|
We had a lot of good long talks on dinner breaks in
Williamsburg, (particularly at Bonita, on Bedford and South
Third or thereabouts--the best Mexican food either of us
have found in New York to date). One evening I was
propounding my newly hatched hypothesis on the grammar of
art; the reason that so many young artists produce lame,
amorphous art is that they do not understand how to
construct a proper English sentence: subject, verb, object.
Never mind prepositional phrases or indirect objects, they
don't even understand verbs. You know, it's the type of
artist who says, you know, like, their art is about Red,
you know. Like, the association with blood, life energy,
force, that sort of thing. Yes, and what about it? It goes
nowhere, just sort of hangs out. I don't know if this
hypothesis has any validity, but Libby and I tested it by
seeing if we could make complete sentences about our own
work.
|
"There's my painting, 'the birds fly up over the blue
city," I said. And, 'the viola handle reaches achingly
toward the bare tree branches.' That's a sentence."
"I don't know if my work makes sentences at all,"
said Lib.
"Sure it does. 'The baroque, organic pattern of the
stencil slowly disappears to reveal the formal perfection
of the spheres within," I said. "While doing so, it creates
infinite refractions of the light and the space around it,
suggesting meditations on the nature of inner versus outer
beauty, the natural world versus human constructs, and the
timeless nature of spirit.'"
"Well, maybe my work is a little wordy," she
conceded.
|
|