angelos michail spartalis
ASTYPALEA, AUGUST 2001, Translated by Matina Chatzimarkou
text also available in Greek 
the world......
is......
blue......
The philosophy of blue was first presented
at the opening of the painting exhibition "Reflections",
in Astypalea, Greece (August 2001).
Since then, it accompanies all exhibitions
of the same series of paintings.
Introduction
The philosophy of blue is a landmark in the artistic venture of Spartalis. The text
parallel and inseparably related to the new paintings of the "Reflections"
series, brings out -as a starting and reference point- his theory on art, the idea, the
communication, the human, you and me. His work functions as a means of escape to a field
of unknown limits; a field that is suitable for a reassessment of aesthetics as well as
for an exploration of the substance of painting.
The things he wants to express have been conceived some time now. He manages to put across
those in at both of his arts, writing and painting. With a maniac passion he wants to
record the existence into words and icons. Tools for this process are his paint-brushes
and notes. He "speaks" with the oil-paints, he "illustrates" with his
word-inventions. Extreme? Could be. Revolutionary? Perhaps. Definitely free in his -very
own- autonomous thought and will. In 1999 he wrote: "...I will be thinking without
existing, I will be drawing, I will be my thought and pencils..." (illustrated poem
"The self-lit light"). More recently: "...after maniac thought I won't have
other philosophy than the blue color and with the philosophy of blue I will have explained
the world [...] I will ram this worthless solar system of ours where it hurts, I will be
dead in the sun" (theatrical monologue "The round river"). In the
philosophy of blue he comes back, defines himself and concludes that "...using all
languages of art, [...] I am able to think, feel and talk to you about the whole.[...] I
am free!". In order to set himself free, he uses arbitrarily his own language of art
that is symbolized by isochromatic relations. This innovative invention is his personal
solution to the problem of communication (internal and external).
In painting, particularly, he strives to depict its supremacy, considering important the
rejection of any sort of categorization. Therefore, he sets a concept model that produces
visual equations (as he considers himself a suppressed theoretical mathematician!). The
parts of Spartalis's equations are connected with isochromatic relations, not with
equality. In those equations he dispels the myth of -isms (modernism, post-modernism...)
and the disputes of those, regarding art as a whole, without discontinuities. He creates
art "deriving directly from color" (Goethe), never-ending games of being - being
represented, of pictures and reflection images, an art which is anthropocentric,
elaborating his visual motives on a primitive level.
At the latest exhibition of Spartalis, under the auspices of the Museum of Modern Greek
Art (Rhodes, March 2001), works that symbolized translucently the tragic state of man in
our contemporary times, were presented. Those were distorted, spiral-like figures, an
instinctively violent iconography. In the series "Reflections" he continues
where he left off, this time arranging in each of the paintings the co-existence of
realistic and surreal, inarticulate figures. The first ones are the reflections of the
second. The "unconstitutional" figures are placed in the "natural
environment" of the canvas, while their mirror images are within mirrors, other
canvases, photo frames. Here, the isochromatic relations of the philosophy of blue are
recognizable again:
- "isolation" 
"dead end corridor without a roof" "sofa"
- "me"
"you"
"not mirror"
"scribbles"
The world, that we are conscious of, is a representation on a mirror; the latter reflects
a representation of another mirror and so on. It is like a "mimetic drama in which
the subject can locate his/her hysterical pleasure", as R. Barthes wrote. The
reflection of the reflection, the malformation of the malformation, finally leads to the
real meaning and true form. That is the mechanism that Spartalis deals with in his writing
and painting.
With the same mechanism, I draw a parallel between the final isochromatic relation in the
philosophy of blue and the following poem extract by Yeats: "Empty eyeballs knew/
That knowledge increases unreality, that/ Mirror on mirror mirrored is all the show",
therefore:
- "malformation" "not form" "not not malformation".
That's the philosophy of blue.
Polly Hatzimarkou
Curator
Museum of Modern Greek Art
The philosophy of blue
(1a)
I live each day with the sense that it could be my last. That's the main reason I write
and paint. That's the main reason I live with unrestrained appetite. The philosophy of
blue" is a piece of work which I'd like it to be my last. I am writing it now since I
am incapable of determining my life span. Here, I finally answer the question: "Why
do I exist?". So, almost inevitably, I also answer the question why I think you
exist!
(1b)
The sum of the energy, in all its forms, comprises the universe. Man lives through an
infinitesimal part of the universe using his physical and mechanical senses. The knowledge
of the reason why energy exists (why it exists and why it "flows") comprises the
whole. The whole is the absolute knowledge of the process through which energy initially
derived, and since, then it has been imprinted on nothingness creating the universe. The
whole contains both the conscience and the description of itself. The whole is the
absolute knowledge, whereas the nature of the whole ought not to be confused with the
nature of human knowledge (which is merely a miniscule part of absolute knowledge).
Man is incapable of precisely defining the whole, as that would go beyond his mental
ability, memory and knowledge. However, since he feels a part of the whole, he is able to
perceive it only if he narrows it down to the following "poetic", but not
"scientific" definition: "The whole is the absolute knowledge and the
universe is an imprint of the whole". (definition 1)
(2)
Axiomatically I consider the following: "Man is incapable of knowing the whole"
(axiom 1). For the above reason, his knowledge will always remain partial. Metaphorically
speaking, I place man in the position of a flea in a dog's body. That flea, having
explored the exterior of the animal at which it sucks, progresses mentally until it wishes
to obtain knowledge of the interior of the dog, of all the dogs and of other animals,
including their environment. Then, the flea adds to its philosophical queries all the
human ones. It is said that the flea has no emotions or rationale. I do not think that it
is utterly incapable to obtain them in the future. It is said that the flea will conquer
the world. I do not think it will ever succeed. I also do not understand Man's horrendous
insolence to differentiate his position from that of the flea's; not of course in terms of
the "personal", "private" residence of man with his
"ultra-modern" electrical appliances and the pet with the parasite case, but in
terms of the limits of the universe which are currently unknown and will probably always
be unknown. Such a thought is not self-explanatory and does not fulfill me in order to
accept it as an axiom.
"Man is the conscience of the universe!" This impressive definition undoubtedly
honors man, unfortunately only within the limits of his conscience and his mental ability.
Man is a flea of the whole. He becomes acquainted with fragments of the whole, he will get
to know some more, and there will be even more which will always remain unknown. The
realization of the world will always escape him.
(3)
Ancient philosophers, "the great minds of their time", were stating confidently
that the world consists of water or earth or fire or air or combinations of those. The
world consists of triangles, squares, dodecahedra, or combinations of those. They kept the
existence of irrational numbers a secret out of vanity, struggling the betrayers. Why?
Simply because they were obsessed with interpreting the universe and needed an
interpretation that would suit their needs: "A single, symmetrical and submitted to
logic universe". Contemporary astrophysicists do not differ from ancient philosophers
at all when they try to unify the forces, applied in the universe, aiming at the discovery
of the "simplistic" recipe of creativity.
On the other hand, contemporary mathematicians eliminated the established aspect that
"ignorabimus" ("unknown") did not exist in mathematics just seventy
years ago. Since then, we have known that there are logical -and indeed truthful-
sentences which can never be proven. Such unproved sentences exist in every math theory
compulsorily, in spite of which axioms establish it (Theorem of non-completeness, K.Godel,
1931). There are sentences that may be true or false, but we will never know based on
facts! In mathematics, in the perfect, logical and manly-made structure there is
"ignorabimus" ("unknown") which will remain forever unknown! Logic and
philosophy turn their back to the arrogant man, his structures abandon him, the ship
sinks.
(4a)
A consequence of the first axiom ("Man is incapable of knowing the whole") that
was stated in paragraph (2) is that every human reference to the whole is false. Whoever
claims that "god exists" or "god does not exist" is wrong in both
cases, because he refers to something which most people perceive as the master of the
whole and more specifically he negotiates the existence of it. However, he is not in the
position of ever finding out! Similarly, the question which I claim I am answering
("Why
do I exist?") only conditional answers can be given. The greater the part of the
unknown whole those conditions include, the more mistaken are the answers that derive.
By applying the above, every venture of mine to set a second axiom, which would refer to
the whole, or to prove a theorem which would be based upon the first axiom and also refer
to the whole, would fail. Even the first axiom when applied to itself terminates its
value, as it embraces human reference to the knowledge of the whole; hence there is error.
I contemplate the following sentence: "The whole consists of the known whole, the now
unknown whole and the forever unknown whole". (theorem 1) This can be expressed by
the algebraic relation:
Whole= [known whole] + [now unknown whole] + [forever unknown whole]
Proof:
We are familiar with a part of the whole, the [known whole], since we feel a part of the
universe which is, according to the first definition, an imprint of the whole. The
scientific discoveries daily expand the [known whole], so something which is currently
considered unknown might become known in the near future. This soon-to-be discovered
knowledge is the [now unknown whole]. Finally, according to the first axiom, there will
always be a part of the whole remaining forever unknown to man, the [forever unknown
whole].
Counter-proof:
This silly equation displays the human reference to the whole and according to the first
axiom it contains error, while the rejection of the above equation would also include an
error; hence every relation in the form of "Whole ..." or "Whole ..."
is meaningless. Furthermore, the fact that the whole was light-heartedly considered a
total of sub-totals contains error, since, as it has already been mentioned in paragraph
(1b), the ignorance of the nature of the whole does not permit it.
(4b)
For every proof there is a counter-proof, for every thesis an antithesis and for every
rationality an irrationality. The interpretation of the world escapes my human logic and
it is essential to develop new, independent "tools" to access the whole. I ought
to liberate myself from the everyday spoken language and the language of science.
(5)
At this point I will introduce art (at last) in order to save myself from being an object
of ridicule! I set the artistic symbol "" (read: "isochroma") with which I replace the
mathematical symbol "=" ("equal to"). The new symbol means equality of
the parts of the equation: "A B" ("A isochroma B") presupposing that an error
is contained. That error cannot be abolished, since the reference object is now unknown
and may remain forever unknown. So, the isochromatic relation "A B" ("A isochroma B") means
that term A equals term B because that is the way I like to express it! It suits my nature
to comprehend the relation of terms A and B that way, even though term A, term B or even
both terms are unfamiliar with my nature and beyond my mental ability, memory and
knowledge. This relation expresses myself artistically, not scientifically. It certifies a
subjective beauty, not an objective truth.
A blue car and a blue sky have a common characteristic (they are both blue in colour) but
they are not equal (they could not be due to their different nature). The isochromatic
relation "Car
Sky" ("Car isochroma Sky") has no meaning but only sentiment (for example
the following verse of the Greek song "If only I could have a petrol station in the
clouds", L. Nikolakopoulou, 1997) whereas the equation "Car = Sky"
("Car equals Sky") is deprived of meaning and sentiment in everyday language. It
becomes obvious that the isochromatic relation, which connects known and familiar to man
objects of reference, falls into either a simile, a metaphor or an oxymoron figure of
speech. As far as meanings, sentiments and the [forever unknown whole] are concerned, the
isochromatic relation "whole blue" ("whole isochroma blue") expresses
artistically and not scientifically a subjective unsteady beauty; not an objective -
everywhere present and forever lasting - truth. Besides, the objectivity, the
"everywhere present" and the "forever lasting" are human inventions,
the value of which is hereby distinctly doubted. The world is blue.
(6)
Language and its writing form emerged from the development of everyday verbal
communication that has been used to serve the external way of communication (man with
other man). Thought, which is an internal way of communication (man with himself), was
also naively based on the same language and writing form. This way, we think by using a
language which is designed to warn of impending dangers (dinosaurs, thieves, diseases), to
reveal shelter and sources of food, and, in our days, almost exclusively, to
"trade" love and death.
Man thinks by using the everyday spoken language and his thoughts can be recorded in the
writing form of that language. That imprisons mind in a stereotypical method of
functioning. Moreover, mind is imprisoned further more in the prison of the human body.
The human body imposes limitations on the mind in two ways: From the way in, mind receives
only as many messages as the sensors of the body can. Think of how we would think
if we had an additional sense -now unknown to us-, or if one of the senses we now take for
granted, for example vision, lacked always and from all people! From the way out, on the
other hand, mind cannot control the body except within the defined limits of its physical
endurance. Think of how we would think if we had "superficial" powers,
if for example we could fly or if we lacked one of our abilities -now familiar to us-,
such as speaking!
Mind is simultaneously trapped in two prisons: the prison of everyday spoken language and
the prison of the human body. Escapes from the prisons of the mind comprise emotions and
dreams.
Thoughts man has, not being able to express them through everyday spoken language, are
thoughts that did not occur by using everyday spoken language and are nothing more than
emotions. Emotions are "indescribable" thoughts which free the mind from the
prison of everyday spoken language.
Thoughts man has, not taking into consideration nature as dictated by his senses, are
thoughts which cannot be carried out by the body and are nothing more than dreams. In
dreams and hallucinations, travelling through time and superficial powers release mind
from the body prison.
Thoughts-emotions and the thoughts-dreams need a language of a "lower level",
different from the everyday spoken language, in order to be expressed isochromatically.
What is meant hereby, by the term language of a "lower level", is every language
containing less logic and more emotional acuity when describing; a language that includes
merely the essentials to succeed both in the formation and expression of a thought, aiming
at the formation of a second thought based upon the expression of the first
(thoughts-emotions cohesion). That retrospective process, which may lead man to think and
express himself through emotions and dreams, is the same one which initially led him to
think and express through words of everyday spoken language. The lower the level of the
language is, the more isochromatic relations can be expressed spontaneously.
(7)
Language, in whichever form, is essential for thought and it is not self-evident that it
may be abolished. Contrary to the conclusion that one may come to, based on what has been
stated in paragraph (6), the process {(formation of first thought)->(expression of
first thought)->(formation of second thought)->(expression of second
thought)->...} cannot be simplified to the process {(formation of first
thought)->(formation of second thought)->...} because, resulting from experience,
the thoughts-emotions are recorded on memory ("written") and recalled
("read"). During the formation of a thought that is based upon another
(thoughts-emotions cohesion), the first thought is recalled ("read") from
memory, so that a second thought can be formed upon it. To accomplish that, the first
thought should have previously been imprinted in some form of "writing",
therefore in some form of "language", on memory and hence having been expressed.
Therefore, if language (expression) is abolished, thought cohesions are automatically
abolished, since memory is abolished. Mind without language and memory is restricted to
isolated emotions-flashes, if such a thing exists and whatever its nature is.
(8)
A young child, who has never been in danger so far, suddenly places his hand on a burning
stove. The child's body sensor receives the signal (high temperature) and sends the
message to the brain through the nerve system. Then, in the child's mind the thought of
being in danger is primarily formed and identified with the emotion of danger. Even though
the child should first learn the everyday spoken language in order to shout: "Help! I
am burning!", at that moment he lets out an inarticulate scream, expressing his
thought and intending to communicate externally with another person ("mother").
However, just before the external communication, the child during the internal
communication with himself, does not "scream"! The child expresses his
thoughts-emotions aiming at storing them in memory. That is essential in order to move on
to his next thoughts-emotions (thoughts-emotions cohesion) which will finally lead him to
scream. The expression of thoughts-emotions is succeeded by the pain which is experienced
and stored in memory biologically. Pain does not exist in nature; so does joy. These are
"words" of the "internal language of the mind" which intend to express
thoughts-
emotions. The child will "remember" (by reading from memory) the intensity and
the way "danger hurts" (which differs from the intensity and the way a burning
hurts); as a result he will "remember" the emotion of danger.
If the "internal language of the mind" is represented with a simplistic model,
it can be regarded as the combination of two "words" which are easier to be
comprehended as two states: one is the state "stay" ("joy") and the
other is the state "go"("pain") with their intensities. Pain can be
considered as the absence of joy and joy as the absence of pain. Mind alters continuously
moving from one state to the other and from one intensity to another, aiming at the
formation of thoughts and emotions. Each thought and each emotion are coherent transitions
from states of joy to states of pain of alternating intensities.
The "internal language of mind" is the base of all languages; it is of a lower
level compared to everyday spoken language and can only be used for internal communication
(man with himself) but not for external communication (man with other man). The
"internal language of mind" is the lowest language in terms of logical acuity of
descriptiveness that man can ever imagine.
In a group of meanings in which pain and joy are absent (such as the concept of the whole)
the "vocabulary" of the "internal language of mind" is incapable of
coping. Therefore, reference to any meaning that belongs to such a group, should be dealt
in the context of the capacity of the mind and taken for granted that it is conceived only
isochromatically.
(9)
The languages of "poetry", "painting", "music" and all
languages of art are of a lower level compared to the everyday spoken language because
they contain great indefiniteness and irrationality; they have emotional -not logical-
acuity of descriptiveness and for those reasons they are more suitable to describe
isochromatically thoughts-emotions, thoughts-dreams and, finally, refer to the whole.
The language of mathematics absolutely liberates mind from the human body (like art does)
and absolutely confines mind to stereotypes by its logical acuity of descriptiveness
(unlike art). That is why some theoretical mathematicians act as suppressed artists,
whereas some artists (including myself) act as suppressed theoretical mathematicians.
Mathematics is a language of a higher level compared to the everyday spoken language and
is the most advanced language in logical acuity of descriptiveness which man has ever
invented.
Briefly, the languages that have been mentioned so far are sorted according to their
logical acuity of descriptiveness, as follows:
a. language of mathematics................highest
b. everyday spoken language.............higher
c. language of art..................................lower
d. internal language of mind................lowest
(10)
Seeking the appropriate "tools" in order to perceive the whole isochromatically
(internal communication), I start from the lowest language, the "internal language of
mind" and approach joy and pain in their purest form. It is as if I hold pin and
start piercing my finger:
I "decode" the already known thoughts and emotions:
- "Pain-death"
"piercing the flesh with the pin instantaneously reaching the other side"
- "Joy -hedonistic relief" "Withdrawing the pin instantaneously"
- "Danger"
"Penetrating the pin slowly and gradually deeper"
- "Agony"
"Successive light pricks which gradually accelerate in rhythm and increase in
intensity"
- "Serenity"
"Successive very light, sparse for a long time and dense for a short time, irregular
pricks"
Then, I "code" new thoughts and feelings:
- "Light prick, long pause, light prick and instantaneously deep penetration of the
pin into the flesh for a long time, removal of the pin and repetition of the process"
"attack"
- "Successive, abrupt, monotonous, repetitive pricks" "revolution"
- "Successive, light, monotonous, repetitive pricks" "obsession"
- "Slow penetration of the pin to the limit of unbearable pain, short-term stay in
this state followed by an abrupt removal, short-term stay in this state and repetition of
the process"
"Love"
Following the above, I use the appropriate "tools", so I can talk to you about
the whole (external communication). Using the "language of art" I start to
express joy and pain exactly as I had perceived them previously. I "talk" to you
with paint brushes and colors of my painting:
- "whole"
"blue"
- "universe"
"shades of blue"
- "metaphysics" "ghosts in the dark" "[now unknown]" + [always unknown]"
- "god"
"master"
"logical trap in the dark" "non-existent"
- "life"
"animals in the light" "disordered white spots and irregular threads scattered in
blue"
- "me"
"you"
"not mirror"
"scribbles"
- "joy"
"not pain"
"not continuous thin line"
- "Marx's theory" "not Freud's theory" "landscape" "not portrait" "arrow pointing here" "not arrow pointing
there"
- "malformation" "not form" "not not malformation"
- "isolation"
"dead end corridor without a roof" "sofa"
- "creativity"
"joy"
"love"
"you and me"
"not photograph" "a white ejaculation in blue" "painting by Modigliani"
- "sterility"
"pain"
"death"
"only me"
"red bleeding in blue" "painting by Bacon"
- "Why do I exist?" "painting by Miro!"
(11a)
I am in the position to repeat the experiment of paragraph (10) and refer to the whole,
expressing joy and pain not only by using tools of painting, but also lines from poetry or
even strings from music. Using all languages of art, separately or in combinations, I am
able to think, feel and "talk" to you about the whole. I am no longer in need of
using the everyday spoken language or mathematics and sciences. I am free!
(11b)
- "whole" "blue"
- "universe"
"shades of blue"
- "metaphysics" "ghosts in the dark" "[now unknown]" + [always unknown]"
- "god"
"master"
"logical trap in the dark" "non-existent"
- "life"
"animals in the light" "disordered white spots and irregular threads scattered in
blue"
- "me"
"you"
"not mirror"
"scribbles"
- "joy"
"not pain"
"not continuous thin line"
- "Marx's theory" "not Freud's theory" "landscape" "not portrait" "arrow pointing here" "not arrow pointing
there"
- "malformation" "not form"
"not not malformation"
- "isolation" "dead end corridor without a roof" "sofa"
- "creativity"
"joy"
"love"
"you and me"
"not photograph" "a white ejaculation in blue" "painting by Modigliani"
- "sterility"
"pain"
"death"
"only me"
"red bleeding in blue" "painting by Bacon"
- "Why do I exist?" "painting by Miro!"
the end
The book was published in 5000 copies,
in Rhodes (August 2001). © text &
illustration:
E.M.Spartalis / curator: Polly Hatzimarkou /
photographs: Maria Anezia / english translation:
Matina Chatzimarkou / graphic design: Irini Voutiraki.
download...
The philosophy of blue
file: MS-WORD 2000
size: 186 KB