I'm not saying that figure and ground can or should not be related. I'm just saying that an artist (as well as a group of viewers) may consider the one way more important than the other -- as proven by the fact that sometimes artists have other hired lesser talents to fill in the background. (this is the proof that William has requested)
That's true of Baroque painting --- and it's also true of film and theater -- where many actors might be on stage -- but only the movements/speech of one or two of them are really, really important -- because that's where something important is supposed to be happening. An actor -- or a shape -- in the background cannot be just anything (or it would distract rather than enhance) -- but it could be this way or it could be that way -- i.e. if it's visual it doesn't have to be a specific "mark". As demonstrated by the top edge of the "Mona Lisa" -- it can just be a general area -- it doesn't have to be a specific line -- it need not qualify as among the first, last, or any of the marks on a canvas. I realize this is not true of William's style of painting -- where nothing important is supposed to be represented -- but I think we should allow, here, for a degree of cultural diversity. BTW - Chinese collectors actually have put their marks right in the middle of lines of what they honor as the very best calligraphy -- especially the famous Qianlong emperor who used an enormous imperial seal. Examples can be found by browsing through the following wonderful site: http://www.npm.gov.tw/exh95/grandview/painting/dill_en.html **************** >I'll just have to be far more pontifical than I usually am regarding matters of visual art and say that the significance of expressive and design relationship of figure to ground (the formal term) is indisputable. Period. ____________________________________________________________ Fashion Design Education - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijndXC6l5R4nCs9Xq3X7APZyU TALs20au07Mg3LQNqDViThdy/
