Some viewers are more sophisticated than others. They don't pay attention to anything that falls beyond their capacities.
Some people don't care about the original composition as many original artworks have been cut down, overpainted, and otherwise altered to suit someone other than the artist. Because thast happens is not reason to say it has no negative aesthetic effect. Because an artist employs assistants is no reason to say what they do is unimportant or of minor quality. Does the architect regard the contractor and construction crew with indifference? Further, the history of art does include a great many works made in a workshop setting, not unlike any craft-type workshop today, say, yacht building. There were specialists in all sorts of aspects of art making and sometimes these specialists were more skilled than the workshop master in particular aspects of the work. (Many contemporary artists employ specialists. Jeff Koons is but the most obvious example). Miller has no art historical evidence for his viewpoint. He has his own opinion, an uninformed opinion. He's right about one thing: My work has no important subject matter for him. If you can't see it as you already know it, you can't name it. And he can't see in my work what he already has stashed away in his bank of acceptable images of things. Miller is an advocate of the correspondence school of thought in art, as is Cheerskep with respect to "notions". If something does not look-like some other absent but known thing, it is blank, nothing, muddled, or false. The other day I listened to the the conductor of the Chicago Symphony speak about Sibelius (specifically Sibelius' Symphony No. 4) He said a great piece of music has many layers of meanings. That's the sort of comment I like to hear because it's also true of all art. (I know Cheerskep will criticize conductor Micheal Tilson Thomas' comment because it says that musical scores have meaning. but I think sensible folks get the right idea and recognize that notes evoke many associative thoughts). Anyway, art relies on ambiguity and ambiguity relies on metaphor and metaphor expands associative experience. Correspondence theory is not applicable to art. WC --- On Mon, 10/6/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 10:19 AM > 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/
