the "nothing" part

I read this just as I exited the train this morning and I wanted to share. From the de Kooning bio:

De Kooning thought the word "abstract" belonged to the people who conversed about art, those more interested in philosophy, polititcs, and art history than in painting. It was "talking," he wrote, "that has put 'Art' into painting. Nothing is positive about art except that it is a word." He particularly sought to distinguish between two kinds of "abstract." On the one hand, there was the mysterious, elusive quality of any great picture, whatever its content - a quality alluded to by such vague words as "lyrical" or "sublime." De Kooning called this the "nothing" part in a painting, "the part that was not painted but that was there because of the things in the picture which were painted." De Kooning loved this quality wherever he found it.

It goes on along these lines. He wasn't really into the reductive program. Greenberg, etc. He loves painting for what it is in the world, the actual materials, space, the hand, forms and color, and the ideas that evolve out of the mingling of these on a surface. Inspiring.

I had a really great painting teacher in undergrad who was a big big De Kooning fan. Sometimes I wonder if my whole project developed out of her early influence. But I am glad it was De Kooning, you know what I a mean? Could've been worse. But it is interesting to see how my ideas about art are often in line still to this day. I start to wonder - is this my own thinking or something i have adopted? Does it matter at this point?

Reading the above quote (about the nothing in painting) is what I find so easily in some of my Italian friends - titian, veronese, fra angelico, sassetta, etc. magic is everywhere. I may have to post some images now. just for myself.