The First Manifesto of Virtuism

From: telical@htp.net (Robert Pearson)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 21:31:27 LOCAL
Organization: Paramind Brainstorming Software


BOOM


The First Manifesto of Virtuism
by R.S. Pearson (1985)(edits and minor
additions 93,94,95)


Art, when it begins to gain consciousness, is
the tool for social, emotional, intellectual,
and spiritual enhancement. This positive
enhancement is fruitful in enabling one to
see facts clearer, in communicating new
vision, and in helping on to feel better
about life and oneself. Artists are not
always up to making such beneficial
statements. They are either too concerned
with entertainment -- entertaining their
patrons in order to say financially stable --
or the opposite, too antisocial to benefit
anyone, even on a purely aesthetic level.

     The present age is one of multifaceted
pluralism, seeming so in the realm of art,
yet for the majority of artists, there is a
habitual repetition. The progress of the two
decades from 1910 to 1930 seeming has laid
the groundwork for most of the aesthetic
statement of artists since then. Things seem
to be on a steady slope created by the
Dadaists, Surrealists, Supremetists and
others working at that time. Most of this
century's art created from 1931 to 1985
repeats ideas presented in those two decades
of progress. Admittedly, these ideas were in
no way elaborated then, and thus the
elaboration is pleasant, yet it is
unfortunate so few are able to blaze new
trails.

     Artists have made attempts to
help the "poor sleeping masses." This usually
occurs in derogatory or shocking modes. We
are told by vivid descriptions of harsh
reality we can transcend it.  We are told by thoroughly
understanding something horrible we can
eliminate its power over us. This view is
frequently coupled with the "experience
monger" philosophy, which states that we can
"overcome sin by sin itself." These are two
of the holiest dogmas of the twentieth
century, the popularity of which is
undeniable by anyone who has any
indoctrination into the ideas of the
twentieth century. The twentieth century is
quickly drawing to a close.

     The result of artists trying to
change life has often been very bleak. Few seem to
escape the maze of despair, decadence and the
complete substitution of intoxicants for the
spiritual and high emotional experiences. One
finds here people who started with the best
of intentions, only to be defeated by the world
they intended on saving. Such was the case
with Antonin Artuad, who was incapacitated
for a time by this struggle. People talk
about the innocence of children, yet they
themselves seen the complete opposite. It is
frightening to see the attitudes of so many
who sought to be a "new man" or "superman."
As time passes on it is a fascinating study
to observe such people, and observe the
fruits of such philosophies.

     Pragmatism is the obvious path to go on
here. If such a philosophy as Nietzsche's
only produces people in despair at its end,
every sane man will turn to Bergson (a
pragmatic philosopher) instead. The
result should be an artist who is above
acts of slander, immorality, and corruption
of ethics. Some must see these qualities
becoming inevitable when one struggles not to
be a member of the masses -- a type of
necessary reaction against common ways. These
qualities have nothing to do with creative
expression and only mirror the kind of art
which these people are capable of producing.
This type of ethical decadence is highly
disputed, when it is even addressed.

 Andre Breton once said that his
principal concern was morality. This
statement was perhaps related in essence to
similar proclamations by Rimbaud and
Lautreamont (such as in Lautreamont's
Posies). The motto of these men was to change
life. Yet one wonders in what way they would
change it, which things would remain in our
behavior and which things would leave.

     Surrealism said, we could not find
beauty in the world, except for the beauty of
romantic love and that of nature. The Virtuist
aesthetic also states that we do not have to
invent all the beauty we seek, there is
beauty to be found in this world, in our
subconscious and also, potentially, in our
conscious life. We do not have to manufacture
our aesthetic statement by random chance or
quick inspiration.  We have to explore our
memories of our fondest experiences. We have to
structure our art upon those experiences
that mean the most to us -- the ones that
affect us in the strongest way.

     This will carry over to powerful
artwork, the "convulsive" that Breton talked
about. These memories can influence our
Surrealism in the mode of hope. The
Kierkegaardian concept of possibility is a
foundation of the Virtue aesthetic. As art
seeks to change life, we must prepare
ourselves to both create this and observe
this art. The filters to absorbing what is
beautiful and having an aesthetic experience
are mental blocks caused by environment,
choice or unconscious habit. A Virtuist
must become a type of ascetic philosopher,
especially in the present age, due to the
fraudulent nature, in my opinion, of some
modern art scenes. This fraudulent nature is
fashion over feeling, form over content, trend
over historic purpose and value in art. But,
in many ways I believe the
problems of the past were worst than the
problems of the present, and as long as the
artist can remain separate from it, it will
not corrupt his or her art.

     The best definition of art might be:
anything that produces the aesthetic
experience. Therefore, I see no problem for
anyone. I have no martyr complex for the
whole of art. From early on I felt that much
art created today failed to give me an
aesthetic experience, nor did it stimulate my
intellect. In almost every instance I can see
why some might be affected by it, but for me
it fails to be convulsive, and the convulsion
of aesthetics is very desirable. Thus, I
formed this aesthetic doctrine.

     The sight of the ocean, or even the feel
of sunshine, are qualified as aesthetic
experiences by many people. One of the
highest beauties available to man is that of
the virtuous act in human interaction.  It is so
rare and real that it can be breathtaking
when we come in contact with it -- if it
bypasses the hazardous cerebral mechanism
that blocks such pleasure, such fulfilment
of our will from us. This is what I meant by
we must prepare ourselves for it. Some will
not be able to understand the beauty of the
Virtuist. Some will be too callous,
guilt ridden, or blinded by competitions of
materialistic culture to accept it.

     The experience one gets from witnessing
the virtuous act in human interaction is
closely linked to the aesthetic experience. A
simple explanation of this is the feeling you
get when someone does something nice for you.
Inside you feel: "Oh wow, that is incredible
that they could do that for me. That was
really kind and even self-sacrificial." When
you look at a work by one of your favorite
artists, perhaps inside you feel: "Oh, wow,
that is incredible. That is really nice." The
first is a type of the aesthetic
experience as is the second.

     We have all felt the beauty of human
virtue, and we all know that there are
reasons for humans to be virtuous, both for
our personal benefit and that of others. We are
undeniably in the position where we must act
wisely, for we have no choice; we are here on
the Earth, and logic is some kind of
universal constant. If there is more to our
intelligence and existence, if there is
another level upward of social interactions
between beings, it will undeniably be less
stained by crime slander and malice than the
world we know is.

     The definition of what I consider
virtuous I do not consider arbitrary,
although if we look at it as such it may be
easier to express the vision of the
doctrine. Each Virtuist must come up with his
own themes of what will increase virtue in
the viewer. The theory of Virtue art does not
easily lend itself to the criticize of the
amoral nihilist segment since there are no
set definitions put forward in this manifesto
of what I think is virtuous. It doesn't
matter to the reader, it is something that
must be gotten first hand.

     A primary mode of working is to create
art about the feelings produce by the good
and bad in people, however, in no way is this
Virtue aesthetic limited to moral commentary.
Virtue is a philosophical system akin to
pragmatism.  Its subject matter is
immense, and there have been instances of
Virtuist art in the past.

     Virtue in the mode of human morality is
to create art about the person who sold you
the user car which they said was in great
condition, but which broke down a week after
you bought it. It is about the woman who
volunteers her time to help the elderly. It
is about the ones who are seen as losers by
the merciless society of fashion fascism, yet
ones who may indeed live a deeper existence.
Virtuism is about What makes the person who can rise above the
slander, malice, despair, callousness, and
various other corruptions that infringe upon
the higher form of the human spirit. It is
about the faults of the intelligentsia, of
the hatreds of some forms of the upper class
or artistic class, who complain about the
"sleeping masses."

     There is also good and bad in the realm
of the creative, in as far as there are some,
like Max Ernst, whose entire artistic life
was constant experiment, invention and
revelation; and there are others, too
many to mention individually, whose art
seems like a pose. It may be a pleasant
formula that the artist has found, but upon
investigation we see that ten patterns of
this theme is all that they will express.
This is not seen as wrong by many. While it
is fine for some artists and some viewers, my
point is that when one begins to study or
simply think about philosophy, aesthetics,
politics, and the sciences, one will have
much to say in one's art. Therefore the
conclusion I reach is that among the
thousands of recent artists who have cropped
up in the last twenty years there are
currently few of the philosopher/ alchemist
/artist/scientist mode of a Max Ernst or an
Arthur Rimbaud.

     Virtue will require a movement who are
extreme individualists, due to the amoral
nature of our current times. It must
be voices capable of presenting these ideas
that virtue is a beauty that has the right to
be considered a component of art, just as
form, texture and color are components of
painting.

     It will mostly likely be some of the
younger artists who will subscribe to this
doctrine, who have not clicked into a school,
those who are considered naive, those who
have not seen the "need" for the darkness nor
the vanity of having "seen it all" and
"exhausted it all." Whether these voices will
come from the next generation of artists or
from even further in the future has of course
yet to be seen.

     The entire crux of the Virtuist Movement
is that there are creative people who agree
that virtue and philosophical optimism are
too important to stay in the background of
art, or even of life. Today this defense is needed
when it seems that there
is little concern for virtue, except in a
perfunctory way. It has become too easy to
become dulled to the battle of righteous
indignation. To do so can be the norm, it
seems;  By focusing on the
reality that depictions of virtuous acts
produce aesthetic experiences by creating a
movement of artists solely found for that
purpose, we create a movement that will have
worldwide impact.

     The main polemic against the Virtuist
aesthetic is that there is not good or bad at
all. On the cosmic level, I will not bring in
argument for duality, but on a level of human
interaction it is a perversion to interpret
any action that produces an initial
"anti-aesthetic" feeling as proper and able
to be accepted. No major school of thought
would ever state there is no right and wrong
in human interaction. This includes Nietzsche
(and most of existentialism), Hinduism,
Taoism, Buddhism -- the very schools of
thought that men in ignorance sometimes cite
as "amoral." To be truly amoral is always
seen as being a loser in the cosmic battle.
It is to be one with the evil in the world.
To be amoral is not to defend the beauty, the
strength, the joy to be found in the world,
which we all experience at one time or
another. If we fall into the common
intellectual mode of despair it does not mean
that the world has become any less joyous, it
is we who have changed.

     Another philosophical structure that
Virtue enlists is that it is likely that the
ultimate truth is here among us, and in an explicit forum. If it is not, than
this means that the Earth was set up in a way
that doesn't care about our queries upon it. This is a sharp dividing line: was
the Earth and the universe established in
fashion that is benevolent (eternal life,
initiation into absolute truths) to man or in
way that sees people as negligible?

     The question will arise. "What about the
naturalism, the portrayal of things as they
really are?" It becomes obvious that the way
people thing things are, and how they
perceive the world to be, is the way it
really is for them alone. Realism is at best
subjective. Let's look at the Kierkegaardian
idea of possibility: Kierkegaard was
clearly right when he said for man, the truth
is subjective. Schopenhauer said that the
only logical world view is a pessimistic one,
in life and after death. Anything he says can
only pertain to himself, because another
person's honest confession upon his deathbed
of living and enjoyable life denies
omnipresent, objective pessimism. Thus, a
world view of optimism is equally valid.

     Therefore, the artist need not have to
progress into fantasy or a "super-realism"
(the translation of Surrealism) because it
must escape an ugly world. The world does
have arms enough of its own to interfere with
our hopes for our lives; yet the ultimate
control of the world around us is ourselves.
The world has a different shape for each
face that looks into it. At least this is
the way it is naturally, but due to entropy
people would rather look at the world in a
packaged way, in order to avoid a life or
controversy and battle.

     The need for optimism in art and life is
a real one. Virtuist art can make people feel
that life isn't bad because there are acts
that produce high feelings, and when these
acts are depicted skillfully, the feelings
will come naturally. It's a technique that is
done frequently in film, but not
necessarily film that is considered serious
art. We are here existing on the planet, we
must spend our lives in the way we ourselves
decide to be true. If we ruin our souls
because of the trends of despair and
misguided angst, what is to be said of our
intellectualism? This aesthetic theory states
that it is paramount to become conscious of
the fact that we only have one soul which is
easily polluted and made useless for seeing
beauty, and the marvels of a generic awe. The
art we create or look at controls us as we
make or view it; it is a symbiotic process.

     One easy way to look at artistic
progression is that we must exclude art that
is easy to produce. The nutrients for the
higher qualities in the human soul will not
be produced by easy art. Thus, Virtue art,
because of its dependence on depicting real
world events, is among the most difficult to
produce.



____________________________________________________________
Robert Pearson
ParaMind Brainstorming Software

http://www.eskimo.com/~telical/