Summary groundbreaking consequences of Meta-art

  1. *In the very first place the incredible metamorphosis of art into something that transcends art while  still only using the simplest of means of art. A Duchampian escape from art, not at all Duchampian, but a process much more profound. Essentially freeing art from the Duchampian slavery of the circumstances. In Meta-art it is art that frees itself from itself.

  1. *But also Meta-art being the ultimate paradox of our (by the modernist ideal of freedom moulded) culture: ultimate freedom of creative expression needs ultimate restriction. And so: what is truly essential in creative freedom?

  1. *But also the fact that painting appears to be the only medium capable of bearing the most bizarre, paradoxical, complex  and profound revolution in the arts ever. The comeback of comebacks!

  1. *And then there is this strange, but highly interesting situation, of a woman being the first (and most probably only) Meta- genius (ever). Does feminism find in Meta-art a kind of never-dreamed-of fulfilment?

  1. *And let us not forget the incredibly weird circumstance that in Meta-art, being ‘nothing but painting’, time is running like it is in daily life.

  1. *And how about Meta-art being essentially not understandable, like our own mind is essentially not understandable to us. There are too many layers of meaning stretching out in the depths of Meta-art, like they are stretching out in our own mind. Mind and creative expression have approached each other in Meta-art more close than ever.

  1. *Meta-art is the one and only creative expression at the moment on par with the complexity, subtlety, layeredness and interconnectedness of the natural sciences. Not at all a small fish to chew on, not even for the greatest of minds.

  1. *The entirely paradoxical nature of Meta-art, still always leading to an awareness of inaccessible unity. How the hell is this possible? And what does it say about the contents of the human condition and its relationship with creativity?

  1. *The essential egolessness of Meta-art, which sets it apart from all other creative expressions, even seemingly egolessness  expressions like the neoplasticism of Mondrian and (especially) the Zero-art of someone like Jan Schoonhoven – to stay in ‘Dutch atmospheres’…

  1. *Meta-art, obviously rooted in a development closely connected to the workings of people like Malevich, Kandinsky and Mondrian, does not at all share its spirituality with the spirituality of these men, which was –  at some stage – highly influenced by people like Rudolf Steiner and Madame Blavatsky. Still Meta-art is most definitely characterized by a deep spirituality, be it on a much more earthly basis than the art of the named artists. The word soul, used by Kandinsky in his Über das Geistige in der Kunst (1912) as if it was as real as a piece of soap, would never come up in the mind of Meta-artist Marianne Schuit. How is it possible to differ so greatly in this, but still end up in a similar kind of deep spirituality. Is Meta-art the basis of a new kind of spirituality?

* Does Meta-art force us to rethink the basics of our colour-psychology?