Have any of the below presented an explanation related to -- but not physically part of -- a visual image, and then asserted that the one should not be considered without the other ?
And again -- has any theorist explicitly excluded the combination of an image (or a poem, or play, or symphony) and its explanation from being recognized as a work of art? >>There are a lot of paintings and other 2-D visual works that employ either affixed (collaged) printed passages or original text written by the artist (or others), which are intended to be read by the viewer and the literal meaning of the words incorporated into the significance of the total work. Moreover, there are many examples of artists who employed a personal symbolism of color and wrote about it, and publicized the symbolic equivalences, not much different in effect from putting text next to the paintings. ____________________________________________________________ Be there without being there. Click now for great video conferencing solutions! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxPnB8EXVwsYcdYhs3D8mFPgH Nro9eFQcJ7gpklz6EzQsNgZHtpGMY/
