The following four paragraphs are from Lee Krasner: The Unacknowledged Equal (New York: The Pollock-Krasner Foundation, 2020), my book on Krasner’s part in the invention of the allover image—an innovation usually credited to Jackson Pollock alone. As far as I know, my thesis has not led to a sweeping revision of the historical record. The image of the autonomous creator, isolated in the ferment of his genius, is difficult to give up. And it has been difficult for art criticism to say much about the way an allover image works. Alloverness remains a puzzle, more than three-quarters of a century after it emerged. So I devoted much of
The elevation of Krasner's artistic role is crucial to a clear and accurate view of twentieth century art history. Kudos to you on publication of a book dealing with this real circumstance.
It is not so much that your thinking is to "suspend judgment" as to deny it. Perhaps, much is gained by never getting to an evaluation at all: Never rating or giving digits and bidding quotes. Rather, let the discussion of meanings evolve, circle to circle, generation by generation, compiling a record of observations.
It's such a lovely sentiment to think of artists as 'inventing' visual forms such as the "all-over image" especially when such images had already long existed. Both Pollock and Krasner were aware of woven patterns, the pattern/decoration motifs of folk art, the all-over nature of wallpaper and linoleum.
They brought it over into the fine-art context and added a soft form of art-historical rhetoric to justify it.
This is not to deny the power and individuality of what they accomplished only to note that it was hardly an "invention" and more of a reapplication.
You seem to moseying around towards a broader "way of looking", rather than a Theory.
In all your sayings , "The hope is that... the discussion of art will give us a sense of what it is to be an individual and conscious of one’s individuality, immersed as it is in a social landscape" and " Meaning, whether in art or in life, is not the upshot of logical analysis; it emerges from interpretations largely subconscious and forever subject to question, revision, and outright rejection. So I can offer no key to the down-to-earth significance of a work of art. No such key is available. ", the central factor of Non-Judgment emerges.
We have become entangled in virtual complexes, where txt-bites and snap-chit-values are mandatory; we are directed Not to consider. Commentary like "on the scale of ", "2 stars to 5 stars", a " B+", etc, pushes us to rate it, bid it, fix it, close it off with a value. In short, finish it .
The suspension of Judgment is a unique contribution to Aesthetics generally, and in Fine Arts especially. This is important good thinking... Forward please !
Recall, if you would, that the great Philosopher Plato wrote sayings, discourses; he wrote Plays .
The elevation of Krasner's artistic role is crucial to a clear and accurate view of twentieth century art history. Kudos to you on publication of a book dealing with this real circumstance.
An Addition to my Comment:
It is not so much that your thinking is to "suspend judgment" as to deny it. Perhaps, much is gained by never getting to an evaluation at all: Never rating or giving digits and bidding quotes. Rather, let the discussion of meanings evolve, circle to circle, generation by generation, compiling a record of observations.
It's such a lovely sentiment to think of artists as 'inventing' visual forms such as the "all-over image" especially when such images had already long existed. Both Pollock and Krasner were aware of woven patterns, the pattern/decoration motifs of folk art, the all-over nature of wallpaper and linoleum.
They brought it over into the fine-art context and added a soft form of art-historical rhetoric to justify it.
This is not to deny the power and individuality of what they accomplished only to note that it was hardly an "invention" and more of a reapplication.
Thanks for this.
You seem to moseying around towards a broader "way of looking", rather than a Theory.
In all your sayings , "The hope is that... the discussion of art will give us a sense of what it is to be an individual and conscious of one’s individuality, immersed as it is in a social landscape" and " Meaning, whether in art or in life, is not the upshot of logical analysis; it emerges from interpretations largely subconscious and forever subject to question, revision, and outright rejection. So I can offer no key to the down-to-earth significance of a work of art. No such key is available. ", the central factor of Non-Judgment emerges.
We have become entangled in virtual complexes, where txt-bites and snap-chit-values are mandatory; we are directed Not to consider. Commentary like "on the scale of ", "2 stars to 5 stars", a " B+", etc, pushes us to rate it, bid it, fix it, close it off with a value. In short, finish it .
The suspension of Judgment is a unique contribution to Aesthetics generally, and in Fine Arts especially. This is important good thinking... Forward please !
Recall, if you would, that the great Philosopher Plato wrote sayings, discourses; he wrote Plays .