that just brings up the point i made, maybe i stated it a little unclearly. i will attempt to clarify......intent can never actually be known. clearly vangoghs statements regarding his intent were entirely incongruous with his actual work as a result. his intent, he claims, was to be accepted... he was not. so this statement has very little to do with what the result of his artistic efforts were. yes his statement is a result of his intent but it's a seperate result incongruous with his other efforts. so we can discern next to nothing from this. it suggest no relavent meaning to the result (the painting not his statement). to evaluate something is to get at the meaning of the actual thing, the result. examining intent or the attempt to through viewing seperate results of his intent can provide no further information in regards to the meaning. ineffect van gogh by attempting to state his intent is just becoming another spectator thus no authority on the result (his paintings) of his efforts. At 4:08 AM -0500 5/30/01, jason pierce wrote: >but, as you said before, the artist's statement is a 'result' as well... why >shouldn't we >concern ourselves with language as an observable phenomenon as well? clearly many >people >'should' because they agree with what you said earlier. In the sense that both are a >communicative gesture, an attempt at articulating something (through words or a >grammar of >painting), both are 'the exact same thing'. > > >> so it doesn't matter what van gogh said he intended to do or wanted. it is >> more important what he actually did. > >again, what is the difference between what he 'said' and what he 'did'? are his >letters to >his brother any less 'things' that were 'done' than his notes, drawings, or >paintings? If >anti art is, as you say, 'anything produced outside the preconceived societal >[pre]conceptions of art that communicates or operates within the artist - spectator >milieu'... then vanGogh's writings are more 'anti-art' than his paintings because >they were/ >are not generally seen as art (although they operate very prominently in the 'artist - >spectator milieu'). this is true, his writing were more anti art. but they are unrelated to the result of his painting efforts. it's fine to evaluate them but not as intent. they need to be evaluated as distinctly different things that don't really offer any new meaning to his paintings. i think this whole van gogh/anti art example isn't a very good one because he was producing paintings. paintings of things were considered art and van gogh may just point to the distinction between the societal view of non art and the view of "bad art". by vangogh detractors stating "that is not art" saying it's not art or that it is bad art? this question further demonstates the difficulty of examining "intent". >by your definition, anti art would seem to be anything that an artist does, so long >as it is >observed (by someone other than the artist?), and that it is not generally conceived >of by >the observer(s) to be 'art' as such. The artist's observable behavior, clothing, and >especially speech or language (certainly including communicated 'intent') fit into >this >category. so why not concern ourselves with the artist's 'express intent'? expressed intent simply provides no essential context to discern the meaning of the result. better (more accurate) context can be derived from examining his social status or something. examing intent or any statement of only provides an innacurate context. jason
