The message is both personal and didactic art, it would not this world a statue by the artist's imagination that he transcribed, even though he would deal with a surplus of lucidity. This would be something that lies somewhere in the manner which articulate man by her gesture that reveals and shows us the world. One way, described him as Claude Levi-Strauss, from a set (the object and the event) to the discovery or rediscovery of its structure (1) .
The genesis of a work is important, but it must be understood, beyond the obvious, like the ability to make us not a spectator event, but the "light" perceiving real qualities of the work (the "viewer" looks Bernard Plantive, after Duchamp), tightening its product on the episode and the permanence of art. One way ride on the world of reference, but also in the rediscovery in the reconquest of the extreme singularity, a universal technique in which the work is "elementary" lends itself naturally.
Examine the work of Bernard Plantive would not analyze its components, but stick to the abeyance of them, which makes effective the view that we must carry on this work . A hold precisely due to the fact that our perception does not look any further, an examination surface that triggers a new "agenda". No organic mixture in the sense that the product of mixing one account, the emergence of forms but not this time this kairos Aristotelian, which allows to understand the true qualities, to realize that the essence of art, says Bernard Plantive is "both" sacred "and pathetic" (2) . The sacred and the absurd: areas where realizes the true nature of the object.
must be well understood, as well as works eyeing reality, beyond interpretation, that clearly sets out what it is, something independent, something that affirms his freedom by what the same sense of purpose reveals: object, thrown before before the eye, by a desire contained in the thing, or more precisely by the capacity of a thing to be seen with us. Approach that opens up all kinds of adventures, beginning with that of Malevich that we will see later, Bernard Plantive is particularly committed. Adventure where "non-representation is not absolute, but is simply" (3) .
But understand that this event continues to keep her secret, despite the historically art world to which it relates. Beyond its value, its origins or its history, one thing appears to me it seems simple, yet it is not the thing itself that appears. The moment I understand that the thing can not be free to appear to me it must be sought elsewhere, behind the object somehow, to discover that there is something else that allows the object to appear. Rather than focus on perception, which goes to the object just to remove a given incomplete, we must focus on the object, which, instead of being viewed as a particular content, is in the manner in which he gives himself to us and appears (4) .
The rectangle table refuses in its individual donation to any book, deflower. If taken as the special case of gasoline the rectangle, it will not be like having all characters of the "generality appropriate to the species." The strange peculiarity of table, his posting material, tangible, verifiable, the pose more than others as a real object, huge, pervasive, even triumphant despite its small size.
We watch, without offering any real resistance, an object subject to the laws of the magnitude and shape. And yet during the rustle of our observation, something happened without our knowledge. In choosing which puts him away from any interference, either alongside more massive objects which he said at the solemn presence due to their exposure, the subject woke quadrangular in our judgments of strange bodies. We remain silent to this subject not because he does not have enough things that we have to talk about forever, but because he rushed to the back seat of our perception to return intact on the wall its host. We remain silent because we are faced with a simple "astounding." Of these objects, we found no mental gardens or recovery impossible prohibits a look. We remain in effect confused by the layer of the absolute form of identification at trial. Reversibility which exceeds the opacity of his face and makes it blind to the contrary extraordinarily transparent.
is there, this has immediate visibility into our head that we are perceptive bec, suddenly arrested by the arrogance of this object, by imposing its form and complete freedom to dispose our most basic patterns. It is we who become transparent.
The genesis of a work is important, but it must be understood, beyond the obvious, like the ability to make us not a spectator event, but the "light" perceiving real qualities of the work (the "viewer" looks Bernard Plantive, after Duchamp), tightening its product on the episode and the permanence of art. One way ride on the world of reference, but also in the rediscovery in the reconquest of the extreme singularity, a universal technique in which the work is "elementary" lends itself naturally.
Examine the work of Bernard Plantive would not analyze its components, but stick to the abeyance of them, which makes effective the view that we must carry on this work . A hold precisely due to the fact that our perception does not look any further, an examination surface that triggers a new "agenda". No organic mixture in the sense that the product of mixing one account, the emergence of forms but not this time this kairos Aristotelian, which allows to understand the true qualities, to realize that the essence of art, says Bernard Plantive is "both" sacred "and pathetic" (2) . The sacred and the absurd: areas where realizes the true nature of the object.
must be well understood, as well as works eyeing reality, beyond interpretation, that clearly sets out what it is, something independent, something that affirms his freedom by what the same sense of purpose reveals: object, thrown before before the eye, by a desire contained in the thing, or more precisely by the capacity of a thing to be seen with us. Approach that opens up all kinds of adventures, beginning with that of Malevich that we will see later, Bernard Plantive is particularly committed. Adventure where "non-representation is not absolute, but is simply" (3) .
But understand that this event continues to keep her secret, despite the historically art world to which it relates. Beyond its value, its origins or its history, one thing appears to me it seems simple, yet it is not the thing itself that appears. The moment I understand that the thing can not be free to appear to me it must be sought elsewhere, behind the object somehow, to discover that there is something else that allows the object to appear. Rather than focus on perception, which goes to the object just to remove a given incomplete, we must focus on the object, which, instead of being viewed as a particular content, is in the manner in which he gives himself to us and appears (4) .
The rectangle table refuses in its individual donation to any book, deflower. If taken as the special case of gasoline the rectangle, it will not be like having all characters of the "generality appropriate to the species." The strange peculiarity of table, his posting material, tangible, verifiable, the pose more than others as a real object, huge, pervasive, even triumphant despite its small size.
We watch, without offering any real resistance, an object subject to the laws of the magnitude and shape. And yet during the rustle of our observation, something happened without our knowledge. In choosing which puts him away from any interference, either alongside more massive objects which he said at the solemn presence due to their exposure, the subject woke quadrangular in our judgments of strange bodies. We remain silent to this subject not because he does not have enough things that we have to talk about forever, but because he rushed to the back seat of our perception to return intact on the wall its host. We remain silent because we are faced with a simple "astounding." Of these objects, we found no mental gardens or recovery impossible prohibits a look. We remain in effect confused by the layer of the absolute form of identification at trial. Reversibility which exceeds the opacity of his face and makes it blind to the contrary extraordinarily transparent.
is there, this has immediate visibility into our head that we are perceptive bec, suddenly arrested by the arrogance of this object, by imposing its form and complete freedom to dispose our most basic patterns. It is we who become transparent.
Notes:
1 The myth follows the reverse path as part of a structure, whereby he undertook the construction of a set: object and event. Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind , Paris, Plon, 1962, p. 41. We shall see in Chapter "work", the importance of this analysis.
2 Bernard Plantive, Workbook , 1 June 1991.
3 Jean-Claude Marcadé, "From the eclipse of the objects the release of space "in Jean-Claude Marcadé, Malevich Book No. 1, a collection of essays on the work and thought KS Malevich, Lausanne, L'Age d'Homme, 1983 p. 114.
4 Edmund Husserl, Ideas guidelines for phenomenology first section, "The knowledge of species and species' first chapter," Done and gasoline ", § 3, translation of the German by Paul Ricoeur, Paris, Gallimard, 1950.
© Fields of Art
1 The myth follows the reverse path as part of a structure, whereby he undertook the construction of a set: object and event. Claude Levi-Strauss, The Savage Mind , Paris, Plon, 1962, p. 41. We shall see in Chapter "work", the importance of this analysis.
2 Bernard Plantive, Workbook , 1 June 1991.
3 Jean-Claude Marcadé, "From the eclipse of the objects the release of space "in Jean-Claude Marcadé, Malevich Book No. 1, a collection of essays on the work and thought KS Malevich, Lausanne, L'Age d'Homme, 1983 p. 114.
4 Edmund Husserl, Ideas guidelines for phenomenology first section, "The knowledge of species and species' first chapter," Done and gasoline ", § 3, translation of the German by Paul Ricoeur, Paris, Gallimard, 1950.
© Fields of Art
0 comments:
Post a Comment