for DeLi - abstract principles underlying representation
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>This is in reply to DeLi, who asked - "name me three such principles"
All this is Bauhaus baloney. I wish I could post graphics to show this
here. Words aren't as sufficient.
>
>(1)If you place two similar entities on either side of a dissimilar
>entity (ABA) then B will appear to be closer to the viewer (in front
>of) A.
A figure (A) in the forground on either side of a mountain (B)
contradicts this.
>
>(2)If you make a mark, or a series of marks on a contiguous field,
>these marks will appear to be between the field and the viewer.If the
>marks are sufficiently similar, the largest of them will appear closest
>to the viewer, the smallest closest to the background field.
I can produce a drawing contradicting this.
>
>(3)Any horizontal line within a painting, of more than 1/4 the
>horizontal dimension of the painting, will be percieved as literally a
>horizon.
A horizon line if it is painted as such can be at any height to be
perceived as such. (If you know how to handle perspective.)
The fact is that none of these rules hold. They aren't rules.
>
>Of course there are many such principles - I just mention the first
>three that come to mind. All painters use these principles. Corot for
>example used #2 to great effect. Motherwell used #1 to twist viewers'
>minds into knots.
Motherwell's stuff is as flat as a board unless you religiously talk
yourself out of it.
>
>The subject matter of Cezanne's paintings was deliberately conventional
>and ordinary.
---and miserablly painted.
>He was not painting the subject per se - he was trying to
>analyse the way the subject came to be represented in paint.
Every painter attempts this to some degree
>He was
>taking a close look at the magic of the process, the interface between
>the 2nd and 3rd dimension. Monet also was doing this, from a different
>vantage point, as was Degas.
>It was a mysterious, a metaphysical
>threshold, yet these three painters were able to maintain three very
>logical points of view on the phenomenon. Van Gogh went off the deep end
>mystically, Seurat went off the deep end logically - two extremists who
>ended up being the mentors of the 20th century.
Stick to mysticism and Artspeak use lots of words in sentences with as
little meaning as the above. If you manage to be as good a
professional AK as Fox I predict a brilliant future. Good luck.
>I maintain - there is no dichtomy between abstract and representatinal
>painting!
>
So what?
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/