"The difference between realism and abstraction in painting has nothing to do with the finished appearance of the final product (whether the subject is, identified artefactual realism, or non-differentiated perception of the process, 'to do'). If the difference lies between artefactual and naturally realistic painting, (which it does not), then the difference can be deduced by just observing actual paintings. The difference can only be deduced by examination of motive. When we intend to create a finished piece, statement, work-of-art, any noun will do--we are creating abstraction. When our motive is to approach, experience, do the doing of, any verb will do, we are intending to under-go the process of natural realism."
Sounds completely backwards doesn't it--a poorly worded puff of utter nonsense? But not when you really think about it, the world being backwards and all.
It was from Unthesis, A Key To The Secrets Behind The Brush, 10/28/77. It was the "thesis" I wrote [possibly] in reaction to getting the bum's rush from all the grad schools I applied to (I've mercifully never shown any of it to anyone). I now whip it out with apologies.
I was actually struggling with just what's the point of filling a couple of country barns with art? What am I an assembly line here, cranking out stuff to sell in the marketplace? Is there not a more healthy--a more lofty reason to make art?
I still make art, but I've sure mellowed out over the years, though.
Arc Ascendant, 17 X 22, inquire here for print.