David Hays Aka Artclecter From Los Angeles, California: A Wither Shade Of Perspective. An Incredibly Talented Abstract Art Painter Responsive To Where The Call Of The Wild Of Abstract Art And Science May Beckon

»»» shrink text ««« ««« enlarge text »»»

Perhaps I am being too ambitious in writing this, considering English is not my native language - yet I shall try it.  
 
D.r. Hays, with a facebook personal profile, a facebook fan page (rather new, on 2010, I think), a myspace profile (but you need to be added as a friend of his to view his works there) is... is... wait a minute - why should we define persons by what they do? Most of the times we have not even understood what they do although we quote it as if we got it, and nearly always we have no idea about why they do what they do; but, you see... if I consider for an instant D.r. Hays's paintings, I understand the last thing I'd do is to define him by a professional title: what is this guy going to do with a professional title? At most, or perhaps, tearing it apart in rightful and yet composed rage?  
To be sure, not that he clings to such stereotype in the least (among artists we have the flamboyant rock singer who smashes guitars thinking that's a revolutionary feat and the painter who labels any title as a limitation to his/her freedom - both have grown stale); on the contrary he actually describes himself as "an abstract painter" (source). So it's me; it's just me; I refuse to attach a label to him, once seen his work.  
 
Perhaps, I'd say I have always been partial to abstract art: I always loved it immensely more than figurative art. But of course, the whole discourse of abstract art seems exhausted and finished by now; and yet, beyond it, there seems nothing else, no further horizon to be seen - pardon, to be painted. If abstract art has reached the end of its tether, we have touched the limits of human creativity with it too. Is there life on Mars?  
 
Yet, Hays is original. He may be abstract, but there is something (and I am talking here of something not marginal) that tells a new story indeed.  
First of all, there is a layer of depth in his paintings - consider them, and you will see as if there were a perspective concealed within them - a rather funny feature, because if there is something that abstract art forfeited and whose abandonment qualified its nature, such a thing was exactly the desertion of perspective - whereas mastery of perspective has always been the hallmark of quality figurative arts.  
 
Actually, you ought to know that there have been a few decades * (a couple of centuries ago) when forsaking perspective was considered as quintessentially scientific a decision: in fact, it was thought true science ought to be achieved by mental and mathematical exertion only, all other avenues being considered as highly suspicious due to their undependability; for there was a very common and widespread diffidence towards observation through lenses (microscope and telescope, which of course investigated and involved exactly perspective) because lenses could import aberration, irisation, deformation - consequently only the mind was considered as reliable enough against the tricks of what was going to become the opticks.  
 
Now, isn't it funny that the fact abstract art gave up perspective could be considered as an act of the purest form, the maximum abstraction of thought, the endeavor of the human being to know reality by pure reason and no observation? By liquidating perspective and doing without it, abstract art was also betraying either a scientific streak or a scientific ambition or nostalgia in itself!  
 
Hays, working in his painting using layers (or so it seems to me) is surreptitiously reintroducing perspective by another name. In his paintings you may see at times something like a concavity that under some unknown pression gets more and more deformed till it reaches either a critical point or a critical mass. That irisation, that aberration, that deformation which in the past constituted what made men wary of lenses, is here reintroduced as a part of the painting, as something stable enough to build foundations upon it.  
 
There is at least one very objective element that supports this perception of mine, however: nearly all Hays's paintings seem to emerge from a shade, they seem to be rounded and girdled with a sleep, they seem to be slowly conquering the stage by creeping away from the corrosion of a surrounding mist; in fact, they exhibit perceptibly dimmed and gradually darkened edges (and this is a fact), whereas their center gains more and more the focus of a clear limelight that eventually triumphs in the middle - and this fact produces exactly the sensation of a perspective, of a convexity.  
Now, what is a convexity if not a perspective? And what is the localization of a center highlighting it as if by a light beam, if not the reproduction of the ancient pursuit for the point of fugue, that focus of the perspective from where the invisible strings that held the whole painting as a puppet master could irradiate?Thus, what Hays seems to imply is this (I don't mean he openly signifies it: I only mean that this seemingly clandestine reintroduction of perspective in his paintings seems to move on the trail of a hidden story, and to recover an old logos, to whose spell his soul may have been open, sensitive and responsive): it is perfectly possible to be abstract and to adopt a perspective too, in fact abstract art removed perspective either by a mistake or by a misconception - abstract art actually meant to understand the world better, and not to mystify it more (the world has no need to be mystified more!) for the world is exactly how it does not seem to be, and the correct perspective lies in understanding its basically fabricated fabric. Abstract art and perspective are at least as much compatible (and so should to be reinstated as partners) as reality and relativity are. Abstract art meant to be scientific, actually, by renouncing to perspective; if so, it can adopt anew the scientific objectivity of a perspective - that life has a violently absurd stream in it may not be the corruption of reality, but precisely its scientific nature.  
 
This alone, to me, is originality already.