THE BITCOIN ANGEL“Satire is a lesson; parody is a game” ~ Vladimir Nabokov  The Bitcoin Angel, Trevor Jones The Bitcoin Angel oil painting by Trevor Jones is a very striking example of a notable and recurring feature of modern and contemporary art. Right from the outset of modern art in the middle of the 19th century many avant-garde artists wished to create within their work, a dialectical tension between the inherited tradition of art history and the innovative agenda of Modernism. This was in order to set-up and expand a creative dialogue between the art of the past and theirs of present. For instance, we can find this eclectic strategy within the paintings of Manet, such as Le Dejeuner sur l’herbe and Olympia. In such early masterpieces of modern painting the “Father of Modern Art” wittily references Old Masters such as Raphael and Titian in order to discuss pictorially such issues as academic nudity and mundane nakedness, eternal beauty and passing fashion within a modern life milieu. Unfortunately, in these marvelous pictorial parodies, both the seriousness and humor of Manet’s intent were lost on his initial hostile public; but thankfully not on the swelling avant-garde movement that followed on from him.  Le Dejeuner sur l’herbe and Olympia, Édouard Manet By the time Cubism emerged at the beginning of the 20th-century the idea of parodying the academic conventions of the artistic tradition was built into the modernist creative strategy. In their radical assault on pictorial memetic illusionism Braque and Picasso for example, would often introduce surrogate text into their collaged still lives. For instance, they would frequently include the word “jou”(the French term for having fun) to express the concept of playfulness. This use of parody, often with much more vicious and subversive intent, was soon taken up by the Dadaists and Surrealists who used it as one of their main assaults on bourgeois culture and its conventions. This recurring strategy of parody in modern art has furthermore continued right through to our postmodern era, in the work of such artists as Andy Warhol, Roy Lichenstein and more recently with Jeff Koons - although now parody can easily come close to mere pastiche.  Les Oiseaux Morts, Picasso & Bottle, Glasses, and Newspapers, Braque As can be seen from his work, Trevor Jones is certainly a highly educated painter who is well versed in the history of art. Evidence for this is found in the way his painting frequently engages with old and modern masters such as Picasso, and here with his The Bitcoin Angel, the 17th century Italian sculptor Gian Lorenzo Bernini. With his keen knowledge of, and deep respect for, his art historical sources, Jones never indulges in cheap pastiche, but, like Manet and Picasso before him, aims to stimulate a meaningful dialogue between the art of the past and our present historical situation. Bernini’s The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is a thought-provoking art historical source for an artist like Jones to visit and re-present for his contemporary audience. It is of course, one of Bernini’s most celebrated works and has become an iconic example of 17th century baroque art. Bernini was regarded and lauded as one of the most important propagandists for the Roman Catholic counter-reformation. As can be seen in most of his commissioned work for the Church and its ecclesiastical princes, Bernini’s spectacular art - whether in sculpture or architecture - invariably sets out to sweep up the spectator in a great wave of emotional drama and high theatricality.
Wisely, Jones does not overelaborate his intervention into Bernini’s masterpiece. Translating the three-dimensionality of the highly ornate sculptural installation into two-dimensional painting, Jones is obliged to reduce its scale to the size of his canvas and skillfully turn its free-standing figures and accompanying props into a single unified image. This he carries out with superb painterly skill, translating sculptural marble and metal into pictorial texture and pigment. The only major change that Jones makes to Bernini’s original concept is the placement of the Bitcoin logo over the sculptor’s backdrop of gilded rods. Yet, while this does not greatly alter the compositional format of Bernini’s work, it does of course, radically change and challenge its religious character and ideological significance. Whereas Bernini wishes to elevate the lower terrestrial domain, as exemplified by the floating rock on which St Teresa lies, to the celestial sublime of the golden rays above her, Jones’ intervention reverses this mystical transcendence. Thus, in The Bitcoin Angel heavenly light is now provocatively turned into earthly gold.  Whereas pastiche rarely takes its subject, or even itself, very seriously, parody, on the other hand, is not only motivated by serious intentions, but is concerned to have a provocative impact on its intended audience. With The Bitcoin Angel Jones raises a controversial issue that has repeatedly plagued art over the centuries - the complex relationship between the artistic and the monetary, the aesthetic and the mercenary. Many, especially those of an aesthete's disposition, wish to see them kept well apart to avoid contamination. Unfortunately for those advocating this cultural apartheid, art and money have always been drawn to each other in one way or another - in fact, they do not seem to be able to exist without each other.
In The Bitcoin Angel Jones brings the spiritual and ethereal realm of Bernini’s Saint Teresa into the domain of the material and moneyed world of the 21st century. With his own particular response to Baudelaire’s injunction that modern art should be a meeting of the “eternal and the transitory”, Jones has produced a complex hybrid work of art in which the mystical and the mundane, the sacred and the profane, the historical and the contemporary, the sculptural and the pictorial - and to blur the Nabokovian distinction - satire and paradox are all brought together in a fascinating and thought-provoking encounter. Bill Hare
0 Comments
7 minute read And if I hadn't come now to the coast to disappear I may have died in a landslide of rocks and hopes and fears ‘Swim Until You Can’t See Land’ was the first painting to sell on the opening night of my very first commercial gallery exhibition in 2010. I was so nervous on the lead up to this show that I was honestly thinking about quitting painting to find another career. It would have been quite the waste of a giant student loan debt as I was barely two years out of art college, but the 4 or 5 weeks of anxiety and sleepless nights before the opening were tearing me apart. It took me a long time to learn how to deal with my pre-exhibition fear and to manage the inevitable anxiety that comes with it.  Swim Until You Can't See Land, mixed media, 2010 However, with the sale of ‘Swim…’ I calmed down a little on the night but I was genuinely surprised that of all the paintings in the exhibition, this was the first one to sell. The work is especially dark; deep Prussian blues and even black with a few glimpses of light appearing through the darkness, it’s intentionally moody and foreboding. The piece was unlike any of my other paintings that were accompanying it on the gallery walls, which were all much lighter and colourful. Yet that night someone connected with this work so much that they wanted to buy it. There was something special about the painting from the beginning. If the story ended there, I’d be happy. I wish it did end there. The exhibition was titled ‘Synaesthesia’ and the paintings were each inspired by a contemporary Scottish song. Admittedly, I’m not a synaesthete and I don’t ‘see’ colour when I hear musical notes but the notion of using music and rhythm as stimuli to create visual art captured my imagination for a few years. Of course music can't be directly translated visually; instruments and song lyrics connect emotionally by means in which a painting doesn't and so the notion of bringing the two art forms together was intriguing. When working on the paintings for this show I’d listen to each track literally hundreds of times in my studio, over and over on repeat, as I worked on the correlating painting until eventually, I felt the artwork captured some (subjective) visual essence of the song. I also loosely followed the colour music code created by 20th century painter Roy de Maistre and so each work became a creative exercise in balancing my subjective interpretation and emotional response to the song with de Maistre's quasi-scientific code.  Some of the other paintings in the exhibition ‘Swim…’ was by the indie rock band Frightened Rabbit. I didn’t know much about them at the time, but I’d heard they were rising stars on the Scottish music scene and they'd been touring quite extensively. As for the other songs that inspired the artworks, it was a mixed bag of genres that included KT Tunstall, Primal Scream, Martyn Bennett, Garbage, Biffy Clyro and more. All of the songs and the artists undeniably became important to me, in part due to listening to them day in and day out over the course of a year but also because they were the inspiration for the work for that critical first solo show. The Frightened Rabbit song resonated with me in particular. If you listen to it there’s a light and ethereal quality to the guitar riffs and an uplifting cadence and rhythm in general but when I first heard the song, to me it sounded more like a call for help, an existential crisis or perhaps the words of someone who had already made the decision to resign from life. I’d researched the lyrics before I began working on the painting and I found comments online attempting to interpret them. Almost everyone described the song as a message of hope, of successfully navigating a terrible time like a difficult breakup followed by letting go of the past. I didn’t decode the song like that at all but then I’d only recently recovered from some difficult years battling depression and I figured my view was most likely skewed and I still wasn’t seeing things clearly. Nevertheless, what came out of me and onto the canvas for ‘Swim…’ did not look like a message of hope, it appeared more a statement about the fragility of life. Fast forward a year to 2011 and I was organising a charity fundraiser for Art in Healthcare. The fundraiser was set up in collaboration with the Hard Rock Café Edinburgh, and as part of the event I painted a Gibson guitar for an auction. With the help of the HRC we’d managed to get some well know musicians to sign the back of the guitar including Jon Lord of Deep Purple and Canada’s own Bare Naked Ladies. Coincidentally, the two brothers who formed Frightened Rabbit, Scott and Grant Hutchison also signed the guitar.  A few weeks after the event HRC put on a dinner to thank some of the people involved and that’s the night I met the FR band members. It was a fun evening; eating, drinking and chatting. I distinctly remember Grant and the guitarist Andy Monaghan explaining the band’s song writing process to me in detail. It was fascinating. We also talked about my painting of 'Swim…', which I was surprised to discover they'd seen on social media. Grant mentioned that his and Scott’s parents were interested in the artwork and so I got their address and posted a print to them a couple weeks later as a gift. I was absorbed in the conversation that evening but something stood out to me. The lead singer and songwriter, Scott seemed ‘elsewhere’, distant. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. The rest of the band was outgoing, talkative, and engaged. I couldn’t tell if Scott was playing the 'reticent and aloof rockstar', if he was disinterested in my chat, or maybe he just didn’t like me. I didn’t know how to decipher him but whatever it was, I was very aware of it. It’s unsettling to know that one’s perception and judgment of another person can be so terribly biased and simply wrong due to a lack of information.  Grant and Scott Move ahead seven more years. Thursday, May 2nd, 2018 Scott was found on the banks of the Firth of Forth in Port Edgar. He ended his life at the age of 36. His struggle with depression was well documented in his songs and in interviews. He wasn’t afraid to talk about his fragility through his lyrics and yet this wasn’t enough to help him through it. When I found out what had happened, I was in shock. It really hit me hard and it brought me back to the evening we met and how I completely misread him. I didn't know Scott well; I didn't know him at all to be honest, but I wish so much that he and I had connected at the restaurant that night and we were able to talk about our battles with depression. Even though it’s been more than 15 years since my own mental health issues I can still recall vividly how I felt then, which is crazy because I can barely remember what I had for breakfast yesterday. I described my state of mind to my GP at the time; it was like I was treading water out in the deep sea at night, struggling to keep my head above the shallow waves. There were times I'd wonder what would happen if I just stopped swimming. This hopelessness and despair would go on for weeks, even months at a time without any reprieve and this cycle in turn continued for almost three years. All I wanted back then, more than anything, was to be able to talk to someone who'd struggled like I was struggling and who'd somehow made it out the other side. I never found anyone to speak with though because like so many men fighting with depression I didn’t want anyone to know what I was going through. I’d deal with it on my own terms. I read an interview with Grant after Scott's death explaining that although his brother was open about his mental health issues, he wasn’t so good when it came to talking about them in private. He said, "I think that's quite a common thing with people that suffer - they become quite good at hiding it." I know exactly what he meant by that. I wish I could have talked to Scott about it that night. I don’t know what else to say. The only thing I know is that when I look at this painting, I mean REALLY look at it, my eyes still fill with tears.  I could go into great lengths about how my interpretation of Scott’s lyrics influenced the making of this painting; the palette I used and why, the lyrics scratched onto the surface of it, or the sand and pieces of collage incorporated into it. I could talk in detail about the music 'All That Remains' that I chose for the NFT and how this affected the making of the animation. I could discuss how I feel the two artworks, the painting and the NFT, speak to me independently but how when understood and experienced ‘as one’ they’re even more powerful. But I’ve said enough. I’m not a writer, I'm a painter, and at the end of the day the artwork should speak for itself. If you’re feeling depressed please don’t be afraid to ask for help. The best thing you can do is to talk to someone, especially someone who’s been there. Feel free to message me any time. Additionally, below are a few organisations that can help. Trust me when I say that it does get better. It gets a lot better. It just takes time and some support. ‘Swim Until You Can’t See Land’
I salute at the threshold of the North Sea of my mind And I nod to the boredom that drove me here to face the tide And I swim, I swim, oh swim Dip a toe in the ocean, oh how it hardens and it numbs The rest of me is a version of man built to collapse in crumbs And if I hadn't come now to the coast to disappear I may have died in a landslide of rocks and hopes and fears So I swim until you can't see land Swim until you can't see land Swim until you can't see land Are you a man? Are you a bag of sand? Swim until you can't see land Swim until you can't see land Swim until you can't see land Are you a man? Are you a bag of sand? Up to my knees now Do I wade? Do I dive? The sea has seen my like before, though it's my first and perhaps last time Let's call me a Baptist, call this a drowning of the past She is there on the shoreline throwing stones at my back Swim until you can't see land Swim until you can't see land Swim until you can't see land Are you a man? Are you a bag of sand? And the water is taller than me And the land is a marker line All I have is a body adrift in water, salt and sky This is a story about removing freeloading from the rare digital art space. I occasionally see these slightly over the top, utopian-like claims by individuals working in the cryptoart space expressing how this decentralised market is going to radically change the current traditional art model, solve all the afflicting problems and replace it with a new, exciting and importantly, more egalitarian ideal in which everyone will benefit. I’m sorry to say, from my experience of working in both the old and the new worlds, the rare digital art space seems to be mirroring the traditional art market more every day. I won’t get into all the increasing similarities between the two as I believe much is common knowledge already. Saying that, one real beacon of light I have witnessed is the change in artist commissions on secondary sales. I don’t think the debate is finished yet and only time will tell how this new royalty system will impact ALL artists in the future but there’s already been rigorous discussion and the results are, in my eyes, having a positive impact in a variety of ways. For example, I decided to put one of my first NFT purchases on the market just last night and I woke up this morning to a notification that my list price was met. Of course, I was over the moon with the sale, but I was also thrilled that the creator of the work received a 10% commission from SuperRare. As an artist it’s such a nice feeling to be part of an art transaction that truly is benefitting absolutely everyone involved, which brings me to the situation at hand and the reason why I’m writing this. Perhaps how this issue is resolved will be another reason to believe that this space really can build and improve on the traditional art sector. I’ve had some unsettling conversations with someone over the last few days that have pissed me off. I’m not going to name names, but you know who you are. I was contacted last week by someone asking if I’d be interested in exhibiting some of my works in his virtual reality gallery. He explained that he was contacting a few of his favourite cryptoartists to be a part of this ‘inaugural class’ and he went on to suggest some of my works (physical and digital) that he particularly liked including my series of 21 Cubist Satoshi NFTs, each listed at 2 ETH. He’d done his research.  He informed me that the exhibition would be ‘free of cost’ but in return he would like a ‘watermarked’ digital edition of the artworks I submitted. I wasn’t entirely certain whether he simply wanted an image to display in the gallery like I had with the DCL Plaza kiosk at the Decentraland grand opening, as he hadn’t come out and directly said it, but it seemed that he wanted a minted NFT. I politely explained to him that as I make so few NFTs (only four 1/1s to date and a series of 21, ‘Cubist Satoshi’) that I didn’t feel comfortable giving one away. I thanked him for getting in touch and wished him all the best. He got back to me the next day to let me know that he completely understood; however, shortly after, he messaged me again to inform me that one of the biggest artists in the space had now committed to the gallery event and that I was still very much welcome to get involved. He told me that the VR gallery and the artwork would receive ‘significant exposure’ and that my work would link back to my website or marketplace page. His words ‘significant exposure’ set off the alarm bells as it was becoming more apparent that he was trying hard to sell me on the concept. I’ve been around the art scene long enough to be acutely aware of the situation so many artists in their career face at one point or another – to give away or create artwork for someone in return for ‘publicity’. Of course, there’s a very long tradition of artists offering artwork for charity fundraisers as #1 it’s a great way for an artist to support the charities they believe in and #2 it can provide the (usually young or early career stage artist) an opportunity to get more eyes on their work. Although it’s only changed in the last 5 – 10 years, charity exhibitions now tend to take a 50/50 cut as they realised that artists need to eat too. This shift occurred mostly due to social media and artists getting fed up with the constant email barrage by charities wanting them to give away artwork for a ‘good cause’. Charities began to find out the hard way that taking advantage of artists’ good will was not at all a good look. Nowadays charities give the artist the opportunity to keep 50% of the sale and, if the artist so chooses, they can gift the full 100% to the charity. Giving artists the option is the fair and right thing to do. This situation I’m writing about was not at all like a charity event and I’m very conscious of how little bang for buck the ‘artwork for publicity’ transaction usually is for the artist. I messaged him back to once again politely turn down his offer. I went into a little more detail this time and explained that my 1/1 NFTs have all sold very quickly and that there are only about half of the Cubist Satoshi series left and I know they will all sell at some point for the 2 ETH list price. I asked him, “why would I give away a $350 (2 ETH) artwork to a brand new VR gallery space that in all honesty is unlikely going to drive sales for me anyway?” I wouldn’t have had any problem with him or the conversation up to this point to be honest and I could have chalked it up to him not being that knowledgeable about the art world or, perhaps even a little naïve that he believed that the artists would benefit greatly, but what he said in his next message is what pissed me off. “Zero need for sorries, and wholly understood! We've moved on with (Artist X) and (Artist Y) and (Marketplace Z) so all good. From the Gallery's perspective, it's about widening the collector base to the greatest extent possible, so that top crypto artists whose works already are reaching ~50-100 ETH can hit multiples of that, the sooner the better; plus a rising tide lifts all boats. As someone who collects (insert 20th century, famous dead artist here) and recently bought one of his pencil sketches for $22,500, I think, "why not?" Regardless, you're kicking butt for the community -- please keep fighting the good fight, Trevor!” What a load of bullshit! First off, he begins with the fact that although it had been less than 12 hours since I declined his offer he has already ‘moved on with other artists…’ which is a little patronising. Dude, I honestly don’t care as I didn’t want to be involved from the beginning, but you do have some cheek pointing that out with those choice of words. Secondly, you’re trying to sell me on the artists ‘already reaching 50 -100 ETH can hit multiples’ notion? Get the fuck outta her you ridiculous car salesman. Yes, these figures could (and hopefully will) be hit at some point in the future, but it definitely won’t be because of your prepubescent VR gallery. And lastly, and this is what got me, he’s happy to pay $22.5K for a dead artist’s pencil sketch but he expects a living artist who is not wealthy or famous and who is working in this space to gift him a $350 artwork in return for ‘publicity’? He then has the audacity to tell me that ‘a rising tide lifts all boats’? Go fuck yourself, you parasite! I responded by challenging him on his statements but without the profanity as I was still trying to keep it somewhat professional on my end. He got back to me with a long, drawn out apology that he ‘believes something has been lost in translation and that the gallery takes no commission.” I don’t give a fuck if you take commission or not. You NEVER EVER expect an artist to give you artwork for free in return for ‘publicity’. This individual has no history of running a gallery. He has no track record. He has no history of selling artwork. There is no evidence that he has a huge database of art collectors knocking on his door to buy artwork. He does not have a whale-like collection of NFTs in which he’s putting his money where his mouth is and truly investing in artists and the community. He has no history of proving that he’s improved any artist’s life (and bank account) by genuinely working with them and honestly expanding their clientele base and yet he expects artists to gift him art with the notion that they will benefit from ‘significant publicity’?! I don’t know if this individual is just not very bright or if he’s delusional, or more likely, he is intelligent and a big-time chancer. The cryptoart space is currently made up of a very small community and every collector out there is already aware of who the most well-known artists are, and if a collector is new to the game, they’ll find out very quickly through means other than a nascent ‘gallery’ in virtual reality. If this individual truly wanted to help the community and he doesn’t have much of a budget (although I assume he does if he admits to paying $22K for a drawing, or he’s lying about it), he should be contacting less well known artists who are creating great work, buy their NFTs while they’re still affordable and then support these artists and showcase these pieces to draw attention to these talents and raise their profiles - like a commercial art gallery does, funnily enough. It’s a win win. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’, you fucking twat. He also stated, “Another point I think was misunderstood -- if we get more eyes, and more collectors in the space (such as via galleries in virtual worlds), wouldn't the "rising tide" shine more of a light on all cryptoartists' works, veteran or new, successful or still unknown?” Yes, I can understand that but dude, if you are so focused and intent on trying to help artists in this space, new or veteran, and you are more than happy to pay $22K for an artwork, buck the fuck up and pay $350 for an NFT from an ‘old veteran’ artist to help raise the profile of your gallery and the other artists you so selflessly ‘represent’. Let’s be honest here, raising the profile of the gallery is the only reason he’s reaching out to the most well-known artists. Another thing that pissed me off was that before I declined his ‘generous’ offer the second time, I suggested a 25% discounted price which would have brought the cost of the NFT down to $260 and yet, that wasn’t good enough and he still wanted my work for free. That proved to me just how little he was concerned with ‘helping’ the community and how much more it was about benefitting himself at the expense of artists. He also tried to explain to me that he was only asking for a minted work that had a watermark because, in his words, “the point of the watermark is to elevate the original artist-owned work” and “An artist can produce an extra edition of a work (presumably free of cost)”. WTF? How is it going to ‘elevate’ my work? To be honest, if I minted a #22 NFT of my Cubist Satoshi, watermarked it and gave it to him, it will no longer be a series of 21, which is kind of important! Moreover, with a watermark the piece would be visually unique with regards to the previous 21 and, who knows, it’s possible that this could add even more value to the artwork in the future. Regardless, I also think the idea is ridiculous because the old school watermark concept goes entirely against the point of minting artwork on the blockchain. Watermarks have become obsolete in the NFT world. The dude is one serious chancer. I was scrolling through twitter a few days ago and I saw someone’s post about how they now recognise the value of ‘location, location, location’ in the VR world. This person had purchased two VR parcels a while ago and they’d recently noticed how the footfall next to one was something like 800 in a week and the footfall beside the other plot was over 4,000 because it was right next to Coldie’s gallery. This proves without a doubt that quality art by a well-known, active artist in the space brings value to the parcel and even the land around it. So, this individual who is contacting established artists in the space and, I found out, calling the CEO of an art marketplace, looking to acquire free work is much more likely trying to raise the value of his land than actually taking an honest interest in artists and trying to help them. You gotta give credit where credit is due, this guy had some big balls getting in touch with the CEO of an NFT marketplace to ask him if the artists he works with would be willing to gift artwork to his gallery. If anything like this happened in the traditional art sector that person would be absolutely annihilated and would never ever been seen in the art world again. From what I understand a few artists have already gifted him artwork for his gallery. I spoke privately with one of them yesterday to fill them in and, understandably, after hearing about my conversations with this individual, this artist is no longer at all happy with the transaction. My advice to any artist who has given work away for free with the offer of ‘publicity’ in return (to someone who has not offered you a realistic breakdown as to how this will genuinely benefit you and has no track record of selling art) is to ask for that artwork back immediately. Seriously, you should and here’s why: Loads of people in this space harp on about how broken and horrible the traditional gallery system is in that the gallery expects 50% commission, give or take. Yet, with this scenario, the individual is expecting the artwork and 100% of its attached value in return for a link to a URL. That’s it. At least a commercial gallery is committing to selling your work because if they don’t, they go out of business and they lose everything. A successful gallerist needs to work hard to develop their clientele list. They bring to the table all the knowledge, history, education and tools they have to raise the profile of the artists they represent. Yes, 50% is crazy but it’s a heck of a lot better than giving away an artwork to an individual who cannot explain how he will draw in legitimate buyers to his gallery to: view the artwork on display, click the URL, go to the artist’s marketplace, open their wallet and purchase that artist’s artwork. He’s doing nothing except fill his VR plot with art by some of the most established artists in the space thereby raising the value of his land parcel with each and every piece gifted to him. A pretty cushy deal don’t you think? Let’s state a fact: If you let this type of activity permeate and persist throughout the cryptoart community you’re doing a disservice to everyone else in the space. Do you want to build a better world for artists? If you care about the cryptoart marketplace and the artists involved (current and future artists), this needs to be nipped in the bud, artwork needs to be returned to their owners and this individual needs a serious wake up call. And to you, you know who you are, your best course of action is to write a long and heartfelt open letter of apology to the entire crypto community explaining how you weren’t fully aware of what you were doing or the negative consequences of your actions etc etc, you get the idea. Most importantly, return all the artwork that was given to you for free or, even better, buy it from the artists. If you do this, I’m more than happy to let all of this go and to publicly thank you for accepting responsibility for your actions and for doing the right thing. I would like to end on a positive note, and I would like to hear from other artists in this space as to what you think could be done to ensure this type of situation doesn’t occur on a regular basis – or more preferably, ever again. As I’d mentioned at the beginning, there are some beacons of light shining in this space that do separate it from the admittedly flawed traditional gallery system. Yes, the cryptoart space is flawed as well, people are flawed, which doesn’t make things easy, but I do believe that if the big issues are addressed as quickly as possible that the best outcome will be achieved, fingers crossed.
Lastly, thanks to this series of events I’m going to add one more tip to my Artist Checklist for Success blog post. Tip # 61 Don’t ever give away artwork for free if the person asking for it subtlety tries to guilt trip you or only promises you ‘significant publicity’ in return.  Gian Lorenzo Bernini, Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, 1652 -- The Ecstasy, oil on canvas, 120 x 90 cm, 2018
Without warning, the angel lunges with the arrow piercing it deep into her chest, releasing an excruciatingly sweet pain as Teresa’s head falls back with eyes closed in rapture. She opens her eyes momentarily, surprised to see bitcoin spill out from her as the arrow is withdrawn; however, Teresa is even more aware of the knowing smile appearing on the angel’s face and the intense heat radiating from her beating heart. The temporal being of St Teresa wishes this moment will never end but her spirit understands that there will be consequences. View the animation with audio at the SuperRare marketplace here. Demo video of the augmented reality feature below. The oil painting was created with this video July 2018 for my CryptoDisruption exhibition. I've since changed the AR experience to the original 1/1 NFT animation with music. Saint Teresa of Ávila (1515 – 1582) described the scene in her autobiography, “In the angel’s hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times ... and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one cannot possibly wish it to cease.”  Saint Teresa of Ávila by Peter Paul Rubens, 1615 Bernini used this masterful and undeniably erotic artwork as a springboard to a new and higher type of spiritual awakening. The work became a melding of sensual and spiritual pleasure, the heavenly and the earthly coming together. The piercing of Teresa’s heart becomes a point of contact between earth and heaven, matter and spirit. These uniquely powerful combinations are what I focussed on when creating the original painting, the accompanying AR video and now with this NFT animation. This painting was inspired by the 2017 crypto bull run and the euphoria that was sweeping across the world as bitcoin quickly surged towards $20,000. I searched for a powerful image that could be reinterpreted to convey the high emotion and insatiableness of some crypto companies, ICOs, 'influencers' and over leveraged investors driving this delirium whilst heralding it under the guise of self-sovereignty, morality, and a Utopian prosperity. People’s lives were changing dramatically. Literally overnight, ‘dreams’ were coming true, money was being made faster (and lost faster) than could be imagined. There seemed to be no limit to the heights and greed that could be achieved.  Cornaro Chapel, Rome In search for a symbol, I turned towards the highly ornate and extravagant Baroque period renowned for its ostentatious displays of wealth by the monarchs and decided on one of the greatest masterpieces of the 17th century, Bernini’s Ecstasy of Saint Teresa. This symbol would be reworked and reimagined with oil paint, video and animation in an attempt to convey the original message of connection with a ‘higher power’, the search for the divine, but to also carry with it a message of caution and the need for responsibility. I aimed to capture that moment which Bernini first created – when the angel and St Teresa act out a scene of both pleasure and pain simultaneously, the ecstasy and the agony, but this time in front of a shining, golden bitcoin.
The Bitcoin Angel represents dreams, hope, and the desire to improve oneself, but it also acts as a warning to the greedy, self-absorbed and negligent that without caution and integrity, those ‘dreams’ can very quickly transform into something entirely different. |
AuthorMusings about art and stuff Archives
May 2021
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed