I think you have it sideways[/list:u:4d69c1b607]
- "However, there are still artists who consciously and emphatically attempt to avoid tendency of any kind by renouncing completely the representational, even the problematical. Often they believe they can work instinctively and aimlessly, like Nature, which, without visible purpose, gives form and color to crystals, plants, stones—everything that exists. They give their paintings obscure names, or just numbers. Evidently this method is based upon the attempt to produce pure stimulus, as in music, through intentional elimination of all other effectual possibilities. The painter is to be nothing but a creator of form and color. Whether these artists believe their work has no “deeper meaning,” or whether they impart to it an emotional or metaphysical meaning hardly perceptible to the spectator, the fact remains that they intentionally renounce all the artist's possibilities of ideological influence (in the areas of eroticism, religion, politics, aesthetics, morality, etc.), standing silent and indifferent, that is, irresponsibly, in relation to social occurrence, or - in cases where that is not the intention - they work in vain through ignorance and ineptitude."
(read the whole, short, book if you can find it)
Blah, blah, blah. If Grozs could see it so obviously in 1925, it's a tragedy that so few self-righteous art students can manage it in 2004. I also have to wonder when I see lengthy monologues against pretense.