Is not it, simply,- anything sensed by humans is communicated information. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Mike Mallory" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "William Conger" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: "There9s more alienation and separation of peoplein a commodified landscape ... Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:51:23 -0800 My response to the message below is embedded. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Conger" <[email protected]> > As an artist I would never be interested in evoking a bundle > of associations > "communicated" by the artwork. First, I have no control of > what associations > one may have -- not even my own from moment to moment -- in > making or viewing my > artwork. Mike: When I say that "artwork communicates an experience", I am using "communicate" in a broad sense to indicate that the artist produces the particular artifact with the anticipated experience of the viewer in mind: shaping the artifact in ways that will shape the anticipated experience. "Experience" may be ideational, affective or any in the range of human experience. I cannot speak to your personal intentions, but it seems to me that artists generally have the anticipated experience of the viewer in mind when producing art. To aim for or intend a certain bundle of > associations means that some > other associations are wrong because the > intention is to exclude some and > include others. Why? Despite misgivings > with E. Gombrich's linear art history > based on illusionism, I agree fully > with his statement that there are no wrong > reasons to like artworks. Mike: I do not disagree with this. No communicator has "control" over the experience of the communicatee. At best, and because it is the best, I believe that any analysis is of the communicatee's experience is probabilistic. Whatever is communicated will only act as a stimulus to trigger associative responses (which can include organizing principles). Because the meaning of a communication is assembled from the associations of the communicatee: the meaning is outside the control of the communicator, informed by, but not determined by the communication and is always unique. Art is a way to bring a viewer's experience into focus around a particular artifact. Everyone brings a different experience, so there is no correct meaning to a work of art. I would argue that there is no ultimate meaning to any communication. Also, > it strikes me as absurd that an inanimate > object, like an artwork, > communicates if we understand that communication is an > ongoing human act > involving more than one person (or an imaginary other or > surrogate person). Mike: This is a perennial issue on the list-serve. All I can say is that by "artwork communicates an experience" I am referring to art as part of the intersubjective transaction between an artist and viewer. An artifact may be inanimate, but so are the soundwaves forming phonemes. In both instances they constitute a mode, means or perhaps strategy of communication. Of course, sunsets also trigger a host of associations and sunsets are not communications. So, even in the case of your artwork where no communication is intended, people will still have an "experience" of it. > You have a traditional view > of communication theory that is fully and > analytically rejected by my new > hero, Roy Harris. Harris promotes a view that is > entirely consistent with the > way artists tend to think about artmaking and > content. > > wc Just call me "old fashioned!" I tend a bit towards the post-modern and don't get that moniker very often. BTW, I looked up Harris' book on Amazon. I don't have plans to read it (yet), but the description doesn't sound totally ground-breaking. Mike Mallory Product Description http://www.amazon.com/Signs-Language-Communication-Roy-Harris/dp/0415100895/r ef=ntt_at_ep_dpt_6 Roy Harris proposes a new theory of communication. He begins with the premise that the mental life of an individual should be conceived of as a continuous attempt to integrate the present with the past and future. He concludes by arguing that communication should be viewed as both a product and a resource of this constant act of integration.
