Have a go at describing this cube...then look at my two attempts:
1) A Cube has six planes of equal dimensions.
Each plane has the same height and width, which meet at right angles forming orthogonals with the adjacent planes. This realises a straight edge.
Each plane has four corners, each of which is a right angle.
The planes are perceived as of a flat texture and surface.
When a strong light is cast upon a cube, the perpendicular planes to the light source are covered in a shadow, which reveals the three dimensionality and volume of the cube.
It is difficult to ever see more than three planes to a cube from one angle.
Most cubes are arranged parallel to a surface.
2) A cube conveys an impression of stability and order.
Its structure represents conformity and regularity, as well as dependency, determination and control. Whilst each surface may be undecorated, the edges are contours of possibility rather than absence as any mark made on the plane is made to seem more dynamic by its relationship to the predictability of the frame lines. It can be perceived as: a geometric paradigm of perfection: a fascist declaration of intolerance of deviation; spiritual in its quiet, meditative, rhythmic contemplation individuality and universality.
Can you deduce criteria for analysis of three dimensional objects, based on these descriptions? More to come later...next I'll look at somebody who took blocks from the building site and arranged them into art.
V
2 comments:
A comparison of Carl Andre's bricks and Rachel Whiteread's Turbine Hall installation might some of the issues you raise here about the relationship between description and interpretation. Great post!
Apologies. That should have read "might help to illuminate some of the issues..."
Post a Comment