Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Maybe I just don't get it.....

These articles focus on what seems to be a technical analysis of Suprematist work. They analyze how the perspective lines are drawn (parallel, not to a vanishing point), which points out an almost childlike drawing style. Axonometric drawings are used because of their perfect geometries that are not convoluted by reality. Plan and elevation coexist to give a more complete understanding of an object (i.e. seeing a pyramid from all angles rather than simply from the top). I don’t understand what extravision or intravision are. The Acropolis provides an interesting look into the duality of path and perspective. An observer sees the various buildings in 3-D rather than head on. The Greeks paid a lot of attention to path and perspective, an apparently modern thought. This also brings up the point about cinematic path. As I understand it, this is about what an observer sees on a given path. Cinemarchitecture? The Vesnin “Palace of Labor” contest entry deals with planes and volumes in perspective. The building looks completely different depending on which angle you view it from. This is pretty amazing for an early 20th century project. So after all of this, I’m getting to the conclusion that the formal method is an amalgamation of path and perspective, materiality, and volumes versus planes.

Quote: “you don’t admire Russian poetry because you don’t understand it.”

Maybe I don’t admire any of this because I don’t really understand it.

No comments: