Miller makes a good point:"...(and if
the edges are "marks" -- why not the surface, smooth or stippled, of the
canvas itself ? Why not the coat of primer ?)"
Boris Shoshensky
-- "Chris Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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" -- since it's a stretch to call such
edges
"marks" -- and one can't assume that artists make their own canvases. (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.
***************
>My interpretation is that Hoffman's comment was a (horrors) metaphor; that
he
was referring to the contemplation which occurs before paint is ever put on
canvas. The "first four marks" aren't actually visible but are extremely
important. The act of doing the painting is late in the process.
____________________________________________________________
Click here to find Medical Transcription Training programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmaKOLiI2uCUYFDQ30mthjAC
8aVNXagt2oKIjD0bFnIQt6TK/
