R

International Society for Advanced Rumpel Studies
Est. (date under administrative review)
Membership currently: pending

The Foundational Doctrine of Rumpelization

Document No. 1  ·  Ratified by quorum (quorum definition forthcoming)

The Society issues this doctrine not because the principles of Rumpelization require explanation — they do not — but because certain parties (see: the critical establishment, broadly defined) have persisted in misidentifying Rumpelization as error. This document exists to correct the record. It is binding. Its authority derives from the Society itself. The Society's authority is self-conferred. This is considered sufficient.

Article IOn the Nature of Distortion

Every face, when examined with sufficient commitment, reveals a second face beneath it. This second face is truer. It is also, on average, approximately 23% wider.

The Rumpelist does not distort the subject. The Rumpelist releases the subject from the prison of its own appearance. An ear that has migrated toward the crown of the head is not incorrectly placed. It has been correctly liberated. A forehead that now occupies a third of the canvas is not disproportionate. It is proportionate to the subject's inner life, which is, in most cases, considerably larger than their outer forehead.

These are not mistakes. The Society wishes to be very clear on this point. They are not mistakes.

Article IIOn the Paradox of Recognition

A successful Rumpelization exists in a state of productive uncertainty. The viewer must experience simultaneous recognition and concern. They must know immediately who this is while also forming, involuntarily, a list of questions.

The Society has identified three acceptable viewer responses:

First: "I know exactly who that is." Second: "Something has happened to their face." Third, and most desirable: both of the above, spoken in the same breath, without apparent awareness of the contradiction.

Any viewer response that does not include recognition has produced a different kind of art, one the Society declines to evaluate.

† The Society acknowledges one historical exception, in which a subject was identified only after the title was read aloud. The work was nonetheless admitted to the canon on grounds of extraordinary chin.

Article IIIOn the Rejection of the Flawless

Perfection is the aesthetic of the cautious. It is produced by those who have not yet committed to anything.

The Society recognizes the following as elements of distinction, not deficiency: the trembling line, the pixel placed in evident haste, the shadow that has arrived from an undetermined light source, and the shape that appeared at approximately the midpoint of the work and whose origin the artist cannot fully account for.

Particularly the shape. The Society has adopted a formal position that the shape should stay.

Article IVOn the Doctrine of Continuation

When a Rumpelist encounters a questionable decision within the work, the correct response is forward motion.

An eye that has grown larger than intended should be answered with a larger eye on the opposing side. A shadow that has developed its own agenda should be deepened until it reaches a conclusion. A composition that has begun to resemble evidence from a proceeding of unclear jurisdiction should be completed with full commitment.

Retreat is not an artistic option. It is an administrative one. The Society does not offer administrative options.

Article VOn Presence Over Appearance

A photograph records the surface of a person at a specific moment under specific light. This is a service. It is not art's highest calling.

A Rumpelization records what the person is like. The objective is not to capture the face as it appeared on a Tuesday. The objective is to capture the face as it would appear if the subject were in the middle of an argument, or a story, or a sustained disagreement with the waiter about the coffee. A Rumpelization should feel as though the subject might, at any moment, say something. Ideally something strong.

Character outweighs geometry. Presence outweighs correctness. The Society considers this the only article that truly requires no elaboration, and has provided the most elaboration accordingly.

Article VIOn the Equality of Tools

The Society recognizes no hierarchy of medium. A canvas primed with rabbit-skin glue and addressed with brushes descended from a reputable atelier is not inherently superior to a 600×600 pixel field addressed with a standard mouse and the stubborn refusal to use layers.

The Society notes, for the record, that at least one Rumpelization has appeared in a Google Images cluster alongside recognized works from institutions of international standing. The Society does not believe this is an accident. The Society also declines to explain it.

Courage of tool is the only hierarchy the Society endorses.

Final declaration — ratified by the Society

That resemblance is aspirational, not mandatory.

That expression is mandatory, not aspirational.

That a work abandoned on the grounds of having become ridiculous was abandoned prematurely.

That the ridiculous and the masterful are separated by a margin the Society estimates at approximately seventeen percent.

That somewhere, a figure continues to search for Bora Bora. He has not arrived. This is correct. The Society considers his ongoing journey the purest expression of Rumpelization in existence: a work that cannot be completed without being destroyed.

Rumpelize boldly.
Distort with purpose.
Confuse the critics.
Make them look twice.

Issued by the International Society for Advanced Rumpel Studies.
Membership status: under review.
Date of ratification: recorded elsewhere.
This document supersedes all prior uncertainty about whether it was intentional.
It was intentional.