On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Jonathan Marshall wrote:
Hi Alan,
I'm still not sure here. For example, to use some other easily
referenced points can we really describe ecstacy? even a moderate 'real'
orgasm? then there is the often remarked failure of the mystics to
convey the 'union with god', the breakdown of language - to some extent
this might also be about the failure of represenation when there is
no-person to do the representing, and others do not have a similar
experience, to resonate.
No emotion can be perfectly expressed, but unutterable pain or death can't
be expressed at all it's different - it's why there are tests, as long as
one can answer them.
What i would say is that maybe i've had experiences of sheer joy a
couple of times in my late teens early twenties. The amount of art i
have experienced, which can help recall those experiences, or sustain
them is miniscule when compared to the amount of art which can sustain
or induce the sense of depression, meaninglessness, pain, pointlessness,
negation etc. (especially post mid 19th Century art)
Again, this is taste; I can name any number of artists who give me joy
from that period. There's no verification procedure here; even someone
like Rimbaud can be read as ecstatic or depressive.
So my conclusion would be that it is far easier (or considered
important) to 'do' art around pain (in our world anyway).
Bad sociology! First you're using your reactions to the work and then
making a sociological generalization from them. Good grief art can work in
any number of ways around any number of themes; I just don't want to name
names here, that's not relevant, and would only be my take on stuff.
That it is not to say that it is easy to do art that maintains empathy
or overcomes state barriers or exclusions etc (which is a different
issue). That i think is very hard (and very worth attempting) and is why
songs with the potential to raise pity and self questioning are roughly
banned. There is perhaps no other defense - but the banning *can* add to
the potency, because it may make us listen harder to find what led to
the banning.
Confused - other than that Israeli song, I can't think of any that were
banned. Even pop stuff, listen to Morrissey or the old U2 - none of this
stuff was banned.
unutterable joy. But that does not suppose a continuum, other than from
the *representable* to the *unrepresentable*, to the *hintable*...
Confused what you're saying here, apologies -
But quite frankly, how do i 'know' what anyone means, or is attempting
to convey?
You don't which is why one take on language from AI is that it's the
"mutual orientation of cognitive domains" which doesn't mean they're
mappable or convey the same.
each word, each gesture, may not only be social, but it is also
profoundly individual. it has particular meanings that are unique, but
it is not individual as it lives in interaction
Of course, language is both a commonality, consensus, and idiolect.
Perhaps the more complex the statement, or the art, the more this is the
case. And indeed the more 'real' the art, the more it seems like it
stands on its own , being so rich in what it can provoke/say
Again, I don't understand your aesthetics; I don't know what "the more
'real' the art" means at all, what it means for art to stand on its own,
etc. etc.; to quote badly Foucault, art is a discursive formation.
Ultimately i probably don't understand anyone, but at the same time if i
work (and art and communication require empathetic work from the
audience, even if it is only beforehand), i may gain an inkling.
Depends what you mean by "understand" - there's no "ultimately" but there
is consensus enough so that, if I visit you, as I did, and say something,
we can actually have a conversation.
and that is true of anything not 'just' pain. Pain brings the
incomprehension to the fore, makes it harder to ignore, but it is always
there.
Argh, again pain is different, as is death. Think for a second,
incorrectly, of pain as "just this side of death" - maybe that will help.
However, of course, if we (as a moral decision) may want to act towards
the pain of others for alleviation or sympathy or coaction etc, then we
may decide those in pain need/require (not the right words, but let
communication fail) our attention and work more than those in 'harmless'
joy.... but let us not think that joy is easy to express and may not
separate.
I agree with the first part, not the second. Even popularly "Laugh, and
you laugh with others; cry, and you cry alone." "Joy is contagious."
Mirror neurons! Empathy!
- Alan
Perhaps i don't even know what i'm attempting to say
jon
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate,
distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the
University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
Think. Green. Do.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
==
blog: http://nikuko.blogspot.com/ (main blog)
email archive http://sondheim.rupamsunyata.org/
web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552
music: http://www.espdisk.com/alansondheim/
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/rq.txt
==
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
http://www.subtle.net/empyre
