Could it be that all marks are equivalent has more to do with say, abstract
expressionism than .... other painting?
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 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
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
