And what does Cheerskep have in mind. One mark on the canvas makes two shapes, the paint and the shape left around it. Hans Hofmann said it another way: The first line on the canvas is the 5th line of the composition", (adding the four edges of the rectangle, if it is a rectangle).
There's no causal connection between the first mark and the next mark. The next mark could be a mistake or unintended. More likely, its relationship/s to the first mark is/are unrecognized. There's no requirement to cover the whole canvas. The area/s unmarked are also "created". There's the likelihood that many marks will be covered. Few paintings are made alla prima. Sometimes, the layering of marks is necessary to achieve what one wants and knows how to do. There is ALWAYS a gap between what one wants and what one knows how to do and between what one knows how to do and what one does and between what one wants and what one wants after having done it. Making art involves a tension between doing what is wanted and wanting what is done -- you get what you want and/or you want what you get. No wonder artists have a tough tough time with Cheerskep's insistence on exacting words for serviceable communication. Any drop of paint brings up more meaning/skill,subject.content, blah-blah than any one word. And who says art is about communication anyway? Mostly, the aim is to befuddle communication with ambiguity and paradox. Like any closely examined moment. WC > > For openers, what does Chris have in mind when he > says, 'know how'? Michael > is right in suggesting all that's required to get > SOMETHING on canvas is the > ability to wield a brush adeptly, combined with a > notion of the next immediate > thing you want to lay on the canvas -- in the sense > of what paint or ink you > want to apply to render what immediate bit of > "picture". If you just move on > from that bit to the next, and to the next, > eventually the canvas will be > covered. Whatever ends up covering the whole canvas > is obviously something you knew > how to do.
