In my attempt express the human with it's many forms,I simply reduce the forms to the minimum to a new meaning without loosing it's humanness.
AB On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:52 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Brady Wrote: I tend to > see artworks within my own typical or normal range of complexity, but I > expand > it if I find the image particularly compelling and stare at a piece as I > search it for its internal differences and changes. And I will infuse > complexity on the apparently simple, but that complexity (as I recall > examples) tends to shift into a meditative state in which differences > become > clearer to me. (Otherwise, I wind up merely mentally mapping > brushstrokes.) > > I have one going where mapping brush strokes is impossible,you see it, > you paint it,no waiting. Tree branches against brick & warped by glass > in two reflections. Do not flatten. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Aug 12, 2012 12:08 pm > Subject: Complexity > > Tom McCormack <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Granted, there's much to question and even quarrel with in there. But > I > urge >> that those points do not keep you from finding what is helpful or > encouraging >> for you. For example, I'm now finishing (I hope) a play with a great > deal > of >> complexity on several levels. A strong challenge for me comes from my >> motivation to make it as accessible as I can. However, there's a part > of me >> convinced that its ability to engage my ideal intended audience will > depend > on >> my retaining as much of the complexity as I can. In other words, the >> exhortation Simplify! Simplify! may be exactly the wrong guide for me > to >> follow strictly. > > The process of seeing relies a lot on change--in fact, it depends on it. > Remember the tyranosaurus scene from Jurassic Park. "Don't move. He > can't see > you if you don't move," the doctor says. The visual receptors are > triggered as > the light that falls on them changes, which is why optical illusions, > such as > the after-image, work best if the viewer stares at a fixed point, i.e., > not > allowing the image to move to and fro on the retina. At the edges of > our field > of vision, color sensitivity is reduced to only dark and light > sensitivity, > and at the extreme periphery, even that is reduced to simple movement. > Uncomplicated. > > I would suppose that complexity is a form of congnitive engagement, > which > sometimes takes the form of mere numerical addition (name all the faces > on the > cover of the Sgt. Peppers album, or identify all the saints by their > attributes) and sometimes takes the form of intracacies (e.g., the > carpet > pages from the great Irish gospel books or the densely intertwining > foliage of > a Neil Welliver forest scene). Sometimes the sheer simplicity of a > painting > provokes the viewer to scan it carefully for small difference (e.g., > Malevich's White Cross or, for me, a Ben Nicholson low-relief sculpture > or > painting, or many of the big color field paintings of the 50s). > > For the painter, the canvas size is pretty much the ultimate limit: Put > whatever you want within this rectangle of 2 feet x 3 feet. You can > paint it > in one solid color, or paint the most meticulous image (e.g., Ivan Le > Lorraine > Albright). So, too, I suppose for authors of temporal art: Within this > two > hour span, your characters can speak constantly, in a form of Gilbert > and > Sullivan patter, or sparsely, as in Waiting for Godot. Or the musicians > can > play furiously, a 2-hour flight of bumblebees, or minimally. > > The audience or viewers will engage the performances as they wish. I > tend to > see artworks within my own typical or normal range of complexity, but I > expand > it if I find the image particularly compelling and stare at a piece as I > search it for its internal differences and changes. And I will infuse > complexity on the apparently simple, but that complexity (as I recall > examples) tends to shift into a meditative state in which differences > become > clearer to me. (Otherwise, I wind up merely mentally mapping > brushstrokes.) > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady
