Extract from: Beyond the Stage of Time, Volume I Realised Realms. The Master of the Water, Pine and Stone Retreat

24 25 Process-based theory encompasses all of those elements, but instead of stopping at the physical art object and detaching the audience, it goes further. It includes the audience, with its own techniques for understanding art—techniques that must themselves be learned and re fi ned inde fi nitely, as are the artist’s—so that it can par- ticipate fully in the process. Th is includes the endless potential for reinterpretation of meaning and message as time passes. To give you just one example of why this is important, let’s consider Renaissance paintings for a moment. A modern audience can—and almost certainly does—see a Botticelli or a Bosch quite di ff erently from its original audience. We live in a very di ff erent time, with very di ff erent cultural, political and religious in fl uences. We have a far greater range of images to examine and compare, and centuries of historical study to refer to. All of these things grant us a quite di ff erent, more fully considered perspective. Th e end product of the process is a key part of the evolution of con- sciousness. We all become changed by our involvement; we become subtly di ff erent people, and we pass di ff erent thinking and perception on to others. Th us collective consciousness evolves too, with an inevitable impact on civilisation as a whole: thus bringing the circle back around to art again, as a central part of that civilisation. Th at shi ft allows us to understand everything that happened in the modern western revolution in the arts. Critically, too, it changes the questions. I recently came up with an aphorism for some gweilography (English text written with Chinese mate- rials, aims and in fl ections) I was preparing for an exhibition. It was, ‘ Th e enquiring mind asks the questions. Th e knowledgeable mind answers the questions. Th e wise mind questions the answers.’ We no longer just ask whether a physical object is a work of art at all, or if it is any good; we ask how or whether our involvement in the continuum that includes a physical work of art in any way a ff ects us. Does it move us, resonate with us beyond surface aesthetics, enhance our understanding of anything? Does it make us wiser? What does it make us want to do next? And much more. We don’t need to agree with anyone else—we can comfortably await a con- sensus to answer that question for a broader audience with the passage of time. Th is process-based approach takes all the angst out of art. It leaves us plenty to discuss, nothing to argue about and almost certainly nothing to come to blows over. G I think it’s safe to say that we’re still a long way from that level of maturity in the west. We’re still arguing over whether or not Banksy is a ‘real’ artist or just a prank- ster, to give just one high-pro fi le example. What’s the basis for your belief that it was realised centuries ago in China? M Well, let’s start with Banksy. To me he is very much a real artist, and one I greatly admire. He also epitomises the modern, process-based approach to art. He gets it! His recent automatic shredding of one of his paintings at the moment the auction- eer’s hammer fell was a masterstroke of additional communication, and a stunning bit of marketing to boot—which is also part of the overall process to be taken into account. But more to the point, the question is at fault: ‘Is he an artist or a prankster?’ It is a binary, very western, either/or question, implying that if he is an artist he is not a prankster, and if he is a prankster he is not an artist. Why can’t he be both, and attain a high level of success at each? Intelligence is suspended in its languages. Th e questions we ask, and how we phrase them, a ff ect the answers we receive. As to my basis for stating that full maturity in the arts was achieved in China centuries ago, that requires a little more broad-brush information in order to address it satisfactorily. Th is may take a while. Make yourself comfortable. G Go right ahead. M Th ere is a fundamental di ff erence between the eastern and western mindset, and this has been true from the outset, insofar as recorded history informs us. Across the last century of rapid globalisation, the lines between the two have become much more blurred, but in considering di ff erences between any aspect of West and East it is useful to recognise a fundamental cultural bias that still impacts on each culture, even if individuals from each have become far more di ffi cult to easily de fi ne as either. It’s essential to understanding eastern philosophy, religion and art—and indeed poli- tics, since that too emerges from a cultural mindset. Let’s assume that humanity as a whole has consciousness as a central common attribute; nothing controversial about that. For our purposes, let us allow that fully human consciousness must include the state in which mind is capable of separating self from environment; a state that allows ideas of identity, among much else. Once we had that capability, we had the tool which led ultimately to the rational, reasoning faculties of mind; what we might usefully call intellect. But it also brought forth into the world its sibling twin, ego. Th e Greeks established a core cultural model for the evolution of western con- sciousness based on ego in its most granular form. Th at model focused on the indi- vidual as the fundamental unit of culture, just as Greek philosophers focused on the idea of the atom as the fundamental unit of matter—long before actual atoms were discovered by physicists. Individual aspiration, freedoms and rights governed, how- ever they were de fi ned from time to time. Debate between thoughtful individuals was seen as vital to the evolution of ideas and, therefore, of consciousness. Th is tended to set the individual mind, with its individual ideas, as central to the western system of understanding. It emphasised the importance of ego, the concept of the individual self, separate from all others. In China, on the other hand, individual importance was subject to a series of broader collectives—family, local community, kingdom and, eventually, empire. Confucius (Gong Qiu, 550 – 479 ), one of the most in fl uential fi gures in Chinese cul- ture, as teacher, philosopher and compiler/editor of ancient wisdom, proposed what was essentially a moral philosophy—not a religion—in which these collective units became an integral part of Chinese culture. In this model, communal good overrode the rights and freedoms of the individual. Recent research has cogently demonstrated the ongoing e ff ects of this. A single example will su ffi ce: while western children initially fi nd it easier to remember nouns, Chinese children have greater facility remembering verbs. Western thought promotes the importance of objects, so nouns are more important. Chinese thought promotes the interplay between self and environment, self and others, so verbs are emphasised over nouns. Th e Chinese, and other Far Eastern cultures, have traditionally favoured holistic thinking over analytic thinking.