View Full Version : Faceless art -- spawned in slime?
firemaiden
16-12-2003, 07:51
In the thread on colors (http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17505), Alobar quoted some nasty bits from Correspondance between Aleister Crowley and Frieda Harris (http://www.hermetic.com/crowley/crowley-harris.html) (website found for us by Macavity.) It got me to thinking, and I thought I would take the discussion into a new thread.
In a letter to Frieda Harris dated 19 December, 1939, Crowley addresses her reluctance to paint faces, and rails against the trend toward facelessness in modern art.
Your feeling about having no forms and faces is merely symptomatic of modern soul-sickness. It is lack of confidence in one's creative powers. It is the root of homo-sexuality as understood in this country and of all these crazy movements, the Neo-Thomists, and the Buchmanites and the Dadaists and the Surrealists. Picasso took it far enough; he tried to paint a chair which could not be any particular chair, and must therefore have no colour and no form, but as every chair, in order to be a chair, must have a support for the human frame, he did a horizontal line. But this is metaphysics and not art; all these half-sexed, half-witted people, sicklied o'er with the pale caste of thought, I cannot believe that any of them will ever command either the Exeter, the Ajax or the Achilles, and any man who is not potentially capable of doing that, is not a man at all; he may be some kind of pudding, and I hold no brief against puddings, but all these people who resent simplicity resent manhood, they weave their own onanistic web of nastiness; these are the shells cast off from the Tree of Life, these are the larvea of abomination....
Certainly strong words of condemnation! (I wonder if he was targetting a certain painter in particular with whom he might have had a personal dispute...) I must admit, that despite the venim here, I find the language ooooh, so delicious and riotously funny!"
(I admit, I would not like to be the object of his scorn, but scorn and denigration aside, the language is on a par with French poets like Lautréamont and Baudelaire -- -- "the larvae of abomination" ooooooo, it's positively delicious...it comes straight out of Baudelaire's "Fleurs de Mal" (The Flowers of Evil) Don't forget, the French eat snails...)
I also think it is fascinating that the faces were so important to him, and that they are nevertheless so absent from the deck. Have a riffle through the seventy-eight paintings, you will see, there are but two who have eyes: the Fool's (freaky) eyes are alive and open, and focussed directly on the viewer, and XX-the Aeon shows open eyes looking up. (Well, perhaps also the Queen of Swords and the Prince of Wands have eyes, but they are teeny tiny...) (Well, okay, the ass-devil and the snake also have seeing eyes...but--) All the other figures are strategically turned away so as to have no face at all, or they are looking down, or their eyes are closed. The Magician has a face, but his open eyes are empty - like those of a marble statue--
Compare this to the faces in the Marseilles! How powerfully the human expressions leap off the cards!
I agree there is an aspect of soul-less-ness in the faceless art. It bespeaks of alienation, and emptiness.
Or does it? There is the other school of thought, that the wooden marionette is the most expressive medium, the wood, as empty vessel, allows the viewer to project his own emotions therein....some may find the pure absence of expression allows for an infinity of (projected) expression.
What do you think?
Le_Corsair
16-12-2003, 08:08
I've recently discovered this cool old song, sung by It's A Beautiful Day:
There's a girl in my room and her face on the wall with no eyes.
There's a girl in my room and her face on the wall with no eyes.
Girl with no eyes,
who can she be?
Girl with no eyes,
she's looking at me.
There's a girl in my room and her face on the wall with no eyes.
If I make a sound she'll know that I'm stirring inside.
If I make a sound she'll know that I'm trying to hide.
Girl with no eyes,
who can she be?
Girl with no eyes,
she's looking at me.
Beautiful girl,
who does she see?
Beautiful girl,
she seems to be staring.
There's more, but that is spooky enough, I think.
Bob :THERM
firemaiden: Unfortunately, I have had to send you by Private Messaging my response to your question "What do you think?"
I think if I posted it here, it would break the forum rules and guidelines.
firemaiden
16-12-2003, 08:40
Cool song, Le Corsair.
My dearest Diana I think you flatter yourself concerning your ability to offend....
I just want to point out how ironic it is that the human figures are de-humanised in facelessness, while the animals are vividly alive. The ass, or moose, or wildebeast, or whatever the hey that creature is on the Devil card is positively glowing with mirth. I like him. :)
See - an idealised self-portrait
www.hermetic.com/crowley/confess/teckning.jpg
'nuff said.....
firemaiden
16-12-2003, 08:57
hmmm... this portrait suggests several things:
1) Mr. C had very abominable drawing skills and only a faint knowledge of anatomy.
2). He was fully aware that he was his head was overblown and "full of it".
3). He was abducted by aliens.
I wonder if our resident expert in the sequinned hat might comment on the significance of downcast eyes.
P.S. The alternative title for this thread before I changed it, was going to be "Aleister Crowley, Man or Pudding?"
Originally posted by firemaiden
hmmm... this portrait suggests several things:[list]
1) Mr. C had very abominable drawing skills and only a faint knowledge of anatomy.
Yes but...... have you noticed how he styles the first letter of his first name?
firemaiden
16-12-2003, 09:08
Ah, yes indeed, his own signature seems to agree with Alobar's assessement, what a prick! his unabashed arrogance on full display here, i think (but oh how i wish he could come over for dinner! ).
But you are all very bad, and I am giving you failing grades, you are focussing on whether Mr. Crowley was a man or a pudding, and you are not addressing my question about faceless art. After all the issue is, he wanted more faces and Lady Harris wanted fewer. How do you feel about the faceless-ness of the art? Does it invite you to read more? or less into the cards? Do you agree with Mr. C that there is an aspect of soul-lessness to formless and faceless art?
firemaiden
16-12-2003, 09:39
Further down in the letter he writes more about faces, he is fighting with Harris to put a face on the Justice Card (Adjustement), it seems: I must emphasise that this fear of faces is an appalling symptom of cowardice. It is surely a natural instinct to connect expression with moral ideas, and it is moral ideas, or more correctly magical ideas, that you are out to illustrate.
**It did not matter so much in this particular card because of the tradition of Justice being blind, but on the other hand, the masking of the face suggests deceit which is the absolute opposite of the intention of the card; it was the familiars of the Inquisition, it was the Vehmgericht that administered what they called Justice, hooded.**
Impartiality is a lovely idea, but it doesn't get you very far; if the impartial person may be impersonated by a demon of malignant darkness.
(emphasis mine)
It seems he didn't like her rendition of Justice - masked. It is the very opposite of the intention of the card, he says, suggesting the cruel injustice of the Inquisition and the Vehmgericht (http://www.bartleby.com/65/ve/Vehmgeri.html) (the medieval German equivalent of the Stasi, I guess) Yet Frieda's vision prevailed, didn't it!
Do you see Adjustment as a portrayal of impartial justice? or does the card rather suggest the "demon of malignant darkness?"
hindu_fetish
16-12-2003, 15:25
The predominant facelessness of the Thoth paintings is notable and, arguably, symptomatic of modernism's "soul sickness" (i.e. western personality's fragmentation and post WWI psycho-philosophical disintegration).
In this Tarotista's view-- and presumably Crowley's-- there is no body part on par with the face that so persuasively presents an individual as a discrete entity possessing a variety of characteristics within a personal unicity. In fact, calling the face a body part seems grossly inaccurate. Thus, when Crowley laments the lack of facial visages in he and Harris' proposed Tarot, it seems he laments the loss of the apparent force of personality that would otherwise have been present through that magic that a face works on its beholder. And that he sees as soul sick and weak.
Looking around at the modern art landscape contemporary to him, he, in my view, correctly surmised that that type of representation was going out of style as metaphysical discontent prevailed in the minds of artists. But that makes since when it is acknowledged that culturally Europe had broken apart at the seems in the Great War and was on its way to another horrifically traumatic passage in WWII. To say the f'ing least.
So, I hear his gripe. But where he takes it is silly. Ascribing sexual virilence to this is pathetic straight-white-guy bullcrap. He ends up sounding like Jerry Fallwell in conversation with Pat Robertson blaming the 9-11 attack on gays, lesbians and the ACLU. What's more, the trajectory of visual art through post modernism, pop and and the end-of-criticism did not see an eradication of the human face due to an overly fey, homo influence. Go to Sante Fe, walk Canyon Road and tell me the face is over in art.
More specifically, the fact is that gay influenced portraiture is worshipful of every physical human facet it can sketch. The face especially. The Hollywood face-- male or female-- especially especially.
Anyway. I think he just wanted as much detail as he could get in the cards and she didn't want to do the work. Which would have been monumental.
And-- someone help-- wasn't Crowley bi? Didn't have a several years' long affair with his occult mentor? Classic Tory-style British hypocrisy.
I love the cards, but I swear, the more I find out about Crowley, the more I have to forget who made them when I turn to them in important moments.
firemaiden
16-12-2003, 15:33
Interesting post, Hindu Fetish. I agree with you that where he took it was just plain silly. (I think he would probably agree too... I mean, he was just sort of rambling on in a private letter.)
Anyhow, yeah, wasn't he gay (or bi) himself?
I was going to say, WHAT A JERK!!!
But I like this better:
quote from Alobar:
what a prick! his unabashed arrogance on full display here...
I got the deck because I liked Lady Harris's interpretation....
(And obviously she won...... Wuhoooooooo!!! She let the Jerk babble like an idiot and did what she wanted to do anyway.... )
And personally..... I don't care what he may have contributed to Tarot.... he's still a .... see above :)
f. silvestris
18-12-2003, 09:07
I think the lack of detail on the faces makes me focus on the cards more - the figures aren't foregrounded, but part of the composition - also, curiosity about what is indistinct draws the watcher in [the princess of cups/chalices, for instance]. On the matter of eyes, don't forget the opened Eye of Shiva on two cards [I have to say it looks distinctly similar to Peter Jackson's Eye of Sauron on The Tower].
Perhaps, once you give it eyes – once you assign a face – you lock the card down? You ‘peg’ a meaning? You lose flexability of interpretation?
Nope.
Look at Soul Cards, they show eyes…but then they are overlooked and shunned – they have no LWB.
Crowley was indeed a pudding, and a figgy one at that. He wanted eyes to haunt; he wanted eyes for affect – not effect.
Originally posted by firemaiden
Do you see Adjustment as a portrayal of impartial justice? or does the card rather suggest the "demon of malignant darkness?" I see it as the struggle for impartiality. Imparitiality is impossible to maintain constantly. Just look at the card. It's difficult to stand on one's tippy toes like that for very long!
Nevada (Libra sun)
Lady Freida must have been a strong character to get the deck illustrations how she and not Crowley wanted it - no wonder she painted so many versions of the Cards lol - I think that if more of the figures had eyes it would be too strong a deck for me to use, usually I like expressions on faces but there is so much more happening on these cards that I don't miss expressions and it doesn't bother me that some figures look away or have their backs to you.
Moongold
20-12-2003, 14:08
How about the Eye of Horus in the Tower card, firemaiden?
There are quite a few cards with faces, although on many of them, you can't see the eyes wide open or determine much expression.
I always saw this absence of expression as indicating the smallness of the individual (Man) when seen against the Cosmos. Like sand on the sea shore :).
In each card, there is so much else happening, that I don't have a sense of being deprived of human expression. It simply occurs in another form.
I simply love the Troth. I don't have Crowley's book though. I must buy it during the Christmas break but hope it does not spoil things for me. I feel as though I want to stay simply with Freida's art.
Moongold
f. silvestris
20-12-2003, 16:43
oh, I'm sorry, was I wrong about the eye on the Tower? I thought it was the eye of Shiva that destroys the world when it opens [comes into the Book of Lies, I think]
Moongold
20-12-2003, 17:00
Hahahah :D
Now HERE is a significant eye.
Gerard Ziegler call this one the eye of Horus.
In the Sephiroth Tarot the Eye of Ra appears in the Tower Card.
How many eyes are there in various Tower cards? How many mythological eyes are there?
Help anyone?
Moongold
firemaiden
20-12-2003, 17:21
You are going to have to work to convince me that the eyes of Horus, Ra, and Shiva are different eyes...
MP uses an eye in the pool of water in the Moon card...
About faceless art... I like it.
I dont care if someone thinks it has no soul. Thats not true.
The emotions are in the colours selected, in the forms, in the symbols, in the way they are blended. Thats the soul, it resides in each trace. Each card has its own soul. A face can look much more empty when is portrayed witha a dead expression and i've seen this a lot of times.
But those drawings are so alive... why they need more faces? Being faceless they have some kind of universalism and a timeless sense. This sensation is very hard to achieve when you try to personalize the character with an specific face.
Anyway we find both on this deck.
The ilustrations in the Thoth are probably my favourites on tarot all the time. And I love the art from Frieda Harris.
So many times the problem is not on the art, but on the eye of who is looking.
About that Crowley self-portrait... i was laughing both at the portrait and what you have said. And for the signature... im wondering what a graphologist would tell about that...
Originally posted by firemaiden
You are going to have to work to convince me that the eyes of Horus, Ra, and Shiva are different eyes...
MP uses an eye in the pool of water in the Moon card...
Eyes are just eyes. A symbol for the truth and clarity. No matter which god the eye belongs too.
Moongold
21-12-2003, 12:32
Aye.........I agree :)
Blessings
Originally posted by Inana
About faceless art... I like it.
I dont care if someone thinks it has no soul.
i rather like it too.
to me, alot of what Lady Freida is trying to do is to simulate the archaic style of art common in what she percieved the relevant period of Egyptian art to be.
in that period, the human form was very stiff and invariably 'eyeless'.
f. silvestris
26-12-2003, 04:56
It's also very much in the manner of the vorticist painting of Wyndham Lewis and allied work [Gaudier's hieratic head of Pound, etc], which tended towards the depersonalised and superhuman.
firemaiden
26-12-2003, 05:24
Ah very interesting! So there is an aspect of the de-personalisation which brings in the "super-human". I suppose it does, a bit in this deck.
firestorm
27-12-2003, 14:36
I like Lady Frieda's faceless art. But then, I love abstract art. I suppose some people just need/want everything spelled out for them; however, I fail to see why he needed to be so vicious about it. I admire Lady Frieda's strength in doing what she darn well pleased! :D
The self portrait reminds me of the alien that was on "The Flintstones". All he needs is the helmet. :D
Crowley says:
these are the shells cast off from the Tree of Life, these are the larvea of abomination....
about faceless faces. Could he be referring to the Qlipoth here? (The Dark Side of the Tree of Life) After all, the Qlipoth is called the Veil of Shells I think....
If he is, then I think it is quite significant: faceless faces to Crowley were part of the demonic, soul-less side of human nature. Crowley was always striving to gain contact with his Holy Guardian Angel, as all Thelemic followers do. Which means he was trying to move away from the Qlipoth, away from his demonic side: he was trying to neatralise it.
But here he saw Frieda Harris making the people of the Court Cards (whom Crowley viewed very highly) into Qlipothic demons?! I see the problem he had.
What I just said may be utter rubbish, but it makes sense to me! :D
Kiama
And to the 'wasn't Crowley bi?' question...
Yep, very much so. He had a sexual relationship with one of his students (or was it co-student) Victor Neuberg.
Kiama
Originally posted by Kiama
Which means he was trying to move away from the Qlipoth, away from his demonic side: he was trying to neatralise it.
It seems to me he was trying to approach the demonic side...
But i dont really know much about Crowley, so maybe you are right. Anyways your thoughts here are interesting.
firemaiden
28-12-2003, 13:16
How interesting, Kiama, thank you, thank you, thank you!!
It certainly is interesting to hear more about the context in which he wrote. We are re-acting to a private correspondance, not knowing the private references and in-jokes that might be coming up here. This bit Qlipoth bith helps a lot. Keep the insights coming, Kiama!
Macavity
28-12-2003, 15:25
Yeah, Now that Kiama mentions it, these "Larvae" do seem to figure as denizens of something Qlipothic? The Tunnels of Set (qv)? The nightside of Eden (qv)? and all that good stuff? :D I see they even get a mention in the appendix of Donald Kraig's "Modern Magick" Book. Along with "Empty Ones" and so MANY categories of little nasties (sic) that one hopes NOT to invoke accidentally! Although not obviously "of" the Thoth Tarot, I sense a lot of Liber 231 stuff might be important to the Major Arcana? "As we know" Qlipothic genii are used by DuQuette on his Majors Arcana in Ceremonial Magick Tarot. Perhaps we can look forward to a full explanation with e.g. Paul Hughes-Barlow's (shortly) forthcoming book which should be more orientated towards the Thoth Tarot? I hope to get my hands on a copy anyway... :)
FWIW, The only card of the Thoth's (not so, IMO) "faceless ones" I have qualms about is F.H.'s Robo-Cop take on the hanged man? Perhaps it is indeed alluding (As was observed) to the Ancient Egyptians and (as we already know) Osiris. But Hey, MY Ancient Egyptians all HAD faces, albeit with sometimes odd perspective! I did recently learn that Crowley demoted his Hanged Man to being the "Dying God" of the old Aeon? Something else he "despised"? A truly dead parrott? So maybe there IS something particular about THAT card (And indeed some others) that he wanted stated in the artwork?
I see DuQuette singles out (FM's) original quote - For being as being as BAD as it gets? :D GMTA? But (for the officianados) he also extracts many of the little correspondance snippits which are fun and IMO surprisingly informative. Perhaps Crowley-isms used to bother me more? But, as Duquette observes, on this very quote: "Why don't you say what you really mean, Mr Crowley!" :laugh: But I didn't have to live with A.C. - Given recent advice, I should maybe be greatful? })
Macavity
Originally posted by Macavity
I did recently learn that Crowley demoted his Hanged Man to being the "Dying God" of the old Aeon? Something else he "despised"? A truly dead parrott? So maybe there IS something particular about THAT card (And indeed some others) that he wanted stated in the artwork?
Indeed, very true. In the Book of Thoth Crowley says as much, although as usual it is in riddles!
Originally posted by Inana
It seems to me he was trying to approach the demonic side...
But i dont really know much about Crowley, so maybe you are right. Anyways your thoughts here are interesting.
It does very much look like that from an outside perspective, but once you delve into his writings and philosophy it becomes clear that the opposite was in fact the case! (Crowley: never known for being straight-forward!)
The whole point of Thelema (the philosophy Crowley created) is to gain 'Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel', and to face up to your inner demons (your demonic side) in order to integrate them into your psyche in a safe way, so that they do not become bottled up and inevitably turn into dangerous neuroses.
I've just remembered: my friend wrote an article about Crowley, if anybody would like to read it:
http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/User/A.M.Holland/pagan/aleister_crowley.html
It might shed some light on Crowley's life and works. :D
Kiama
Kiama,
Thanks for the explanation. Im going to check that link!
I find all this subject very interesting and want to learn more on Crowley and Thelema. The bit i've read about Crowley works and his own writtings are a bit confussing...