No, I haven't done it and don't have a reason to because each moment of experiencing a painting is different no matter how it is placed. But the story about Kandinsky is that one evening arouind 1910 he came back to his studio and saw one of his own paintings placed upsidedown against the wall where he had casually placed it and was shocked by its impact on him and thus he began making more all-abstract (more or less) pictures.
WC ________________________________ From: armando baeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:49:43 PM Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy What I meant was; is impossible to design an abstract painting that would have an aesthetic meaning to you, though different from any view. Or have you ever tried to do one? mando On May 12, 2009, at 6:38 AM, William Conger wrote: > As far as I'm concerned there is no such thing as a totally > abstract painting; or every painting is totally abstract. It's > either all one or all the other and there's no difference between > them. All representation or recognition is due to associative > neural activity. And every act of looking ignites the associative > stream. So, everything looks like something else. > wc > > > > > ________________________________ > From: armando baeza <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 8:52:31 PM > Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy > > When a totally abstract (except for color) painting that has > excellent design balance, > does balance refers to gravity or does it refer to View from every > angle ,up or down. > Would it become off balance if the point of view is change. > mando > On May 11, 2009, at 7:21 AM, William Conger wrote: > >> I already said that my work can't be put upsidedown and still >> express the composition as intended. They don't work except in the >> direction I chose. If someone else can't see that, then they don't >> see very well. >> wc >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: armando baeza <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 9:55:26 PM >> Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy >> >> i guess i was thinking of tile patterns within each tile that can be >> placed anywhere,and is aesthetically >> Ok, like any other well designed abstract work. As I wrote >> before,Terrazzo tile in my Bath room. >> Even that grid is not depended on gravity to spark some emotion. >> Like your work,it can be upside down. >> mando >> >> On May 10, 2009, at 4:38 PM, William Conger wrote: >> >>> A flat grid plane is parallel to the ground or even contiguous with >>> it. Like a flat tabletop view instead of a window view. So that's >>> gravity, too. >>> >>> wc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: armando baeza <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 5:52:48 PM >>> Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy >>> >>> No gravity there, right? >>> mando >>> >>> On May 10, 2009, at 2:50 PM, William Conger wrote: >>> >>>> a grid of any pattern. >>>> >>>> wc >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] >>>> Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:49:44 AM >>>> Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy >>>> >>>> I don't think so. >>>> Boris >>>> >>>> ---------- Original Message ---------- >>>> From: armando baeza <[email protected]> >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Cc: armando baeza <[email protected]> >>>> Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy >>>> Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 10:27:03 -0700 >>>> >>>> Aren't there art designs that look well composed in any position, >>>> specially in abstract art? >>>> >>>> On May 9, 2009, at 8:50 AM, William Conger wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yep! Luis is right. But architecture has a master it must always >>>>> heed: Gravity. What natural law/s limits all the other arts? >>>>> WC >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2009 7:53:17 AM >>>>> Subject: Re: Architecture and Philosophy >>>>> >>>>> Earlier I wrote (2 items from a list): >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> a) Architecture can be the manipulation of space through markers: >>>>> monuments, obelisks, etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> b) Architecture can be the negative space formed by the >>>>> perimeter of >>>>> buildings, columns, walls, water features, earthworks, etc. >>>>> such as >>>>> in plazas. >>>>> >>>>> Some of you appeared skeptical, so here is an excellent example: >>>>> >>>>> St. Peter's Square - Vatican City >>>>> _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:St_Peter% >>>>> 27s_Square,_Vatican_City_-_April >>>>> _2007.jpg_ >>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ >>>>> File:St_Peter's_Square,_Vatican_City_- >>>>> _April_2007.jpg) >>>>> >>>>> Architecture is not just the building/structure but the space >>>>> that it >>>>> encloses/defines both on the interior and exterior. >>>>> >>>>> c. Architecture is the manipulation of the negative space within >>>>> and >>>>> outside of a building/structure. >>>>> >>>>> Note: I believe that any decent architect understands, accepts and >>>>> incorporates the above (a + b + c) in their architectural >>>>> thinking/work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Luis Fontanills >>>>>
