Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nefeli
...
a somewhat example, its for other thread also. didnt like Rothko, but when i saw paintings of his, they made feel things. was almost overwhelmed actually. i always consider good art (for my personal book), what makes my soul -and aesthetics-move. wont mean that other pieces of art arent good. and still, the debate of what is art, dont think its entirely pointless.
|
I've written as much about Rothko. A few times actually. One cannot properly enjoy a Rothko as a reproduction in a book. You must meditate with the paintings in their environment. And yes, you do "feel things." And what you feel goes beyond an eye-brain reaction to certain color fields and compositional proportions. What you feel is a genuine spiritual presence.
Going back to the topic, one way to look at the whole writing thing is as follows. The Surrealists and the Abstract Expressionists who came after employed much
automatic writing. Simply stated, the major problem many artists, critics and instructors have with "writing on canvas" is precisely that it is
literal writing and thus sets up a narrative context for the work going beyond just the work's title.