My painter friends Ted Knerr and Marc Salz sent me these quotes on "what is art":

Henri Matisse:"When I am submissive and modest, I feel surrounded by someone who makes me do things of which I am not capable. All art worthy of the name is (spiritual, or) it is nothing more than a document, an anecdote."

Pablo Picasso: "Something sacred, that's it, - we ought to be able to say that word, or something like it, but people would take it the wrong way, and give it a meaning that wasn't intended. We ought to be able to say such and such a painting is as it is, with its capacity for power because it has been touched by God. But people would put a wrong interpretation on it."

"I remember the story of the student who asked the Zen monk about the meaning of life(art) and after going back and forth with the question, and ... receiving only silence as an answer, the student replied: now I understand".

I played around for a while how to cover the 4 cm sides. In the end they are shades of grey, i.e. a bluish, reddish, blackish and greenish dark grey. The sides had to be darker and tertiary so that the front primaries and secondaries aren't distracted. I also sprayed the finished paintings with clear lacquer, and now they shine in colors and gold and silver (especially the oriental one).

These 4 are 30x30x4 cm on canvas. Now I am using four 20x20x4 cm, little canvases I had bought before. I find the cut-ups of prints add structure, while still showing a kaleidoscope of painting. I wonder if it is possible to scale this up to say 50x50 cm, will try. Perhaps with a larger format it might be interesting to actually produce a collage, partially of cut-up old canvas, if I find the courage to do so.... - Karl Maenz

2010-3-26 - I like these new pieces. are they made of pre-painted paper and/or printed images, cut into strips and glued on a background, ? I am not against this kind of work, but I always had reservations when I had done similar things (with discarded paintings of mine on canvas). Cheers - Ernie H (Australia)

March 11, 2010 - Friends, I have just added a new featured artist page, Serge Momot, Digital Geometry, please have a look: http://www.karl-maenz.com/featuremomot.html . So far, we've featured artists (you) with mainly painterly or barely minimalist styles, but still painted (or sculptured, thanks Marieta), and now, digital art (exceptions: Ted Knerr has worked with digital composition, David Novak has a couple of images that combine digital and painted art on his feature, "marriage between minimalism and abex"). Frankly, I've so far shied away from digital art: I missed "soul" - even more than in painted minimalist art. Serge Momot's digital compositions (discovered on Facebook) strike me as beautifully decorative. In the Facebook discussions, some felt a Rothkoesque spirituality. I felt a Peter Halley "neo-geo" inspiration (which Serge seems to deny). Anyway, I would love a discussion and learn from you, my much respected/loved artist friends. Suggest you cc. us all for the debate. Thanks and till then. - Karl Maenz

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Serge MOMOT <sergemomot@rambler.ru>
Date: March 11, 2010 22:28:48 GMT+01:00

You know Karl, believe it or not, but I don't like digital art too. In my art I want to show that it could be "alive" too. I believe it is possible after all. It would be really very intersting for me to know an opinion on that subject by other artists. As to Peter Halley, he isn't my favorite artist. He has no influence on me at all. It is may be just a coincidence. I started make what I make even didn't know who is Peter Halley. The things that could be seems not bad in paintins sometimes simply don't mutch with digital performance. It is really very not easy for me to make dgital artworks keeping it from to be "dead" art. - Serge Momot

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Gerzabek <egerzabek1@optusnet.com.au>
Date: March 12, 2010 02:30:48 GMT+01:00

hi Karl, thanks for the introduction to Serge's work.

digital or not, it is kind of irrelevant to me (even though I tend to read these as "painted" images). I am only interested in the image created, whether it speaks to me or not. well, they do not effect me much emotionally, but I appreciate the images intellectually and the colour combinations certainly have an emotional impact on me. btw, what are the sizes of the images; I imagine them as at least 1m in size. if smaller, no impact for me. btw, Peter Halley is not that far off, for sure. even though Serge may not have drawn inspiration from Peter's work consciously, there are a great
number of artists who have done similar hard edge geometrical pieces for decades. as for originality, I have given up being dogmatic about it ... cheers, - Ernie Gerzabek

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Morant <morant@paradise.net.nz>
Date: March 12, 2010 04:20:39 GMT+01:00

Hi Karl et al,

I don't think that I can give much input here.

My feelings are that, in the effort towards true human communication, art must come through the physical expression of the mentality (conscious and unconscious) of the individual. It begins (as we well know) from the deeply subjective and is projected into the overtly objective. If the artist is strong and true enough in his or her humanity (and comes from an atruistic focus) then the 'object' will communicate (albeit not immediately) to other humans as a stimulating and nourishing force.

Now from my point of view, when another instrument is brought in to facilitate this expression then, by necessity, there has to be a greater level of conscious conceptuality than unconscious intuition. For me, this is a step away from the truth and real purpose of human contact. The deeper and more meaningful levels of achievement in art come from human to human
empathetic communication concerning the human condition. This is never attained through conscious 'design' and, like the camera, the computer cannot produce a 'true' work of art. At least, not one that will survive as a stimulation towards a better quality of life for the future.

This is why that certain 'coldness' is felt when you view digital art. You know unconsciously that you are looking at something
that is not completely human and is therefore void of life's mystery.

Of course, in todays world, digital art has its heroes and many are aspiring to emulate them. Yesterday it was Cecil Beaton and today it is the Weta Workshops (the creators of Avatar).

No - the fine line between art and sheer illusionary technique is very clear to me (and has been since Victor Vaserely and Bridgett Riley) so I can only say good luck to Serge Momet. I am sure that - whatever blows his hair back - is no bad thing! Cheers....K
www.keithmorant.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: ted knerr <tk@art-spirit.net>
Date: March 12, 2010 04:54:34 GMT+01:00

hi karl -

my first thought is why are you exhibiting serge's art if you feel it's "beautifully decorative"? and the way you've presented them strung out in a row emphasizes the decorative -

my feeling is they show what a clever mind can create - and that i'm unmoved without connecting to serge's inner being and the loving energy of God's universe - i think serge can do better than this by opening up to forces beyond his ego - the greatest artists know this -

..... when I am submissive and modest - I feel surrounded by someone who makes me do things of which I am not capable - all art worthy of the name is (spiritual, or) it is nothing more than a document - an anecdote ........ henri matisse

..... something sacred - that's it - we ought to be able to say that word or something like it but people would take it the wrong way and give it a meaning that wasn't intended - we ought to be able to say such and such a painting is as it is with its capacity for power because it has been touched by God - but people would put a wrong interpretation on it ........ pablo picasso

although these words were written a hundred years ago people still don't believe them - ted

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Karl Maenz <karlmaenz@mac.com>
Date: March 12, 2010 05:50:56 GMT+01:00

Hi Ted, Keith, Ernie,

I feel like you in this, can't connect to the artist's soul. Interesting: Serge stipulated he wanted only his works shown, they were to speak by themselves, no words please, which I respect.

In a previous discussion (on FB), several contributors saw a spiritual dimension, as the colors vibrated with each other. Something like Rothko? I threw in the Peter Halley connection, though Halley makes a social statement (we're imprisoned by machines) which Serge would not reveal. Well, that started my interest, though it did not have this effect on me, but I became curious. What was I missing? And the compositions seemed to be so clever I thought it was interesting to hear your reactions.

Thanks, I understand what you say.

Also, I somehow believe that when irreconcilable poles are shown next to each other - such as showing the painters' painterly against the minimalist with the help of the computer, it creates a creative space, so the juxtaposition may be interesting, witness your heartfelt reactions. Keith has an interesting point, if I understand it well, in that if you use the computer, it actually emphasizes the need for empathy, human involvement etc. Our friend Marieta Reijerkerk, I feel, does this juxta-positioning so well, and it comes across intuitively, not machine designed. On the other hand, most of us are "old school" artists, full of "soul". To try and understand minimalism (What in the world was Richard Prince's exhibition at the Guggenheim, etc. ?) I came across Kirk Varnedoe's book "Pictures of Nothing", which describes and defends modern art after Pollock:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8234.html

I do not share Varnedoe's enthusiasm, but I do understand his analysis, a mirror of our materialistic, "soulless" times (though, do I wish to live this life?).

Enough for now, thanks Serge, you are helping to generate brain- and soul-waves here, and some of us are caught in the middle. - Karl

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: StephenGostt <smgostty@yahoo.ie>
Date: March 12, 2010 10:05:02 GMT+01:00

Hi Karl,

I won't join the discussion, but I do like this guys stuff. It put me in mind of De Chirico/Briget Riley/Matisse etc. He has a sophisticated touch and obviously an artists eye. I don't really have any difficulty with this kind of stuff: He's good; much other in this 'style' isn't. As far as digital/computer etc, it's not really a long way from Warhols screen prints. I actually like 'pattern' and believe this is still capable of 'meaning' & 'soul' (Klee's rhythms; fugues etc). Saw on the news yesterday an artist creating 'computer game' art! Worlds within worlds?

Interesting times?

Steve

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: correu <correu@narval-collections.com>
Date: March 12, 2010 11:57:29 GMT+01:00

In principle any way of expression should be welcome. Every one of us has a different background and sensibility. But for me to work with the materials, with the "mater materia", to "touch the soil with bare hands" as Rilke once said, is a invaluable experience and decisive for my work. Geometry is in the nature and many cultures (including ours) tried and try to find it. I'm tired of the ones who said "art is dead" as painting and sculpture is dead, "long live to the performances, installations, digital and so on". Every exhibition is a performance and a installation (painting, sculpture or
whatever). Who has experience know this. I think there is room for all of human expressions through Art. Greetings to all, - Rosa

Rosa Mascarell Dauder
Egg Tempera and Gold on Panel
www.narval-collections.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: info@suusart.nl
Date: March 12, 2010 14:02:26 GMT+01:00

'The straight line is human, but the curve is Divine' 'La ligne droite est la ligne des hommes, la ligne courbe est celle de Dieu'

Antoni Gaudi

- Suus Suiker

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Astrid H. Fitzgerald" <ahfitzge@bestweb.net>
Date: March 12, 2010 15:21:23 GMT+01:00

I completely agree with Rosa's take on Serge's work and her view on art in general.

I just want to add: I don't see his work as minimal, but much more in the 'modernist' and 'suprematist' tradition, based on "intuitive reasoning" and "intuitive will" as Malewich called it. Yes, Serge's work seems a bit cerebral, but adding brush strokes doesn't add "soul." Consciousness travels beyond the speed of light, hence conscious intent may enter the work even through digits and pixels. What the bleep do we know? Would Malevich or Mondrian have used Photoshop to create their work? We'll never know. I think Serge's work is far beyond decorative. I particularly like its boldness, the use of color and relationship of space and design. It would be interesting to know what the size is. Large would be good, larger even better! - Astrid

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: David Novak <david@dpnimages.com>
Date: March 12, 2010 15:57:28 GMT+01:00

Karl et al,

I wrote this note to myself before I sat down to study Serge's email to Karl.

Peter Halley's paintings are interesting. However, to me, he is guilty of painting the same painting over and over again these past 20 years. No growth. They look boring because they are born out of boredom. yada yada!!! Can you say commodity?

For me the problem with painting geometric abstractions is a limitation on how far geometry can take you in the creative process. The longer I work with geometric abstractions in painting or digital, the more I become very aware that the process of coming up with new designs becomes less creative and more mathematical. After some time I am left with an overwhelming question that I ask my self over and over; now what?

Today I found myself wondering around the house somewhat frustrated that I haven't produced any art yet this year 2010. I stopped in my tracks and said to myself, "I have been making art on the computer; digital paintings and working on some digital photography. However, It doesn't feel like I have done anything because all of this art making has been in the virtual domain of computerland." I guess that I come from the old school that in order for it to be art you have to be able to touch and smell it. What does a digital image smell like? How does it feel to the touch? It becomes real when it is printed on paper or canvas or translated into a painting/drawing/etc with paint and similar 2d art making materials. Then you can touch and smell it. At this stage it also has dimension and weight.

How one relates to digital art is ===== ?????? what? How? In the end, sometimes for me, all geometric art feels dead when compared to a robust AE painting. However, this is like comparing oranges to walnuts.

Finally for me, I will take the contrary position on digital geometry. I love it. I get real excited when making virtual digital geometric images. I don't like to paint enlargements of them using computer tracings or the classic enlarging grid to scale up the image so a painting can be made. Then there is all that damn color matching because you have to at least try to translate the colors as seen on the monitor to paint as seen on the canvas. This process drives me nuts. Now that I have a decent pigment inkjet printer, I enjoy seeing the digital paintings printed to a decent scale along with a decent monitor-to-print color balance. I see my digital painting and digital photographic manipulations as more graphic entities than paintings. Also I like the idea that storing digital paintings do not take up any space in my painting racks. I produce digital prints on a "demand" basis. When I need a print, I make it, frame it, etc. Otherwise the images are stored on my external hard drive.

This is how i see it today 1:37 AM 3/12/2010.

Later guys.
David

Oh! to see some of my digital painting and photography, go to my site and roam the paintings of 2004 - 2006 and my digital image pages. You will see that I don't stay too close to the geometry thing. I like to add curves to this also. Click on links below or go here to start. Hmmmmmmm!!?? Why am I thinking that geometric painting only covers images made up of lines and planes whose edges are parallel to the sides of a rectangle? Maybe to me geometric painting is some form of Malevich? Maybe the box is where the minimalists took geometric painting?

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Gerzabek <egerzabek1@optusnet.com.au>
Date: March 14, 2010 22:34:16 GMT+01:00

This is a most puzzling statement, if I understand it at all.

Two points especially I would like do raise:

(1) The statement "the computer cannot produce a 'true' work of art" is irrelevant and nonsensical, nobody ever asserted that the computer creates an artwork. In the image-making process an artist can use a computer, a brush or spray painting equipment, only the medium and the technique is different, but the artistic input, the creativity is the same. "A computer is only a tool, you fool" as some people may put it more bluntly.

(2) When this discussion started, as triggered by Serge's images, we only relied on assessing his artworks by seeing them on our computer monitors. If we were not told that they were created using a computer and printer, would we have discussed the merits of the process or the creativity and artistic merit of the result? Would some of us have bogged down on discussing the comparative merits of digital versus traditional materials? Could have anybody, like Keith, come to the conclusion that "certain 'coldness' is felt when you view digital art"? Why is technique and process considered more important by some people than expression and creativity and artistic merit? Cheers, - Ernie

visit my websites
www.Ernie-Gerzabek.com
www.AbstractLandscapePaintings.com

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Astrid H. Fitzgerald" <ahfitzge@bestweb.net>
Date: March 14, 2010 22:37:18 GMT+01:00

Right on!

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Morant <morant@paradise.net.nz>
Date: March 14, 2010 23:10:13 GMT+01:00

Well - I walked right in to that one didn't I! Going by you response Ernie and the twistng of one sentence completely out of context - yes I agree with you - it would seem puzzling to you and obviously, as you say, you do not understand it at all. - Keith
www.keithmorant.com

Tel: +64 3 9816355
M: 0212221234

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Gerzabek (Artist)" <art@ernie-gerzabek.com>
Date: March 15, 2010 04:35:01 GMT+01:00

"Interesting" response, thank you Keith.

If I am accused of twisting, I did not start it, and certainly I did not intended to do it. Maybe I got caught up inadvertently in the twisting whirlwind of your propositions and theories. Which, (by the way Keith, you are right), I did not really understand as meaningful or useful. Did anybody? Please somebody help me out here.

Probably my mind is too simple for this high-brow theoretical art-talk stuff, I should just stick to listening to what the real masters have said. So I reproduce a few quotations here from my web :

Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity. Charles Mingus

The painter should not paint what he sees, but what will be seen. Paul Klee

The aim of art is to represent not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance. Aristotle

Abstraction is real, probably more real than nature. I prefer to see with closed eyes. Josef Albers

Abstract art places a new world, which on the surface has nothing to do with 'reality,' next to the 'real' world. Wassily Kandinsky

Abstraction allows man to see with his mind what he cannot physically see with his eyes... Abstract art enables the artist to perceive beyond the tangible, to extract the infinite out of the finite. It is the emancipation of the mind. It is an explosion into unknown areas. Arshile Gorky

I want to touch people with my art. I want them to say 'he feels deeply, he feels tenderly'. Vincent Van Gogh

What I dream of is an art of balance, of purity and serenity devoid of troubling or depressing subject matter. Henri Matisse

- Ernie

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Morant <morant@paradise.net.nz>
Date: March 15, 2010 05:13:22 GMT+01:00

Thanks Ernie,

All of your quotes are from true artists and worked from the extension of their mentality and emotions through their physical activity - not a camera, computer, spray can or mechanical device anywhere....no debate here - I rest my case.

Cheers....K
www.keithmorant.com

Tel: +64 3 9816355
M: 0212221234

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Serge MOMOT <sergemomot@rambler.ru>
Date: March 15, 2010 10:25:42 GMT+01:00

Thank you Karl for interesting discussion.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Fran Mc Cann <franandmary@eircom.net>
Date: March 15, 2010 11:19:48 GMT+01:00

Hi Karl, you certainly got things moving along with this discussion, well done. and now I feel I world like to throw in my twopences worth, using the words of the "Archdeacon Gary Hastings" when he opened my last exhibition.

You can’t record music and crack. You can’t preserve it and keep it. You can make things which make the same noise that music makes, but it’s not real music. You might as well try to nail fag smoke to the wall. Real music, crack, doesn’t stick to plastic very well and won’t survive in a jam jar even if you put holes in the lid. Real music happens here and now and is the way it is because it’s you who are here, and not someone else. Because this musician has turned up and that one couldn’t come. The room is just right, the musicians have had just enough drink, or adrenalin or emotion or whatever it is to make the music go this way rather than that. And it will never be the same again. Ever, ever, ever. Bits of plastic and tape and computers can make noises like music but it’s not music. Don’t be fooled. Music is not just noise. For music you have to be there, you have to be close enough to smell the musicians, and maybe even get splashed. Real music is part of reality, a sign of it, something that perhaps even causes reality to happen. Music might even be what your soul would sound like, if you could hear a soul. CD’s, videos, can’t do that. They mask reality, make you think you’re there when you’re not. Real music’s not hard and shiny and smooth and always eternally the same. It has more in common with a dacent pint of stout or a good laugh or a long breath of cool fresh air in and out again, or a big feed. You have it and then it’s gone. All’s left after real music is the aftershock, the buzzing in your head, the sweat drying on your skin. It’s something that happens, and you happen to be there for that, or not.

When I paint and I know a lot of artists feel the same way, I can smell the paint, I curse and worry and laugh and talk to and at the work as I move along, also when I am on the computer, I curse and worry and laugh and talk to and at the computer, BUT I do not smell the computer or the work comming from it. Long ago an artist was a creative individual, to day if you hit a computer button then you must be an "artist" at this rate everyone will be an artist and creative individuals will be a thing of the past.

To be honest with everyone out there, "I really do not apprecitate the Emperors new cloths" Fran Mc Cann.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: "Astrid H. Fitzgerald" <ahfitzge@bestweb.net>
Date: March 15, 2010 12:02:46 GMT+01:00

Thanks for starting this discussion...sparks and all.. Those are great quotes about abstract art sent by Ernie Gerzabek. Wish I'd included them in a book of quotations which I wrote pre-computer and pre-Goggle. Now that Karl started sparks flying and I have your attention, I'd like to mention (shamelessly so) "An Artist's Book of Inspiration: A Collection of Thoughts on Art, Artists and Creativity". Now available in Chinese!

AN ARTIST'S BOOK OF INSPIRATION
A Collection of Thoughts on Art, Artists, and Creativity
Compiled and edited by ASTRID FITZGERALDLINDISFARNE PRESS - 1996
256 PAGES, PAPERBACK
ISBN 0-940262-76-2 - $18.95

This collection was gathered during one person's life of making art and studying the spiritual traditions of the East and West. It is filled with the best thoughts on art, artists, and the creative process, drawn from various traditions, times, and places. It is intended to serve as a guide and an inspiration for all those who want to be reminded of the sources of creativity amid the fractured confusion of the contemporary scene. From the reports of mystics to the observations of scientists, these passages have been arranged in this volume to provide brief glimpses into the recesses of artistic being, into the tentative formations in consciousness, the first glimmers of imagination, the distinctive faculties of the creative mind, and the tensions of artistic expression in the workshop and the creative life. Fitzgerald’s great contribution has been to gather into a meaningful collection the words of 1,500 years of genius as a resource and inspiration for all those who would break out of creative limitations and take a bold step into the future.

Available on amazon and b&n

Wow! Fran, you're cracking the conundrum wide open again...not just sparks, but splinters. Ouch! - Astrid Fitzgerald, New York

____________________________________________________________________________________________

From: info@suusart.nl
Date: March 15, 2010 15:21:40 GMT+01:00

It is all about the energy within. Not about the material. It is not important what you paint or how you paint, it is important you put your soul into it. And when your art is capable of calling forth the intended emotions then it is truly a piece of art. - Suus Suiker

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Mandala 14. I marvel at your patience and tenacity to develop work around a central theme. I have tried this in the past but usually get restless after a few paintings and move on to something else. I think this has to do individual nervous systems and not art. But isn't art about individual nervous systems? What we are is a very big element of how we develop and make pictures.

Aside from discussing the detail of a painting or paintings, I tend to look for the big picture, first, then move to the detail. Of course, the big picture would be muddled at best if the detail wasn't carefully crafted. This you do very well. For me, then, the gifted technical handling of form, space, color, brush stoke (where needed), the happy accident (when it happens) is all there and makes all of the "pop" happen. Believe me, the "pop" is very difficult to achieve in an art work/s. Not many folk that are engaged in making paintings rise above the pure technical to achieve a marriage of the self to the work. This you do exceedingly well. I had a student who described the "pop" in a painting as the "burn". She would refer to color shapes, color edges, paint application and tool relationships as "burn". To her a successful painting had "burn". I said to her, "Do you mean by burn, heat?" She said yes. Wow! burn is good.

Actually this is what I like about this group of painters. We are all very different in our aesthetic preferences and how we attach these preferences to our work. The diversity and quality is very high. We all attach our selves to what we make. To me, this is indeed art making that flies far above the simple technical life of a good amateur. Burn is good.

Carry on everyone!

David Novak

it was a surprise Karl, when you referred to my approach as "Ernie seems to strive primarily for balance and harmony, and he expresses it (in my interpretation of him) with harmonious patterns and colors, all executed with perfect precision".

whilst this may be true, and i am happy to wear the mantle, i also do lots of other stuff as well, which is completely different in my opinion. here are a few examples:
intuitive childish scribbles http://www.ernie-gerzabek.com/099_child_play_abstract_artwork.htm
free-form colour explorations with accidental effects http://www.ernie-gerzabek.com/461_finders_keepers_painting.htm
fantasy doodles http://www.ernie-gerzabek.com/713_scramble_mad_painting.htm
dramatic underwater colourscapes http://www.ernie-gerzabek.com/321_under_blue_sea.htm and
stylised semi-abstract landscapes http://www.ernie-gerzabek.com/375_remembered_desert_semi_abstract_landscape.htm

do not be alarmed by my protestations, but it is important to me of not being restricted too much by being pigeon-holed in a small space. i have many directions i like to explore and the geometric designs are just one area. this is also true of your artistic endeavours Karl and Ted, so we are in the same boat for this reason as well. i really appreciate the company and the mutual respect we have for each other's artistic output. and this also includes Astrid, Marc and David of course, even though they have not contributed to this specific discussion so far. warm regards, Ernie Gerzabek

2009-06-19 - Ernie and Ted, many thanks for your comments. Ernie's delicate work 733 is an "arabesque" par excellence, with its intricate mathematics, as seen in the patterns of traditional art of Islam (Isphahan, Alhambra, ..) . And its execution is of the highest order. I sometimes think what may describe the three of us (actually dreamt of it last night), i.e. what differentiates us, though we seem to enjoy listening to each other. I may be wrong, but Ernie seems to
strive primarily for balance and harmony, and he expresses it (in my interpretation of him) with harmonious patterns and colors, all executed with perfect precision. Ted may be the most pronounced in spiritual awareness, and sees artwork at the service of (or as a mirror of) attaining spiritual growth. Technically, he seems to build on the theories of Kandinsky, spiritually on the metaphysics of Mondrian. See his latest beautiful work at

http://www.art-spirit.net/

I can't honestly strive for Ernie's harmony and perfection; nor Ted's spiritual intensity; but enjoy work in a "free" space, without a mission or even awareness of harmony or spiritual advancement; simply an expression at the time, influenced by lots of "stuff" (visual art, readings, music, commercial images, experiences, etc.). Anyway, these are very personal observations, and you know I admire both of you very much. - Karl

2009-06-18 - Hi Karl, I like them all, but m11 is my favourite. I would like to make comparisons with my mandalas, eg.

http://www.ernie-gerzabek.com/733_mandala_geometric_design.htm

Both your and my mandalas have patterns symmetrical (four ways with four axis), but your colours are symmetrical only in respect of one axis, whilst my colours are not strictly symmetrical, but repeated exactly with degree rotation. does this 90 degree rotated repetition has a name? I just love m11, the composition is so balanced (by the nature of the concentric geometric pattern?), at the same time there is a dynamic tension. in it which really appeals to me. Warm regards, Ernie Gerzabek