Why colored? (short version)

Why Colored?

Why are the plans for  the installation so colored?

Today I read Roerich, cosmology – among others a text by a museum’s director, whom you probably know personally:


They had a new vision of the human being embedded into the universe. The heart is the center of sun, cosmos and light.

I looked also at architects like Plecnik and the Hungarian “painter of the way to the sun ‘ (as he calls himself) Csontváry and it seems, that placing the colorful Orbit – Eden with dome and sphere- herb- garden is an adequate answer the the situation and the question of migration – even if it was an intuitive answer.

According to these the colored houses – and a space, where the visitor enters a painting are the only possible conceptual answer.

Of course we could call it East of Eden, West of Eden….

On one hand the installation could show of course the danger of aesthetisation of politics – as described in Walter Benjamin’s book Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner Reproduzierbarkeit. Benjamin called anaesthetization of politics fashism while politisation of asthetics is socialism – although this refers mainly to reproduces media, e.g. films and not to unique pieces with aura.

Compared to real shelter building in refugee camps my vision for the installation in the museum is rather beauty them function, but it takes places indoors in a museum, therefor the framework of aesthetics was given.

The question as described by Benjamin is open, because we do not know yet, if the museum is extended to a new function in politics (= politisation of aesthetics = socialist ) or if replaces social space of migration or shelter and eco-building (aesthetisation of politics = fashist according to Benjamin). I am optimistic and think, that the mental space is an extension of the idea of shelter and the fantasy does not replace real habitats for asylum seekers.


Other aspect is the absolute need to have a clear and present image of Eden, Utopia, Paradise. Nobody would migrate or dare big changes without this imagination of a peaceful and happier life. Not only the cosmologist, but basically all the important artist and thinkers ask science and politics since hundred years for more tolerance to the spiritual or metaphysical world. (not always successful) .

Color is the metaphor for light.

So far my remarks, and an explanation why it is so colored.


The ecstasy of color and light as utopian formations we know from painter’s work, at the end of 19th century and in twenties century. Of course it is not only Russian cosmology, where we find the extra-scietific experience, but also in Van Gogh’s paintings and in Munch’s landscapes or Csontváry Koszka Tivadar, Hungarian painter.

The question arises in 2017: What happened to them later? What happened to the movement? It was not only a style to paint, but an eschatology – the end of ordinary reality and reunion with the Divine.

And why is it interesting today?

We can read in L. Shaposhnokiva’s text, that the supra-scientific, as the cosmologists called of cosmic consciousness and love, which assumed an evolution of cognition, beyond the simplified and mechanic reality of science, was prohibited by Stalin and only dialectic materialistic views of social states were aloud. Accoding the our history books, the prohibition was cruel and merciless, Pavel Florensky was killed, others like Alexander Chizhevsky were banned to remote places in detention camps in Asia.

The cosmologists, were special, because they had a truly ecstatic experience of nature and universe, we see in their paintings (A. Chizhevsky) but still they did not go crazy, one of the reasons might be, that most of them were scientists. They had a stable matrix, coordinates, rational mind- however we call it.

There was no contradiction between science and the mental space, human heart. Still their theories were prohibited by Soviet State, since it seemed to difficult to understand and doubt was wanted in the system. They were killed and a stagnation of philosophy followed.

I would risk the sentence, that other painters of ecstasy were not scientists, but mainly individualists living in ecstasy and in permanent eschatological state of mind and soul. They l were therefore no big danger to dialectic materialism and capitalism and socialist dictatorship. I mean painters: Van Gogh or Hungarian Csontváry Koszka Tivadar and Gulácsy. What happened to them? They went crazy? Their visions landed in the category of extremist subjectivity = that means in western culture craziness.

We could examine the question of the extension of mechanical materialism on uncountable examples in history – and extend eschatology to the question of the definition of humanity.

We can continue examining Van Gogh’s fate and Csontváry and artists’ visions not only in Eastern Europe, but also in the States, Ginsberg’s visionary revolts, his poem “The Howl” decades after Munch’s scream. Then later, the industrialization and planned usage of drugs and hallucinogens for broad masses in Californian and hippy culture. The camouflage actions by Andy Warhol and pop- artists: art went in camouflage as product. Art as thin surface of color.

We can turn to Germany, Switzerland Swiss mountains’ mystics – Amden, and painter Otto Meier-Amden, the great Steinerian schools – and the problem of kitsch production: the esotheric and theosophic ideas are domesticated to hand- knitted pullovers and herb- gardens problem and ginger- bread aesthetic- what is not harmful or dangerous, but a bit kitsch and domesticated if we compare it with Chiznevsky’s level of research and practice.


The individual is word-wide uniformed for the good and bad sides. Long descriptions have been produced about this tendencies political and social power- structures and its characteristics in Asia, Middle East and Europe which lead to far from this study. The colored magazine ‘s slogan is that “diversity is a value. “ Colors are life , besides the colors, easiness of forgiving is a basic element of tolerant societies and you simply feel better with less violence in your environment.


sphere garden which does not need watering


Back to the supra- scientific or eschatological and its expression in art, culture and science.

The question arises, how will future’s societies deal with this? According to the cosmologists and the theoreticians of the post-internet-revolutions (we are one digital village, a rhizome, all humans form one entity, the age of the Anthropocene) the human supra-scientific and supra- natural cognition is under evolutionary development. According to cosmology, we have or we might have or we have already cognitive qualities, which used to be perceived earlier as supra-natural. This is caused by the inner development of human beings, intelligence and soul on one hand and on the other hand by the progress of scientific research on the highest level of knowledge in time and space? Will the artists and researchers be killed? Enslaved? Or will they form a protected social group of monks similar to Buddhists or similar to Druze examples of hermeneutic religions? Or will they be declared crazy? (this has the disadvantage of humiliation, but the advantage of more freedom in front of the law.) It brings the danger of being used as human experimental rabbit, if a judge orders enforced treatment by unknown medication or rays. Who will be the judge of the artists, decide if they stay alive or not – if public or not? And what is the source of the judge’s legitimacy, if the masses have no access to real information and basically the idea to allow them to vote is therefore false? Will the artists’ visions and knowledge be respected – as visions of tribal medicine man and women? Will it be kept secret? Will it be public? Will they be the object of laughter? Will they be an instrument of power? Or will they support power on a voluntary way? How deep or how broad is the real connection between imagined, subjective realm and utopia and rational science and the causality of reality? Is the connection a small narrow and difficult path or a broad highway? Is all what I write here true? Or is it folkloristic superstition?

And if power: is it a good or bad one? What about the manipulation and control of the masses?

All these questions, does not effect on first hand the artist, or the mystic, who can be martyred or respected or hidden and to serve the elite only, as it happened in monarchies. Or who can have power as an individual. It effects mainly the society and the public.

(If the artist and philosopher is killed or it is completely forbidden to work, he or she does not serve anybody.) If he or she can work, but the result is hidden, and the artist sits under a glass bubble, in ivory tower or in detention camps in remote places, castles it serves only the top power structures, even if he or she is part of these structures and equal partner. The question arises, what will happen then to the mass? Will machineries of media produce mass- culture for them? Something faked? And will they eat the faked stuff? They are not so stupid. How will the access to extra-science be distributed? – Does it need distribution similar to capitalist commodities? Maybe it will “distribute” itself. Will the power be mean or human? What will happen to civilization, what will happen to humanity the perspective is too broad to be discussed in one text, but we can say carefully, that there is indeed a tendency severe control of our imagination on one hand and a new broadened consciousness cognition and collectivity on the other. Who will win?

Róza EL-Hassan 2017




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s