Here's another difference between me and Miller. He refers to Hofmann as the "old guy" which in my opinion is demeaning. I grew up admiring the great thinkers and doers of the time and clearly Hans Hofmann was one of them. He has yet to be matched for his teachings, his influence, and the power of his work in the context of the 1950s and early 1960s artworld. That's close to a universal opinion. We now live in an era that seeks only to ridicule people of achievement, particularly in intellectual matters. Now the sign of wit and insider knowledge is arch irony, a degrading of anything genuinely profound to vulgar triteness and mere celebrity, the basest form of recognition. Miller trots out his old time art values only to confirm what he already believes, not to learn anything new. Whenever newness confronts him he trivializes it with aspersions like "old guy". Hofmann was a giant in person and in his art. He is the George Washington of postwar American modernist painting. He synthesized European modernism and passed it on to abstract expressionists.
I see people like Hofmann as intellectual friends, alive or dead. I have their books, I see their art, I listen to their music. Who wouldn't love to have them drop by some evening for conversation? They're always visiting me. "Old guy" indeed. Look at his paintings and see their astonishing power and feel their essence if you can. There's more aliveness in any 3rd rate Hofmann than in all the dusty junk Miller keeps praising. WC --- On Thu, 10/2/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, October 2, 2008, 10:35 AM > On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > William's interpretation is probably more accurate > -- since he > > actually talked > > to the old guy half a century ago -- but your > interpretation is > > reasonable -- > > given the common sense absurdity of calling the edges > of a painting > > "the > > artist's first marks on the canvas" > > Hoffman did NOT call them the "the *artist's* > first marks." You labor > on the periphera of stupidity every time you hit the Send > button. > > The sides of the canvas serve as the first four marks > (four, because > most pictures are rectangles) because they are the edges of > the > shapes, the absolute termina of the canva. > Lines--"marks--on the > canvas divide the surface into areas and shapes, and the > drawn lines, > we have all been taught, represent *imaginary* things that > define or > depict the edges of shapes on a canvas. Let's say your > first mark on a > canvas is a diagonal line from slightly inside the upper > left corner > to slightly to the right of the bottom center. One mark, > two > trapezoids. And those trapezoids are formed from the three > sides of > the canvas and the diagonal line. > > > -- since it's a stretch to call such edges > > I won't insult your pristine naovete by assuming that > you meant that > pun. > > > "marks" -- and one can't assume that > artists make their own canvases. > > An idiotic argument. (But I insult idiots.) > > > (and if the edges are "marks" -- why not the > surface, smooth or > > stippled, of the > > canvas itself ? Why not the coat of primer ?) > > > > > Absurdity became de rigeur for art talk in the 20th C > -- and > > accepting it is > > what separated the insider from the philistine -- but > unfortunately, > > it led > > straight to Andy Warhol -- and finally to Damien > Hurst. > > Back to the periphera of spelling. Didn't someone > mention this last > week? > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
