I think one of the greatest challenges that the art world faces today (and by art world I mean everything and anything that has an aesthetic value attached to it) is that so many people view it as inaccessible. Thus, we are left with a dichotomy: a large majority who feel as though art and visual communication are beyond their grasp, and a smaller minority who, either maliciously or by default, dictate all artistic concerns because there is simply no one to contest them.

While I do not mean to suggest that creating good art, in any artistic sphere, can occur without elbow grease and talent, I do believe that it is up to the individual to decide what ‘good’ is. I do not dispute that the individual has been robbed of this right, however, artwork that has been deliberately developed so as to be inaccessible, or artwork that relies on the imagined ignorance of others certainly defies this spirit of free expression (and free interpretation) to which it owes it existence.

Have you ever attended an exhibition, and noticed that most of the so-called art fundi’s who walk through the door make a beeline for the artist bio at the very back of the gallery, not so much as peeking at any of the artworks on display until they know what the artist has to say about his own artworks? Perhaps some people believe that there is a right and wrong interpretation of art, and until they understand what their interpretation should be, they do not dare consider an artwork. Or perhaps these art viewers are simply fakers, pretending to understand and appreciate an artwork which is fundamentally meaningless. As for those who have not cottoned on to this trick, art remains inaccessible – it must be valuable since so many people say so, but what that value is should be decided by people more learned in this profoundly foreign concept.

On the other hand, there are artists who take advantage of this perceived inaccessibility, developing artworks which are completely devoid of any meaning outside of the flimsy parameters set by their artists. Artworks like these do not lend themselves to free, individual interpretation, because the individual is obligated to interpret them in the artist’s terms. And valueless artworks like these are perpetuated by individuals who purchase them, or at the very least, pretend that they mean something. The same is true of any visual creation – graphic design makes for a great example. How many clients have been duped into accepting a sub-standard solution, or even the wrong solution to their visual communication needs, purely because they believe that a group of ‘expert’ designers know better than they do?

Let me point out that I do not believe that all artists are fakers and all designers charlatans – nothing could be further from the truth. There is a great deal of talent out there, possessed by the many people who truly believe in what they create and design, and who acknowledge the importance of those who view the end product. This being said, I think everyone involved in art should see to it that the elitist stigma attached to art is eliminated, and no self respecting artist should ever rely on the false ignorance of the less artistic to promote their artwork.

I think that Hans-Georg Gadamer hit the nail on the head when it came to interpreting art. For Gadamer, interpreting any creative product was just like playing a game, like pick-up-sticks, soccer, or boxing. Since we are all involved in Martial Arts at Glyph, let’s envision a boxing-sparring session: generally speaking, we spar inside of a boxing studio; we wear boxing gloves; we follow a few rules like no blows below the belt and no knees, elbows, or head butting. We are also aware of how to throw a good hook and how to move our feet. But outside of these parameters, we are free to have fun and get creative. There are a few important points to draw from this example:

First of all, the game of boxing needs players to play it. Without the players, boxing would be nothing more than an imaginary construct, devoid of any physical meaning. Likewise, the players need boxing to have something to play. Without the concept of boxing, there would be no game for the boxers. Thus, boxing and the people who box are dependant on one another for existence: without boxers, boxing would not be, and without boxing, boxers would not be able to box. Second, when we box, we temporarily step out of our normal realities and step into the world of boxing. There are a couple of rules, but there is no right way or wrong way to land a punch, or dodge a punch for that matter – the world of boxing is a creative world, and only with intuition, initiative, and personal flair will you ever accomplish anything in it. So even though we must step into the world of boxing to box, it is of the utmost importance that we take our own individual nuances with us. Finally, the game of boxing makes an impact on the lives of its players – both inside and outside the world of boxing, just as the players influence how the game itself is played. As players, we agree to expose ourselves to the influences of boxing, and personally we have found these influences to be highly beneficial. Similarly, the game of boxing has exposed itself to the influence of its players, and this has changed the shape of the game throughout time.

As a metaphor for understanding art, all of this is quite simple when you get down to it. When an artist creates a painting or a designer completes a corporate identity, they are effectively creating new games (provided that they have not committed any of the previously mentioned follies). A painting is something to be ‘played’. It is a world created by its artist, complete with a few rules and some general parameters. But this world needs viewers to exist; players to step inside of it, to explore, to ponder its significance, and ultimately, to give it its meaning. And since each player steps into this world as a distinct individual, it is rendered all the more diverse and colourful, and interpreted in ways which even its creator-artist could not begin to imagine. The players, in turn, need this world to play in – for them, this artwork is a place which they can influence, and to some degree, define and shape in their own individual terms. Ultimately, both the artwork and the art-viewers are contingent upon one another, and through their interaction together, both artwork and art-viewer influence one another, each being left with a little something more as a result of their temporary engagement, be it a new idea, a new perspective, perhaps just a little inspiration.

My point is, art and design, visual communication in general, should not be viewed as constructs comprehendible only by a select few. And artists, regardless of what type of artist, should not approach their work as anything less than the creation of worlds which need to accommodate people as diverse as the world we currently occupy. The worlds artists create need to have substance and meaning, so that viewers may enjoy these worlds and in turn render these worlds even more meaningful. The viewer’s responsibility is simply to have fun, to make what they can of the worlds, ideas, and inspiration offered to them by artists. An artist should be confident enough to expose his or her artwork to viewers, and allow viewers to understand and interpret that artwork in their own terms. Likewise, the viewers should allow themselves to whole-heartedly embrace the constructs of the artist, to see a world as envisioned by another, and allow themselves to be influenced by this unique world. A truly talented artist is one who creates artworks that everybody, regardless of socio-economic class, education or creative ability, can have some fun with. And as for the viewers, if art is a game, it is also an invitation to come play!

As much as we endorse a consciousness in our processes, we have learnt that there is nothing more mindful than accepting the body’s roll in expression.

The most dynamic outcomes that I get from painting are the result of what happens in spite of what I plan, and the paradox that these serendipitous mistakes are always completely congruent with what I ultimately want to express.

If you could imagine a painter trying to capture the natural flow of a serpentine river that has carved its way through a mountainscape: He swashes the twists and turns of the river onto the canvas with washed out wet paint, because, well, a wet brush just seems right, and he wants his tactile experience to echo the subject. His hand shakes, he falters, the paint runs, he tips the canvas and the river of paint changes direction. He instinctively grabs an old scuffed brush and uses it to roughly redirect the running paint, which it splatters like water smashing rock. The runoff is either absorbed, or it seeps into damp eddies and swirling tributaries. Taking a step back he realises that what he has is rough, but has captured the essence of his subject.

Does his brilliance lie in his ability to replicate what he sees, or is it in his capacity to make mistakes at just the right time and in just the right way?

Gaining any kind of awareness, let alone control over a process to which you are a catalyst but not a cause is extremely difficult. I was lucky enough not only to find a vehicle to realise this truth, but also an environment that equipped me and my team with an ongoing learning and philosophy that has helped shape our work. If you had asked me five years ago if I would find myself using boxing-sparring to be a better artist, I would have laughed it off.

At the Crazy Monkey gym in Jozi, internalizing the above process and effectively replicating it is termed “somatic intelligence”. Rodney King who runs the gym we train at has progressively dealt with the idea of somatic intelligence and the expression thereof since the beginnings of his internationally acclaimed Crazy Monkey Defence System. Rodney and head coach Nuno De Gouveia have adopted a training philosophy to functional Martial Arts, which has resulted in a dynamic template for learning and growth in all aspects of life. “Crazy Monkey” refers to a combat defence technique that primarily teaches mental fortitude but also serves as the foundation for the practical application of concepts like “somatic intelligence.”

I was once told that a cricket player facing a fast bowler will be swinging his bat (and sometimes closing his eyes) before the ball has left the bowlers hand – Surely this tells us that reactions are somehow naturally pre-emptive. In the same sense, the physical and mental immediacy of sparring motivates the development of a pre-programmed inclination to seize opportunity the moment it arises – this provides me with more than just a point of reference for my endeavours – it is more like upgrading my minds RAM with a new graphics card.

In art, members of the Expressionist movement, which arose at the turn of the 19th century, did not actually refer to themselves as Expressionists. However, their approach to art which involved capturing immediacy and ‘nowness’, sparked a new mode of expression for which these artists are so well known, and also inspired a great deal of debate about the conduits of creativity. These ideas spread into the realms of spirituality and philosophy – indeed, Nietzsche himself saw the dichotomy between ordered thinking and chaotic thinking as the origins of creativity – somehow though, the idea of training the physicality of expression seems to have scarcely been explored. 

Sparring has taught us that you cannot contrive reactivity – but you can exploit it. For us, it is the beginning of what we now call phlow. There is a wonderful cyclic pattern born of this process physiologically. It is difficult to tell if this is the mind being activated by the body, or vice versa, or perhaps even an indefinable overlap of mind and body, but I understand from Rodney that this is something that is actively being studied by physiologists.

It is interesting to note that the word ‘soma’, of Greek origin and meaning ‘body’, is also used to define the ‘body’ of a biological cell. Very often, the word somatic when used to describe cellular activity implies a division between physical processes and mental or synaptic processes. This too is a great paradox to ponder, in that during the state of somatic expression, you are probably the most together you will ever be!