Creative Global Network for the Visual Arts

Text has been and is fodder for pun, irony, and obvious discordance or concordance. For examples, Magritte's word images: Palace of Curtains, Uses of Speech, etc. How much room for play remains among these possibilities? Can recognizable words remain recognizable and be purely decorative? Or is meaning, even if not comprehended, necessarily assumed from the presence of words?

Views: 20

Replies to This Discussion

Great questions, D., and the central subject of my work: http://www.jurisich.com/. On my About page, I discuss some of these points:

Words. Language. The exploration of the visual identity of language vs. the conceptual nature of language. Can words and phrases issue spontaneously in a manner analogous to the Abstract Expressionist “action painting”? Can language be “used” in a way that is not primarily communication, poetry, or logical, yet inhabit a physical existence apart from a conceptual one?

Meaning IS necessarily assumed in the presence of words, but so it is in the presence of images without words. Even "abstraction" is assumed to have "meaning", even if that meaning is elusive to most viewers. Part of what I'm doing in my own work is to make the "meaning" of text irrelevant, shifting, elusive, uncertain, playful, abstract, distorted, absurd. Either non-narrative or sometimes narratives from another dimension, like the world of Beckett.

I love Magritte's word paintings -- my favorite work of his, no surprise.
Yes, Jay, meaning is assumed in the presence of images as well as word. We seem programmed to see meaning. Still, do you not think text invokes meaning before visual effect, while images may evoke visual effect before meaning? You must like John Cage.
i prefer words with content..is my taste..meaning is esential for me althought i sometimes quite dont make it



My links


© 2019   Created by 4art Media.   Powered by

Links | Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service