I think Miller brings up a good point! He is right to wonder what it is about a painting that exists. I know a quite prominent artist who once showed me a "drawing" he made. It was a puddle of water that he had poured on a marble floor and, indeed, the edges of the puddle could be regarded as drawn lines. Years earlier Helen Frankenthaler and others "painted" by pouring watery paint onto raw canvas, and, of course, everyone knows about Jackson Pollock's drip paintings. Today we are hard pressed to know what constitutes a painting in the artwork sense. Most elusive are the actual ingredients since paint and even surface are no longer minimal requirements.
I also like Miller's test re the Sistine Chapel. I suspect that no sensible person can enter the Chapel without having been pre-conditioned to it as art and thus already a "believer" to the extent that the physical evidence, the painted and frescoed surfaces, are conflated with purely subjective a-priori judgments about "art". Miller lists the physical properties and then lists the "notional" judgements and we can see how easy it is to slide from one into the other. Just where, precisely, is the line crossed from the experience of the actual to the subjective experience of the notional? I claim that it's never crossed because no such separation exists in experience, however much it may be presumed to exist outside of individual experience. Again, belief shapes our experiencing. An interesting aspect of the experience of being in the Sistine Chapel is the actual physical strain to the back and neck, and eyes, in viewing the ceiling, and even the Last Judgment. One becomes keenly aware of one's physicality and its effect on the act of experiencing the "delight" of the mind. Generally, visitors are shuffled thorugh too quickly to do much of anything except to know they are there. But in off-seasons one can sit for awhile and wander a bit. The strain is quickly felt. The neo-platonic conflict of body and soul becomes a real part of the visitor's experience, just as it is depicted by Michelangelo's symbolic images. WC --- On Thu, 9/25/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Examining the theory > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, September 25, 2008, 9:19 AM > I was a bit surprised when Cheerskep just told us that > "paintings exist in the > non-notional world". Wouldn't he have only > recognized the existence of an > area in his visual field -- and then say that it was > notational to call some > part of it a painting ? > > So now I'm curious -- just what he -- and everyone else > on this list -- think > exists when standing in the middle of the Sistine Chapel > and looking west? > > It might be interesting to make a check list of things that > might "exist" > there -- and have each of us check off "exists" > or "not exists" next to each > them. > > For example: > > * reflected light does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * a wall does exist [ ] does not > exist [ ] > * plaster and pigments does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * depiction of the Last Judgment does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * illusions of volume and space does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * high quality of drawing does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * profound spiritual vision does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * great work of art does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * very famous work of art does exist [ ] does > not exist [ ] > * cryptic map to the Holy Grail does exist [ ] does not > exist [ ] > > > I'd be inclined to recognize the existence of > everything listed above -- > except for the last. > > > > *********** > > > >Language stumbles are rampant on this forum, but they > are merely defective > nets and hooks as our listers fish for the more > fundamental issue -- an ontological one. The issue > concerns what "exists" > and what doesn't -- e.g. paintings exist in the > non-notional world, "art" > does > not. > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click for free information on accounting careers, $150/hour > potential. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlSAJjZhwSZB0MG0I7ftWJFs > QDFVFINiYU5aVLNjCDwZf2h2/
