i think I agree with that.
For me. the abstract nature of a design is the core
of It's aesthetic-ness that can be anything else
as long as the design maintains it's basic-ness.
mando
On Jun 3, 2008, at 6:51 AM, William Conger wrote:
I think the aesthetic rush one gets from "abstraction"
is the relation between unique formal presentation and
its looking like other things or evoking unique ways
to re-imagine other things. It relies on the
paradoxical nature of metaphor....suggesting something
to be "as if" something it is not.
WC
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 6/2/08 6:31:25 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think it's possible to look at any
"abstract"
painting or anything purported to be abstract and
not
try to name it as "looking like" something else.
Everything looks like something else.
I don't think the woman who wrote the piece about
"how to look at abstract
art" would deny what you say, William. I took her
point to be that to the
extent
you DO hunt for representations in abstract art,
you're blocking yourself
from taking in what is unique and "radiant" about
the abstract piece. Any
thoughts on that?
**************
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch
"Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&
NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
