Julie Draper-Duruz (asker) Apr 17, 2009:

Thank you! Many thanks to everyone who contributed their input on this!

Helen Shiner Apr 16, 2009:

Bernhard Yes, this is the route to abstraction, so subject matter becomes far less important or has no importance for the artist. But I would say that those properties are the laws, if you see the term 'properties' in a scientific light. So that the resultant image can only or should only reflect the sole properties open to the medium - should use line, colour, etc. but presumably not attempt perspective (which takes it into the realm of 3-D) - i.e. in general should stay true to the medium.

Bernhard Sulzer Apr 16, 2009:

rules and composition In your context, I read this as how the artist uses the medium's properties (lines, colors, surfaces, etc.) to develop a(n underlying) framework of form used to express what is actually shown. The underlying properties if you will are what is more important for the composition/artwork than what is actually shown. He/she does not follow inherent laws, but uses the medium's inherent properties in a specific way (and thus the painting expresses its own underlying reality/rules - different from the "shown" reality) that he/she chooses.

Helen Shiner Apr 16, 2009:

Modernism As I expect you know, Julie, this is a statement central to the fundamentals of Modernism. It means that the image must first respond to the inherent rules of its own medium. So if it is a 2-D image, it will inevitably refer to its own frame, the flatness of the surface, its own 2-dimensionality. To do anything else is to lie, to be inauthentic. I must admit I have never seen it expressed in quite this way - it does make it awkward for the translator. I think I might say something like - it should always respond to the inherent laws of its medium. I know that does away with 'reality' and adds 'responds', but it is far more comprehensible expressed in that way. And would be far more familiar to an intelligent readership, at whom I presume the text is aimed.