The perspective that leads back to the left and the placement of the figure on the right divides the canvas into roughly three or four natural parts that while not equal, one can recognise symmetry, pleasingly demonstrating our ability for closure, or holding that which is different as the same (Hilliary Lawson).
The person on the left watches, sitting, hands held contemplatively in the public scene. Chairs, lights, tables, people, thoughts, things. For him, it is through closure that openness is divided into things (Lawson).
His perception of things is influenced by where he is at that time, but he also brings with him a sensory and linguistic history that places him in a larger expanse of time and place. He sees what he is hardwired and programmed to see. He discriminates things prior to him, like his father and mother, his grandparents, his age, his time. These things are natural complexes (Justus Buchler)
Recognisable here is form as represented by an intuitively moving line. The multitudinous things vibrate in their line, in his seeing, pointing to the movement inherent in contour, or a natural complex's continuity or totality of form (Buchler).
Through line, the things here also appear to vibrate there nuomenal essence (Kant), lending and extending into each other through a largely unified line. This as natural complexes must naturally be, namely the fluid process of possibility and actuality, of ordinality and relationality, things becoming prevalent in orders and in relation to each other (Buchler).
But the many are one in as much as the one is many.
As such is further revealed in this drawing the principle of ontological parity, namely that everything that is discrimated, from thought to matter (or the range of one and many, complete singularity, finitude, to complete multitudinality, otherwise infinity) is a natural complex.
There is movement in the discrete line as already described. And in the property of movement is change and ultimately variance. It is through alescence, or as natural complexes accept other complexes into their contour, that they vary, that they change.
So 4+1 is an augmentative alescence, and 4+(-1) a spoilative one. Or at any one time, the people that come in and out of this public place are prevelant and alescant. Like the formation of a cloud as it is concretising in its many forms through the condensation of moisture, in other words a prevelance. A prevalence that can change, it can accept more condensing water into its form or scope and grow, otherwise an alescence, or the cloud can become dissipated by admitting energy into its form, likewise an alescent trait, evapourating or releasing the water into the flux of openness.
And here, one can get a sense of openness in the accentuatedly wide, almost orbic view of the subject matter, otherwise an expanse of things filling up one active scene.
In fact, in trying to understand and describe texture, or openness, in this drawing, I come to a loss. It is evidently present, but I find a void when trying to adequately describe it. In this very fact then, this drawing is successful as a metaphysical argument as well (and this applies to all blind contour), in that its texture is its movement towards openness. So when I reach for a descriptor for that which is nothing like material and closure, or that which is open, I find nothing, or the no-thing, that which I cannot define beyond my congealing of it.
Moreover, this I believe to be linked into the ontological activity of blind contourism. The skill of the artist par exelance. The artist as mimetic translator of ultimate form, always uncertain, moving, changing, raging, but never in doubt.
Herein then lies a subtle representation of the wide expanse of fluid intricacy in evident things.
1 Comments:
This has great composition:
The perspective that leads back to the left and the placement of the figure on the right divides the canvas into roughly three or four natural parts that while not equal, one can recognise symmetry, pleasingly demonstrating our ability for closure, or holding that which is different as the same (Hilliary Lawson).
The person on the left watches, sitting, hands held contemplatively in the public scene. Chairs, lights, tables, people, thoughts, things. For him, it is through closure that openness is divided into things (Lawson).
His perception of things is influenced by where he is at that time, but he also brings with him a sensory and linguistic history that places him in a larger expanse of time and place. He sees what he is hardwired and programmed to see. He discriminates things prior to him, like his father and mother, his grandparents, his age, his time. These things are natural complexes (Justus Buchler)
Recognisable here is form as represented by an intuitively moving line. The multitudinous things vibrate in their line, in his seeing, pointing to the movement inherent in contour, or a natural complex's continuity or totality of form (Buchler).
Through line, the things here also appear to vibrate there nuomenal essence (Kant), lending and extending into each other through a largely unified line. This as natural complexes must naturally be, namely the fluid process of possibility and actuality, of ordinality and relationality, things becoming prevalent in orders and in relation to each other (Buchler).
But the many are one in as much as the one is many.
As such is further revealed in this drawing the principle of ontological parity, namely that everything that is discrimated, from thought to matter (or the range of one and many, complete singularity, finitude, to complete multitudinality, otherwise infinity) is a natural complex.
There is movement in the discrete line as already described. And in the property of movement is change and ultimately variance. It is through alescence, or as natural complexes accept other complexes into their contour, that they vary, that they change.
So 4+1 is an augmentative alescence, and 4+(-1) a spoilative one. Or at any one time, the people that come in and out of this public place are prevelant and alescant. Like the formation of a cloud as it is concretising in its many forms through the condensation of moisture, in other words a prevelance. A prevalence that can change, it can accept more condensing water into its form or scope and grow, otherwise an alescence, or the cloud can become dissipated by admitting energy into its form, likewise an alescent trait, evapourating or releasing the water into the flux of openness.
And here, one can get a sense of openness in the accentuatedly wide, almost orbic view of the subject matter, otherwise an expanse of things filling up one active scene.
In fact, in trying to understand and describe texture, or openness, in this drawing, I come to a loss. It is evidently present, but I find a void when trying to adequately describe it. In this very fact then, this drawing is successful as a metaphysical argument as well (and this applies to all blind contour), in that its texture is its movement towards openness. So when I reach for a descriptor for that which is nothing like material and closure, or that which is open, I find nothing, or the no-thing, that which I cannot define beyond my congealing of it.
Moreover, this I believe to be linked into the ontological activity of blind contourism. The skill of the artist par exelance. The artist as mimetic translator of ultimate form, always uncertain, moving, changing, raging, but never in doubt.
Herein then lies a subtle representation of the wide expanse of fluid intricacy in evident things.
Post a Comment
<< Home