by Matthias Staber / mathismondhut
Published in communion with the visionaryartists group

Joy impregnates, sorrow brings forth -William Blake

I love what I do; this is natural. My whole being is sucked into this “visionary” direction, so it is hard to really be skeptical about it. But skepticism is necessary, because glorifying this art form is not beneficial for the movement. I will write as if I truly knew something about what I write, but that is not necessarily a fact; it is just my own skepticism, my own little skeptic hiding inside the vastness of what I really am, and he wants to visit the playground.

Thinking about visionary art is a hard job because thinking can only move within its own limitations, similarly to the voices of our teachers. An entheogen or guru will speak its own language. A spiritual master or teacher will not sell your artwork, and a curator will not help you to develop “mindfulness." So I will simply ignore the limitations of language and write what I feel is worth being written.

For me, this art movement is like some sort of sect or cult. It is therefore doubly dangerous, yet at the same time it can be very uplifting and healthy. If we know the limitations of the movement we can make the best out of it.

One great paradox is that those who claim to be visionaries try to "capture" the immortal, perennial truth - the Platonic ideals. We try to capture them within the limitations of mortality, and try to evoke oneness within duality. But the sages said, “There is only one." Isn’t it a paradox to try to evoke the one where there is only one? It is like saying: “Look at this citron. What a citron it is!" Is it really necessary to tell the world that this citron is really a citron?

Sometimes I am very glad that I present the immortal with my work, or that my work resonates on a very high level. But how is this possible? How can I (a mere mortal) create an art that points to the immortal?

Some sages once said:

"Nothing the self does in the limitations of space and time will bring salvation from space and time."

"If the (mortal) self tries to evoke the immortal, isn’t it fooling with itself?"

The idea of changing the mortal world with an immortal, transcendental art, or an art that claims to be transcendental, should be observed with a very skeptical eye, as the wish for change always stems from the mortal self. As the mortal self wants to heal a mortal world, and says at the same time, "I represent the immortal" - well, think about it.

Some pointers from Wei Wu Wei:

"Arguing about transcending the I-concept, 'reducing' the 'ower' of the ego or whatever, is merely evidence of continued belief in the reality of that which, being a concept, is totally unreal.

"It's like a man saying, 'I am perfectly sane: I know that I am not a poached egg, indeed I am busily engaged in unpoaching myself and soon I will not even need a piece of toast in order to sit down.'"

--Wei Wu Wei, "Why Lazarus Laughed" p.18

God is already here, right now, present in every action and reaction. So an art that says, "We represent the immortal truth and wisdom of God" is a very dangerous art form. I ask you to keep that in mind, as every art or philosophy tends towards a dictatorship. Even the integral-philosophy movement is limited by integration, and when an art or philosophy says, "I point to God," or "Spirit," it also says between the lines, "You don’t."

I know that we never leave this cage, because we are humans, and our nice and cozy visionary transcendentalism tends to be something that is glorifying itself. This is a funny thing, that our art glorifies itself, and that the outer world doesn’t give a shit about it.

So, visionary art that "tries" to evoke the godhead is limited by its very aim to evoke the godhead. Here is the paradox: the claim that god is ever-present, yet there is this “visionary” art that claims to solely represent god. You see the paradox? How can something that is mortal say: "I’m immortal"? When everything points to god, how can one thing exist that points to god in a more direct way?

Is this goal or aim of our art not very arrogant, ego-centered, and a massive illusion?

I hope we will have a good discussion…