There has been a noticeable lack of public discussion concerning Rumpeltonian Chaosism lately.
This is not because the movement has failed.
It is because nobody was paying attention.
Rumpeltonian Chaosism has continued to develop quietly, primarily through the unauthorized activities of Ralph Rumpelton, his mouse, Microsoft Paint, and whatever happens when an artist begins a painting with a reasonably good idea and finishes somewhere else entirely.
The fundamental principles remain unchanged.
Precision is optional.
Expression is mandatory.
Mistakes are negotiable.
Chaos is inevitable.
The Rumpeltonian practitioner does not ask whether a painting is technically correct.
The more important question is:
Does it have something to say, even if it doesn't know what that something is?
This philosophy has produced several important developments.
The Anti-Layer Doctrine established that a true Rumpeltonian should work without the safety net of endless layers and reversibility. One canvas. One layer. No retreat.
The Second Rumpeltonian Chromatic Accord further established that an unexpected color is not necessarily an error. It may simply be a color that has not yet received permission from the art establishment.
And the doctrine of Rumpelization has clarified the central purpose of the movement:
We are not attempting to reproduce reality.
We are attempting to reproduce our memory, impression, confusion, affection, and occasional complete misunderstanding of reality.
A photograph tells you what someone looked like.
A Rumpeltization asks what they looked like after passing through the artist's brain, Microsoft Paint, a questionable mouse movement, and approximately seventeen minutes of unnecessary experimentation.
This is not incompetence.
It is interpretive freedom.
Of course, there are critics who continue to insist that Rumpeltonian Chaosism is merely an excuse for not being able to draw properly.
To these people we offer the traditional Rumpeltonian response:
Yes.
But that does not make it less interesting.
The movement has never promised perfection. In fact, perfection is considered suspicious.
A Rumpeltonian painting may contain crooked lines, strange proportions, unexpected shadows, peculiar colors, wandering eyes, questionable perspective, or a nose that appears to have received entirely different instructions from the rest of the face.
These are not necessarily defects.
They are events.
And once an event has been incorporated into the painting, it becomes history.
That is the great strength of Rumpeltonian Chaosism.
It allows the artist to look at something that didn't turn out exactly as planned and say:
“Well... that's what happened.”
And then keep going.
There is no need to erase every mistake.
There is no requirement that every painting arrive safely at its original destination.
Sometimes the painting gets lost.
Sometimes it takes a wrong turn.
Sometimes it crashes into a tree.
And occasionally, it discovers something along the way.
That is Chaosism.
Not the absence of control.
The willingness to see what happens when control isn't allowed to have the final word.
Rumpeltonian Chaosism remains active.
It remains irrational.
It remains unnecessary.
It remains largely unrecognized by the international art establishment.
And, most importantly...
It remains fun.
Long Live Ralph.
Be Dead or Alive.
No comments:
Post a Comment