Opinions Have No Value

2010 The Bacchae, directed by Staffan Valdemar Holm

In the last week fellow devotional artists have been complaining about criticism directed towards them because of their depictions of gods or for not following ‘proper’ methods of tradition. Ptahmassu Nofra-Uaa has even stated (publicly on facebook) that there has been threats and personal attacks against him for depicting Set…

This is really disturbing, especially in that these criticism and threats are sourced from supposed ‘pagan’ / polytheists. So I thought I’ll put forth some recommendations when dealing with divine art.

1. Foremost anyone who threatens an artist or encourages destruction of divine icons should be ostracised from the community. Iconoclastic behaviour should never be tolerated.

2. Regardless of skill, technique, manner, style, medium – so on, if a devotional artist calls there art that and is intended as a holy icon, it should be treated as such. It does not matter if they do not follow ‘traditional protocol’ or style, these works are sacred and free of criticism or personal opinion.

3. (Artistic) Constructive criticism is different from criticism and personal opinion. This is criticising the material side of art, how it is created, it is not criticising the content/context of the art. This form of criticism is to *better* the art and artists. To help in the future. In no way is this to be used as means to hurt the artist or diminish the sacredness of the work.

4. Regarding Graeco-gods and art. Greeks were unusual in terms of culture in that they broke from traditional protocol of icon making. One can see this in examining Greek art history, in the Archaic period they had symbolic styles akin to the Egyptians (who maintained their traditional expression for over 3,000 years!) Greeks, however, broke away from this and started “progressing” in terms of humanism and realism. This is usually divided into three epochs of Hellenic art: Archaic, Classical, Hellenistic – the latter usually merges and continues with Roman art. It is interesting to note that throughout history they went back in forth in terms of style, e.g. there are examples of Archaic style cult statues made in 1CE. This is to address the fact that art was not for viewing pleasure or entertainment, but holy expression. This expression was limitless, thus tradition gave way to expression – gods were/are depicted according to cult and artistic inspiration. Although we have plenty to look back too, I encourage free expression of the divine, even that which breaks artistic aesthetic of the Greeks, e.g., nude goddesses. The only authority of what is “proper form” is gods and the artist, if one does not like the depiction do not buy it or subscribe to it. It is that simple.

5. In many (most) polytheistic cultures there is no concept of *evil* like that found in monotheistic traditions. There is no black and white divide, good versus evil etc. Though there instances in religion when gods suffer some terrible event, even death at the hands of some adversary, this event becomes an important aspect of the god’s cultus, thus in such instances it may be acceptable to depict, and even give cultus to this adversary. A good example of this is The Toys of Dionysos that lead to the terrible death and cannibalism of my beloved Dionysos. In some variations of the myth Dionysos later learns to control and command the Toys and also the Titans that consumed him. Therefore the Toys and Titans become part of Dionysos’ retinue… to ignore this is to ignore an important aspect of the Mysteries and limits the gods’ teachings. The same can be said of other deities such as Set and Loki.

In the end only the artist and gods they are dealing with have authority on their art. Not the viewer, nor other artists, nor their mothers or fathers, nor the public or political authorities, nor fellow religious folk or rival religious folk. It is one of the very few forms that mortals are able to communicate with divine and to bring them forth into ‘reality’. No opinion or human insight can discount this holy act, in other words: Shut the fuck up!

 

Concerning The Spirits of Art : A Response

 

Concerning the Spirits of Art by Lo Keen

I’m very excited and pleased to own this cute little booklet by Lo Keen. It addresses something that is rarely mentioned by polytheist and animist artists and also has some strong words of encouragement in the process of creation and honouring our Divine.

Concerning The Spirits of Art is a reply to the artist and art theorist, Wassily Kandinsky, an important figure in modern art that eventually led to art movements like the Dadaist and proclamation of: Art is Dead. The booklet encouraging artists to return back to the roots of our ancestors in which they viewed art, in that art was viewed differently from the secular, ego based understanding of art now. This mirrors my own writing as The Dionysian Artist though I usually go back to Théophile Gautier’s statement of Art for Art’s Sake.

This is a response to Lo Keen’s work, it is not a criticism or review, I just thought I’d contribute to their beautifully written text and offer a slightly nuanced opinion.

First and foremost Keen addresses art from an animist point of view and encourages that we be conscious of how we make art, the origins of our materials and nature of our art. I highly encourage fellow artists to be aware of this also. I do not identify with the Animist title, but do believe it to be inherent in my practice.

It is not lost on me that binders of my paint come from sacred plants, some pigments literally come from sacrificed animal bone, that titanium white is named after spirits that killed and consumed my beloved god. Our brushes are made from hog, badger and horse hair. The glues from skins of animals, and the surface we paint on trees and plants. We make art from The Dead and this must be something we respect in order to not only honour, but control as artists.

It saddens me that nowadays with the mass production of art supplies that artists have lost this link to their materials. It is plainly obvious that the secularism of art came about with the invention of the paint tube. The artist became disconnected from the nature of their materials and instead of inventing their own paints and brushes, simply buy it from the art store. This is one of the reasons why I passionately study the materials I use, make my own tools and mediums. We are dealing with holy objects imbued with their own spirits. This likewise is why I encourage folk to avoid synthetic paints and materials, though, that all said, there is also a magic in synthetic paint with its origins coming from alchemical experiments.

Digital Art

Keen discusses the nature of digital art and its rise. Though not completely discounting of the possibly of its power they caution it from an animist perspective. Here is where I differ, my approach to devotional art making is through deliberate expression, with the nature of this expression being limitless. As long as the process is devotional in nature and conscious of that the value of sacredness cannot be discounted regardless of the medium or even skill proficiency of the divine artist. Apart from that however, I find digital art to be liberating and holy in its nature, this is the first time in history where artists are not inventing an illusion of light in art, but actually manipulating light itself to create art. Light being the most sacred substance to us and often called as the forerunner of creation, the inventor of creation itself. I think Keen’s points on this subject are totally valid, as in digital art relies on fossil fuels to be powered, it is not as intimate as physical mediums, you cannot touch it, grab it and smudge it. But still the process is expression of light, I find this exceptionally powerful.

Miasma in art making, is art making clean?

The booklet briefly explores the notion of ritual purity when making art, this is a topic that has been interesting me for a few months now and I plan to formulate my ideas into a properly structured essay. I believe artists are naturally miasmic creatures by their function, they channel spirits and demons, create divine images and invent illusion. They are magi that make art from The Dead. This is why there are tropes of the mad artists as they must suffer the repercussions of their hubris in making art. Yes, I specially use hubris, because like clowns, artists boarder between the realms of profound and profane. They are forced to deal with this ick, but I encourage embracing it (probably why I’m so damn self-destructive.) This however is the nature of my tradition, other sacred artists DO have strict protocol for cleanliness.

Art as augury.

I was very excited the Keen mentions this subject, as it is something I have dealt with myself. I view divination to be its own art form and one that I’m barred from performing due to my focus upon other arts. This is a personal taboo, I’m unaware if other artists have suffered these same issues?

Ego and Art?

Artists by my definition are naturally egoistical. They have to be in order to have the Will to create, but yes, in the process of art making the artist gets drawn into their own or another’s reality. They are forced to constantly question themselves, “is this the right colour?”, “is this the right brush?”, “is this the right application of paint?”. But artists are also decision makers and they do this by answering all those little questions that go through their head. In time and in practice they enter a ‘zone’ where these questions are eradicated and art making becomes naturalistic. The ego is stripped away and the piece is created – sometimes by another force. This is why I identify as the role Δ when making art and signing it (if I ever do sign my work). But the start of creating art also has to do with ego, so in this I believe it is a balance.

To end this little response I want to thank Lo Keen for this beautiful booklet, it makes a welcome addition to my collection of references to this subject and will be something I will refer to in future writing. I highly recommend that this should be read by others!

One Iconographer to Another

Ptahmassu Nofra-Uaa

Over on Facebook I’ve been having a very enlightening discussion with one of the most skilled and extremely sacred living Kemetic iconographers, Ptahmassu Nofra-Uaa. This discussion arose from a question:

“Do you have a distinction between an idol and an icon? If so how does this related to your craftsmanship/spiritual practice?”

I followed up my views with:

For me I define an idol to be an object or piece of art that a deity can literally occupy, therefore a devotee who worships the idol is performing ‘idolatry’, as the object is literally the gods body manifest as an object.
An icon is a symbolic representation of the deity, but not literally the deity. It functions more so as foci of the devotees attention towards the god, but not exactly a ‘container’ to which a deity inhabits. In this sense it is not ‘idolatry’ (as defined by monotheists).
I categories my art as *icons* and while it is especially dedicated to the god I’m depicting and a sacred object as devotional art, the interaction of the art is merely human.
This is not to say that god can’t inhabit the artwork – just that is not the intended purpose for creating the work.


Ptahmassu replied via Facebook video:

In brief, Ptahmassu defines his work as icons and cult-images and views his creations as not Art in a modern sense. Instead he regards icons to be what I define as “idols” (a term that is not understood in a Kemetic sense, as this understanding is directly a result of our monotheistic overculture.) The icons/cult-images are therefore sacred vessels for the god the work is dedicated towards. These works are not made for human use or pleasure, it is completely devotional, with strict rules of respect when creating icons.


My response is thus, elaborating on my views of sacred art in my Hellenic understanding and practice:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I find it very enlightening coming from a similar, but also different religious stance. I’m conscious that my definitions of ‘idol’ versus ‘icon’ is monotheist in origin and found your explanation to be perfect in setting these terms apart / removing it from our language as polytheists. I prefer ‘cult image’ also and likewise use the word ‘cult’ in its proper context. (Often to the suspicious eyes of those I’m talking too 😛 )

I’m especially intrigued (and envious of) your artwork being the embodiment of god/s, and also at the amount of ritual care/purpose that goes into the creation of each piece. I think this is fucking *powerful*, inspirational and beautiful stuff and really can’t equate it to what I believe when creating my religious icons.

From a Hellenic stance I’ve come across mixed ideas, some that touch upon what you discuss: the idea that icon is the embodiment/vessel of a god, others view it as a representation.
For myself I consider my art to be representations. This does not discount that it is spiritual in nature, (the creation is expressional devotion in its act alone), nor do I deny the possibility of a god inhabiting the icon, but the primary function of the image is just that, an image.
At various times, in various cults, in various cultures the Greeks had different ideas. Especially latter during Roman occupation there are examples of cultic images being “recycled” and even defaced to fit into a new cult. Also examples of the pantheistic aesthetic of the gods with the Greeks, i.e, icons having similar features, expect for key symbols. This concept leads me to believe that overall, in a Greek sense, icons were regarded as representation and thus can be appropriated by the devotee, therefore this opens different doorways to understanding the ‘art’.

Nevertheless, I do regard my work as holy in its own terms. What defines it as “devotional art” is the intention of the artist, not the viewers expected or non-expected reaction to the piece. I also regard the artwork to be created and owned by the god I dedicate it towards. I *strongly* encourage that those that buy/commission the our art to recognise that they are mere custodians of the icons, not owners. However I acknowledge that this is totally out of my hands once the artwork is sold.

Anyway, thank you again for illuminating me on your views. I really admire your devotion and craft!


To which Ptahmassu continued:

you’re very welcome, and actually, I’m the grateful one because it really never happens that I get the opportunity to connect iconographer to iconographer, or share my ideas with other sacred artisans.

I think the rekindling or revival of Polytheistic iconography is a vital part of the overall restoration of our ancient Polytheisms. Cult, offering, sacrifice, prayer, the Holy Crafts / Arts; these ALL need revival in our communities and movements. God-images / cult images are central to Polytheism. They are the method we have inherited from our ancient Ancestors for directly communing with our Gods. The tradition of God-images goes right back to the beginning of spiritual life on our planet; but unfortunately, the Abrahamic faiths have done their level best to strip away our living connection with the living Gods by destroying and prohibiting Their images. What we can do now to counter this is create and sanctify as many holy images as possible, and retrain craftspeople in the ancient arts of God-making and the cult of images. These activities are the greatest weapon we have against the oppressive ideologies inherent to monotheism. They are also our path to engaging our Gods in the most immediate and visceral way possible.

If I may brave an opinion here. I do think what you and Wayne McMillan are doing is very similar, if not the same, as what I am doing. You may be operating within the Hellenic tradition, which certainly has many differences from Kemeticism, but the sacred spirit of your endeavors shines forth as being a direct gift from the Gods, and in my view, the Gods are living through your work. Your intentions are holy, and your heart is enthused with the living mythos of living Gods. This makes what you accomplish a vehicle for the Gods to manifest in the tangible world, and never let anyone tell you differently. From a cultic standpoint, any image of a deity that receives veneration and offerings can become a living cult image. That’s why we must be careful when we show devotion to an image; because the deity in question can and will walk in to that image in order to receive what is being offered. From that moment on, the image ceases to be an image, and is a living sacred reality, a reservoir of the Holy Powers.

You are precisely right in stating that those who commission or purchase God-images are not owners, but rather custodians only, and have been entrusted with the care of that deity from a cultic and devotional perspective. The Gods are not archetypes. They are not merely energy, nor are They simply different names of a faceless universal power or god. The Gods are each individual personalities and powers, seperate from the Creator God (s), and They each have specific tastes and qualities to Their manifestations. Cult images serve to display those colors and qualities within the material world; They make the material spiritual. They make the inanimate animate. They make the mundane holy. When a cult image is assumed by a patron, that patron has the sacred responsibility of caring for that deity as if it were their own child. A cult image is part of a contract between the human and divine worlds. You never, never create and activate / awaken a God-image and neglect its cultic care. Daily prayers must be offered, the image must be fed through the sustenance of the cult. People who fail to satisfy these are punished, and often severely, and those who claim ownership of divine images while also neglecting them are guilty of hubris in the most profound sense, and are likewise deserving of divine displeasure and punishment. The Ancients knew this, and acted accordingly. Those who commission cult images or icons can never own them. You cannot own a God! You can only invite a God to the table of fellowship and reciprocal offering via the sincere actions of the cult, through personal devotional acts, and through sacrifice. The image is a conduit, but it is also much more than that. It is not a mere peg or symbol of the deity, but IS the deity in the flesh, in the material aspect of its presence, thus cannot be owned or had claims made upon it. True God-images or icons can never be owned. They can only be loved and adored, and that relationship cherished for the divine gift that it is 


My partner Wayne also added to the discussion, he comes from a completely different stance altogether:

Yeah we have a large drawing of the Toys of Dionysus hung in our hallway and there is this very scary feeling I get whenever I pass it and I’ve had nightmares and stuff since it’s been hanging there. I don’t know the right language to use, except that it’s a very real and eerie presence. The cat likes it, too, as I mentioned elsewhere and watches it and I’m always suspicious with animals on how knowing they are. When I draw or paint I am aware of a presence, and I get a lot of like… ‘spiritual backlash’ which I attempt to like… suck up and put back into the work. This is different than simply suffering for your art, and can quite easily make you go mad, which isn’t a bad thing all the time but more like a transition of understanding and focus, as in like initiation. I don’t come from any traditions, so this is how I personally go about figuring out stuff.


And now I’m going to toot my high-horse. This is what HEALTHY polytheistic discussion looks like. Two artisans, different traditions, different views, mutual respect. Undoubtedly we have the same goals and intention in mind when creating our art, just our beliefs and philosophies are slightly nuanced.

Anyway, this has been a fascinating discussion and one that I feel is much needed. My thanks to Ptahmassu.

The Wild Hunt Interview and Madman Meandering

Me working on Wayne’s “Bacchante” after Bouguereau

I’ve been working a lot and have not had an opportunity to announce here that an interview about me was published on The Wild Hunt over the weekend. I wish to express my thanks to Heather for her editing prowess, I’m overall happy with the interview, but I wish there were some more specific questions about my beliefs of devotion and it’s function. Maybe that will be addressed in the future. Something I’m grateful that Heather edited out was some of the too much information about my childhood. It wasn’t exactly fitting for such a public article. Yet, part of the process of healing is being more open about things. As my spiritual mentor said to me, (paraphrasing), “I’d be worried if a Dionysian was not fucked up”.

On 20th of February I experienced a complete and potentially deadly mental breakdown. I had been fasting for four days and consuming nothing but wine, I required outside help to come save me. Since then, I’ve been sober and seeing doctors to help with my broken brain. I’m diagnosed with PTSD, agoraphobia, anxiety-depression (of which I had been self-medicating with alcohol). Spiritually, I’ve been suffering from Acedia.

The PTSD is pretty basic: related to childhood abuse by my step father, an alcoholic, disabled and all rounded fucked up individual. As a result of this abuse large chunks of my childhood are wiped from my memory, however it has left emotional scars that haunt me to this day.

The agoraphobia is related, but more nuanced… it’s an irony that I’m a public performer and put myself in the most vulnerable position in the agora – on the street. To me this phobia is not a result of personal fears, but rather the overwhelming illness of our society. The function of it: the spiritual and apathetic decay of humanity. I have a fear for the future of humanity, this fear is that prophesied as the Last man by Nietzsche. An apathy that leads us to nihilism. This shit is fucking serious and I’m exposed to it every day when I work, when I go to the shops and when I watch people. The Mysteries of the world and the spirit are lost on people. This is something I did not address in the interview: it’s my hopes of not only opening doorways to what has been forgotten but also jerk people out of this dangerous nihilism. So why does this manifest as a fear? Well I find myself failing in my goals. I find myself falling for the Last man and becoming completely apathetic, jaded, generating as a hatred towards humanity… which sets off Acedia.

A Dionysian travels a narrow path between blissful enlightenment and mind-shattering madness. At times I veer from the path and head deep long for the madness. This is not a bad thing, but to lose sight of the path can result in being lost forever. When I had my breakdown I felt was lost, to the point of no return, but I’ve been crawling back since and every day I feel the catharsis of madness, a lesson I must accept in order to know who I am and know my place.

That is the point of The Dionysian Artists, to make art for the divine: still the theatre requires an audience for the performance to work its magic.  It’s active work, direct and open to nature and human minds.

Now, I’ve been reading Antonin Artaud of late and find myself agreeing with his concepts of The Theatre of Cruelty. I’ll have to finish reading his Theatre and its Double, but so far I believe there should be a balance between the terror of Cruelty and divine good. Our culture is too saturated in the cruelty; nearly every household in the “West” is exposed to it every day, if not through television, the internet. It’s tearing communities apart, (even the microscopic “community” of Pagans). This is when the Dionysian Artists are most needed, it’s time we direct our attention to healing through art, it does not matter which art – nor how good one is at it, just make art to the gods. Let’s kill this Last man and escape to fantasies that make reality. We need to redirect our attention from ourselves and towards our audience or else we’re going to just find ourselves in a nihilistic and fruitless omophagy.

The Theatre and the Divine

(Note: I’m going through my old blog and republishing choice articles here. Eventually the old blog will be deactivated.)

(source)

Classical Greek theatre was radical. It most likely begun as a private ritual performance between the elite, even leading with direct interaction between actors and observers in the form of mystery plays, maybe as satyr plays. As it progressed the theatre became more open to the public. This is how it was radical, at the time in antiquity, public performance was limited in surrounding nations. In Egypt we have references of street performers, the equivalent of buskers, they also performed rituals in public, but nothing on such scale and public domain as the Greek theatre.
It was an equaliser of class, a place which the common people could actively observe the gods.  What’s more, we have common people as writers and performers freely criticising and mocking kings, nobility and public figures, which gave birth to our concepts of free speech.  The theatre was a place for religion, politics, expression and entertainment.
A sacred domain dedicated to Dionysos.

So how does the theatre prove that the gods exist? This is summed up in two ways, one the actor, two the observer.

  1. The actor playing a role relinquishes themselves to their character. In simplest terms they are invoking a character, allowing it to possess them and reflecting that possession. If you’re familiar with how Greek plays were performed then you’ll know that there was only three actors on the stage at one time. These actors would play various roles throughout the play which was illustrated by what mask they wore. The masks themselves were the characters and the actor was a living moving prop or host for the mask. In this function when they assumed the role of a god they were host to the god. To the Greeks, they were witnessing, in every sense, their gods on stage.
  2. The audience brought the gods to life. The base function of performance is suspension of reality. In order to appreciate the performance the audience must allow themselves to be fooled. They have to accept the fantasy in front of them and believe in its existence. By believing in the play they are demonstrating their faith in the gods.

So how is this any different from now? This is a good point and one that has been discussed with the pop culture pagans.  I will not dismiss their beliefs, but my personal opinion is that the difference between modern people watching a film and ancient Greeks watching the theatre is audience attitude.  An average person does not enter the movie theatre with the expectation of watching something divine and religious. For the Greeks, not only were they entering a sacred domain, but also observing a devotional, religious performance.

To understand this concept is realising how disenchanted modern people are. Over exposure of media has led us to become jaded, whereas ancient people would only observe these performances once or twice a year. It’s not lost on me that we call celebrity actors “Stars”, “Idols” which further serves as a point at how wrong modern people are when enjoying a production. This is why it’s difficult for some to come to grasps with the idea that watching or participating in a performance is a sacred act.

 


Like my writing, like my art? You can now support it on Patreon. I’m offering exclusive content, from articles, art previews, tutorials and more!

Cont. The DA Philosophy 1

Dver left a comment on my previous post here.

I believe my reply merits a blog post:

Thinking back through my artistic ‘career’ it’s hard to find a time where my work was not devotional in some sense. But it’s only when I experienced my initiation experience in late 2015 that I really ‘clicked’ to what I was doing and turned it into my primary form of devotional expression/engagement. Taking on the mantel of Dionysian Artist and name Δ.
Thus my devotion looks a lot different from others that consider themselves “Hellenic Polytheists” or even Dionysians.

The ultimate idea of ‘Art for god’s sake’ is that it is more liberating to the artist than ‘Art for art’s sake’, even if the work is unpleasing to the human audience, it does not matter. The opinions of human’s is only consequential and unnecessary. Devotional art is therefore free of any criticism from mankind and the artist need not worry of others opinions. From your comment Dver, you certainly understand my intention here.

Others… it can be difficult to explain. I recently had a conversation with a fellow artist, who is also an art historian / theorist / critic and teacher. He was dismayed at the fact that we do not do shows and rarely sell our work. I explained to him I’d rather see the art burned than sell it to some hipster who just likes the work because “it’s cool”. Our art, especially the street art, is not designed to be decorative. It’s designed as dedication to the gods. It is not owned by me, I am only a mere creator and custodian of the work. That is not to say I am forbidden to sell the work, just that if sold it has to go to someone who understands and respects the sacredness of the work. And boy… have I turned down mega offers that would make most impoverished artists wet their pants, as the destination for the work was an office space, or a cafe…

This behaviour has caused dismay in not only my admirers, but family and friends (including the one I mentioned). They cannot understand the purpose of this art, it is not an object, it is not a thing to be brought and sold in the stock exchanged (aka, art market), it is a piece of work dedicated to the gods and any human appreciation should be reverence over any other methods of our culture views art now.

The DA Philosophy 1: What is Devotional Art?

“Dionysos” by Δ

What is Devotional Art?

Art for art’s sake is a relatively modern idea credited  by the art critic, Théophile Gautier in the 1800’s. The concept became popular through artists like James Whistler (made famous by the “Whistler-Ruskin Trial, 1878″) and was continually echoed through the modernist period until now. The basic idea is that art should exist for itself. It should be free of any political, personal, religious, reactionary meaning. If these ideas were involved in the conception of the art, the viewer should be able to appreciate it as art without knowing the ideas behind it.

This concept was radical at the time as it gave artists liberties in attempting to define art. With the advent of art movements such as the Dadaists and then the Modernists the definition of what is art became blurred, in some cases it became totally atheistic with a reductionist mentality applied to art to the point artists ambitions was to destroy art itself.

There is a certain irony in this as when Art for art’s sake was coined it was actually a socialist concept to bring art to the people, bring it down to base level and indeed many of the Modernist artists and thinkers were socialist / communists in their intentions of making art. The irony is the reduction of art disconnected artists from their general audience. Art became elitist, with its only admires being the educated bourgeoisie.

Criticism of the art world aside, these artists and thinkers did achieve a new definition of what is art, which has granted artists liberties. The basic modernist definition of art is: anything can be art as long as there is an artist to define it as art. This is why we have pieces like Duchamp’s ready-made urinal, “Fountain” being considered a major landmark in 20th-century art and why artists like Damien Hirst have pickled animals in some of the world’s major art galleries.

Now that we have a crash course on the very bare basics of how art is viewed today, let’s explore my concept of devotional art. The Dionysian Artists (Devotional artists) definition of devotional art is an amalgamation of Modernist ideology but also a rejection of Art for art’s sake, instead the phrase of a devotional artist should be Art for god’s sake.

The Dionysian Artists should accept the Modernist definition of art, that anything can be art, but also with an added bonus: devotional art should be dedicated to the gods. Artwork created by the artists should not be made for humankind – it’s intended audience is the gods themselves – any human appreciation for this divine art is consequential. How an artist applies their devotion is totally up to the artist themselves. Like how an artist can define anything as art, a devotional artist can define anything as devotional art.

What this definition allows is anyone can call themselves a Devotional Artist (or a Dionysian Artist), its more so a matter of mind state being aware of ones actions when committing art to the gods. Art does not need to be something permanent, devotional art can be an expression, gesture, a dance, acting, singing etc. Or it can be a ready-made object, appropriation of existing art, a painting, stick figure drawing, crude votive statue, or a master piece.

As long as one is doing this for the gods, they may consider the art devotional and themselves Dionysian Artists.

1.Related reading
2.Related reading

Icon painting by Wayne McMillan

My partner Wayne is offering icon oil paintings on board. 6 by 8 inch icon is $350USD. Larger sizes are possible increasing from the base price.

These are original, one of a kind, pieces of devotional art. Created to be used as sacred icons.

As these are religious work there are some terms and conditions:

– Wayne maintains the right to deny work for whatever reason.

– Payment for the artwork must be up front before work begins.

– Payment preference is PayPal or direct bank transfer.

– These pieces are painted in the highest professional quality oil paint on prepared board, they can take a few months to design, create, dry and ship. We expect clients to be aware of how much time they can take.

– As of now this is part time work, we both have multiple projects going. Clients are welcomed and encouraged to request updates if there are delays. But please respect that these take time, you have been warned. (Twice now.)

– Wayne and myself are experts on the Hellenic / Italian pantheons, these cultures are a preference. Other pantheons such as: Norse, Celtic, Middle Eastern, Hindu and Asian etc. may be possible. For obscure or unfamiliar gods we expect client input. We will go through an interview process if required. Monotheist religious icons *may* be possible, this has to be negotiated, we are polytheists… there are plenty of talented Christian iconographers out there.

– Clients are welcomed to give input, but the artwork is final. Alterations to the design based on client input may require extra funding at our discretion.

– Paintings can be shipped by post, but must have insurance, tracking, etc. If clients prefer we can ship by courier or other options, obviously, expect much higher costs for these services.
Our shipping fees to the US range between $40 to 60+USD.
Australian postage is between $20 to $30+AUD.
International courier prices are between $90 to 170+ USD.
We prefer to give a quote and request the amount for shipping when the painting is packed and ready to ship. So please set some money aside for the final shipping quote.

– It is possible to order multiple paintings which can be shipped together. Note that there is an insurance threshold for standard post, $2000 AUD.

– Wayne owns the copyright of all artwork. Clients may request limited licensing for prints and sales. This must be negotiated prior to use.

We attempt to be as fair as possible with our clients and we both take this work very seriously as a devotional duty. Each piece is consecrated with prayers and offerings during the creation and the packing process.
My input is limited, however I aid Wayne in some areas such as spiritual services and research. I act as liaison between clients and Wayne. If you would like to take a commission you may contact me at: markos.gage@gmail.com

Art Galleries and the Sacred, (misuse and abuse of ancient art by the NGV.)

Here is an excellent post by John Beckett, and something I’ve been bringing up for a while.

 

bg100074_rgb
Archaistic Kore (damaged by NGV staff)

In Australia we don’t have big museums like the British Museum, instead ancient artefacts are found in art galleries. The National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) has some beautiful examples of Greek and Italian marbles, especially a nicely preserved Athlete torso and a beautiful Kore statue (now damaged). They also have an okay collection of Greek pottery and Egyptian pieces including seals, burial objects, statuettes, tools and weapons. The problem with keeping these sacred objects in art galleries is that they are not treated with respect, nor viewed as artefacts, but rather viewed by the modern secular understanding of art.

The NGV is the first major art gallery in Australia and still one of the largest. It’s layout is meant to be designed based on the history of art, the ground floor being ancient art, then each floor continues with subsequent time periods with contemporary art on the top floor.

In the last couple of years the NGV has gone under a ‘business remodelling’ making the gallery more approachable for ‘common people’ and family orientated. The first thing they did was shut down the Egyptian and Greek display areas on the ground floor and convert them into a kids corner! So now in the kids corner are the Egyptian pieces, you literally have a playground decorated by burial objects, no fucking joke.

P1090383_540x361
Only pic I can find online of the kids corner, notice on the right is archaic pottery?

As for the Greek pieces… they are now scattered all over the gallery, before it was damaged by the mishandling of incompetent staff, the last time I saw the Kore was in the textiles area! It had a fucking blurb stating it was, “a juxtaposition of the advancements of fashion, blah, blah.” Nothing to do with the actual fucking sacredness of the statue, but a secular view solely based on an outward material idea of fashion.
The athlete torso gets moved around a lot, my latest visit found it was in the 1800’s art area next to a Neoclassical work to again illustrate “juxtaposition”.

Bg000091
Torso of an athlete
National-Gallery-Of-Victoria-39999
The Torso found in the 1800’s salon gallery. Why?!?

As for the Greek pottery, they can be found in a corridor leading to the toilets!

Here is the problem with art galleries, gallery curators are trained in art schools, they are essentially failed artists who focus more on art theory rather than art itself. The art theory is a pretty toxic place for history and religion as it falls under the domain of modern art philosophy that views art a secular concept of just objects. They intentionally strip away the context of why the art was actually made and apply a modern context to it which is objectifying i.e., a statue of a god, is just a marble statue. They disregard the holy to claim it for themselves so it “fits” into their understanding of “art history”. This means they intentionally ignore the history and true meaning behind the work – especially if it once held a religious significance.

This is a form of cultural appropriation that is really sickening and something that upsets me so much I often walk out of the NGV shaking in anger.