I had a lot of trouble reading this article. Most of it didn't make any sense to me until "A tale of many squares", where it still didn't make complete sense :(
Q1: On page 596, Buchloh says that "the square painting paradoxically but inevitbly assumes the character of a relief/object situated in actual space." Why is this paradoxical? What else would the painting assume?
Q2: On page 597 Buchloh discusses "wall" and "carpet" referring to painting and sculpture. He says that "neither one of these surfaces could ever be considered to be independent from its institutional location." Why can't it be? Can't a painting or sculpture stand alone and still have meaning?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment