in the podcast Langdon Quin talks about something that puzzled me and explains his own eexperience
I remember standing in front of a painting and my tutor coming and saying ‘this is wonderful’ – words to that effect and inside I am thinking – this is nothing to me – what is my tutor seeing
why can’t i see it
and all questions related to the emperors new clothes
‘Many of them (artists) I didn’t understand when I was a young man bonnard/bernard is an example of somebody who cam to me later in life. he only became impressed by bonnard/bernard in later life
Antrese Wood the podcaster says she also would ask what’s the big deal; and asks Quin to elaborate.
quit says he cam e to bonnar/bernard through thinking about cezanne and asking what was missing in his own painting. he says his position now came about thinking about surface tension between two and three dimensions so that things would sit in space yet at the same time assert themselves on th surface. he had been concerned only with things that were sitting in three dimensional space but then came to be interested by people who could show something sitting in 3d space but also bring it back to the surface
and he says this was a huge revelation to him ‘oh this is what painting is really about’ it was a breakthrough for him. he said he understood cubism intellectually but did not have any feeling fort emotionally but then as he started to see cubist ideas manifest themselves in
painters likecezanne and bonnard. it became more meaningful to hom
his ability to flatten form and then open up a space next to a flattened form then close it up again
just make a breathing two and three dimensional space. You come to different artists at different times. It happens over a lifetime. you coe to a realisation about your own work and then you see another artist and you say ‘ah, that’s what he or she is about and thats what i want to find out more about
they both say it takes a long time..
Pat what then about a critic curator who is not an artist
cos they are saying understanding an emotional appreciation and valuing of an artist is gained via ones own work. but is it not critics and curators non practicing who control the value attribution to artists?