To me , the totality of the art is what counts. Even concertos are not
complete until every note is in it's proper space to the composer.
No space is meaningless
mando
On Oct 4, 2008, at 7:24 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
I would assert that the "deliberate imposition of peripheral
restrictions on aesthetic forms like tones or marks" -- is
something the we do
all time -- whether we feel the forms are aesthetic or not -- focusing
attention on what is important to us -- and ignoring the rest (even if
staying aware of movement at the periphery)
And nothing is as important in the human visual field as the human
face --
which is why the Mona Lisa would present a compelling image even if
were cut
right down to it. The rest of painting enhances the face -- but
the further
we move outside of it, the less that both we viewers (and Leonardo)
are
interested in what is happening.
For example -- the figure is framed by two columns that just
evaporate into
thin air -- while the pedastal on the right is transparent enough
to see the
landscape behind it. These are physical anomalies - but who
cares ? And who
cares about the edge of the painting at the top -- where the blue
paint of the
sky ends before it reaches the top edge of the panel. Where
exactly is that
"mark" ? Who cares ?
I have no doubt that William is deeply concerned with the edges of
that
painting -- but that's not because he is a painter -- it's because
he is a
certain kind of painter -- one who only works with geometric forms
and the
occasional sqiggly line. (which is not especially a modern genre --
what's
modern are the ideologies that become associated with it)
**************
Ah, our Miller comes out swinging against the modernists on the list!
What a nice distum: "The more compelling the image, the less
important the
frame". What nonsense. After all, what is the image? For a
painter the
image
is the whole work, the positive and negative space. For Miller
it's only the
that part of the image he can name with a noun, signifying its
possible
existence outside the painting and as a language-based entity.
Take a look
at
the Mona Lisa. A compelling image of a woman, yes. But why? Now
look at
the
background and see how the horizon is at different levels on each
side of
woman's face. Without realizing it the two horizons invisibly meet at
different
levels at the mouth and thus we are "unconsciously" struggling with a
resolution and project all sorts of mysteries on the mouth. Turn
the work
upside down and see how much the image of the woman is affected by the
negative
space.
One of the first lessons in snapshot photography is framing the
image. How
many bad snapshots have you seen or made where some object in the
distance
seems to project from the main subject's head or nose? Most amateur
photographers quickly lern to look at the whole image, not just the
main
subject. Why? Because in the 2-d world, all patterns are on the
same plane.
The "compelling" image is the whole work. If Miller still thinks
otherwise,
he
should imagine this text as all jammed together without any
negative spaces
separating words.
____________________________________________________________
Save for the future with great IRA Funds. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
Ioyw6ijmdWTycIrG4aGj1K8DN62lr1
jncP65ZwuG67B7TvCaG0e6KA/
