Originally Posted by tagutcow
Western art has traditionally defined itself by the frame-- the imaginary border that exists between surface and text. Within the frame lies the illusory promise of natural, unproblematical reading-- an artistic expression that can be considered self-contained, and discrete, separate from the viewer. This binarism, of course, bears the trace of the traditional Western metaphysic of self and other.
Jo Baer's vertical diptych Horizontals Tiered problematizes this binary. The visual emphasis lies, not in the "content" of the art, but rather in the rectilinear black forms of the frames, against which they stand in stark relief. Indeed, what is framed here is the act of framing itself. Just as the frame is foregrounded visually, so too is the viewer's collusion with the artist in arbitrating this border foregrounded conceptually.
This is good, but you failed to use the essential phrase "challenges the viewer".
Originally Posted by otc
How'd you get such straight lines in the mondrian knockoff? It looks great.
I used tape and spraypaint. How'd you do yours? It looks pretty cool, though I've seen it done by someone else before.
Originally Posted by A Y
On the one hand, writing about art is futile: if the art is any good, then it's expressing something that only that medium can express, so you can't really describe the artwork very well using writing. On the other hand, art criticism and writing can be great guides to a piece. They can place a piece of artwork in context by pointing to other pieces that may be related to or reveals something about it. Where some art may seem arbitrary or even random, an art writer can help explain why it may be the way it is, but it's not necessarily done by trying to find the meaning of the piece, or reading the mind of the artist.
Yes, writing can be helpful, but then there's just bullshit. For the Baer work, this phrase is the most bullshit:
Indeed, the work echoes its own edges with its two interior border markings, and even replicates itself in two panels, yet it denies any allusion to a window, the conventional association that has accompanied the framed panel or canvas since Renaissance times.
How does it deny any allusion to a window? Who would even allude that it is a window? I challenge the assertion that the window is the "conventional association that has accompanied the framed panel or canvas".
The reference to "Renaissance times" seems both out of place and downright inaccurate: if indeed the window has been the "conventional association", why did that start only in the Renaissance? Wouldn't it be associated with pictures since the dawn of painting or framing?