Lesley Robertson MA, Dip Trans IoLET (asker) Sep 5, 2009:

Further reference Hello and thank you to all of you for putting your thinking caps on to such an extent!! I'm sorry for not adding more to the discussion - had a bit of an emergency at home and wasn't available for a couple of days but all OK again now!! I gretaly appreciate your efforts - indeed I marvel at your precision, your interest, your enthusiasm for the subject at hand. The rest of the text was fairly general - this was the only part that stumped me and I admit I am not an art expert, but since you all seem so knowledgable and interested, here's a link to the artist's work. http://www.holgerendres.de/ Many thanks again.

Stephen Reader Sep 4, 2009:

opening up Ginny - a fresh perception. Got to let it sink in, thus no "agree" as yet. But this highlights the need for more (con)text yet again, e.g. the wirter's perspective might be viewer-centred? Read 'in the viewer's mind' or some such - then the **viewer's** only 'Anhaltspunkt' is the support, & in the viewer's concentration (tho' that's back to 'mental concentr.') the perception of texture arises.

Stephen Reader Sep 2, 2009:

pics Hi, Lesley,
Meanwhile... look at all this suffering - won't the author let you see some pics for more context?
Best
Stephen

Helen Shiner Sep 2, 2009:

Hi Stephen with you on the Bridget Riley front. Though it could equally be - we cannot see - that this is a meditative state. I have done a lot of work on an artist who could not/would not produce art until he felt he had sufficiently understood through the immense effort of meditation what his God was requiring of him. But these are just examples and who knows whether they are appropriate. Art is never just slapping paint on canvas; the thought/theoretical process is fundamental, often laborious and requiring of a great deal of effort - as any other form of creative behaviour, isn't it?

Helen Shiner Sep 2, 2009:

Hi Annett Sorry but I think you misunderstand my point. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't disagree with you at all. I just recognise that what is being described is the nature of modernist painting: the autonomous notion of art and all that. Otherwise, I think we have incredibly little context to go on and to start unpacking it too much is beyond what we can justifiably say. Hopefully our Asker can, however, determine the weight of this sentence and these particular words within the context we cannot see.

Stephen Reader Sep 2, 2009:

With Annett, context-simplification attempt ... it takes immense concentration to place marks appositely on a blank surface;
during that process (yes conceivably a meditative act, or close to) the whole begins to 'gel'... (to become an entity)
- and (black marks on white surface: extreme e.g.: think Bridget Riley, tho' not exactly "freihand") the surface begins to vibrate, and (especially if the marks are filigree) acquire a 'texture'.

In Pollock it was called an 'all-over'. I think in music they speak of a 'Klangteppich', which certainly has to do with texture.

Annett Kottek (X) Sep 2, 2009:

Hi Helen, I didn’t mean to reinvent the wheel, but there are variants of abstract art. I think that ‘innerhalb’ is meant to draw attention to the fact that the works are being created within (=‘during’) the act of concentrating, and not only within the constraint [of having only the ‘Bildträger’ as point of departure]. That is to say, the writer wants to emphasise that they originate during - and not just because of – concentrating (‘innerhalb’ has prime position at the opening of the sentence). I don't know why I insist, but it seems important in this context.

Helen Shiner Sep 2, 2009:

Point of reference I don't see a problem here. This is the nature of abstract work. In other words the point of reference is the painterly endeavour itself - painting as an autonomous activity. So questions of frame, surface, two-dimensionality, what can be represented (stand for) by something else, if the work is in any way representational, are what is under consideration and the thing that requires immense concentration. There is no need to draw from memories, life or any other thing beyond the realm of painting - or so the argument goes.

Annett Kottek (X) Sep 2, 2009:

An attempt The artist’s only reference point is the canvas, i.e. s/he does not draw from life. Neither, it is suggested from this very short context, does s/he draw from memory. (I take it that the pictures are abstract.) Instead, the artist has produced textures that are the result of an act of intense concentration; a concentration on - - what?! - - the canvas [‘Bildträger]? Furthermore, not only are they the product of the concentration, they are created during/within this period of concentration, i.e. ‘Innerhalb dieser enormen Konzentrationsleistung’. I think that ‘innerhalb’ is supposed to emphasise the fact that creation occurs in the act of concentrating.

Are these paintings perhaps generated during meditation - - sorry, having never mediated myself, I’ve no idea if that is even feasible! Or are the textures related to the nature of the ‘Bildträger’?

‘It [i.e. just looking at the ‘Bildträger’] is an impressive feat of concentration, during which the variously textured pictures emerge.’ Of course, the previous sentence needs to be changed for this solution.

Henry Schroeder Sep 2, 2009:

Die Konzentrationsleistung... bezieht sich auf den Bildträger als einziger Anhaltspunkt, oder? Als ein "Einziges" ist es dadurch konzentriert. Irgendwie dann führt das dazu, dass die Texturen der Bilder entstehen.