Letters

Leonuro, Vol. 5, pp. 379-384. Pergamon Press 1972. Printed in Great Britain LETTERS Readers’ comments are welcomed on texts published in Leonardo. The Editors reserve the right to shorten lettersfor reasons of space. Letters should be written in English or in French. ON KINETIC ART WITH ELECTRIC LIGHT During the past few years, I have followed with considerable interest the articles and notes in Leonardo on various technical and aesthetic aspects of art utilizing light and movement. I think these authorsaretobecommendedfortheircontributions. I was particularly impressed by Richard I. Land’s concise and informative article ‘Kinetic Art: The Chromara’, a Lumia Technique in Leonardo 5, 103 (1972). As one who has been constructing and exhibiting work utilizing systems best categorized by Land as Class I (shadow) and Class I11 (reflection), I was enlightened by the technical sections of the article and intrigued by the history of semantic variances related to definitively categorizing or labeling such work. For years I searched for an adequate term to replace such unacceptable labels as ‘light constructions ’, ‘light sculpture’ and, God forbid, ‘light boxes’! Although Lumia seemed to be a fairly acceptable banner under which to work, it did not seem descriptivelyadequate due to its usual association with work that isprimarilyof a two-dimensional or painting format while my own work was mostly three-dimensional. In the fall of 1971, I arrived at the term Luminetics. I feel this incorporates the light and kinetic aspects of Lumia art but provides a term which differentiates the primarily twodimensional work from that which is three-dimensional or sculptural in form. Although Luminetics is satisfactory and I intend to continue to use it in reference to my work, I am uncertain about its origin. I think I coined the term but I wonderif I have in fact borrowed it from some forgotten source. My search of periodicals, exhibition catalogs etc. has not revealed any prior use. Should anyone know of other uses or occurrences of the term, I would appreciate knowingabout them in order that I may so acknowledge. Dick Cook, Head Department of Art Nicholls State University Box 2025, University Station Thibodaux,La. 70301, U.S.A. ON VIOLENCE AND CAPRICE IN RECENT ART In his article ‘Violence and Caprice in Recent Art’ in this issue of Leonardo, 5, 325 (1972), Lincoln Rothschild denigrates our efforts (Leonardo 4, 245 (1971)) and finds nothing positive in what we had to say. Only our confession of limitations elicited praise from Rothschild. He charges us with having gone beyond our depths. We suggest he is too superficial. Psychoanalysis is more than a way of describing the phenomenology of human behavior. It specializes in seeking to explore and to uncover unconscious motivation and processes in the conduct of human affairs. Rothschild holds no monopoly, in our opinion, in matters concerning the nature of man. His monodimensional and non-dynamic promotion of man’s constructive efforts, though praiseworthy, is hardly sufficient to explain the ambivalent nature of human nature, as psychoanalysts see it. This is not the place to argue the merits of depth psychology according to Freud in contrast to social behaviorism according to Skinner, for example. If our conceptualizations concerning man, if our communications on NO-Art based upon prolonged personal interviews and examination of the lives, writings and productions of its exponents did little more than provoke the negative reactions of Rothschild and others, our purposes have in part been served. We wonder why Rothschild is so debunking of the child of and in man. We wonder why Rothschild is so enamored by technology and industrialism. We wonder why Rothschild sees the already passe‘ industrial societyasthe apexof human development. We wonder why Rothschild suggests that the role of the artist is to encourage loyalty to the old industrial state, when we are already entering into its new (electronic) stage. We wonder whether Rothschild really believes art and artists should submit to society’s demand that they support the existing social structure in the pursuit of its own goals. We wonder on what basis Rothschild has come to the belief that all psycho- and sociopathology ‘will stand out self-condemned’when his 379 380 Letters social-hygienic world constituted of...