No, why? 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, 7:42 PM > 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
