It was like journeying back to The Origins, to our creative roots. These humble rock artists left us a vast legacy.And you know what? Not one of the pre-historic creations by early Homo sapiens shows a “signature”; I’m pretty sure in their vocabulary they did not have a word for Art. [You can see images of human hands, and “dots” too, on those cave walls. Enigmatic symbols. Are those their signatures, left behind for us to ponder?]I often wonder to which ‘school of art and design’ they went to, to learn their skill.
And how can we say these works have been done by ‘primitives? Just look at those lines, shapes and colours, the way they made use of the contours of the cave walls and ceilings to enhance their creations.
Surely it took not only great certainty on the part of the painter, but they had to be ‘refined’ minds. The grace and precise coordination between hand, head, soul and heart is stunning.
In later travels to other parts of the world, we witnessed other early forms of art, those of ancient Egypt; in Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Palenque and Tulum in Central America; the San/Bushmen rock paintings in Namibia; aboriginal work in Australia; petroglyphs in North America – none of these are “signed”. What a contrast with art today, where some signatures are often so large or dominating it ruins the composition.
But look at snowflakes, flowers, ocean life, animals, all that grows and blooms --- no signatures. Signatures abound in our documents, papers and our works of art.
What is it with us, that everything we create has to be signed? (Sure, in ancient time there were ‘signet’ rings of the Pharaohs, using scarab designs.) Nowadays, signatures and stamps of authenticity are considered a must. If an artist won’t sign a painting, the dealer will insist upon it. Even this blog is identified.
A signature represents ID, as in “I.D.T. – I Did That.”
Yes, signing denotes authenticity, but signing also resembles a territorial marking. “This is mine”, like the spraying by the cat family. Of course it also represents pride, and in some cases vanity, a ‘copyright within a copyright’?
In 1972 I embarked on “Organiverse”, an opus of one hundred mandalas in pointillism, dot by dot, atom by atom. I never signed one of them. My intent was, and still is, to let the images reveal themselves to the viewer. Evolution without words.
In a sense, Art is silent communication. Viewers in their own way need to connect with a work of art, while in turn the full sum of the artist connects with the viewer through their work. Each of us lives a life, with its own experiences, and reacts to the world accordingly.
Vincent van Gogh signed his paintings and drawings simply “Vincent”. We know from letters to his brother Theo that he left out his surname because he realized people would have problems pronouncing it correctly. How right and compassionate he was. Just listen today how his name is mispronounced in a multitude of variations.
Going back to “Organiverse” (the series of 100 images all done in pointillism), this series was created in 1972. In those days printing technology didn’t have the know-how to reproduce the delicate and lucid “colour-play” of the dots. Now, not unlike the cycle of the Cicada that spends many years underground and then emerges “singing”, Organiverse seems to be morphing and re-awakening. (See organiverse.com)
And guess what else is new? Not only are we expected to sign our work, but in the case of Organiverse people ask for explanations of each one! Please, there are 100 of these mandalas.
What’s then left for personal perception and imagination of the individual viewer, if the artist “explains” what should be silent communication.
Imagination for artists is their ‘breath of life’.
See what we mean? We stand upon the shoulders of our noble ancestors, those pre-historic cave painters - - - whose works of the far-distant past have no signature, but lots of intent, spirit and soul. “Sign-ing” off, Henri
Posts
