Excuse the pun in the title of this post; I couldn’t pass it up.<\/p>\n
David’s description is very good. I am of course most interested in the later description, where the painting paints itself, and process takes over. This is a kind of intimacy, isn’t it, and it involves a subject-object reversal, in the sense that the object is the doer. But this is still a bit too narrow. It is not the object that does (because that would perpetuate the structure of mutual pointing). It is the whole.<\/p>\n
\u00c2\u00a0There is the scene in nature, or better, a place in nature. An observer appears, someone with the right physical faculties and with consciousness. There is a canvas, paint, brushes, etc. There is an intention that has oriented the whole situation. A painting happens, and happens in being transcended.<\/p>\n
And then there is the possibility of a second transcending. I just saw a movie yesterday that has the following exchange (condensed), at the end, between a father and young\u00c2\u00a0son who have walked out on a jetty (pier):<\/p>\n
Father: No camera! Then you will just have to remember. Can you do that?<\/p>\n
Son: How long do I have to remember?<\/p>\n
Father: Forever! Remember that you and I came to a place where there was nowhere further to go.<\/p>\n
The movie is The Namesake<\/em>. I admired it especially for the literary sensibilities. It makes me want to read the novel, but I doubt I will have time.<\/p>\n Nice.<\/p>\n Jack<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Excuse the pun in the title of this post; I couldn’t pass it up. David’s description is very good. I am of course most interested in the later description, where the painting paints itself, and process takes over. This is … Continue reading