Marten Jansen's Abstract Art Blog

Until fairly recently young Islamic women could be seen wearing headscarves as fashion items. They wore pants, hardly according to Taliban dress code, for women, so it seems unlikely the headscarve was imposed by dad or husband. One Muslima that particularly impressed me was dressed in black and white, wearing a shiny off-white headscarve. She showed a combination of youngness and elegance, she walked straight, showing off her appearance with appropriate vanity. A prime example of the emancipation of Islamic women, right? Wrong….
After years of Islam bashing the self-confident Muslima has gone and with it the kind of image that I just described. Sure, there are still women wearing headscarves, but the ones that do now, make a far more traditional impression. It seems to me that Dutch society has imposed personality regression upon young Muslimas, who no longer dare to wear the headscarve as an expression of their cultural heritage.

America is big on cultural heritage. You’re not “just” an American, you’re also Irish, French, Japanese, African- or Native American, or mix of several, a pride of cultural heritage which adds to national, American pride.
In my country Muslims are granted no such pride. Their expression of cultural heritage is seen as provocative.

Personaly I’m faced with the following dilemma: I don’t want to be branded as “political”, because of all the negative personal consequences this has. At the same time you can’t get around making political statements, because society forces you to defend yourself, in my case against the gay onslaught. This is not a matter of ideology, of being “right”, it’s a matter of keeping your sanity in the midst of toxic practical circumstances.

Clearly, my comments on headscarves have a different, essentially non-personal background, because I’m not a Muslim. Then why take the political risk? Because at some point enough is enough. It’s very well not to want to be a trouble maker, but at some point this kind of attitude changes into cowardice and reproachable indifference. Enough is enough, Muslims are also human beings and I distance myself from the ghastly way they are treated in some countries.

A new painting was added to this site today. As you can see it’s pure abstract art, pure meaning that there’s nothing from the real world in this painting, just the collection of blobs of paint which we call abstract art. Most of the paintings I’m doing now are purely abstract. This happens when I feel I need to renew my style, which is easier without figurative constraints, like in portraits. Then, if feel I have completed that process, I apply the new style to paintings with figurative elements. So, the abstract does preceed the figurative, which is why I feel justified calling my style abstract art, whether or not it contains figurative elements.
In society the shifting perception of What Is Art? rages on. The art world (museums, galleries, recognized artists) are adamant that in art politics should preceed artistic motives, while the public seems to long for a return to intrinsic artistic merits. Correct me if I’m misjudging public opinion, here, because obviously I might be doing some wishful thinking. Nowadays the art world feels that art should shock. Can anyone explain to me why art has to shock?
Rubens would make art that was intended to shock, to a degree, particularly when he made use of Christian iconography: the crucifiction. Jesus (Him again) was hung on a cross, in the nude and irrevelantly upside down, with a bunch of heavies fanatically busy preparing the crucifiction and a dog barking at Jesus. Not very nice, but the divine sacrifice is central to Catholicism. Through empathy with Jesus, believers are supposed to be able to enter a higher spiritual state. I don’t wish to discuss religion here, the point is that the shock element was part of an established religious tradition, not an expression of “art against society”.
So why does the established art world wants to shock people? I don’t always like the world either, but to wage a bitter guerrilla against John Doe, I don’t get it.
Enlighten me! I’m politically incorrect..

You know….I do actually read the news once in a while:

Sir Elton John has claimed Jesus was a “super-intelligent gay man” in an interview with a US magazine.

If Jesus is gay, then who isn’t? Is that the “wisdom” that Sir Elton is trying to impart on us? I’m glad I’m not a Christian. I would be very offended.

However, BBC website says:

A spokesman for the Church of England said: “Sir Elton’s reflection that Jesus calls us all to love and forgive is one shared by all Christians.”

Wonderful. Remember the church’s outrage over the movie (The Last Temptation of Christ) in which Jesus was portrayed as being married to Maria Magdalena? So is Sir Elton’s line the church’s line?

All I can say is: Happy prayers, folks!

Actually, there’s nothing new here. Gay appropriation of Jesus is as old as clerical celibacy, which is why, in my Messiah painting, I have heterosexualised the Messiah.

Needless to say that, as usual, my critics avoid every kind of debate, pretending that they represent some kind of moral majority, which is undisputed, in their view. If it is undisputed, it’s because anyone who touches their holy cows will invariably be slammed as a right-wing extremist, a fascist… oh yes…
I don’t accept being called a right-wing extremist if those that express such accusations arrogantly refuse to exercise the most basic of democratic duties: discussion. This refusal is a blatant demonstration of the moral bankruptcy of such a self-proclaimed “moral majority”, because it begs the question:

If the pro-gay movement is morally superior, then how come they refuse discussion? Is it perhaps because their views cannot stand the test of debate and they will rather rely on their antiquated assumption that they are The Youths Who Have The Future (even in their 70s) and therefore will get their way, with, or especially, without debate? This assumption, if you ask me, testifies of the unprecedented disconnect between the political elite and mainstream society. As it stands, gays are promoted to an elite that can’t be criticised. But then, without gays obligations, I can’t support gays rights.

A couple of things:
- Other people’s sexual practices are neither my concern, nor my business, whether it’s straight or gay.
- I have no beef with lesbians.
- In my experience gay men are totally intolerant of another person’s sexual preference and identity and after two decades of incessant harrassment, no civilized person can expect me to want to have anything to do with gay men. So don’t hold your breath, and conspire all you want. It’s not going to happen.

So please…..do me a favour….either react to this message or take your political correctness to another planet. Opinions that are based on interests only, and not tested by discussion, are inevitably doomed (this is not ideology, but a practical observation), especially in this fast moving world of internet connectivity.
I’m sure Elton John will agree…..cuz he’s a super-intelligent gay man.

This is a subject that I don’t want to address in more than one post, so I update as the facts change. We have now reached the point at which gays are being physically assaulted in Dutch cities. As I’ve been physically attacked by gays myself, I have to assume that at least part of the prementioned attacks were provoked (and you can hardly assert that provocation is alien to the gay community), I have to say that I oppose any use of violence, either by or against gays. I have no appreciation for gays, as I have explained, but violence against them will only confirm the political elite’s position of non-discussion, because they will claim moral superiority and continue to ignore the violence commited by gays.
So please, do not beat the crap out of gays, but instead force the political elite to debate, such as:

- Why do they make it impossible for scientists to conduct research into homosexuality if it produces results that are regarded as, I quote, “politically dangerous”? In my opinion, what’s “politically dangerous” should be the result of debate and not predefined by the political elite.
Whenever scientific research produces results that don’t please the gay community, this research is likened to “Nazi science” and the scientists get severely verbally abused. There have been cases in which scientists lost their job, because their research produced results that were regarded as unfavorable to the gay community.

- Meanwhile, political desicions are taken, for instance, gay marriage is imposed on society, while in fact the mere notion of homosexuality remains undefined as long as the political elite blocks open and free scientific research and debate. In other words…we don’t really know what homosexuality is, what causes it and if it’s inherited or a developmental deviation. These are questions that should be answered before political desicions are taken, but instead the political elite elects to block research and debate and impose the social consequences upon the population.

So let’s not give the political elite the chance the continue to portray homosexuals as victims and heterosexuals as perpetrators exclusively. As it stands, men that are harassed by gays are in the same boat as children at Catholic boarding schools: their complaints aren’t taken seriously, whether or not they are believed. Harassment by gays is a taboo in modern society and one that the political elite is eager to maintain.

Finally, I used the Catholic boarding school example to make a point, not to suggest abuse there is, or was, more prevalent than in the rest of society.
Like that taboo has been broken, let’s break the taboo of men as victims of gay harassment, for a more peaceful society.