, or what the father of fractal theory, Benoît Mandelbrot termed ‘the fingerprints of nature’- the ‘new aesthetics’. Fractals are a result of chaos, and virtually all matter has its own endemic fractal content; its own fractal order. I believe we see this content within relativity, rhythm, spatial balance, poetry of form, and so on. We mightn’t know why, but we are attracted by this order, and I have no doubt that my attraction to Pollock’s painting was for this reason. I also believe that within the genius of Rembrandt the ‘something else’ that could explain the spiritual force I felt, was most likely a hidden fractal content, deep within the gamut of his painting process.

These observations and thoughts have become a major part of my painting concept. The practical methods of relating bodies in space and the relevant drawn movement in paint used by some Renaissance artists, can also be utilized today, to great advantage. Through surface texture they demonstrate a visible structure, and therefore a strong notional space: a directional texture not just thrown on the canvas for its sake, but with the added purpose of assisting and showing structure of form. The fractal content, though, is always at the root of my creative thought. I can visualize it within the environment, and composing forms on canvas is strongly aligned with this phenomena. The subjects I choose to paint, their individual rhythms and spatial orders, all have bearing on this content. The way the design relates to the shape of the canvas is also crucial, taking into account the Euclidian Golden Mean or Cut and its overall geometric gamut of dynamic symmetry, also within the framework of the fractal, as described by Mandelbrot. The 1:1.618 ratio of the Whirling Square Rectangle, for example, with its capacity to revolve around its Pole indefinitely in a shell-like spiral, relates strongly to Mandelbrot’s computer-generated fractal shape, forever reproducing itself into infinity. I feel the relativity and magnificence of it all and try to imbue this feeling in my work. I can only hope that it is recognized and enjoyed by others.

All should know, that within the apparent chaos of wilderness, there is a beautiful, seemingly random order that is both aesthetically and mathematically intrinsic to all subject matter; an incredible living phenomena, self-sufficient in the extreme, in which we humans are so very fortunate very fortunate to exist.

Return to About the Work