Mike, All your points sound logical to me. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: "Mike Mallory" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: "There9s more alienation and separation of peoplein a Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:13:11 -0800
Boris: Then let me switch to Kant. One of Kant's greatest contributions, IMHO, was to show that perceptions alone cannot account for our understanding of the world; we need to have some kind of per-existing structure with which to order what we perceive. Science has corroborated Kant's insight. We may perceive a gray shape traverse our field of vision, but we end up "seeing" a "car". There is a considerable amount of cognitive processing which has to occur between the moving gray shape and the car. It is unclear to me whether a person can have a "raw perception", i.e. an unprocessed mental perceptual experience. I suspect that like Chomsky's innate grammar, we also have an innate structure to accommodate our perceptions. And so, while I question whether the term "communication" appropriately applies to this process, I would agree that perceptions are only potential mental states and that they must pass through an unconscious translation or interpretive process before they reach awareness. I believe that some of the unconscious interpretive process is innate and some is learned. To the extent that both the perceptions and the ultimate awareness take place in the same mind/body, the claim that mental states are at least metaphorically the result of communication within an individual, albeit, passive, appears to be rational. Mike Mallory ----- Original Message ----- From: "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:35 PM Subject: Re: "There9s more alienation and separation of peoplein a commodified landscape ... > Good point from the Newtonian point of view. > Lets look at this process as a potency to sense in us as a starting point > of > some energy/locator sent by brain to sensed information, and a final > perception of it a result of us communicating to us plus new component. I > would call it passive communication. > It is not unlike mirror effect- us as a start of the image we see. > This is just me playing with the thought. Nothing definite. > Boris Shoshensky > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: "Mike Mallory" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "There9s more alienation and separation of peoplein a > commodified > landscape ... > Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 12:01:24 -0800 > > Any sense perception contains information, but "communication" would imply > that the sensory stimulation was was the result of an artifact created > purposefully or in anticipation of the response by the perceiver. Most of > what we perceive lacks that kind of agency, unless like George Berekely > you > posit some kind of supernatural creative force behind every perception. > > > Mike Mallory > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Boris Shoshensky" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:53 AM > Subject: Re: "There9s more alienation and separation of peoplein a > commodified landscape ... > > >> 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
