Painting as language

Tomi Dufva
Painting as language
1. Introduction
2. Is Painting a language?
3. Five different language examples
4. Narrative
5. My own work in this context
1. Introduction
Language is an important media of communication. Having a language is vital to
us. Without a language, it would be difficult for us to communicate to each other.
Also without language it would be difficult to comprehend the world, at least in a
sense we comprehend world today. How would our comprehension of the world
be, if we did not have a language? How would our experience of the world be
like? Language is a tool that we can use to explore the world as it appears to us.
Painting is commonly thought to be a form of language, although different and
not as precise as a normal language, such as English with all the grammar and
logical rules, nonetheless there are many theories of painting as language.
Through the history of painting, and most noticeably through the last century
artists and theoretists have explored the field of painting as language.
My own work as a painter and the way I work with paintings is very much linked
to the questions of language in painting, therefore in this paper I’ll try to explore a
1
little bit the vast field of painting as language and in the end ponder how my own
work is related to these questions.
2. Is painting a language?
What is language?
Words put together in agreed order forms a language. If we were to put the
words in some non-agreed order we probably wouldn’t understand each other.
Or if we were to meet a person who would speak our words put in chaotic order
we would probably call him crazy or a poet. To call something a language it has
to have syntax to distinguish meaningful expressions from mere sequences of
words and semantics to provide a notion of truth and to distinguish true
statements from false statements. Usually normal languages have grammar,
which serves as the logical base for the language. In the beginning of last
century many linguistic theories believed that to learn the language one would
only have to learn the grammar, -and the vocabulary, of course, and then one
could speak the language. It was thought that every word represents one
instance or object. Like the word computer brings us an idea of a computer. But
in the late 20th century there has been many arguments about that fact, because
language is alive, it is a tool we use in many different ways and it has many
notations that grammar cannot tell. Like all the different kinds of meanings for
one word, the meaning of the word changes when the intonation changes; one
word can have different meanings in spoken language etc.
Ludwig Wittgenstein is one of the famous philosophers who studied language
and the use of language. To Wittgenstein the meaning of philosophy was to
study language, he believed that from philosophy of language philosophy itself
would find all its answers.
2
Wittgenstein philosophy has two different stages, first one stated in Tractatus
logico-philosophicus1 and the second one born out of it years later and which in
fact is quite the opposite to Tractatus, although they share similarities. In
Tractatus Wittgenstein rejects Russels, and logical positivisms and states that
philosophy can not have the means of science, that philosophy can not be
studied by the means of empirical research. No, philosophy is not a science of
discovering something unknown; it is not about forming theories and then
empirically studying them to be right or wrong and then correcting them, like the
paradigmatic process of natural sciences does. It is about language and looking
what is language. It is so to speak above or below science. John Hyman states in
a book Wittgenstein, theory and the Arts2:” Wittgenstein argues in the Tractatus
that a language is a system of representation. Words are combined to sentences
to form pictures or models of possible states of affairs in the world. Every
meaningful sentence can be dissolved by analysis until its only constituents are
logical expressions (such as ´not´ and ´and´) and simple unanalyzable names.
Each of these names corresponds to an object [in reality] whose name it is. The
syntax of a name i.e. the ways In which it can and cannot be combined with other
names to form a sentence, reflects the essential nature of the object which it
names, i.e. the ways it can and cannot be combined with other object to form a
state of affairs. Hence a meaningful combination of words corresponds to
possible combination of objects. If the arrangement of the simple names
concealed in a sentence corresponds to the actual arrangement of the objects,
which they name, then the sentence is true. If not, it is false.”2
In Tractatus Wittgenstein’s says that the only meaning of language is to ´picture
´or describe reality. So then the goal of philosophy is to discover this system, the
principles of logical syntax that govern the combination of unanalyzable names
into pictures of possible state of affairs.
1
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Philosophical Investigations, oxford press, (1958)
2
Wittgenstein, theory and the arts, edited by Richard Allen and Malcolm Turvey: Ben R. Tilghman:
Language and painting, border wars and pipe dreams,
3
In his later work Wittgenstein came to discover that actually his formulation in
Tractatus was actually a theory, which he says is not a way of philosophy. It was
theory in two ways; firstly it reduces language to a system of pictures
(unanalyzable names) and to logical expressions. Secondly neither the system of
language nor the reality to which this system supposedly corresponds is visible to
ordinary language user. They are something that must exist, a theoretical
postulate.
In his later philosophy Wittgenstein came to realize the complicated nature of
language, still the main idea of Wittgenstein later philosophy remains; that the
quest of philosophy was to study language. That all questions would be
answered inside the system of language, that in language there was everything,
open to view. Ludwig Wittgenstein points out in his later linguistic philosophy that
language use is thoroughly interwoven with human behavior. When a child learns
a language he or she does not just learn the meaning of word but patterns of
behavior within which the use of the word makes sense. Wittgenstein famously
compared language to a toolbox containing many different tools. Language is
used to give and obey orders, report speculate, sing, guess, joke, ask, thank,
curse, greet and pray among many other things. As one of the students of
Wittgenstein, now a distinguished philosopher G.H von Wright puts it: “ To learn
a first language is not to be given a catalogue of names of objects and perhaps
some rules for correct speech. It is to grow up to take part in life of community, to
learn ´how to do things with words´; calling persons, asking for objects and for
help, reacting to commands and warnings, answering questions – at a later stage
also describing things and events and speaking about what is immediately at
hand in space and time.” 3
3
Von Wright, G.H. Humanism and the humanities in G.H.von Wright the tree of knowledge and other
essays, (1993) Leiden
4
All in all language is maybe not such a simple thing constituting of just grammar
and words, but is more of a interwoven tool in us, which we have learned to use
in many different ways.
Is painting language?
When the question of language comes to painting things tend to get even more
complicated. Painting does not really have a grammar nor does it have a neither
syntax nor semantics in the traditional sense. And how is it possible to define a
language then? Still there are many different theories for and against painting as
language.
Ben R. Tilghman argues in his essay Language and painting, border wars and
pipe dreams4 against painting as language. He defends his argument by
analyzing theory itself and then the theory of painting as language. According to
Tilghman the way philosopher’s work is to make theories, specially when they
are looking at art. Tilgham continues that philosophers of art, specially those in
twentieth-century have argued that theory of the arts is required to identify works
of art, and also that a satisfactory theory of art should provide criteria and
standards of artistic values as well. Then Tilgham goes to clarify what is a theory,
or proper theory and where it is derived from. He stresses the importance that
theory is born out from practice; the theories in science are formed and tested in
practice –they are not just simple abstract formulations. Theory is needed in
science, we couldn’t build machinery, or bridges without a theory of mechanics,
but do we need theory to understand art, and to be more specific whether a
theory of language is needed to understand art? I must add that from these
bases and from here forward it can be seen that Tilghman takes quite tight and
analytical road to study this question. Even still such a contrary opinion is
4
Wittgenstein, theory and the arts, edited by Richard Allen and Malcolm Turvey: Ben R. Tilghman:
Language and painting, border wars and pipe dreams,
5
refreshing and gives arise for new thoughts. Tilghmans essay continues by
stating L.S. Adams: A picture is worth lot more than a thousand words. No
amount of words can describe an image or an object exactly, whether it is a
picture, a sculpture, or work of architecture. This is because words constitute one
kind of language an imagery another, thereby creating a need for translation.
Tilghman starts analyzing the thesis of the quoted text from Adams, that words
cannot describe art exactly and art is a kind of language. He goes wondering
how it would be to describe painting perfectly, would it be something like me
telling to my friend that there is a hideous painting in the new exhibition, the one
with yucky colors which make you sick? And my friend goes to the exhibition and
recognizes the painting immediately, coming back to me and saying that it was
exactly as I described it. Or would it be something like dividing the painting into
precise grid, indexing each created frame, marking the horizontal grid with
numbers and vertical with letters, so we would start from frame a1 and then
continue as long as needed, like a matrix, in a way computers deal with pictures,
and then give the exact indexed matrix to someone? Probably theorists would
reject that this wasn’t what they had in mind. Then well, what do the theorist then
have in mind? What would be describing the artwork perfectly? Because the
theorists haven’t specified the exact description, and since we can’t know that,
Tilghman argues that the first part of thesis sheds no light to us at all on how we
do in fact talk about and describe pictures, nor the point doing so. Then Tilghman
goes to the second part of thesis, that words and imagery constitute two different
kinds of language. First he says that even though there is so many languagedescribing expression in art, such as “This artist has something to say”, “He
made a statement with that painting” and “ she exploited the vocabulary of
cubism in her work” that there is something implausible when thinking art as a
language. If art is a language, then how do you say “where is the toilet?” in art?
So art is not that kind of language, but which kind of language is it then? What is
meant by saying that painting is a language and what is wanted to get
accomplished by it?
6
Tilghman notes that painting does not have the characteristics needed for
language, it does not have semantics nor does it have syntax. And if in some
cases we could call painting as language these particular cases cannot be
generalized.
Another approach to painting as language is given to us by Ferdinand De
Saussure. His philosophy, which later was developed to semiotics, language is
thought as a code for expressing thoughts. Language itself is a system of signs
and sign is defined as a union of meanings and what De Saussure calls soundimages; both which are said to be psychological entities. Example would be
when two people are talking to each other. In the brain of the speaker a soundimage is associated with a concept. When spoken this triggers reversal process
in the listener and the sound-image is transferred to the same concept, or
concept very similar to it. Simplified the theory is that the meaning of a word is
what it is associated with, what it refers to. So the word gets it meaning from
standing for something. Tilghman explains it this way:” In this theory, words are
thought of as signs and we must suppose that they are thus one with billboards,
stoplights, darkening clouds and a host of other things. Now apply that idea to
paintings. Paintings represent things, and it is tempting to say that in that way
they refer to them. Given that temptation we may as well that in that respect
pictures are like words of language, not to mention advertising hoardings, traffic
light and all the rest. They are presumed to acquire their meaning in just the
same way.” The problems then are that if the theory of signs is to have value it
must show that there is unity among the range of apparently different things it is
willing to call signs. And that the unity must be found in relation between the sign
and what it means, and furthermore the relation must be true to all signs. So
forming a general theory of signs, if sign is meant to mean every possible sign:
paintings, drawings, warnings signs, advertisements, traffic signs, etc. Then the
job of general theory of signs is impossible. It maybe a good way to compare and
evaluate some things, or even most of different kinds of things, signs, together,
7
but it to stand out as ultimate truth, or something that would be universal is
simply not possible.
Remembering the basis of theory as Tilghman stated it some chapters ago, that
theory is born out of practice and tested in practice, we could say that the theory
of painting as language is far from working theory. In science, for example in
mechanics we would never approve such theories, because if we would we could
find our bridges collapsing in no time, because the theory does not work in
practice. But in human sciences we still keep these theories and for Tilghman
this does not seem to make sense. Still in another hand I find these theories
fascinating and helpful. Maybe we can’t form a unified theory of painting as
language, we can’t learn it, but still it makes sense to talk about it. Humans are
not rational, why should painting be?
Here we can remember what I wrote earlier about Wittgenstein, because he says
that the words in our language have many different uses, comparing the
language to a toolbox. Wittgenstein named the vast characteristics language
uses to language games meaning that the many different ways we use language
still does have rules, like games have rules and also that playing a game is
human activity embedded in human life and so is language. Wittgenstein says in
Philosophical investigations5:” Here we come up against the great question that
lies behind all these considerations. –For someone might object against me:
´You have taken the easy way out! You talk about all sorts of language-games,
but have nowhere said what the essence of a language-game, and hence of
language, is: what is common to all these activities, and what makes them into
language or parts of language…. ´
And this is true. –Instead of producing something common to all that we call
language, I am saying that these phenomena have no one thing in common
which makes us use the same word for all, -but that they are related to one
5
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Philosophical Investigations, oxford press, (1958)
8
another in many different ways. And it is because of these relationships, that we
call them all language.”
Now looking at the general theory of signs in a light of Wittgenstein’s note we
come to see the problems of such theory. These problems become even clearer
when applying them to the field of painting, for example a woman painted in a
painting stands out for, or can stand out for, something completely different than
the women pictured in a door of public toilette. Still it is the same sign of a
woman. Therefore it is difficult to make general laws of signs that would apply to
the field of painting, making the general theory of signs kind of useless when
talking about painting and painting as language.
It seems that it is difficult to categorize painting to be a language. When we
consider language in traditional terms. Still when we talk about art, and paintings
we use terms like: “in this work the artist wanted to say that….”, “Artist exploits
the language of cubism…”, etc. But as all the words have so many meanings so
does the word language have many meanings. And when we speak about
painting as language we do get some kind of picture of what it is. Maybe it is
used because we want to communicate what we see and feel when looking at
art. We want to share that experience with other, and to be able to communicate,
discuss about it. Just as well as we want to discuss other happenings,
experiences we have had during our day, or life. For me painting is kind of
language, it makes sense to talk about my own work as an artists and also about
other peoples work in that way. It might be that we don’t need a theory of painting
as language; a unified system from where we could analyze and equally
compare the whole, vast field of painting. Or then we need as much of them as
we can get; the language of painting is changing, it is not fixed and it has even
more implications and games associated with it than normal language in itself, so
forming such a single theory seems to be impossible.
9
Walter Benjamin writes on language on his book One way street: ” It is possible
to talk about language of music and of sculpture, about language of justice that
has nothing directly to do with those in which German or English legal judgments
are couched, about a language of technology that is not the specialized language
of technicians.”6 For Benjamin it is impossible to think that language would not
exist in everything, that all things have relation to language. For Benjamin whole
existence is communicating its mental meaning, it is the nature of all to
communicate its mental meaning. “All communication of mental meanings is a
language, communication with words being only a particular case of human
language”7 Benjamin sees that the whole word is communicating what it is, its
mental meaning, its nature. And then all this communication is language.
Benjamin is definitely seeing language in broader scale than Tilghman does. This
difference of views on language itself shows us the multitude of meanings of
language.
3. Five different language examples
Throughout the history of visual culture language has been playing a role in it,
sometimes more apparent than other time; nevertheless it has always been
there. But because of the ambiguous nature of paintings language, theories and
thoughts differ from theorist to theorist and from time to time. Maybe it is our
need to comprehend painting, or our imagination’s ability to create stories, or our
memory’s ability to remember something from the painting, or some other
analogy we draw from the painting to our common language. In this way painting
most certainly is a language. In this chapter I will give five different examples how
painting has used language and / or been inspired from language. These
examples are based on my own interest and have in some way affected and / or
inspired my artistic work. Still they represent quite different views and times in the
history of painting.
6
7
Benjamin, Walter: One way street: On language and on the language of Man, NLB, 1979
Benjamin, Walter: One way street: On language and on the language of Man, NLB, 1979
10
In Early Chinese landscape painters motivation for painting was sometimes a
poem, or a haiku, in fact in a book Linquan gaotzhi, or in English The noble
message of forests and streams, a book made in 11th century to guide
landscape painters by Guo Xi, there is written some suggestions for the
paintings, some poems or some phrases like “ The mist of early spring” or
“Waters and rocks in wind and rain.” Many masterpieces from Chinese
landscape painters have been created from the inspiration of some of these
poems, or themes. Also interestingly usually the painters would also write the
particular poem to the canvas of the painting. Making the written poem a part of
the visual experience and showing us that language and the images made by
language played an important role in painting.
This visual interpretation of words was further developed in Zen style of painting.
In Zen painting and in Zen calligraphy language, words and phrases are the
subject of the painting. Important is how the word has been painted; only
experienced masters could convey the essence of the word to canvas. Words
like god, or peace were usually used. And the masterly painted painting of these
words was to give the experience of god, or peace to the viewer.
“Toku” by Susumu Takiguchi
11
In both Chinese landscape painting and in Zen painting the painters were usually
monks of some discipline, like Taoists or Buddhist. And the act of painting was
an act of spirituality, an evidence of certain stage of enlightenment, or practice
towards enlightenment. Words painted or stamped in the painting were also
sacred and it was believed that they also helped towards attaining enlightenment.
Painting and language was a way to reach higher states of being.
“Twin Pines”, Zhao Mengfu, ca. 1300
In the west, language and painting have existed in different way. The most usual
being still a little similar to the Chinese landscape painting: The artist was
commissioned to paint a work from some special theme based on the bible, or to
some epics, the theme differing from time to time. Painting was kind of illustration
of the written story. Here to retell the story in one painting, painters started to use
allegories and symbols to stand for different happenings and meanings of the
event or story they were commissioned to paint.
Often painting was thought to be something less than written story and painters
were thought as artisans, not as monks as in east, nor as real artists,
representing the high arts, like writers and composers.
12
“Primavera”, Sandro Botticelli, c. 1482
Rudolf Arnheim compares language and images in his essay “The reading of
images and the images of reading”8 According to Arnheim Visual and written
language are similar in a way they both depend on images, the way they both
communicate is by crating images to the viewer. The difference comes in that the
images created by words are indirect “ They are [images from written text] mental
images deriving for the most part from direct perceptions that are gathered during
the person’s life” Where as images created by visual arts are direct in a sense
that they are, or they have the possibility to be direct visual perceptions. More
differences appear when the artist’s task is not just in describing physical
situations or actions but also in rendering the thoughts that distinguish human
experience. Language has the ability to refer directly t concepts, such as “love”,”
envy”, “ambition” etc. Whereas visual language is only equipped with shapes,
8
Rudolf Arnheim To The rescue of art: Twenty-six essays, University of California press, 1992
13
and colors. In Arnheims essay he quotes Eugene Delacroix’s Journals9 which I
site here also:” I confess my predilection for the silent arts, for those mute things
of which Poussin said that they were his profession. Language is indiscreet, it
goes after you, it solicits your attention and stirs up discussion. Painting and
sculpture seem more dignified-one must seek them out…the work of the painter
and the sculptor is all of a piece like works of nature. Its author is not present in
it, he does not engage you like the writer or the orator. He offers reality that is
somehow tangible, yet full of mystery.”
“Liberty leading the people”, Eugene Delacroix, 1830
Nowadays of course one might disagree with Delacroix that the author of painting
is not present in the work. Nevertheless it points out the different approaches of
these two medias to the subject.
9
Eugene Delacroix: Journals, September 23,1854
14
“Black square”, Kasimir Malevich, 1913
In 20th century language became a field of study in painting. Painting had already
broken free from the role of illustration and rose to equal level with music and
literature. Painters started to study the elements in painting and the language of
painting: What can be said by painting?
Supremativists started the seeking of truth and the basis of language with their
work, starting from most simple compositions, like from a simple line painted in
canvas or from simple dot in canvas, most famous is maybe Malevich´s Black
square, with its all surpassing simplicity, represented all that could be said with
painting. For Malevich this was the end of painting and almost a spiritual
experience. This didn’t stop suprematists from working and exploring. They
continued painting and started systematically constructing a language based on
their results.
15
“Suprematism”, Ilya Chashnik, 1923-1924
This work was later continued, or maybe I should say opposed by minimalists,
stating that the Supremativists had it all wrong, that the black square still
represents black square and therefore is not stripped to its basics, to what it
really is. And that was of course paint and canvas in itself. One famous example
is Jackson Pollock with his action paintings and the minimalist theorist saw that
as the true painting, or as the basics, grammar of paintings. It was all there: The
canvas is shown, the paint is just paint, and the action made by painter is shown
also.
“ One: number 31”, Jackson Pollock, 1950
16
In most recent days painting is of course still alive and is more rich and complex
than ever. Painting borrows, copies, imitates, uses various sources as motifs for
painting and is able to mix many different styles and movements in one painting
making the language of the painting very rich and unique. And also very difficult
to comprehend, and almost impossible to determine if there is some universal
language in painting.
4. Narrative
Now that I have shortly discussed language, and painting as language in general,
I would like to look a little bit closer one aspect of language, that is, narrative. In
non-technical terms, no matter what the context (whether scientific,
philosophical, fiction, etc) a narrative is a story, an interpretation of some aspect
of the world shaped by human personality. Human beings seem to prefer to
shape information into the form of a "story". Rather than organizing data as
facts in logical relationships, most people retain their everyday information as
anecdotal narratives with characters, plots, motivations, and actions.
Walter Fisher has formed a theory called Narrative paradigm where he states
that all meaningful communication is a form of storytelling and so human beings
experience and comprehend life as a series of ongoing narratives, each with their
own conflicts, characters, beginnings, middles, and ends.
Long before humankind even conceived of written language, history and tradition
were kept through storytelling. Many of the oldest stories and religious traditions
of today were retold as stories countless times before they were ever written
down. With no script or written word to follow, storytellers weaved detailed
anecdotes about the world around them entirely from memory. These tales
explained the mysteries of the world, recounted the heroes of the past, and
informed early tribal members of the daily happenings around them.
17
All through the ages people have told stories, about themselves, about the big
fishes they have caught, educating stories, in east, masters told the wisdom they
had in form of stories. The students would then go and ponder on these stories
and learn from them. Similarly Jesus told lot of stories to people…
Of course not all the things we speak or write or read takes a form of a story, like
for example this essay. Still Fishers narrative paradigm is a interesting approach
and stories have lot of benefits that non-narrative text doesn’t: It is much easier
to remember things in a form of stories than if somebody would just come and tell
the point of the story, the facts to you. Also you get more involved in story, it
makes you live and experience the situations more than reading the plain facts
from paper. It is more interesting and you get sucked in the story; the story forms
it own world where you can go, delve yourself deep into. Narrative is an element
in a language that makes one participate into the process, it draws you into the
text, or painting, asks for your imagination and participation. Even if Walter Fisher
is wrong, I think that good stories are much more interesting than a book, or
painting, of cold facts.
Narrative has also a lot to do with time. Human Time, rather human sense of time
is usually conceived as narrative, and narrative is always happening in certain
order in time. This as opposed to cosmologic time, or the scientific measured
time, (The time of clock steadily going on and on) in which we as humans cannot
really relate to. Based upon Aristotle’s definition of narrative as imitation
(Mimesis) of action Paul Ricoeur determines the role of time in narrative, or
emplotment as Aristotle defines it in Poetics, by the relation of three stages of
mimesis: “ Mimesis1, consisting of the preunderstanding of the world and action;
mimesis 2, which is the construction of the plot itself by arranging signs and
sentences into a narrative; mimesis 3, which in H. -G. Gadamer´s words is the
“application” of the plot, and thereby the revelation and transformation of reality
into a world in which the spectator, or reader, can live after having his or her
emotions “purified” by the catharsis of the entire poetic process. Ricoeur clearly
18
designates these three stages of mimesis a prefiguration of the field of practice, a
configuration of the text and a refiguration of the world of living, acting, and
suffering through the appropriation of the text.”10 And as Ricoeur himself says: “
We are following therefore the destiny of a prefigured time that becomes a
refigured time through the mediation of configured time”11
The first stage, mimesis 1, the preunderstanding of the world and action, means
that the narrative has some qualities, laws common to our world. There is certain
good thing and certain bad things, good heroes and bad villains. Therefore it
implies there is certain ethics, similar to ours, what we can believe in order to
make the story trustable. This does not mean that the story has to be realistic or
the world has to be the same as ours, but rather there has to be certain
similarities so our mind can imagine that the story can really happen. Then the
second part, mimesis 2, constructs the story following guided by these
preconditions. In the third stage, mimesis 3, where the story has reached the end
the spectator is lead to certain conclusions prefigured in the beginning. Here
again the story has had to create a bond of trust between the plot and spectator,
so the spectator can believe the story and come to certain ethical conclusion. All
this tells us that narrative is never neutral, it implies certain ethics, and usually
stories, great epics have strong ethical point of views stressing the importance of
goodness, heroism, good-heartedness etc.
For Ricoeur time is only conceivable because of the narrative. Without it narrative
would be difficult for us to understand the time, even if we would now KNOW it
exists, even if we can see it from the ticking of the clock. Narrative is a factor,
which makes sense to time in our minds. As a result of Ricoeurs third stage of
Mimesis, the reconfiguring and re-imaging ones own history is always a
possibility. New experience added to the narrative can then revise the whole
understanding of ones history opening new possibilities to ones narrative, to
ones life.
10
11
The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn: Peter Kemp: Ethics and Narrativity
Paul Ricoeur, Time and Narrative I, University of Chicago press, 1985
19
5. My own work in this context
General
How do I, as painter relate to these questions and themes I was writing above?
What are my thoughts on painting and the language of painting?
As a painter and a person who has studied now over six years the field of
painting, I should know something about it. And also something about the
language of painting; because how can I paint if I don’t know the language of
painting…
A way for me to formulate the world, or to reveal the world behind the world is
painting. My paintings are not focused on any special theme or idea. They are
about the world; it’s events and thoughts born from those events. When I am
painting the world as it happens to me I am hoping to reveal the world as it
simply happens. Meaning that I do not want to emphasize some particular aspect
of the happening pictured or interpreted in the painting, rather to show the
happening from the observers viewpoint. Of course there is no such a thing as
objectivity as we are all seeing thing from our subjective consciousness, but I aim
to be aware of my subjectivity and do not want to highlight any special way to see
the happening.
I like to quote Wittgenstein metaphorically, even though the great Finnish
Wittgenstein specialists G.H: von Wright has warned not to do that, I still will.
“The limits of my language means the limits of my world,” says Wittgenstein in
Tractatus12; I like to think that my paintings are kind of a language, together
forming a whole world. I find my task to be to show the limitations of the world,
and from there one can see so much more. Because you don’t have to go
looking from nowhere else; it is all there, for you to find. The problem is not
12
Ludwig Wittgenstein: Tractatus logico-philosophicus
20
solved by going outside of it; to form some theory, rather, the meaning is formed
from the works present there and then. What I mean by this is some kind of
answer to the eternal questions: why are we here? What is this all? Even if it
would be possible to attain all the wisdom in the world, to know everything there
is to know we still would not know enough. To show the limits of the world, is for
me a way to show the larger view, bigger horizon, so we could the focus onto the
present moment, which anyway is here. That this moment, now, is all we need,
we know everything we need to know and no theories are needed, because we
would have to change them anyway by the time we get them ready. With my
installations I am aiming to show that this all is happening, there is this possibility
and thousands more, there is this story and thousands more and what really
matters is the moment of the story where I am right now. Because it is the only
place where I can be right now.
Narrative
For my own work narrative is the most important aspect when looked in the
context of language as painting. To explain more about the connection of
narrative and my own work, I will first show you some photos from my own
works, and then discuss more on the narrative aspect of them.
21
“Cornerflower”, Painting installation,2005
“Happenings in second day”, painting installation, 2005
22
Detail from the installation “La strada”, 2004
“Freedom to choose”, painting installation, 2005
As you can see from the photos my way of working with paintings is to attach
them together and using them as building blocks. I am using paintings like
building blocks; with them I build installations, three-dimensional spaces by
23
attaching them together. From small instances I build something bigger. What is
important for me is that still each of paintings works as individuals, that they
could be shown separately. I would like to say that all the paintings are equally
important, but because of the way our eyes see things, some become to play
less important role than the others.
Narrative plays substantial role in my work. For me this way of making
installations and working with paintings is close to storytelling and in that way
close to language. Each painting contributes something, some analogy, thought
or mood to the installation. And according to the order the viewer looks at these
paintings they construct some story or thought in the viewer. I am very interested
in the thought that it is the human beings need to create stories; logical stories
characters, events and I believe that that is in one way what makes my
installations interesting. As one painting expresses one notion of life, its own
world, macrocosms, it then also links with other paintings, in installation, creating
a larger view, creating whole story. Or multiple stories, variations of the story
depending on viewer and his willingness to participate.
There is a short story in James Twyman´s book Ten spiritual lessons I learned at
the mall: “It’s easy to see the differences in people, but it takes real vision to see
the ways that we are all the same. I look at the world the same way I look at the
shoes, said the shoe repairman and continued: No pair is ever the same because
they reflect the habits of a person who wears them. If you look at the bottom you
can tell so much about the person… the way they walk, their posture…many
things. But when you look inside it is always the same. The inside of the shoe is
always soft, no matter who wore it. Even if the outside is cracked and dull, still
inside feels like wool”13 Stories, narratives as I wrote earlier works maybe better
when I am trying to tell my message. My work is about stories, the story to show
the limits of the world is really a story to show that no matter what the outer
circumstances are, or no matter where we are in the story, it does not matter, it is
the same. Not in pessimistic way, but in positive way, we are here and now and
13
Twyman, James: Ten spiritual lessons I learned at the mall
24
we have possibilities to live. That there is something that remains the same in us,
something that has remained same in us all these years. This is, for me, that
something that cannot be said but is there, again quoting metaphorically
Wittgenstein´s Tractatus. And this message is something what cannot be said
frankly and when put in words this way sound naïve or strange. This is why we
need stories. As mentioned earlier narrative has a lot to do with time. In my
installations time can be concretely seen as the structure of installation, as a
timeline. The time is visualized, giving us the change to see the big picture in
concrete way. This is the something, which cannot be said, it is shown visually,
like also the language is shown there visually and the grammar also is there in
visual form. And as Ricoeur shows that narrative is never neutral, but that it has
its ethical viewpoints it emphasizes. And to quote Ricoeur himself, the strategy of
narrator “is aimed at imposing on the reader a vision that is never ethically
neutral.” For Ricoeur ethics mean “the wish to live the good life as this is
prescribed by practical wisdom, rather than obedience or duty”14 This wish to live
the good life based on the common day wisdom we all have, to the knowledge
we know what is right, is the optimistic way I was talking about, the experience I
want or wish that people would get from my work.
Language
I have found that the language, meaning, the aim I want to express with the
painting is very flowing and changing. It has a lot to do with the context of the
whole, it has lot to do with the colors, etc. So one line can represent so many
different things, it can be a symbol for many different emotions and thoughts. And
this is only my feelings and the viewer can have so many different interpretations.
Language in painting for me is language of intuition and feeling. It is not
something that can be reached by words or intellect.
Other way my work is linked with the language is that when building and looking
at these installations I have come to note that some of the paintings works as
agents, like prepositions in the language. And thus the installation starts forming
14
The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn: Paul Ricoeur: Reply to Peter Kemp
25
its own grammar, syntax, in a way. This grammar is, of course, bound to that
installation only, and from that one cannot make any generalizations to painting
as language. I feel that in paintings there is a language in a way that paintings
communicate to the viewer and there are many instances where paintings
communicate in similar way to each other. Still from these instances it is
impossible to make generalizations, or to form syntax and semantics common to
all painting and all the people. In that sense for me painting is not a language. My
own work is linked with language more by its installationary nature; by the way I
am attaching them together and not so much in looking at one painting and
analyzing its meaning and similarities with language. The language is born out of
attaching the paintings together. And this gives one painting more simple value,
the painting is not necessarily looked as a whole but as a part in a larger
structure. Like words in a novel. The downside is that this can strip the value of
one painting to be mere part of the whole, but in a way it is also a beauty of it;
Like every moment of our life is as significant, at least in the moment when we
are living it, and still it is our whole life which makes us who we are. That also,
with these installations I am trying to reach the same, that each painting is equal
as important, without it the installation would not be the same, but as the same
time the whole meaning of the work can only be seen when looking the
installation as a whole.
The structure my paintings shape as installations takes us back to the narrative.
To use Paul Ricoeurs words the forming or the creation of the installation could
be thought as ” mimesis 2, which is the construction of the plot itself by arranging
signs and sentences into a narrative” The creation of the installation forms the
overall structure of the narrative, it forms the overall possible interaction with the
characters, places, and the possible end results and teachings. Here characters
and elements can be thought as some elements in painting, which the viewer
associates to reoccur in the installation. And the end result and teaching can be
thought as the (possible) experience or thought the viewer gets from the whole
work. Also the installation shows different possibilities to the narrative, as the
26
viewer can choose to follow this path of paintings in the installation, or then,
some other path. This allows the viewer to shape the history of the narrative as
new experiences, paintings, come to the viewer’s sight. In this way the third
stage of Ricoeurs mimesis is present, the possibility that new experiences, allow
the reconfiguration or re-imagination of the narrative, of the history, making new
perspectives or choices possible.
The building of installation from these blocks, painting, also corresponds a lot
with architecture, and architecture corresponds to narrative and to the grammar
of language as in architecture there is certain rhythm, laws, syntax as how the
building is built; and in Language there is the architecture of the grammar which
builds the story to understandable form, and the architecture of the narrative, or
story, which creates the meaning of the story. All these elements are also
present in my painting installations, architecture even in concrete form as the
installations usually form kind of houses, spaces to the exhibition space.
Influences
My painting style, or the language of my paintings comes from many sources,
many that I have shortly mentioned in this text. My direct interest with these
styles and artists it not in the way they dealt with language in painting, but it is
essentially to linked to all of them.
Chinese landscape painting has influenced me mostly because of their spiritual
aspect of painting. In traditional Chinese landscape painting the masters had a
glorious goal; that one could achieve enlightenment by looking at their paintings.
That they could transfer the very essence of this world, without judgments,
whether good or bad, to the paper or canvas they were using. In someway my
goal is bit the same: to try to show that even though we all have our own worlds
we all still shear something profound together.
27
Also Zen calligraphy and its way of seeing the meaning and importance in brush
stroke and that whole worlds can be painted so easily in one word or letter,
interests me. That they use simple characters and within that it is also something
bigger, representing the mental state of the painter and also his vision of the
world and his knowledge.
This links in the way I am interested in Minimalists and Supremativists; they also
tried by painting to get to the “truth” by taking off all the unnecessary things. To
get into the basis of the language. Their paintings whether just one color or some
color compositions tells stories, a pursuit to something. For me they are stories
much more than some renaissance painting depicting a historical scene with lots
of happenings. Maybe because abstractions demand more participation, more
imagination, or then that they are more about feelings and experiences.
Lakoff & Johnson: "Metaphors we live by".
Walter benjamin essay about storytelling, Russian fairytales, Leskov.
LITERATURE:
Arnheim Rudolf: To The rescue of art: Twenty-six essays, University of California
Press, 1992
Benjamin, Walter: One way street: On language and on the language of Man,
NLB, 1979
Delacroix, Eugene: Journals, September 23,1854
Ricoeur, Paul, Time and Narrative I-III, University of Chicago press, 1985-1988
Tancu, Terayama: Zen brushwork, focusing the mind with calligraphy and
painting, Kodansha international, 2003
The Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur, edited by Lewis Edwin Hahn, The Library of
living philosophers, 1995
28
Von Wright, G.H. Humanism and the humanities in G.H.von Wright the tree of
knowledge and other essays, (1993) Leiden
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Tractatus logico-philosophicus
Wittgenstein, Ludwig: Philosophical Investigations, oxford press, (1958)
Wittgenstein, theory and the arts, edited by Richard Allen and Malcolm Turvey,
Routllege, 2001
29