Month: May 2012

No matter what the subject there lies a very fine line between archetype and cliché. This is never more true, and that line any thinner than when dealing with angels. Perhaps the very idea of angels is cliché and childish, leaving very little room, if any, to represent them in any way that isn’t cute, quaint, folksy and completely void of any conceptual value. Yet artists still choose to tackle the subject, not so much to bring anything new to the discussion, because there is very little left to be said about such a played out subject, but to ensure sales to right leaning McMansion dwellers. These self described “spiritual” who like the idea of owning original art and slumming with artists are limited in that their Protestant upbringings prevent them from considering anything as a blunt as hanging a dead white guy on a crucifix in their house, but not filling every empty spot in their house with the ridiculous little cherub chotchkies.

Even if one is being ironic or satirical, it is next to impossible to include an angel as the primary subject matter of a piece and not appear as if you were settling on the obvious. Making fun of angels is almost as played as revering them, though I have seen more successful attempts at this that show an angel in an unexpected context.

The popularity of angels and their role as archetypes in the human psyche isn’t as relevant to me as the fact that they ARE archetypes. I have long sought to expose personal and cultural archetypes (such as angels) as arbitrary worn out symbols whose only importance lies in their long history and deep penetration into our collective psyche. The fact that nearly every civilization that can trace itself back to the earliest stages of history in the fertile crescent have had versions of angels does not convince me of their existence, but rather reinforces the idea that they are but a common comforting link between what we know and those things we may never understand.

In the bible angels are described as male except in the rarest of instances. Medieval angels were all masculine warrior types yet today we are presented most often with babies, children or beautiful winged women in flowing robes. Which is funny because these images of God’s minions are founded in paganism:

“But the concept of angels having wings is of pagan origin, the belief that angels have wings is either folklore, myth, fable, legend, fantasy (imaginary psychological constructs), delusion (wishful thinking) or is merely a wistful, human-inspired tradition.”

So the trick is how to address this subject without falling into common clichés – even if all I am interested in is making fun of it. Maybe it isn’t even the angels that I am interested in. Perhaps I’m more interested in the lengths I’ve seen people go to in order to represent angels, or any other overused subject matter, in a more evocative way…shadowy figures with vague one word titles like “Watcher”. People have a propensity to identify a figure to identify with in even the most abstract images. Even the most elemental line or blob can turn into a shadowy figure that is either acting upon all of the other formal elements in a piece or having all of them action upon them. These ghostly characters often resemble the ghostly images of our subconscious, entities that have often been seen as spirits, apparitions and angels, so it would be natural to identify them as such in atmospheric, swirling, expressionistic compositions?

My use of “Harbingers” adds a tone of foreboding while still relying on an intriguing term that cleverly leaves room for interpretation by the viewer as to what the role of this angel figure might be, allowing them to create content where there is none…just like the hacks do!

Why naked fat guys? Because it isn’t any more or less ridiculous than attractive women in white clinging windblown gowns. Look at these earlier concepts.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – End 🤗