> However, I think this is a
>little harsh on the naivety of my (rushing again)
>unconsidered term "white space of the imagination"
If I was harsh, Ira, I apologise. I can`t always and immediately
tell which terms are "considered" and which are "unconsidered" in a
given posting.
>Suppose there were a painting of/in that
>Yeats' couplet: "And no more turn aside and brood/ Upon
>love's bitter mystery". I think it would take all the skills
>of one school of perspective (where is a modern painting's
>alternative school of perspective equivalent to serialism's
>alternative school of harmony?) to render in foreground and
>back both "mystery" and "bitter", the "oo" of "brood"
>and the ironising yet sharply intook breath of starting with
>"And..."
For my money, all the paintings of Holman Hunt, Burne-Jones,
Rossetti &c. could take the tag from Yeats as their title. It would
take more than an inventive use or abuse of perspectives to "render"
all you want rendered - a concealed speaker system would be a start.
This is not just facetious...the argument started at the point where
you assigned an internal poesy to painting, and I demurred. Yr point
immediately above seems to take your originary assumption to its
logical conclusion, providing an actually not-even-mute canvas with
its own set of vocalising organs.
There was much more to your post than these two remarks, but I either
don`t feel qualified to respond or I agree or I can`t isolate a
determinable meaning. I suggest we rejoin the rest of the party in
the living room. One question, to you and the others... How does a
poet know if/when she has "collaborated" with a visual artist? (In a
perfect world, "know" would be italicised.)
robin
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|