Went by Jack Pelican Gallery to talk to artist Jay Van Buren and visit his interactive Second Life Installation / Art Piece called Brooklyn is Watching on Friday night, June 13th (no, nothing bad happened on Friday the 13th), actually going to Williamsburg was good, and lately, I’ve been there more often.

Second Life News wrote about Brooklyn really IS watching last month:

POPCHA - What happens when a visionary artist decides to make Second Life art and artists available for viewing in a Real Life art gallery? The result is Brooklyn is Watching, http://slurl.com/secondlife/Popcha/72/140/27 a four-part conceptual art project sponsored by New York City based Media technology company Popcha. And the mastermind behind BiW is SL resident Jay Newt, aka RL artist Jay Van Buren.

I took a bit of footage while talking to Jay Van Buren, and I found the work in Jack Pelican to be somewhat provocative, though not my taste - some of it feels like I’ve seen it before - not so much the artists, but the ideas - however, I can see how Europeans seem to like this gallery - it appeals to a certain type of audience - but I am certain it’s not me.

However, the Second Life Art piece, Brooklyn is Watching, was good and worth going to - except, in a way, Jay Van Buren could have carried the idea further - and I cover that in the movie (watch part 1 & 2).

I’m taking a short trip to Toronto to attend the Social Media RoundTable at the Hilton Toronto (it’s actually today - but I haven’t slept yet).

Meanwhile, tonight I had dinner with a friend, Liz, and drew this portrait, which I think is one of my best. I never know what I’m going to come up, and I honestly don’t feel as if I know how to draw. On the other hand, when my portraits look at back at me, I know I’m close to done, if not done.

Often, I feel my drawings are too dark - but wasn’t Rembrandt’s drawings and etchings just as dark, if not darker? I think each person has to find the answer to what works for them - somehow, I’ve happened on using ball point pen, sometimes pencil too, as I did here - but the approach feels right for me.

And my notebooks, the most personal part, are meant to stay intact (I do my drawings facing each other - I don’t want to exhibit them outside the notebooks they were created in - even though, I was told, many would look great framed.

I updated the image which I cropped while waiting at the airport to board the flight to Toronto.

I want to start out this post by admitting that when I was younger I studied books like The Painter’s Secret Geometry: A Study of Composition in Art by Charles Bouleau - it’s currently out of print and costs several hundred dollars to get your hand on a copy (wish I had saved mine - don’t take good care of books - and had I still had a copy of Charles Bouleau’s book, it would not be worth much in the condition I keep books). I also read Cezanne’s Secret Composition Cézanne’s Composition: Analysis of His Form with Diagrams and Photographs of His Motifs by Earl Loran and some of the Barnes Collection of books and even the Jane Roberts book about the Channeled Cezanne messages.

But, at this point in my life, while all that information is valuable, very interesting, and some of it helpful, none of it really explains the mystery of what makes Cezanne’s paintings great, or Manet’s exquisite feelings - because there are things in Art that can not be explained - Art is a mystery - and if anyone could fully explain it, it would cease to a mystery and not be as interesting to behold and live with.

All these books are useful - and they added to my vocabulary - even Sidney Geist’s book on Interperting Cezanne (I met Sidney Geist at the Vermont Studio School and spent a few evenings talking with him there and in NYC, but 20 years ago) - but none of them truly explain the mystery of his work - even as they try to.

Recently i was contacted by Dewain Boyce; he’s got a site dedicated to Cezanne’s Geometry. We’ve had a spirited exchange of emails - and while I believe Cezanne used geometry as explained in the above sources in a conscious and deliberate way - if that was all he did - his work would not have survived and been as influential as it has.

That’s my belief.

Being an artist myself, sometimes feeling inspiration, sometimes knowing and other times, channeling something beyond myself - I can comprehend and contain that Cezanne knew a great deal - and yet, let himself be guided by forces beyond his own conscious understanding - and it’s the combination of the two that makes his work so great.

But, suppose I totally understood everything Paul Cezanne did in his paintings - intellectually .. what good would it do me? Cezanne is himself and I’m me - I can’t copy someone else - no one should - the answers for one are not for another - each creator needs to find their own path.

So, what I would say to Dewain, and others, so inspired by Geometry, is remember that Art, above all, is still a Mystery - and no system can fully explain it - the best an artist can do is “contain” the self control and mastery along with an openness to unexpected.

And some of the Ghosts in The Forest Dewain Boyce writes about were probably channeled - the effect of being overshadowed by presences and energies Cezanne hardly understood - but was a channel for.

That’s what I believe - but that’s only since I’ve painted and felt presences and known that as much as I can know, there’s things that just “are” beyond understanding.