Chris,
I too am impressed with your topographical still lifes, a genre I am
particularly fond of. I like the ones of yours that are seen from above yet
appear to be fastened to a wire grid on a wall. I am intrigued by the
ambiguity of POV. They appear almost as a museum collection of archeological
cultural relics.
Best,
- Peter
--
http://invisiblenotes.blogspot.com/
http://uncommonvision.blogspot.com/
http://poemsfromprovidence.blogspot.com/
http://uncommon-vision.blogspot.com/
You can find my art and writing updates on Twitter
https://twitter.com/ciccariello
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 3:12 AM, Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:32 -0700, Douglas Barbour wrote:
> > When such visions work, does it matter what we name it as?
>
> Perhaps what I like most are that I have three different media which
> seem to repeat each image; prose novel, poetry and photography each
> repeating images which are something else, which is to say,
> transcendent. This is a triptych.
>
> While each image is immanent to itself and media, it links a triptych
> which makes of each image a transcendence which does not allow a
> reduction to the categories which govern, in the way media does, the
> determination of the type of category to which it belongs.
>
> So basically, each work stands up as art and also defers and refers
> toward other transcendent media across indeterminate grounds. This is
> not quite the way Aristotle's categories are supposed to sustain
> themselves as a type. (I'll skip out on the more rigorous discussion,
> here.)
>
> This is the sort of stuff that got me thrown out of the church of
> Deleuze by the priests of immanence... as would this comment also have
> me further banned from the driftline deleuze list anchored to
> Aristotle's Hegelian determination.
>
> best wishes, Chris Jones.
>
|