This entry was posted on December 14, 2021 at 10:38 am and is filed under Art, Biographical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Here Coles shows us the possibilities that Malevich, for all his vision, could not: again the Suprematist void unmoors the viewer from three-dimensional geometries, again the forced shift of perspective into no-place, but where his predecessor insists on an agreement between vertical and horizontal, Coles abandons the stale perfection of the square and other such structuralist and structuralizing notions on a field which presents both a dimensional disagreement and an intentional orientation (or an orientation of intention?). The work’s titlelessness may also be seen as a reference to and a surpassing of the Suprematist and Constructivist nomenclatures.
Thank you for your critique. It would have been even better (and consistent or totalizing) if the picture frame itself is not “the stale perfection of the square [or rectangle]”.
December 14, 2021 at 4:57 pm
Here Coles shows us the possibilities that Malevich, for all his vision, could not: again the Suprematist void unmoors the viewer from three-dimensional geometries, again the forced shift of perspective into no-place, but where his predecessor insists on an agreement between vertical and horizontal, Coles abandons the stale perfection of the square and other such structuralist and structuralizing notions on a field which presents both a dimensional disagreement and an intentional orientation (or an orientation of intention?). The work’s titlelessness may also be seen as a reference to and a surpassing of the Suprematist and Constructivist nomenclatures.
December 14, 2021 at 6:08 pm
My thoughts entirely.
December 14, 2021 at 10:07 pm
Thank you for your critique. It would have been even better (and consistent or totalizing) if the picture frame itself is not “the stale perfection of the square [or rectangle]”.
Yours sincerely,
SoundEagle