I'll add to my previous comment on this by saying that Hans Hofmann said that a painting should be "finished" at any stage in its development. That would reinforce the idea that all marks have equivalent importance at any point in the making of a painting as well as when it's finished. That reiterates the underlying "tradition" in modernist painting (up to Warhol, etc.) WC
--- On Mon, 10/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 5:09 PM > If it's true that all marks are important, can we > exrapolate that to: all > marks are of equivalent importance? > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:44:42 -0700 (PDT) > > > >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
