« WHAT ARE THE ISSUES [A PREPARATION] PART IV. | Main | An Addendum. »

12/29/2006

Comments

Dmitry Samarov

I've very much enjoyed your essays about painting...After reading this last one, especially the part about which way to go forward as a painter, it made me wonder...If one is not consciously working in an outmoded style, but attempting to respond to a subject with whatever skill or lack thereof at his disposal; is that the same as finding a new way? Or must there be some sort of deliberate decision to strike out in a particular direction? The latter seems to me a recipe for faddishness or fashion, not a true attempt at finding relevance...I understand that there are many who pattern their work in a way to appeal to a certain audience by adopting a manner which that audience will understand, but what if one internalizes one's influences and cannot help but show their mark? Does that inevitably produce what you call "stale" work?In any case I thank you for making me ponder these things and look forward to your future thoughts...respectfully,Dmitry

Matthew Lopas

[this is good] Very stimulating. I once had a Duchamp lover call me an academic. I had to laugh. The Duchamp lovers are the stale academics of today.As far as where to go now, it seems that one should not be seduced by the great art of the past nor the gliitering style and cash of the present. Just get to work and be honest. Let the historians evaluate it. An engaed eye and hand will be its own reward. But where can I find more on the "spatial arabesque"?

Philip Hale

Dear Gabriel,
As always, I find thepainters, paintings, and writing references youoffer verystimulating and worth evaluating.Thank you.
Philip Hale

The comments to this entry are closed.