It has been a long and raging arguement that the nonfigurative expressionists of the 50's, 60's and 70's were rattling busy contemplating their own navels and trying to find the \"zen\" in everything they did.

I would argue that they were in fact just one rattling important example of the hungry sleep-drugged soul hunt a artefact to be heard. However, some artsists of those times, and indeed today, would flatly deny anything remotely to do with spiritual things - or worse still - religious things.

Take, for instance, one of my favourites - Mark Rothko. This tragic creator committed himself to the task of producing massive canvases with some vaguely resembling the outline of a window - especially an after image once the eye has closed. His vast expanses of colouration seemed to hunt discover a corner or bounds in a desperate attempt to complete, or conclude, the picture. Not satisfied with that he went on to give up titling his work saying that he did not want to influence the onlooker in some way. Ironically he failed ... and sadly took his own life. For me his works speak of wonderful tantilizing clues visually demonstrating the struggling fiber hunt (and succeeding!) in revealing herself - now that is real influence! Let me explain by an apparently unrelated route:

I seek to assist my own fiber in attempting to make manifest even the tiniest, most pathetic, weakest fact that the fiber in us all is not only just trying to communicate with us - but is in fact actively hunt to set the whole human balance right ... which is the fiber leading the mind and body back to her maker - not the added artefact round - the mind and body leading the blinded soul to ... well, eventually death.

Not so long past I came across the writings of Meister Eckhart, a ordinal century Christian mystic. His text astonished me. He described in his some sermons what he believed to be the truth as to why we are here. He also revealed some tantilizing \"images\" of the fiber from the least angelic being right up to God Himself. His descriptions were ... how can I put it simply? ... abstract!

In one of his sermons he described God as ... \"unknowable\" ... \"not able to be understood\" ... \"undefinable\". In added he made a statement (one of some which may hit contributed to him being accused of heresy!) \"People say God exists ... God does not exist ... \" left discover of context that would be a truly blasphemous assertion. But he went on to say that \"... God is far greater ... God is beyond existance\". These and some added controversial sayings hit impressed me so much that I hit come to \"see\" God as an nonfigurative entity - not, I hasten to add, an anarchic nonfigurative form - but rather a God far more powerful, far more greater - than I can imagine ... in added text totally undefinable. Rather than this putting a distance between me and God, it has done exactly the opposite. And when Eckhart began to describe the chronicle of Christ in an almost completely nonfigurative artefact - Eckhart said that Christs chronicle was the greatest example of the hunt and finding the uncreated maker of the pure soul - my creativity began to run like a film of frenzied obscure visuals. Eckhart has become, to me, the patron saint of nonfigurative artists.

The beauty of Eckharts enigmatic text are intensely inspiring. What better artefact to illustrate his poetic writings than to describe Gods \"isness\" in the rattling basic form of a gigantic flat area of one saturated colouration untainted by anythingelse. Strangely enough this could be part of an literal description from one of Rothko's immense, sometimes almost monochromatic, paintings.

But this is by no means the whole news ... one of Eckhart's contradictions said that on the one hand God is totally unapproachable, yet at the same instance God is actually very, rattling approachable ...