Цитата:
Сообщение от Art-lover
agree that there is no more agreeable companions than the theorist and the artist: one without looking, forgiving their artists daub, and the other without reading it, condescendingly excuses the theorists of their rubbish.  |
Agree
Цитата:
Сообщение от Art-lover
Florensky here, as usual, philosophers, all mix: point, line, painting, drawing, movement, sensation ...
|
That's for sure. A mixture of nice, though he can not refuse to resourcefulness, or, as you put it, "a deep, extremely abstract and virtuoso on the culture of thinking approach to the organization of space in art."
As I understand from this text, simply put, if more lines - graphics with elements of painting, and if more spots - a painting with the elements of graphics. Net same graphics as pure painting does not exist. To support this thesis draws the easy-philosophical artillery "of the knowledge of the surrounding space and extrapolate their experience.
Frankly, it reminds me of the attempt to distinguish between saber and sword, they say, a hack, another stabbing, and so they are very different, because one lets blood out, while the other provides a good internal bleeding. Yes, there is some technical difference, but it all - cool weapon and as a result - the death of a guinea.
I'm looking at this situation is simpler: the line and the spot - a weapon the artist, the result of its use there is a painting. Practical difference between the spot and the line is no, in this respect, Arnheim, as a researcher, right. A Florensky too clever by half.
Forward to the continuation))