Four 0f Nine


Ingrid & the Bear


Artist are famous for writing Manifestoes; I have written "poetie", not poetic manifestos. I've written them and then posted those Poetie manifestos online back in the Days of AOL and Yahoo!GeoCities Which was a web hosting service that some people called geo shitties.


Ingrid criticised that those 'manifestie' writings were circular.

That I had some subject to begin with that circled around in the story or explanation back to the subject that it began with.


I read this statement on a website "The way you express yourself with words is a crucial extension of your creative identity."


I do write, but it is not the first choice of expression, being as I am a visual artist. So the writing about Art is not the art nor the crucial extension of the creative identity but a forced subjugation.

Imagine that you are a writer but no one would take your writing seriously unless you were an accomplished musician. Or that you were a musician but remained unappreciated until you created an image.


And no, that is not an argument to not use words to explain origins whether Music or visual art. Words become crucial because the symbolism of letters and speech in a culture is generally learned by all of us as children. But visual symbolism developed by individuals can be a mystery.

Once at an Opening at M.O.C.A. The Museum of Contemporary Art in Washington D.C.

a collector asked me while pointing at an art work of mine. "what does it mean?" I will put the image into your head.

Imagine a brightly lit art gallery, it's opening night and artworks are presented in the Salon style Hanging. That's multiple small art works from gallery member artist displayed on the wall. So he, the collector is a rickety old guy smartly dressed in a fine gray suit with a younger woman perhaps a relation beside him and the Gallery owner "Clark", dressed in a well worn black polyester sports jacket standing between them and I.

"What does it mean?" he ask, and I, was unable to say what it was or to formulate even a lie as to what it was meant to be. In other words although I felt emotional and intellectual significance to the image and it's symbolism, I was unable to translate that into words that contemporary writers and art educators strive to make part of fine Arts. I was and to them am in many ways not unlike a cave man from prehistory spitting self made symbols on a wall.


But of course I'm not a caveman and the symbolism becomes clear when a body of work is revealed.


This painting is called, Ingrid & the Bear.

Ingrid is my wife but that has nothing if not everything to do with the painting and I am of course the Bear.


The painting in the genres of western culture is a variation of Beauty and the beast a retelling of a classical myth, the story of Cupid and Psyche ...the painting has it's contemporary manifestations in "Loving vs. Virginia, 388 U.S.1 (1967), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down laws banning interracial marriage as violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution."


Ingrid says I painted this one after a particularly nasty rile between us. I hesitate to say I was the cupid she threatened to cut the head off of.

I often equate the painting to be representative of our sometimes sandy relations due to race.


Ingrid & the Bear, as an extension of my creative identity - it becomes pretty fleshed out, as I have described it in this blog.


{"What does it mean?" he ask, and I, unable to say what it was or to formulate even a lie as to what it was meant to be.} is a consequence of a manifesto mindset, the painting is it's own meaning


But after years of contemplation it means so much more and remains open to further contemplation and the symbolism we have all already learned

3 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All