Have to largely agree with Peter Joslin. As deeply as Schreyach drills into Newman's work, I'm left unmoved. This is a classic example of over-intellectualizing what is, no matter how ingeniously we describe it, a visual work.
Like I said to Peter, sorry this one didn't work out for you, but thanks for following along.
It's true that the objects in question are visual and not intellectual in nature, and from that standpoint none of this analysis is necessary. I think it was interesting and often even inspiring to follow Schreyach as he made the attempt anyway. As I said, onward.
Yes, reading the give and take has been fun. I'm uncertain about the layout of the labyrinth we meandered. Still, watching you probe the corners with your torch made it all worthwhile.
I would say that, more than shape, mark, and color being evocative of shared experiences between the artist and viewer, at base they ARE shared experiences between the artist and viewer.
While I'm not going to contradict this, it does raise the question of whether the shape and the experience of the shape are the same thing. It's an interesting phenomenological problem.
I will end my reading of Totality at chapter 4, I find this tomb overly intellectualizing Newman and his work. This is not to say that Schreyach hasn’t done his homework, he has, in spades.
Clearly, Schreyach has given Newman his unmitigated, critical attention. His analysis of the man, his work, and what he said about his work, is formidable, however, I am left feeling cold about Newman’s work. Geometric abstraction has been around for a long time, yet continues to find legs. There are some jewels out there, but I find much of it dated, lifeless and difficult to engage with. An over simplification, I realize, but most of Newman’s work doesn’t convince me otherwise. We all come to the table with our own sensibility and it can get in the way of seeing fresh and anew. I suspect I may be in that place with this book.
I appreciate Franklin’s last comment after chapter 5: “I just want to make something that would yield treasure if someone considered it as deeply as Schreyach is looking into Newman. Even if no one ever does.” Agreed, we should all be so lucky!
“May we all grow by looking.” Yes, thank you.
I’m looking forward to The Creative Act: A way of Being.
“May we all grow by looking.” This bears repeating and breathing and embodying every day. So not just with art. May we become acquainted with what is, so that we may become at all.
Have to largely agree with Peter Joslin. As deeply as Schreyach drills into Newman's work, I'm left unmoved. This is a classic example of over-intellectualizing what is, no matter how ingeniously we describe it, a visual work.
Like I said to Peter, sorry this one didn't work out for you, but thanks for following along.
It's true that the objects in question are visual and not intellectual in nature, and from that standpoint none of this analysis is necessary. I think it was interesting and often even inspiring to follow Schreyach as he made the attempt anyway. As I said, onward.
Yes, reading the give and take has been fun. I'm uncertain about the layout of the labyrinth we meandered. Still, watching you probe the corners with your torch made it all worthwhile.
I would say that, more than shape, mark, and color being evocative of shared experiences between the artist and viewer, at base they ARE shared experiences between the artist and viewer.
Dana Gordon
While I'm not going to contradict this, it does raise the question of whether the shape and the experience of the shape are the same thing. It's an interesting phenomenological problem.
True
I would say they are definitely not the same. The shape exists without being perceived. But I don’t know it’s there until I perceive it or imagine it.
In that case my phrasing might be preferable.
I might have been overly negative, it was worth getting through the 4 chapters. I appreciate you doing this.
Last thoughts of Schreyach’s Totality
I will end my reading of Totality at chapter 4, I find this tomb overly intellectualizing Newman and his work. This is not to say that Schreyach hasn’t done his homework, he has, in spades.
Clearly, Schreyach has given Newman his unmitigated, critical attention. His analysis of the man, his work, and what he said about his work, is formidable, however, I am left feeling cold about Newman’s work. Geometric abstraction has been around for a long time, yet continues to find legs. There are some jewels out there, but I find much of it dated, lifeless and difficult to engage with. An over simplification, I realize, but most of Newman’s work doesn’t convince me otherwise. We all come to the table with our own sensibility and it can get in the way of seeing fresh and anew. I suspect I may be in that place with this book.
I appreciate Franklin’s last comment after chapter 5: “I just want to make something that would yield treasure if someone considered it as deeply as Schreyach is looking into Newman. Even if no one ever does.” Agreed, we should all be so lucky!
“May we all grow by looking.” Yes, thank you.
I’m looking forward to The Creative Act: A way of Being.
Sorry this one didn't work for you, but thanks for making the attempt. Creative Act should be a very different kind of read.
“May we all grow by looking.” This bears repeating and breathing and embodying every day. So not just with art. May we become acquainted with what is, so that we may become at all.