Grant's account of Spare

[Deleted]

How accurate is Grant's portrayal of Spare? How do we know that he wasn't simply making it all up to suit his own agenda?

[Michael Staley]

I think that Grant's account of Spare is accurate. The main account is via the diary entries and exchange of correspondence published in the first part of Zos Speaks!.

[Caroline]

and it is an accurate account of what Spare told the Grants, and their an accurate account of their friendship, experience of him and their observations memories of that friendship.

[Babaluma]

Agree, the account in Zos Speaks is extremely down to earth, and comes across as very trustworthy. Stories have been corroborated by other parties who knew Spare at the time, and the mountains of research that have been done since then. But of course, we can never really know anything.

[Emma Doeve]

Grant – once he (and Steffi) were aware of Spare’s existence and his extraordinary work – on more than one occasion thought and no doubt felt, that Spare had uncannily visualized what he, Grant, had imagined or even seen in vision and dream. For example, in ‘Against the Light’ one of the characters (Dr. Black) says: “the soul abides outside time.” We are entering a scene of deep atavistic memory, the location of a lost Grimoire. A sudden clamour transports the characters into another world:



"They both turned simultaneously

as if to look through the open window depicted by the

artist. The question remained unanswered. A rising sound

pervaded the room. I gazed at the picture, hesitantly at first.

A storm had gathered in the forest, flashes of lightning flickered

over the trees which heaved in a violent wind blowing in

from the sea. The beam of the lighthouse at Orford, beyond

Rendlesham, probed the darkness, alive now with figures

that threaded the pines in a sinister procession."



Grant goes on:



I was reminded of a Druid scene painted by Austin Spare, and

something in my memory clicked. Spare had seen what I was

now observing. Somewhere, in a shadowy wood, that artist of

the nightside had captured this self-same suggestion of spectral

animation. I heard distant chimes, muffled, beneath water."

[Vadge Moore]

Caroline, Emma or Michael- What of Phineas Black? Was he a real personage or a creation for the purposes of the storyline?

[Aleph]

 
 Emma - these are the very same Druids who were threading the pines in sinister procession. They are pictured here in a twilight wilderness, en route to the wood and the novel.

[Marc]

Has anyone read Zos Speaks! ? I'm reading it now from cover to cover for the first time and find it excellent. It's giving me a much greater appreciation and understanding of Spare's works.

[Gregory Peters]

Zos Soeaks! Was my first introduction to his work, after reading about him in the typhonian trilogies. Spare gives visual radiance to the typhonian gnosis, not unlike falling into the depths of starry space

[Michael Staley]

I love Zos Speaks!. The use of letters and diary extracts in the first section, to document the relations between Spare and the Grants, is absorbing. In my opinion, Spare's writing in the late 1940s and the 1950s is much clearer and comprehensible than his earlier writings, such as The Book of Pleasure and The Focus of Life.

A great deal of credit must go to the Grants for the material by Spare in the book. Apart perhaps from The Logomachy, these weren't complete works left by Spare, waiting only to be published. Rather, Spare left a diversity of material which was assembled and edited.

[Deleted]

John Constable (actor) has recently been delivering a one Man show: 'Spare' about the great Man himself.
Some more dates have been released for this performance at Treadwells (London) is anyone is interested:

FOUR PERFORMANCES ONLY!
21-22 and 29-30 November 2013

21: www.treadwells-london.com/event/spare-a-one-man-play-3/
22: www.treadwells-london.com/event/spare-one-man-play-november-22nd/
29: www.treadwells-london.com/event/spare-one-man-play-november-29/
30: www.treadwells-london.com/event/spare-one-man-play-november-30/

Doors from 7pm. Performance 7.30.

'What if this play, cunningly disguised as a biographical drama, is, in fact, the vehicle for a practical demonstration of Chaos Magic? The play of Mr Austin Osman Spare's unconditioned mind, even now unfolding before our soon to be astonished eyes.'
(from SPARE by John Constable)

John Constable’s new solo play is a paranormal comedy inspired by the life and work of Austin Osman Spare. The play is set in the artist’s studio at the Elephant and Castle, on the night it was bombed during the 1941 blitz. In the course of the night, Spare’s greatest act of chaos magic unleashes unpredictable consequences. He battles with the spectre of Adolf Hitler and other entities, on his journey to a consummation ‘beyond all, nothing, and neither neither’.

‘SPARE is an extraordinary, visionary work of art and magic… I was enthralled throughout... I cannot recommend the play enough.’ - (Sarah-Jayne Farrer)

John Constable is a poet, playwright and performer, best-known for The Southwark Mysteries, performed in Shakespeare's Globe and Southwark Cathedral, and for his acclaimed stage adaptation of Gormenghast. His previous solo shows include I Was An Alien Sex God - 'mind-blowingly weird' - (The Independent)

Sarah-Jayne Farrer recently interviewed John, who talked about 'Spare' and his perceptions around this great artist and his life / work. The full interview can be read at 'In The Chime Hours' and is supported by visual contributions from a number of UK artists:

inthechimehours.com/2013/10/09/going-spare/

Enjoy !

[ixomaxip252]

I thought Zos Speaks was excellent and enjoyable. With several biographies on the market one starts to get a more complete picture of the man. I think Phil Baker's book is also very good but personally I think it deconstructs the legend of Spare too much rendering him as more of a myth. 'Michelangelo in a Teacup' is brilliant- a very intimate account by the author as a close friend of Spare's with some very surprising anecdotes. I have slight reservations about his popularisation now because it has come too late- where were all these people who think he is wonderful when he needed them? I mean this as a rhetorical question. It seems that people cannot recognise a great artist when they see one, instead we have people fawning over an unmade bed or a lump of lard on a chair.

[hamal]

Nov 24, 2013 21:42:00 GMT ixomaxip252 said:

I have slight reservations about his popularisation now because it has come too late- where were all these people who think he is wonderful when he needed them? I mean this as a rhetorical question. It seems that people cannot recognise a great artist when they see one, instead we have people fawning over an unmade bed or a lump of lard on a chair.

I agree, unfortunately it's the same for so many artists. Only after their death is their talent recognised. I suppose it demonstrates that they are ahead of their time.

[Michael Staley]

Nov 24, 2013 21:42:00 GMT ixomaxip252 said:

I thought Zos Speaks was excellent and enjoyable. With several biographies on the market one starts to get a more complete picture of the man. I think Phil Baker's book is also very good but personally I think it deconstructs the legend of Spare too much rendering him as more of a myth. 'Michelangelo in a Teacup' is brilliant- a very intimate account by the author as a close friend of Spare's with some very surprising anecdotes. I have slight reservations about his popularisation now because it has come too late- where were all these people who think he is wonderful when he needed them? I mean this as a rhetorical question. It seems that people cannot recognise a great artist when they see one, instead we have people fawning over an unmade bed or a lump of lard on a chair.

I was disappointed with Phil's biography precisely because of this "deconstruction" - an ungainly term, amd an ungainly concept. The book is quite cynical about Spare really. I love Spare's artwork in all its diversity, and the pictures I love in particular are those which encompass and quintessentialise his mystical vision, and I don't see how you can write a meaningful study of Spare - whether a biography or an account of his work - without an interest in mysticism which is at the core of his work.

I agree with you about 'Michaelangelo in a Teacup' - an affectionate series of anecdotes written by someone who was a friend of Spare's over many years and provided him with financial as well as emotional support. I've been lucky enough to know people who, like Letchford, knew and supported Spare over a number of years, and their accounts and anecdotes of Spare are more insightful than any biographical study, deconstructional or otherwise.

It's common though that an artist is not appreciated in his lifetime. It's gratifying that there is more interest in his work, and that in market terms his art is more appreciated.

When it comes to unmade beds, piles of bricks, mutilated animals in formaldehyde, etc etc et bloody cetera, these are merely transient tastes which come and go. Great art though has something substantial to say beyond such posturings, and the best of Spare falls into that category.

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

Nov 24, 2013 21:42:00 GMT ixomaxip252 said:

I have slight reservations about his popularisation now because it has come too late- where were all these people who think he is wonderful when he needed them? I mean this as a rhetorical question. It seems that people cannot recognise a great artist when they see one, instead we have people fawning over an unmade bed or a lump of lard on a chair.

I have always been under the impression that Spare was appreciated briefly during his short public career being praised as the next big thing in the art world in 1904. Then he published The Anathema of Zos in 1927 which seemed to be his own way of saying "piss off" to that particular establishment of snobs and hypocrites. He seemed to have turned his back on his own potential "fame" all on his own. Personally I think it's only fitting in his case. He didn't seem to be the type to have used infiltration into the snobbery and tastelessness of the art world to his advantage (i.e. to make almost an artistic joke of its spectacle) like a Dali or a Warhol were capable of doing so well.

I might also add that no one needs to be recognized as a great artist. Who cares? What I would be more concerned with recognizing is the meaning an artist has evoked and is attempting to frame.

[Michael Staley]

Nov 25, 2013 4:57:56 GMT Nalyd Khezr Bey said:

I have always been under the impression that Spare was appreciated briefly during his short public career being praised as the next big thing in the art world in 1904. Then he published The Anathema of Zos in 1927 which seemed to be his own way of saying "piss off" to that particular establishment of snobs and hypocrites. He seemed to have turned his back on his own potential "fame" all on his own. Personally I think it's only fitting in his case. He didn't seem to be the type to have used infiltration into the snobbery and tastelessness of the art world to his advantage (i.e. to make almost an artistic joke of its spectacle) like a Dali or a Warhol were capable of doing so well.

It's true that for a while that as a young man Spare was quite highly thought of. However, like many artists, writers etc of the time, he found that after the First World War tastes were no longer what they were before the trauma. Thus The Anathema of Zos was in my opinion more his reaction to being spurned: turning his back on a fame and fortune that had already to a large extent passed him by.

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

That seems to be a fair enough assessment as well Mick and probably more accurate in light of what happened. I've not read the more recent biographies of Spare that were mentioned above. My own researches of Spare have concentrated more on the Grant's presentation and Spare's own writings and artwork. But since this discussion is about Kenneth Grant's account of Spare I might point out that what I said above seems in line with what Grant said about the Anathema of Zos time period on page 18 of Images and Oracles of AOS (2003 edition). Steffi Grant also seems to paint a similar image of Spare in the introduction to Zos Speaks! mentioning his "self-imposed exile" a couple of times. Just to be clear how I personally came to that impression but it is just an impression either way. That impression is probably more a part of the mythic narrative of Zos as opposed to the accurate details of Spare's life. Sometimes I find the mythic narrative more relevant or at least more interesting.

[movebywillalone]

Nov 3, 2013 21:46:43 GMT Michael Staley said:

I love Zos Speaks!. The use of letters and diary extracts in the first section, to document the relations between Spare and the Grants, is absorbing. In my opinion, Spare's writing in the late 1940s and the 1950s is much clearer and comprehensible than his earlier writings, such as The Book of Pleasure and The Focus of Life.

A great deal of credit must go to the Grants for the material by Spare in the book. Apart perhaps from The Logomachy, these weren't complete works left by Spare, waiting only to be published. Rather, Spare left a diversity of material which was assembled and edited.

[movebywillalone]

What is the painting on the cover of Zos Speaks?

[Michael Staley]

It's called Druidesque, I believe, and was bought from Spare by Kenneth's sister at the 1955 exhibition.

[movebywillalone]

Wow interesting I love that image was Kenneth's sister also involved in the occult?

[Michael Staley]

Interested but not involved so far as I'm aware.

[Nathaniel]

As someone who had every oppurtunity for fame and fortune (my father made Superman fly in the first movie, and worked on almost every 80s music video you care to mention- plus I had a brief moment of popularity in UK occultism), but turned my back on 'the establishment' long ago, I see no reason to doubt that Spare's exile was self imposed. I find myself in a very similiar position!

I think Spare was simply too much of a nice guy to want much to do with Crowley, occultism, or the art world in general.

Regarding his fame during his own time; I remember seeing an exhibition of Beardsley's work in the V&A.. the last picture shown was a portraite of Beardsley's wife, which B had commissioned.. it was by A.O.S.

[N0T 2]

Nov 3, 2013 21:46:43 GMT Michael Staley said:

I love Zos Speaks!. The use of letters and diary extracts in the first section, to document the relations between Spare and the Grants, is absorbing. In my opinion, Spare's writing in the late 1940s and the 1950s is much clearer and comprehensible than his earlier writings, such as The Book of Pleasure and The Focus of Life.

A great deal of credit must go to the Grants for the material by Spare in the book. Apart perhaps from The Logomachy, these weren't complete works left by Spare, waiting only to be published. Rather, Spare left a diversity of material which was assembled and edited.

I'm dipping into this book again presently - it is such an epic. The personal relationships, the atmosphere and nuanced context gives a richer and more authentic presentation of his magic* than would be otherwise possible.

I'm very thankful this book exists. Spare's early writings are impossible to decipher without additional help - the very type of help such as a young Kenneth and Steffi Grant elicited from the man himself over several years at the end of his life, and then after some decades of practice, distilled into this book for our benefit.

It is much more profound and interesting than the many unrecognisably glib reductions of his sigil doctrine (as perhaps misrepresented by those who never knew him) would suggest.

The personal relationships involved are central to the material in question, a fine old tradition in magic, and in my view the quality of transmission of the vast body of magic which Spare learned and developed in his own way benefited greatly from the process of his adapting it for the comprehension of the young Grant couple.

For me there are parallel yawning gulfs between the nonsense in postmodern art (the interminable halved cows and so on) and Spare's art, and the nonsense in "postmodern magic" and Spare's magic. You don't see postmodern artists claiming to be carrying on Spare's tradition, so why the "postmodern magic" authors make their claims is anyone's guess.

Spare was the greatest traditional draughtsman of his day, the original primarch of Surrealism, and a traditional Sorceror in the most arcane sense, old hags, Salem, Native American spirits and all.  About as far from the pickled cow postmoderns as you can get really.


*Magic is not, maybe never, a "system"!

[stephen]

Zos Speaks ! is, without any doubt, not only a beautiful book, but an essential resource for understanding AOS and his relationship with the Grants and a good deal else about him besides.

Nathaniel speculates:  "I think Spare was simply too much of a nice guy to want much to do with Crowley, occultism, or the art world in general."

I don't know about this.  He certainly didn't gell with Crowley (in any sense of the word, , and while he is infamous for having turned his back on the art world, he was more than happy to get back into it in the latter years of his life.  How do we define "a nice guy" ?, Spare was certainly a survivor to the best of his abilities.

The portrait of him rendered by Kenneth Grant in Grist to Whose Mill ? is something of a revelation and well worth taking in to consideration.  In fact, this is yet another case of KG's fictional work providing some invaluable insights into the realities of various occult personalities and the magical scene of 1950s London.  Personally, I find it a more satisfying read than The Stellar Lode with it's considerable debt of inspiration to both Bram Stoker and Arthur Machen (not that there's anything terribly wrong with that).