Gustaf Lilliestierna (b.1992) - Geometry of Metaphysics
In my work, I establish figurative premises that incite perceptional understandings of reality, understandings that are sensual in nature rather than physical. This kind of sensuality is highly aesthetical, and aesthetics often disrupt the propositions of declarative sentences. In short: I build arguments with indefinite conclusions about the ontology of inspiration.
I would lie if I said that the following text will describe this claim in detail, partly since this text contradicts the actual work (considering the difference between a written word and a painted word), but also since the overall function of a statement is to nail down ends (or at least evaluate one possible end) whilst my focus aim towards the means.
I am a big fan of figurative painting, and of figurative paintings! Is it not wonderful that a painting of a watermelon is - in fact - a painting of a watermelon? And is it not wonderful, that this painting can be considered more or less realistic? There must be some unconventional logic at play here, a figurative display of propositions pointing towards the conclusion: a painting of blueberries would look a lot different than a painting of watermelons. This is true, even though the assumptions behind such a claim are mind-dependent! This ‘perceptional understanding of watermelons’, or ‘sensual knowledge about watermelons’, must not contradict facts about the mind-independent nature of watermelons. But if truth belongs to qualities intrinsic to independent objects only, we must draw phenomenological lines between what is considered real (it is true that paintings of watermelons aren't actually watermelons), and what we consider as more-or-less real (it is true that a painting of a watermelon is not a painting of a blueberry). The problem for followers of objective truth, is that no such line exists in the world as it is independently of those who draw it. Thus, aesthetic knowledge bends our understanding of the world despite being non-physical, fictional, emotional, metaphorical and/or non-linguistic in nature.
From this point, I call my choice of direction ‘the Geometry of Metaphysics’, as it is a figurative study of the properties of speculative spaces and the relative position of objects that dwell therein. This ‘therein’ propose a perspective from a ‘herein’, therefore a line (such as the one described above) must be drawn between the ideal and the physical. When drawing this line, we define the variables of familiarity and remoteness, but sometimes, the world erase it. When this happens, we find ourselves in situations where our knowledge about, let’s say watermelons, and our curiosity about what is unknown about watermelons mesmerise us. A state I like to associate with a key concept: Inspiration.
But how do we spell out the properties of inspiration? Can inspiration be depicted autonomously? If not, is inspiration then something expressed by objects? Or is inspiration something objects arouse in us? Either way, how come that inspiration evoke states of clarity in previous states of doubt and vice versa?
Inspiration is the vibration of reminiscence. Distant and haunting, yet familiar. It reminds us of something, something that made great impression on those we used to be, and this evoke a vivid need to understand its frequence. In this state, we get the feeling that something has happened, maybe something wonderful – or dreadful…
Almost as if we haven’t been here long enough…
As if we never will be here long enough…
As if we haven’t paid sufficient notice, or simply have not cared – since we don’t know what we perceive, simultaneously as it seems perfectly clear.
By writing this, I am trying to spell out a puzzle that I’m usually working with using depiction.
I use drawing and painting to hunt down the qualities of inspiration in order to cage this illusive state of mind. Thus, my Imagery is not depictive of any physical place or historical situation, still, all the references exist, as they are, in themselves – outside the image. The method I have chosen is not involved with depictions of reality as it is commonly understood, but of the means by which we perceive the shape of reality while it is reformed. I engage myself in the geometry of metaphysics, seeking sceneries where some aspects of the world we normally recognise withdraw whilst other aspects emerge.
In summary I trust the following to be a priori in art: all aesthetical objects give birth to sensual matter and immanent expressions that sometime transcend into non-material inspiration. This state of mind is very real - just overwhelmingly unphysical. In art, sensual matter can include various directions of subject-matter, but the subject matter of my work consist of sensual matter in-itself. What inspires, and why.