Viewing page 2 of 48

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

2

of maybe gross over-simplification. I use that more as style than as actuality. I really don't think that art can be gross and over-simplified and remain art. I mean it must have subtleties and it must have...it must sort of yield to kind of aesthetic unity otherwise it's not...in the realm of art. It's something else probably. But I think that using it as a style, I think that it's really a kind of conceptual, rather than a visual, style which I think maybe permeates most art being done today, most of the current work, whether it's...geometric, or sort of hard edged or whatever, one wants to call it, that it seems to be set, it seems to be thought out beforehand and it doesn't seem to yield regardless of the aesthetic problem. I don't know if I'm getting across very well there. But I think that... Whereas let's say abstract expressionism was rather loose and would yield to whatever sensibility by the artist had about the...the work and the balance and the...his sensitivity to color, to position, to emphasis and so forth, that much of what is done today, much of the art, in pop and in other styles, today...apparently does not yield to any...to the influence of the other parts of the work and does not in a way seem to be involved in sensitivity to the aesthetic problem. Although it really is. And I think it's conceptual work--and by conceptual I mean the artist seems to have a concept of exactly what he's going to do before he starts it, conceptual in the sense that a child may draw a head and think of it as round and draw a circle; conceptual in that sense. But that the art is really visual in the same way that Renaissance art is visual and the same way that any abstract