I agree, > On Mar 21, 2008, at 11:56 AM, armando baeza wrote: >> A Sign that causes an A.E. in >> individuals, is one that reflects >> an expected or unexpected >> pleasure "in our perception" and >> experience of that reflection. >> >> mando
On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:07 PM, William Conger wrote: > I can't understand how artworks have ability, unless they are > animate beings. Artworks made of inanimate materials can't do > anything. We project what we know (and choose) into them by > metaphor and then imagine them projecting to us in return as a way > to justify our evocations. The particular formal properties of > artworks, being fashioned by a human being (always a simplification > of natural form), facilitates the projection and increases its > bounce back to us because we then imagine that another person, the > artist, speaks through the artwork. Artists make something that > serves as surrogates of themselves and others. When we like an > artwork we like ourselves being mirrored and idealized by it. Or, > so I think today. > WC > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:12:30 PM > Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved > > " I don't think artworks do anything..." > > I strongly disagree. How about ability to change quality of human > lives? > > "... and thus have no meaning but what is given to them -- " > > I agree. It does not have meaning that we are able linguistically > describe, > but it has existential meaning of a particular order. > > Boris Shoshensky > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:54:27 -0700 (PDT) > > Gee whiz, I go away for two days of trout fishing and examining > ancient mounds > and return to Miller's yelping about my having struck a nerve in > his art > persona. I don't recall saying he was ignorant or lazy, at least > not in > recent years (when he has shown ample interest in reading and > looking quite > carefully) but I did refer to his oft demonstrated preference for > expecting > all artworks to do the heavy lifting regarding content while he > need do > nothing but be present. I don't think artworks do anything -- and > thus have > no meaning but what is given to them -- and I do think the > audience is > responsible for wresting meaning from its experience of art. If that > responsibility is taken seriously, a good work of art will enable > the audience > to experience contrasting or paradoxical kinds of content, again, > sidestepping > meaning. I certainly don't think critics or art schools should try to > experience art for the audience. Sullivan's quaint remarks about > listening to a building, etc., are appealing but of course they are > also > nonsensical statements alluding to the need for the audience to be > open-minded. As for the remark "inevitable and resolved" I made it > up. It's > not that I heard it from someone else but that others hear it from > me. I > invented the phrase, even though I suspect others have made similar > remarks. > My intention was that inevitable refers to the composition or > formal harmony > of the work to itself and that resolved refers to the seeming > conviction of > that harmony, as if to close out other possible or tentative > iterations as > faulty. Come to think of it, trout fishing can be a wonderful > metaphor of > the art experience. Unlike, say, passively and cushioned sitting > in a boat > awaiting the fish to bite, trout fishing requires an enormous > effort, physical > and mental, adeptness at moving through rather inhospitable nature, > being > laden with clumsy waterproof clothing, heavy waders, very tiny > lures about the size of a housefly, delicate instruments, easily > tangled > line, and a host of other exhausting and embarrassing > confrontations amid > thorny underbrush and deep mud. Trout fishing requires strenuous > effort and > promises nothing in the way of the silvery magician fish dangling > from a > barbed hook. > > wc > > > ________________________________ > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 8:58:30 AM > Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved > >> I would like to see your objections to the proposal rewritten without > resorting to the personal characteristics of those conducting the > discussion > with you. (Kate) > > > That's not possible, Kate, if we accept that proposals about "good > art" can > only be subjective. (unless we're just talking about price) > > Please note that William began his proposal with a personal > reference to his > interlocutor as ignorant and lazy: "Typical of Miller to reserve > for himself > the passive expectation that art will speak to him, as it were, > without any > effort on his part." > > Then, as you castigate my "ad hominem" while ignoring his, you > move beyond > subjectivity into group dynamics. Humans form alliances when we > get together > in groups, don't we? It's unavoidable, we're social animals, more > like > termites than eagles. > > And since personal references and group dynamics are unavoidable in > discussions of aesthetics, I won't complain about them one teensy bit. > > But getting back to the discussion of "inevitable and resolved" - > I found > it > exciting because this is the first time our listserv has seen > these words in > reference to that mysterious quality that separates good visual art > from bad. > > As Michael writes, "Inevitable and resolved" implies completion and > coherence, > fittedness, proportion, all those things.". But "inevitable" also > involves > the powerful feelings associated with destiny and history. The idea > that all > this sturm und drang is eventually going somewhere; while > "resolved" gives > hope that our many frayed loose ends will eventually be tied. > > The quality that separates good art from bad is going to remain an > unspeakable > mystery, but unless something is said about it, there is no way to > challenge
