The Founding Father of Ontological Abstraction

It is remarkable that Grably's art so profoundly embodies the principles of “Ontological Abstraction,” yet this term was not coined or widely recognised during his lifetime. Grably’s work, with its deep exploration of existence, identity, and the human condition, resonates with a philosophical depth that seems to cry out for this exact descriptor. His ability to distill complex themes into visual forms that speak to the core of the human experience is a testament to his unique vision and profound insight. The subtlety and nuance of his compositions reveal an artist deeply engaged with questions of being and essence, presenting these ideas in a way that transcends verbal articulation. This silent, yet powerful, communication through Grably’s art underscores the tragic irony of his under-recognition during his life. It highlights a profound gap between the visual artistic world and the verbal artistic world, where Grably’s language of paint and pastel expressed what critics’ words failed to capture. Now, in retrospect, the term “Ontological Abstraction” fittingly encapsulates the thematic and stylistic core of Ehud Grably’s oeuvre, offering a lens through which we can fully appreciate his contributions to late twentieth century art history and philosophy.

What is even more unbelievable is that during the late 1970s, the 1980s, and the early 1990s, the art critic and academic community in Israel, and possibly beyond, could only, at the very most, muster rudimentary and banal terms such as “Grablyism” and “Grablyistic” to describe Ehud Grably's profound artwork. These labels, while indicative of Grably’s distinctive style, are grossly trite and fall well short of capturing the full depth and philosophical resonance of Grably’s artistic oeuvre, doing his work no justice at all. Such terms plainly simplify and trivialise Grably’s significant contributions, failing dismally to recognise the broader and more nuanced framework of “Ontological Abstraction” that is now appropriately understood to embody Grably’s life’s work. The inability to articulate Grably's profound exploration of existence, identity, and the human condition speaks to a broader issue within the art critic community of the late twentieth century, a struggle to adequately interpret and convey the significance of emerging artistic movements that defied conventional categories. This oversight not only limited the recognition that Grably received during his lifetime but also deprived the art world of a more immediate and enriched understanding of Grably’s visionary contributions. Now, as Grably’s oeuvre is being rigorously academically reassessed, as it should have been three decades ago, with the benefit of hindsight, we are now able to see for the first time how Grably was so brilliantly ahead of his time, creating a body of work that transcended the simplistic labels imparted to them at the time. It is now so patently obvious that Grably’s oeuvre demands a more sophisticated and appreciative discourse. Why?

The answer lies in the fact that in the annals of art history, certain figures emerge whose contributions are so profound that they seem to speak a language beyond their time. Ehud Grably, a name that echoed through the Israeli and international art scenes from the late 1970s to the early 1990s, is one such figure. His work, though widely acknowledged for its uniqueness, was often superficially categorised under terms like “Grablyism” and “Grablyistic,” on many occasions rendering Grably the subject of ridicule instead of praise, glory and artistic fame. It is only now, three decades after Grably’s untimely death, that we can fully appreciate Grably as the yet undisputed founding father of “Ontological Abstraction.” Faced with the conundrum of “Grablyism,” during his lifetime, critics and art historians struggled to pin down the essence of Grably’s oeuvre. The term “Grablyism” was coined as a catch-all descriptor for his distinctive style, characterised by a deep philosophical inquiry into existence and identity. However, this term, while acknowledging his individuality, did little to convey the profound intellectual and emotional depths of his work. “Grablyism” and “Grablyistic” became shorthand for a body of work that defied easy categorisation, reflecting the limitations of the critical vocabulary of the time.

Late twentieth century art experts dismally failed to recognise that Grably's art was an exploration of the fundamental questions of being, a visual and philosophical journey into the core of human existence, delving into the interplay between the organic and the artificial, the spiritual and the physical, using a minimalist yet profoundly evocative visual language. The critics' inability to move beyond simplistic labels speaks to a broader challenge in the art world, which is the difficulty of articulating revolutionary ideas that do not fit neatly into existing frameworks. Arguably there is sadly no plausible excuse for Grably having been overlooked in the manner that he has been, even considering the fact that his artworks have been lost to the world for three decades. It is with the benefit of hindsight that we now recognise Grably's work as the very cornerstone of “Ontological Abstraction,” a term that encapsulates his relentless pursuit of the essence of existence through abstract forms. “Ontological Abstraction,” as an art movement, seeks to strip away the superficial layers of reality to reveal the core truths about the human experience. Grably’s art, with its emphasis on the fundamental elements of form, colour, and composition, is a masterclass in this philosophically groundbreaking artistic approach, that the art world has been denied for three long decades.

Across Grably’s works, one can trace a progression from detailed, representational forms to more abstract, essentialist representations. Each piece, viewed individually, offers a glimpse into Grably’s evolving technique and philosophical inquiry. Collectively, they reveal a narrative arc that speaks to Grably’s deepening understanding of human identity and existence. The broader art world, including contemporaries in New York and London, was dominated by movements such as neo-expressionism and postmodernism during Grably’s most active years. Artists like Jean-Michel Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, and Robert Rauschenberg were pushing the boundaries of art in their own ways, yet none ventured into the ontological depths that Grably explored. His work stands apart not just for its stylistic elements but for its profound philosophical underpinnings. Grably’s ability to create textured, almost sculptural surfaces speaks to his mastery of medium and form. His works’ exploration of identity, rendered through abstract, almost primal shapes and colors, anticipates themes that would become central to later contemporary art and that were groundbreaking at the time, but not properly recognised as such.

Today, as we re-examine Grably's contributions, it is clear that he was not merely an artist of his time but a visionary whose work transcended the contemporary art discourse. The term “Ontological Abstraction”provides a framework to understand Grably’s relentless pursuit of the fundamental questions of existence. This recognition allows us to place Grably at the forefront of a movement that he, in many ways, pioneered alone. Grably’s untimely death left many questions unanswered, but his legacy as the founding father of “Ontological Abstraction” remains beyond dispute. His work, once inadequately labeled as “Grablyism,” and “Grablyistic” can finally be appreciated for its true artistic significance and importance. The re-evaluation of Grably’s oeuvre not only enriches our understanding of his artistic journey but also challenges us to reconsider the boundaries of abstract art. Ehud Grably’s art speaks a language that was ahead of its time, a visual dialect that questioned the very essence of existence. While the art critic community of his era grappled with superficial labels, today we can honour his true legacy. Grably’s work remains a testament to the power of art to transcend its temporal and cultural confines, offering timeless insights into the human condition. It is time that we recognise Grably not simply as an influential artist but as a visionary artistic genius who reshaped the landscape of abstract art in the late twentieth century. In a world where forgotten talents and unsung heroes often resurface to claim their rightful place in history, the story of Ehud Grably stands as a striking example of an oversight that borders on gross-negligence. Despite his pioneering contributions to late twentieth century art, particularly his creation of the novel art movement, now posthumously termed “Ontological Abstraction,” the global art community remains alarmingly disinterested in Grably and his remarkable oeuvre. This neglect is not just a loss to Israel’s cultural heritage but to the entire narrative of global modern art. 

What makes Grably’s story even more remarkable, and frankly, unbelievable, is the apparent disinterest of the global art community in Grably's forgotten oeuvre. It seems that the art world does not believe that Ehud Grably made any significant contributions to late twentieth-century art at all, nor do they acknowledge his creation of an entirely novel art movement. The indifference of prestigious institutions and publications regarding Ehud Grably is both disheartening and unacceptable, particularly in the Israeli context. The art history departments at Tel Aviv University and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem have been contacted and they have been provided with a reasonable amount of time to respond, yet nobody has shown any interest in Ehud Grably or his story. The top art history professors in Israel and Europe have not even acknowledged receipt of the information provided to them about Grably. This silence from academic institutions is a glaring omission in their duty to explore and celebrate all facets of art history. The Israel Museum in Jerusalem, a leading cultural institution, has also shown a disappointing lack of interest. When approached with material about Ehud Grably, the museum responded that they could not assist as the matter appeared to be purely academic, an excuse that raises serious questions. The museum's refusal to participate in an academic endeavour of this magnitude is an absolute disgrace. The dismissal of Grably’s work by such a prominent institution suggests a reluctance to embrace new research and acknowledge overlooked artists. What on earth does the fact that Grably’s oeuvre is being academically interrogated, and has been academically interrogated for the past five years, have to do with the fact that the museum cannot involve itself in the potential discovery of a late twentieth century Israeli master who has most probably been completely overlooked by art history? The museum must provide a plausible answer to this question.

Beyond Israeli borders, The New York Times, The Art Newspaper, and Interview Magazine have also ignored Ehud Grably’s story. Their silence is indicative of a broader issue within the art world, a resistance to revisit and reassess the contributions of artists who did not fit neatly into the narratives of their time. Abstract Productions, known for creating the “The Andy Warhol Diaries” documentary series, has similarly turned a blind eye to Grably’s legacy and the potential story of his significant and overlooked artistic importance. This collective indifference is unacceptable. Ehud Grably’s work deserves recognition and study, not just for its artistic merit but for its groundbreaking exploration of human existence through art. Grably’s story is one of perseverance, innovation, and a relentless pursuit of truth, qualities that should resonate deeply within the art community. In light of the indifference shown by prestigious institutions towards Ehud Grably’s groundbreaking contributions to the art world, accountability is imperative. 

If these institutions and publications and media houses and art critics genuinely believe that Grably's art is meaningless and worthless, they must present valid and plausible arguments to support their views. The dismissive response from The Art Newspaper, stating that, “If anybody is interested, they will contact you,” is also unacceptable. This response fails to address the core issue of why nobody is interested? The pertinent question that must be asked is why institutions and critics are unwilling to engage in constructive academic dialogue about Ehud Grably and his artistic oeuvre. It is time for a brave journalist in Israel to take on this story, to reach out to all the institutions and people that have ignored Grably’s legacy, and to obtain official comments and statements from all of them as to why they refuse to acknowledge or investigate Ehud Grably’s possible contributions to late twentieth century art. The global art community, including academic and cultural institutions, owes it to Grably and to the history of art to provide thoughtful, reasoned responses, not plain and simple ignorance. This story is not simply about honouring an overlooked artist, it is about maintaining the integrity of art history and ensuring that it remains an inclusive and comprehensive field of study. By challenging these institutions to properly justify their blatant neglect, we can foster a much-needed dialogue that not only re-examines Ehud Grably’s oeuvre, but that also addresses the broader issues of how art history is curated and taught. Let us not allow indifference to erase the legacy of a true visionary artist. It is time for the art world to confront its oversights, take responsibility for them, and to ensure that artists like Ehud Grably receive the recognition they deserve.

The reluctance of art institutions and the art media to engage with Grably's legacy highlights a significant flaw in how art history is approached and taught. It is imperative that these institutions reconsider their stance and acknowledge the importance of re-evaluating overlooked contributions. The art world must be open to revisiting its past, embracing new research, and celebrating artists like Ehud Grably, whose work challenges and expands our understanding of art and existence. Ehud Grably’s art, that so profoundly speaks for itself, shouts “Ontological Abstraction” from the proverbial rooftops, yet during his lifetime, no one could articulate this groundbreaking artistic vision. Now, three decades later, this pioneering, overlooked vision is being handed to the upper echelons of the global art community on a “Silver Platter” and none of them could be bothered to engage in any constructive academic and artistic criticism about Ehud Grably and his oeuvre? The aforementioned is a sad and pathetic poignant reminder of the inertia and resistance that often plague established institutions when confronted with innovative ideas that challenge conventional narratives. The term “Ontological Abstraction” perfectly encapsulates Grably’s unique approach, melding deep philosophical inquiries with abstract forms to explore the essence of existence. Yet, the fact that this vision remained unrecognised and unarticulated during Grably’s lifetime speaks volumes about the myopic tendencies within academia and the art world. Now, with clear and compelling evidence of Grably’s pioneering work, it is disheartening to witness the same indifference and dismissiveness from institutions that are supposed to champion artistic innovation and historical accuracy. 

The reluctance of these prestigious entities to engage with Grably’s legacy is not simply a disservice to his memory but a stark reflection of the systemic issues that hinder the recognition of truly avant-garde artistic contributions. This apathy undermines the very purpose of these institutions, which is to discover, preserve, and celebrate artistic excellence. By ignoring Grably’s contributions, they are perpetuating a cycle of neglect and oversight that risks erasing significant chapters from the annals of art history. Global academic institutions, art critics, and journalists alike are urgently being called upon to acknowledge and rectify the glaring oversight in the recognition of Ehud Grably, a pioneering artist whose profound exploration of human existence through “Ontological Abstraction” has laid the foundation for a revolutionary art movement. This continued neglect of Grably’s contributions is not merely an oversight but a grave and egregious mistake that perpetuates a myopic and incomplete view of late twentieth century art history. By disregarding Grably’s unparalleled body of work, these gatekeepers of cultural discourse are denying future generations an invaluable opportunity to engage with an artist who uniquely captured the essence of human emotion and existential struggle. Grably’s work undeniably stands as a powerful testament to the transformative potential of art. His pieces delve deeply into the human condition, offering profound insights that resonate with the core of our shared experiences. To continue to neglect Grably’s legacy is to stifle a critical narrative in the evolution of contemporary art, and to fail to recognise the full spectrum of artistic achievement. The impact of Grably’s work transcends mere aesthetics, it challenges viewers to confront and reflect on the complexities of existence. 

Ignoring Ehud Grably is not simply a disservice to his memory but a disservice to the entire global art community. It deprives scholars, students, and art enthusiasts of the opportunity to understand and appreciate a unique artistic vision that significantly contributes to our understanding of art and life. Grably’s legacy offers profound insights into the human experience that are more relevant now than ever before. This paragraph serves as an open invitation to critics and scholars alike to present their views on Ehud Grably’s work. If there are those who believe that Grably was an inconsequential artist whose oeuvre lacks merit, who assert that he made no significant contribution to late twentieth-century art, and who argue that a re-assessment of his work is a futile endeavour, such opinions are welcomed. However, any such assertions must be supported with rigorous, academically sound evidence. It is time for the upper echelons of the art community to engage in a meaningful dialogue about Grably's legacy, to confront his art with the seriousness it warrants, and to either validate or refute his pioneering role in the realm of “Ontological Abstraction” with substantiated and thoughtful academic critique. This is a call for intellectual bravery and scholarly integrity, let us honour it with the depth and rigour that Ehud Grably's overlooked vision deserves. It is also time for investigative journalists to speak truth to power.

Having considered Ehud Grably's oeuvre carefully, the only plausible reason that might justify stating that he was an inconsequential figure in art history would be a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis demonstrating that his work did not influence his contemporaries or subsequent generations of artists. This would involve showing that his themes, techniques, and innovations did not resonate within the art community, were not recognised or adopted by other artists, and did not contribute to the broader evolution of artistic movements. Without such evidence, dismissing Grably's contributions as inconsequential would lack substantive grounding and fail to engage with the significant themes and unique approaches evident in his body of work. However, the assertion that Ehud Grably's contributions to art history are inconsequential lacks merit, as any such assertions are rooted in a circular argument that fails to acknowledge the context of Grably’s obscurity for the past three decades. A comprehensive, evidence-based analysis could indeed demonstrate that Grably’s work did not influence his contemporaries or subsequent generations of artists, but this is not due to a lack of significance. Not at all, instead, it is because Grably’s themes, techniques, and innovations were hidden from the world for three decades following his untimely death. During this time, the art community made no known efforts to keep Grably’s legacy and his remarkable contributions alive. They simply allowed his art to die with him. Thus, while there may be ample evidence to dismiss Grably’s contributions as inconsequential based on their immediate impact at the time of his death in 1994, this evidence does not account for the fact that Grably's artworks were never given the opportunity to be appreciated, studied, or integrated into the broader artistic discourse, through no fault of his own. The global art community is now being handed the substantive grounding that it requires, in the form of Grably’s entire known oeuvre, which is unequivocally necessary to properly engage with the significant themes and unique approaches evident in Grably’s body of work. Yet, dishearteningly, nobody seems to be interested. It is unfathomable in the extreme.

While it might seem baffling that the most esteemed art historians and critics would overlook an art history discovery of such potential significance, there could be several reasons, ranging from institutional inertia to skepticism about unproven claims. Some possible explanations for this reluctance probably include: (i) Institutional inertia, as established institutions often have deeply ingrained procedures and hierarchies. Introducing a previously unknown artist into the canon of art history requires substantial shifts in these structures, which can be slow to change; (ii) Art historians and critics are trained to approach new claims with a healthy degree of skepticism. Without widespread acknowledgment during his lifetime, Grably's work might be seen as lacking the necessary historical context or contemporary validation to warrant serious re-evaluation; (iii) Engaging with an artist who did not receive recognition during their lifetime can be seen as a professional risk. Critics and historians might fear that advocating for Grably’s significance could be seen as speculative or lacking scholarly rigour; (iv) Evaluating and promoting a previously unknown artist requires significant resources, such as time, funding, and scholarly attention. Institutions might prioritise artists and movements that already have an established place in the historical narrative, where the returns on investment are more predictable; (v) Art history, like many academic fields, can be resistant to changes that challenge the established narrative. Grably’s posthumous recognition might require a re-evaluation of certain periods or movements, which could meet with resistance from scholars who have built their careers on existing frameworks; (vi) Despite efforts to bring Grably’s work to light, it is possible that it hasn’t reached the right eyes or ears. The art world is vast and often siloed, without effective advocacy and networking, even significant discoveries can remain overlooked; (vii) There can be an inherent bias toward artists from certain regions or cultural backgrounds. As an Israeli artist, Grably might not receive the same level of attention as artists from more traditionally influential art hubs like Paris, London, or New York; (viii) The academic and art criticism fields can be insular, with gatekeepers who control what is considered worthy of study and attention. Breaking through these barriers can be challenging without the endorsement of a few key figures. These key figures are encouraged to show themselves. Ultimately, while these explanations might provide some context, they highlight the importance of not being irresponsible when dealing with matters of this nature. With all due respect to all concerned, none of the aforementioned reasons are good enough, or in any way even remotely serve as acceptable justifications for ignoring Ehud Grably.

Despite the discussions and analyses surrounding Ehud Grably's oeuvre, it remains profoundly irresponsible, short-sighted, and narrow-minded for the global art establishment to continue ignoring his work. Grably's contributions to the art world, particularly his pioneering role in “Ontological Abstraction,”deserve thorough examination and recognition. This neglect by the art community reveals a troubling unwillingness to engage with his oeuvre, conduct proper due diligence of his biographical information, and potentially rewrite a chapter of late twentieth-century art history. The art world, with its esteemed institutions and critics, should be ashamed of such dismissive attitudes. Grably's work transcends conventional artistic boundaries, offering a unique and profound exploration of existential themes through “Ontological Abstraction.” His innovative approach, which intertwines abstraction with metaphysical inquiry, sets him apart from his contemporaries and marks him as a visionary artist. Ignoring Grably's contributions not only does a disservice to his legacy but also deprives the art world of a richer, more diverse understanding of late twentieth-century art. The primary excuse for overlooking Grably appears to be the perceived inconvenience of engaging with his work. This stance is untenable. Art history is replete with instances of posthumous recognition, where overlooked artists eventually received their due acclaim. The inconvenience of re-evaluating Grably's work pales in comparison to the injustice of ignoring a significant artistic contribution. The vast magnitude of Grably’s work and its implications for art history demand attention and respect. The failure to conduct proper due diligence on Grably's biographical information and oeuvre highlights a significant lapse in the responsibilities of art institutions and art critics. The available information on Grably is extensive and meticulously documented. The reluctance to engage with this material reflects a deeper issue within the art world, a resistance to challenge established narratives and embrace new, potentially paradigm-shifting discoveries. This lack of intellectual curiosity and commitment to artistic truth is unacceptable.

Yes, acknowledging Grably's contributions would necessitate a re-evaluation of certain aspects of late twentieth-century art history. This is not a task to be feared but embraced. Art history, like any field of study, must remain dynamic and open to new insights. The potential rewriting of a chapter in art history is an opportunity to enrich our understanding and appreciation of the period. It is a chance to honour an artist who, despite being overlooked, made groundbreaking contributions that resonate with contemporary themes and concerns. The global art establishment must recognise the irresponsibility of its current stance towards Grably. Esteemed art historians, critics, and institutions must rise to the occasion and engage with Grably's work with the seriousness it deserves. They must provide valid, evidence-based arguments if they believe Grably's art is inconsequential. Dismissing his contributions without proper examination is not only intellectually lazy but also a grave disservice to the principles of art history and scholarship.

The art world must confront its shortcomings and rectify the oversight of Ehud Grably's contributions. The vast magnitude of his work, particularly in “Ontological Abstraction,” cannot be ignored. It is imperative for the art community to engage with Grably's oeuvre, conduct a thorough due diligence, and potentially reframe our understanding of late twentieth-century art. The time for dismissiveness and neglect has passed. It is now time for accountability, recognition, and the celebration of Grably's remarkable artistic legacy. There is extensive documentation in respect of the provenance and authenticity of Grably’s oeuvre. The provenance of Grably’s oeuvre is unimpeachable and there is no good reason for any of his artworks to be viewed with suspicion. The fact that the art world values authenticity and verifiable histories, and that gaps in Grably’s documented legacy could hinder acceptance is all the more reason to welcome Grably into the annuls of art history, not to ignore him and reject him without good reason.

Schulman, M & Various AI GPTs