Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i was going to address this after skuj's picture. the problem with seeing little pictures of pollock's paintings on a bad computer screen connected to the 72dpi interwebs is that it gives us a false idea of the impact and power of these pieces as they exist in the physical world.
mark rothko offer suffers the same fate, dismissed as a hack when reduced to postcards and tiny internet pictures-- his paintings are massive in scale, like some sort of 20th century menhirs, and their religious power only works when you stand in front of them and face them with your own eyes.
|
You don't need to restrict that sort of statement to 'modern' (that term seem oxymoronic today) painters either - the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, Van Gogh, the aforementioned Carvaggio [etc] - all fail on the computer screen.
For years I thought I disliked Warhol until I saw his stuff in situ in a gallery. I still have massive qualms about him, but it makes legions more sense in its 'proper context' than it does reproduced in a book or on a screen.