The Small Attempt of a Manifest

Philosophism as an Art Form

THST 07

Personal Explanation

This manifest is an attempt. No more and no less. An attempt to express what seems to be hardly expressible. An attempt that shall not in any way importune or instruct anyone, not even myself. Whether or not the attempt will succeed, will be subject to everyone’s own opinion. It is an attempt, which, in fact, cannot be anything else than what it is right now: an attempt. No more and no less.

I hereby declare that I have not written this text entirely myself, that I have not duly acknowledged the used literature or sources and that I have by no means quoted them in a verifiable way. I am also not aware that the violation of these rules will lead to any consequences since I did this intentionally and in the framework of an artistic work.

            THST 07

Philosophism

1. 

Philosophism is a term I will present not in a “new“ but in a “newly interpreted” way.

By means of this paper, I intend to explain and present my concept of philosophism, which consists of three symbols, as well as the developments that go along with it in more detail. The question of how or why someone can or should be able to affiliate with philosophism will also be part of this text. For a long time, there was neither a name for the immanent symbols of my philosophism nor a specific colouring, let alone a content that could be entirely and clearly defined – and probably this is still not the case. It is a work in progress, a development that goes hand in hand with a lot of time, work and the constant questioning of art, religion, and life per se. There are recurrent symbols that have evolved into what I wish to call “philosophism” today. I consider the three symbols I have developed in this regard, together with their colours and their presumed contents, placeholders for “something” that I engage in, and, at best, these “three” should be re-recognised in my work or lead to a “picture language”, which might be interpreted and applied in the most diverse ways. In the broadest of senses, this means that philosophism is all about reducing. About finding the most essential things that describe life, and to then newly position and associate them with each other. For me, this is a way of re-discovering content, which is open to interpretation and provides various raisons d’être (of religious, philosophical and even atheistical nature). (I am not taking about newly-discovering, but in fact about re-discovering. This distinction is very important because philosophism’s expandable foundation pillars have always existed, whether in paintings, photographs, or sculptures as well as individually or in conjunction with each other)

So, this is philosophism as I present, denominate, and interpret it. And seeing that this denomination takes up such a prominent place, I want to start with a simple decomposition of the word to find out what it might be all about.

According to the literal Greek translation, philosophy means "love of wisdom".

In contrast to other sciences, the scope of philosophy is not limited. Generally speaking, one could describe philosophy as an attempt to self-examine thinking in a critical rational way, or as a methodical reflection directed at an all-embracing interpretation of the world and of human existence. Every attempt to define the term “philosophy” or to confine the field of philosophy is already a subject matter of philosophy itself. With the suffix –ism words are formed through derivation. They often denote abstract terms, belief systems, teachings, ideologies or currents of thought in history, science or art. Since the isms often denote the followers of a movement, the adjectival form is frequently used – though often only in colloquial language – either in a depreciative or appreciative way as a sign of group belonging, in order to either mentally distance oneself from or identify oneself with something. New words emerge as necessary. Many terms ending on –ism are terms used to denote social conditions, opinions, teachings, schools and ideas.

To begin with, a large number of these terms have been derived from scientific theories and hypotheses, which do not necessarily have to be generally recognised by the respective experts, but which make use of scientific methodology, expose themselves to scientific discussion and are versatile and developable, conditioned by the increase of knowledge and technical possibilities. These opinions can however also be the result of an uncritical development of ideas, which might be imprecise, not at all verified, or irrationally justified.

Consequently, philosophsim is first of all devoted to its linguistic root it is trying to comply with. But it has become more than a purely mental, written idea. It represents, above all, the creation of a representational possibility. A new symbolism that responds to a philosophical rationale, the reflection of the thinking. And it is a form of art because it could evolve, in its symbolic form, from the artistic process through the creation of art. However, before taking a closer look at the artistic process, we will try to find out what art is exactly, because in the course of the centuries and in different cultures the meaning of the term “art” has changed and continues to do so. It has led to intense discussions among artists, art theoreticians, historians, philosophers, sociologists and the public. Art is a product of culture, a creation of humans, the product of a creative process that results either in a work of art or in a process, which is – since modernism - also considered to be a result per se. Considering its origins, art can be seen as a cultic phenomenon, which developed out of the prehistoric religions. Painting, as well as sculpture and music, dance and poetry have already existed in prehistoric times and remained linked to cults until the protohistoric times. Historically seen, the arts evolved as a contribution to the material organisation of cults and rituals. In protohistoric times of human evolution, the emergence of art was one of several indicators for the rise of consciousness and human thinking. Art in this sense means performances or illustrations that do not seem to have any immediate benefit for survival. That is to say, art originated from a “religious”, cultic context (from which it could only detach itself with great difficulties). Philosophism, which is also a product of art and reflective thinking, considers its roots – the query for the highest, the meaning of life or religion – to be nothing less but the direct descendants of these most primordial questions about our origins, our destiny, our finiteness, or infiniteness that it is devoted to. Philosophism however, does not only follow the methods of religions. In fact, it rather operates in the sense of philosophy, which provides more courses of action because in philosophy, as opposed to religion, there is the possibility to take other systems of thought into consideration. Furthermore philosophism expresses itself through the arts, that I feel particularly strongly committed to and would like to present here. However, to be able to explain in greater detail how and why philosophism presents itself in precisely this symbolic form, and how these symbols cover the gamut from religion to philosophy and art, we shall briefly analyse the terms “religion” and “symbol”. The term “religion” denotes a multitude of different cultural phenomena, which have a normative influence on human behaviour, mindsets and world views. Religious systems of meaning go beyond naturalistic explanations of the world by attributing transcendental or immanent causes to sensual experiences. Nearly all religions have certain elements in common, such as the communication with transcendental entities in the framework of soteriologies, systems of symbols, and rituals. The term “symbol” (derived from the Greek “sign”, “emblem”, “allegory”, “image” or “joined together”) is generally used for signifiers suggesting an idea (of something, which does necessarily need to exist). Defining which idea shall be associated (or joined) with the word “symbol” will eventually depend on the specific field of application. The meaning of the symbols that occur in religion, myths or in the arts, can often not be translated or interpreted in a purely rational way. Symbols contain a surplus of meaning: while the meaning of a traffic sign for example, is exactly defined, the meaning of a religious, dreamed of, or mythological symbol exceeds the rational. For its user, it often has an intimate emotional meaning, which goes beyond the cultural context and is not clearly distinguishable without any well-grounded method. In the field of philosophy/aesthetics the symbol is a distinctive mark, its form is simple, its significance rich and profound. Symbols convey what cannot be articulated otherwise. The philosopher Jacques Derrida considers symbols to be active signs and created the term “différance”. Walter Benjamin defines the symbol as “the identity of the particular and the general”. In the fine arts, symbols have been used ever since the earliest examples of cave-painting up to the present day. In sacral art, symbolism follows the specifications provided by religion and theology. And often there is a binding iconography. In modernism however, the individual and free manipulation of symbols replaces traditional pictorial agendas. Thus, we can say that the symbols turn philosophism into an art form committed to philosophy, and though the roots of philosophism reach back to a religious context it is not bound to one single direction. It is a sign of mental maturity if somebody refuses to simply accept tradition’s answers to the question of meaning but instead, insists on searching for meaning independently and on their own.

2.

Philosophism is a form of reductionism. And reductionism is the philosophical teaching according to which a system is entirely defined by its individual parts (‘elements’). Philosophism’s reductionism is directed towards the human being. It reduces us to what we are; and we are neither monkeys nor computers. So, reduction can only insist on what we really are and what we know, knowing that we do not know, or at least admitting that we do not know everything, no matter how long we may persist, how thoughtful we may search, how meticulous our investigations may be when trying to approach what we do not know, and what we will most probably never be able to know; what we have, in fact, never been destined to know. Philosophism’s reductionism is directed towards the knowledge we are indisputably capable of knowing - that is to say, the knowledge that we are all fugacious, the knowledge that we are all human, and the knowledge that we know nothing! In this context, I would now like to introduce what seem to be the three main themes, that adopt the form of symbols intending to embody the knowledge about being human, about the ephemeral nature of life, and about all the things we do not know.

The knowledge that we know nothing, as Socrates said, is the most important knowledge of all, because only by not-knowing are we able to act freely and, at least mentally, feel free! We could also say that this not-knowing is the only possibility to act, think, and speak freely and that is therefore philosophism’s most important component, which however, we are incapable of describing, explaining, or understanding and which in the end makes us exactly what we are: human. This knowledge, that we do posses, unlike animals and plants, is only comprehensive in so far as we are aware of the knowledge of not knowing!

Not knowing what we are right at this moment, the cover, the shell that carries us, that is our home and prison at the same time. The here and now, the individual life that is nothing but a short moment, with all its abundance, and density of particles and uniqueness, reduced to what we all have in common and no-one can tear away from, this instrument of possibilities, the possibility of being possible.

Not knowing what the future has in store for us, the future nobody can escape from, the inevitable that awaits us all, that lies ahead of us and that we will undoubtedly have to face! The acknowledgement we all have to make, the transient nature that has us all, without exception, at its mercy when we depart this life.

So this would be one of philosophism’s reductions, such as its symbols are a reduction. This is one possibility to read philosophism, in so far as you can conceptualise it, or reconcile it with your believes or the very the absence of such believes. Which is what I am presuming, because through their reduction, these symbols symbolize the most fundamental elements of all religions, philosophies, and all other beliefs or non-beliefs. They are all-encompassing, not least because of the many possible ways of reading and interpreting them. By using some examples, I would now like to demonstrate the innumerable ways in which philosophism can, might, and should be interpreted! Let us begin with the non-belief, which actually does not exist, since even a non-belief is a kind of belief. If I believe that I believe nothing, a belief-in-nothing does exist. We shall call this attitude atheism, the belief, that no divine being exists. Atheism, an often frowned upon concept, almost unimaginable for all religions, finds a home in and is embodied by philosophism - just like all other beliefs. This makes the following interpretation possible: (beginning, middle, end)

I was born – where the inscrutable is hiding.

I live, I am – where the human being, existence, the now and the ego manifest themselves.

This will happen, and then it is over – the finiteness, the transient nature of things – or simply death, in which existence ends.

To religious people however, life cannot be explained that way. They will look at philosophism from a different perspective. A religious person could interpret the signs for example as follows:

The inscrutable, the divine being or its plurality, salvation and the eternal light.

The human being, servant or even tool, sent from God, with an assignment, in existence.

The end, the entry to Nirvana, to the Kingdom of Heaven, the abandonment of our fleshy existence.

For someone who does not feel that he belongs to a certain religion, but is not content with seeing himself as atheists either; for someone who might surrender to different ideas, philosophies or even self-generated, yet incomprehensible thoughts, feelings and hopes; for someone who cannot take enough pleasure from these essential questions of life and their innumerable ideas – even for this group of people, or maybe even precisely for this group of people, philosophism could be the system through which they will be able recognise themselves as well as others: (soul, body, spirit)

I dissolve; I enter the universe the same inscrutable way I have emerged from it.

I exist because of a chain of coincidences, but I exist, I am real, I am here and now, and will be all my life.

I die, it will be over, I will cease to exist, my body will rot, and I will become a part of the whole without any entitlement to salvation, but also detached from the idea, that I do not exist anymore.

These are however just some examples of a multitude of possibilities. So now, we come to a point, at which we might ask ourselves why there should be something like a symbolism that encompasses all forms of belief, all forms of religion, all philosophies and even the whole of humanity. Why do we seem to need symbols, that describe people’s existence and make it possible to unite them with all the other people on our planet; or symbols we can reduce all human existence to? A bird’s eye view of a bird’s eye view. Maybe the answer lies in the failure of language, because this failure, as philosophy knows only too well, is closely connected to the impossibility of defining human nature and human life; in the end all of these definitions lead to determinations and interpretations of what the human being is, and what life is.

3.

But why in art? Why exactly has this symbolic philosophism emerged through art, why does it presume being embodied by it, and why does it claim its right to exist? In art, there have always been different directions and groupings that committed themselves to different ways of working, different formal rules, styles and approaches, which coined and labelled entire contemporary phases, ideologies and currents of thought. This is a process far more manifold than I am able to depict here, but just as “romanticism” evolved into “enlightenment”, “enlightenment” into “modernism”, and “modernism” into “postmodernism”, now “philosophism” has evolved. It has evolved from all its preceding mothers and grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers, seemingly as a descendant of its own origin: that is, art as a means of expression, of mystification, or of equivalence of existence! Philosophism as such, should be seen that way. Not as a new revolution, not as a disassociation from the old, but rather as a development that arises from the old, or even as a development that returns to the oldest and most pristine there is; something art has never abandoned because throughout all artistic eras and all ideologies, there have always been – not to say solely – artists and the arts. And it is precisely this framework, i.e. the framework of philosophism, they have chosen to commit themselves to this issue, at least in one or the other way, and they have - not necessarily consciously (or maybe just as well) – manifested that fact through the creation of single objects, artistic creations or even through their lifework. It is exactly this perception of the “whole” in all its diversity and development, that distinguishes philosophism from other concepts, or unites it in itself, and without analysing the different components of this entire perception any further, this might be the best description for the “times” we believe to be living in. This does not mean however, that it is not possible to further analyse the different components of the whole within or through the system of philosophism! All it takes to do this, is an artistic process and its reflection, but that is an issue we will come back to at a later stage. So based on its roots, which may still be young but have grown in old earth, philosophism claims its right to exist. It does so through single artistic endeavours, associations of artists, affiliations of entire art forms or even through cultures. It is comparable with a blade of grass, that grows, pushes through the earth, and given the right conditions might eventually cover the whole field with grass without being aware of it! This blade of grass does not know either, where it came from, nor what might happen after its decay, it simply awakened, unexpectedly. And exactly the same holds true for philosophism, which has awakened unexpectedly too, as a product of its time, in the earth, and in everything preceding it. Just like the blade of grass, philosophism just happened to encounter the right conditions and will have to completely surrender to its own end. So, since philosophism has come into being, the question about its existence is not longer up to debate. Regardless of whether it is just the life of a blade of grass, or the life of an artist, whether short or long, an idea or a final product, once it has come into existence, it can by no means be deprived of this existence anymore. That is to say, the right to exist is existence itself, because as soon as something starts to exist it does not for the time being need any right to do so! But let us now return to the actual question: Why philosophism in art? Artists are a people of creating creatures who often provide trend-setting guidelines regarding developments in other areas, social developments, and worldviews as well as predictions of the future. And a trendsetter is exactly what they are considered to be, in and after their time. At a time when differentiation once again manifests itself so strongly, especially with regard to religious, financial and national identities, the naïve artist in particular feels that there is a longing and certainly a need for equality, brotherhood and consensus. The naïve artist, who tries to express herself through philosophism, is not a person, who is unaware of the problems of this world, its diversity and disaccord; it is not a person, who believes that she is in any way capable of changing any of this, that is not even her intention; not a person, who does not understand that everything there is, is based on everything else, and that it could only develop through mutual influence to shape the time she is living in, a time she can contribute to and leave traces in. She is a person who knows only too well that none of this even stands a chance of being changed, not in a world inhabited by precisely these people with precisely this history. It is impossible to unite modalities of this kind, of this diversity. The only thing this naïve artist expects from her affiliation to philosophism, is a historic existence of an idea/of herself, proving her understanding and her awareness of this equality, which evolves in all its diversity. The naïve artist – who, in fact, is not naïve at all, since she has come to understand the meaning of life and its countless possibilities of interpretation – believes that by unmasking her own scope of interpretation it becomes possible for her as well as for philosophism to take an active part precisely within this scope of interpretation. In all its approaches, as descendant of religion, descendant of what was there before the concepts of art and religion existed, as a possible reflection of the sense and nonsense of life and art, art itself has to admit what it is. Philosophism seems to be necessary to legitimise the production of artistic works for the future following new and self-made rules. Nobody has ever been absolved from these rules anyway, they have been bound to them in order to make art or religion possible in the first place. By disregarding all developments, guidelines and rules, and by being completely aware of the fact of having embodied them all, art can never be more contemporary than the things it creates. And by disregarding and using everything that preceded her, the artist who follows philosophism, may step out of this circle by consciously remaining in it. That is to say, she applies the methods of philosophism in order to express precisely this aspect as well as completely different ones, which have not even been thought of yet. In this context, we should not forget however, that the formal specifications are noting but young roots and that everything, which has yet to be developed, will probably interconnect with them without difficulties while at the same time inevitably contributing to its own decay.

If there were any guidelines that could be identified as roots in the course of a still ongoing process, what would they look like? What would we need to take heed of if we wanted to practice philosophism as an art? Or rather: what could be the connecting factor?

4. 

After having looked at parts of the three concepts of meaning, I want to show and paraphrase what this text seems to be all about. That is, the formal representational possibility, the symbols, their colours and other particularities I am trying to ascribe this text to.

A radiant object, a sun if you wish. A figurative figure or body. And vertical lines that resemble colour dripping down. In their reduced form, these three symbols use the following strictly defined colours: yellow, black and white, and red. The colour yellow, which is often also used as a derivation of gold, symbolizes eternity and can thus be associated with the unimaginable, the unknowable, the Most High. Black and white both constitute the symbol for the human being, corporality, the here and now, because black and white represent the strongest contrasts but reveal a vast number of shades of grey if you mix them. Human beings, trapped and liberated in their corporality, also embody this strongest contrast, within themselves and amongst each other. In Western cultural tradition, black represents grief, the evil, a threat, but also individuality and autonomy, whereas white is generally associated with happiness, the good, innocence, and purity. The colour red, took possession of the lines, the drops, of the transient and fleshly nature of things and beings, is associated with love and passion on the one hand, and with aggression on the other. Both associations might be connected with the reddish colour of blood. These colours – if it is really all colours we are talking about – which have only been found and could only be defined by means of these symbols, characterize the concept of this philosophism, which is entirely reduced to itself. For the artist it will be impossible though, to reduce herself to such an extent at every moment and in every way, so colours such as sand, blue, green, silver, gold, ivory, graphite, pink, or any other colour have added their own complementary and interpretable possibilities to philosophism. And of course, new and old symbols might also contribute to its enrichment. The only relevant thing is that the rules are complied with in such a way, that they incorporate philosophism’s entire amplitude (should this be so desired) to make it visible, readable, interpretable and recognizable. And there is yet another shape philosophism has taken on, which is due to the fact that these symbols as well as their colours made their way into our world of objects, in the form of three-dimensional cubes or cuboids. Since the cubes’ individual relations to one another seem to be relevant in this context, I have resorted to mathematics in order to facilitate further interpretations and applications, and provide for their three-dimensional nature in this two-dimensional text. This mathematical description offers everyone the possibility to construct and re-interpret it for himself, as well as to describe a specific possible form of philosophism, which might lead to further opinions, agreement or even a break with this philosophy. Just as any other formal guideline, these descriptions should only be considered a possibility to approach philosophism in a distinct and explicit way, to describe it, or distance oneself from it. This might be achieved by applying either several of its rules or individual self-contained systems or guidelines. The only important thing is the combination of the three symbols. In an extreme case this could even mean that a curator or artist gathers three pieces of artistic work, none of which has ever adhered to nor even heard of the rules of philosophism, and by bringing them together he or she does in fact create an example of philosophism. In this context, it does not matter whether all the individual pieces of work correspond to the colour system, or whether it is only one piece that can be associated with a certain symbol because of its colour, its symbolism or its content. Herein lies the art of arts, which shall not be discussed any further but shall rather manifest itself through artistic creations and the artist’s awareness. This “theory” does not only originate from its own exaggeration, but embodies it, as one can certainly recognise reading this text.

The reason why it is precisely art that became the birthplace for the revelations of philosophism, that have in fact always existed, and why it is art that is able to set guidelines for them, lie in its fragile and questionable foundations. It is precisely art that does not always have the fullest understanding for things that are beyond our understanding, and in most cases only in the eye of the beholder/the recipient or inherent to the artist’s creation. Therefore, only those who engage in misunderstandings, a lack of understanding or the attempt to reach an understanding, will be capable of receiving this text or these formal guidelines; and it is through this voluntary or mandatory reception, that they will be able to be part of the development of further thoughts, theories and courses of action. The task of finding reasons for this kind of interpretation shall be left to the recipients of this text, to their imagination and their ability to interpret and combine – in the same way as countless other moments, facts and explanations are left to the recipients for I do not mention them because they are nothing but chances to misunderstand philosophism.

5. 

Philosophism is a hole, in which we can see whatever we want to see. And just like a stupid hole, or a hole full of all the wisdom we can get but will never be able to fully understand, philosophism remains what it is until today: EVERYTHING and NOTHING AT ALL. This is something everyone has to work out for himself. I too have come to realize that way, how pointless it can be to write about all this, since everything that this text broadly seems to be about can never be explained with words, and every attempt to do so is inevitably doomed to failure and subsequently to madness. That is why this text will remain an unfinished approach towards something that is already emerging, and that will be continued in its continuation. Trying to express what is inexpressible; trying expressions that will but reveal the attempt of expressing something with an expression; giving words a shape that will have to exceed the single word in every dimension, and will therefore never be able to do justice neither to the word nor to its shape, as it takes many words to describe just one, and in the same way, it takes many shapes to represent not only the single “word” or its “shape” but the multitude of words/shapes necessary to explain it. Trying to formulate a text, especially since text is not actually the medium I intend to express myself in, is hard! There is something really explicit about texts that I am trying to avoid. Nevertheless, it is a requirement. And nevertheless, I wish to spell it out in order to obtain a greater understanding. Should it however, remain difficult to really understand, despite the attempt to obtain understanding through the understandability of the text, I ask you to understand that it is an almost impossible undertaking to make the desired incomprehensibility comprehensible. So now, it only remains for me to sincerely thank you and to hope that I was able to give you some disorientation. Furthermore, I wanted to say …