Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the
representation the demise of art and >failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form
this tension between "communication vrs intent" has a long history and something that gets hotly contested when in comes to contemporary art practice. the crucial point is here that of the "public". avant garde art practice has always fashioned itself under the shadow of the rupture. they visualised their practice as constantly breaking new ground and so an initial incomprehensibility was very much a part of the process. now, those heroic postures of high modernist avant garde art - particularly architecture, with its determined refusal to listen to the voice on the street that actually wanted decorative French railings instead of stark, minimal facades - has been critiqued and unpacked in quite a great degree of detail in recent years. i will not get into that here. but i think you will agree that the "public" is not a apriori conceptual category. a very specific public is imagined into existence through specific interventions as shared codes of appreciation do not emerge spontaneously. to repeat an often repeated anecdote: when the Lumiere brothers showed their film of a train pulling into a platform, it scared their audience who were experiencing the cinematic image for the first time. They were scared that the train would move into the theatre and run over them. I would imagine that the 'public' in the village of Heggodu[1] wouldn't be that befuddled by say something like absurd theatre . [1] ttp://www.rmaf.org.ph/Awardees/Citation/CitationSubbannaKV.htm http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jul242005/sundayherald1230252005722.asp On 4/25/07, Rishab Aiyer Ghosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder, unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is malevich: The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that feeling had here assumed external form. [1] -rishab 1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote: > minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job. > And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one > almost seems warranted to ask, "what's so great about that black > square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?"
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - does the frog know it has a latin name? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
