DoV System Concepts PDF
69 Kb
69 Kb
Click the above PDF to delve into two pages of visual/text providing an introduction into the whys and wherefores about the Displacement-of-Volume (DoV) System Concepts that inevitably surface in my work since March 7, 1972.
The DoV System Concepts provide the vehicle for my explorations into the Phenomena-of-a-LINE, which I have attempted to focus since mechanical drawing in Junior H.S. Likely in the order of number of works, directional lines, with some metaphorical content, have dominated. But I have and will use
organizational lines, obviously outline, analytical measurements. structural lines, lines used to create volume and value, many thick and thin lines that would include what most refer to as strips and pinstripes, very often extended and overlapping lines and stripes, contour lines that would include a wrapping effect; and then the gestural, tangles, and scribbles, including a dot.
Certainly I am an antecedent of Malevich's Suprematism, the entire overview of Russian Constructivism (principally Papova, Rodchencko and El Lissitzky) and, of course, into Bauhaus, De Stijl, Geometric Art, Concrete Art, Kinetic Art, a host of variously related movements and individuals throughout my pursuit of the Phenomenon-of-a-Line. There are many indivdual antecedents named on this site, "FAVORITE ARTISTS." The DoV System is quadratic, and beyond, NOT a single module. And each of the four modules are frequently sociogenic, constant contrasts, curves always in opposition to straights, yin/yang, no different than life. I seem to be a minimalist heretic to often imbue the DoV System with multiple narratives.
When sketching the genesis of the Displacement-of-Volume (DoV) System, March 7, 1972, there was no direct thought of any particular progenitors of form, movement or individual artist, past or present, though readily acknowledging, full well, all art is from art. The DoV System, circles displacing themselves in squares within a circle in a square, was an acknowledgment of having found an anthropologically oriented tiling system, certainly paying homage to most antecedents, while investigating major archetypical symbols used and abused everywhere.
Days later, ostensibly, ramifications of antecedents came to mind to question my DoV's originality. Foremost of concern was Malevich's well known "Suprematism No. 55 (Spheric Evolution of a Plane)," 1917. I had NOT thought of this form ("S-55") until about 3/10/72 because I was immersed in the DoV's fecundity of anthropological tiling.
"S-55" is not a tile, or of an intended or acknowledged anthropological tiling system, but a beautiful form, while obviously evoking a circle and square, imagined on a sphere (as noted in the subtitle) or on a plane in isometric. "S-55" is also an anomaly in the corpus of Malevich's rectilinear lief motif. Though earlier, he did initiate a slightly wider and cropped reverse-inversion of this form, in a soft grey, as the underpinning of "Yellow and Black (Supremus No. 58)," 1916. "S-55" may well have been the refined image from "No.58". Much of the time, from late 1915 forward, he was certainly more related to what we would then see in El Lissitzky, rectilinear relationships. A drawing titled, "Dynamic Suprematism (Spheric Evolution of a Plane)," 1918, does not pursue what was dynamically wrought with "S-55" regardless of its subtitle, nor does this spherical rendering of a planar image recur.
By April 1972, I had physically projected the DoV System's four intersecting modules (obviously elasticized) onto a sphere to see how closely they would compare with "S-55" so as not to encroach on something historically important and thus the DoV System considered non-original.
Malevich's "S-55" is more elongated (which is beside the point of questionable appropriation, but graphically a distinguishing point). "S-55" will not tile and certainly is not a platform to recover/use/manipulate the numerous archetype symbols mankind has utilized throughout time.
Malevich was extrapolating form and certainly not involved with any narratives beyond forms and their surface relationships. He was obviously utilizing a planar approach to intersecting circles and squares on a Mercatorized projection while likely being aware how isometrically related the form(s) could/would be from his architectonic background and interest. All of this is FOLLOWING his breakthrough of minimal painted surface-to-viewer interaction, the essence of minimal FORM tension.
Unequivocally, I'm a dedicated Baroque-Minimalist (not a conflict of terms nor intent), absorbed in the Phenomenon-of-the-LINE and its inherent formalist polemics, as aforementioned, with circle/square/1st issues, AND often times much non-overt social commentary through archetypal cross-cultural symbols (if the viewer so wishes to interpret).
The DoV System Concepts provide the vehicle for my explorations into the Phenomena-of-a-LINE, which I have attempted to focus since mechanical drawing in Junior H.S. Likely in the order of number of works, directional lines, with some metaphorical content, have dominated. But I have and will use
organizational lines, obviously outline, analytical measurements. structural lines, lines used to create volume and value, many thick and thin lines that would include what most refer to as strips and pinstripes, very often extended and overlapping lines and stripes, contour lines that would include a wrapping effect; and then the gestural, tangles, and scribbles, including a dot.
Certainly I am an antecedent of Malevich's Suprematism, the entire overview of Russian Constructivism (principally Papova, Rodchencko and El Lissitzky) and, of course, into Bauhaus, De Stijl, Geometric Art, Concrete Art, Kinetic Art, a host of variously related movements and individuals throughout my pursuit of the Phenomenon-of-a-Line. There are many indivdual antecedents named on this site, "FAVORITE ARTISTS." The DoV System is quadratic, and beyond, NOT a single module. And each of the four modules are frequently sociogenic, constant contrasts, curves always in opposition to straights, yin/yang, no different than life. I seem to be a minimalist heretic to often imbue the DoV System with multiple narratives.
When sketching the genesis of the Displacement-of-Volume (DoV) System, March 7, 1972, there was no direct thought of any particular progenitors of form, movement or individual artist, past or present, though readily acknowledging, full well, all art is from art. The DoV System, circles displacing themselves in squares within a circle in a square, was an acknowledgment of having found an anthropologically oriented tiling system, certainly paying homage to most antecedents, while investigating major archetypical symbols used and abused everywhere.
Days later, ostensibly, ramifications of antecedents came to mind to question my DoV's originality. Foremost of concern was Malevich's well known "Suprematism No. 55 (Spheric Evolution of a Plane)," 1917. I had NOT thought of this form ("S-55") until about 3/10/72 because I was immersed in the DoV's fecundity of anthropological tiling.
"S-55" is not a tile, or of an intended or acknowledged anthropological tiling system, but a beautiful form, while obviously evoking a circle and square, imagined on a sphere (as noted in the subtitle) or on a plane in isometric. "S-55" is also an anomaly in the corpus of Malevich's rectilinear lief motif. Though earlier, he did initiate a slightly wider and cropped reverse-inversion of this form, in a soft grey, as the underpinning of "Yellow and Black (Supremus No. 58)," 1916. "S-55" may well have been the refined image from "No.58". Much of the time, from late 1915 forward, he was certainly more related to what we would then see in El Lissitzky, rectilinear relationships. A drawing titled, "Dynamic Suprematism (Spheric Evolution of a Plane)," 1918, does not pursue what was dynamically wrought with "S-55" regardless of its subtitle, nor does this spherical rendering of a planar image recur.
By April 1972, I had physically projected the DoV System's four intersecting modules (obviously elasticized) onto a sphere to see how closely they would compare with "S-55" so as not to encroach on something historically important and thus the DoV System considered non-original.
Malevich's "S-55" is more elongated (which is beside the point of questionable appropriation, but graphically a distinguishing point). "S-55" will not tile and certainly is not a platform to recover/use/manipulate the numerous archetype symbols mankind has utilized throughout time.
Malevich was extrapolating form and certainly not involved with any narratives beyond forms and their surface relationships. He was obviously utilizing a planar approach to intersecting circles and squares on a Mercatorized projection while likely being aware how isometrically related the form(s) could/would be from his architectonic background and interest. All of this is FOLLOWING his breakthrough of minimal painted surface-to-viewer interaction, the essence of minimal FORM tension.
Unequivocally, I'm a dedicated Baroque-Minimalist (not a conflict of terms nor intent), absorbed in the Phenomenon-of-the-LINE and its inherent formalist polemics, as aforementioned, with circle/square/1st issues, AND often times much non-overt social commentary through archetypal cross-cultural symbols (if the viewer so wishes to interpret).
