Xul Solar

Someone once unkindly but not inaccurately described surrealism as "the rotting corpse of Western art." The surrealist fetishism of the lower realms of the human psyche was at the cost of forgetting the higher and more noble reaches of the human state. The dripping clocks and the bloated significance ascribed to the trvial contents of undistinguished dreams was the indulgence of Freudian fadism. The supposed "discovery of the unconscious" overshadowed the loss of the super-conscious. Salvador Dali, after all, was just an over-rated landscape painter. 

It is unfortunate therefore that the Argentine artist Xul Solar is usually counted as a surrealist and that the content of his work is mistaken for an exploration of the motifs of the unconscious. The prominence of Dali imposed a strong surrealist influence upon the Spanish-speaking world, no doubt, and Senor Solar would exhibit his work alongside others who fit more precisely in that category. But in fact he is not a surrealist painter in any proper sense. Stylistically, he is more akin to Kandinsky and Chagall - musicality and playfulness, respectively, are two of the strongest elements in his work - and what is mistaken for surrealist interests in his content is actually a deep and intelligent engagement with esotericism and the occult. The surrealists would sometimes exploit the esoteric and the occult but in this only achieved parody and pastiche. Xul Solar was an esoteric artist, a mystic (although technically speaking this is probably an incorrect label) and a student of the occult imagination in its more traditional sense. It is this that makes him interesting. He is not, like the surrealists proper, just a painter of nightmares. 

His intellectual interests were extensive and he shared many of them with his close friend Jorg Luis Borges. Indeed, he appears in some of Senor Borges' stories and many of the same stories celebrate their shared interests. Largely, we might describe these interests as a fascination with esoteric systems, the most fundamental of such systems being language iteself. Solar was an inventor of imaginary languages. This is reflected in his visual work as well. He develops a visual language of marks and shapes and symbols and lines and colours (without any of the randomness and denial of system that characterizes surrealism.) Where it does not have ignoble motivations the intellectual principle of system is at the root of the occult. Solar was fascinated with language, games, number systems - much to his credit he was a dedicated duodecimalist - and by extension, qabbalah, tarot and above all astrology, the occult language par excellence.  It has often been difficult for the art world to place him correctly: this is because these interests are outside of their usual purview. Fine artists are sometimes dabblers in the occult. Solar is more than that. He is not merely stealing a symbol here and there to impart a spurious aura of mystery: he is an occult artist in the fullest sense. 

His tarot cards are quite charming and are surely one of the better creative renderings of the tarot made in the XXth century. Alongside the traditional symbolism of the arcana, which he renders with a child-like Chargallesque simplicity, he has added elements of his own symbolic developments, qabbalistic and astrological. Here are some samples:

The qabbalistic background to these images is found in his many explicitly qabbalistic drawings and paintings. In Western occultism, as it is normally presented in modern times at least, the Hebrew qabbalah represents a sort of matrix for the varied and sundry symbols of a wide range of esoteric systems. It is a sort of filing system, and of interest for both Solar and Borges for exactly that reason. 

Note in these diagrams how the artist has made the qabbalistic system of ten (spheres) into a system of twelve planes - see the numbering on the sides and note that the numbers extend beyond 1 - 10. Solar was a duodecimalist - an advocate of a base 12 number system. Ordinarily, the qabbalah is a decimal system. Not for Xul Solar. 

As it happens, the present author himself departs from the modern occultists on this point - he would prefer not to match the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet to the twenty-two trumps of the tarot purely because there are twenty-two of each, for example - but that is another matter. Senor Solar stays within that modern convention, and then uses it as the core structure of his art. In his time in Paris in the 1920s, Solar became acquainted with the mad mage Aleister Crowley and his foul-breathed mistress Leah Hirsig, and for a time they groomed him to become a member of their occult 'Orders'. The qabbalistic matrix is the core of Mr Crowley's system too. Sensibly, though, Solar headed back home to South America and apart from that brief encounter was not unduly influenced by the Crowley cult. Certainly, Borges made much better company and offered a far healthier occult intellectuality. We should be thankful for this. Crowley was a parasite who destroyed many fine minds and considerable talents - Victor Neuberg, for instance - and whether he knew it or not at the time Xul Solar saved both his soul and his art by side-stepping the self-styled 'Beast'. 

The influence of Mr Crowley in the modern Western occult is so pervasive today that it is important to identify and celebrate those not under his sway. Xul Solar is one. Just as he is not properly classified as a "surrealist", neither, fortunately, is he an "occultist" in the Crowleyean sense. This is to say that just as he was not a painter of the dross of his own nightmares as were the surrealists, neither was he a cheap purveyor of the 'Dark Arts' like so many Crowley wanna-bes. His art has integrity, and his interest in esoteric systems - like that of Senor Borges - was genuine and elevated. His adopted name, Xul Solar - his real name being 'Oscar Agustín Alejandro Schulz Solari' - signals his benevolent disposition. Xul - a homonymn for 'Schulz' in Spanish - is L.U.X. backwards, the Latin for 'Light'. Xul Solar = the light of the Sun. There is nothing dark or menacing or sinister in the occult art of Xul Solar. He is not an explorer of an underworld. He is, rather, an explorer of the elevated imagination. 

Not all of his work is quite to the present author's taste, but there is a sense of joy and wimpsy and a delight in imagined worlds that characterizes his best paintings, that makes him a modern favorite. There is music and mystery. And like Borges, the city-as-labyrinth - as opposed to the over-worked city-as-distopian-hell-hole - is one of his preferred themes. 

Senor Solar was himself a practising astrologer. Often his astrological charts are exhibited alonside his watercolours and sculptures and treated as works of art in themselves. Here is one:

And here, below, is the present author's rendering of Senor Solar's natal chart according to the methods the author prefers, notably the square chart and the insistence on the seven ancient planets. Without resorting to in-depth analysis, the notable feature of the chart is, surely, the conjunction of the two lights, Sun and Moon, in the midheaven. Solar , that is to say, was born towards noon at a New Moon. As we see in his chart, this configuration is culminating.  In this sort of chart the so-called "angles" reveal all. In this case the native is indeed a 'New Moon' type, and we see at a glance why he went by the name of Xul Solar. 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black

Bouguereau Revisited

Blind Homer led by his Guide, by William-Adolphe Bouguereau. 

Anyone who was tutored in the history of art before, say, 1990 - as was the present author - would almost certainly have been subjected to the standard narrative regarding the beginnings of modern art. In this narrative a cadre of courageous, forward-looking innovators in France in the latter half of the XIXth century, collectively referred to as the "impressionists" (a loose term, in fact, embracing many disparate artists), stood up to the stuffy, backward-looking, bourgeois art establishment which until then had maintained a virtual monopoly on what could and could not be accepted as "art" through their control of academic schools and the public exhibitions called the "salons". These "impressionists" introduced new techniques, employed a new pallette of colours, painted outdoors (in contravention to the studio tradition) and embraced new subject matter - workers and ordinary people rather than myths and gods. Breaking the constraints of tradition they paved the way for the modern art which was to follow, heroes of the brave new world.

In this narrative, one figure stands out as the arch-villain, the artist who represented everything that was wrong with academic art, who embodied the old and obstructed the arrival of the new - William Adolphe Bouguereau. He was by far the most popular and esteemed painter of his age, acknowledged as the greatest of the salon artists, but was despised and reviled by the "impressionists".  In what became standard art history the name "Bouguereau" became a term of abuse, if he was mentioned at all. His fall from grace was spectacular and says much about the rise of modernism. At his death in 1905 he was famous throughout Europe and America. His paintings were hung in all major galleries and were the pride of public collections. They were eagerly purchased by the wealthy, commanding extraordinary prices. Yet by the 1920s - on the other side of the watershed that was the Great War - his reputation had been completely eclipsed by the modernists. His name no longer appeared in art books - except as the antithesis of "real" art; his paintings were removed from galleries, put into storage, or destroyed, or sold for a pittance. He became a mere footnote in the history of art. The progressive narrative prevailed. The "impressionists" and those who came after them, an endless succession of new styles - post-impressionism, expressionism, cubism, dadism, etcetera - had boldly torn down the art of tradition and were the advocates of "progress" who had made a new art for a new world. After that, several generations of students were taught to loathe and despise Bouguereau and everything for which he stood. 

It was only towards the close of the XXth century, when modernism's angst was finally exhausted, that Monsieur Bouguereau's fortunes began to wax once more. Collectors began to develop new interest in his work, some of his greatest paintings were rescued from storage and dank cellars, and several notable well-curated exhibitions reintroduced him to the public. The greatest traditional painter of the XIXth century had finally reemerged from obscurity. In large measure this was a response to the public's revulsion at the degeneracy of what had come to pass as "art". The "impressionist" adventure had ended with self-proclaimed "artists" smearing their own faeces on a canvas and offering at Southby's for hundreds of thousands of dollars. One of the characteristics of modern art is the artist's disdain for the public. In the end, the public's disdain for the artist won out and the traditional art of painters such as Bouguereau was back in vogue. From the 1990s onwards his paintings were fetching prices of two or three million dollars at auction, prices rivalling those of the works of the "impressionists". 

Much of the slander to which Monsieur Bouguereau had been subjected was re-examined too. It was not true that he had actively obstructed the "impressionists", and the fact that it was he, almost single-handedly, who opened the Academic schools to women students is completely overlooked. A sober assessment reveals that it was much more the case that the "impressionists" invented scurrilous lies about him and defamed him with viciousness and malice. The greatest lie was that he was nothing more than a commercial painter motivated by money. In fact, he was a deeply dedicated, serious painter who lived for his art. Towards the end of his life he said, "Each day I go to my studio full of joy; in the evening when obliged to stop because of darkness I can scarcely wait for the next morning to come." This is not the Bouguereau who was routinely dismissed as a shallow phony by the likes of Paul Gaugin. Bouguereau's biography is redeeming. He was a tireless teacher of hundreds of students (men and women) and laboured with patience and perserverance for the principles he valued until the day he died. The hostile propaganda to which he has been subject is feeble and without substance. When the slurs of the "impressionists" and the later modernists are recontextualized, Monsieur Bouguereau reemerges as an important artist, a painter of great stature in the Western oil painting tradition who, like Rembrandt, was wrongly maligned for nearly one hundred years. 

For the present writer and all who were indoctrinated with the modernist art narrative a reassessment of Bouguereau necessarily involves a degree of unlearning what they were taught. It requires a new openess to ways of seeing and thinking - and feeling - that they were trained to hate and avoid. One is often not cognisant of the orthodoxies to which one has been subjected and that constrain one's worldview within a particular frame. The modernist frame largely consists of misrepresentations of past eras. It can take a great deal of mental effort to push those frames aside and to reimagine the past free of the constraining narratives. This is what is required if one wants to view the work of Bouguereau with fresh eyes rather than the tired, cynical eyes of the heirs of "impressionism". 

Much the same effort is required if one wants to re-engage with the broad project of European orientalism without the vicious, cynical frame imposed by Edward Said and his Marxist post-colonialist followers. Much of our education, indeed, consists of a systematic denegration of the XIXth century: its politics, its art, its values, its endeavours. Modernity in general is built upon the negation of what came before it. It is a remarkably negative enterprise. The key term "deconstruction" says it all. Modern art "deconstructed" Bouguereau.  Ours is an age of deconstruction. It is by no means easy to think outside of such parameters. It is clear, though, that in the end this "deconstruction" yields nothing but a pile of dust, or in the case of art a canvas smeared in excrement. Similarly, post-colonial deconstructions of "orientalism" finally yield nothing but failed nation states, ideologies of hateful vengeance, armies of terrorist barbarians and hordes of refugees. 

*

* *

* * *

Bouguereau was a prolific artist. Some 820 completed paintings are known. Among them are many fine portraits and works concerning the familiar themes of academic painting in the neoclassical style, along with religious works, but also a surprising number of depictions of common workers contrary to the "impressionist" narrative that supposed that academic painters were indifferent to the labours of ordinary people. Here, for example, is the very fine Young Shepherdess, 1885:

And here is a painting of a young girl fetching water from a spring from the same period:

And another. The Spinner, 1873:

The standard narrative that says that the conventions of academic painting forbade the depiction of the lower classes and their occupations and only permitted portraits of the wealthy with their property is not only an exaggeration, it is simply untrue. Yet another example, The Beggars, 1890:

These depictions are, no doubt, idealised - but that is just to say that Monsieur Bouguereau did not indulge in the cult of ugliness that came to typify modern art. The modern worldview is bleak. It regards any preoccupation with beauty and nobility as "elitist": only the ugly is real. It is truly remarkable that such a destructive and degenerate world-view could ever take hold of a civilization. Bouguereau was unashamedly an artist who pursued beauty in the belief that beauty and truth are synonymous and he has been condemned accordingly. 

What is even more remarkable is that Bouguereau and his fellow neoclassicists have been subject to the deeply corrosive and hypocritical critique of the feminists who see nothing but sexism in his Victorian idealisations of the feminine. Bouguereau is best known for his mythological paintings, and nearly all of them feature the naked female form. It was his rendering of the female form, and flesh, that his contemporaries admired most about his work. In this he was unsurpassed. He is first and foremost a painter of the feminine. Some examples:

Biblys, 1884

The Bather

Pandora

The Oreads

No painter has been so dedicated to the feminine and capturing a female ideal of beauty as Bouguereau. What is remarkable is that, while feminists are vociferous in their condemnations of the artists of this "old style" and its values, we rarely hear a voice raised against the ugliness and excesses of modernism. This confirms that the agenda of such critics is purely negative. Their motives are essentially vandalistic. They are concerned with tearing down the old order. The brutality and barbarism of the new order is invisible to them. There is remarkably little incisive intellectual criticism of the modernist order and, for example, the dehumanization, mechanicization and dismemberment of the female form in the celebrated paintings of Picasso. E. Michael Jones makes this point in his damning study The Degenerate Moderns, where he writes:

“Picasso’s mutilations of the female body bespeak the modern version of human sacrifice; they presage simultaneously in a visual way the concentration camp, the abortion clinic, and the pornographic film, and may well have helped pave the way for all three.”

Yet the feminists are more concerned with "deconstructing" Bouguereau's ideal of female beauty. Such double-standards and hypocrisy is endemic in Whig intellectuality. There is a deep, irrational hatred of the old. The vandalism of the new gets a free pass, precisely because it is vandalism and in this it finds its value. 

For a major French artist of the XIXth century Monsieur Bouguereau painted surprisingly few paintings on oriental themes. He was not a traveller and he was surprisingly free of the lure of the exotic. This counts against the accusation that he was motivated by the market. There was high demand for depictions of the Orient and oriental subjects in France and Europe generally throughout the period in which he lived and painted. Had he wished Bouguereau could have catered to this demand very profitably. His interests were elsewhere and he pursued those interests regardless of his clientelle. There is, all the same, one series of paintings of an Algerian model that counts as an instance of oriental art. The young woman is shown selling fruit in one - the painting is known as the Merchant of Granada - and the other, with the same model, is known generically as Girl with Pomegranite. See below.

The rehabilitation of Bouguereau need not be uncritical. In his extensive ouevre there are undoubtedly lesser paintings and, on the whole, he is open to the charge of an unbecoming sentimentality beyond what one might expect in his era. There are certainly works by Bouguereau that are not to the present author's tastes - and equally there are modernist works that he prefers for that matter. But there is, all the same, an injustice that needs restitution: Monsieur Bouguereau has suffered an historical wrong. More than that, the modernist narrative that consigned his paintings to the storerooms of art galleries everywhere and removed his name from the text books needs to be challenged and situated in the broader history of cultural vandalism and self-harm that has beset European civilization since the early years of the XXth century and has degenerated into outright farce in our own times. 

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black

The Lumphini Zodiac

Modern sculptor for public spaces is, as everyone knows, almost uniformly hideous. It is said the modern architecture is the best argument there is against modernity, but in fact modern sculpture surpasses it in inanity and ugliness. Sadly, sculpture as an art form is debased beyond repair and has been so for over a century. Sculpture in the XXth century was completely undistinguished. Readers of these pages may have noticed that although the author has sometimes devoted space to examples of modern painting or other products of modernity that he has found worthy, in all his travels through perhaps twenty or more cities in India and Asia not a single item of modern sculpture has caught his attention. Every city has its parks and squares and malls and plazas, and all are adorned with commissioned works of modernist sculpture. Almost all of it - without exaggeration - is rubbish. 

It was with considerable surprise, therefore, that the author was ambling through the great green pleasantness of Lumphini Park in central Bangkok - of all places - recently, when he encountered an intriguing piece of modern sculpture that is certainly worthy of note. This is not because it is especially beautiful or elegant, but rather because it is on an arcane and esoteric theme and is of strikingly unusual but traditional conception. Most modern sculpture is abstract - where it is not just an assembly of junk - and lacks any coherent content. This work is an exception. The sculptor is a Siamese gentleman, Mr Thana Lauhakaikul, and the work was commissioned by the Thai-Japanese Association in 2007 on the auspicious occasion of His Majesty the King's eightieth birthday. It is officially entitled 'Sagittarius'.

 

The inspiration for the work came to Mr Lauhakaikul from the fact that the King, as also the Emperor of Japan, Akihito, are, according to the modes of Western astrology, born under the sign of the far-sighted archer centaur Sagittarius. Beloved King Bhumibol was born on the fifth day of December in 1927 and Emperor Akihito on December 23rd, 1933. The sculptor therefore decided upon an astrological theme to underline both the King's birthday and, at the same time, the one hundred and twenty years of Japanese-Thai diplomatic relations. The sculptor decided upon a depiction of the twelve signs of the Western zodiac in the form of a round, or rather oblong, table, to be constructed of metal and to be set in the lawns of Lumphini Park. 

The choice of the Western zodiac is interesting in context, because in Siam, as throughout the Orient, the Chinese zodiac, or some variation upon it, is widely preferred and the Western zodiac is rarely used. In this case, though - and this is what makes this work especially remarkable - the artist has seen fit to reinterpret the Western zodiac in an entirely oriental manner. Drawing upon symbolism and motifs that are entirely Sino-Asian he has decided to show the twelve signs of the zodiac as twelve turtle eggs arranged around a turtle shell which itself is inscribed with the spangled heavens. This is a deeply traditional and ancient symbolism. The curved, hemispherical turtle shell is a microcosmic representation of the upturned bowl of the sky and the cracks and markings and divisions of the shell are representative of the stars and constellations. Actually, we do find this exact symbolism in western sources - the Homeric Hymn to Hermes being the conspicuous instance - but it remains intact in oriental symbolism but is now gone from the common store of symbols in occidental cosmology. Happily, Mr Lauhakaikul has chosen to restore it, blending or rather re-uniting east and west. This is to say that his vision is not, in fact, syncretic, although it appears so. 

Please find the author's photographs of this intriguing sculpture, the Lumphini Zodiac, below:

Yours,

Harper McAlpine Black