I set out to comment on the sort of art that eludes words and finds them rather unfitting,
without plunging into romantic, pathetic, and mystical formulations. Everything started
with Rothko — the abstract, non-figurative painter who stacks awe-inspiring color
rectangles. We view his paintings as a pure presence of something non-verbal. The first
to join Rothko was Plato with his notorious banishing of artists in his Republic. He was
followed by Malevich and his Black Square which, by definition, resembles Rothko’s
work (the same thing in black and white), but is at the same time completely different:
The Black Square is a concept. A thought develops from this opposition that is not
afraid to stop at metaphysical dualisms — art and philosophy, myth and logos, reason
and emotions etc. Following Wajcman, Heidegger, Derrida and Schelling I delve into the
dispute between art and philosophy, in the end affirming both and giving the assignment
two endings. The main character, however, is Plato, who has an interesting character
arc. We start by presenting his position against art, for which we scold and dispel him.
But in the end, it turns out Plato is immortal and he comes back. His ongoing return that
has lasted the past 2500 years is due to a certain ambiguity in his own thought. So in
short: two painters, two Platos, and two endings on a ship deliberating between the first
and second sailing.
|
