TextI don't think that complete transparency of words is a reasonable or desirable goal. When I read, I like there to be, beneath the possible meanings, a continuous texture of choices in vocabulary and syntax, a faint rumble of the workings of the craft. Perhaps, in painting, there needs to be a similar barely audible hum from the materials. Maybe, sometimes, the rumble beneath the image can be fairly loud—as with, say, Seurat.AppleThe critics, so many of them, still keep saying how "solid" Cézanne looks. As if this were a surprise! Maybe the most important idea is how insubstantial most other post–Impressionists and early moderns look. Certainly, the observation links Cézanne and Picasso: Picasso was very solid, and, of course, his cubism can be traced fairly directly to Cézanne. Many of the early moderns used saturated color—I think of the Fauves—but none of them were saying 'here is a red river' in the same way that Cézanne was saying 'here is the apple.' The Fauves were solid in the surface; Cézanne was solid architecturally. He didn't need to saturate color; the apple already weighed ten pounds.AlphaStieglitz first photographed Georgia O'Keeffe as a whole person, but then he stripped her down to parts. When you consider that he perceived her as a child, this process seems a violent form of domination. Most men appraise a female by beginning with her body parts, then move in a more positive direction towards the complete person, whole and sentient. O'Keeffe was far tougher than Stieglitz imagined: she reassembled herself as a new, stronger woman, and she used the attention Stieglitz's photographs had brought her to launch a successful artistic career of her own. She remained married to him, but she lived thousands of miles away for many months each year. Why stay married? Perhaps, she still loved him. Perhaps, the marriage allowed her to enhance her independence. The marriage also told Stieglitz's new lover, "Dorothy–child," that Georgia was the alpha female. |  |
