The core of Malevich’s ‘artistic expression’ in his Black Square is buried in parentheses a paragraph or two before the end:
> Black Square was not simply a two-dimensional surface, parallel to a single wall and projecting outwards from it in one direction. Judging from the way it was displayed when first exhibited in 1915 — across the corner of the room (like a Russian icon) and as high up as possible — it was required to project from two walls and the ceiling, i.e. in three dimensions, embracing the room over which it presided as a cubic space.
Black Square’s artistic merit is precisely because it was intended to occupy the space in the room that an icon traditionally would, and implied the absence (or rejection) of God.
> Black Square was not simply a two-dimensional surface, parallel to a single wall and projecting outwards from it in one direction. Judging from the way it was displayed when first exhibited in 1915 — across the corner of the room (like a Russian icon) and as high up as possible — it was required to project from two walls and the ceiling, i.e. in three dimensions, embracing the room over which it presided as a cubic space.
Black Square’s artistic merit is precisely because it was intended to occupy the space in the room that an icon traditionally would, and implied the absence (or rejection) of God.