| |
2002.02.01 10:42
no opposition here
Patrick,
I am not opposed to your introduction here of the word/concept appose. Certain definitional phrases in Webster's Third International Dictionary (1969) for appose and apposition provide the solidity of your case:
apply (one thing) to another
deposition of successive layers upon those already present (as in cell walls)
When Nero reenacted the Triumphal Way, he did it with much apposition, probably even controversial apposition (but I doubt anyone opposed). He changed the traditional route, had elephants breaking down part of the city wall--you know, the basic kinds of stuff that Nero is (in)famous for.
The concept of appropriation is very much utilized by artists, and perhaps even more by art historians when they analyze a lot of contemporary art. I don't recall having previously read about the concept of apposition relative to art, and to the activity of artists, till your letters here. As far as I'm concerned, you may have introduced something original, or you may have introduced the concept by actually utilizing the concept itself via your introduction, meaning you may have apposed someone else's prior introduction of the concept of apposition relative to art. In either case, what you write has a refreshing truth to it.
My own artistic oeuvre falls largely within the realm of appropriation, but now I see that much of the same artwork works even better within the realm of apposition. While you may not know it, www.museumpeace.com is named for a truly appositional work of art, viz. a bentwood Gehry chair that I painted over (in 1999) with acrylic and gesso in a slapdash manner. Museumpeace [the rare, one-of-a-kind chair] does not appropriate Gehry, rather it apposes Gehry. For appositional [Lauf] art that you can see now, go to 2000 and choose any of the trophy tattoo links in the middle of the list. I uploaded these images as part of "Theatrics Times Two, too" yesterday. Not until I read your last letter this morning, actually not until writing this letter now did I realize the correctly defined nature of these works. Thanks.
Steve
| |
| |
|
