|
Kant found beauty
to be in ‘order’, or, ‘form’ that
stimulates free play of imagination – beauty to be,
purposiveness with out purpose.
With out having further knowledge
of this development, it sounds as though this is the forerunning
thought to, “Art for art’s sake.”
Does removing identification
for the viewer (rather – the removal of a sentiment
to identify with), cause disengagement to the art? Or can
an artwork contain an inherent power to engage – be
attractive enough with out recognizable image to draw one
in – with out having to rely on or strategize nostalgia
/ sentiment / romance?
I think it is obvious, and
was conclusively established among the Modernists of the
New York School. I think Rothko's reflectiveness, Pollock's
inertia, Franz Kline's power, Twombly's calligraphy suffice
as just a few, foundational examples
How will I achieve this,
as I believe this is the final ingredient needed for the
Freedom ART Project paintings.
According to Kant it
is order that defines beauty ...
- and yet it is tension that holds our attention. It seems
to me that the ideas of harmony and dissonance must be active
for a painting to have vitality. A bold application –
present as provocateur, yet stable in a foundational grounding
– needs to be applied using methods of construction,
deconstruction, and reconstruction.
I keep coming back
to this. I have written about this before and at the risk
of my usual redundancy, it is how I prepare for the coming
prototype. By going over the concept again and again like
water over a rock, until the edges smooth and the concept
becomes second nature - my action smoothly proceeds.
September
continued - I am Ready... >>9.16
|