Guest guest Posted September 25, 2000 Report Share Posted September 25, 2000 Dear Sandeep, I enjoyed your rewording of Nagarjuna, found it somewhat brilliant in fact, as I find many of your posts. However... > > A painting of the sky, even if the painter is Learnado da Vinci, is never > THE sky. > It is "about" the sky, a version. > And all versions are bound, limited, "dead". > And yet it is only the conceptual, phenomenal context that communication > (with words or otherwise) is possible, ergo, the communication itself is > conceptual, no matter who the communicator is. > ....this doesn't seem quite right to me. I think I understand the intent but... The sky in a painting is not a version of any other sky, neither a sky in the 'real' world, nor a sky in the mind of the artist. It is not about anything but itself. It appears in the process of painting, and in the viewer's eye. The sky in a painting is simply what it is. There is a difference between a painting and a map or a blueprint. Look at Turner's or El Greco's skies, they do not depict any sky ever seen before. The act of putting paint on a surface like the act of writing fiction is in effect the creation of a new reality, within its own limits, what exists there exists there independent of the reality outside the frame, though interestingly it is not self aware, but needs a viewer outside of it to be aware of it. love, andrew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.