“Our world is a theater piece, in which non-objective feeling is portrayed by objective imagery.” – K Malevich
Mineralizing processes at work in the pictorial field have the ability to demonstrate non-objective qualities. The non-objectivity of the medium is not sensed through any verisimilitude to the illusion of an objective representation; instead, it is confronted in the gap between that which is doing the reflection and that which is reflected. The work of art becomes a material support without which the quality of the sense is greatly impoverished in its ability to partake in the Real of its medium. The mineralization of the imagination in the conscious mind is an arbitration of that process of ‘short-circuiting’ at work between the reflection and the medium of material formations.
Artists have always been partial to the use of representations to convey their sensitivity towards the world. Whether or not they understand that their feelings constructing the work in the conscious mind come from a different source than the representation tendency is another matter entirely. On the one side there is the phantasm and on the other there is the naked force stripped of any attributes we could give it. My point is not to wane artists off of representations but instead to convey that the decisive factor within the work is precisely that which cannot be fully conscripted back into the conscious mind. In other words, my endeavor is to liberate sensitivity from confining it to feeling within the concept.
It is not that the concepts of the conscious mind are worthless, only that their worth is incomprehensible without the sensitivity arising through the non-objective background. Why shall we call it “sensitivity,” if by that term we usually mean an entity that is sensitive? – Sensitivity has nothing to do with a thinking mind; it is discovered inasmuch as the mind undergoes erosion like a massive landslide into the sea. Sensitivity does not belong to a subjectivity: it is not an ornament. Sensitivity is not something we have, and it is not something that is possessed. What is sensitive has no practical value, no ideas, no direct form of representation, yet sensitivity is what all objects are doing. It is a sense emerging out of the medium itself.
Because of the use of objective subject matter it is difficult to get beyond providing illustrations of a world rather than conveying the world itself in its own immanent value. To be sure, a history of phantasms is useful for some purposes even if it remains suspended in the uncertainty of a provisional order. We are not against representations. We only point out that what originates in plastic feeling is significant unto itself, and that by abandoning the representations a reflection of sensitivity-in-objects can emerge.
Mineralizing the imagination does not bring about any new world of feelings, instead it gathers up those sensitivies already existing in the circumstance of creation: a direct form of presentation of the world. Such sensitivity is the only possible source of art, even if the latter harbors all sorts of compositions of a ‘practical world’ – the point is to see what is rendered in the work as something non-objective arising out of the work itself and transferring into the conscious mind at its point of its extinguishing itself. Can we inhabit a space within the objective imagery that exceeds the mask of things? For too long people have been enamored with the things of this world without attention to the movement residing within the medium itself.
It is as if we are swimming around in a massive ocean taking the waves to be the only existent aspect while otherwise ignoring the vast transfer of energies lurking just underneath the surface. The only thing that endures in this world are the processes transforming it every single instant.
Why a ‘mineralizing’ of the imagination? Why not follow in the footsteps of the other non-objectivists and seek a breaking away in the forms of abstract Cosmism? – Because we are earthbound: the worm-ridden house is the truth of our heathenism. It is not that we condemn the Cosmists, only that even ‘out there’ the fact of things is geology.
Everything came from the earth and will go back into it. If we were to set up time-lapse vision-machine and hypothetically observe this process over the course of millennia, or even as deep-time, then what we would end up seeing before our eyes is a massive process of sedimentation and erosion, rising matter morphing into all sorts of objects and entities and then falling back into oblivion only to be formed again into some new strange object. – An amorphous event. Each object in the world is a manifestation of this process. Each manifested thing possesses its own innate value – its own Natural Rights. The only way to sense this massive process is to encounter the single manifestations because this process is not a whole, which is to say that it is not an entity itself divorced from what it is doing with the multitude of particulars.
In themselves the objective world of phenomena are not enduring without recourse towards the process itself that determines it at any moment.