At this stage I want to explain further and in depth the application of the Concrescentist method. In order to do that, let me first give an example. Notice the similarities between traditional Celtic images and those of the Art Nouveau period. Noting similarities and dissimilarities between two periods or two styles of design is not only extremely useful but it is critical to have this awareness to such a degree that it almost becomes second nature. It is necessary to continually draw comparisons and distinctions. Notice how both types of designs interweave, have waveform flow, and generally curve: avoiding straight lines. On the other hand, the Celtic designs, more often than not, tend to form geometric patterns which, although  they occur, do not govern or control the design since the entire design is subordinated in favor of “flow” lines and organic growth. The Art Nouveau flow lines may intersect or cross but seldom knot in a geometric shape. Now, look at the similarity and contrast that can be observed between the rigid geometry of Arabic patterns and the looser flowing geometry of the Celtic patterns. Also note that there is little if any similarity between Arabic geometric design and the Art Nouveau style. Note, however, that both Celtic and Arabic patterns are complexly interwoven. Now let us juxtapose these two types of similar but distinct geometric designs. If we hold onto both as equally important and bring them together at their point of intersection we should be able to achieve –  to evolve a new set of forms or design motifs.If we now abandon the “parent” designs that have brought us to this point and concentrate on the techne – the offspring of these two that result from our concrescence, we may be able to evolve, from this union, an entirely new set of visual forms. We can properly call the result a hybrid since our results are the product of two dissimilar forms. This union, merging, or harmonization of opposites into a new a hybrid construction then, is at the heart of our movement and is why we call it: Concrescentism. Now if we pick forms which are far more dissimilar than those which I gave in the example, it may be more difficult to produce the hybrid but if we can produce a true hybrid it will be far more interesting.

     Let me give another example. Even when we are selecting styles and periods we don’t necessarily have to be overly serious about out choices. Let us select another set of iconic images. Let us select space motifs from the 1950’s. This is, believe it or not, a fairly well-defined genre. There are distinctly identifiable features associated with portrayals from this period. There are residual Art Deco elements that appear in these stylizations. What other motif from another era should we juxtapose against these designs? What design styling from another era could we apply to our motif to alter it in unpredictable ways? In the end, one of our results will be to take the qualities of one object and incorporate them into those of another. The possibilities at this point the expanse of our vision, even to the beginner, should seem endless.

     This cross-application may also be done with forms. For instance, let me suggest a couple of examples from the past of this kind of instance. While the examples I’m going to suggest  are deliberately poor and could easily be consigned to the dustbin of kitsch and are not true hybrids and we might even compare them to Dr. Moreau’s early experiments and I would reject them as true Concrescentist works; nevertheless, they are examples of the joining of unlike ideas. While these following examples would be considered Pop Art rather than Concrescentist because true hybridization isn’t achieved, let’s go ahead and use the example of a body part used as furniture. For instance Dali’s “Sofa Bocca” the sofa that was lifted from the Surrealist painting of Mae West which portrayed her face as a room in which her lips were depicted as a sofa. Later this innovation was simply lifted from the painting and Dali actually began to produce lip sofas. Now others copy this and fancy themselves on the cutting edge by producing other furniture from other body parts. Now a lip sofa, while no longer an entirely novel creation at this point in time from the standpoint of Concrescentism has hardly been exhausted as a theme from the Concrescentist viewpoint. While would-be Surrealists come along and essentially copy Dali’s piece, there is absolutely no need to limit ourselves to variations by making sofas with different shapes of lips (were we to correctly apply the principles of Concrescentism). We have merely to begin to alter the standardized form, first along predictable lines and later in such a way that our original starting point that of a lip sofa may actually no longer be recognizable. Let me give a few “for instances.”  What if we drop one side of the sofa so that one side of the mouth now rests directly on the floor, while another rises until it becomes a sitting surface. If we are exceedingly clever, we can curl up the other side of the mouth until it becomes a rest for our arm or even a support for our side or back. But why stop there? What about the cliché rose in the mouth suggested by the opera Carmen. Both a brief aside and an apology to my readers – I just went into “glide” as I started doing this. Being “on glide” among other things is a process of free association which means that if you ever have to visit a psychiatrist of the Freudian persuasion you’ll already be well versed in it. Although doing it may make you feel that you in fact do need to visit a psychiatrist in order to put your own strange notions into check. Back to Carmen – or rather the lip sofa. So, can a rose theme be linked into the lips somehow. A word of warning if we continue to pursue this vein of thinking we will be headed down the kitsch trail. Now if you are actually trying to produce kitsch I’m certainly supportive of the idea just make sure that it is intentional because kitsch without intention is no longer kitsch – it’s simply bad taste: tacky, cheap, and tawdry. Still kitsch is one step short of the Concrescentist ideal. Neon is the perfect medium to flirt with the dangers of kitsch which is why so few are willing to do it and a piece of neon in good taste that is a rare animal indeed! If we were to, say, alter the part of the mouth which touches the floor and curl it around by either by flowing it from side to side or making it into a spiral we could then conceivably turn that part of the mouth into a lizard’s tail. Or we have a myriad of other options. There are so many possibilities that present themselves and many people simply keep copying lip couches and trying to pass them off as originals.

     Let us consider another possibility. In this instance our purpose will be to combine two unlike functions or let us say, oblique functions into one. Take the example of giving a sofa the qualities of a car seat. It’s kitschy and was very novel at one point but is now quite passé. Still, when it was first conceived the idea  was originally as novel as furniture made out of other body parts: legs, hands, even heads on which to sit, dine, lounge, and recline have all made their appearance. Now any of these might have new life breathed into them by a slightly new approach. But why reinvent the wheel? The world is as full of the possibilities of as many hybrids as there are things in the world. So we can take as our basic example a chair – or more imprecisely a surface on which to sit. By defining our starting point as a “surface on which to sit” we are freed from necessarily thinking in a “chair-like” fashion. In fact, this rudimentary definition presents only possibilities and limits us in no way to thinking in terms of: four legs, a back, and a flat surface positioned over the four legs at ninety degrees parallel to the floor. A “surface on which to sit” is as wide open to possibility as what we choose to do with it. Our only limitation is that we must be able to sit on it in some way (whether conventional or unconventional) and it must support our weight. Other than that we have no particular parameters and therefore no limitations. Let us proceed to the next step and begin to “characterize” this “surface on which to sit” in a particular way. We are now moving to implement hybridization. The wonderful thing is no computer can perform this operation – not now and not ever! A computer program can do many things but it doesn’t have the scope of the human mind in its ability to hybridize. This, in my opinion is the difference between a good and a bad artist. The poor artist simply lacks the capacity the inability to judge proportions, amount, content, shape, placement, and so on. While I don’t want to bring art down to the level of the mundane, the comparison is similar between a line cook and an experienced chef. The one makes food the other crafts it. We eat food made by the one to live (if he doesn’t poison us) and the food prepared by the other we live to eat. But I digress – back to the matter at hand. Let us now take our surface on which to sit and combine it with something else, for instance let’s consider making a musical chair – well that came out wrong – a chair that is musical. Not that it plays music but that it is imbued in some capacity with the characteristics of a musical instrument. Let us leave our course wide open. The only limitation we are placing on our imagination is: that it must be a surface on which to sit that must in some capacity reflect characteristics of  a musical instrument. What type of characteristics we wont specify and how they are to be infused we’ll also leave to the individual artist to visualize. Now we are presented with an almost unlimited number of possibilities for creating pieces at this point. While the way in which these may be conceived by those who work on the infinite number of possibilities at the level of operation we will come up with a finite number of methods. For instance, at the most banal level we will find some artists who will present us with a rudimentary form on which to sit. They will then proceed to tack on pieces of musical instruments in an effort to ornament the piece. At the second level, not far removed from the first we will find those who assemble parts of instruments into a surface on which to sit. But there is a higher order. Those who home in on the problem at the most sophisticated level are beginning to understand how to implement the ideals of our method. They set about modifying the parts in order to create a piece. If they are successful the instrumental form or forms will be so blended that they can no longer be separated into individual components. It is at this level that the Concrescentist ideal is finally realized.