William: Have I misunderstood? That you strongly recommend seeing "art"
works in galleries, museums, homes/whatever but view the actual work, not a
representation? If so, wouldn't you be suggesting that the important
standard to use in considering a work is the work itself, not a copy.
Wouldn't the original be the "outside unquestioned model"?
Again, misunderstanding derives from differing definitions. Perhaps you'd
use some other term for flaws in the lithographing/dry silk/whatever
reproduction process (than represeting).
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Misrepresented?
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
A discursive form of writing is contentious because it does aim to convince
another of one's values. I want you to think about art as I do. And if
your opinions influence my thinking, so much the better, or worse.
To say a thing is misrepresented is to imply that some outside
unquestuioned model for it exists. I would argue that in the visual arts,
this never leads to any verification of quality. Attempts have been made
and they are always found lacking, despite frequent admission that the
faults are the very essence of expressive quality. So, do aesthetic
signals.
WC
--- On Tue, 10/7/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Misrepresented?
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 8:33 AM
> 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
