Michael; I defined my use of ambiguity in the poetic sense by which one interpretation through metaphor reveals (enables us to construct) another and so on, and that these can be contradictory. Because these "layers" of metaphor are like strata, they can be interpreted "at the same time" as in saying, let's imagine, while the rabbit comes to mind in this context, the duck comes to mind in another. But in fact the image of the rabbit duck always has the signs of both rabbit and duck, and many other referents as well, if not in actual marks, in evoking associations.
I have said that meaninglessness is an ideal, unattainable, since any perception or thought is embedded in an idea or subject. But it is desirable, in my view, to attempt to go as far as one can in stripping meaning from perception, not only through reduction but also through multiplication. When we try to perceive something as it is, without any sense of its use or value (or name-definition) then we are able to perceive it aesthetically. In saying this I am imitating Panofsky. It is a way to contemplate form instead of subject and aside from content. I don't like my name being ridiculed as "conjurer" for two reasons. One is that it parodies my mental efforts, as if I dream up my ideas from mists and without reasoning; the other is that it suggests an alliterative J sound in my name with in the word "conjurer". A retort is we don't say "longer" as "lonjer" so why imply that my name is pronounced Conjer instead of Conger? I say this with a smile since I know that you are a Scholastic and thus not responsible for your pedantry, usually supported by contradictory wit and humor. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 9:48:59 PM Subject: Re: Validity of Cheerskep's Argument William wrote: > Listers know how strongly I've advocated ambiguity, in the poetic metaphorical > sense of "multiple meanings" as relevant to art expression. In other words, > nothing kills art faster than "one-liner" content. In fact, I have long > asserted that the more complex the content, the more associative meanings > evoked, the more seeming contradictions they put into play, the better. Of > course, this sort of ambiguity and meaninglessness can be very clear and > powerful. William the Conjurer uses "meaningless" in a meaningful way, meaning "ambiguous." A nice sleight of terms. Ambiguity is not meaninglessness; it's a lack of singularity, it's poly-"the"-ism (that's for CSKP), it's openendedness, it's an ambi-pamby word. <g> Some ambiguities, such as the Necker Cube, the Duck-Rabbit, or Rubin's Vase (the face-vase figure-ground illusion), provoke at least two equally probably interpretations, but both interpretations cannot be held simultaneously without contradiction. There are a few pairs of identical words (in English) that are exactly contradictory, e.g., "cleave." (Actually these two words aren't syntactically identical: "cleave," to split, is transitive and takes a direct object directly, whereas "cleave," to join, is immediately followed by a prepositional phrase introduced by "to.") "More associative meanings" doesn't necessarily imply "more seeming contradictions," merely doubt about interpretation. Saul's comment, "Art and language are best when they are imprecise," barely rises above a bumper-sticker aphorism but it touches on a fundamental aspect of representation, namely, that the representation is less than the referent. It reduces the referent in many ways and by many degrees of magnitude. In fact, a more precise version of Saul's aphorism would be "Art and language are always imprecise." The moment when the maker or viewer notices the differences between the image or word on one side and its referent on the other is the moment when reinterpretation, realigning of the parts of the comparison begins. And next comes ambiguity, doubt, and eventually the moment of explicit fiction, when non-existent referents are just 'made up' by the speaker or artist to test what the new creation (horse + horn on forehead) proposes. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
