Viewing page 4 of 82

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

and let your mechanism of miracles & laws take care of it.

You know when Michael wrote in Art International explaining how good Lows were, it didn't do much for me because I could see already that it was good The problem lay in the explanation of the decisions he (Louis) made & the subsequent actions he took on in the use of any combination of those processes. I guess what haunts me is the enormity of his "guess & risk" working process vis a vis Pollock & Frankenthaler. It always seemed to me unreasonably, & in a sense, somewhat difficult to account for, but the killer for me has always been a nagging sense of an unawareness that borders of unfeelingness, &, of course, it was his (Louis') feeling for painting & pictoriality that Michael always got & stressed. It strikes me now that from the outside you (one) would say & feel the same thing about the black ptgs. They seem to come out of the blue (so to speak) in some what the same way. The difference is that both Michael & I knew exactly where they came from. With Louis only Michael seems to know exactly where they came from. 

How did I get lost? Is it just that it take two to know something - Michael & me for the Love XXXX
F.

black ptgs., Michael & Clem for Louis risk, & finally you & me for abstraction, that might be able to go beyond strict pictoriality.

P.S. Am I driving myself crazy over something that's not that important, or is this really the doubt that is art?

Transcription Notes:
done