Re: reenacting PRIMARILY NOT DUCHAMP

__ [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Duchamp Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ] __

Posted by RAINRIEN NERVE OF MINE on October 24, 19102 at 16:15:27:

In Reply to: Re: reenacting PRIMARILY NOT DUCHAMP posted by Bill Wilson on October 17, 19102 at 18:02:08:

: S.Lauf:
: As I noted yesterday at electricity-l, I once owned and operated an art gallery [VENUE], and, quite frankly, because of cyberplaces like eBay (and Quondam [or Museumpeace] for that matter), there really is no more need for me to have a physical gallery space in a certain part of town and open a slated number of hours during the day. Moreover, if I wanted to have an art exhibit reception (where, incidentally, many of the traditional sales occur), I'd simple have it in my house.

: I can’t find your Duchampiana, but fell into this statement, which tempts me to point out from my perspective the point of view of an architect on painting. Architects tend to build walls, and painting can be hung on walls. The very extension of walls can be for the sake of the paintings, to which the walls are subsidiary. What is worse for the architects, a painting hanging on a wall becomes a focal plane of attention, causing the wall as a plane effectively to recede behind the painting. The wall has just moved back, and architects don’t seem to like that (F. L. Wright and Frank Gehry's records on walls for painting will be introduced into evidence. In the spiralling Guggenheim, paintings have been heard to say Ouch!, some even to scream). The suggestion that a work of art, if a painting or a sculpture, can be experienced in a reproduction, sadly misrepresents the existence of such a work of art as a physical object that is the vehicle of an aesthetic illusion. The material and the illusion do not coincide perfectly. A person looking at a painting as art does not see the surface as material, but sees the aesthetic illusion in its wholeness as a focal plane, a construct of the eye-mind. The surface, as conservators can learn, is a little difficult to see if you look at the picture. The relation between materials and illusoriness is an expressive resource for artists. Picasso frequently took paintings down from walls and stacked them like a mont-joie, giving them a different function. Fortunately for architects, many Modernist artists did not want the walls to appear to recede—-hence the work of Donald Judd, Richard Serra, and other anti-illusionists (materialists,positivists and nominalists). Some visual art might survive transmogrification into bits in virtual space, but Duchamp’s paintings do not and cannot.

: Some architects hate painting so much that they take up painting to show how to make a work of virtual space that does not push the walls around in actual space. Duchamp in his installations for other artists teased the ceiling and the walls, and in his apartment he positioned a rack that belongs on the wall onto the floor, while hanging a snowshovel on the wall. His interiors had to be experienced by a person trying to stand on a secure floor, and to breathe actually, not virtually. Now I wonder what paintings would do to the walls of your house, and whether you would feel relief for the walls if a painting were sold and removed, thereby emancipating the walls from the oppression of (mere)aesthetic illusions. Matisse is the great theorist of painting in relations with walls (evidence provided on request [and his daughter-in-law married Duchamp, and hung paintings by Matisse in their apartment]). As an exercise, sometime look at photographs of interiors Picasso lived in, and figure out how much wall is visible, if indeed you can find the wall.

BILL with an extra L !

I AM DELIGHTED YOU HAVE NOTICED THE SPACE
Picasso did some of his best Qwink on the BEACH! Totally Wall LESS !
Using the very FISH HE ATE FOR DINNER PLATES !
Mary Go'round sent me a real bottle of Quink.
Dew you remember Ray or Duchayumpire ever even
uncorking a bottle of Quink ? Almond Mount Joy Indeed.

__ Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : S.Lauf: : : As I noted yesterday at electricity-l, I once owned and operated an art gallery [VENUE], and, quite frankly, because of cyberplaces like eBay (and Quondam [or Museumpeace] for that matter), there really is no more need for me to have a physical gallery space in a certain part of town and open a slated number of hours during the day. Moreover, if I wanted to have an art exhibit reception (where, incidentally, many of the traditional sales occur), I'd simple have it in my house. : : I can’t find your Duchampiana, but fell into this statement, which tempts me to point out from my perspective the point of view of an architect on painting. Architects tend to build walls, and painting can be hung on walls. The very extension of walls can be for the sake of the paintings, to which the walls are subsidiary. What is worse for the architects, a painting hanging on a wall becomes a focal plane of attention, causing the wall as a plane effectively to recede behind the painting. The wall has just moved back, and architects don’t seem to like that (F. L. Wright and Frank Gehry's records on walls for painting will be introduced into evidence. In the spiralling Guggenheim, paintings have been heard to say Ouch!, some even to scream). The suggestion that a work of art, if a painting or a sculpture, can be experienced in a reproduction, sadly misrepresents the existence of such a work of art as a physical object that is the vehicle of an aesthetic illusion. The material and the illusion do not coincide perfectly. A person looking at a painting as art does not see the surface as material, but sees the aesthetic illusion in its wholeness as a focal plane, a construct of the eye-mind. The surface, as conservators can learn, is a little difficult to see if you look at the picture. The relation between materials and illusoriness is an expressive resource for artists. Picasso frequently took paintings down from walls and stacked them like a mont-joie, giving them a different function. Fortunately for architects, many Modernist artists did not want the walls to appear to recede—-hence the work of Donald Judd, Richard Serra, and other anti-illusionists (materialists,positivists and nominalists). Some visual art might survive transmogrification into bits in virtual space, but Duchamp’s paintings do not and cannot. : : Some architects hate painting so much that they take up painting to show how to make a work of virtual space that does not push the walls around in actual space. Duchamp in his installations for other artists teased the ceiling and the walls, and in his apartment he positioned a rack that belongs on the wall onto the floor, while hanging a snowshovel on the wall. His interiors had to be experienced by a person trying to stand on a secure floor, and to breathe actually, not virtually. Now I wonder what paintings would do to the walls of your house, and whether you would feel relief for the walls if a painting were sold and removed, thereby emancipating the walls from the oppression of (mere)aesthetic illusions. Matisse is the great theorist of painting in relations with walls (evidence provided on request [and his daughter-in-law married Duchamp, and hung paintings by Matisse in their apartment]). As an exercise, sometime look at photographs of interiors Picasso lived in, and figure out how much wall is visible, if indeed you can find the wall. : BILL with an extra L ! : I AM DELIGHTED YOU HAVE NOTICED THE SPACE : Picasso did some of his best Qwink on the BEACH! Totally Wall LESS ! : Using the very FISH HE ATE FOR DINNER PLATES ! : Mary Go'round sent me a real bottle of Quink. : Dew you remember Ray or Duchayumpire ever even : uncorking a bottle of Quink ? Almond Mount Joy Indeed.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

_________________ [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Duchamp Bulletin Board ] [ FAQ ]