We have several issues here. Malevitch first. You have to understand that a lot of C20 art was painted as illustrations to a philosophical argument. Those arguments often used a reductionist logic as science did at the time. Scientists and mathematicians were looking for a single simple equation that would explain the universe. They are still looking.
In art , the question became “ how little can you have and still have an art work?” A black square? A white one? No paint at all- just bare canvas? How about an empty frame?
Now this is a fun game to play, and you don’t need a traditional skill set to play it. My problem with it is that it doesn’t make very interesting pictures.
So how about we go the other way and try to make fun paintings. No matter what you do, to be visible you need line,colour,tone,texture, shape and etcetera. I THINK that’s what you mean by “form”. Instead of the elements above some just talk about “form” and “space”. Now, a beautiful rock or shell or seedpod is visible form in space. We just enjoy them. Humans always have. But something funny happens when an artist makes a beautiful form in space. Instead of “That’s nice, I will hang it around my neck or put it on the table to look at” we start asking stupid questions like “What does it mean?” “ Whats it supposed to be?” “ Where has it come from?”” Why am I attracted to it?” “How is it made?”
Frequently these dumb questions get really out of hand, and result in coffee table books of art criticism. I learned my lesson from John Marwundjul. I asked him” How do you know where to put things?” I suppose I was expecting deep insights into his culture.I got one!His reply said it all. With a big wide smile at my ignorance he said “Look nice” I never felt so stupid in all my life. That’s it? “Look nice?” Yep. Look nice!
Brian E Deagon
Friday March 16th, 2012 11:16 am