The above Persian rug is of course completely human in origin both in its design and its manufacture. There is absolutely nothing automatic about it. It is the antithesis of automatism, being conceived in the human mind and formed by the human hand. This is what is called the Plastic Arts and as a category becomes a perfect label to cover everything that isn’t automatism.
However, art being what it is, a phenomenon of the human mind, unexpected and unintentional things can happen. And the concept of intention is central to understanding automatism. Automatism can be described as art without intention because it’s self-forming and therefore not made by a person. Only people have intent, a feature of human consciousness, what is called intelligence.
The rug shown above is a collage of somewhat unrelated ornamental subjects. It’s a bit like a musical chord, a multi-note sound, another collage of sorts, of musical notes. What springs to mind when one hears a complex chord is sort of what springs into my mind when I see a multi-image thing like this rug: a new singular sound, a sum of the parts. Unlike a musical chord, however, a large collage like this is viewed in parts and connected, like dots, bit by bit.
Consider the “disembodied” pillars that nicely form a border on either side of the central palace images. And then there is the purely ornamental, Klimt-like patches of shapes flanking the central palace image which combines ornamental abstraction with ornamental realism. Top and bottom middle borders have scenes with people doing things and interacting while all four corners are nature scenes of silence and passivity. The people patches are historic events? Moments in time beside scenes without time.
The beauty of the carpet seems to increase the more I look at it instead of decreasing as I become more familiar with its simple pictures. I think this comes from the combinations and recombinations that the assorted images can form in one’s mind, assuming that one’s mind feels inclined to form such things. The carpet is older than the Rene Magritte painting below but contains the essential ingredients of that surrealist masterpiece below. The ingredients of the carpet I am guessing were not intended to evoke a surrealist impression but my main point is that a collage is like a set of visual dice which the viewer’s mind rolls and plays with like an artistic board game. The artist creates an environment rather than a static work of art; a form of visual creativity similar to the richness and variety of a kaleidoscope . This complex interaction and variety of interpretation is the automatic quality to the carpet and works like one of those startling Magritte paintings that feature normal things in odd contexts just like, in music, the discovery of a new, mysterious chord.
Realism, symbolism and pattern; who would have thought they’d go together like this? But doesn’t the Persian carpet have all those elements, in the form of a do-it-yourself surrealism kit. One other element: dis-proportion. The pattern is bigger than the trees and the pillars are even larger; this of course is a standard surrealist style but the carpet (and really any similar type of collage) at least suggests this sort of perspective although keeping each element in its own little container instead of allowing them all to jump into the same image together as Magritte has done.
Freaky, eh? Automatism in a hand-made artwork. One could follow this concept to all sorts of wild outcomes. Accidental human actions could introduce variations, say in a painting or a craft-like creation like a collage or carpet that in the final outcome have a startling creativity to them. They would be like working out new permutations of variables like color, shape or pattern that are like computing all the possible arrangements or variations of elements in a design. When people try to work like machines their mistakes can be creative and since they’re unintentional they’re the product of an environment rather than conscious thought. I wonder how many of Paul Klee’s strange shapes were the result of things he discovered while working rather than things he imagined or consciously designed?
What came first? The design or the artist’s reaction to their rendering of their design? The painted image becomes a sort of machine that reacts to what the artist attempts to do with it and in turn which causes the artist to respond to what has happened. Leonardo didn’t paint like that but I’m sure many impressionists and whatever category Klee is from must have painted that way. How their ideas would appear on canvas were too hard to predict and thus the “artist” became a critic of their own work who could correct and improve upon it.
Automatism, when examined from the perspective of creativity –who made what– becomes a principle and ingredient in almost all artistic works because the physical properties of a medium can influence an artist’s creative process and way of working. Furthermore, in a collage, like the Persian carpet above, the artistic effect, or what goes on in the mind of the viewer, is hard to predict because a collage is really a medium itself from which the viewer creates meaning and adds their interpretation.