All conventions but your own ...by Fred Ross
To continue your thought....
What is the purpose of such an experiment?
There is not value in proving that it's still possible to make a work of art
without perspective, or drawing, modeling, storytelling, color, tone, light,
line, form, volume... etc.
All that is being done is limiting the number of tools by which depth,
dimension and meaning can be achieved to make a work of art beautiful or
I would contend that it's more sensible to try to find other tools or
parameters that can be included if they will enable still greater works of
For example if the work of art could change over time it might be possible
to enrich the visual arts.
Didn't Thomas Edison already do that?
It is in fact humanity, the human experience including our lives, our
fantasies, dreams, stories, myths, legends, and religion that must be tapped
as the only true source, the fountain from which all great art must go to
find meaning and form.
Art about life. You are describing art about art, which is no art at all.
Perhaps Rockwell's self portrait in front of a Jackson Pollock might be the
exception in a nice bit of realist irony.