Interview with Barry William Hale

The artist William Barry Hale is producing some of the most compelling work in the magickal/occult field. Plenty has been written on his colourful upbringing, and it is not the intent of this piece to re-tell the stories of the experiences that have led him to his current position. Moreover this article focuses on his views on art and ritual, two areas that are deeply connected in his work.

Having been a Thelemite for over twenty years, I ask what led him to this particular path; “I think it pretty much found me, really. I was interested in occultism – I’ve always had a fascination with that kind of thing since I was quite young – and then I stumbled across Crowley, and I pretty much crashed into the O.T.O in a pub.” He laughs as he recollects the memory, adding “And then the next thing I knew I went to a Gnostic Mass then went away for a year or so and read and thought about things. It was kind of interesting because I was really at a stage in my life when, I was involved in a few different things when I was younger.” I interject to ask if this involved ‘witchy-poo’ stuff (a technical term for those unfamiliar with the subject). “Not really witchy stuff. I grew up in the suburbs and was hanging out with old women from the spiritualist churches and the Theosophical Society and people who had their own thing going on; divining for Bach Flower remedies; astral travelling and things like that, and lots of different influences, hanging out with those…mainly those people were very old; I didn’t really know anyone who was young!” He cracks up again – “I was only 14, you know?!”

So what does it actually mean for you, to be a Thelemite? “I think the tenets are fairly clear; the way the O.T.O or Crowley puts it down pretty clearly that his modus operandi is for everyone to discover their true Will and to do it. I kind of resonated with Crowley’s writing and spent a long time in that initiatic tradition and found it very rewarding and I got my stripes, I suppose…”

Like any creative spirit, he tells me that he’s “always been an artist. Since I was young, I’ve always had a pen in my hand, ever since I can remember, I’ve always been an artist…”

I mention that I’ve interviewed a number of Thelemites over the years, and they’re not always cool with the question, but I ask it anyway; what grade are you in? He responds in a diplomatic fashion “It’s not really something that people talk about but I’ve been a Lodge Master, and I’m a Bishop in the O.T.O so can pretty much tell you where I’m at…” - he’s laughing again; bloody magicians! “You can usually work it out by what you’ve done; if you know enough about the system you can pretty much work out where I might be…”

Can you tell me about the sorts of ritual work you do? “I’ve really experimented widely, beginning with the Thelemic corpus of rituals, like a lot of people do when they first get into this sort of stuff, so my early magickal career was pretty much exploring the Thelemic ceremonial magickal tradition and that sort of thing.” He neatly draws the relationship between the rituals of Thelema with the Golden Dawn and Enochian magic, patiently explaining the connections with eastern and western practices; as he puts it “It really gives you an exposure to, or you can get a base, that opens you up into an exploration where you can really go where you want to…I’ve always been fascinated with the mechanics of magick; what makes things work, and I’m quite interested in early grimoires and divers books of spells and various different traditions; I was quite interested in that sort of stuff aside from the more mystically orientated stuff, and so as I tended to go on I tended to move towards more specialised areas that become research and magickal practices that are very unique to yourself – or myself, anyway – and I’ve always had a fairly idiosyncratic approach as well…”

As with other interviews with occultists and magicians, there are pauses as he tries to explain his methods – I have coined this difficulty as an attempt at ‘effing the ineffable’ – it’s pretty hard trying to bring it all down to an intellectual or rational level. “Yeah, I guess I’m not really sure what type of ritual I perform; I suppose I perform rituals that are from the Western esoteric tradition but then a lot of the rituals that I do are kind of informed by the process, so I’ll get information or I’ll get direction on how best something should be done and then I integrate that, so it’s like an ongoing process depending on what I’m doing. A lot of my ritual [work] might be an operation which is based on research to a particular magical system or aspect of a magical system. One example might be an investigation of the Enochian magical alphabet, something like that.”

Do you incorporate visual art in to your rituals easily - is it something that you feel is the thing to do, for you? “Yeah, definitely. I think the ritual magick tradition – the first thing you think about is the magickal circle – or a ‘triangle of the art’ where a spirit is supposed to manifest and various other sorts of altars; magickal sigils; you’re building up an aesthetic…”

Would you agree that there’s a degree of theatrics involved? “I’m sure there is; when you look at the core of it, each of the senses are basically stimulated to get you in to a higher state of consciousness so you’re always using visual aids, and also I think it’s very important one. Obviously you can do it with your eyes shut, and to perform a ritual astrally, and a lot of times that’s the aim; to perform it in your astral body, then the actual ritual space that you’ve constructed, and you’ve constructed each time and made and built and seen so many times, becomes very cemented when you have to imagine it or build it in your astral vision. So in another way, that’s another way of looking at it. But I think there’s a strong aesthetic component to my stuff because I love any kind of artistic expression; the thing about religions and very different spiritual forms is that they all have a visual element or an inspired kind of an aesthetic that seems to be a signature from of the inspiration they get from their own traditions. I think it’s an important component. You know the drawings of magickal talismans? There’s a magickal functionality to them, they’re designed to attract a particular force to a particular object…”

Was this the purpose of jewellery that accompanied your Legion 49 work? “There was a talismanic object that came from a piece of artwork that I was working; a Japanese jewellers  contacted me; they do jewellery and they also do stuff where they work with reconstructing Shinto statues and stuff like that so their metal-work is really connected with scared objects that are used in the Shinto tradition, and they also have a great interest in western magic so that was just a beautiful collaboration that came out of that…” Sadly I was too poor to afford one of them – perhaps next time…

When incorporating art into your ritual-work, is there a particular format or process that you go through when selecting work? “When I build up a ritual space, I usually do that from scratch every time; I’ll build up a magickal circle or a space that represents the manifestation of a particular spirit – I think the thing to remember is that the function of art, the function that it takes within the ritual – it’s more than just creating a sense of drama or an aesthetic drama, it has a functional and that’s usually to create a magickal demarcation of a space that you’re working in, which becomes a sacred space - or another space where it’s to constrain a conjuration of a spirit, and if it’s not constrained then you’re not working effectively.” He also adds that all manner of mischief can occur as a result of unconstrained spirits. I suspect anyone who practices can identify with that.

“So in a sense , when people see that stuff; they might see it in a movie or they might see a picture and they might think ‘this is a dramatic kind of thing’ – and there is a tradition of dramatic ritual in the western tradition – but it’s important to remember, well, when I’m doing it, they’re [the artworks] ephemeral; they’re usually destroyed or remade each time, and they’ll be constructed from scratch each time I do a particular ritual, or they might change over a period of time. So the construction of the ritual space or the aesthetic space, which is a magickal space, is an integral part of the magickal work itself, and so as you learn more mysteries about what you might be working with are revealed, you refine it, it becomes more refined so everything becomes a more finely attuned vehicle to have the effect or to maintain a communication or whatever your particular magickal operation is about, so it’s refined and it transforms. And in the actual making of it, you often find that you’ll make different aesthetic decisions and you’ll be getting information regarding ‘it should be this way’ and I think that goes equally, there are other magical augmentations; people might build an altar that is a space of worship or something like that, to a particular aspect of divinity or whatever, or they might construct a container for an elemental to be housed. For me, the art is sometimes produced during the ritual itself so I might not have a signature of a particular spirit that I might want to work with, and during the ritual I might want to get the actual sigil or signature of the spirit so I can then better call that spirit again, so it’s a magickal glyph that serves as a connection to be able to call forth that [spirit]. And in another way, you can look at Voudon veves, they basically become a mouth of the loa so they’re fed, they’re a point of ingress – or egress – they’re a gateway. And I think there’s also been times when the inspiration from the ritual itself has sort of fuelled my artistic expression and I’ve started making art or drawing on the ground and stuff like that, and that activity, so sometimes it will be about getting a spiritual sigil but other times, in those particular instances – it’s happened on a number of occasions – the act of drawing, that becomes the actual battery that keeps me in that particular space or in communication with that particular spirit.” We have limited time for the interview and he notes “There are so many aspects of how art functions or how I would use art in a ritual space so it’s hard to cover it all…”

Is there a distinction for you between the work you produce in a ritual setting and (for want of a better term) ‘every day’ art? “For me, all of my art is either a direct result of my ritual and magickal practice or research and investigation, so that all of the art that I do produce emerges from those concerns or the practice itself. Something that I might draw on the ground or something that I might articulate, kind of like a sigilic spell or sigilic composition or something; a talisman or I might use a ritual space where I kind of gird myself or wind myself around, magickal symbols and stuff, but then I might do that again on a canvas or a piece of glass or whatever that might be. I suppose it’s like using different tools to produce it, so I might paint it…is there a distinction? Well, yeah, there is; I suppose that some of the art I would make in ritual space is ephemeral; it might be captured with a photograph or film – or it might not at all. But where it doesn’t become ephemeral, is that I will incorporate those considerations into other art. I might paint that – it might be a slightly different version – or I might make a sculpture with a basis of something from that, so it informs my aesthetic art-making process directly – it might be presented in a different forum, like I might have an art exhibition that’s basically been inspired by, or come out of, a particular magickal working or something that I’ve researched or done stuff with over a period of time.”

So you get to witness the evolution of an artwork or sigil from conception through inspiration to completion? “Yeah, sure – if it’s a spirit signature then usually it’s exactly the same, if it’s sigilic writing or creating something or if I’m doing stuff with the Enochian alphabet or creating I’ll do it different every time. Sometimes I’ll essentially be doing the same thing over and over again but the way it comes out is totally different, every time…”

Some of Barry’s work is currently in the Fulgur Esoterica I:MAGE show in London; sadly neither of us is able to make it across the water to see it. We get into a bit of a discussion about the Crowley/Palermo exhibition and the Traces of Sacred exhibition at the Pompidou in Paris, which as Barry points out “was shown at Buratti Fine Arts in Perth.” I should pimp the fact that Barry is also represented by Buratti and Fulgur, and in order to accomplish that I leave you with Barry’s final words: “And that show’s coming to Sydney in November and NOKO [another project which Barry is involved with]is going to do some performance and I’m going to have a few works in the Recreating The Abbey, and then there’s the S H Ervin Gallery, which is going to be the big show; Windows to the Sacred – it’s gonna be a major show…” My advice? Be there or be slightly rectangular.

It was a pleasure talking to you, Mr Hale. 

All images supplied by the artist.

The Portrayal of Aleister Crowley by the Press During His Life-time and Beyond; A Real or Imagined Fear?

How was Aleister Crowley portrayed by the press during his lifetime and after his death? Were the press reporting fairly and accurately on Crowley? Did they express the genuine concerns of a nation, or were they merely indulging in sensationalism to sell more papers? By examining the archives of various publications and comparing the coverage of Crowley against the coverage of other similar events (including theatre reviews and general news), we may throw some light on the matter.

            By establishing that the media (both now and in the 18^th century) was not purely reflective of society as Michael Wolff suggests in his unfortunately named essay ‘Charting the Golden Stream’ but instead, as Kate Jackson puts it “...an active and integral part of it.”, we can take this to mean that whilst newspapers reflected society back at its self, the same newspapers also exerted an influence by shaping how, and what, society thought.

Aleister Crowley featured regularly in the press of his day, and it would seem that for the most part, the attitude of the press towards him was one of benign bemusement but as Robertson points out in the introduction to Richard T Cole’s book The Un-Magickal Record Of The Great Beast 666;  

“Crowley played a dangerous game: he cultivated a devilish image that was useful for putting off fainthearts and attracting the adventurous and curious, but it backfired when the gutter press repeatedly shat on him.”

A review of Crowley’s The Rites of Eleusis, “...a series of seven public invocations or rites, each centered on one of the seven classical planets of antiquity.”  demonstrates how, as a playwright and director, he was perceived by the press; “...the only relief in a dreary performance was afforded by a neophyte falling off his stool, which caused mild hilarity among a bored and uncomfortable audience...” (Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LX, 1910) and “Mr Crowley says the end and aim of his rites is ecstasy. Somebody ought to tell him that ecstasy of any kind is impossible when your foot has gone to sleep.” (Ibid).

A bad review does not prove that the press dealt unfairly with Crowley. A review of Mr Charles Frohman’s Repertory, from a similar time as Crowley’s Rites, asks what good drama is: “Apparently, with Mr Frohman, it is to be an art of audacious, not to say iconoclastic experiment” (The Times, 1910,) and “There is much, however, that we venture to consider suspect and possibly harmful, harmful to the young dramatist and harmful to the drama as an art.” (ibid).

It is plain to see that the Victorians exercised (subjective) discernment with regard to the theatre, and if we look as far back as 1839, critics and artists alike were imposing their (subjective) opinions on the public, albeit about paintings in the following example. William Thackeray said of the French School of Painting “...the bloated, unnatural, stilted, spouting, sham sublime, that our teachers have believed and tried to pass off as real, and which your humble servant and other anti-humbuggists should heartily...endeavour to pull down”.

On July the 3^rd, 1915 Crowley and a group of people renounced their allegiance to England in a dawn ceremony at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. This event was covered in The New York Times approximately ten days after the event, and the report is amazingly detailed and even handed (New York Times, 1915) when one considers the political climate in which Crowley and the group were acting.

It appears that The Times (London) was far too busy reporting on the first World War because there was no mention of Crowley’s stunt from the 3^rd of July 1915 or the following ten days afterwards. However, there were plenty of headlines concerned with the war, including “The Battles of North Arras” (The Times, 1915) “Russians Captured by Italians” (Ibid) and “The Second Battle of Ypres” (Ibid).

In the introduction to Sand Robertson’s The Illustrated Beast - The Aleister Crowley Scrapbook, Colin Wilson suggests that throughout his life Crowley was “...in the grip of a ravenous, unsatisfied appetite for recognition...” and despite Crowley’s efforts, he remained relatively unknown by the British public, however  “...quite suddenly, he became a household name when the magazine John Bull [Wilson’s italics] dubbed him ‘the wickedest man in the world’, and ran headlines like THE KING OF DEPRAVITY, A HUMAN BEAST and A MAN WE’D LIKE TO HANG [Wilson’s capitals].” (Ibid).

The tactic of using shocking, attention grabbing headlines to lure potential newspaper buyers into purchasing is not a new one, and is a hallmark of journalistic practices employed several decades before Crowley’s birth. According to Joel Weiner’s Papers for the Millions, publications such as Lloyd’s Weekly (1842), the News of the World (1843) and Reynolds’s Newspaper (1850) had made “...breakthroughs in layout, particularly in the coverage of crime stories, which often feature crossheadings like “Execution” or “Confession.””.

In addition to the shocking headlines, there was also the belief that newspaper editors should have “...no objection to facts if they are also novel. But he (should) prefer a novelty that is not a fact to a fact that is not a novelty.” (Hearst, in Weiner). In the July edition of Action magazine (1953), there is a lurid feature on Crowley entitled ‘The Strange Case of the Man Who Founded a Sex Cult’ which includes such ‘novelties’ (for they were certainly not facts) about Crowley such as Hitler believing him to be a living god and Crowley exerting influence in America to the extent that the dollar bill was redesigned to include the eye of Horus in honour of him.

When it came to reporting on Crowley, there was no shortage of novel facts and certainly no shortage of novelties that were not facts but it was only after the death of Raoul Loveday at Crowley’s Abbey of Thelema in Cefalu, Sicily (and Crowley’s subsequent expulsion from the island by Mussolini) that the press truly turned on him. The Sunday Express used numerous eye-catching headlines to denounce Crowley (and presumably sell more papers into the bargain); these included “Aleister Crowley’s Orgies in Sicily” (Sunday Express, 1922) and “New Sinister Revelations of Aleister Crowley” (Sunday Express, 1923). The purpose of this piece is not to explore the truths or untruths behind the headlines but it cannot be doubted that headlines such as these would have had an impact on the public’s impression of Crowley.  This is confirmed by Robertson when he speculates that an average person’s earliest memories of Crowley were of “...the leering devil-worshipper, according to the lurid descriptions of his parents drawn from dimly remembered articles in the Sunday Express [Robertson’s italics] of long ago.”.

The press blamed Loveday’s death on drinking the blood of a sacrificed cat under the direction of Crowley – something he vehemently denied - and that Crowley was a very, very bad man. Crowley refuted the manner in which he has been portrayed by the press and blamed the entire situation on the newspapers and Betty May (Raoul’s wife); speaking of her in his autobiography ‘An Autohagiography: The Confessions Of Aleister Crowley’ he says “...an accident had damaged her brain permanently so that its functions were discontinuous, and she had not mended matters by taking to cocaine at the age of about twenty. After some years of addiction, she found herself using a quarter of an ounce or more daily. She suddenly took fright and cured herself by switching over, first to injections of morphia, and then to plain alcohol.”. He also claims that unscrupulous journalists had gotten Betty May drunk and convinced her to make up lies about the manner of Loveday’s death and activity at the Abbey. Crowley also claimed that the media had deliberately misrepresented the facts, knowing that he was too poor to sue for libel.

When it came to confusing the press (and people in general) Crowley didn’t help matters; on the nature of blood and human sacrifices he wrote in Magick In Theory And Practice that “A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim.”. A foot-note to this statement reads “It appears from the Magical Records of FRATER PERDURABO that He made this particular sacrifice on an average about 150 times every year between 1912 E.V and 1928 E.V”. This would suggest that Crowley sacrificed approximately 2400 boys during this period. In actual fact ‘child sacrifice’ was a euphemism for a particular strain of sex magick but Crowley did little to clarify this. The fact that that he also claimed to be in contact with praeter-human intelligences and his work was therefore outside the sphere of ‘normal’ understanding and ethical practices should also be noted. It is hardly surprising that he was misunderstood by the press, who then in turn misinformed the general public.

To recap, this piece has demonstrated that in regard to Crowley’s artistic/theatrical pieces, the press were not particularly impressed, but the press were equally unfavourable with their reviews of other theatre produced at the same time. It has also been demonstrated that there was unfavourable press in existence even before Crowley was born. Therefore we can discount the idea that Crowley’s art was persecuted by the press – reviewers have, and will continue, to exercise their subjective opinion on art, the theatre and everything else in existence.

Regarding the reporting, or lack of, about Crowley’s renouncement of his allegiance to England; the New York Times article is very well-balanced and does not report Crowley in any kind of negative light. It merely records events but does not comment on them. Anyone reading the article could form their own opinions about the event (although it is possible that their perception may have already been coloured by previous news articles about Crowley and his behaviour). The Times in London was too preoccupied with reporting on the war to even bother with writing an article on the subject.

It has also been shown that the use of shock headlines to grab the reader’s attention (and thereby sell more newspapers) was already an established practice. But as suggested at the start of this piece, the press did not (and still does not) merely reflect society; it also influences, therefore the idea that the public’s view of Crowley was negatively influenced by the headlines of such publications as John Bull or the Sunday Express cannot be discounted.

If we also take into account that ‘novelty’ was also seen as being preferable to ‘fact’, it is neither a huge nor difficult step to conclude that the press made use of untruths about Crowley to sell newspapers.

Finally, we see that Crowley often made use of, what would have been at the time, offensive and outrageous metaphors. He did not make much effort to clarify the true meaning behind his ‘sleight of word’ and allowed people to arrive at incorrect conclusions about his work and his behaviour. He certainly did not do himself any favours in regard to how he was portrayed in the press.

Therefore it is only logical and sensible to conclude that admittedly the press could be unfavaourable to Crowley’s artistic endeavours but this was clearly not a personal attack; they just didn’t like his work. The press in his lifetime (and beyond) were guilty of using sensational headlines to smear Crowley and they also invented novel facts about him. However, in some instances, they reported in a clear and unbiased fashion.  Crowley, for his part, often wrote in an ambiguous manner which would have confused the average person, let alone a ‘news-hungry’ journalist.

Would it be too much to suggest that Crowley and the press were in a parasitic relationship whereby Crowley attempted to gain publicity and the press attempted to gain increased readership through the use of outrageous headlines and suspect ‘facts’?

Big thanks to Mogg Morgan for his suggestions for research on this piece.