|
7 March 2005: Today some cross words about the two pieces below, which were in the show at the Segnini Gallery:
Both of these are wonderful works of art--among my favorites in the show, and I feel there is a lot of first-rate work in the show. But I just don't see the point in calling either a visual poem. John's piece isn't even visio-textual, for Pete's sake! (It's part of a series I have not seen all the frames of, though, so maybe the sequence itself is visio-textual, or even visio-poetic, which would make this frame of it visio-textual or visio-poetic . . . in context. It's also possible that there are letters or words in it that I don't see, I suppose.) Karl's piece is visio-textual, but the textual part of it is simply a label or caption. It is movingly expressive and unquestionably emotionally fused with the graphic accompanying it--even more so on the wall, joined to the other three pieces the full work consists of (two of them labeled along one side). But . . .
Yeah, I know: we should just enjoy them without worrying about what to call them. But knowledge is important, too, and knowledge depends on sensible terms.
|
