From: Natasha Vita-More (natasha@natasha.cc)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 08:27:28 MST
At 09:48 PM 2/9/03 -0500, T wrote:
> > even likes some abstract art. However, it
> > seems that she is reducing it to decorative
> > work by commenting about the elements of
> > color and design. She leaves out the
> > symbolism which is part and parcel to
> > abstract art as expressed by de Kooning,
> > Vassily Kandinsky, and Miro of the abstract
> > genre.
>
>I'm not so sure.
Abstract art is full of verbal hallucination as it is a genre of poetry in
painting - symbolism between the lines and the spaces.
> > Abstract art, and all "art" cannot be meaningless.
> > If so, it would not be "art."
>
>I think Kamhi would agree that art cannot be meaningless. However, the
>question here would be what kind of meaning does an abstract work have.
>If it's purely symbolic, then it's more like a code than an art work.
Even poetry is written in code. The pictoglypics represented a symbolic
world of code - images and shapes, forms and lines that represented
meaningful thoughts.
>The symbols in a code need bear no direct relation to their underlying
>meaning. An artistic image -- using "image" loosely to cover all art
>forms from music to painting -- on the other must pretty much have a
>direct relation, even if it's somewhat fuzzy or loose, to what it means.
>A word, e.g., does not -- save for the case of onomotapoeia and that's
>debatable:) -- represent the same way an art work does -- at least, not
>a representational painting, say. Words, in fact, seem only arbitrarily
>related to the things they designate. Art works do not -- again, not
>representational paintings and sculptures and the like.
Art - whether music and its codes, or picture and its shapes, or dance and
its steps - usually is perceived mentally in images - abstract or
representational.
Coincidentally net.art of today is painted or composed in algorithmic code. :-)
Thanks for your reply.
Natasha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 08:27:12 MST