Rereading again C. Greenberg “Modernist Painting” and “Avant-Garde and Kitsch” I needed to try it out.
Through my last works with purely emotional aspect I understood that straight lines are less expressive but more representative as flatness.
Flatness
So I questioned if flatness will be proved only by one line on the canvas but I change the light to ultraviolet one (I believe that if the artist didn`t point a particular type of light then the artwork is not finished). So my line became three-dimensional and even with – kind of – repeating the concept of Barnett Newman, I still came to “imitation” of space on a two-dimensional surface.
Probably predecessors were not so wrong with creating something more than flat? Surface by nature is flat, so by the same nature, all depiction will retain as flat as this surface. If we transfer this logic to music it would be like seven tones would not be needed for an organisation into an advanced composition.
To create a feeling of the space of the flat surface can be similar to the process of perceiving the information via our eyes. As we know that understanding of picture happening in our brain and not in our eyes then all that we see a prior is a bit flat already, till it reaches your brain. But your brain then configures an image and changes it to three-dimensional.
Emphasizing that the object on the canvas is really flat, the same as confirming that the world is really round. Once it was confirmed that it is round - we need to move further than that. So I would say it doesn't matter if the object is flat or three-dimensional it should depend only on the artist's idea.
Kitsch
The subject of work still, I believe, should remain in abstract expressionist technique, because I didn't find yet a sense to “imitate” the reality.
Comments