|
25 September 2004. Excerpt from a Taxonomical Essay on Visio-Textual Art, Part 9
Mark Laba's "Snark," below, seems similarly textual but not verbal to me. If some critic can
paraphrase its verbal foreburden and show how that connects with its visual matter, I'll
(ahem) allow it to be called a litagraph, but for now it looks to be a textagraph,
to me.
I wouldn't call call Marshall Hryciuk's "fen etre <3 4>" a textagraph, though, regardless of how closely its text resembles that of Laba's in its seeming lack of semantic sense:
Out of its apparently arbitrarily scattered
letters,"WOOD" and "BUTuuTtffliTERFY" and all kinds of other words ascend. Some kind of cerebral combustion is going on--from which some kind of "heat-resistant product" has been flung. It therefore seems to me a litagraph.
With that this survey ends. I hope my examples of litagraphs, illuscriptions, and
textagraphs are enough to argue for the reasonability of my taxonomic scheme.
I'm sure they're enough to argue for the vitality of late Twentieth-Century visio-textual
Art in Canada.
|
|
Previous Entry