Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:

> I would say that that is the goal of any art. The fact that it is 'just
> a shape' qualifies it as such. It would be totally destructive to be
> aware of the mind boggling work involved. That is for the artist to know
> and for the buyer to pay for :-) It has been a hot discussion point ever
> since the days of Cobra (and others) in the last century.

A hot discussion indeed, and I have been on both sides of it over the years. But
I've settled, I believe, on art as a perishable language. A letter or number is
"just a shape." It is the relationship to other shapes (the rules and
limitations) which make those shapes interesting.

Gilbert Stuart painted plenty of people who weren't US Presidents. Were those
portraits less artistic than the Landsdown portrait of George Washington?

"Le Grand K" (another shape) is interesting in a few ways, but mostly because it
weighs exactly one kilogram. This year, the arbitrary definition of kilogram
will change, and "Le Grand K" will go from essential scientific reference to
historical curiosity. One day, the history will be all-but forgotten, and "Le
Grand K" will be little more than a footnote.

Context matters.

Post a reply to this message