entre pleins et vide

16:48 Dec 4, 2016 

open to all angles/perspectives/viewpoints surrounding the blocked in figures

16:12 Dec 4, 2016 

If people are going to read this with the work in front of them, then "solid forms" could be used with no possible risk of misunderstanding, since it will be obvious that it can't refer to objects or three-dimensional accretions. But I quite understand that you'd rather not, Helen, and why not.

13:33 Dec 4, 2016 

Thanks for that. I thought it must be the case. I would only stress that clarity is all the more important.

13:30 Dec 4, 2016 

I should perhaps have pointed out that this seems to be info that will be on display next to the print. And that the target audience is museum visitors of all ages, generally not art specialists.

13:27 Dec 4, 2016 

The last set of quotations you provide make the point that he is exploring the relationship between 'solid forms' and 'empty space'. However, when actually describing what he does in paint, I believe avoiding using the term 'solid form' for something 2-dimensional is really important. I guess I am trained to describe things very precisely. I won't say more, and will leave it to MoiraB now.

13:23 Dec 4, 2016 

I do take your point. I suppose I was assuming that potential readers would know that Miró didn't do that, but perhaps it shouldn't be assumed. I'd be happy with "solids", particularly since "forms" has already occurred in the previous sentence. But I do think the sense of colour saturation in "pleins" is important and should be reflected, and "forms" alone doesn't do the job.

13:21 Dec 4, 2016 

Here are a couple of relevant quotations:

"Miró’s work often experiments with scale and composition as he juxtaposes a group of objects with a solitary element and explores the relationship between solid forms and voids."
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/lot.123.html/...

"Miró carefully spaced these elements with respect to each other and to the blank page. The relationships between the solid forms and voids provided the inspiration for the related paintings."
https://www.moma.org/interactives/exhibitions/2008/miro/flas... (This wouldn't open; I got it from the Google cache)

I suppose you could even say "solid shapes". Sotheby's again:

"Deceptively childlike in execution, the composition exhibits a sophisticated ambiguity in elements with multiple readings. It is composed of a brightly coloured red dot and yellow and green flame-like forms, these solid shapes contrasted with the thin, freely meandering black lines and a white-headed creature set against the earthly-coloured bare canvas."
http://www.sothebys.com/fr/auctions/ecatalogue/2007/impressi...

13:17 Dec 4, 2016 

I do think there is a problem. Many of his contemporaries applied objects of varying kinds to their paintings, to further break the boundaries between painting and sculpture. To me 'solid form' suggests an object. As an art historian, if I were reading such a description, I would be inclined to check to see if that were the case. Miró himself talks about forms in empty space. That should be fine on its own. If one wants to describe those forms then 'saturated colour fields' demonstrates that they are fully filled in with colour, not striated or otherwise coloured.

13:11 Dec 4, 2016 

I see what you mean, though personally I would use "solid forms" here. I don't think it would be potentially ambiguous in practice; there's no real risk of it being understood to mean objects in this context; at least, if such a risk exists, it could also apply to "solids". To me the word "solid" hits the mark and "forms" alone is not enough. I'm thinking here of the architectural meaning of "pleins" as "les parties solides, continues". Miró typically puts solid blobs of unnuanced colour on a more or less uniform, empty background.