How did Miller twist the context of my note re his little game of identifying authors through tiny unformed marks of their work? That has little to do with the aesthetics of looking at art. In fact, it's the worst kind of psuedo art engagement. A mark isolated from form is aesthetically worthless. Marks add up to form and it's form that enables us to recognize familiar artists' work.
There's a wonderful little book somewhere in my library about the French Voyageures of the 18C. Not only did they paddle their canoes, portage them, and make camps every night (and eat five pounds of meat a day!), they also paddled like mad. Someone counted them: 50,000 paddle strokes a day per man. So let's say at one mark per second, I paint 3,660 marks per hour and paint for eight hours one ideal day to make only 24,800 marks...and let's round it off at 25,000. Now, which one of those 50,000 dips of the paddle or which one of those 25,000 painted marks is the one that signifies the individual voyageuer or my art? wc --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Familiarity with details > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009, 8:53 AM > "Such characteristic style -- > sometimes as little as a line, perhaps even a > phrase -- is sufficient to identify those writers who have > a unique "voice". I > don't agree that looking for such characteristics in a > painter, composer, > or writer is merely play -- of no educational/appreciating > value. " > Cheerskep > > My claim is that that familiarity with details > enables a deeper immersion > into the entire work (which I present as the goal of > aesthetic experience) > > It happens when you hear a familiar aria suddenly appear in > the midst of La > Boheme-- or a familiar quote pop up within Hamlet -- where, > already being > quite familiar with that fragment, you have a better > opportunity to relate it > to its surrounding context. > > Which is also why I like to wander around the art museum > taking photos of > details of favorite pieces and then taking them home to > play with them on my > blog. > > Because as often as I see a great painting or sculpture, I > don't I ever know > it well enough. > > William may dismiss this project as "inane looking", but > what kind of > alternative does he offer and what does he call it? > > "Meaningful looking?" ? (or -- as William might > prefer -- "Meaningless > looking"?) > > > (BTW -- this is why I am so grateful that some museums, > especially my own, > allow photography -- especially now, when for the first > time in memory, the > AIC is allowing photography of a special exhibit of pieces > pulled from its own > basement - pieces which will probably never be shown again > in my lifetime) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone > systems. Click here for more > info. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcAB5dnjCxgC5tnMGKPKl7dR > 5CjHwnpjKMzHiPHLxcorsSldl00gg/
