A Manifesto of Visionary Art

[Kim Evans]

For a start perhaps go here and have a read, it could open up some discussion around the topic:

http://visionaryrevue.com/webtext/manif ... tents.html

This is a manifesto of Visionary Art written by artist L.Caruana.
His website visionaryrevue.com also has many wonderful articles and images about visionary artists, including Ernst Fuchs, Mati Klarwein, Johfra and more.

[Ace Layton]

Wow, what a ramble! At least he stirs controversy, and on so many different levels! I think a simpler and more consise definition should be made. His list of True, Near and False Visionaries is pretty pompous and rediculous, in my view. But it's a kind of a start.

[Mad Bob]

I'd have thought a simple start would be: "Visionary = anyone who looks outside the world in which his mundane body lives."

And now I expect to be amended or shot down six ways from Sunday, so it's tin hat on.................................


www.naturalmusesart.com

[Ace Layton]

I'd have thought a simple start would be: "Visionary = anyone who looks outside the world in which his mundane body lives."

And now I expect to be amended or shot down six ways from Sunday, so it's tin hat on................................. :wink:


www.naturalmusesart.com

I think that sums it up pretty well! This author's view that some have looked further into the possibilities is taking the definition of art to an area I don't care for. I hate to see art as a competition, and prefer to see it as more an expression of each individual artist's mental, physical, imaginary or ethereal state of mind, or any combination of these. From dreams to editorials to reality to dabblings, I think visionary art can be many thing to many people and each artist and viewer make their own decisions as to whether a piece is or is not a visionary experience. I'm sure there are hard definitions for this genre as there are with each catagorical style, but I never liked labels anyway!

Ace Layton

[Mad Bob]

(removes tin hat and peers around cautiously......)

Thanks, Ace. I don't see art as a competition, either. Any world with six billion inhabitants is big enough to accept all of us for what we are. Neither are there any rights and wrongs in art, only the artist's own way of doing things, and as long as the art achieves what the artist sets out to do, then that makes it good art in my book, even if it might not conform to my own preferred way of doing things. I hate labels too; they imply that any art bearing one particular label will be similar/identical to every other piece of art bearing the same label. It tickles me when people try to label my stuff ("well, it's........but it's also.........." in other words they can't get their heads around it at all!) although more seriously, it can give artists problems being accepted when that part of the art business with the money finds it can't pigeon-hole you. TBH I don't even like having to supply artist's statements; I believe that apart from a title by way of guideline, the art should speak for itself.

When you get down to it, I doubt if there's much art that COULDN'T be called visionary. Even those stiffly-posed portraits of the ruling heads of Europe could be said to be visionary, given that many had fantastic settings (Charles 1 as Apollo?) or at least, showed the subject how he wanted to be seen. After all, Cromwell had to tell his own portrait painter to leave all the warts in!

[dcamp]

I began to read the treatise, and it is interesting, but I am now more visual than verbal, and words do not hold my attention long. To me art is visionary if it comes from all those other worlds that are brighter, more vast, and more magical than this one. If it helps other people remember what we have briefly left behind, it is visionary.
In my case, I like structure, so I draw upon many religions for outer structure in my web art project, but that is only surface, a crystalization. It is the light that matters. That is getting close to the source, light. -D

[Jon Hammer]

I've had problems myself with the whole category traps, which are after all open to subjective interpretation.

This is my solution, taken from my website www.jonhammer.com (still online but rebuilding, nearly finished!)................


"I have found it necessary to categorise a multimedia methodology in an attempt to further its understanding and appreciation.

NOSKOOLISM

- Untrained, intuitive, intent.

- Skilled through vocational persistence, trained awareness and countercultural activism.

- Deliberate in refusal of establishment compliance and indoctrination.

- Focused by states of ancient wisdom enhanced by modern technology.

- Limited only by visionary scope, not style, media or dogma.

- Intent in keeping this vital mental channel switched on, ensuring clarity of vision, transparency and subsequent rejection of many establishment values.

- Free to draw respectful influence from worthy sources to aid and advance aesthetic interaction with this channel.

- Free to draw on material sources at discretion in order to achieve a desired effect."

(c) JON HAMMER