> LOL I've been thinking it was a monochrome painting all along.  Oh well,
> I guess what I've been saying still stands LOL
>

I posted this link awhile back, too.  It's a larger image.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/malevich/sup/malevich.peasant-woman.jpg

I had a few co-workers stare at this with me.  Some tried to figure out if
perhaps there was a hidden picture within the different shades of red paint.
Well, if Malevich was happy painting what he did, more power to him (except
that he was eventually forced to stop and died penniless).

If you notice, the square is not [square].  That bothers me.  My first
thought was that the picture was taken from an angle, but then I realized
this wasn't the case.  If I could imagine myself standing in front of it, I
would figure that I would feel compelled to change where I was standing
several times, thinking that if I just stood a little bit more to the left,
it would look better to me.  But doing so would make the bottom look wrong
(assuming Malevich envisioned a "top" and "bottom").  In that sense, I could
see myself staring at it from several different directions.

Ok.  So what seemed like a worthless picture (to me) initially is suddenly
taking on some meaning.  Even so, I'm not sure I'll ever truly understand
it.  However, some of those Yves Klein paintings were quite intriguing.
That said, I still prefer realism and/or surrealism (leaning more toward
"real" than "surreal").

--
Slash

Post a reply to this message