His grave was dug on a small strip of land outside of the cemetary holy grounds, within a few yards of a public toilet.
Awful...
The christian crosses are symbols too, replacement signs depicting a perceived designation of a spiritual or religious comprehension. ...(snip).... Perhaps the atmosphere of the whole painting is horrific, and not only the graveyard scene, because the reality that it represents ís horrific.
Yes, I can see that. However, let's take a step back from the emotional involvement and look at it from a more objective view...
I hope you can see that you are retrofitting: looking back and making up excuses why certain differences are there. Now, I'm not saying that they aren't there because of the reasons you say, only that it is impossible to know for sure.
Suppose the painting looked more similar than it does now. You would be amazed at how similar it looked. Now it doesn't look as similar, so you are trying to fit the painting with reality. If it was different in any other way, you probably would try to do the same thing. The problem with that is that whatever it looks, it will be a perfect match in your mind.
If we are to decide whether you really foresaw the future, we should only consider the real similarities and count the retro-fittings as misses. Doesn't mean you aren't allowed to believe in their significance, just means there is no way to figure out how significant they really are.
On the gravesite of my brother there was no such grave. What idea made me paint that ?
You see: this can be seen as an example of retro-fitting too. You are surprised about the other grave,
because you associate the burial scene in the painting with your brother's burial.
Now suppose the two are not related at all. Would it be surprising that there are some major differences? Of course not.
Again, symbolic representations do not aim to be exact representations of reality. The fact that the graveyard scene coïncides with what háppened (and not so much what wás) in reality, makes me view the entire painting that way.
I understand that. I probably would too. However lots of things coincide with other things, it doesn't necessarily mean they are connected, that one caused the other. When things 'coincide' we usually call them 'coincidences'.
And the other two, that I haven’t shown yet.
Please do.
I will prove how this analysis synchronises with metaphysical traditions.
There is no doubt that many of your work will closely resemble metaphysical/religious traditions. But skeptics will say that these similarities are caused because they are all made up by human brains and since these are all very similar, very similar images come from them. And they are of course influenced by the culture they are in and know many of the tradional imagery. So similarities with other tradional imagery are not indicative that something metaphysical is going on.
I remember how I started this painting with the skull in the centre. The fact that the skull has some human features but is no exact representation of my brothers skull, or a human skull, is irrelevant.
Oh, it's a skull... I didn't notice it at first. I did see some strange organic looking thing, but couldn't understand it as a skull. But I can see it now. Let's look at it from a purely symbolic viewpoint. I will now temporarily stop speaking from an independant, objective, skeptical viewpoint and start talking from symbolics. I will indicate clearly when I start and finish:
[symbolism]
Have you noticed how similar it is to you Ima'an picture? It has the same almost perfect symetry. The crack on the skull's forehead coincides perfectly with the symetry line of Ima'an.
It is as if the skull is simply Ima'an, stripped of its flesh. There are just a few pieces hanging loose, with the same wrinkled and flesh-coloured texture as the Ima'an picture has.
[end symbolism]
It is as if you had a scary image in your head for a long time, and gradually gave a it friendlier face.
As an example of one such metaphysical tradition, the symbol of the eye inside the mouth opening of the skull may be representative of the all seeing eye, the sixth sense, or the subconscious preconceived knowing.
Yes, that thing does look a bit like an eye. But let me present you with an alternative symbolic explanation.
[symbolism]
The iris looks strange for an iris, and the flesh colour seems to indicate to me that it is something different. I can also see it as an embryo, growing inside an egg: a symbol of rebirth.
[end symbolism]
Remember that anything I write between the [symbolism] and [end symbolism] tags, is purely my interpretation, and does not represent objective reality in any way. My interpretation is not in any way better than your own.
And do you see how the skull and the graveyard scene are linked by stairways ?
Yes, I did.
[symbolism]
And did you notice that on the sides of the stairway, there are lanterns or crystals hanging, which seem to lighten the graveyard. Perhaps it's not such a gloomy image after all...
[end symbolism]
I appreciate your thoughts, but my art was never a scientific experiment. It was, and still is, an experience. I never realised that these old paintings, and my ideomotor art later, would have to be treated this way in order to scientifically prove something now. My art is dated with the same pen I draw with. They do not leave to a buyer without a ceal that bares my personal mark. That’s all I am prepared to do.
Please remember that you are firmly convinced that you foresaw the future in at least one painting. If you are sure that it happened once, it is strange to assume it can't happen again. Just suppose it does happen again, it would be nice to be able to prove it, wouldn't it?
And getting an official date stamp on your work might solve a few copyright issues too. So even if your work is not a scientific experiment, it is a simple, but smart thing to do.
