With the shaped canvas we are faced either with a hieratic icon – something which presents itself like a relief – only defying gravity – 2 co-ordinated and 3 co-ordinated.
Or we are left with a discrete set of shapes that maybe do something about relational painting. They move back to composition however eccentrically. The point is, can we ask
the question when regarding a surface. To establish It clearly as surface, is it necessary to inflect it or pin it down in any way. We have size in a rectangle – perhaps
that is the prime focus.
There seems to be an insistence on the cubist principle that, whatever is to be seen in the work and ascertained of its historicity, is available through surface treatment.
What is only contained in the object?
There is no singly appropriate system for asserting surface. Anyway, this is only one problem we begin with.
There Is a continuum between surface and surfaces presented discretely. It is just a range of how many.
The proposal is that there is much that is infected that it is Impossible to take to clear realization without climaxes used for unification (again a cubist principle)
Order out of chaos, etc.
What is the answer to colour painting?
Art & Language
Painting I, No. 9, 1966