While I was working at the Jefferson Place Gallery in the early 1970's Ben did an exhibition of paintings that had sculptural references and that seemed to reject the common use of color of the Washington painters. I have invited Ben to share some of his thoughts about art and his view of the "art scene." I have never known Ben to be at a loss for words on these subjects. It can only add to the dialogue and broaden our understanding of his work.

I believe that Ben does not consider himself a minimalist however I do see his work as reductivist and having links with early 20th century contructivists. Ben is also one of us who weaves philosophy and life into his art, in the traditions of Ben Shahn, Barnett Newman, Ad Rhinehardt... It is important to see Ben's work with the backdrop of Minimalism, Constructivism and Cubism.

While my view of art is very different from Ben's in its application I think that he and I have some commonalties in our approach to thinking about art and imagery.

Ben's art is the result of a rigorous intellectual discipline and unless one is prepared for that experience one may have some difficulty entering the work and world of Ben Abramowitz. I admire both his intellectual and artistic tenacity.

His writing takes the form of interogator - respondent.

.............Ed Zerne - WACMAP 1996

239.

Question:

Your principles are a philosophy of Art. Others have theirs. Is there a common ground among them?

Answer:

I believe the esthetic that I apprehend is universal in all masterworks - but the esthetic goes down infinite pathways. For instance Matisse in contrast to Picasso, said that he avoided troubling or depressing subjects. He dreamed of an Art that was soothing and calming, something like a good armchair in which to relax and rest. never the less the universal esthetic is there. Except for the rationalizations of sub-level Art flooding this "fin de siecle," the esthetics of my philophy is at the core of history and creativity. Whether from nature or the imagination Art presses through an individual frame of mind and discipline.

Question:

It's said that a great Art is ahead of its time - is that a goal you seek?

Answer:

Being "Ahead of one's time" is a gassy phrase. The advanced Art invents itself, but in the context of its time. No Matter how original the Artists claim to be, they are constituted by prevailing attentions.

240.

The most Creative works represent in great depth the mores and delusions of their world for instance, in the broadest of judgements on the changing charater of Art since the enlightment, the flux of styles reflects a history made by science, leaving societies unable to quite make up their minds what Art does for them. in our century it has become a life of the imagination (abstract surrealist) because it is seen as useless to business and technologies. Art exists, but to induldge it too much blocks and harmfully take away energy from accepted action..

May 4, 1996, Question:

Isn't Art believed to play a moral role, even when underattack?

Answer:

I would like to think that Art teaches right action, a claim on virtue monopolized by religions. That Art or religion directs toward moral & ethical action is not historically demonstrable. Art zealots assert that a life in Art is a good thing in itself; that existence is enhanced by the imaginative experience; "You cannot live by bread along." Others believe that real life imitates Art, supplied by Art's meanings, larger and ....more profound than without it.

245.

Question:

Isn't this an America your view disputes, an America people world-wide Admire?

Answer:

Our material and moral gains peak above all others, while the level of enculturation is low. imaginative life is imporverished, our cultural concerns and empty homage. Patronage comes from the leaders, but followers (of trends, flavors,) sponge-like and short-sighted. Cash is always the motive, in an exclusionary system of Art Marketing.

Question:

Given the lack of quality in your view what sustains you?

Answer:

My thought and feelings find their greatest purity and form in Art. I see what I don't know; I've learned that the intrinsic quality of Art...emotion for its own sake...has no place in actual life. religion, morality, science, economics, and politics esteem emotion for the results they produce; Art alone embraces emotions for itself - For instance,

246.

When I relate the facts of an experience, I deliver an ordinary communication. Whe n I relate the emotions undergone of the experience I make Art. It gives pleasure purely as its own end without a consequent action. I prefer my days of independent disinterested contemplation, unified by creating orders and varieties, feelungful gestures and movements of masses, spaces and tones. Specifying planes arouse me and I sort them into rhythms, as strong a stimulant as sound to the ear. Art, like the sun shines and elicits the elements of order and sense. The work limelights the worthy from the panorama of actual life.

The creative spirit is attitudinal. The use of Art is regeneration and enjoyment, for attention and esthetic contemplation...for none other.

247.

June 19, 1996. Question:

Do you think that others who commit themselves to Art are party to the same motivations as you?

Answer:

I have a certain suspicion that people say what is expected of them. Many current artists glory in being seen as misfits, fashionable exponenets of bad art, boiler plate language screens out honest communication. Furthermore words, like slogans have replaced integral meanings. Early on in the century, for some unfathomed subjective reason, Mondrian and Kandinsky claimed a spiritual function with ideas drawn from theosophy. Kandinsky's triangles are a spin-off of his rising levels of spiritual developement. To my mind, Mondrian's checker boards have more esthetic purity than Kandinsky's synthetic compositions. But the Russian voiced one opinion I wholly agree with. He said, "Making a work with the principles of the past results in a work resembling a still-born child. It has no soul." 248.

As for what artists say---those who are revered---their present infallibility is tomorrows nonsense!

Question:

All in all, however, isn't the general run of stylistic acceptance broader than ever?

Answer:

In the past, opinion makers were so wrong that their current descendants condemn placing any barriers againist ambitions; They over compensate. Their safety net is calling Art anything one wishes. What also brought this about was a misperception in the 1970's onward that Modern Art was exhausted after 100 years of experimentation: Esthetics was dead. now empty spirits emphasize mere materials and fill the land with collected refuse.