Sir Thomas More as a Rhinoceros illustrates the unfinished quality of my art. Clearly this work is unfinished, technically flawed and in other ways classically imperfect.

​

The unfinished aspect of a classical creative work (e.g. painting, scientific theory) was sometimes by choice and sometimes not. Classically, a creative work was complete (in a perfect sense) unless the artist (or scientist) died, or for other reasons, did not finish the work. 

​

But even the best of classical science, e.g. Newton's Principia, turned out to be unfinished scientific symphonies. Though declared complete, so much was unknown and to be discovered by generations of scientists and on and on. Godel's incompleteness theorems, would suggest that all great scientifc work must be forever unfinished.

​

Just so, I suggest that all modern art needs to be understood with a sense of incompleteness. And further, that great classical art like classical science (though assumed to be intrinsically complete) is fundamentally incomplete. 

​

Incompleteness, ambiguity, relativity and indeterminacy in technique, inner subject, other object,  meaning, and space/ time is a hallmark of modern art. Cezanne, van Gogh, Picasso, O'Keefe, Raschenberg, Sterne, Guanzhong, Wei Wei are endlessly incomplete. To look upon a work of modern art, it is necessary to look beyond the decorative and prestige value of the present object, beyond the oeuvre of a particular artist, beyond the canon from primitive to modern art. 

 

Which brings me back to incompleteness. The best works of modern art are not only often trivially incomplete; but profoundly incomplete, ambiguous, relative and/or indeterminant.  Herein lies the difference between great art and hyped art. Rembrandt's last years were beggerly compared to the art of his now long forgotten prominent contemporaries. What is timeless in contemporary art? Will we know it, when we see it?

 

Now now, let's not be cynical; there is an amazing amount of creative new art out there. 

​

TNN 5/15/2016