... so little time. Isn't that what they say? There are too many 'backgrounds' to add to.
Moon Eye. If I have used this image before, I apologise. Had to take a sleeping pill last night in an attempt to recoup my sleep debt. May have managed to do that, but now feel a little torpid. Cake for breakfast and at lunch may assist.
In one of my frequent side-track thought-paths, I wondered if linguistics might assist with the analysis of some paintings? The concept I particularly like is that of supra-segmental signification. Vincent van Gogh often needs this as a lever to understanding. For example, there is a painting of a view of the terrace of the asylum. A figure stands in twilight; in front there is a dark entangled wood. The picture may be more or less a veristic depiction of the site, but the meaning lies in the separation between sanity and its opposite, the haven of the building versus the wild forest. But, further, the whole is the calm mentality confronted by the id. The impending gloom is dangerous, even though the wellspring of creativity might lie there. Rousseau's Tiger too, and for me the mythological 'abstractions.' I never paint a picture of just a river in Hades, or a stone dropped by a survivor of the Flood.
This format may not hold for all work and could so easily be overplayed. Is the Demoiselles an overt expression of sadistic desires for women, in Picasso or in Society? If so, how form exegesis of Guernica? But one is in danger if the rubric claims that this is applies to work the artist did on Monday, but never to what he did the following weekend!
Let the art history student tear into that and into me...