Your statements concerning Degas, Rembrandt and Rothko indicate that you
enjoy certain aspects of their work, but do not indicate an understanding of
theory or technique. After reading your response, several times, it seems
convoluted, confused and unrelated. What are you saying exactly? Deborah
Morning, Deborah. Degas, IMHO, was one of the greatest draftsmen of the
19/20th century. The implication, perhaps, is that he was so in control of
his tools that he was able to do more or less what he liked but I bet he
struggled as much as any other artist in order to achieve it. There's a
wonderful Rembrandt self-portrait in Kenwood House. One of the eyes is
painted in a way that, for me, encapsulates the utter mystery of 'seeing'
because you can't see it. The painting's so subtle, so observed, it takes
my
breath away. He's painted the unseeable mystery. The only other artist I
can think of who sometimes gives me what that portrait gives me (in a
completely different way) is Rothko (sorry if anyone reading this has seen
it
before: it's the best example I can think of). You sense the enormity of
the
struggle to find what the artist ultimately presents to the viewer.
I've a feeling we all need to find our own tools and methods and don't
subscribe to the idea that this exercise or that formula is the route to
producing something meaningful. What I do think is that the artist/writer
has a duty (and will probably have a natural desire) to at least try to
discover how the tools s/he uses work. I don't mean this in a restrictive
way (the sort of attitude that says you can only work with the bristle end
of
the brush) because that seems, to me, absolutely anti-art/creativity. But
if
our tools (punctuation, for example) get in the way, how on earth can we
communicate effectively? If a writer presents a reader with a stream of
what
appears to be fairly unstructured or badly structured thought, s/he may have
to accept that some readers prefer to try to find meaning in their own
stream
of unstructured/badly structured thought.
Of course, this applies to any other kind of art/writing too. We all
find/seek our own audience (or not) LOL.
bw
christina
> "A painting requires a little mystery, some vagueness, some fantasy. When
> you always make your meaning perfectly plain you end up boring
> people"...conversations are made up of fragments of information,
> half-finished sentences, and unanswered questions. Why shouldn't painting
be
> as well?" Edgar Degas
>
>
> Why shouldn't poetry be the same as any art form, and in this case, real
> life?
>
> - Deborah
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
|