The Print and the Siegel Theory of Opposites

The print is a matter of recession and going forward.

Life is. Life is a making one of from and to.

So is the print. There is bulk in the print and delicacy.

Do recession and going forward, from and to, bulk and delicacy, serve one purpose in the print, or two?

If they serve one purpose, and in the same place, that much they are one.

Do edges and mass serve one purpose in the print?

Is there a point where edge and mass are indistinguishable, one thing?

Then edge and mass are opposites which are one.

Do what you see and what you don’t see serve something together in the print?

If they do, that much they are one.

Do straight and curved make one in a line?

Do nothing and something make one in a dot?

Is there force-and-muting as one thing in the print?

Are meaning and the visual indistinguishable?

Did Rembrandt make light and dark one in his prints as he did in his paintings?

Are surface and depth one in today’s print?

Are technique and idea one in today’s print?

Are Dürer and the present day aquatint akin in that they both blend what the eye sees and meaning the whole person finds?

Are freedom and order one in the print?

Are detail and oneness, inseparable and separable?

Are sameness and difference one thing in the print?

Are fusion and distinction about one thing, in one thing, in the print?

Do continuity and discontinuity serve both good and evil?

Can the grotesque and the symmetrical be one in the print?

Do cruikshank and kathe kollwitz meet in a certain purpose, a certain objective, a certain procedure?

If the answer to these questions can be honestly and essentially, Yes, the power, fineness, success, beauty, effect of the print has much to do with, arises from, how opposites are seen as one, made one, in the print of man, earlier and later.