|
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.
|
|