Mark Hatfield wrote :

I think that we should look to Kierkegaard for advice on this subject when he says, "Repetition and recollection are the same movement, except in opposite directions, for what is recollected has been, is repeated backward, whereas genuine repetition is recollected forward. Repetition, therefore, if it is possible, makes a person happy, whereas recollection makes him unhappy."
Mark Hatfield posted on 06/25/10
Judy Rey Wasserman wrote :

The comments about the burgeoning possibilities for repetition in art today, made especially by Amy, touch on what may cause the biggest shake-up in the art world since the dealers arrived in the primary market (vs. patronage). Factor in social media and the Internet and artists suddenly have their own primary access to collectors. This potential frees artists from any constraints of compliance with accepted societal positions. For instance, imagine how Pissarro, Monet, and the original Impressionists might have fared if they had had the Internet to make their new art theories known from the get-go.

The difficulty with advancing a new theory of art that challenges the "norms" of art and society is that the work of new theories has always been visually radical. This actually makes them hard to see as 90% of vision occurs in the brain as it compares visual memories to the impressions of light received from the eyes.

Dualities are what we grapple with as artists and humans. The best of times are always also the worst of times and the artist's dilemma is to depict this anew in one's own way and era, yet remain eternal.

Thanks for the great discussion!

Judy Rey Wasserman posted on 06/24/10

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.