|
it was a pun on fauvism.. hence derain and
vlaminck..
foveal vision reminds me of those performance artists who
purposively distort
their own vision with harsh lenses helmets etc. can you
name some of the artists who have
worked by deliberately distorting their
own sensory perceptions using some kind
of instrument or peripheral. i can't think of any, but i
know there is a tradition of this.
lq
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:42
AM
Subject: Re: RGBPerm 01
Yes, I find that its easier for me to see changes in the
various transformations when I am working with an existing image that is very
familiar to me rather than with something new. And since I’m dealing with
issues of color here, what better source than one of the modern masters of
color, Matisse?
Faux
vision? Hm. Of course, there’s also foveal vision, which involves blurring. .
.
m
On Aug 2, 2005, at
11:03 PM, Lanny Quarles wrote:
it is of course the Green Stripe.. I
guess I was just a bit surpised
you'd left in some
recognizability, and was thinking there was something
to that. now why i
brought up the whole digitization thing is beyond me. i think in the cluster
the wrong thought
altogether got expressed, my mind being much like a spasmodic swiss cheese
forgetting and
remembering simultaneously and the hairstyle even reminds
me of a lautrec
image. no wait, .. I was thinking about "FAUX-VISM"
or faux-vision.. at
any rate, you still have Derain and Vlaminck..
M a dame S
am ur ai Ma tisse
lq
-----
Original Message -----
From:
"mwp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
<[email protected]>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: RGBPerm 01
> Well, yes, LQ, your
point definitely has been taken into consideration
> prior to the
conceptualization of the work. Like it or not, I think we
> all have learned to live
with the fact that there will never be a pure,
> unmediated representation
of this – or any -- image available for
> re-representing, except
in one’s head perhaps, should one be fortunate
> enough to see the painting
in person and be capable making of such
> complex calculations as I
have done without aid of a computer.
> Naturally, I consider the
work only a rough study in relation to its
> source, not a perfect
match, in a world where perfection is not only
> not possible, and not only
not sought after, but its opposite actually
> incorporated as part of
the process and allowed to maintain itself as
> long as it is kept under
control, like a bacterium within the body. The
> marriage of signal and
noise? Okay, I can live with that, however
> one-sided and hastily
arranged the marriage may be. Besides, what
> alternative are you
proposing? That I wait for Godot to bless me with
> an idealized vision of the
whole? Not me.
>
> And Thanks, Joel, I
thought of Warhol too!
>
> m
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2005, at 6:53
PM, Lanny Quarles wrote:
>
>> but you're not really
working from the matisse at all,
>> but from a
re-presentation ala instrumental transduction
>> aka
digitization.. so is this little unsaid level of detail
>> important as
irony or hoax or?
>>
>>
lq
>>
>
|
