I know what you intend by your statement about writing. I agree with it if you are excluding poetry. I've written a fair number of little essays and commentary on art and I too try to be as clear and as precise with my word choices as I can, with the same goal in mind that you mention. My most recent commentary (re Trotsky and Breton) will be published in Prompt, a new journal due on October. The editor was pleased that my piece required no editing which I take as a compliment on its clarity. However, visual ambiguity or verbal ambiguity in painting or poetry is all about multiple references, allusions, suggestions, and so on. Although I grant that some artworks do -- or may -- center on some particular set of messages, I also insist that many great artworks do exactly the opposite: they do not communicate any particular message but evoke numerous messages, as a hallmark of art. To test this, I suggest your choosing a well-recognized universally acclaimed work of art, say, Goya's 2nd of May 1808, and tell us what "particular message" it communicates. Or, choose some other work outside of illustration. Why not illustration? Illustration, I believe, does aim at communicating a particular message. Great artworks are far more than illustrations.
I do favor the "romantic" approach. Maybe. WC --- On Tue, 9/2/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: and intentions > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2008, 11:11 AM > William: You seem to be suggesting that greater clarity, or > a greater work > of art, is achieved by avoiding intention as much as > possible. It is my > experience that clarity of communication, in speech or > email, requires > considerable intention in terms of considering various > meanings which might > be inferred by a reader or listener and selection of words > and phrases which > are most likely to avoid one or more implications not > intended. (One recent > email which I received recounted a tennis > announcer/commentator who was > claimed to have said on air something like: "One of > the reasons for X' > success may be that he has his wife kiss his balls before > each match".) I > view it as a romantic conceit that simply putting > information out for the > public to deal with is "artful" or honest. If the > work is graphic or three > dimensional, different standards may apply. However, in > terms of language, I > would submit that much effort is required if one wishes to > be "clear" in > communicating a particular message. > Geoff Crealock > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Inspirations and intentions > >Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:39:45 -0700 (PDT) > > > >Our disagreement rests on our using the term art > differently. I am > >suggesting that a work of art is the special status of > something that can't > >be achieved by means of artistic intention. By that I > place greater > >emphasis on its subjectivity, its reception, than on > its matgerial status. > > > >On the related issue regarding representation, I > quickly agree that there > >are no truly abstract forms even though all forms are > essntially abstract > >(nameless in themselves, as Cheerskep may affirm). The > seeming > >contradiction in that suggeston is that we can't > perceive anything without > >either naming it or inventing a likeness for it. So > everything looks like > >something else (or evokes the metaphorical > "as-if"). The problem is that > >anything can look like many other things which are > themselves multiply > >evocative of still other things, and so on. So an > incredibly complex > >ambiguity is built into every perception. This is where > Cheerskep and I > >part company. He would say the author has the duty to > be as clear as > >possible in stirring another to perceive what he or she > intends to convey. > >I say that some authors, artists, etc., have the duty > to remove as many > >barriers as they can from the natural ambiguity of > perception. I know this > >is not suitable to > > expository communication for it exposes paradox, > alternative perceptions, > >free-ranging fictionalizing, and even incoherence. The > benefit, however, > >is a greater awareness of the sheer magnitude of how we > think and feel. It > >is an invitation for the fullest possible > self-reflectivity, which is > >simply another way to achieve oneness with Being. > > > >While you conclude that abstractness leads to > non-referentiality, I propose > >that non-referentiality is impossible (as does Amando) > because, as stated > >above, everything looks like something else (or perhaps > like everything > >else in some respects and certainly in its evocative > capability for nothing > >prevents me from likening it to anything else no matter > how strange or > >perverse). Abstraction is simply the degree to which > form maintains its > >ambiguous evocative nature in our perceptions, or, more > plainly, to subvert > >our habitual associations and open us to others. > > > >Because I imagine the role of some artists to be that > of revealing the > >fullest possible ambiguity of form, its suggestive > capacity to evoke > >likeness to anything and everything while always being > itself, for the sake > >of "stirring" feeling of Beingness (or > oneness -- with nature, God, or > >cosmos), I reject the notion that (all) art should > convey (stir) some idea > >or translation of language or coherent thought or > lesson, or, finally, > >intentionality. Any intentionality consciously imposed > will, by necessity, > >reduce ambiguity. Any conscious effort to reduce > ambiguity may be > >essential to science and exposition, "truth", > "meaning" and the like, but > >it is opposite of artistic endeavor. Art is ambiguity > exposed. The ideal > >art intention is none at all. The ideal meaning is none > at all -- > >impossible to achieve yet worthy to seek. It is what > the Renaissance era > >called Divine. > >WC
