About Unstinking The World Of
Peter Autoblunder

an alloy of current art forms and literary liberties

Keith Clementson

First, the overview:

Unstinking The World Of Peter Autoblunder is the catch-all title for the combination of visual art and short fiction exhibited on this site -- present and upcoming. It is presented in groupings of either 23 pieces each, or in larger groups that are multiples of 23. Individual titles and subtitles of the art can be stitched together to form an ongoing story presented in episodes. Note: Episode 4 introduces a new format for the 23-part theme. Two different sets of art are combined by grouping them like this: 3--7--3--7--3.

About the fiction:

Set in Denton, Texas, in the year 2020, a fifty-something semi-homeless woman named A.R. suffers from the same multiple personality disorder as her alternate personality, Peggy Cyp, a petulant snob who mistakenly believes she is a renowned gallerist, now retired. Peggy is an affluent widow and owns the beautiful home where A.R. lives in a tent in the back yard. A.R. and Peggy argue incessantly by leaving contentious notes for each other. It is within that imagined tussle of wits that the story is first framed.

Protagonist Peter Schawn, invisible to everyone else but Peggy and A.R., is a Glitch Agent deployed from another dimension (realm). He has been assigned by his superior to fix his cases' "glitch", i.e. the broken minds and broken lives of Peggy and A.R..

Other than his old, weathered pickup truck, Peter's only possession is a Guarneri del Gesu he has not played since he lost his job with the San Antonio Symphony some 30 years prior, fired after many warnings for being drunk on the job. Peggy allows him to live in her garage attachment for nominal rent because she is in love with him. By moving in, he hopes to better assess his assignment. But things quickly go awry, as things normally do for Peter.

About the visual art:

How the art relates to the fiction is intentionally unforthcoming at first, but illuminated later, throughout the story, by the story itself.

Within my designs, references to residential floor plans, combined with the recurring number 23, refers to two things: the 23 chromosomes contributed by each parent to make the body where a human soul temporarily resides; and the last line of Psalm 23. Thus a loose comparison of a human body to a house -- or residence, I should say -- from which we move from one location to the another. Or to whatever comes next after the event we call death; the great mystery for us all.

Theoretical Basis

"With the tiny fraction our mind sees, we form 100% of our philosophies. Even funnier is our contempt for the idiocy of others."


This excerpt from the story is the overarching theme of both the visual art and the text in "Unstinking The World Of Peter Autoblunder". And it appropriately prefaces the theoretical basis for this double helix work.

Because "Unstinking" is comprised of many individual works of visual art (helix #1), the titles and subtitles of each piece become docking points for an entirely separate work -- the fiction (helix #2). The result is a double helix opus that represents the characteristics of any new being, in this case Peter Autoblunder, the personification of philosophy itself.

Structural integrity of philosophy relies on the philospher's understanding of reality. And yet philosphers, like the rest of their Earthmates, know a grand total of an infinitesimal fraction of everything there is to know. The majority of reality, by far, is unknown to any of us. Just to name a tiny subset of the unknown, we have: dark matter; pre-Big Bang; black holes; why gravity is so weak; what happens after the event we call death; where were we before we were conceived, etc.; etc.; etc.. So our philosophers, like all of the rest of us, have always been ill-equipped to be right about anything, such as, but not limited to, aesthetic theory -- mainly because we get all of our information from each other. For instance, Dantoan notions were built on the shoulders of Hegelian notions, and so on...

Is art theory now free again to continue the dialectic of art's defining characteristics? There are few questions more deserving of a non-answer, as compared to, for instance, "what is the purpose for our temporary stay in these human bodies?" So allow me to preface my non-answer by referring to my opening statement. Here it is again: What we know is only a tiny fraction of all there is to know, so be more careful with condemning opinions. There's a considerable likelihood that such opinions are incomplete.

As Peter eventually learns the hard way, there exists in all human beings a terribly destructive part of our minds that is often referred to as the ego. It dumbs us all down by insisting on a self-image complete with supreme understanding, superiority and self-righteousness. So we stop looking for more information. But this is nothing more than a trick of one's mind. The bigger the ego, the bigger the sucker for these lies, and the bigger the barrier between one's self and one's inner Divinity. And therein lies what ultimately stinks up our world.

But am I contradicting myself by playing the philosopher? To quote Greek philosopher, and one of the founders of Cynicism, Diogenes of Sinope: "If, as they say, I am only an ignorant man trying to be a philosopher, then that may be what a philosopher is."