Author Archives: mewtant



Another Neurotically Yours cartoon. Explicit language warning for sensitive people.


Foamy brings up a good point in this episode, with the introduction of the camera, what is the real point behind painting photo-realistic landscapes? What defines talent? How much thought needs to be in a piece before it’s art? How long does an -ism last before it’s no longer considered art? What constitutes a unique, creative imagery? Does the ability to recreate a photo-realistic landscape have merit then, when it’s used to create mountains that bleed eggs, or trees that spit baby limbs (in other words, create more believable Surrealism)?


Enjoy the artistic rants of this squirrel.




‘Les Fauves’


The Fauves were artists who were more instinctive with their art than those in formal movements with rules and regulations.  In their instinctive style, the Fauves chose to express themselves with the use of bold color, gestural and expressive brushstrokes, and simplified figures and shapes.  With their erratic, and sometimes chaotic, color choices, Fauves are known to believe in color theory and how color can portray or evoke an emotion.

Being one who loves color myself, I find the work of this movement to be beautiful for the fact that they use so much color! You would never think a person’s face, with varying shades of brown and peach, would ever have a blotch of blue that wasn’t in their eye, yet the Fauves made it work.  Their use of fantastical colors and color arrangement make for a captivating movement.




Johnathon Ian Mathers is the creator of the Neurotically Yours web cartoon and the infamous character Foamy the Squirrel.  One of my favorite things about him is that he is so obviously offensive in his social commentaries.  Seeing as we are covering the time period of the birth of film in this course, I have decided to post Mathers’ most recent commentary on “art house film”.  What is said in the intro can also be said about other art forms.  For example, the ready-made “fountain” piece or the Dadaist movement.  Seemingly obvious things to avoid in art, yet it’s accepted!


To start this film, Mathers sarcastically explains (in a spooky voice, no less) how this cartoon can be categorized as art.    After that…well, hold on to your seat, folks, you’re in for a weird ride! And happy early Halloween!



Suggestivism, as devined by deviantArt



Birth of a New Category or Beginning of the End of Categories?

Just when you thought there couldn’t possibly be another “ism” on the art world horizon, what with the growing accessibility of allart technique and technology rendering all the “schools of art” equally available and doable and therefore making impossible the dominanceor even existence of any current art “movement” … comes “suggestivism,” the “ism” best summing up what art is in our lives today, definedmore by what it is not, rather than what it is.

“Suggestivist” art is not slave to any one particular type of current art, from pencils to oils to photo-manipulation. It’s not about technology or technique.

It’s largely apolitical and need not promote any particular “message.” Whether defined by Sadakichi Hartmann (circa. 1900; the first to cointhe term) as simply being a reaction to overly cerebral and insufficiently poetic art in all its forms, from canvases to literature, or by NathanSpoor, a current artist and advocate, as a “process” by which the artist lets go of constrictive didactic narratives and dogmatic theories and letsthe will of his or her muse take over so that truly poetic art can be created, whether that art “makes sense” or not. The artist allows the soul ofhis deepest artistic intuitions “suggest” what to create, without all the over-thinking. The artist can ponder the “meaning” of the vision producedlater, along with everyone else. The one thing that “suggestivist” artworks have in common is that the viewer is encouraged (compelled!) to imaginehis or her own interpretation of the piece. These artworks generally always have recognizable elements, but the real world ends there, as theseelements are usually then twisted into the impossible conjunctures of mad dream logic. Suggestivist art can sometimes suggest the frightening andhaunting, but usually the emphasis is on the playful and wildly unapologetically creative.

“Suggestivism” is as apolitical as our largely apolitical times, though usually informed with ambiguous political memes and imagery. It is an artfor our times that does not ask to be analyzed and understood, but presents itself as a cipher or puzzle with no correct answer that commands attentionnone the less. Or it could be just the latest petulant reaction to a public perception of arts experts talking over our heads in their own secret language about what we should and should not like.Time will tell.

Perhaps the greatest thing about “suggestivist” art is the very fact that it is so… “suggestive.”  It’s the ultimate resource for artists (pop & fine),musicians, writers, dancers or just dedicated daydreamers who feel a bit blocked.  Re-charging the creative batteries only requires you spend a little timecreating your own stories to fit the magical creations and constructions of these works, and one’s own inner engines of fantasy and whimsy will soon besweetly humming again.

QuestionsFor the Reader

  1. Should art be political or apolitical?  Or do you think there’s room enough for both?
  2. Do you sense there being any current “movement” in the arts world today?  Is this a good or bad state of things?
  3. Do you try to “figure out” an artist’s intent or message when looking at art, or do you simply decide whether you like or dislike each piece of art?
  4. In your own art, do you try to transmit any sort of message, or do you concern yourself only with technique and aesthetics?