Two questions on this one:
[a] As a result of an ongoing (good-natured) psychological battle with Marie M – which she is now winning hands down after effortlessly reducing this carefully designed Kandinsky tribute to “an upside down fish”! – I desperately need to know:
Is this a masterful assembly of colour, form, line and surface which celebrates the endless possibilities in harmonious relations?
or
is it an upside down fish?
[b] More seriously – the idea was to make an ambiguous putist painting which asks: Is it a painting of ‘real life’ or is it an abstract? I started out with the intention of making it indistinguishable from the computer graphic on the screen [as much as possible]. However I find painting from a computer screen just as tedious as painting anything else faithfully through the eye – I just wanted to let the imagination take over, so I rushed it towards the end. The result falls between the two options. It is neither ‘perfect’ or ‘painterly’. Which should I have done? Or is somewhere in-between more putist?

My first instinctive reaction (sometimes the truest one) is immediately – surrealist, Miro, Picaba, Magritte, light and fun. Don’t ask me why, I know they don’t really fit but that is the gut reaction.
But…....there is a darker edge to this peeking through – Marie may be right about a fish…..but it could be a shark…
I will now read the text properly and go away and think about and put together a coherent ‘proper’ answer.

Well I’ve looked at this twice now and I really can’t get away from Kandinsky and even a bit of Mondrian.
Your eye is pulled down to the right hand corner because of the change in tone but all of your predominate angled lines try to pull it back up again but I’m not sure whether or not this succeeds. Personally I can’t connect with any particular form (or fish) though I can see how the circle in the top right hand corner could be construed as an eye because it keeps looking at me.
This piece makes me think of journeys and the choices you have to make to decide which path you should take. Some of the pathways being a little more complicated then others.
I keep looking down at the buttons and circles in the lower right hand corner. I don’t know if they are an intentional distraction aimed at a particular element of your painting or an attempt to break out of the geometric abstract style and add a little surrealism.

In response to your more serious question mufa, (is it a painting of real life, of an abstract?) I say it is both. Just as an O’keefe painting depicts a “real” flower but through the perspective and coloration it becomes something more abstract. I am glad that kafka mentioned Rene Magritte. I want to mention the painting of the “pipe” by Magritte, entitled, “The Betrayal of Images” in which the painting states at the bottom, “Ceci n’est pas une pipe.” This work shows how even a “real” object that is subjected to painting, then transforms into a visual language. The object is no longer a pipe, but a two-dimensional representation of one. The visual image conveys what a pipe looks “like”, but serves as nothing more than a painting (no matter how realistically it is produced). So if one paints a “still life” of flowers, the flowers become a “real” painting. The painting does not need to be watered. The painting exists. This wonderful abstract painting of yours depicts a “real” and tangible image, but through your hand, brush, and color choice has become it’s own entity. Wether it is merely an upturned fish, that is irrelevant to this new work, for you can call it what you want, and the viewer may see more than what you have intended through the abstract representation of reality. I acknowledge the work to be a very nice painting overall, and it is thoughtful of you to have produced it. Hope you take care, and don’t beat your brain into a wall trying to defend it. Peace-

:- D @kafka, definitely not a shark, more a round friendly colourfull reef fish, a little bit like a sunfish in shape actually.

also I would liek to point out that there is nothing ” merely ” about a fish, they are wonderful creatures and well worthy of being the object of a painting. ’ ....celebrates the endless possibilities in harmonious relations?...” sounds like a coral reef ecosystem to me…
In fact, I think my next painting will be a celebration of fish…

@mufa, I love your idea behind this image, and bites circle of technology comments summed it all up for me.I was actually serious when I said I see it as a collaboration between your two alter egos, and with that in mind, perhaps I would have liked a more painterly version of TKs digital concept, however, this is what it looks like now and I really like it (I like paintings of fish)

also, in light of the discussion around Kafkas ” Extinction ”, there might be something said here along the lines of soon the only fish left are the digital ones, life symbolised by computer chips (the patterns in your painting also reminds me of a computer circuit board) and so becomes a commentary on the state of the oceans today. I now see the darkness kafka percieved, in the staring eye (is he perhaps already on the chopping block?). maybe the colorful patterns aren’t bright scales but fish guts instead?

First of all – a sincere thanks to you all for taking the time and effort to comment.
I think these perceptive observations raise a number of general ‘putist’ issues and I want to return and expand on these more when I get the chance.
Robert – thanks for your concern, but I won’t feel the need to ‘defend’ it. It is here to be a ‘putist’ punchbag/strawman.
In the meantime:
Who suggested I was getting paranoid about the fish eye? – which fish eye?

Mufa seeing the picture above, in it’s entirety without the scroll bars makes it much more easier to interpret.
I no longer feel that my eye is being drawn down to the lower right hand corner, it appears much more balanced.
I definitely can not see an object anymore just a series of symbolic pathways, like before. This piece is really growing on me!
I really didn’t mind the circle within the circle though, maybe just a single shaded circle.

LoL oh NO, someone poked his eye out!
I am thinking this mufa person doesn’t like fish….

I don’t dare say what I think is outlined now….. you will think I really am crazy ; -)

I would have maybe added more detail and coloration within the orange sphere (lower, left center). It may have appeared like two eyes then, or maybe by adding more colored circular elements, the one “eye” would not have been as captivating. This other circular area would of helped to balance and center the abstract work. Oh well, I like that you painted over it, too. So either way You (the Artist) made the choice, and the piece is now less “fishy”? hahaha… Take care mufa, Peace-

My perception of this keeps shifting, not least because of the ‘context’ being built up byeveryone’s different takes on it. A good example of Mufas’ recent thoughts on the ‘Putist Manifesto’ thread. Our discussion has given the work an evolving context in which to view it.

I tried to identify where the feeling of ‘darkness’ that I got from it came from, and then realised that it also stems from the discussions about art that we have all taken part in recently. Particularly the Art and Tecnology thread.

This for me, is now a creature (fish?) that has been dismembered by a process of technology and reassembled in a ‘mutant’ form – it has been digitised and turned into a series of objective components and Mufa (like some latter day Frankenstein) has carefully reassembled (repainted) the fragments to produce the ‘facsimile’ creature.
Removing the eye has increased the sense of torment as I now read the angle that was alongside it as an ‘Baconesque’ screaming mouth.

(Mufa ‘rushing’ the painting towards the end is so like the Baron rushing to stitch the creature together and creating a hybrid in the process that I just couldn’t resist the analogy.) LOL

Removing the eye has removed the ‘fun’ element of the painting but has also made it a much stronger work.

Is it Putist – I’m not sure I am qualified to comment given my current indecision on the manifesto. It has got very a very strong cubist feel to it (not suprising given Mufas love of cubism) but the contextual elements are not cubist at all so it probably is unclassifiable in that sense.

Its possible that the next time I look at this, and read any more interpretations that have been added, I will very likely see something else entirely.

I would have returned to this earlier – but I’ve been busy giving an interview to the local paper:

A. Critik: —Mr Mufa can you tell the readers why you painted this?
Mufa: --Well it all came about following a discussion with a group of artists, we were kicking around some ideas on the nature of a contemporary painting.
AC: —..and this is a contemporary painting?
M. --Well Putist actually….....
AC —Putist?
M. --It tries to play around with the idea of fixed meanings and stuff like that.
AC —What meaning did you put into this design?.
M --I didn’t design it. Tanakatawana designed it.
AC —Friend of yours?
M --Sort of. TK didn’t put any meaning into it – it was simply an arrangement of geometrical shapes that was supposed to be a little like a Kandinsky painting. It doesn’t actually exist – it is a computer graphic.
AC —So you painted a computer graphic. What meaning did you put into it?
M --None whatsoever. I tried to faithfully paint what was on the computer screen.
AC —Why?
M --To demonstrate that reality and virtuality and art are interchangeable.
AC —Deep! Didn’t Jasper John originally do something like that with a painting of a flag?
M --Sssshhhh!
AC —OK – So, what did your artist friends say?
M --There was a lot of talk about fish
AC —Fish? Does it look like a fish?
M --Not any longer – I changed it.
AC —Why – did it offend your artist sensitivities?
M --No – I don’t have any. I was trying to keep it light-hearted.
AC —Did it offend TanaKatawana’s artistic sensitivities?
M --There is a possibility of that. The original design was a bullseye – but I managed to make it look like a fish eye – allegedly.
AC —It is rumoured that you may have fishophobic tendencies?
M --None whatsoever – I am a lacto-vegetarian, I don’t even eat the little rascals.
AC —Did people read anything else into this little blue doodle?
M --It was originally orange
AC —Orange! – so you changed it?
M --No, TanaKatawana changed it three months ago so it could be submitted to the RB blue group.
AC —Whatever. What about the hidden meanings?
M --My chums saw dark, sinister and disturbing undertones in it.
AC —What! in a painting of a fish?
M --I keep telling you it’s not a fish. Yes, they thought they saw dissected parts of fish and people screaming and things…......
AC —Strange
M --No comment
AC —Did they all see psychologically traumatised and brutalised fish?
M --No, one young lady saw a pretty tropical fish tank.
AC —Nice
M --No comment
AC —So you are claiming there is no symbolism, allegoricism, surrealism or any other sort of ‘ism’ in it.
M --Exactly.
AC —So what was the point of trying to get people to see things that weren’t there?
M --I didn’t set out to do that, but I’m glad people saw things.
AC —Like fish?
M --Whatever!
AC —Why would that please you?
M --It kind of supports the ‘contemporary meaning’ thing. Art is in the perception of the viewer…...
AC —Or in this case in a computer file and on a canvas. Deep!
M --Not really, these are experienced artists who are very familiar with such matters. I’m sure that they discuss it regularly with their therapists.
AC —....and the only question you wanted the painting to ask was “am I realism or am I abstraction?”
M --Exactly
AC —....and the fish thing took on a life of its own?
M --It’s a tough life being a Putist painter…..............
AC —Where is it now?
M --It’s on the wall at home. My wife said – and I quote – “I like the blue and it isn’t as ugly as most of your stuff”
AC —Praise indeed
M --No comment!
AC —-I must admit when you close your eyes slightly it does look a little like a…..

And finally:
“you will think I really am crazy”
Too late Marie, too late….........
Now you will definitely have to tell us what you see…............

Although this post is a little flippant – I really do appreciate your comments.
Marilyn’s expertise made me think about composition etc. – something I do neglect rather, more instinctive than considered.
Robert’s suggestion will probably make me change it again and incorporate his suggestion (is this a way we could do a collaboration? Global suggestions but just one labourer! Needs a professional labourer)
Kafka’s assessment just created a dozen more questions in my mind…. he does it intentionally.
- interesting postscript ….. I was invited to submit this to the cubist group, which surprised me – I’ll need to brush up on my knowledge of ‘styles’
Marie’s contribution just made the whole exercise worthwhile!

laughing so I’m crying ;-D

OK, I’ll tell you; it is quite clearly a scottish terrier smoking a pipe!

Oh.. you’re just teasing now Marie. It looks more like a muppet!

haha you guys are too funny, its pac man!

That’s a scottish terrier ??
Good job you paint beautiful muscular golden people and not puppy dogs!
Muppet? Pacman?
Kermit perhaps…........................

OK everyone – I give in
First my painting credibility is shot to pieces – and now I find out I don’t even know one muppet from another…......
Nice one Marilyn

Sorry mufa, just playing with the girls. Actually this is one of my favourite paintings of yours. Even though I seem to interpret it differently to everyone else. It really does remind me of the geometric abstraction of Kandinsky I think you have done a wonderful job.

well, I am more of a cat-person, don’t know so much about dogs…..

Grover was my favorite Muppet!! well spotted Marily ; -)

I knew Francis Bacon was in there somewhere….........

Oh bugger. I liked the “Fish Eye” but I see it’s gone. With my laptop tilted at 90 degrees it looked like a cat eating a fish.

I like surrealism. It’s open to interpretation.

I can’t wait – I said – I just can’t wait, for you lot to upload your next works!!!
Oh look – Mr K Host has just added something – got to run….....................

Yes mufa, I am not sure if Jim Henson is rolling in his grave from absurdity, laughter, or shear ridiculousness… Hope you take care, enjoyed the comments, and possibly extracted some shred of decent analysis from your painting. Curious if you caught my comment about Magritte… and how his works may pertain to the concept behind your painting… Peace-

Robert,
I didn’t intentionally not respond your point – it did give me a lot of food for thought, but there is so much stuff flying around in these forums, it is difficult to address everything!
In fact I agree 100% with the idea. I don’t see how anyone couldn’t.
A painting is a two dimensional arrangement of paint and the only similarity with the ‘real’ world [e.g. flower] is the capacity of each to produce an identical shape on the retina which the brain then interprets as ‘being a flower’ or ‘a picture of a flower’. We seem to have developed a rather lazy approach to our perceptive capacities [or perhaps more accurately our use of language] and it requires someone like Magritte to point out the distinction occasionally.
Your point does relate directly to my initial intention to make this indistinguishable from a computer image. Then I could have followed Magritte’s cue and written ‘this is not an abstract image on a computer screen – it is a painting”.
The ultimate irony is that the point has to be made to an internet community through the medium of a computer screen!
Bites’ point then becomes pertinent.
So I would have needed to write:
“This is in fact a computer image of a painting which in turn is not an abstract image on a computer screen”
You advised me not to beat my brains out – then ask a question like this!!..............