Earlier remarks about the invisible greater part of an artwork used only classical, canonical paintings for examples. Actually, the point applies to abstraction more than anything, and the drive to eliminate the superfluous, which in some cases takes the form of works that are ostentatiously thing-like, and apparently strictly factual, only emphasizes the point. I could say that there is more invisible material in minimalism than in any other art, though to prove it seems like a tedious effort. It’s more fun to talk about information loss in Pollock, as I did in a couple of articles about science and art. The key is that the invisible part is also present and can be recognized, or “seen.” But if it’s invisible how can that be so? The kind of paradox I love.

Jackson Pollock, Summertime 1948

Jackson Pollock, Summertime 1948

This entry was posted in American Modernism, Conceptualism and Painting, Principles of Abstraction and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Invisible

  1. Mike says:

    One of my friends is a cop, and he pulled over a badly weaving drunk driver one sadderday night. the window rolled down, and he was hit with a whiskey-wall assault on his nose, and the driver was wearing shades to top it off. cop asked the obligatory question “had anything to drink tonight” and got back a resounding “no”!!! “not a drop” !!! how do you explain your erratic driving? “well, my friend was waaaay too drunk to drive, so we thought it would be better if a sober man like myself would do the driving.” “can i see your license, and can you please remove the sunglasses?”. “sorry officer, I don’t have a drivers license, I am blind, and the drunk was telling me where to go”…

    As you said Robert, invisibility and its flipside – “blindness”, are very evident when looked upon from outside the condition. The more blind you are, the more the sighted can spot you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *