FAKE Fluidism - Artists Claiming Fluidism Art NOT Real FLUIDISM Artists
A few artists stretch the word, “fluidism”, so thin that they misrepresent the word, and they falsify their own art. They disregard and disable a proper definition of fluidism art. These artists are NOT true fluidism artists.
I believe in using words in the most effective manner. Lately, I have noticed inaccurate, shallow, or superficial uses of the word, “fluidism”, where art is concerned. These ineffective uses of the word, “fluidism”, stand out even more, because I consider “fluidism” MY pet word whose meaning I have taken pains (over the years) to establish as, “an art style that directly involves manipulating fluid dynamic forms in real, tangible fluid mixtures.”
Words are a verbal art that should mirror the visual counterparts to which they apply as clearly as possible. Visual artists, thus, are wise to choose words carefully to categorize their art styles, becoming as accomplished in providing civilization with good verbal tags as they are in providing civilization with good visual artifacts.
NOT True Fluidism Artists
In a previous article, I have listed some of who I believe the true fluidism artists are. Now I feel compelled to list some of who I believe the true fluidism artists are NOT, who claim that they are [click on names to follow links]:
I am not listing these artists to discourage them from pursuing their own visceral, visual talents. I am listing these artists to encourage all artists to use better labels within an art culture that has suffered first from a naïve, postmodern, deconstructionist condemnation of words and second from the resultant, malignant misuse of words, when the actual, practical, functional need for words later arises.
“Fluidism” is NOT a label for any art that you want it to be. “Fluidism” best describes art that specifically and directly arises from fluid dynamic qualities in actual flowing liquids. The actual forms of flow itself are the art forms.
The No No's
The following are NOT fluidism art:
- drawing formal lines suggesting the theme of flow,
- using language, acknowledging the fluid nature of reality without using fluid dynamic properties and fluid dynamic forms directly,
- using expert draftsmanship to emulate fluid-flow lines in fluid-inspired themes, without using the actual, tangible spontaneity of real flowing fluids and real flowing fluid forms,
- writing about the concept of fluidity without really participating viscerally with flowing fluids.
For example, Tom Byrne writes,
“I want to go beyond my feelings or beyond mere expressions of my feelings in art. I feel that I can, through my new technique of Fluidism, which simplifies painting to its essentials, relying heavily on the accidental, allowing one to paint the impossible, the invisible, the unknown which emerges, takes form, and is captured.”
Byrne’s art seems shallow, compared to the depth of his words. His paintings fall short of true fluid dynamic spontaneity.
“Fluidism is about roaring your heart out, the fluidity of life, the stream of life. Essentially painting is the liquidification of life, representing life though a liquid medium that is paint, manipulating the paint into images through the fluidness of that same paint.”
Bigayan, Burningham and Byrne might be better to consider labels such as “fluid formalism" or “fluid conceptualism” to describe their art styles most faithfully.
Once again, I insist that the word, “fluidism” (as art) has the following best definition:
“Fluidism is a style of art that incorporates mixing and manipulating real fluid mixtures, in order to discover preserve and present actual fluid dynamic patterns as art works.”
[Click on word phrases below to follow links to fluidism calendars and prints.]
More by this Author
Physicists who actually use quantum mechanics claim that an ontological interpretation of the mathematics is not necessary, while many other people (including other physicists) claim that an ontological interpretation...
The popular CO2 Greenhouse Theory lacks experimental and theoretical foundations.
These five reasons might make you re-think the human-caused global warming claim.