In a painting there are no empty spaces. There all spaces are shapes, some filled in; some maybe not; some easily evoking a specific referent, some evoking many or just a few ambiguously. Call 'nothing' anything you like but when you say nothing without qualifying it you are are referring to a state of absolute emptiness as in a vacuum...and I suppose even that is 'something', wc
----- Original Message ---- From: armandobaeza <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: armandobaeza <[email protected]> Sent: Fri, August 17, 2012 1:19:47 PM Subject: Re: is list dead? In the work of Cage, nothing means silence. In paintings like yours , nothing would be considered the empty spaces, though in both cases nothing would be as meaning full as the sounds in Cage's work and the painted areas of your work. That is the nothing that I'm referring to( as in art work). AB On Aug 17, 2012, at 6:53 AM, William Conger wrote: > It's impossible to look at something and proclaim it looks like "nothing". > Anything at all will always look like something else to the human mind. > > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Fri, August 17, 2012 2:41:03 AM > Subject: Re: is list dead? > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:22 AM, saulostrow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> okay - this having been said - i'm curious if anyone here has any insights >> into the aesthetics of incompleteness and also that of of "nothing" (an >> example of the latter being both the idea that what happens in a beckett >> play is nothing , and nothing happens in Cage's 4'33") These strategies(?) >> seem applicable to all cultural production - music, poetry, film, >> photography, etc. >> > > (Recent article about art): > > - The television show "Seinfeld," as so famously proclaimed, was about > "nothing," wherein lay its genius. Artist Andrew Rose says his new solo > exhibit, "Kaleidoscope," is also about "nothing but art." > > http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=152196495
