We all know that we live in a particular time period – we know instinctively and intuitively this is true, though we may never think about this, assess its implications, or try to ascertain the impact it has on us. A particular time period or era is for us, as human beings, very much akin to the water in which a fish swims, or the air through which a bird flies – being immersed in their own “element,” neither would be aware of the connection between their movements – swimming or flying – and the medium through which they move. The same lack of awareness would exist on the part of a mollusk in relation to its ability to create the most breathtaking forms and intricate patterns. The problem is that each mollusk creates instinctively from its own being – from its own indigenous existence as it were. What we do is also indigenous to our own times and place – the times which have produced us and the place in which we live form the basis of our perspective and creates the climate for what we do. We ourselves, are to a great extent, the products of the era in which we live. What we do (while there may be individual variations) is still largely a consequence of our times, our era, our milieu. This common element (the time period) through which we “swim” or “fly” leaves its indelible mark on us collectively and puts its stamp on everything we “do,” create, or make. Thus our era, to a large degree, defines who we are. We know this is the case, because in the future when someone looks back at our period of time or any time period and analyzes it, they will see marked similarities and an identifiable sameness associated with it. Not only will our period and those who existed in it carry their own set of identifiable markings; to a greater or lesser degree, our period will influence the period that grows out of our own. The next era will then either build upon our own era and grow from it by building on its similarities, or react against it and grow in a slightly or an entirely different way by accentuating opposites or things that differ from our era. But what about the “roads not taken” – the other directions along which a branch might have grown but does not grow? Surely there would be other possibilities surely there would be other possible avenues of approach and departure – what of them? Why were they not followed? What if they had been? Ultimately, for our purposes, we won’t let the “why” of this concern us. We will leave it to the philosophers to consider the whys and the wherefores. Suffice it to say we are only concerned with the fact that there were other possible roads to travel and other ways in which a branch could have grown – “roads not taken.” So what practical use does this question pose for the artist or designer? Just this: is it possible for us to go back to a point in time where the other possibilities would have diverged had they been realized? Can we go back down the timeline and choose another fork in the road apart from that fork in the road along which history took us? I submit that there certainly is a way to move beyond the confines of our particular era. There is a way to free ourselves as artists from the constraints of the period in which we are locked. There is a way to “climb out of the fishbowl,” as it were. If I am right and this is possible, it will give us two inestimable benefits. First, and most obviously, it can give us the possibility of finding a way to look back into our own era and see ourselves from without. We can look back at ourselves from an oblique perspective. While this possibility may have its limitations and the methods we use to achieve our goal may be imperfect; in the end it is the only possible option that we have. If we do not try to find other directions and avenues from which to approach our own creativity, our art will ultimately be marked and dated – straitjacketed with the limitations and characteristics of our own era. Still, if escaping (to whatever degree it is possible) from our own present were the only benefit this method had to offer (to see ourselves, to some degree, as others will see us later on) it would still be an invaluable tool. If our idea is viable and if our methods work, they will give us a way to identify those aspects which characterize the period of time in which we are locked, so that we may to a greater or lesser extent, gain control of the artistic operations and the subject matter we are seeking to produce since we will no longer be locked into the limitations of the period in which we live. This approach then, promises to provide us with an opportunity to break free and move beyond the confines of our own milieu. To refuse to acknowledge this or at least be open to it as a possibility, is to remain forever locked within the period in which we exist – confined to our own milieu. That confinement, in the end will issue in the predictable, mediocre, and the mundane. It will stamp our work and condemn it to the level of predictable sameness at which everyone else is working. To remain in our present state is to lack a sense of vision – a new way of seeing – a place to go. The ability to see and create beyond the constraints of our own “blind spot” can present us with the possibility of new avenues of approach, of freer possibilities of expression and an unlimited horizon of new directions in which to move and grow.

     But this approach offers us a second and even more important possibility. It offers us a way that we can go back to a particular point in time – a time in another era and eventually take “a road not taken.” To diverge along a course never made. It can open the door to the possibility of evolving entirely new approaches to creating art a way to create art from a parallax position. In fact, there is the possibility that we can even bring several divergent trails from the past together at one time. And it is this possibility that most interests me – the possibility of concrescence!

     The solution – the way to climb out of the box is really quite simple and while the method presents far more difficulties than the solution itself, it is the only possible option we have. It will necessarily be imperfect and confirmed cynics will no doubt claim it can’t be done. I say it can be done because I have done it and I’m continuing to do it. If I had more time to spend analyzing my own ideas – to fine tune the process as well as the inclination to pursue an intellectual analysis further, I could refine this process but there is more art to create so I’ll leave the refinements to others, since I have neither the time nor the interest in pursuing further analysis of my method. Hopefully, as more people join in concert the various possibilities and ways of implementing this method will increase and add to this ferment that should produce the wine – I only hope it will be a good vintage.

     In order to free oneself from the constraints of the period in which one exists, it is simply necessary to shift our position – to shift our vantage point as it were, so that we can see things from a different standpoint – from another angle – from a different perspective. Much of my own art is about seeing from different angles – from different perspectives. In preparing a detailed artist’s statement, I finally began to ask myself – how am I doing my art? What kind of instinctual approach is allowing me to do what I do? How would someone else do this? What kind of methods am I subconsciously employing to create my art? How am I gaining my particular type of perspective? The answer it seems was really quite simple. All one has to do is merely “enter” another time period – another milieu – as it were by creating an identification with it and when one is “there,” simply “go native” for a time, by swimming in its flow and identifying with its characteristics. Let’s not “get lost” in our chosen period or plan to stay there indefinitely, that isn’t our purpose. Our purpose is to establish a point of reference in order to reorient ourselves and allow us to see from a different perspective. In order to do that we must establish a basic identification with another period, another milieu (so we can later – to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, “triangulate”) How are we going to go about this, since we have no time machine and if we did have a time machine would it actually help us to achieve our goal of going back into another era to form an identification with it? It is true we do not have a time machine and the question is entirely relevant – the answer to which is: “It would do us absolutely no good at all if we had a time machine because it would do us no good at all to merely go back in time. On the other hand, although we certainly do not have a time machine that will enable us to literally go back in time we can easily do our operation without it. Well perhaps it would be easier if we did have a time machine but since we do not, it will certainly do us no good to lament that fact. I’m not even sure having a time machine would help us in the process of identifying with the art and artistic process of another era. In some ways it may even become a great distraction.

     To regress for a moment: in order to achieve our goal we must mentally and perceptually immerse ourselves in a past historical milieu. But again, our final goal is not to do exactly what the people of our selected milieu would do. Our initial goal is simply to “get” where they “were” as best we can. So how are we to achieve this necessary identification? Understanding the process is easy. Once grasped, it is more difficult to accomplish it. We begin by identifying particular characteristic forms and processes associated with a specific period. We read some material about what they were doing about what they thought they were doing – on their hopes and their aspirations about their work and their dreams, as well as their reactions: what they were against, what they opposed, what they disliked. Again, no need to get lost in our selected time period here. We are not scholars making a career out of this. We are simply trying to perform a positional paradigm shift, our first goal as I stated before is to break us free from the constraints of our own milieu! But be aware – too little time spent on identifying your position in respect to whatever period you’ve selected and forming your co-ordinates (as it were) by immersing yourself in that other period, will prevent you from forming enough of an identification with it to “see the way they saw,” “feel the way they felt,” and “respond the way they did.” Too little time spent on producing an identification with your chosen era or period will be a waste. Well, certainly not a “waste” for now you will be better informed in a historical sense and additional knowledge gained (about the art world or about anything else for that matter) can hardly be said to be wasted time. Nevertheless, if you slough over this part of the operation, you’ll be unable to effectively apply this technique.

     I can tell you that most “actors” and “actresses” that play in roles about “period characters” are well aware of the necessity of forming an identification with the period in which their character lived. One might do well to look into some of their techniques for additional information on ways in which they go about gaining gain insight into period characters in order to find some practical ways of identifying with various “periods.” Too much time spent identifying with our chosen period and the people in it, will carry you away like a siren’s call into another epoch and if you become too enamored with your chosen era, you may become so captivated with it that you get lost in it and begin to emulate their works. Now to produce a few works in the style of those with whom you wish to identify, will certainly help you to make a stronger connection with whatever time period you’ve selected. But if you become so taken with other time periods and places that you begin to produce your own copies in their style, you are creating reproductions and this is not good – at least not for out purposes. Further, if you begin to produce works as if they had been fashioned in and are products of your chosen alternate era, they will essentially be “distortions” of what people of that era produced. From my point of view this becomes an exercise in futility. Yet neither of these ends, that of creating an identification with another time period or being able to copy their works, is our desired final goal. We are only at the beginning – not our destination.

     I see this mistake frequently in younger artists or in those who are trying to be artists. They become enamored with a particular artist or period and then begin to produce works (often crude ones) in a clumsy facsimile of that style or period. These distortions or “knock offs,” if you will, are hardly viable as genuine art. Unfortunately we are in a period of time where history is seen as largely irrelevant. People read about it but they don’t apply it. This has unfortunately resulted in younger artists, on numerous occasions, creating works which they thought were original but to a trained eye are only cheap imitations of ideas or works that were new or revolutionary in a former era. It is like a young artist, who upon seeing the Campbell’s Soup cans created by Andy Warhol, says to h’self, “how clever,” and immediately sets out to create something of value by emulating this innovation. Let us say instead of soup, one decides to use a box of Kraft’s Macaroni and Cheese. The idea however is no longer novel – it was no longer innovative after Warhol produced his first works of everyday commercial products. As someone remarked to me once in reference to a colored line running across a canvas or white painted on white: “someone had to do it once.” But whoever tries to copy a truly minimalist work should understand that it can’t be copied even once – that is its true beauty. It’s true nature is to make anyone who copies it look like a fool . It is a case similar to that of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Sadly, those who do copy a work of this type are usually the last to realize, if they ever do, that a re-creation of the extremely minimal doesn’t make them look clever – it makes them look like an idiot. But I’ve digressed too far. I need to return to the subject at hand.

     For those who may scoff at the possibility of gaining perspective through historical “identification,” let me make a further case: that of “historical re-enactment.” Historical re-enactment can re-orient us in such a way that our beliefs and our mindset can be changed, at least in a vicarious sense, to the extent that it will allow us to experience, to a greater or lesser degree, what people from a former era experienced to see, in a sense, what they saw. This concept, in many ways, is one of the major premises of Jurassic Park (one could say, I suppose, that this it is one of the major premises behind every theme park and certainly every “period” movie).

     I identified the possibility of experiencing a historical repositioning on the timeline via historical re-enactment years ago, so I’m very much aware that it is a viable method. In my early 20’s, for a brief time, I was a member of one of these re-enactment groups (which has since become famous), The Society for Creative Anachronism. Here, I could fulfill one of my cherished fantasies and become “a knight in shining armor,” (if only for a brief moment in time). Perhaps it was my first introduction to a tournament that opened this possibility of a “gateway in time.” A local reporter for the newspaper in the town in which I lived had been introduced to the Society in college and wanted to form a local chapter. After training us in the art of medieval weaponry for a couple of months, he announced we were finally ready to attend a real tournament. The tournament, a small one, was being held in a corner of Balboa Park in San Diego. It was late May or early June about nine A.M. As usual, the park at that hour was cloaked in fog, which swirled around us but was beginning to thin a bit. As we walked up over a small rise we came upon a sight that made me catch my breath. There, framed in a patch of sunlight, was a rather large group of people that looked like they had stepped out of the pages of history. At that moment it seemed as if we were no longer confined within our own period of history. Sunlight glinted from the points of weapons, costumes blazed with color, strange symbols were emblazoned on our shields. In an instant we were no longer in late 20th century America. We were somewhere else! I had just experienced a drugless paradigm shift!

     When I moved to Los Angeles after graduating from high school, the members of the Society were far more committed: in some cases disconcertingly so. In those days, my weekends were full of tournaments (I was a week-end warrior) and when the long awaited week-end arrived, I would happily pack up my car with my armor, my pavilion and my weapons, and head off to some pre-designated tournament site – the ultimate getaway (even more complete for those who were stoned on drugs) a brief vacation in another era. Members were, for the most part, allowed to pursue whatever notions or characters that came into their heads. Anything that existed in the medieval past that took one’s fancy was pretty much fair game. As a result, some guys became warriors, some women became ladies, others preferred to be serving wenches, while many others became artisans or pursued various crafts, each following their various medieval pursuits. It was a world within a world – an alternate reality. Those who became artisans studied the type of crafts that had been produced in the Middle Ages. They also studied the materials and tools, as well as the techniques and methods used to produce their particular crafts. The real purists became so adroit in their various crafts that they probably could have made a good living in a Medieval village and no one would have been able to tell their work apart from an artisan of that era. Other craftsmen became more “anachronistic” in that they would essentially build a period piece and incorporate, often not so subtly, materials and stylistic changes from another era. This practice was largely frowned on by those who were purists who wanted to emulate the past. However, their main criticism of the more anachronistic folks was certainly based on a legitimate argument. By simply borrowing materials and techniques from a more modern era and neglecting to harmonize aspects of a craft created in the distant past with these more modern additions the creations made by these artisans appeared odd and clumsy. They are unsettling as it were, in an indefinable, a subtle and vague way; as if the parts somehow don’t quite go together. Something is wrong and seems out of place with these pieces, they have an uncertain look to them – they lack authenticity – they appear kitschy and artificial. It is the same type of effect that we might get by, say: using plastic jewels to adorn medieval leather work. From a stage it will work – it will work as a prop or if used in passing but it will not stand up to sustained scrutiny. On the other hand a medium like polymer clay can be used to mimic a variety of materials and if we pay careful attention this is the kind of material that can be invaluable for creating ornamentation connected with any period. If we are capable we can manipulate polymer clay in such a way we can even mimic metal or stones. On the other hand, if we’re not careful, the clay can appear flat and one dimensional. Under careless construction these pieces could be compared to a medieval weapon that has been too perfectly copied, in which the parts no longer appear hand made but instead have the disconcerting perfection and precision of machined pieces. Even if a well handcrafted sword were turned out by a modern armorer, and then he decided to have the sword chrome plated it would have the same type of effect. The sword would suddenly take on an air of unreality. The finish is out of place – something is wrong. On the other hand, while a series of variously colored anodized blades might be incorporated into an art work, no one would ever think of including this in a collection of fighting blades displayed upon a wall. Unless, of course the impression on a observer was that of a joke or kitsch. So in the end, we must be as careful of the cross application of techniques and materials as we have to be about out treatment of designs, motifs and devices.

     Katherine Kurtz, a well-known fantasy writer was a member (I won’t reveal her name in the Society and I don’t know if she is still a member). Why was she a member? Because like most creative authors she realized the best way to write about a particular period was to immerse oneself in it and form an identification with it. What better way to write about a period than to become a character in an “alternate universe” based upon that period. It was the “anachronism” part that was my clue to understanding these possibilities. When you take something from one period of time and subject it to the operational constraints of another – the result is an original, though sometimes odd combination. While what results may be a useless novelty (as is often the case), it may also be extremely insightful and may even offer us the opportunity of realizing entirely new and different forms. It may open for us the possibility of walking down a road “not yet traveled.” The Society recognized and allowed for this. For instance, terms were even evolved to describe objects that, had they existed in the medieval period, might have had names that reflected their medieval flavor. For instance a “telephone” was called a: farspeaker, a “computer,”was called a: philosopher’s engine.

     Even more apropos and more true to life, are the more controlled historic re-enactments staged by PBS that attempt to relocate a group of people selected from our current era in an earlier time period. These reenactment series are carried out under more controlled circumstances than those of the Society for Creative Anachronism. One has only to watch one of these re-enactments to realize that several things happen as the result of this. For one thing, the world view of the people taking part in these re-enactments is drastically altered – as certain as the view of those who come from one country but live for an extended time in a foreign country. In entering and participating in this historical re-enactment people acknowledge their perceptions are changed – they no longer view their own time in the same way they originally viewed it. In more than one case, as each person relates their own story, it becomes obvious they are not just play-acting they actually experience a paradigm shift. When they “return” to their own period it becomes absolutely clear, in listening to their reflections that they are experiencing a disjunction, an intersecting, a juxtapositioning. They no longer identify with their own time period. They have stepped outside the box!  It’s clear that afterwards for a period of time they see the present and their own lives as distanced and nuanced. They stand outside themselves, outside of their former present life and upon returning to their own time period, they co-exist with themselves and their former lifetime as strangers within their own period until they are able to re-orient themselves. The military and other organizations have realized this for years. That is what a “debriefing” is all about. A debriefing is a way of helping someone create a transition from one style of living to another.

     Once an identification is produced to a greater or lesser degree with a particular period, it is possible to do several things. First we can pick up an emblematic artistic representation from still another milieu that is different than the milieu with which we have formed an identification and reproduce this design from a third era (that is different from that within which we live and is also different than the alternate era with which we have formed an identification) as if we were an artist, designer, or craftsman working from within that particular era with which we have formed an identification. The result of this – what we create or produce – will not now, simply be a copy of a period piece it will instead be a hybrid – a motif borrowed from one period that has been altered according to the stylistic appearance of another (assuming we have borrowed the motif or design from a third era and oriented ourselves to another). If we are successful in our endeavor, at this point we have an entirely new piece – an original. Remember though, many hybrids in nature are dead ends. Not every combination or evolution works equally well. Choices must be deliberate and judicious. We are not making a stew here and if that is the intention one might be better suited to Fluxus than Concrescentism. We are not after a conglomerate, an agglomeration, or merely an accretion which would be best expressed as collage. We are after a synthesis, a harmonious blending, a hybridization.

     Our main goal, thus far, is to move beyond the constraints, the confines, and limitations imposed on us by our own historical period. Yet another example of our method (the reorientation of an artist via the historical repositioning process) which confirms that our proposed method works, is that of organized cartels that base their existence on the creative insights of a former founder. While this example is, on the one hand, an identification that we wish to avoid, on the other it shows us once again, the validity of this method and how successfully our method may be employed as a process. Two examples of this are the Disney and Wright organizations. The people in those organizations are trained to identify with the mindset of the founder in such a way and to such a degree, that any “new” work that is produced will be largely cast in “the style” of Wright or Disney – of course again this only works insofar as it bring them into alignment and under the creative sway of their organization. The problem with the Wright and Disney schools is that those who move through them, unless they are careful, are stamped with a cookie cutter approach which they never evolve beyond. If this is the case what results (their work) is largely wooden and artificial – their refusal to move beyond the box does not free their creativity, it hobbles it. The creative impulse is never allowed to break free. It’s like my former example of the chromed sword that lacks authenticity because it is chromed. Thus the Disney or Wright organizations are trained to copy or reproduce the works of their founders to a greater or lesser degree. But the greater and lesser both operate within the confines of severely restricted parameters haunted and controlled by the spectres of their founders. In essence those trained in the style of these schools are working by formula – so we know the process works. In the end what has happened however is the formula controls the mindset of those who are under its sway to such a marked degree, that the work is stiff, stilted, rigid and lifeless. While it has integrity, it no longer has believability. It is stark and there is no spark of ingenuity left in it. What issues is a dreary sameness straitjacketed in predictability.

     What we disagree with is that they are designing icons in the style of their founders, in order to keep the memory of their founders alive but the very process we describe, which could have given a new direction if not used as a springboard will instead be the undoing of it. We must never allow the historical repositioning to become the primary goal – the first step cannot – will not be our goal. It is only a means not an end!

     If one does not use this method which I’m proposing simply as a method of positioning or as a springboard, if one makes the means the end, it will impede creativity rather than enhance it. I do not make this cautionary point lightly. One may enter the water to experience it as a fish experiences it in so far as it is possible. But then one must come out and reflect on the conditions and qualities of the environment in which one found oneself. If one simply remains in the water trying to identify with it, in order to feel as a fish feels, or to try and become a fish that is a ridiculous notion. Remember our goal is to experience the alternative environment not reside in it! We are artists trying to free ourselves from the conditions and constraints that make our works predictable, limited, and lackluster, not a group of crazed fanatics forming a cult based on the identification of the “fishiness” of fishes. Our method, like any method has its shortcomings and its blind spots. There is a point at which out identification becomes an artificial artifice. When this point is reached we have overstepped the limitations of our method. On the other hand, if one enters “the water” or re-orients in order to triangulate perception about the position which one occupies in relationship to the milieu in which one lives, that can be most useful.

     This brings up one more point. A formulistic approach can be most useful to the beginner or to someone attempting to learn an approach or follow a method. The problem with a formula is that it will create, for those who use it, the same problem experienced by those attached to the Disney or Wright organizations. The formula is a starting point nothing more and nothing less. Formulas are for beginners. They are like training wheels. But in the end, if we are to be truly creative we must internalize “formula” to the point of intuition – the same way that we eventually abandon training wheels on a bicycle. My assertion is, that in the end, we should abandon formula to the point of forgetting we ever knew it. At that point, we can go on to create truly original pieces. I think of the example in the film Searching for Bobby Fischer. A chess player tells the boy’s father: “we play chess according to rules we’ve learned and we make our moves because we’ve learned to make certain moves under certain conditions – your son is different he makes his moves because he ‘sees’ them and feels them.” In other words the boy is making moves by intuition and instinct. If we stop at the level of analysis or even of formulistic synthesis we haven’t gone far enough. We must move beyond all of these to the level of intuition and instinct and then we can be truly creative. This “method” I propose is not an end it is only the glimmer of a beginning. Non-rational is not the same as “crazy.”