On Oct 6, 2008, at 8:42 PM, GEOFF CREALOCK wrote:
Could it be that all marks are equivalent has more to do with say, abstract expressionism than
Asserting that all marks are equivalent doesn't mean that all marks convey the same descriptive or pictorial effect. Which pieces of wood are not important in the floor? Which bricks are less important in the wall? But which have more dramatic or picturesque effect?
The painter claims responsibility for everything inside the edges of the canvas, whether the painting is an "abstract" image of non- descriptive shapes and colors, or a "realistic" image with highly descriptive shapes. In your other message, you muse that people might object if Mona's nose was longer. But we have a similar example: Matisse's painting of his wife with a green nose. The critics sniffed at it, but that painting demonstrates that the painter is responsible for all the marks, and they are all equivalent on the surface of the canvas.
Reminds me of the shrewd quip, "My, we've had a lot of weather this year."
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
