I have noticed a polarized reaction to my non-rep/Abstract works as opposed to my literal, representational works. The ones that look like something ( a woman’s face, a graveyard, the sky) are labeled “nice”, while the ones that are masses of paint and lines provoke extreme reactions.

In other words, an artist can depict ecstasy, or they can induce it. But one man’s ecstasy is another man’s agony– thus, the anger that erupts from those who do not “get” experimental avant-garde works. I count myself in this company, and only recently have I been making strides to “get” Abstract art, by creating my own and gauging the feedback and reaction.

He creates depictions or images of ecstasy, rather than ecstasy itself…. We think that painting pictures of shamans is the same thing as being a shaman, or that it will lead us to being a shaman.

Hmmm… IMHO shamanic art can also act as a portal into non-ordinary reality which allows the viewer to enter a different plane and encounter the entities depicted therein. In that sense it does serve a ritual function.

Numerous shamanic cultures actually do have a category of “ritual art,” e.g., Haitian voudon flags, tantric folk art, etc… the art itself functions as a tool for entering other worlds or allowing being from other world to enter this one.

I agree that the word shamanic is thrown around too losely though. I like harner’s definition of shamanism as using certain techniques to approach an altered state and interact with beings in nonordinary reality.

If you aren’t doing that then I guess it ain’t shamanism… its something else.