« »
May 29th, 2009

Abstract 17 Series 3 ‘Lines’ page 6

page 1 is here

Well this is the end in the experiment.

I don’t know how successful this comic has been. I was interested in exploring several ideas.

Breaking up and spreading out the elements of a comic over several pages.

Seeing if people would use these elements to create narrative.

How viewing these pages on the Internet would effect how people viewed these images.

I wondered whether looking at the images would create any visual illusions or patterns.

I would love to see peoples opinions on it.

If you are interested there is this site on Optical illusions

2 Responses to “Abstract 17 Series 3 ‘Lines’ page 6”

  1. Dick Whyte Says:

    I loved this series. What I like is firstly the superimposition element – with this series I am forced to superimpose the two images (the lines and the frames). This is created through a dialectic – through the idea of two antithetical elements being smashed together. As Eisenstein said, the purpose of art (actually, he was talking about film, but I think it applies to all arts) is to collide, to create collisions between disparate elements. By putting two images together which are distinct there is a ‘gap’, a ‘space’, a ‘fissure’ which opens between the images in which we, the viewer, must insert ourselves. It is in this space that ‘thought’ exists – the space between perception and action (or the halting of action – in the sense that there is no cause and effect relationship here). This is where the ‘affect’ lives (the thinking function) and where fragmentation and emptiness exist (just as here the lines and the frames are fragmented, and they create an empty space between them, and within them).

    As I have said before this is no longer the realm of abstract comics in my mind – these are ‘conceptual art’ (and conceptual art often used the series as its model). There is an infinite regress here – the ongoing nature of the series (because there is no ‘conclusion’ it continues to infinity) and the infinity of blank space (which is at once flat and endlessly deep).

    This is more what I am interested in in my own comics – less about ‘abstraction’ and more about the ‘conceptual’ (hence, This is Not a Black Square and so on). This is more like Sol Lewitt or Joseph Kosuth (conceptual artists) than it is like Jackson Pollock or Marc Rothko (abstractionists). You should look up Piero Manzoni – he is an amazing conceptual artist that I learned about in the classes I am tutoring. He put a plinth on the world and called the Earth his sculpture (like, he put a plinth upside down to make the Earth sitting on the plinth – does that make sense?). Anyway – I don’t think you make ‘abstract comics’ anymore (even though they have abstract aesthetics). You make conceptual comics. The reason I say this is because abstract art is usually about what is in the frame – the picture is still the point of reference for the viewer. Conceptual art is about the spaces between the objects/images and the ideas which arise in these spaces.

    We should talk more about this sometime.

    Love this work!!!!!!


  2. draw Says:

    Hey thanks Richard, That’s really interesting. I shall have to have a think about it and check the artists you mentioned.

Leave a Reply