THE ART PROCESS:
Psychedelic Art - Part I
The first time I laid eyes on Leif Podhajsky’s art, my pupils dilated so large that they may as well have gotten stuck that way because I’ve been seeing things hypersensitivly* ever since. (*not a real word)
I’m sure this man is considered a god in some type of alternate world and I’d certainly bow to him. His work is deeply concerned with nature to the point of creating within what I like to call a sub-nature or possibly a post-nature. I say this because nothing in his images feel like anything he’s showing us can be real, aside from the objects we have some previous relationship to. In short, he is bending our human relationship with what we’ve accepted as reality.
It’s mostly the geometry which controls the ease of these images, making them so to damn good to look at. Despite somewhat troubling or melancholic themes, there’s a comfort here with soothing tones and fluid lines. Some of Leif’s images feel like you may just fall into them, and others feel like you might become them; psychedelic art is like drugs without the drugs.
I’ve spent hours looking at his reality-altering images having read literally nothing about who he is and where he came from. His work speaks on so many frequencies that I didn’t feel the need to read into the human behind it, though for the informative value of this post, I’ll direct you to this interview by Flur magazine.
- Jess Petrella
I love art. I love the way it stimulates thinking and brings minds into new realms of possibilities, and with that into new ways of thought. I’m no seasoned art critic, but I like to think that ‘good’ art (i.e. my idea of good) speaks to every person in its own way. What I’ve continually struggled with, however, is how to analyse art, which is a horrible thing to struggle with, to be honest. Shouldn’t we analyse art however we want to, since there is no right and wrong in art? (AND analysis of art is likely considered an art in and of itself?) Oh well. But anyway, as the author of the post mentioned, geometry and various elements of art are always important to look at, in my opinion.
Take the first painting: The work is evidently extending from a focal point in in the centre. The shape in the centre is like that of a (?) concentric two-faced head, with each head alternating between white and black, or a similar duo of light and dark colours. I can see 19 such heads. And within the range of the first three outmost layers is an interesting contraption consisting of triangles, an eye, a crescent (moon?), two heads and two symbols that look like that representing females. Note that the eye is positioned seemingly on the line of symmetry of the work. Perhaps it is asking the reader to adjust his/her focus such that the two beige heads combine into something similar to the concentric heads at the centre?
The heads also produce a sort of three dimensional effect, which is strengthened by the light rays extending from the centre. These make the work seem like a creased piece of cloth. Oh, and did I mention it can look like a warped target?
But the beauty of it is that there are often no definite answers to art, and the meaning behind the eye, the crescent, and…well everything is still a mystery, really. We can only offer our explanations, but true understanding is typically reserved for the artist alone, sometimes not even for the artist who created the work in the first place.
Edit: Do bear in mind that such analysis may ruin the beauty of a work. It’s sometimes better to view it ideologically than mathematically, though mathematics need not be about statistical analysis and CAN be pretty abstract…oh well, you get what I mean. Just need to get out of the habit of going with assertions as to the nature of objects/subjects and hence often not allowing the entire train of thought to be fleshed out.