Paintings are reproduced in books and posters, for two examples. We may not
like it but it happens. Conceivably, through errors in execution or judgment
or technology a painting might appear in one of these forms differently than
it does in proper lighting etc. and hence be misrepresented. Regarding the
level of dialogue on the list: screening of applicants to the list should be
instituted and/or rules for participating on the list established.
Yes, each heartbeat is equivalent as is each bodily function: respiration,
reproduction, perspiration.
As each aspect of a theatrical production is equivalently important: "bit"
parts, starring roles, direction.
As each aspect of commercial photography is equivalently important: focus on
the product and focus on the background.
It seems to me that much of the heat and occasional ad hominem arguments on
the list derive in part from differing a) assumptions regarding b) sets of
values/definitions and, occasionally, c) different areas of artistic
endeavour. More light might be shed if it were accepted that members have a
right to hold, but not to impose on others, their own values.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 22:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
Misrepresented? What does that mean? Is it possible that there is
something outside the work that determines the correct representation?
WC
--- On Mon, 10/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 10:03 PM
> Probably the sophistication required to identify a
> misrepresented portion of
> a Pollack would be greater than that required to identify
> the
> misrepresentation of portion of a Rembrandt.
> If it's my painting, I may well feel that each mark is
> of equivalent
> significance. If it's my painting, someone else may
> disagree.
> If I were a teacher of graphic art, I would want to avoid
> suggestions that
> any mark was not important. The viewer's values and
> expectations may differ
> from those of the artist; for example, that some marks are
> more important.
> Who would be "right"?
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas
> >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 18:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >No, why?
> >WC
> >
> >
> >--- On Mon, 10/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on
> Canvas
> > > To: [email protected]
> > > Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 7:42 PM
> > > Could it be that all marks are equivalent has
> more to do
> > > with say, abstract
> > > expressionism than .... other painting?
> > > Geoff C
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: William Conger
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >Reply-To: [email protected]
> > > >To: [email protected]
> > > >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on
> Canvas
> > > >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >
> > > >I'll add to my previous comment on this
> by saying
> > > that Hans Hofmann said
> > > >that a painting should be
> "finished" at any
> > > stage in its development. That
> > > >would reinforce the idea that all marks have
> equivalent
> > > importance at any
> > > >point in the making of a painting as well as
> when
> > > it's finished. That
> > > >reiterates the underlying
> "tradition" in
> > > modernist painting (up to Warhol,
> > > >etc.)
> > > >WC
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- On Mon, 10/6/08, GEOFF CREALOCK
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > From: GEOFF CREALOCK
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was
> Marks on
> > > Canvas
> > > > > To: [email protected]
> > > > > Date: Monday, October 6, 2008, 5:09 PM
> > > > > If it's true that all marks are
> important,
> > > can we
> > > > > exrapolate that to: all
> > > > > marks are of equivalent importance?
> > > > > Geoff C
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >From: William Conger
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >Reply-To:
> [email protected]
> > > > > >To: [email protected]
> > > > > >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping
> was Marks on
> > > Canvas
> > > > > >Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 11:44:42
> -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Some viewers are more sophisticated
> than
> > > others. They
> > > > > don't pay attention
> > > > > >to anything that falls beyond their
> > > capacities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Some people don't care about
> the original
> > > > > composition as many original
> > > > > >artworks have been cut down,
> overpainted, and
> > > otherwise
> > > > > altered to suit
> > > > > >someone other than the artist.
> Because thast
> > > happens is
> > > > > not reason to say
> > > > > >it has no negative aesthetic
> effect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Because an artist employs
> assistants is no
> > > reason to
> > > > > say what they do is
> > > > > >unimportant or of minor quality.
> Does the
> > > architect
> > > > > regard the contractor
> > > > > >and construction crew with
> indifference?
> > > Further, the
> > > > > history of art does
> > > > > >include a great many works made in
> a workshop
> > > setting,
