HOME | DD

undefinedreference In reply to Senecal [2015-11-10 15:37:46 +0000 UTC]

I meant Malevich rather than Kandinsky of course, I always get those two names mixed up..  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Senecal In reply to undefinedreference [2015-11-10 16:28:49 +0000 UTC]

Who's Albers?

Kidding.

I think Mondrian also falls into that trap, as though he just woke up one day and started painting with blocks and lines. Some people forget the years of development it took. For Geometric work, I also like Stella even though some Minimalism can wear a little thin, or maybe that's the point.

Today, I really struggle with the concepts of "digital" and "traditional". How many years of established use must something have before it is considered to have a "tradition"? I get the intent of course but am really unsettled by having to choose.

Regarding printmaking, the late, Jörg Schmeisser had a good point regarding the uniqueness of a print edition compared to a single painting.
He remarked that all of the prints in an edition comprise the total complete work.

Lately, I've been working in what I am calling an "iterative editioning" manner, that... what's the word... celebrates? Highlights? Emphasizes? whatever it is - the aspects of digital printmaking that are unique.

For centuries, the point was to create an edition of as identical prints as possible. Today, that has been resolved leaving us to ask, what is the point of pretending there's a hierarchy of quality? Instead, I think "celebrating" (let's go with that) the variations and multiple outcomes that is inherent to digital work should be the point. To that end, you end up with an edition where the variations comprise the total work, scattered across 10, 12, etc images until the artists is satisfied the work is resolved.

That traditional galleries interested in capitalizing on the comfortable "uniqueness determines value" model might be struggling with how to make money off this is really something I stopped caring about, and I assume history will figure out the larger picture.

Okay, I will talk forever about this stuff. Thanks for the interesting work!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

undefinedreference In reply to Senecal [2015-11-10 15:22:56 +0000 UTC]

First of all, it's a rectangle, not a square. Secondly, I do sometimes wonder how people can't seem to get past the 'R' barrier whenever they see a rectangle on a rectangle or a square on a square. Joseph Albers was making outstanding squares on squares while 'R' was still in his infancy [I think], not to mention Kandinsky. I think that it's because 'R' has been bombarded into being an social/cultural icon, i.e. someone you can't really not know about without suggesting you've been living in a cave, whether you're really interested in art or not.. It's perfectly safe to not know about Albers however, because he isn't considered an icon. His work would be considered food for "specialists", and the average educated citizen can safely not know about it at all without risking any loss of face. Still, if I do have a source of inspiration it's Albers, and not 'R'.

I guess symmetry is indeed a hallmark of the digital process, it's just so easy and tempting to flip and mirror layers in a addition to shifting hues with a single slide operation and all that. Or maybe it's the other way around: with traditional media it's pretty much impossible, unless you would be using some type of printing process. Of course, with traditional media you get something "real", while with digital processing you merely get a suggestion of it. Perhaps one day I will be able to manipulate a 3D printer to produce something "real" from images like this one, taking into account the shading etc., who knows - that would be great!. (another less obvious hallmark of digital art is conflicting shading though, which might give the 3D printer a bit of a headache)

Haha, a while ago I came across an online art exhibition titled something like "No you're child couldn't do this!"

Thanks for your comment!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0