It feels nice that one can get so much good information to understand
art... Being rather art-illiterate (I can appreciate good landscapes, is
all), I have newfound respect for art. But, I still do not understand
art any better than I did yesterday. I guess this is how my wife feels
when I keep talking about how Queen, Rush, Floyd, Zeppelin & Tull make
awesome music. :-)
Thank you all very much for the wonderful education. And Danese, you
rock! That explanation was superb.
Venkat
Rishab Aiyer Ghosh wrote:
of course, minimalist art can indeed be entirely in the eye of the beholder,
unless augmented by some explanation of the artist's intention. here is
malevich:
The black square on the white field was the first form in which nonobjective
feeling came to be expressed. The square = feeling, the white field = the void
beyond this feeling. Yet the general public saw in the nonobjectivity of the
representation the demise of art and failed to grasp the evident fact that
feeling had here assumed external form. [1]
-rishab
1. http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/suprem.html
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 06:56:09AM +0530, Abhishek Hazra wrote:
minimalism in visual art, can be often mistaken, for a smart con-job.
And particularly for the early modernist masters like Malevich, one
almost seems warranted to ask, "what's so great about that black
square on white background? Even I could do that on MS Paint?"
