Friday, 31 January 2020

Close Encounters of the Blurred Kind.

"Well, I dreamed I saw the silver spaceships flying in the yellow haze of the sun. There were children crying and colours flying all around the chosen ones. All in a dream. All in a dream. The loading had begun" - After the Gold Rush, Neil Young.

I was at The Bell in Whitechapel (as were many others, standing room only for those who didn't arrive early) for my first London Fortean Society event of 2020:- A Skeptic's Guide to Aliens with Professor Chris French, head honcho at Greenwich Skeptics in the Pub and the provider, in the past, of an excellent LFS talk about memory and identity as well as plenty of others that happened before I became a regular LFS attendee.

Chris has, in fact, been the most booked speaker since the inception of the LFS. Having seen him speak a few times before I knew him to be engaging, knowledgeable, and, best of all, funny. On Wednesday he did not disappoint on any of those scores. There was, however, a small danger that there would be some crossover with Paula Dempsey's excellent talk, at SELFS last November, on the history of flying saucers.


Paula was sat in the front row (one of at least three other previous LFS speakers in attendance). But not, I think, to check the Prof wasn't ripping off any of her material. But because it's a subject she's clearly very interested in and because he's a great speaker. He was, also, coming at the topic from a different angle to her. While Paula, uncritically, laid out a history of sightings of alien craft, French explored the psychological aspect behind claims of alien visitation and alien abduction and made it very clear from the get go that he was talking from a skeptical viewpoint.

The clue's in the title really - A Skeptic's Guide. Clutching my regulation pint of Red Stripe (sneered at by a real ale enthusiast - why do they get so worked up about people's choice of drinks?) in one hand and my notepad in the other I began eagerly scribbling down what I felt to be the salient, or amusing, points. The Prof began by going through a potted history of alien visitation which did overlap a bit with Paula's talk.

But that was fine. For one, it was mostly a different crowd and, two, the overlap was minor. Some stuff about the first flying saucer sighting, a brief history of ufology, and nods to Kenneth Arnold, George Adamski, and Barney and Betty Hill (which you can read about elsewhere on EIAPOE) was skimmed over pretty quickly, like a flying saucer over water, before Chris French started to get a little more specific.


The American astronomer J. Allen Hynek (a man who began as an alien skeptic but became a believer) is the person who came up with the 'Close encounter' classification system which, initially, consisted of three categories. (1) Sightings. (2) Physical evidence (photographs, marks on the ground). (3) Contact with an alien. These 'Close Encounters of the Third Kind' became so popular that Steven Spielberg nicked the term for his 1977 sci-fi film.


Hynek stopped at three different types of close encounter but others went further. Close encounters of the fourth kind involves alien abduction (and the 5th, 6th, and 7th kinds develop these ideas even further) and that's the type this evening was, primarily, devoted to. Two of the first claims of alien abduction come from George Adamski and Antonio Villas Boas.

Adamski claims to have been taken for a ride in a Venusian spaceship in 1952 and Antonio Villas Boas (not be mistaken with Andre Villas-Boas, the former Porto, Chelsea, and Tottenham manager), in 1957, in Brazil, claimed he'd been taken up in a spaceship and seduced by a female alien who had barked like a dog when they had sex.


Betty and Barney Hill's case, in 1961, seemed to set the template for future stories of alien abductions as it was the first to mention probes (Barney claimed to have had a cylinder inserted into his anus). Barney divulged this, following hypnosis to uncover repressed memories, and the Hills were also able to draw up a 'star map' of the places they'd been taken to during their incredible journey.

But hypnosis has been proven not to be a reliable method for recovering memories and the star map they drew up bore no resemblance to any star system currently known by astronomers. Alien skeptic Philip J. Klass, in his 1989 book UFO Abductions:A Dangerous Game, suggests the UFO that the Hills reported seeing was most likely the planet Venus which was unusually close on the evening of their adventure.


Elsewhere, it's worth reminding ourselves that UFOs exist. There are definitely Objects we see Flying that we are unable to identify and are thus Unidentified. I've seen several UFOs. That doesn't mean that they CAN'T be identified and it certainly doesn't mean that ET is flying them. Even 95% of ufologists accept that most reports of UFO sightings can easily be dismissed as aeroplanes, satellites, Chinese lanterns, laser displays, or the planet Venus.


As Chris French went on to point out, most of us now have quite advanced cameras on our phones but the quality of photographic 'evidence' of alien visitation doesn't seem to have advanced at the same pace. They're mostly still very blurry, easily dismissed, or, quite clearly, deliberate hoaxes.

But as easily as most accounts of alien visitation or alien abduction can be dismissed, that doesn't account for people who really want to believe. Faith, as you see with religion, Trump, or Brexit, can often be much stronger than evidence. If we want to believe something badly enough, we'll believe it and if there are people out there writing books to confirm our biases (either because they believe the same or because they want to financially benefit from those who do) then that just shores up our certainty.

Of course, there were (and are) plenty of authors out there doing so. Whitley Streiber, in 1987, wrote Communion (described, iffily, on Wikipedia as his first "non-fiction" book) about his previously repressed memories of being abducted by aliens which were revealed to him under the hypnosis of one Budd Hopkins.



Streiber was a successful writer of horror novels and his imagination was so vivid that he insisted, when he was twelve years old, he was attacked by a skeleton riding a motorbike. Budd Hopkins was an artist (he'd knocked about with abstract expressionists like Rothko and de Kooning) who believed that aliens were visiting our planet and embarking on a cross breeding project by, to all intents and purposes, raping humans. Hopkins was seven years old when Orson Welles' 1938 radio version of War of the Worlds was broadcast and it scared him so much it is claimed it left 'psychic scars'.

Make of that what you will but these books didn't just provide a form of proof for believers. In their wake came a whole new load of claimants to alien abduction and the more stories that came forward the more common themes emerged (although one account of having an ovum removed and inserted into the abductee's nose remains uniquely peculiar). Tours of alien ships, long circular corridors, messages to humans about the dangers of pollution and nuclear war, and even the image of the alien (the 'grey' of popular imagination) became almost standardised.



Did this mean there was truth in the sightings or was there another explanation? Research did seem to suggest that following popular films or television programmes about extra terrestrials (The Outer Limits, V etc;), the next wave of contactee reports would almost inevitably favour visitation by aliens who looked remarkably like the fictional ones that had been seen on the screen.

Chris French made a very funny point about how nobody ever reported being abducted by Mr Spock because, presumably, that would sound just a bit too ludicrous. But the idea of being deemed ridiculous for reporting alien visitation is something that believers have considered in their work.


When trying to answer the vexed question of how many people have been abducted by aliens, many believers insist it is far more than  have reported such incidents, and though the idea of being laughed at is certainly one reason it is suggested that contactees don't come forward, there is also the belief that aliens erase their abductee's memories following contact so people simply don't remember, or even know, they have been abducted.

Which sounds like a very convenient get out clause (to me, a skeptic). Or perfectly logical (to a believer, a conspiracy theory is always hard to disprove because any attempt to disprove it, to a believer, is, of course, further proof of the conspiracy). A Roper poll asked vague questions about vague subjects in an attempt to find out if people who claimed they hadn't been abducted had, in fact, been abducted!

Respondents were asked if there were times, sometimes whole hours, they couldn't remember and if they'd ever found mystery bruises on their bodies. This sounds like a description of what was once a fairly standard Friday night and Saturday morning for me but they'd have taken these things as a sign that I'd had a ride in a spaceship with the Great Gazoo or that Mork had shoved a cylinder up my arse.


Those who'd overseen this poll decided that an estimated 370,000 Americans had been abducted by aliens. Which would mean 340 people every day since 1961! But that's including those who don't know they've been taken. Even if you leave them out there are, globally, thousands who claim conscious memories of alien abduction.

So, bearing in mind that the talk was called A Skeptic's Guide to Aliens, what's the pscyhopathological take on this? Are all these people crazy? Are they all liars? The prof says no. Research undertaken (and there's not been much recently, aliens just ain't trendy any more) shows that most claimants of abduction are not seriously disturbed.

But it did suggest that profiles of claimants of alien contact leaned towards those who are distrusting, had high levels of PTSD, childhood trauma, loneliness, and suicidal tendencies. Susceptibility to false memory is regularly linked with traits of dissociation, fantasy proneness, and, on the surface conversely, absorption. Reports also suggested that those who had reported alien contact were also more likely to have reported seeing ghosts, being telepathic, having healing powers, and other paranormal stuff.

Anything going really. Maybe even elevated attention seeking. But, mostly, not out and out lying. There are some clear hoaxes (Travis Walton's Fire in the Sky was cited) and the main reason for them appear to be either financial or social or both. There's money in seeing aliens, writing books about seeing aliens, and you get invited to lots of conferences to talk about seeing aliens and make lots of friends in that community. If you're lonely or poor or both, it's tempting.


None of that means there is no form of intelligent, or downright stupid, extraterrestrial life. But it does suggest that all the accounts we have so far, on balance, appear to be spurious. Chris French did an entertaining and informative job of making a fairly watertight case for his skepticism on the subject and I hope I've conveyed that to you.

I've not even covered diversions into Carl Sagan, SETI, Richard Dawkins, Carl Jung, 'highway hypnosis', the word 'hypnopompic', 'non-ordinary realities' (which sounds like the sort of thing Kellyanne Conway would come up with to defend more of Trump's bullshit), or the prevalence of sadomasochistic fantasy scenarios played out among those who claim to have been abducted. But I've hopefully given you a feel for another fascinating night with the London Fortean Society. Now, take me to your leader.




Thursday, 30 January 2020

Read it in Books:The War of the Worlds.

"The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one, he said".

But still they come! Or at least they do, in fiction, since H.G.Wells wrote The War of the Worlds in 1898. It was, the blurb on my Penguin Classics cover proudly attests, "the first modern tale of alien invasion" and, for that and many other reasons, it has been made and remade for film, theatre, television (and, of course, by Jeff Wayne as a musical opera) many many times.


With a TADS walk set for March around Woking and Horsell Common, sites integral to the story, I felt it was time to revisit the book I first read about fifteen years ago. At the time the style of writing surprised me. It was very matter of fact. Almost as if in the manner of a police procedural. Incredibly dramatic things happen but the stoic delivery of the narrator renders them more prosaic than you'd expect.

Would a second reading prove this initial impression correct or had I missed something? Certainly, I'd not recalled Wells' way with a poetic turn of phrase. Night is "the mother of fear and mystery", loneliness and emptiness are described as "nothing but this gaunt quiet" and, best of all for me, "few people realise the immensity of vacancy in which the dust of the material universe swims". I've nicked that one for the title of my walk.

The opening sentence, "no one would have believed, in the last years of the nineteenth century, that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinized and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water", sets out Wells' stall with both accuracy and precision in intent. There's very little fat on his writing.

Wells appears to have a love-hate relationship with humanity. It seems he wants humans to be the best we can but despairs of our selfishness, our petty grievances, and the way we treat both each other and the other animals on our planet. In the decades following The War of the Worlds, H.G.Wells would go on to write lots of apparently lesser, more moralistic, books in an attempt to get us to improve ourselves. But the intention was already there in 1898. He just wrapped it up in some pretty juicy science-fiction.

In the first chapter alone Wells writes of man's "infinite complacency", their "little affairs", and their "petty concerns" and we later learn of men who are not taken seriously, when telling the truth, simply because they are not wearing hats, and observe that the incurious nature of most Brits means they continue to eat, drink, sleep, and do the gardening even as the alien invasion has begun.

The Martians, however, are described as having "intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic" with "minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish" who see we men as "at least as lowly as are the monkeys and the lemurs are to us". He reminds us that this alien cruelty and disregard for life is merely a reflection of our own, of how humans have made not just "the vanished bison and the dodo" disappear but also made extinct entire human races like "The Tasmanians". Even on a more local scale, Wells never resists the opportunity to point out some of the baser behaviours of the human race. The rubberneckers on Horsell Common are booed and jeered by "thoughtless and excitable souls to whom a crowd is always an occasion for noise and horseplay" and, when the aliens first start killing, two women and a small boy are trampled to death in a stampede as people attempt to escape.


Wells was living in Woking at the time and the fact that he sets the initial scenes of the Martian invasion in his home town (as well as nearby Ottershaw, Leatherhead, and Chertsey - there's even a chapter called 'What I Saw of the Destruction of Weybridge and Shepperton') gives the story both a verisimilitude we can relate to and acts as a contrast between the mighty Martian pods and the suburban roads and houses of Surrey.

There's also a feeling that Wells felt stifled by polite society and took great pleasure in imagining its total and utter destruction. A wake up call to all the pompous, self-serving, little Englanders and commuters who represented the 9 to 5 existence that his adroit imagination and skillful writing had given him an escape route from.



The big city doesn't get off scot-free either. Far from it. London just has to wait longer to be punished. The narrator's brother lives in London where's he studying medicine and spending his evenings in music-halls. London people, for the most part, seem unconcerned about the arrival of Martians in Surrey (critics of our capital would no doubt say that it is hardly atypical for a Londoner to be unconcerned about the regions) and, in some instances, are more interested in the hordes of people arriving in the west of the city from Molesey, Walton, and Weybridge. Many with their furniture loaded up into horse drawn carts.

To escape the alien invasion, of course. The commotion this causes commuters at Waterloo brings about a general ill temper that would not reach such a level again until South West Trains were given a franchise to operate from there in 1996. Elsewhere there is a kind of gallows humour as guns are brought up from Chatham and Woolwich. "You'll get eaten" and "we're the beast-tamers" both being overheard examples.

The sheer power, and size, of the Martians is news that seems to reach London slowly and incrementally but as it does the streets fill like 'Epsom High Street on Derby Day' and, of course, the taverns of London are soon doing a roaring trade. The Martians themselves, of course, make a rather ruder debut in the city. Eight o'clock at night there is heavy firing heard south of London, then the largest city the world had ever seen, and by the witching hour church bells are being rung, and policemen knocking doors, to awaken people from their slumber and advise them to seek refuge. Many head to Chalk Farm station to board special trains bound for the North-West.



Not peaceably either. Revolvers are fired, people are stabbed, and police break the heads of people they have been instructed to direct. In Wells' words:- "London, which had gone to bed on Sunday night oblivious and inert, was awakened in the small hours of Monday morning to a vivid sense of danger". Kingston, Richmond, and Wimbledon, word had it, had all been destroyed. Wells seems to take particular delight in the annihilation of the more fashionable districts and denizens of the city and, it must be noted, takes no little pleasure in the damage that is dished out to St Paul's Cathedral. A physical manifestation of another underlying concept within the book, that of the uselessness and cowardice of Christians and Christianity in the face of a foe far greater than their incurious brains had been able to even imagine.


The alien invasion had begun with a "falling star" seen "rushing over Winchester eastward" that many people in Berkshire, Surrey, and Middlesex would have seen and taken for an ordinary meteorite. All except Ogilvy the astronomer who found, near the sand-pits of Horsell Common, an enormous hole "made by the impact of the projectile" surrounded by burning heather and heaps of displaced sand and gravel.

A huge uncovered cylinder protruded from the earth and, eventually, it dawned on Ogilvy that the cylinder, or the Thing as Wells calls it, was being unscrewed from within. There was something, something or someone, alive inside of it. But when Ogilvy tried to assist in opening the cylinder the heat shock he received was so intense he ran back to Woking. It was so hot that another famous Woking visitor, HRH Prince Andrew, would have regained the ability to sweat.


When Ogilvy returns to the common with the journalist Henderson all is quiet and it is assumed the men from Mars are dead. Henderson telegraphs the news to his London office and soon the morning newspapers are full of stories about the 'dead men from Mars'. It's not long before "a number of boys and unemployed men" are gathering at the common to sate their curiosity. Employed men, it is to be presumed, having far more pressing concerns than an alien invasion.

The crowd of onlookers grows exponentially larger and rowdier. The cylinder is unscrewed but what emerges is not a man. Not a little green man of the public imagination. The narrator is struck by a "sudden chill", "disgust and dread", and an "ungovernable terror" and the rest of the watching crowd utter "inarticulate exclamations" and even a "loud shriek" in "half-fascinated terror". Wells describes the first appearance on Earth of a Martian but, for the sake of spoilers and because our own imagination holds far darker terrors than even Wells can articulate, I shall not divulge.

When he describes how the Martians "slay" the humans and animals of Earth, Wells gets all scientific. He uses words like "non-conductivity" and talks of how the force of gravity on Earth is three times as strong as it is on Mars, how the percentage of argon and oxygen in each planet's atmosphere affects that, and there's even mention of "a polished parabolic mirror". Most of which I don't properly understand.

It all stands quite at odds with a world of Surrey villages, vicars, churches, orphanages, and country pubs. A juxtaposition even more pronounced upon the first sighting of giant tripods, "higher than many houses, striding over the young pine-trees, and smashing them aside". Wells ask us to imagine "a milking-stool tilted and bowed violently" squirting out "puffs of green smoke"


At times Wells' self-regard is almost astonishing. He writes that "so vain is man, and so blinded by his vanity, that no writer, up to the very end of the nineteenth century, expressed any idea that intelligent life might have developed there far, or indeed at all, beyond its earthly level. We can forgive him his vanity, however, because he is telling, mostly, the truth.

Not only was he one of the first to imagine an alien invasion but he was also writing, in 1898, essentially, about climate change or at least how the cooling of the planet Mars seemed to presage extreme weather conditions on our own planet. Wells saw Earth, in the future, cooling and the ocean levels lowering. Of course, we know now it's the other way round. But, in intent and imagination, at least, he was on to something long before many others. Some still aren't there. Like Meatloaf. A man, it goes without saying, we've all been eager to hear from on this issue.

Wells imagined how extremes of temperature could harden hearts and result in radical, violent, solutions although when he suggests these conditions brightened intellects we can safely say he did not foresee the coming of Trump.

The likes of Trump have turned political movements into quasi-religions, debased opinions into articles of faith and wished a form of hell on the non-believers. Wells, I think, would not have been a fan. At least judging by the way he writes about religion and religious people. A curate we meet on the outskirts of Weybridge quotes the Book of Revelation, constantly repeats the mantra "fire, earthquake, death", and despairs that it is "the end. The great terrible day of the Lord". Wells, sensing that man's paucity of imagination is so pronounced that he can only visualise Earth being destroyed by omnipotent beings of man's own fabrication, has his narrator (who bears a striking similarity to a certain Herbert George Wells) respond with "what good is religion if it collapses under calamity?" and "do you think God has exempted Weybridge? He is not an insurance agent".

Sometimes Wells' flights of fancy are simply magnificent. Following the narrator's first encounter with the Martians he is, a couple of glasses of wine to the good, convinced they will, if necessary, be easy to destroy. He looks back on himself and compares his complacency to "some respectable dodo in the Mauritius" who "might have lorded it in his nest, and discussed that arrival of the shipful of pitiless sailors in want of animal food" before imaging the dodo telling his avian spouse "we will peck them to death tomorrow, my dear". Later, Wells suggests that should a balloonist have looked down at the destroyed, and blotted, settlements of Ealing, Richmond, and Wimbledon it would seem "as if some monstrous pen had flung ink upon the charts".


When he describes the aliens he ponders their integuments, their features, their problems to stand upright under Earth's denser atmosphere, their complete disinterest in sexual procreation, and their method of consumption as a curious doctor may note an anomalistic patient in his diary. He repulses at their alien behaviour, using pipettes to suck blood from living creatures, while at the same time bearing in mind "how repulsive our carnivorous habits would seem to an intelligent rabbit".

Some, it seems, are less intelligent than others. While, at all times, we're left in no doubt that the narrator/author is a greater intellect and capable of more advanced thinking than other men, women fare even worse. Men rarely fear for their own lives, instead worrying how 'their' womenfolk will cope without them and the aforesaid curate, who irritates with vitiation and 'shifty cunning', is described as "as lacking in restraint as a silly woman". Different times, eh?

To return to that idea of the police procedural, great and important events are related as if a man should be telling you about the traffic or what day they come for the bins. A publican is found dead on the street, his neck broken, and Wells steps over him "gingerly" and informs the reader that this was a  man whose "conveyance" he had previously taken.

There's no shock, no horror. Just matter of fact reportage and one has to wonder if this is how Wells would view, or even will, the destruction of huge swathes of the human race,  a literary device employed for the book, or simply the pre-eminent style of the late Victorian era. Following the near complete destruction of London, he simply notes "certain it is that many died at home".

This cold, steely, relating of events is probably not how an author of our times would go about telling this story. But should you scratch beneath the veneer you find that there is a warmth at the heart of The War of the Worlds and it's not just that provided by the deadly Martian heat rays. Wells takes pleasure in the fictional destruction of places we know and love but only, I think, because he's concerned that the complacency, selfishness, and vanity of man risks bringing about a very real destruction. The aliens aren't that different to us. They're just more advanced. They've developed weapons to kill us with faster and more easily but, it appears, they've not developed enough of a conscience to see that that may be wrong. Remember that next time you tread on an ant or vote in another warmonger.



Wednesday, 29 January 2020

Born Into a Very Literal State of Chaos:Anselm Kiefer at the White Cube, Bermondsey.

"Art is difficult. It's not entertainment" - Anselm Kiefer.

"Art really is something very difficult. It is difficult to make, and it is sometimes difficult for the viewer to understand. It is difficult to work out what is art and what is not art" - Anselm Kiefer.

Blimey! Meet us halfway, Anselm. Chuck us a few clues. I don't mind doing a bit of work when it comes to getting to grips with art but it seems that's not enough for Anselm Kiefer. The difficulty in understanding his creations is almost the reason he creates them. But I think another reason he makes these huge brooding pieces is that he wants his art to be considered as IMPORTANT!


Die Lebenden und die Toten (2019)

Not just to be considered as important. But to be important. He's spoken of how his Calvinist upbringing has instilled in him a need for what he does to have purpose and he's hinted, more prismatically, of a desire to try to make sense, or order, from the chaos we are all born into. 

Quasi-religious imagery, axes, a mostly monochrome palette, ominous German titles (to be fair, he is German), and the sheer size of his work. All of these things seem to be letting us know, none too subtly, that Anselm Kiefer is an important artist and that he has important things to say. Things that we, us mere viewers, probably won't possibly be able to comprehend or interpret.

It doesn't make for the most illuminating experience though it does make for a spectacle. It had me wondering if Kiefer's haughty quotations, giant canvases, and oh so dark and meaningful art wasn't, in some way, fooling us all. Anything this big, anything this revered, anything the artist speaks in such hi-falutin' tones about. Well, it must mean something. If we can't work out what then perhaps we're the idiots.


Superstrings, Runes, The Norns, Gordian Knot (2019)


Superstrings, Runes, The Norns, Gordian Knot (2019)


Superstrings, Runes, The Norns, Gordian Knot (2019)

The fact that Kiefer was born in Germany (in the small picturesque Black Forest town of Donaueschingen) exactly two months before the end of World War II (in Europe at least) adds further ballast to our critical appraisals and expectations of Kiefer as a meaningful artist, a man who has seen stuff, experienced things, and a man with a mission to truly understand what disturbs our human souls so that the dreadful death, murder, and mayhem that may lurk at the heart of us all may never be unleashed again.

The White Cube in Bermondsey's recent show of new work from Kiefer has been given the lengthy, and pompous, title Superstrings, Runes, The Norns, Gordian Knot and, we're informed by a leaflet we can grab at the desk on the way in, it brings together many of the themes that have preoccupied Kiefer throughout his career.

Mythology, astronomy, history, and even mathematics. In the form of the incredibly confusing (it's said if you think you can understand it then you're not even close) string theory. String theory attempts to articulate the fundamental interactions of all matter in the universe and, at the White Cube, Kiefer seeks to do similar. To 'bring together theories of seemingly extraneous principles from difficult cultures and histories' so that ancient mythology and modern science can be shown not to be in conflict but, in fact, stem from the same place. He's trying to show there's a link between all things. A thread that runs from the beginning of time to now and on in to the future.


Superstrings (2018-19)


Superstrings (2018)

You can't fault his ambition, and I choose not to doubt his intention either. As you enter the White Cube you pass along a corridor flanked by thirty vitrines. Each of which is over four metres tall and is filled with masses of entwined and tangled tubing and stained and crumbling panels. The surfaces of the vitrines are marked with complex, incomprehensible to most laity, equations and the names of the three chief spinners (the Norns) of Norse mythology:- Urdi, Verdandi, and Skuld.

Confused much? It doesn't get a lot clearer when you venture into the White Cube's various side galleries. Confronted with Kiefer's paintings of 'barren scenes and rows of charred vegetation', occasionally with an old wooden axe lobbed in to the middle of them, where straw and twigs as much as paint are mined for their dramatic and even transcendent qualities, you are immediately impressed by both the sheer size of them as well as their sparse bleakness.

Which is fine. It's good to look at. But my knowledge of both string theory and Norse mythology is, much like most of us I suspect, rudimentary at best. I'd barely describe myself as a keen hobbyist in regards to either discipline so the odds of me being able to fully appreciate what Kiefer is saying, or trying to say, with these sometimes seven metre long behemoths is, quite frankly, beyond my ken.


Superstrings (2018-19)


Ramanujan Summation - 1/12 (2019)

Elsewhere, there are references to the legend of Phrygian Gordium and Alexander the Great, the runic alphabets that formed the basis for Germanic languages, panopticons, systems of maintaining power, and the Italian theoretical physicist Gabriele Veneziano. Veneziano was one of the pioneers of string theory and Alexander the Great solved the problem of untangling the Gordian knot by using his axe to cut through it. But that doesn't really make Kiefer's art, or this show, much clearer.

If anything it obscures it further. Almost as if that's the point. These are dark, obscure, and even obscurantist pieces. They boast of an arcane and esoteric knowledge yet they refuse to divulge exactly what that knowledge is. In this they lack generosity. They remind me of when friends tell you they know some great gossip but they simply can't share it with you because it's too juicy. Well in that case don't say anything. Otherwise you're just showing off. Or even lying.


Der Gordische Knoten (2019)


Der Gordische Knoten (2019)

I'm being facetious (and intentionally bathetic), of course, and I think, if anything, Kiefer is showing off far more than he is lying. But here's the rub. Despite all the posturing and the self-aggrandisement I was still impressed. I was either lining up to buy the snake oil, to taste that Kool-Aid, or, somewhere deep inside of me, I am convinced that Kiefer's not a fraud. That he's on to something. That his difficult and important art is difficult and important because it needs to be and not just because it earns him praise and brings him money.

Had I been taken in by the titles, the pamphlet, and the scale of the event? I don't know for certain, and it seems unlikely I'll ever invest the time to find out. Life's too short and it seems to fully understand the meanings behind Kiefer's latest work I'd need to take a lengthy course in advanced theoretical phsyics at the Vienna University of Technology and read Hilda Ellis Davidson's Gods and Myths of Northern Europe in its entirety.


Right Wing, Left Wing (2019)


Der Gordische Knoten (2019)

The first of which borders on the impossible and the second of which I could do but is an unlikely priority for the near future (I've got bookshelves full of stuff I've barely skimmed). So, for this visit and for this summation, I must content myself with admiring Kiefer's work not for its mythological or scientific (or, indeed, its syncretic) meaning but purely for its aesthetic affects and its grand scale.

Der Gordische Knoten's axes look disturbing and horrific, other works recede into the distance as if to speak silently but powerfully about how war debases not just those who fight it but those who live in its shadow and even the environment in which it has taken place, and elsewhere the darkness in parts of his work is so intense, so foreboding, it seems that he is trying to warn us of ominous events foretold. Be they climate change disasters or conflicts enabled by short term thinking and nationalistic, populist ideologies


Der Gordische Knoten (2019)


String Action (2018)


The Veneziano Amplitude (2019)


String-Theorie (2018-19)


Die Seben Siegel, die geheime Offenbarung des Johannes (2016-18)

Not that Anselm Kiefer would ever make anything that spells that out so blatantly. The job of an artist is, of course, to ask questions rather than to answer them. I'm not sure if asking questions that are so hard to understand is a fault of Kiefer or is a fault of a society that doesn't allow us time to devote to further investigation and doesn't value curiosity as a tool to improve our planet and our lives.

I just know that's how it is. Anselm Kiefer's asking lots of interesting questions but we're merely standing in front of his paintings gawping at the size of them and taking photos of them. I was thinking about what an apocalypse might actually be like the other day. I expect there would be some raping and pillaging, a bit of murder, and even a few acts of unparalleled bravery and altruism. But, for the most part, I expect we'd be taking photos and sending them to each other on our phones. Maybe making jokes, and maybe that's the best thing we can do. Life can be terrifying and death even more so. Humour is required to help us survive it. There's nothing wrong with laughing. But, equally, there's nothing wrong with, like Anselm Kiefer, being deadly serious. Further thought required on this one.


Raum-Zeit (2019)


Vainamoinen sucht die drei fehlende Buchstaben (2018-19)

Tuesday, 28 January 2020

The Violent Beauty of Flesh:Lucian Freud's Self-Portraits @ the RA.

"I want paint to work as flesh" - Lucian Freud.

If the recent Lucian Freud exhibition of self-portraits at the Royal Academy proves anything it's that Freud's quote about wanting paint to work as flesh was no idle boast. It wasn't an ambition or an aspiration. It was, more and more so as his career developed, an actuality. Even more so than his more abstract minded fellow traveller Frank Auerbach, Lucian Freud brought flesh to life with his painting in all its corporeal ugliness and violent beauty.

Artists have, for centuries, painted images of themselves. Their own bodies are their most readily available models and your own body stays with you, unlike lovers and friends, all your life. Freud drew more self-portraits than most and the RA have collected a mixed bag of them with dates spreading from the early forties to the start of this millennium (Freud died, aged 88, in July 2011).

Sixty years of Freud's slowly changing face portrayed in his slowly evolving style. There are works in ink, gouache, oil, crayon, and pencil and there are direct face on portraits, profiles, double portraits, portraits that tell a story, and even paintings of family members and friends that while acting as portraits of others reveal a lot about how Lucian Freud saw himself.


Man's Head (Self-portrait I) (1963)

Despite all that, it's a pretty easy show to take in. Held in the RA's upper galleries, I whipped round it pretty rapidly and would have done so in even shorter time had it not been so crowded (he pulls the crowds in, does Freud). It was full of great stuff but it did take a little while to get going. The first room contains works from the 1940s (his mother had arranged for him to be included in an exhibition of children's drawing in London's Guggenheim Jeune gallery in 1938) and you can see how, even within that one decade, his style became more pared down, more economic, and, essentially, sharper.

Some of the works were conceived as book illustrations and with these we're introduced to classical allusions and roles that would later develop into a style in which Freud was able to tell a story, or at least nudge you towards inventing your own, with one painting. The quality of Freud's 'line' and draughtsmanship at such a young age led the critic Herbert Read to label him the 'Ingres of Existentialism' while other made comparisons to artists of the German Renaissance.

I'd not had Freud down as an Albrecht Durer or a Matthias Grunewald but there you go. You learn stuff at these art galleries. Early works see Freud experimenting with competing, and quite different, styles. Scribbly drawings vied with emotive close up direct gaze paintings as Freud tried to find his feet not just as an accomplished artist but one with his own style.


Self-portrait (1940)


Self-portrait (1940)


Man with a Feather (Self-portrait) (1943)

It was when he started combining these two techniques and imbuing them with an earthy, yet quietly radical, feel that owed more to the likes of Cezanne and Van Gogh than they did Durer that Freud really became the artist so revered today. But back in the mid-forties, it seems, it was the narrative element of his work that was coming to the fore.

In Man with a Feather, Freud's first 'major' self-portrait and one which was exhibited at his first solo show in London, the eye is drawn as much to the silhouetted figures in the brightly coloured house in the background as it is to the titular feather and Freud himself. The feather was given to Freud by Lorna Wishart, his first serious girlfriend. He holds it in his left hand, possibly because it's the hand he painted with.

Soon paintings would follow in which Freud posed himself with thistles and hyacinth pots as if demanding the viewer considers why. Others were intended for use in a book of Greek myths but were rejected by the publisher. Freud depicts himself as Actaeon who, in mythology, was turned into a stag after accidentally witnessing Diana the moon goddess bathing. It allowed Freud to show off his knowledge of Titian, who in 1556-69 painted the scene in much fuller and more colourful fashion, while also highlighting his own lascivious nature.

A lover to rival Picasso or even Casanova, Freud is known to have had at least fourteen children - and some estimates have put the actual number at forty (I doubt even Boris fucking Johnson has knocked that many sprogs out). His portrait of himself as Actaeon makes me think we should probably ignore the fake, crocodile, tears and look, instead, to the horns on his head. Lucian Freud has literally drawn himself as horny. A stag ready to rut.


Self-portrait as Actaeon (1949)


Self-portrait with Hyacinth Pot (1947-48)


Flyda and Arvid (1947)


Man at Night (Self-Portrait) (1947-48)


Man with a Thistle (Self-portrait) (1946)

It's amazing he found time to do any art. But he did. Lots of it. As the forties moved into the fifties he switched his emphasis from drawing to painting. Initially he would paint sitting down (after all that shagging he was probably knackered) but soon he'd change his approach. "My eyes were completely going mad" he said about working while "sitting down not being able to move", and to free himself from this stifling situation he took to standing behind his easel.

His work, perhaps unsurprisingly, became more physical too. With Auerbach and Francis Bacon, Freud was resisting the trend of Abstract Expressionism (as they later did with conceptual and other forms of more experimental art) but it still seems as if something from that world was starting to imbue his imagery. While his art remained resolutely figurative the brush strokes became broader and blockier, the paintings less linear and defined, and the symbolism of earlier works were traded in for direct, often harsh, and accurate observation of the human form.

His art, it seemed, had started to breathe. It had not only started to breathe. It had started to sweat, fart, belch, and ejaculate. Unfinished works on display show how Freud began with loose charcoal outlines before building up the face from its centre, working outwards. The different shades and colours that make up all our faces seem to have fascinated him and when an argument with a cabbie resulted in him getting a shiner instead of holding a raw steak to it he rushed back to his studio to capture the unique and transitory muted rainbow of colour that had developed.


Self-portrait (c.1956)


Self-portrait with a Black Eye (1978)


Self-portrait (1974)


Hotel Bedroom (1954)

Compare these later paintings with 1954's Hotel Bedroom. It's the last painting Freud made while sitting down and its stiffness reflects the tension and the sense of remove between the two subjects. Former lovers who now seem to be separated emotionally, by an ever widening abyss. The estrangement between Freud and his then wife, Lady Caroline Blackwood - a Guinness heiress and writer, is writ so large that contemporary observers (and Caroline herself) considered the work cruel.

Possibly. But it's truthful. By 1959, Freud and Blackwood had divorced and by that time his painting had become nearly as harsh as the way he seems to have casually discarded love interests when someone new came along. Freud's work was now less interested in showing what things looked like and more about showing what things really are. Another trick, that to my mind, he may have learned from Cezanne.


Self-portrait with unrelated notes

Freud had always preferred to paint his likeness using mirrors instead of photographs, citing a better quality of light. With some of his paintings this is more obvious than others. Van Eyck's Arnolfini Portrait and Diego Velazquez's Las Meninas were historical precedents for a painting like Small Interior in which we see the painter, then in his prime, looking back at us and returning our gaze via a mirror.

It's a bit of an outlier in Freud's canon because it's surprisingly playful, even a little twee. But, elsewhere, Freud utilises mirrors in more sinister, and more original, ways. Distances between sitter and artist are explored but so are the emotional distances between people, even lovers and family members.

Hotel Bedroom does this in a striking, overt, and quite obvious fashion but a work like Reflection with Two Children relegates a brace of his multiple offspring to very minor, background, positions. Most people would consider the birth, and the existence, of their children to be one of the most important things in their life, possibly the most important, and something that would surely belong in the forefront of both their mind and art. But Freud looms large over these little, almost insignificant, people in a painting that was, and I don't know how much you'd care to read into this, inspired by the design of an Egyptian tombstone.


Small Interior (1968-72)


Hand Mirror on Chair (1966)


Self-portrait Reflection, Fragment (c.1963)


Reflection with Two Children (Self-portrait) (1965)

It's either a shockingly arrogant demonstration of his own ego (and fruitful loins) or, hopefully, a bold satire on his perceived image. Rendered in muted muddy tones and with what appears to be a worm's eye view of the sitters it's such a bizarre image that, after a while, the lightbulb and lampshade start to resemble a UFO

Otherworldliness within a very real, and absolutely physical, world. That seems to be what Freud did. To realise that to be extra ordinary is to be extraordinary and to show that in paintings that will reap rewards with return visits. He places himself behind, and obscured by, a houseplant, towering over his kids, reflected in a mirror, and with a black eye and yet the paintings are never vain. In his self-portraiture, if perhaps not his life, Lucian Freud is merely a man and the easiest one for him to access as a model.


Interior with Plant, Reflection Listening (Self-portrait) (1967-68)

In that respect he's not so different to Antony Gormley but while Gormley has claimed, in the past, that the fact his casts are based on his own dimensions is not meant to indicate his art is all about himself (he's just an 'everyman', apparently), Freud is on record as thinking and acting quite differently.

"My work is purely autobiographical. It's about myself and my surroundings" doesn't leave much room for debate and could, if you wanted to take it that way, sound full of hubris. But, truth be told, we see everything with our own eyes, we hear everything with our own hands, we feel everything with our own hands, and we love and hate with our own hearts and souls. None of us can truly know how another person is feeling and it's not just imperative that we do, but it's impossible not to, experience life through the prism of our own confused and tortured existence.

Even when Freud paints others, more often than not unclothed, the resultant works are, in some ways, self-portraits. We're not so much seeing what his son Freddy or his sitter Flora look like or even how they feel they look as we're seeing how Freud views them. Overtly, and to some problematically, sexually it seems.

Freddy's got a fair sized ol' dick on him and Flora depicts a young woman Freud noticed in a restaurant not long before he turned eighty. The shadowy semi circle obscuring the lower level of bed linen is Freud's own head scrutinising Flora while, at the same time, reminding us this isn't really about Flora, her blue toenails, her boobs, or her bush. It is, as ever, about Lucian Freud. 

The awkward pose she holds and sustained over a lengthy period so that Freud could paint her resulted in her having to undergo osteopathic treatment. Allowing someone to pose for so long it necessitates a hospital visit and displaying imagery of your naked family (Freud painted some of his daughters as well as Freddy). It's no wonder some were shocked by both his work and behaviour. Not least because they are quite shocking. But they're also highly accomplished and innovative artworks. In the case of Lucian Freud, it seems, there are times when you really do need to separate the art from the man.


Freddy Standing (2000-01)


Naked Portrait with Reflection (1980)


Flora with Blue Toenails (2000-01)


Two Irishmen in W11 (1984-85)

I get the impression I admire him much more as an artist as I would have done as a man. He's hardly unique in that, and this show of self-portraits acted, more than a similar one of another artists's self-portraits would, as a reasonably comprehensive look at how Freud worked, what he did, and why he did it. For an artist who saw all his work as a self-portrait anyway, the show's title Lucian Freud:The Self-portraits was something of a tautology.

His art, though repetitive in many ways, has nothing tautological about it. Themes, motifs, other people, and, of course, Lucian Freud himself repeat, disappear, reappear, get riffed on, evolve, and sometimes undergo revolutions but, unlike an essential tautology, Freud's work is never pointless. As Freud grew more revered and became more of an elder statesmen (and as the number of his offspring continued to rise) he seemed, also, to grow in something he was not short of in the first place. Confidence. But the confidence was never displaced, it wasn't arrogance. It was the confidence of a man who knew he had it in him to become one of the great artists of his time and through hard work, perseverance, and a steeliness that could be taken as cruelty, he achieved that. 

Later self-portraits show Freud looking lined, crumpled, and drawn in the face. One even makes him look like a cross between Billy Bragg and Jeremy Corbyn (a socialist's wet dream). Yet, still, the desire and resolve to edge his portraiture, his art, and his story forward strikes the viewer. The one image at the RA not by Freud himself is a photography of the randy old goat taken by David Dawson in which, captured as if to look as if the subject was unaware, he looks out at us as if to say 'you think you know me, you think you know what I look like. But you will only ever know as much about me as I want you to know'. The phrase 'hiding in plain sight' is bandied about far too readily these days but the mysterious and mundane greatness of Freud is to simultaneously hide and reveal itself right in front of our eyes. Nice one, RA.


Self-portrait, Reflection (2002)


Untitled (Self-portrait) (1978)


Self-portrait (2002)


David Dawson - Lucian shaving (2006)