Well, yes, LQ, your point definitely has been taken into consideration
prior to the conceptualization of the work. Like it or not, I think we
all have learned to live with the fact that there will never be a pure,
unmediated representation of this – or any -- image available for
re-representing, except in one’s head perhaps, should one be fortunate
enough to see the painting in person and be capable making of such
complex calculations as I have done without aid of a computer.
Naturally, I consider the work only a rough study in relation to its
source, not a perfect match, in a world where perfection is not only
not possible, and not only not sought after, but its opposite actually
incorporated as part of the process and allowed to maintain itself as
long as it is kept under control, like a bacterium within the body. The
marriage of signal and noise? Okay, I can live with that, however
one-sided and hastily arranged the marriage may be. Besides, what
alternative are you proposing? That I wait for Godot to bless me with
an idealized vision of the whole? Not me.
And Thanks, Joel, I thought of Warhol too!
m
On Aug 2, 2005, at 6:53 PM, Lanny Quarles wrote:
but you're not really working from the matisse at all,
but from a re-presentation ala instrumental transduction
aka digitization.. so is this little unsaid level of detail
important as irony or hoax or?
lq
