Actual Art Topic:Self-Expression
Erik A. Mattila
art writing which is 'expression' or 'self-expression.'
What is this all about, and how does it work?
Personally, I think it's fluff. A 'mythology' in Barthean terms.
Barthes, who has been mentioned here (Thanks, Tinman) defines a "Myth"
as a semiotic structure where the 'signifer' has been transported into
the sign, thus making semiosis impossible.
Briefly, a semiotic structure is:
Sign
Signifier
Signified
The "Sign" is the sound/object. Just think of it as a 'stop sign'
sitting there on its post.
The 'signifer' is a human action, and often described as the
'shuttlecock' that zooms betwen the Sign and Signifiec. We don't need
to be concerned with this (the greatest mystery of semiotics, actually -
very well argued) in this discussion.
The 'signifed' is a list. - called 'lexia' or 'ideolects' or
'sociolects' by semiolgists. The action of the shuttlecock forms an
association between the Sign and Signified. Barthes used the 'sign'
"Rose" to illustrate it. When we encounter the sound/image "rose" we
associate it with all sorts of things about roses in our culture. This
includes everything under that category, from a rose at the Florists, in
the Rose Garden, from the Rosicrucians, the symbolic value of the Rose
in romance, folk tales and so on. (Even the movies "The Name of the
Rose", "The Rose Tatoo", "Wine and Roses" on down the line.) Also, it
is withing the realm of the signified where culture itself plays out.
Rositicy is much different to an Englishman than to an Inuit -- right ?
(Unless both are watching a lot of TV, then it starts becoming a common
understanding).
However, the myth form, the signified becomes part of the sign itself.
In advertising, for example, there is one meaning that is already
understood before the shuttlecock references the 'lexia' of the
signified, and that is "this product is good." This wasn't always the
case. Early advertising required its authors to make the association of
the product with the 'lexia' so the reader would reference the proper,
positive meaning that would cause consumer interest in the product.
But historically, through inundation by mass media, the advertising
message reached the level of myth, and the reader 'already knew' what
the message was without semiosis -- e.g. "this product is good." It is
like this, once you understand that what you are 'reading' is
advertising, you already know what the message is (since it's inscribed
in the sign).
This has allowed advertises to dispense altogether with building any
sort of message into an advertisment which states "this product is
good." If you look at modern advertisements, you can see that usually
what is happening there is the product is simply being described in a
desiring context, whether it is drinking beer at a surfboard party,
laying on the beach in the Carribean, achieving recognition by the
opposite sex -- any of these desiring structures will work, for the
figment that remains in the reader's mind is just the raw idea of desire
itself - which, if you look at it, is nothing more that filling an
absence. (You don't 'desire' that which you have, you only 'desire' that
which is absent).
I believe the idea of the artist's 'self-expression' is another myth
form, where the signified has shifted over to the sign. In my view, it
is a very empty concept, unless one is very keen on assign a lot of
valorization to the idea. In some sense everyone is 'self-expressive'
on a daily basis, and it just becomes a very trite idea - I mean,
nothing special about it and certainly not good raw material with which
to build up a valor structure.
So what are the graphic conventions that we associate with 'self
expression,' and what is the natural history of these conventions. I
will concede that there is something - a pictorial quality - that leads
an art historian, or critic, to designate a work or body of work
"expressionism." But what I doubt is that such a genre is really
capable of being 'self-expression." It is, however, capable of
referencing a whole bunch of 'lexia' whose meaning is embedded in
cultural notions about psychology, angst, insanity, psychic content
etc. But I would like to underscore the problem with this -- once
semiosis occurs, then the 'expression' is no longer meaningful on a
'personal' basis, but rather extracts meaning from the cultural soup of
the signified (thus Barthes called the components of the signified
"sociolects" or "ideolects".)
So once we regard 'self-expression' as a semiotic sturcture, it is
automatically depersonalized and only has meaning in the cultural. To
hang on to the concept of the isolated individual who can exist
extra-culturally, the concept has to become mythologized. Once it is
mythologized, the 'meaning' is shrouded, and it can be regarded as an
upholding principle of the individual 'out-of-nature.'
A rigouous analysis of any discourse, conversation, verbal or written
exchange, will unearth several 'givens' which the participants agree on,
more of less. More than often these 'givens' are not addressed, and if
they are identified, are commonly defined as 'common sense' or
'everybody knows that' or, if it becomes contentious "Oh, you're just
playing word games" or "you're just talking semantics here!" We
generally don't like to mess around too much with our 'givens' because
once they are held at question the whole superstructure of an argument
or position begans to crumble -- and you realize that your whole premise
is based on unfair and inaccurate assumptions.
I think a lot of artists are understanding that what they are doing is
'self-expression' and can get very upset when some terrible protagonist
like me comes along and says 'it's all mythology' and it really doesn't
happen. Some will even refuse to talk about it, so sacred are the
sacred cows. I think to accept this as truth requires one to completely
let go of an important organizing principle - i.e. those sets of
culture-bound artifacts that collectively function to create our various
personnas. So that falls apart -- and the question is whether the
individual, perhaps completly disillusioned by such a discovery, can
pick up the pieces and assemble some functionality in a new ideological
terrain.
Of course tied to the critical analyses of artistic self-expression are
provocative questions about individuality and the 'personal' itself.
The jumping off place for this discussion is to begin to construct an
intelligible catalog of visual properties that we deem 'expressionistic'
as compared with properties that are not. Then we have to look at these
properties and determine if they are somehow 'self-expressive' or are
simply signs that exits in culture (do jagged lines in early German
Expressionism signify Kirscher's angst or do the merely reference a
compendium of imagery about knives, broken glass, pokey things that hurt
you, etc etc etc.)
Erik the Provocatuer
Dan Fox
I read your post and even understood some of it. I've printed it out
and will respond; gotta get a studio visit and some other stuff out
of the way today. thanks for being interesting, as always.
<snipped for server space>
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
www.danfoxart.com
KEITH OCONNOR
I'll go at it from the direction: exploring
concepts of self and other. I define self as the
consciousness "I" in the head. I define other as
the body functioning brain in the bowel.
Consciousness of other is in essences a
consciousness of another part of ourselves,our
body, this awareness begins at a very young age.
Having defined other as body we now deal with the
relationship between self and other.
In the extreme case of the introspective self all
doors to the other lead back into self. Another
option is to place something in between self and
other thus avoiding knowledge of the self. When a
child says "mom look at what bill did to me" , the
child is avoiding self reflection by placing
mother (mother replaces self) between self and
other. Both cases lead to madness because self is
never explored.
It is said that we need ethics to keep us from
going mad. I use the term ethics as making a
choice between two alternatives. The aesthetic
cannot decide what course to follow, it's an on
off switch from one period to the next. The other
one requires other people to define his/her
identity, and never explores self.
The artist is basically an aesthetic who has
replaced self with an image. The ethics of
decision making allows the aesthetic artist to
make decisions in composition etc., which in
effect provides the illusion of exploring self
thus avoiding madness.
The bottom line boys and girls is that we create
because to do otherwise is to go mad!
This is a very condenced summary of my thoughts on
the matter. You will note the implications of
saying that self and other belong to the same
entity. We can at some point in the future explore
the role of the five senses in defining external
others in relation to animism etc.
tinman end_____________
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <3782E65E...@tomatoweb.com>...
:I've written before that I have trouble with the common term we hear in
:art writing which is 'expression' or 'self-expression.'
:
:What is this all about, and how does it work?
:
:Personally, I think it's fluff. A 'mythology' in Barthean terms.
Starting to sound a bit like Mani, Erik ;-) It can mean many, many
different things but, to me, it means 2 primary factors which comprise the
artist's self-expression. #1 Most of us don't do art because of the
wonderful monetary gains, nor for the avalanche of respect and applause we
earn for it - we either end up doing it because we don't have "a lick of
sense" or because we MUST. In my case both reasons apply. This could lead
to the discussion if art is a talent one is born with or is learned (and I
think you didn't think one was born with this talent, Erik, if my memory
serves correctly). These are the children who build sand castles, draw on
walls, cut up things to see the shapes, have vivid imaginations - and as
adults feel that they would rather be poor or have less than they could if
they abandoned art, than to live without creating art. When these people
*create* they are expressing every bit of knowledge they have learned, every
experience they have had, every influence they have been exposed to - they
are expressing their total "self" which is different than "Expressionism"
(IMO). So Erik's "self" expression will be different than Dan's (maybe not -
let's use Lauri's name here, those other two are too similar) and Marilyn's
"self" expression will be different than Alisons. Everyone had different
childhood and adulthood experiences, education, influences which leads me to
answer #2 - my handwriting analogy! (I use this with my students a lot, but
use it with friends as well, so I consider it valid) Each and every one of
us has a different identifiable signature. Forgeries can be detected
usually. So our handwriting is part of our "self" expression and if people
are very familiar with our writing, they can identify words we have written
even if it is a word we haven't seen them write before (like my husbands
rantings on the phone book cover). So, too, can we see a work by van Gogh,
Michelangelo, Jackson Pollock, Georgia O'Keefe and - having never seen this
particular work before, we can identify it because of the artist's "Self
Expression"
At least that's my opinion... Any other's?
Kay
(snipping the rest because I have thought too much in a short amount of
time)
:
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
(snipped a damn good post)
:I believe the idea of the artist's 'self-expression' is another myth
I still think my previous post covers this. I find "self-expression" and
"expressionism" two totally different things in art. I think Mondrian can be
said to have used "self-expression" yet we know he isn't termed
"expressionist' in his stylistic characteristics.
:
:A rigouous analysis of any discourse, conversation, verbal or written
:exchange, will unearth several 'givens' which the participants agree on,
:more of less. More than often these 'givens' are not addressed, and if
:they are identified, are commonly defined as 'common sense' or
:'everybody knows that' or, if it becomes contentious "Oh, you're just
:playing word games" or "you're just talking semantics here!" We
:generally don't like to mess around too much with our 'givens' because
:once they are held at question the whole superstructure of an argument
:or position begans to crumble -- and you realize that your whole premise
:is based on unfair and inaccurate assumptions.
:I think a lot of artists are understanding that what they are doing is
:'self-expression' and can get very upset when some terrible protagonist
:like me comes along and says 'it's all mythology' and it really doesn't
:happen.
Yes, I'm very upset Erik. I'm going to eat some Twinkies now to calm down.
: Some will even refuse to talk about it, so sacred are the
:sacred cows.
And (I'm not talking about you) some talk it to death. I have been accused
of this (in life, by my husband) and I do tend to talk things to death. If
the wind blows, can't I just accept that the wind has blown, why do I have
to dissect this occurance for an hour. I tire myself at times to achieve no
specific purpose (like now, perhaps.)
:I think to accept this as truth requires one to completely
:let go of an important organizing principle - i.e. those sets of
:culture-bound artifacts that collectively function to create our various
:personnas.
I really don't believe this can be done. And why should it be done?
: So that falls apart -- and the question is whether the
:individual, perhaps completly disillusioned by such a discovery, can
:pick up the pieces and assemble some functionality in a new ideological
:terrain.
Assemble a *new* functionality somewhat, assuming there was none.
:Of course tied to the critical analyses of artistic self-expression are
:provocative questions about individuality and the 'personal' itself.
In what context?
:The jumping off place for this discussion is to begin to construct an
:intelligible catalog of visual properties that we deem 'expressionistic'
:as compared with properties that are not. Then we have to look at these
:properties and determine if they are somehow 'self-expressive' or are
:simply signs that exits in culture (do jagged lines in early German
:Expressionism signify Kirscher's angst or do the merely reference a
:compendium of imagery about knives, broken glass, pokey things that :hurt
:you, etc etc etc.)
Yes, yes, (but maybe not). Good discussion to get into, you enticer, you.
You provocateur, you. You voyeur, you.
Kay
:Erik the Provocatuer
Kay
KEITH OCONNOR wrote in message <3783E7B8...@home.com>...
:Ok I'll jump in___________
:
:I'll go at it from the direction: exploring
:concepts of self and other. I define self as the
:consciousness "I" in the head. I define other as
:the body functioning brain in the bowel.
I defined "self" as culture, geography, experience, but your explaination is
intriguing, so I'll try to respond or at least reflect on the "self" from
the angle at which you are presenting it.
:Consciousness of other is in essences a
:consciousness of another part of ourselves,our
:body, this awareness begins at a very young age.
Are you speaking about infancy - hungar, suckling, etc.?
:Having defined other as body we now deal with the
:relationship between self and other.
:In the extreme case of the introspective self all
:doors to the other lead back into self. Another
:option is to place something in between self and
:other thus avoiding knowledge of the self. When a
:child says "mom look at what bill did to me" , the
:child is avoiding self reflection by placing
:mother (mother replaces self) between self and
:other. Both cases lead to madness because self is
:never explored.
In what way do both cases lead to madness by your thesis? This sounds like
denial to me, which is quite common in my family. Then again, a separate
discussion could be "What IS madness?"
:It is said that we need ethics to keep us from
:going mad. I use the term ethics as making a
:choice between two alternatives. The aesthetic
:cannot decide what course to follow, it's an on
:off switch from one period to the next. The other
:one requires other people to define his/her
:identity, and never explores self.
I think self is always explored but never found and always doubted.
:The artist is basically an aesthetic who has
:replaced self with an image. The ethics of
:decision making allows the aesthetic artist to
:make decisions in composition etc., which in
:effect provides the illusion of exploring self
:thus avoiding madness.
I like that statement a lot, but the end result could result in entering
madness as well as avoiding madness because, sometimes, exposure to "self"
may break down the barriers necessary for survival in certain instances...
:The bottom line boys and girls is that we create
:because to do otherwise is to go mad!
As Erik stated in the past, the best art he had seen was made by people who
were "mad" already!
:This is a very condenced summary of my thoughts on
:the matter. You will note the implications of
:saying that self and other belong to the same
:entity. We can at some point in the future explore
:the role of the five senses in defining external
:others in relation to animism etc.
:tinman end_____________
Can't wait!
Kay
(Hey, Tinman - I got the dark off here! I went to format (I think) and
clicked Language which said "user defined" on your post and clicked to
"Western Alphabet" which made it go away :-) Did I do something real smart
on the computer?
Quo Vadis
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>I've written before that I have trouble with the common term we hear in
>art writing which is 'expression' or 'self-expression.'
>
>What is this all about, and how does it work?
>
>Personally, I think it's fluff. A 'mythology' in Barthean terms.
<Snippy snip snip>
Well you know, Erik - I blame Nietzsche personally. The turning point
came when subjective freedom became the *sign* and in turn this was,
according to Jurgen Hebermas (the Philosophical Discourse of Modernity),
released into society as (a) the space secured by civil law for the
rational pursuit of one's own interests (b) in the state as formation of
political will (c) in the private sphere as ethical autonomy and self
realization (d) in the public sphere as a culture that has become
reflective.
The responsibility lies with the term *modern* which has become
synonymous with subjectivity. According to Hegel there are four
connotations in artistic terms: individualism; the right to criticise;
autonomy of attention (our responsibility for what we do is
characteristic of modern times); and idealistic philosophy. Its what we
now recognise as *freedom*. Alongside this is the notion of artist as
genius - the myth of the artist standing outside society, rejecting it
and standing for individualism. And yet if we scrutinise this is a
nonsense. In standing as such, artists are in essence making a
deliberate statement as belonging to this thing we know as *modernity*.
How then to measure the value of art under these conditions ? Aesthetic
quality and subjective freedom challenging the traditional need to
*measure* and attribute *style* to historical period. How else would art
be catalogued ? The need to revise the definition of art to cope with
this *freedom* we call modernity has become, as advanced by Tolstoy, as
*expressing and communicating* - it would indeed shatter a lot of
artists conceptions of art if we were to suddenly show that this is pure
myth.
So then to the visual signs - the appropriation of visual language to
signify the freedom - the loose brush marks; the drips; the pours; the
bold primary colours. Can deliberate appropriation of visual signs as
per recognition of being *expressive* be seen as a natural way of self-
expressing ? If we are tied to the idea of visual signs as representing
*freedom* and *self-expression*, as per the myths, then are we truly
representing *freedom*. What a can of worms to open !
Have you read George Dickie's _the Myth of the Aesthetic Attitude_ ?
Time to drown in a yardofale I do believe. Cheers !
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
Marilyn wrote:
> Speaking as a person with no philosophy training,
> I think that everything we do expresses who we are,
> so why should art be singled out as a form of
> self-expression? Speech, dress, manner, walk are all
> forms of self-expression, n'est ce pas?
Yes, that's what I was thinking. Which means that any art making is
'expressive' as is gardening or driving a car or voting. Yet we have
'expressionistic' art as a category. Somebody who won't allow a thought
or an idea to come into the picture, that meticulously represents the
folds and creases of a walnut shell in a drawing, is also self
expressive - expressiing anal retentedness, for example, which certainly
is very personal and private.
> My main concern while painting is the experience of
> visualizing something I think of as "awe." The pictoral space
> becomes important once I've made a start, and I aim
> to be more faithful to that rather than to what I see or feel
> at the moment I am painting. It's like an integrated
> web all happening at once. That's why the training is
> so important, and the painter must be so informed by
> this training that it has entered the unconscious.
> Even then, as Don DeLillo says, "it's not enough to
> want to work."
> May the muse smile on all of you too.
>
> Marilyn
I really don't think I have a 'main concern.' At any given moment
everything is different, insofar as how I might think or act about art
making. What I would like to do, as my mythical self, is successfully
challenge every art axiom - among them consistency, a body of work, a
painter's problem and so on. It will be the 'cat on a hot tin roof'
school, no less.
Erik
KEITH OCONNOR
see imbedded comments:> :Ok I'll jump in___________
> :
> :I'll go at it from the direction: exploring
> :concepts of self and other. I define self as the
> :consciousness "I" in the head. I define other as
> :the body functioning brain in the bowel.
>
> intriguing, so I'll try to respond or at least reflect on the "self" from
> the angle at which you are presenting it.
>
> :consciousness of another part of ourselves,our
> :body, this awareness begins at a very young age.
>
yes, as adults we experience the physical need to
go to the washroom,in our conscious "I" we try to
delay it until we are finished our task at hand.
__________end of comment_____
> :Having defined other as body we now deal with the
> :relationship between self and other.
>
> :In the extreme case of the introspective self all
> :doors to the other lead back into self. Another
> :option is to place something in between self and
> :other thus avoiding knowledge of the self. When a
> :child says "mom look at what bill did to me" , the
> :child is avoiding self reflection by placing
> :mother (mother replaces self) between self and
> :other. Both cases lead to madness because self is
> :never explored.
>
> denial to me, which is quite common in my family. Then again, a separate
> discussion could be "What IS madness?"
the introspective aesthetic who has not developed
a decision making process enters depression,
depression is in my definition a form of madness.
________comment end______
> :It is said that we need ethics to keep us from
> :going mad. I use the term ethics as making a
> :choice between two alternatives. The aesthetic
> :cannot decide what course to follow, it's an on
> :off switch from one period to the next. The other
> :one requires other people to define his/her
> :identity, and never explores self.
>
> I think self is always explored but never found and always doubted.
>
> :The artist is basically an aesthetic who has
> :replaced self with an image. The ethics of
> :decision making allows the aesthetic artist to
> :make decisions in composition etc., which in
> :effect provides the illusion of exploring self
> :thus avoiding madness.
>
> I like that statement a lot, but the end result could result in entering
> madness as well as avoiding madness because, sometimes, exposure to "self"
> may break down the barriers necessary for survival in certain instances...
>
> :The bottom line boys and girls is that we create
> :because to do otherwise is to go mad!
>
> As Erik stated in the past, the best art he had seen was made by people who
> were "mad" already!
> ______comment_____
I would need more examples to comment further
_______comment end_____
> :This is a very condenced summary of my thoughts on
> :the matter. You will note the implications of
> :saying that self and other belong to the same
> :entity. We can at some point in the future explore
> :the role of the five senses in defining external
> :others in relation to animism etc.
> :tinman end_____________
>
> Can't wait!
> Kay
>
> (Hey, Tinman - I got the dark off here! I went to format (I think) and
> clicked Language which said "user defined" on your post and clicked to
> "Western Alphabet" which made it go away :-) Did I do something real smart
> on the computer?
________comment______
yes you did!
______comment end______
Quo Vadis
>The term "expressionist" as an art historical category
>is quite different from what people usually mean by
>being "self-expressionistic" in painting. I guess they
>couldn't use post-impressionist anymore so the term was
>invented. Now that it's there, how else would we describe
>the paintings of Franz Marc, Egon Scheile etc.?
>
>M.
That's probably the most important observation possible in regards to
the semantics of art - the difference between Expressionism and
expressionism; Feminism and feminism; Art and art.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Erik A. Mattila
'semantics' we have to be talking about the 'seme' (the smallest
discrete meaning unit). So Expressionism (an AH category) and
expressionism (a psychoanalytical theory concept) share the same meaning
"seme." The distinction is merely contextual.
It is possible that a person is aware of the word "Expressionism" as a
category with no understanding of how it became such. Taking a step
back, 'impressionism' became the term which distinguished art forms from
the French Academy. On another social level, "impressionism" was an
idea relating to French Naturalism, whose trajectory was 'seeing' the
world as it is, rather than in idealized form (in opposition to French
Neo-Classism, and the manifestations of such which resulted in art forms
based on an ideal rather than the observation of nature.
"Expressionism" then differentiated works of art which were infomred by
the then emerging psychoanalytic theory, and the 'gaze' turned from
seeing nature to seeing self. "The precious ores of the subconscious"
as Edgar Wind wrote. I submit, then, that the terms "Exprissionist" and
'expressionist' or 'elf-expression' are not 'quite different' at all,
unless you are only looking at their context in discourse.
To categorize Marc of Sheile as "Expressionist" is only jut that - to
categorize - and this doesn't describe their respective work in any way
-- except on, which is very important. Once the two artists are
categorized this way, the very existence of a taxa (lExpressionist)
inscribes meaning, and the works of these two artists takes on much of
the discourse of "Expressionism." Such a process can be completely
independant of any intrinsic attribute of the work so categorized. What
I'm saying is that the position in a taxonomic structure is in itself a
'meaning' which the work inherits. It functions much like a 'parametric
element' in a narrative. That James Bond was a British spy is a
'parametric element' of Flemming's novels. (Or Superman's allergy to
Kryptonite).
But my provocation is whether the concept of self-expression in a work
of art has any concreteness, whether we are talking Expressionism of
expressionism. If I attack some canvas tomorrow with a large brush in
swirling strikes, because I'm really pissed off because I didn't win the
Lotto, and end up with some very de Koonish angst, have I been
'experssing myself.' It could be nothing more than a tantrum. Or is a
tantrum what is needed to achieve 'self-expression." Is so, when my
spirit is calm, and I paint a very controlled "academic' orange peel, am
I not also committing self-expression?
To point out that an Art History Category is not a Psycholanalytic
Theory Catetory just trivializes the question, I think. It certainly
doesn't address the question itself.
Erik
Quo Vadis
*Expressionism*, has provided a *tool* for interpreting a work of art.
We recognise this term to be linked with the move away from the idea of
art as mimesis, as imitation of reality. Historically, *Expressionism*
in the arts is now starting to be seen as the progression from art as an
instrument of ritual, to art as mimesis, to art as self-expression. Yet
if we agree that everything we do is self-expressive, (and I think there
can be no argument against this), then it would seem that to paint in a
style that is recognisably Expressionist - bold brush strokes, clashing
colours, drips - this is a deliberate and political statement by the
artist. The distinction of context then becomes the vital clue.
We have moved into an age of interpretation, wouldn't you agree ?
Ancient texts and religious symbols being given meanings that satisfy
the discrepancies between the demands of the modern day reader where
meanings are being erected on top of meanings. And so it is in the arts
- or as Susan Sontag says "interpretation is the revenge of the
intellect upon art".
Modern style interpretation escavates and destroys in the search for
hidden meaning. The jagged line becomes, by categorisation according to
the rules of Expressionism, a gesture of angst and not a reference to a
piece of broken glass, for instance. Style is cultivated around these
new meanings - jagged edges now represent angst and have become a
deliberate tool for the artist to give meaning to the work - the accent
has moved from what an artist is saying to how they say it. What has
happened, I think, is that works of art have ceased to be simply an
experience and have now become statements. The idea of art being
Expressionistic has become a language in itself and the idea of an
artist self-expressing through style is synonymous with *freedom*. Its
almost as if we have re-written the terminology now - where even those
without an arts education recognise that stylistic references represent
this.
Interpretation then, has poisoned our sensibilities - one only has to
compare it with psychoanalysis to see that the new meanings serve as
tools for deliberate intent. Deliberate intent which does NOT represent
*freedom*. That is why I am intrigued with art that says so much with so
little - where the silence is the most potent element (as Sontag puts
it) - and yet that silence can only work when it is not deliberated.
Some dilemma that.
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Lauri.L.
To begin with the original post of Erik:
Thursday, July 08, 1999
aalt.brallen
****************************************************
Subject:
Actual Art Topic:Self-Expression
Date:
1999/07/07
Author:
Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com>
Posting History
(severely snipped)
> I've written before that I have trouble with the common term we hear
in art writing which is > 'expression' or 'self-expression.' (...)
> Personally, I think it's fluff. A 'mythology' in Barthean terms.
To begin with, I remember from previous postings that Erik assumes that
the
value of an artwork is actualized only in the act of observation.
From this position one can conclude only that a piece of art is but a
sign,
a stimulus presented to the observer. If you could consider art f.ex
as an act of communication, you might draw other conclusions.
> Briefly, a semiotic structure is:
> Sign / Signifier / Signified
> The "Sign" is the sound/object.
> Just think of it as a 'stop sign' sitting there on its post.
> The 'signifer' is a human action, (...)
> The 'signifed' is a list.
> - called 'lexia' or 'ideolects' or 'sociolects' by semiolgists.
(...)
I know nothing about Barthes. Did I understand right, that the
observer/listener
picks associations from his/her private collection of previous use of
'Rose'
and that is what she/he understands?
Is the signifier on the other hand a selection of significant features
of the sign?
In your example the octagon, red etc of the stop sign, with exclusion of
indentations, rust spots and juvenile spray paint.
*IF* that is the case, you have a hard time to extract the signifiers of
Pollock :-)
> However, the myth form, the signified becomes part of the sign itself.
(...)
So it does not refer to intentions behind, it is art for art's sake.
> (...)This wasn't always the case. Early advertising required its
authors to
> make the association of the product with the 'lexia'
What happened to your self-expressionists? Who and when made the
association for them.
No doubt the followers always have the easy time, to use some accepted
formula.
I live in a minority culture. It is funny to read in any Scandinavian
art history
" Our first imressionist/cubist/whatever was ..... "
None of them made the way to Janson or Gombrich, only Munch and
Shjerfbeck.
> I believe the idea of the artist's 'self-expression' is another
> myth form, where the signified has shifted over to the sign.
> In my view, it is a very empty concept, unless one is very keen
> on assign a lot of valorization to the idea.
What I learned from your barthes summary, it is only too hard to pick
the
right signifiers, as they do not fit into the system.
> some sense everyone is 'self-expressive' on a daily basis,
> and it just becomes a very trite idea - I mean, nothing
> special about it and certainly not good raw material
> with which to build up a valor structure.
Yeah, there is nothing noble in the fact that you can identify
who is who from the drawings of a kindergarten class.
Only when you are more interested or moved by some of the doodlings,
you get a glimpse of self-expression.
> So what are the graphic conventions that we associate with 'self
expression,'
> and what is the natural history of these conventions.
Looking forward for results.
> (...)
> But I would like to underscore the problem with this
> -- once semiosis occurs, then the 'expression' is no longer
> meaningful on a 'personal' basis, but rather extracts meaning
> from the cultural soup of the signified
First, I like to refer a few paragraphs back, where you stated
that in a myth the semiosis is impossible.
Then like Gombrich illustrated, even the representational art
is cooked up of those cultural ingredients.
> So [ONLY once -lauri's comment] we regard 'self-expression'
> as a semiotic sturcture, it is automatically depersonalized
> and only has meaning in the cultural.
Like any art.
> A rigouous analysis of any discourse, conversation, verbal or
> written exchange, will unearth several 'givens' ...
That was my role as The Devil's attorney.
> -- and you realize that your whole
> premise is based on unfair and inaccurate assumptions.
(Nono, you have some good points)
> The jumping off place for this discussion is to begin
> to construct an intelligible catalog of visual properties that we
> deem 'expressionistic' as compared with properties that are not.
(...)
> Erik the Provocatuer
*********************************************************************
Date: 1999/07/07
Author: KEITH OCONNOR <tin...@home.com>
Ok I'll jump in___________
I'll go at it from the direction: exploring
concepts of self and other. I define self as the
consciousness "I" in the head. I define other as
the body functioning brain in the bowel.
I have previously told that my self-image is different.
The self-conscious "I" is but a part of personality.
"Me" is the larger identity, that caters for the consciousness.
Where did you find your "other". I believe the inborn Me
includes the surroundings, and only learns to discriminate,
first the external, then to some extent one's own body.
(...)
It is said that we need ethics to keep us from
going mad.
Is it a coincidence that Erik lists cultural notions
about Psychology, angst, insanity, psychic content etc.
Is self-expression really -or only culturally- limited
to the dark side only.
(...)
The bottom line boys and girls is that we create
because to do otherwise is to go mad!
Luckily I'm only an amateur, after some art classes in late fifties,
I lived so called normal life for thirty years, before
got interested again. Meanwhile I had lived, and learned from
life, so I felt I have something to say.
(...)
You will note the implications of
saying that self and other belong to the same
entity.
I do agree
tinman end_____________
**********************************************************
> Date: 1999/07/07
> Author: Kay
> I think self is always explored but never found and always doubted.
> As Erik stated in the past, the best art he had seen
> was made by people who were "mad" already!
He seems to be an Affeccinado of self-expressionism.
**********************************************************
Date: 1999/07/07
Author: Kay
(erik): :Personally, I think it's fluff. A 'mythology' in Barthean
terms.
> (...) It can mean many, many different things but,
> to me, it means 2 primary factors which comprise the artist's
self-expression.
> #1 - we either end up doing it because we don't have "a lick of
sense" or because we MUST.
Does somebody regard Lauri's work as self-expressionism.
I myself feel (and my teacher says) that I am too controlled
in my works.
> (...)- they are expressing their total "self" which is different than
"Expressionism" (IMO).
> (...) Everyone had different childhood and adulthood experiences,
education,
> influences which leads me to answer
> #2 - my handwriting analogy! So, too, can we see a work by van Gogh,
Michelangelo, Jackson > Pollock, Georgia O'Keefe and - having never seen
> this particular work before, we can identify it
> because of the artist's "Self Expression"
> At least that's my opinion... Any other's?
> Kay
****************************************************
Date: 1999/07/07
Author: Kay
> I still think my previous post covers this.
> I find "self-expression" and "expressionism" two totally different
> things in art.
*********************
Date: 1999/07/09
Author: KEITH OCONNOR
see imbedded comments:
Kay wrote:
(...)
> Are you speaking about infancy - hungar, suckling,
etc.?
> ______comment_______
yes, as adults we experience the physical need to
go to the washroom,in our conscious "I" we try to
delay it until we are finished our task at hand.
__________end of comment_____
******************************************'
Date: 1999/07/08
Author: Quo Vadis Alison
>Well you know, Erik - I blame Nietzsche personally. The turning point
came when subjective >freedom became the
>*sign* and in turn this was, according to Jurgen Hebermas (the
Philosophical Discourse of >Modernity), released intosociety as
>(a) the space secured by civil law for the rational pursuit of one's
own interests
>(b) in the state as formation of political will
>(c) in the private sphere as ethical autonomy and self realization
>(d) in the public sphere as a culture that has become reflective.
> The responsibility lies with the term *modern* which has become
synonymous with subjectivity.
> (...)
>Alongside this is the notion of artist as genius - the myth of the
artist standing outside >society, rejecting it and standing for
individualism.
Why the artist as a genius must stand opposite to the society.
I think many of the great masters had a high esteem in their time.
> (...)artists are in essence making a deliberate statement
> as belonging to this thing we know as *modernity*.
Sounds like Dan's rules for attracting galleries.
> (...) The need to revise the definition of art to cope with this
>*freedom* we call modernity has become,
>as advanced by Tolstoy, as *expressing and communicating*
> If we are tied to the idea of visual signs as representing
> *freedom* and *self-expression*, as per the myths,
> then are we truly representing *freedom*.
> What a can of worms to open !
Alison
*****************************************************'
Date: 1999/07/08
Author: Marilyn
My main concern while painting is the experience of
visualizing something I think of as "awe."
The pictoral space becomes important once I've made
a start,
and I aim to be more faithful to that rather than to
what I see or feel
at the moment I am painting.
Trying to understand Erik and his barthes:
You are making a sign of something. That is a process of "selecting
proper signifiers" from your own lexia.
It's like an integrated web all happening at once.
That's why the training is
so important, and the painter must be so informed by
this training that it has entered the unconscious.
What did I misunderstand, I completely agree with that :-)
Marilyn
***********************************************
Date: 1999/07/09
Author: Erik A. Mattila to Marilyn
(...)
> ...Which means that any art making is 'expressive' as is gardening or
driving a car or
> voting.
> Yet we have 'expressionistic' art as a category.
Once again Erik, you made a self-fulfilling prophesy.
When we categorize some artworks to the bin *expressionism*
we do it solely on external signs, like brushstrokes and palette.
It is quite another question, what is expressed in self-portraits
of Rembrandt, van Gogh and Schjerfbeck
> Somebody who won't allow a thought or an idea to come
> into the picture, that meticulously represents the
> folds and creases of a walnut shell in a drawing,
> is also self expressive
> - expressiing anal retentedness, for example,
Forget the American obsession to psucho-analysis.
First of all, it is mostly mis-interpreted,
and at its best it is post hoc,
- funny explanations with no predictive value.
Erik
**************************************************'
Date: 1999/07/10
Author: Erik A. Mattila
> What I'm saying is that the position in a taxonomic structure is in
itself a 'meaning' which the > work inherits.
That again works fine when we judge the followers.
The taxa is not a synthetic apriori construct. It comes out
of our urge to discriminate, te tell the difference
from, say impressionists.
We see there something, compared to others.
We extract new signifiers.
> (...)
>Or is a tantrum what is needed to achieve 'self-expression."
That is my question,too.
Erik
***********************************************
Sorry for the length.
I wanted to read and think first
and the backlog grew...
- lauri
--
//www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Kay
Lauri.L. wrote:
(snipping for brevity - like Erik should do sometimes)
:No doubt the followers always have the easy time, to use some accepted
:formula.
:I live in a minority culture. It is funny to read in any Scandinavian
:art history
:" Our first imressionist/cubist/whatever was ..... "
:None of them made the way to Janson or Gombrich, only Munch and
:Shjerfbeck.
Lauri, isn't Odd Neerham (Nerdham?) from Norway? I'm pretty sure he is and
he is HOT, HOT, HOT - internationally (though not in Janson of Gombrich or
Gardner or Hartt yet :-(
:> Date: 1999/07/07
:> Author: Kay
:
:> I think self is always explored but never found and always doubted.
:
:> As Erik stated in the past, the best art he had seen
:> was made by people who were "mad" already!
:He seems to be an Affeccinado of self-expressionism.
Or maybe a *madman*;-)
Kay
(snipping the rest of an interesting compilation of posts)
:- lauri
Lauri.L.
"Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> Lauri, isn't Odd Neerham (Nerdham?) from Norway? I'm pretty sure he
is and
> he is HOT, HOT, HOT - internationally (though not in Janson of
Gombrich or
> Gardner or Hartt yet :-(
I have no aquaintance with the name. Must be Norwegian or a Dane.
Does not sound Swedish. Danes have a better access to European
and so international markets.
Erik A. Mattila
that seems to ride over the whole discussion.
In theory you have to get into a particular mindset. Theory is like
building models -- even scientific models -- and it gets problematical if
the models are confused with the objects and processes in nature that the
model is trying to represent.
A model of a molecule is a good case in point. The physicist builds the
model based on data that is extrapolated from various behaviors of atoms
and molecules -- things that are measurable. The model then mimics the
relationship between the parts of the structure. The molecule doesn't
really look like the model -- the model is merely a map of measurable
relationships and behavior.
In this sense the 'sign, signifer, and signified' of Sassuerian semiotics
are 'theoretical objects' that don't exist in nature. (Just as 'numbers'
in mathematics don't really 'exist' in nature).
Theory and the critique of theory are not, by definition, democratic
institutions. They are only what they claim to be. How can I illustrate
this? Maybe this: I once purchased a 'Go' game -- you know, the Asian
borad game played with black and white pebbles on a board that is divided
by a grid of lines. Along with the game came an 'Rule Book". When I read
the rule book, it started out this way: "This Rule Book for Go has been
written for "Rule Keeping Westerners."
I thought this was pretty funny - written by a Japanese philosopher, of
couse. But when you learn to play 'Go' it becomes evident that all the
'rules' are self-evident, since the game is based on a specific set of
geometric and mathematical 'truths.' Where the rule book says 'this move
is not allowed' the mathematical truth says that such a move is impossible
to make.
Theory is the same way. If you argue against a theory, from within the
theory or without, the argument is senseless unless it conforms to a set of
principles - rules of argument, so to speak. Of course this implies that
you have to know the theory pretty well to argue it. The internal argument
is useually "the model is not accurate because...." and the external
argument is that "the approach is flawed because...." When an argument
starts crossing over the inside and outside it becomes very confused.
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> I open a new branch, as I am commenting several postings.
>
> To begin with the original post of Erik:
> Thursday, July 08, 1999
> aalt.brallen
> ****************************************************
>
> Subject:
> Actual Art Topic:Self-Expression
> Date:
> 1999/07/07
> Author:
> Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com>
> Posting History
> (severely snipped)
>
> > I've written before that I have trouble with the common term we hear
> in art writing which is > 'expression' or 'self-expression.' (...)
> > Personally, I think it's fluff. A 'mythology' in Barthean terms.
>
> To begin with, I remember from previous postings that Erik assumes that
> the
> value of an artwork is actualized only in the act of observation.
> From this position one can conclude only that a piece of art is but a
> sign,
> a stimulus presented to the observer. If you could consider art f.ex
> as an act of communication, you might draw other conclusions.
In communication theory the two components necessary for communication is
the sender and the receiver. These are volitional acts, implying voluntary
actions on the part of both components, i.e. the sender intends to send,
and the receiver 'intends' to receive. This can be reduced down to machine
design, of course, where the design function stands for that intent. A
transmitter is designed (intended) to send, while the receiver is designed
(intended) to receive.
Semiosis is quite different, as it is not 'communication' at all. Rather
it is a term that refers to how objects can have meaning. (words,
pictures, sea shells or whatever).
Subsequently I can consider the work of art as an act of communication, as
I can consider the work of art as a sign in a semoitic system. These are
two different thing entirely, although 'communication' itself often
'contains' semiosis (since often the 'substance' of communication involves
meaning). But you have to maintain a difference, in thought, between
communication as a process and the 'substance' of communication.
In saying this, I can also say that you are correct, a work of art
considered as an act of communication would produce conclusions that are
much different than considering a work of art as a sign.
>
>
> > Briefly, a semiotic structure is:
> > Sign / Signifier / Signified
>
> > The "Sign" is the sound/object.
> > Just think of it as a 'stop sign' sitting there on its post.
>
> > The 'signifer' is a human action, (...)
> > The 'signifed' is a list.
> > - called 'lexia' or 'ideolects' or 'sociolects' by semiolgists.
> (...)
> I know nothing about Barthes. Did I understand right, that the
> observer/listener
> picks associations from his/her private collection of previous use of
> 'Rose'
> and that is what she/he understands?
>
> Is the signifier on the other hand a selection of significant features
> of the sign?
> In your example the octagon, red etc of the stop sign, with exclusion of
> indentations, rust spots and juvenile spray paint.
> *IF* that is the case, you have a hard time to extract the signifiers of
> Pollock :-)
No, in this system, or model, the 'sign' is always empty. In the case of
the 'myth' where the signified is inscribed in the sign itself, preventing
semiosis, the 'sign' itelf ceases to be a sign, and becomes a 'signal'.
(By the way, I'm leaving Roland Barthes here and stepping over to Umberto
Eco, who is much more technically oriented as a semiotician). A 'sign' and
a 'signal' are quite distinct in this body of theory. The 'signal' is very
Pavlovian. When the red light goes off the dogs begin to salivate.
Conditioned response, etc.
It's not difficult for me to find meaning in Pollack at all. But I've
addressed this in another post. Basically, when 'art means ART', then the
Pollack painting, taken as a sign, signifies ART (and of course ART will
vary with each individual, as the lexia is never quite the same.)
But you keep calling this the 'signifier' which is incorrect. This term
refers to the mental process which takes place in associating the sign with
the signified, so it is not a 'thing' at all.
> > However, the myth form, the signified becomes part of the sign itself.
> (...)
> So it does not refer to intentions behind, it is art for art's sake.
>
> > (...)This wasn't always the case. Early advertising required its
> authors to
> > make the association of the product with the 'lexia'
> What happened to your self-expressionists? Who and when made the
> association for them.
>
> No doubt the followers always have the easy time, to use some accepted
> formula.
> I live in a minority culture. It is funny to read in any Scandinavian
> art history
> " Our first imressionist/cubist/whatever was ..... "
> None of them made the way to Janson or Gombrich, only Munch and
> Shjerfbeck.
Gallen-Kallela did.
> > I believe the idea of the artist's 'self-expression' is another
> > myth form, where the signified has shifted over to the sign.
> > In my view, it is a very empty concept, unless one is very keen
> > on assign a lot of valorization to the idea.
>
> What I learned from your barthes summary, it is only too hard to pick
> the
> right signifiers, as they do not fit into the system.
There are no right or wrong signifieds. This isn't a moral philosophy, but
rather an attempted scientific method. Since it is a structural study, the
actual cataloging of lexia (how many ideas are there that can be associated
with the sign 'rose'?) is not necessary (or practical). Semoitics only
makes the claim that objects can have meaning because human beings assign
meaning to them. (There is also a branch called zoosemiotics which study
how animals assign meaning to objects.)
> > some sense everyone is 'self-expressive' on a daily basis,
> > and it just becomes a very trite idea - I mean, nothing
> > special about it and certainly not good raw material
> > with which to build up a valor structure.
>
> Yeah, there is nothing noble in the fact that you can identify
> who is who from the drawings of a kindergarten class.
> Only when you are more interested or moved by some of the doodlings,
> you get a glimpse of self-expression.
>
> > So what are the graphic conventions that we associate with 'self
> expression,'
> > and what is the natural history of these conventions.
>
> Looking forward for results.
This is trown out here for discussion. If we are interested in exploring
the concept of 'expression' in art, I think a good starting place is to
collect a list of conventions that are considered 'expressive' and compare
these with a list of conventions that are considered 'not expressive.' I'm
only volunteering a methodology. So what do you consider expressive and
non-expressive?
Well, I've just ran out of mental energy. Time for more coffee.
Erik
Lauri.L.
> Lauri, isn't Odd Neerham (Nerdham?) from Norway? I'm pretty sure he
is and
> he is HOT, HOT, HOT - internationally (though not in Janson of
Gombrich or
> Gardner or Hartt yet :-(
>
Still hunting info about Odd Neerham. meanwhile remembered
the Dane, Per Kirkeby, who is the hottest name within Scandinavia.
Lauri.L.
In article <378A4831...@tomatoweb.com>,
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> It's just too much to respond to all this, Lauri, but there is one
thing
> that seems to ride over the whole discussion.
>
> In theory you have to get into a particular mindset. Theory is like
> building models (...)
> A model of a molecule is a good case in point. (...)
Every model is built with certain features in mind.
The best models are simplified, to exclude unimportant feaatures.
So a model has always a limited area of validity.
It describes part of the features in part of the cases.
When you use a model, you must be attentive to its limits.
What I have learned fron you, semiotic model is good
in describing part of reception of art.
As you pointed out, 'self-expression' does not fit into this model.
My question is: do we miss something essential,
if we stick to this model.
I once purchased a 'Go' game -- you know, the
Asian
> borad game played with black and white pebbles on a board that is
divided
> by a grid of lines. Along with the game came an 'Rule Book". When I
read
> the rule book, it started out this way: "This Rule Book for Go has
been
> written for "Rule Keeping Westerners."
>
> I thought this was pretty funny - written by a Japanese philosopher,
of
> couse. But when you learn to play 'Go' it becomes evident that all
the
> 'rules' are self-evident, since the game is based on a specific set of
> geometric and mathematical 'truths.' Where the rule book says 'this
move
> is not allowed' the mathematical truth says that such a move is
impossible
> to make.
OH NO, I never met you in rec.games.go nor in computer go.
> (...)
> The internal argument
> is useually "the model is not accurate because...." and the external
> argument is that "the approach is flawed because...." When an
argument
> starts crossing over the inside and outside it becomes very confused.
> "Lauri.L." wrote:
> > To begin with, I remember from previous postings that Erik assumes
> > that the
> > value of an artwork is actualized only in the act of observation.
> > From this position one can conclude only that a piece of art is but
a
> > sign,
> > a stimulus presented to the observer. If you could consider art f.ex
> > as an act of communication, you might draw other conclusions.
(...)
> Semiosis is quite different, as it is not 'communication' at all.
Rather
> it is a term that refers to how objects can have meaning. (words,
> pictures, sea shells or whatever).
>
> Subsequently I can consider the work of art as an act of
communication, as
> I can consider the work of art as a sign in a semoitic system. These
are
> two different thing entirely, although 'communication' itself often
> 'contains' semiosis (since often the 'substance' of communication
involves
> meaning). But you have to maintain a difference, in thought, between
> communication as a process and the 'substance' of communication.
>
> In saying this, I can also say that you are correct, a work of art
> considered as an act of communication would produce conclusions that
are
> much different than considering a work of art as a sign.
Much of my appreciation of artworks involves an element of
unexpected, what is not said. I am well aware that in communication,
the meaning is what is left out.
I do admire your religios fervency to demystify art. I think much
on the same lines. When young I loved Inmar Bergman movies,
until I realized that they contein much mysticism but say nothing.
* * *
You have referred to psychoanalytical conception of man.
There the rational, intellectual master, ego, is challenged by the
subconscious, alter ego, which is wiser. The purpose of the analysis is
for ego to capture this wisdom and retain in power.
My understanding of humanity is mor close to the oriental.
Though I learned it from an American (Pirsig: Zen and the
motorcycle maintenamce). The "I" should let it go,
over to the wiser "me". Something close to your unnaming.
Keith O'Connor
If I write the word "red" the word replaces the
red object. The word "red" is an abstraction
created to replace the experience of seeing the
red object.
The painting is itself an object not an
abstraction, therefore it can be experienced. It
is not an abstraction as a word is an abstraction.
We may look at the style of a painting an say it
is an abstraction because it uses shapes to
replace the representational objects found in
victorian period painting. The viewer now faces
the painting as an object, and a coding system of
shapes which may or may not confirm his or her
cultural requirement.
So a painting is an experience and a conveyer of
cultural information. The child sees a painting as
experience, it is the adults that teach the child
the additional layer of cultural information.
Many times in my readings I have come across the
comment that the artist should hide the art. There
is reference to Constable putting in a log as a
place holder because he knew the moving eye needed
a bounce point. It was later changed to a small
animal to increase the attention.
A great (representational) painting therefor is an
artistic experience hidden by the artist for
those who can decode the art beneath the cultural
information. The artist gave the buyers what they
wanted and still continued to produce art. Mind
you there are many paintings with no hidden art.
these are today's thoughts they may change
tomorrow._________
have fun______________________
"Lauri.L." wrote:
>
> This is online response
>
> In article <378A4831...@tomatoweb.com>,
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> > It's just too much to respond to all this, Lauri, but there is one
> thing
> > that seems to ride over the whole discussion.
> >
> > In theory you have to get into a particular mindset. Theory is like
> > building models (...)
> > A model of a molecule is a good case in point. (...)
>
> Every model is built with certain features in mind.
> The best models are simplified, to exclude unimportant feaatures.
> So a model has always a limited area of validity.
> It describes part of the features in part of the cases.
> When you use a model, you must be attentive to its limits.
>
> What I have learned fron you, semiotic model is good
> in describing part of reception of art.
>
> As you pointed out, 'self-expression' does not fit into this model.
> My question is: do we miss something essential,
> if we stick to this model.
>
> I once purchased a 'Go' game -- you know, the
> Asian
> > borad game played with black and white pebbles on a board that is
> divided
> > by a grid of lines. Along with the game came an 'Rule Book". When I
> read
> > the rule book, it started out this way: "This Rule Book for Go has
> been
> > written for "Rule Keeping Westerners."
> >
> > I thought this was pretty funny - written by a Japanese philosopher,
> of
> > couse. But when you learn to play 'Go' it becomes evident that all
> the
> > 'rules' are self-evident, since the game is based on a specific set of
> > geometric and mathematical 'truths.' Where the rule book says 'this
> move
> > is not allowed' the mathematical truth says that such a move is
> impossible
> > to make.
>
> OH NO, I never met you in rec.games.go nor in computer go.
>
> > (...)
> > The internal argument
> > is useually "the model is not accurate because...." and the external
> > argument is that "the approach is flawed because...." When an
> argument
> > starts crossing over the inside and outside it becomes very confused.
>
> > "Lauri.L." wrote:
>
> > > To begin with, I remember from previous postings that Erik assumes
> > > that the
> > > value of an artwork is actualized only in the act of observation.
> > > From this position one can conclude only that a piece of art is but
> a
> > > sign,
> > > a stimulus presented to the observer. If you could consider art f.ex
> > > as an act of communication, you might draw other conclusions.
> (...)
> > Semiosis is quite different, as it is not 'communication' at all.
> Rather
> > it is a term that refers to how objects can have meaning. (words,
> > pictures, sea shells or whatever).
> >
> > Subsequently I can consider the work of art as an act of
> communication, as
> > I can consider the work of art as a sign in a semoitic system. These
> are
> > two different thing entirely, although 'communication' itself often
> > 'contains' semiosis (since often the 'substance' of communication
> involves
> > meaning). But you have to maintain a difference, in thought, between
> > communication as a process and the 'substance' of communication.
> >
> > In saying this, I can also say that you are correct, a work of art
> > considered as an act of communication would produce conclusions that
> are
> > much different than considering a work of art as a sign.
>
> Much of my appreciation of artworks involves an element of
> unexpected, what is not said. I am well aware that in communication,
> the meaning is what is left out.
>
> I do admire your religios fervency to demystify art. I think much
> on the same lines. When young I loved Inmar Bergman movies,
> until I realized that they contein much mysticism but say nothing.
>
> * * *
> You have referred to psychoanalytical conception of man.
> There the rational, intellectual master, ego, is challenged by the
> subconscious, alter ego, which is wiser. The purpose of the analysis is
> for ego to capture this wisdom and retain in power.
>
> My understanding of humanity is mor close to the oriental.
> Though I learned it from an American (Pirsig: Zen and the
> motorcycle maintenamce). The "I" should let it go,
> over to the wiser "me". Something close to your unnaming.
>
rdav...@my-deja.com
Lauri.L. <lauri_le...@my-deja.com> wrote:
r.
>
> My understanding of humanity is mor close to the oriental.
> Though I learned it from an American (Pirsig: Zen and the
> motorcycle maintenamce). The "I" should let it go,
> over to the wiser "me". Something close to your unnaming.
>
> - lauri
I really liked "Zen and the art of... " book, although as we say in the
northern wastelands it was a tough sledding at times. It did get me
interested in Taoism. I didn't find it to be a happy book but the
author's struggle to define "quality" was truly noble.
ARdee
Erik A. Mattila
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> Every model is built with certain features in mind.
> The best models are simplified, to exclude unimportant feaatures.
> So a model has always a limited area of validity.
> It describes part of the features in part of the cases.
> When you use a model, you must be attentive to its limits.
Scientific modeling is a very exacting discipline, and very rule-bound.
This discipline falls under the category of 'experimental design' and as
such as a long history in science culture.
Truthfully, the social sciences can only 'pretend' to be scienetific, and
are often criticized as pseudo-sciences. Subsequently, may structuralist
authors from Levi Strauss on down the line are humble enough to
characterize their work as 'provisional science' since these attempts at
science deal with theorizing the intellectual tools whereby a theory is
constructed in the first place. It is a kind of double jeopardy situation.
I think there may be something lost in the translation of the word
'feature' which may make better sense in Finnish. In English it is just
too broad a term to be meaninful insofar as model building is concerned.
Functional structural elements of an object are 'features,' of course, but
it important to distinguish between appearances and function in the
discipline of model building.
Let me give you an example which is close to hom (for you). In the early
thirties in St. Petersburg Vladimir Propp wrote his famous "Morphology of
the Folktale." What was radical about this work was that it completely
reevaluated the work of the Finnish school of folklore and broght to
challenge the system of classification the Finns used. The Finnish work
was of course remarkable -- collecting and classifying tens of thousands of
folktales. But the Finns classified on a nomnative basis. In other words,
a folk tale about a "Prince" was in one category, while a folktale about a
"Mayor" or a "King" or an "Elder" were in separate categories. The result
were hundreds of categories, and the whole project was very intricate and
complicated. Propp took this work and reorganized into 37 categories,
which were all functional categories. He was looking at what the Prince,
King, Mayor, or Elder did in the tale, how they acted within the narrative,
and reduced the whole thing down to 37 'functions' that apply to all
folktales, whether Finnish, Russian, Aztec, Goldi, Tebetan etc. Of course
you can see this lays down the groundwork for comparative mythology, since
now there is a basis for comparison. An example of this is Levi Strauss'
discovery that while the mythology of the 'twins' are universal, the
function of these mythological enties differ between the "Old" world and
the "New" world. In Europe and Asia, the twins are always competitive
(Castor and Pollux) while in the Americas the twins are always cooperative
(Quetxalcoatl/Xolotl).
So in semiology and any other structuralist discipline (sturctural
anthropology et al) not every 'feature' of the object is considered in
order to build a useful model. Only those features which pertain to how
the parts of the object function in the whole.
I'm not sure what the current state of physics is as far as knowing what
electricity 'is' in a concrete sense, but I do know that science and
technology were able to manipulate electricity into the wonders of the
modern age by understanding how it functions. You don't really need to
concretely understand what electriity 'is' in a concrete sense to build a
model of a molecule and represents the electromagnetic bond between atoms,
since these relatiionships can be determined experimentally and verified
and thus validated as scientific truth. Propp was able to apply science to
his theory of functions in the same way. (BTW, Propp and Levi Strauss
later had a very intense public debate about the details of this system.
It is quite interesting to read. The other thing that is interesting was
that due to the "Iron Curtain" Propps work was difficult to be known in the
West. Stalinism also clipped Propps creative spirit in the bud, and put
great restraints on him since his publication of the "Morphology of the
Folktale." But the lead in the Iron Curtain was in Prague, notibly the
Prague School of Linguistics, which had ready access to the publishers in
Western Europe. (Jakobsen, Toderov et al.) Propps work leaked into the
West through the Prague School. Otherwise, Propp may just now become
'discovered.' But French Structuralism most likely would have developed
anyway, with or without Propp. But his contribution was very significant,
even though it is often denied by the French.)
> What I have learned fron you, semiotic model is good
> in describing part of reception of art.
In a sense this is accurate, but it could be misleading. Since semiotic
theory deals with the whole thing, 'art', it has to be described as an
analytical model of the whole process, and the 'reception' is but a part.
Again, the object of semiotics, or more precisely 'semiology,' is to
describe how 'meaning' is constructed. "Art" always 'means' in one way or
another -- I think there is little disagreement about this. So the whole
picture that the model represents also includes production as well as
reception. The artist handles 'meaning' as much as the viewer.
> As you pointed out, 'self-expression' does not fit into this model.
> My question is: do we miss something essential,
> if we stick to this model.
No, the social idea of 'self-expression' is covered by the model, which
Roland Barthes calles 'myth' wherein the 'meaning' become inscribed in the
sign, which subverts semiosis. Umberto Eco, on the otherhand, speaks of
this as the 'overdetermination of meaning.' Eco would argue that an
overdetermined 'sign' converts to a 'signal.'
Consider a company logo, for example. There are many approaches to
designing logos, from very graphic representations of monograms, to
pictorial associations with a product or service, to completely 'abstract'
designs.
A famous logo now is the AT&T logo, which is a globe reduced down to a
series of horizontal lines. AT&T paid a NY design firm one million dollars
for this, by the way. Well, the image does have some pictorial meaning,
since part of the 'lexia' for a sphere is the earth, and viewers can
associate AT&T with some sort of 'globalism'. But one the base, there is
nothing in the graphic image itesf to associate the image with the
company. The image itself, taken as a sign, only signifies 'circle,
sphere, globe, earth etc. But in the course of associating the iimage with
the company through innundations of media, from company stationary, bills,
brochures, TV ads etc. the public eventually 'learns' that this is the AT&T
logo -- and learns it so well that everytime the image is seen the
association occurs. Today, after using this logo for ten years now, AT&T
can publish the image alone without any text and it will 'mean' AT&T to the
viewer (unless that viewer happens to have just come out of a remote valley
in Papua New Guinea and has no experience with such things).
I design logos all the time, and I can say with confidence that is the
whole trajectory of logo design -- an image that causes the reader to
automatically make the association -- sort of instant recognition. This
association is created as a 'conditioned reflex' and that is why I cited
Pavlov earlier. He 'trained his dogs' to salivate every time a red light
went off, since the dogs 'learned' that it would probably mean a meal. The
'training' was exposing the subject to a sequence of events over and over
again, a light, a meal, a light, a meal until the dog would salivate when
the light went off. In this sense, a company logo is a 'signal' that sets
off a series of association which the subject has been conditioned to.
> I once purchased a 'Go' game -- you know, the
> Asian
> > borad game played with black and white pebbles on a board that is
> divided
> > by a grid of lines. Along with the game came an 'Rule Book". When I
> read
> > the rule book, it started out this way: "This Rule Book for Go has
> been
> > written for "Rule Keeping Westerners."
> >
> > I thought this was pretty funny - written by a Japanese philosopher,
> of
> > couse. But when you learn to play 'Go' it becomes evident that all
> the
> > 'rules' are self-evident, since the game is based on a specific set of
> > geometric and mathematical 'truths.' Where the rule book says 'this
> move
> > is not allowed' the mathematical truth says that such a move is
> impossible
> > to make.
>
> OH NO, I never met you in rec.games.go nor in computer go.
No, never lurked there. I wasn't good a go. I liked it at first, because
I have always hated chess. I can't hold a strategy in my head long enough,
maybe two or three moves at best. Go was much more 'visual' and
'conceptual', but I played against some experts a few times and it just
frustrated me. I prefer "TombRaiders" as long as I can download the cheat
sheets. I love to cheat at computer games.
> Much of my appreciation of artworks involves an element of
> unexpected, what is not said. I am well aware that in communication,
> the meaning is what is left out.
But isn't communication about 'sending' meaning from one place to another?
Here's another fancy theoretical term for you, 'diegises.' It is used in
narratology. "Diegises' is that part of the story that the reader writes.
So you tell me something, and you 'mean' someting by it, and I hear or read
your words, and compare it with what I know about what you are saying, and
everything changes. I remember a wonderful party game (when people used to
play games at parties). Somebody would whisper a story in another person's
ear. That person would whisper the story to the next, and so on, and the
last person would have to tell the story to the whole group. It was alway
a completely dfifferent story than the original, since all the players
automaticall 'interpreted' things as it went along.
"Diegises" was the subject of the great Japanese film, "Roshoman."
> I do admire your religios fervency to demystify art. I think much
> on the same lines. When young I loved Inmar Bergman movies,
> until I realized that they contein much mysticism but say nothing.
I have no religious fervors, Lauri. I'm just trying to address the issue
you have raised about art. I find theory useful and interesting, but my
life is not theoretical at all. But I like you analogy to Bergman. I
think there are levels to Bergman that are not mystical at all. "Fanny and
Alexander", "Smiles of a Summer Night", "Summer with Monica" were very
'social' films in my mind. "The Magician" certainly was mystical, but it
was also biographical, about Mesmer used his skill to manipulate people.
I once wrote an art history paper on a Roman Catacomb painting -- a simple
little christian painting of a bowl of pomegranites with a fish laying down
in front of it. I worked for about 72 hours on the paper, non-stop, to
meet a course deadline. It was a Jungian analysis of the painting, and it
went on and on to show how these christian symbols belonged to a long
history of symblism that stretched way back into the pagan prehistory of
Europe, Middle East and North Africa, with important stopovers in the
sactum sanctorium of European Alchemy.
When I got the paper back, the professor had graded it "B-" and went on to
comment negatively about the paper. He said, I remember, "I had long
thought that Jungian psychology is an impediment to clear thinking. You're
paper verifys my view!"
I was really pissed, and decided to make a political issue out of it.
While waiting for an appointment with the professor, I had a chance to
think about the issue, and I changed my tactic. When I entered his office
I said "Gee, Bob, considering your feelings about his paper, a B- grade is
very liberal." He exploaded "You're dammed right its liberal, blah blah
blah." After that was cleared up, we had a pleasant discussion about Jung,
which ended up with his challenging me to write a paper on the validity of
Jungian psychology to art history, with his promise that he would consider
it with out bias. I agreed.
But faced with that problem, I came to the same conclusion that you have.
All the comparative mythology etc. really said nothing beyond saying that
things are comparable. Anything is comparable on some basis. So it ended
up with a kind of 'yeah, so what' point of view. This experience really
changed all my thinking about comparative mythology (just as Joseph
Campbell was becoming so popular).
But I can still appreciate Bergman's films because they have another
important quality -- and that is the capacity to draw the viewer into the
narrative, where you are 'existing' within the story. I think that is the
criteria I use to distinguish a good film from a bad film. I was totally
'inside' Il Posteno" for example, but I am never inside 'Star Wars.' I was
totally inside "Empire of the Sun" and totally outside "Toy Story."
>
>
> * * *
> You have referred to psychoanalytical conception of man.
> There the rational, intellectual master, ego, is challenged by the
> subconscious, alter ego, which is wiser. The purpose of the analysis is
> for ego to capture this wisdom and retain in power.
No, I'm referring to psychoanalytic theory, which has had a great impact on
western culture since its inception. Don't shoot the messenger. I see
culture as a large body of thought which cycles around major ideologies
which appear in society. Psychoanalytic theory is one of these, as is
Quantum Mechanics, the General Theory of Relativity, the various
philosophical trends etc. The only thing I would be adamant about is that
you cannot talk about modern society unless these are taken into account,
since on a very broad level these are the things which 'infom' much of our
thinking about things, whether we are aware of it or not. Freud made a big
splash on culture, after all. So it was no accident that on Coney Island,
in 1902, a huge amusement park was built, called "Dreamland" as I recall,
which was all based on amusements that were designed around Freudian
concepts and theories (Freud himself visited this 'theme park' in 1904 and
claimed that he wasn't impressed!). One of the early comic strips, also,
was Windsor McKay's "Little Nemo in Slumberland" which was also based on
the conception of Freud in popular culture. You know the idea of the ego,
the id, penis envy, dream interpretation all were introduced into culture
at this time, and became cultural property. They are part of the big
picture now, regardless of how an individual values these things. Prior to
Freud, these ideas didn't exist at all.
> My understanding of humanity is mor close to the oriental.
> Though I learned it from an American (Pirsig: Zen and the
> motorcycle maintenamce). The "I" should let it go,
> over to the wiser "me". Something close to your unnaming.
But this isn't the exclusive domain of Eastern thought and philosophy.
Miester Ekhart and other Christian Mystics formulated similar
philosophies. North Africa, in Coptic religion as well as Sufi. Now I'm
wondering if you research the Kalevala with the search for fundamental
mysticism what you would come up with, ignoring the obvious Christian
influence of the versions that exist. How distant is the idea of singing
for power from the idea of a Buddhist chant as a form of meditation?
In some psychoanalytic theory 'mysticism' is called 'regressive' insofar as
the subject seeks the undifferenciated experience of life without ego, as
in early childhood. Other brands claim that such an experience is
wholesome and necessary for personal growth. So there seems to be some
competition, on the ideological level, between 'intellectualism' and
'mysticism.' A great little book on this subject is Edgar Wind's "Art and
Anarchy." Wind was a very conservative British Art Historian, who almost
had a Mani Deli attitude about art. But he is also very intelligent, and
capable of making a good argument to support his ideas. But in the long
run his argument is that there is a possiblity of synthethesis between the
intellectual and the mystical, where each 'node' enhances the other. He
was basically challenging the validity of the notion that the abstract
expressionists were really mining the precious ore of the subconscious mind
-- and questioning whether or not such a 'treasure' really existed.
Erik
Peter
the software for News groups. It is a jungle here, with dates and
topics looking like a plate of wet spaghetti with lots of sauce. That
is why I remain silent.
The thread on self-expression, however, demands I jump into the sauce!
Alison: I think you made a powerful point when you spoke about the
political implications of expression. I've thought for a long time that
the second part of the century with all its isms amounts to an
elimination of natural forms (minimalism, color field) in favor of
statements about the human condition. It's as if city art--art made in
the concrete jungle--becomes a mirror image of the human state of being
which results from the two world wars and the various pestilences which
they spawned. The chaos and the void, then.
Maybe the dilemna can be resolved by independence. Sontag's remark that
"interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art" is a straight
arrow pointed at the crux of the matter: art is mute, and they, whoever
they are, talk it to death. Independence from the gibberish demands, I
think, that one re-define the relationship between self and the world of
humans, between art and the divine, between ourselves as artists and the
earth, the wondrous earth which is the only manifestation of the divine
we have left.
Expression, then, maybe a glandular way to declare territory. Trying to
be polite here! The problem arises, seems to me, when the self becomes
more important than the earth. And to that I can only say, holy
jeesuss. The self? what self? I think of my 'self' and fall asleep.
I see a butterfly, or a blade of grass, the sun, and I am filled with
awe and consternation.
It's as you say: everything is an expression of sorts. And the
painting's 'style' is our handwriting: a manifestation of personality.
Inescapable, this. So, for me, the crux of the matter amounts to this:
independence from the market place, to hell with the market place. The
market place is commerce. It has nothing to do with the act of making.
Independence from the 'other'. (Sartre describes hell as a hotel room
where the dead meet, a room without mirrors. Thus, says he, having no
way of seeing ourselves, the 'other' becomes our mirror. That is hell).
I cannot depend for my well being on the opinion of others. That is
hell. The crux? a calculation of my importance in the scheme of
things: I have come to the conclusion that I have none. Result?
freedom to paint regardless of consequences. And if the self is viewed
as uninteresting, then it becomes possible to paint what fascinates.
The question, whether to paint the world as seen through the self, or
the world as seen through the eyes, is resolved.
This is when the painting becomes mute once again. No 'expression' in
this. The painting speaks, or it doesn't, its own visual language. If
it doesn't, so be it: I simply did not have the power to make it
speak. If it does, then I have become the agent of that power, nothing
more, nothing less. Cheers as always! Peter.
Dan Fox
> HI Kay, hi Alison: first I will say that I am too dumb to figure out
> the software for News groups. It is a jungle here, with dates and
> topics looking like a plate of wet spaghetti with lots of sauce. That
> is why I remain silent.
>
Hi, Peter - it's good to see you post again. I'll respond to this thread
real soon, I promise! (I'm always promising detailed responses; sometimes
I actually deliver - my excuse is being short on time).
My wife, Krys, and I are going to Portsmouth for the weekend, just Saturday
overnight and returning Sunday P.M. I'm taking The Stranger with me and
will finish it - I want to reread the entire book in one shot before
responding to your Camus letter. I think I know what I want to say - the
question will be, can I say it?
I found that I still do have your address and phone number in my card file
from Judy. Where is Morrisville, anyway? I am probably not too far from
you. Do I remember correctly that you and your wife have a bookstore?
Hope to see you posting again - and look for my Camus - it'll be an
entire doctoral dissertation!
By the way, how is Judy? Is she still in San Miguel? I think she also
had a place at the ocean.
Dan
Quo Vadis
writes
>HI Kay, hi Alison: first I will say that I am too dumb to figure out
>the software for News groups. It is a jungle here, with dates and
>topics looking like a plate of wet spaghetti with lots of sauce. That
>is why I remain silent.
Dumb indeed ...... me thinks this an excuse not to come play with us.
And are you only talking to me and Kay ?????? ;-)
>
>The thread on self-expression, however, demands I jump into the sauce!
>Alison: I think you made a powerful point when you spoke about the
>political implications of expression. I've thought for a long time that
>the second part of the century with all its isms amounts to an
>elimination of natural forms (minimalism, color field) in favor of
>statements about the human condition. It's as if city art--art made in
>the concrete jungle--becomes a mirror image of the human state of being
>which results from the two world wars and the various pestilences which
>they spawned. The chaos and the void, then.
>
The elimination of the forms is seen as a flight from interpretation of
reality - abstract art = no content = no interpretation. Sontag often
calls for art to once again be simply an experience and no longer a
statement or an answer to a question. I am with her, though like all the
other art students have fallen foul to these demands for interpretation
- for attaching meaning where meaning is not necessarily needed. One
cannot help but do that these days - it is demanded - the viewer is no
longer content with the experience.
Recall what I have written in the past about the *sublime experience*
and how, in this modern world, the experience is no longer accepted as
an experience, but is now artificially enhanced. I believe this is what
has happened in the arts too and that is why I agree with Erik's first
post. Much of today's art is *forced* to produce an experience and this
is where the adaptation of a style, that has connotations recognised by
the viewer in conjunction with the anguished artist and his need for
self expression, has become a visual language of today.
When an artist adopts a *style* they make decisions about their
accountability and how their work will be *read*. Here we see the
difference between *style* and *stylization*. The artist has a natural
tendency to prefer a certain method of working. When he adopts the style
of another he is making a deliberate statement and this, I think, is
where he starts to mirror image the state of man.
>Maybe the dilemna can be resolved by independence. Sontag's remark that
>"interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art" is a straight
>arrow pointed at the crux of the matter: art is mute, and they, whoever
>they are, talk it to death. Independence from the gibberish demands, I
>think, that one re-define the relationship between self and the world of
>humans, between art and the divine, between ourselves as artists and the
>earth, the wondrous earth which is the only manifestation of the divine
>we have left.
And perhaps this may be happening, but for sure the critics will not
take any notice of that work. What a vicious circle - the young artist
desperately looking for recognition, for reassurance that his art is
*great*, and for the limelight that has come to represent the twentieth
century beacon of worth.
>
>Expression, then, maybe a glandular way to declare territory. Trying to
>be polite here! The problem arises, seems to me, when the self becomes
>more important than the earth. And to that I can only say, holy
>jeesuss. The self? what self? I think of my 'self' and fall asleep.
>I see a butterfly, or a blade of grass, the sun, and I am filled with
>awe and consternation.
>
I don't fall asleep when I think of your *self*, hee hee ! However, I do
know what you mean. The feeling of overwhelming insignificance in this
random universe has taken over - a consequence of the world wars, no
doubt, and of the helplessness the ordinary man must come to terms with.
The answer then, to *be* someone - to make one's mark.
>It's as you say: everything is an expression of sorts. And the
>painting's 'style' is our handwriting: a manifestation of personality.
>Inescapable, this. So, for me, the crux of the matter amounts to this:
>independence from the market place, to hell with the market place. The
>market place is commerce. It has nothing to do with the act of making.
>Independence from the 'other'. (Sartre describes hell as a hotel room
>where the dead meet, a room without mirrors. Thus, says he, having no
>way of seeing ourselves, the 'other' becomes our mirror. That is hell).
>I cannot depend for my well being on the opinion of others. That is
>hell. The crux? a calculation of my importance in the scheme of
>things: I have come to the conclusion that I have none. Result?
>freedom to paint regardless of consequences. And if the self is viewed
>as uninteresting, then it becomes possible to paint what fascinates.
>The question, whether to paint the world as seen through the self, or
>the world as seen through the eyes, is resolved.
What a lesson to be learned there. You are the only person I have ever
met who works every day of the year, who has no interest in the market
nor ever has had, whose work is accomplished and intriguing, and whose
entire life evolves around making that work. Its a sheer wonder.
>
>This is when the painting becomes mute once again. No 'expression' in
>this. The painting speaks, or it doesn't, its own visual language. If
>it doesn't, so be it: I simply did not have the power to make it
>speak. If it does, then I have become the agent of that power, nothing
>more, nothing less. Cheers as always! Peter.
Cheers back .... have a Canadian whisky for me.
Alison.
Kay
Quo Vadis wrote:
(in response to Peter, who wrote:)
:>Expression, then, maybe a glandular way to declare territory. Trying to
:>be polite here! The problem arises, seems to me, when the self becomes
:>more important than the earth. And to that I can only say, holy
:>jeesuss. The self? what self? I think of my 'self' and fall asleep.
:>I see a butterfly, or a blade of grass, the sun, and I am filled with
:>awe and consternation.
:>
:I don't fall asleep when I think of your *self*, hee hee ! However, I do
:know what you mean. The feeling of overwhelming insignificance in this
:random universe has taken over - a consequence of the world wars, no
:doubt, and of the helplessness the ordinary man must come to terms with.
:The answer then, to *be* someone - to make one's mark.
We are all truly insignificant when you think of it as a part of the *whole*
picture of life. I didn't realize it until I moved to Arizona and looked at
the stars. We have no light pollution here. At times, my insignificance and
the sheer vastness of the universe, if only the small part of it I can see
with the naked eye, overwhelms me. For that reason, I am not an avid
star-gazer!
:>It's as you say: everything is an expression of sorts. And the
:>painting's 'style' is our handwriting: a manifestation of personality.
:>Inescapable, this. So, for me, the crux of the matter amounts to this:
:>independence from the market place, to hell with the market place. The
:>market place is commerce. It has nothing to do with the act of making.
:>Independence from the 'other'. (Sartre describes hell as a hotel room
:>where the dead meet, a room without mirrors. Thus, says he, having no
:>way of seeing ourselves, the 'other' becomes our mirror. That is hell).
:>I cannot depend for my well being on the opinion of others. That is
:>hell. The crux? a calculation of my importance in the scheme of
:>things: I have come to the conclusion that I have none. Result?
:>freedom to paint regardless of consequences. And if the self is viewed
:>as uninteresting, then it becomes possible to paint what fascinates.
:>The question, whether to paint the world as seen through the self, or
:>the world as seen through the eyes, is resolved.
I know I have quoted it to death on raf, but I can only repeat what Virginia
Woolf has said because it has been such an enlightening inspiration to me.
She has said that in order to create, you cannot *prostitute* yourself
(which I took to mean having sex for money - I wonder if marriage counts?)
but then she explained it further to say that you must write, paint, compose
music as if NO ONE will ever read, see or hear your creation. I try and
stay true to this, but sometimes, when I deviate from my *accepted*
stylistic tendencies, I DO find myself thinking about public reaction. In
this manner, I have *prostituted* my work and it is not pure. Perhaps by
even allowing these considerations into my mind, they will make my art
*untrue*.
:What a lesson to be learned there. You are the only person I have ever
:met who works every day of the year, who has no interest in the market
:nor ever has had, whose work is accomplished and intriguing, and whose
:entire life evolves around making that work. Its a sheer wonder.
I've met one other person like that. He died several years ago and he had
studied under Hans Hoffman and taught for him also. He did an incredible
amount of work, and had no interest at all in exhibiting. In fact, he made
fun of the entire process of making, exhibiting, selling art and created an
*art kit* which he sold for $3.50 - it was kind of a Dada statement about
art. He quit selling them when a museum in Santa Fe called him and requested
and exhibition of these kits.
:>This is when the painting becomes mute once again. No 'expression' in
:>this. The painting speaks, or it doesn't, its own visual language. If
:>it doesn't, so be it: I simply did not have the power to make it
:>speak. If it does, then I have become the agent of that power, nothing
:>more, nothing less. Cheers as always! Peter.
You are so accepting, Peter. I accept the fact that some (most) of my
paintings will not be my masterpieces, but it is hard to do (for me).
:Cheers back .... have a Canadian whisky for me.
:Alison.
When you guys quit drinking, I'll e-mail a recipe for Menudo. Sure fire cure
for the worst hangover - right, Erik?
Kay
Lauri.L.
Thanks Erik for your patience as a teacher.
1. Semiotics is a science or 'science' of
how meanings are transfered.
In general case it assumes that there *is* a meaning.
What the meaning is, does not matter.
2. A sign can be any artifact, be it
words, pictures or whatever that, carries a meaning.
Semiotics studies it in the property of sign, the
rest is insignificant
3. A (soci/psycho/pato-) lexia is a soup of
all cultural concepts left in our minds.
If something is not a concept, it is out of the scope.
The concepts are 'names' but not necessarily verbal.
The concepts aculturally dependent, not a priori.
4. The meaning of a certain sign
is s spoonful of this soup, selected by the
associative values with the sign.
5. In a particular case, when a sign is overloaded with a certain
meaning, it
becomes a signal of *that* meaning, a myth.
This meaning we have no choice of asssociation.
* * *
All bove is has mathematical beaty, and is
intellectually challenging. I like it.
At the same time I think that the value of a concept
is in its discriminatory capacity. If one says,
"All is art" it means nothing, as the concept art
no longer discriminates art from non-art.
That's why i am suspicious of theories of everything.
I mentioned earlier that I believe it to be a good tool
in linguistis, because as Tinman pointed out,
Words are artificial signs, mere signs. A piece of art
is an object, to be experienced.
* * *
After re-reading your original paper, Erik,
I have some comments. To begin with, you stated that
you believe "self-expression is a myth".
To clarify your idea you described a sign, like *Stop*.
No objection, I agree that if a painting (or piece of
sculpture) carries a meaning, in that role we can regard it
as a sign.
Then you continued with the advertising example.
EM:"Early advertising required ist authors to
make the association of the products with the lexia.
(...)
But historically, through inundation by mass media,
the advertising reached the level of a myth, and the
reader 'already knew' what the messahe was."
A little further: "I believe the idea of
the artist's 'self-expression' is another myth form,
where the signified has shifted over to the sign."
haven't you here jumped to a conclusion, without
justification. How could this *inundation*, take place
if not by self-expressive artists.
* * *
And then there is the nagging question of Alison
and Kay, quoting Susan Sontag if art is once again
but simple experience.
A pissibility totally outside the domain of semiotics.
* * *
I understand expressiveness as a divertion of impression.
No longer What I *See* but How *I* Feel about it.
I have read my Gombrich, I understand the role of
learned cultural schema in making and reading
a picture. "Expressionism" as an ism is s schema.
That I wanted to refer with the comment of scandinavian
art history. provincial art establishments accept
artist who submit to prevalent schema.
I find Self-expressionism difficult to defend,
as it is so far from me. But Erik's attack appears
also shallow, but woth of objection.
In a sense I regard my Thinker as self-expressive. It is
about what I think about thinking. It is far from
expressionism in style. (with the reference of Rodin
and all that cultural inheritance.
* * *
No doubt, Erik, much of self-expression is
empreror's new clothes. painting in style.
* * *
I really believe Art at its best was a craft.
Through renessance all works were commissioned.
Only the dutch invented painting on canvas and were
able to produce in stock and sell later.
The rest is history. The art world became a synonym
of art trade and collecting. It degenerated to
art pour l'art.
Lauri.L.
Quo Vadis <ubi...@cosmos.com> wrote:
Alison:
Recall what I have written in the past about the *sublime experience*
and how, in this modern world, the experience
is no longer accepted as an experience, but is now
artificially enhanced. I believe this is what has happened in the
arts too and that is why I agree with Erik's first
post. Much of today's art is *forced* to produce an experience and
this is where the adaptation of a style, that has
connotations recognised by the viewer in conjunction with the
anguished artist and his need for self expression,
has become a visual language of today.
When an artist adopts a *style* they make decisions
about their
accountability and how their work will be *read*.
Here we see the difference between *style* and *stylization*. The
artist has a natural tendency to prefer a certain
method of working. When he adopts the style of another he is
making a deliberate statement and this, I think, is
where he starts to mirror image the state of man.
lauri:
This is a hard piece. I too disfavour painting (or sculpting, forgive
my handicap) 'in style'. What MdLi braggs he can do so well.
But I cannot work 'as if no-one will ever see'. In a sense I am
a performing artist, dependent of that someone in the audience
sometime says that my work means something.
(Skip over that word, Erik :-)
I remember thr story of a shipwrecked sailor.
His only pasttime on that tiny island was to teach
the monkeys to speak. and he suceeded.
One day he was rescued to a ship.
He wanted to take his precious monkeys with,
as he could show them on the markets and make a fortune.
When he tried to explain this to the captain,
all the captain heard was unintelligble inhuman growling.
So I am also worried about if I can express
myself in an understandable way.
thanks for a enjoyable posting
- lauri
--
//www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Erik A. Mattila
very funny, it has an important philosophical sub-plot.
But your art work will 'mean' no matter what you do. Whether it means
what you intended is another question. In sculpture, the artist has the
opportunity to address very basic human sensibilities like tactile,
symetry, balance (kinesthetic sense). Since humans have a tendency to
personalize their environment, meaning is created. So when you begin to
toy around with these, like your acrobats, the viewer gets all sorts of
data on a very personal. An 'unbalanced' figure, for example, can evoke a
response in the view such as 'danger' or 'insecurity' since the whole
thing evokes a sense of how it feels to fall off a log or running up the
stairs and taking that step on a stair you think is there but it not.
There's a sense that humans have that most people don't even know about
it. Proprioception, it is called in English (or Latin). It's the ability
to 'know' the relative location of all your body parts at any given
monent. It is remarkably sensitive. A human being is able to 'know' if
the elbow is bent a tiny fraction of a degree. The cops here use for a
sobriety test the ability of a person to stand there, hold the arms
straight at the shoulders, and bring the index fingers to touch. If
you're drunk it's hard to do, but when you're sober it's a piece of cake.
So everybody 'knows' this sense, but few are aware of it. I only learned
about it because my right leg is paralyzed and I've lost proprioception
there, and the doctors told me all about it.
Such things are fundamental human experience. What's the new human's
first sensory experience. Some argue that it is vision, but my idea is
that is't the kenesthetic sense, including proprioception. A child in the
womb experiences this. But unborn children also can hear, so that could
be first. Sight seems to come along later. Salvador Dali painted a lot
of fried eggs, and he intended these to symbolic of his claimed intra
uterine memories. An unborn child also experiences the phosphene
phenomena, as it presses the backs of the thumbs against its eyes. You
can do this, press on your eyes and you get visual sensations of rings of
lights that sort of looks like fried eggs.
What I'm attempting to describe here is a basis of shared experience by
which communication is possible. I don't know what you experience when
you work, but maybe there is some similarity with my own experiences. For
example, I once did a small cermaic of a bear. I went to a friends house
who kept a 'morgue'--a funny name for a file cabinet full of pictures she
had clipped over the years and kept as references. She had a large file
on bears, and I was able to spend some time looking at these and really
study the bear situation. I finally realized that what said 'bear' to me
was the way a bear moves. There's a lot of weight there, unlike small
animals that may look like bears, but don't move like bears. When a bear
takes a step with it's front leg, the whole body 'falls' on a vector which
is about 35 degrees to its nose-tail axis, and there's a lot of weight
involved. So that's what I wanted to achieve in the sculpture, which was
going to be about 7 inches tall, mabey 11 inches long. (Sorry, Lauri,
I've never be able to visualize distances in metric -- even though I think
it's a superior system).
Anyway, the sculpture was 100% successful. It was able to communicate
that sense of a bear's unbalance and weight in the process of taking a
step. I wasn't even aware that I was dealing with another artistic
problem at the time I made it, and that was the problem of size and
scale. If I had failed at this, the sculpture wouldn't have been
successful. But it was the combination of the shape and imbalance that
created that sense of weight that translated to a 'believable' rendering
of the bear. Something no larger than a shoebox could 'mean' something
large and heavey.
The funny part of it was that in order to be successful I had to spend a
lot of time teaching myself to walk like a bear. I did this for several
days. Sometime just walking with my legs, not in a normal, 'human'
fashion, but by raising one leg and falling 35 degrees to the left or
right, then catching my fall with my leg. Kind of like Frankenstein. I
also did this on my hands and knees. For some reason I had to develop a
certain 'understanding' of the kinetics of this to do the form. When I
was finally working with the clay, I could replay this experience back in
my mind. It is difficult to explain -- definitely a non-verbal activity.
It felt more like acting, playing a role, or becoming the object.
Erik
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> In article <547grnAo...@raimes.demon.co.uk>,
> Quo Vadis <ubi...@cosmos.com> wrote:
>
> Alison:
>
> Recall what I have written in the past about the *sublime experience*
> and how, in this modern world, the experience
> is no longer accepted as an experience, but is now
> artificially enhanced. I believe this is what has happened in the
> arts too and that is why I agree with Erik's first
> post. Much of today's art is *forced* to produce an experience and
> this is where the adaptation of a style, that has
> connotations recognised by the viewer in conjunction with the
> anguished artist and his need for self expression,
> has become a visual language of today.
>
> When an artist adopts a *style* they make decisions
> about their
> accountability and how their work will be *read*.
> Here we see the difference between *style* and *stylization*. The
> artist has a natural tendency to prefer a certain
> method of working. When he adopts the style of another he is
> making a deliberate statement and this, I think, is
> where he starts to mirror image the state of man.
>
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Peter
<I know I have quoted it to death on raf, but I can only repeat what
Virginia
Woolf has said because it has been such an enlightening inspiration to
me.
She has said that in order to create, you cannot *prostitute* yourself
(which I took to mean having sex for money - I wonder if marriage
counts?)
but then she explained it further to say that you must write, paint,
compose
music as if NO ONE will ever read, see or hear your creation. I try and
stay true to this, but sometimes, when I deviate from my *accepted*
stylistic tendencies, I DO find myself thinking about public reaction.
In
this manner, I have *prostituted* my work and it is not pure. Perhaps by
even allowing these considerations into my mind, they will make my art
*untrue*.>
hell Kay, ain't an art soul who hasn't thought about fame and fortune.
I used to, for sure. It's part of the deal. What used to enrage me was
the mechanics of getting shows. I am no good at that. No market
personality, if you will. So how does one get the shows? That is
another story--for another time.
You misread me: I do not accept failure lightly. I've shot myself a
hundred times--and missed.
Virginia Woolf is right, of course. But it might be more fun to say,
with Sartre, that hell is others. And heaven is not giving a damn what
others think. Cheers! By the way, i used to know a married woman who
made the bed jump real hard every time hubby gave her a fur coat. Fun,
no? Peter.
Erik A. Mattila
up against problems with translation (finnish-english) and it could be
an exercise in futility to try to cross those frontiers when dealing
with such concpetual material as semiotics. I would suggest that if you
are interested in the subject, the best approach would be to read some
of the works which I'm sure have been translated into Finnish. Roland
Barthes, Umberto Eco, Charles Sanders Pierce, Jean Piaget, Algirdas
Julien Greimas, and of course the work that really set off modern
semiology, "A Course in General Linguistics" -- Ferdinand De Saussure.
Saussure's book is interesting because it was written after he died. It
is based on his last lecture series in Switzerland, but the authors (who
were a group of his students) picked out of the lecture notes the
fundamental theory of semiology. Saussure never intended this, since he
was a linguist. But the state of his research contained the seed which
developed into the 'science of signs."
Semiotics is only one way to think about how art means, or 'visual
language.' We can go on with the discussion without having to deal with
language problems in translating very technical terms. My idea is that
a translator who is fluent in Finnish and the native language of
particular text would be able to find the language equivalencies that
could render a concept accurately in the Finnish language. What I'm
seeing is some real difficulties with words in our correspondence.
"Concept" may not mean the same to you as it does to me, for example, or
any of the other terms which always have a specific definition when used
inside a particular academic field. Theories of meaning are also found
in general philosophy, but my experience with these are not too good --
they are really technical, full of mathematical notations that have
always been difficult for me, and incredibly complex. I shudder when I
think about it, since I have been forced as a student to read some of
these works. It really made me feel dumb - math is something that I
could never do well with.
Part of my military duty in Viet Nam was researching real estate
histories in the Vietnamese land offices. I had two translators who I
worked with, one Vietnamese and the other Chinese. We would spend hours
working out translations of documents. They would make the first
translation into English, and I would read it and it wouldn't make a bit
of sense. So we would take it line by line, word by word, and talk at
length of what this words means in Vietnamese and what it means in
English. A lot of this process was to imagine circumstances where two
people were trying to exchange ideas about certain things. It was
really interesting -- sometime extremely frustrating. Some of the
concepts were not translatable at all, and required footnotes to explain
the problem so that the Generals and Colonels who read these
translations could grasp what was going on.
Erik
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> A little further: "I believe the idea of
> the artist's 'self-expression' is another myth form,
> where the signified has shifted over to the sign."
Lauri.L.
running
> up against problems with translation (finnish-english) and it could be
> an exercise in futility to try to cross those frontiers when dealing
> with such concpetual material as semiotics.
Does this mean that French semiotics are by definition misinterpreted
by English-speaking people :-)
>I would suggest that if you
> are interested in the subject, the best approach would be to read some
> of the works.
I am well aware that I am double handicapped here. Two foreign
languages, English and semiotics.
Sure I will read some original text with time.
The time beeing, what interests me here is your *abuse* of semiotics.
You believe self-expression is a myth ( I agree very much).
Then you bring in a respectable brand of theory, with clear
and self-evident examples. After that you declare that
self-expression is likewise myth.
Without any description how or why
your theoretical stucture might apply there.
A few times you have carefully evaded this question.
* * *
We are back at the problem of visual language.
Words have nothing but meaning, linguistisc theory
is comprehensive there. Is that what we see, _only_ meanings?
My favourite Freud quotation:
We must remember that a zeppelin is not
only a phallos symbol, one can fly with it too.
I rephrase my original question.
No doubt a piece of art has a meaning.
Do you think it has *only* a meaning, or
is it capable of arousing a direct experience, too
like Tinman suggested. F.ex. emotions.
Just now i am looking at a highway throuh the office window.
For me it is a SIGN that Turku is to the left and Helsinki at right.
If I take it only as a sign, I'll never get home.
- lauri
Your Bear was a nice example. I trained a lot too, for the
tightrope series. The funny thing was that I had to sculpt the
feet wrong way to look credible.
Kay
Peter wrote:
(snip)
:
:hell Kay, ain't an art soul who hasn't thought about fame and fortune.
:I used to, for sure. It's part of the deal.
But, you quit caring. How did that happen?
: What used to enrage me was
:the mechanics of getting shows. I am no good at that. No market
:personality, if you will. So how does one get the shows?
Ah, it's a very dirty business, I'm discovering! At places like colleges
where there are often several different galleries, the gallery person (who
may have a business, not art degree) will have the final say. Galleries,
blind luck (or dumb luck!) Co-operatives are good; a guaranteed show at
intervals. I have actually had the most shows through people I know. For
example: (a) a friend/acquaintance calls me up (I have done the same for
her/him in the past) and lets me know there is an exhibition in Bejing for
the NGO women artists group. Tells me to call Nancy so and so in Washington
DC. I do so immediately. Nancy asks me if I can get something 8" x 4" in 5
days. I say "yes, no problem" That's how I get a line on the resume in
Beijing and another one for Moscow after they pick some of those works to
travel to Moscow. (b) while in a co-op in Tucson, we decide to have an
"invitational" and I invite an artist to show a work from Chicago and one
from Washington, DC. It looks good on their resumes not to have all their
own exhibits in Chicago or Washington. They do good work, but they have
that line on their resume because of me. The friend in Chicago gets a new
job and makes friends with a gallery owner and recommends me and I get a
show there. She wouldn't have recommended me if she didn't like my work, but
in both cases, like the Mafia says "One hand washes the other"... (c) Friend
is having a show in Australia because she goes there all the time because of
her husband's business. She is having an exhibition and doesn't have enough
work. Asks me to show with her and will take it on the plane for me. I say
yes. Most of the breaks I get is from networking, people I know. Luckily
for me, I'm an extrovert and always talk to strangers. Strike up friendships
quite often. Usually they are artists because that's just the places I go
to.
That is
:another story--for another time.
Looking forward to it!
:You misread me: I do not accept failure lightly. I've shot myself a
:hundred times--and missed.
But have you changed? Are you able to not care right now?
:Virginia Woolf is right, of course. But it might be more fun to say,
:with Sartre, that hell is others. And heaven is not giving a damn what
:others think. Cheers! By the way, i used to know a married woman who
:made the bed jump real hard every time hubby gave her a fur coat. Fun,
:no? Peter.
I'm cheap, Peter. I never knew I could get a fur coat out of the deal (don't
need one in Arizona). I've only bargained for art supplies!
Kay
"Do you know what he needs? Two or three shock treatments,"
Mary George said. "Get that artist business right out of his head once
and for all." (from "An Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Erik A. Mattila
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> Does this mean that French semiotics are by definition misinterpreted
> by English-speaking people :-)
Yes, I think it does, Lauri. But this is the work of translators. To
translate Foucault, for example, one would have to be very fluent in French
and English plus have a solid understanding of the academics associated
with Foucault's writings. Debates often arise over translations.
> The time beeing, what interests me here is your *abuse* of semiotics.
> You believe self-expression is a myth ( I agree very much).
> Then you bring in a respectable brand of theory, with clear
> and self-evident examples. After that you declare that
> self-expression is likewise myth.
>
> Without any description how or why
> your theoretical stucture might apply there.
>
> A few times you have carefully evaded this question.
Abuse? How is this so?
1. The idea of art as self expression is a myth, qualifying the word
'myth' in terms of Barthean semiotics. I stated that clearly.
2. This use of 'myth' is defined as the signifier being inscribed in the
sign, which changes the status of the 'sign' to 'signal'.
3. A signal is 'understood' by conditioned reflex, rather than semiosis.
How have I carefully evaded the question? What is the question? Is it
'how does this theory apply?" What I've been talking about is a theory
itself, so I don't know how a theory applies to itself. The statement "The
concept of of self-expression in art is a (Barthean) myth" is a theoretical
statement.
Perhaps your concern is how is such a theory useful? Is it just an
pointless intellectual exercise, or is there some value to be gained by
applying such a theory to real life situations?
I personally find it useful in this respect. Semiosis is the key
ingredient for creating meaning to our lives. Each of us, as individuals,
as members of family, and members of culture, have a unique mix of 'lexia'
and as we assign significance to the world we also personalize the world.
Thus we have a sense of belonging and participation with the world.
Roland Barthes wrote that the myth was 'insidious.' Why? Because the
subversion of the sign by the signal depersonalizes the world, and
undermines the democracy of meaning. We no longer have the right to give
our interpretation of the world that unique, personal touch -- it is
replaced with huge complexes of pre-determined and over-determined
meanings.
I think, as artists, we all share a value -- and that is the possibility of
making a work of art that is very meaningful and valuable to another
person, or many other persons, than ourselves. If that is true, then isn't
it reasonable to include, as part of our training, to study 'meaning'
itself, and how meaning is created and circulated in culture? I think
Michel Foucault was correct when he said that knowledge is power. We
manipulate meaning -- that's what we do. Shouldn't we have a profound
understanding of how it works?
> * * *
>
> We are back at the problem of visual language.
> Words have nothing but meaning, linguistisc theory
> is comprehensive there. Is that what we see, _only_ meanings?
This is not correct. Words have much more than 'meaning.' A major part of
linguistics concerns itself with the phoneme level of language, which is
studying a procession of sounds without meaning. Words, like any other
phenomena, have an independant existance in nature as certain sound wave
combinations (parole) or marks on paper (lange).
> My favourite Freud quotation:
> We must remember that a zeppelin is not
> only a phallos symbol, one can fly with it too.
>
> I rephrase my original question.
> No doubt a piece of art has a meaning.
> Do you think it has *only* a meaning, or
> is it capable of arousing a direct experience, too
> like Tinman suggested. F.ex. emotions.
I would apply the same to the work of art. It has its phenomenological
reality. But this all goes to the idea of 'representation' which I
commented on in another post.
One logical implication of Einstein's Relativity is a scientific law of
simultaniety. Nothing in the universe can exist in two places at the same
time. This means that an apple and our concept of an apple are two
different things. The 'apple' that exists in our mind is a
'representation' and on a regular basis humans confuse the representation
with the thing itself.
There are several names for this confusion. The older study, General
Semantics, called this 'confusing the map with the territory. Today you
are more likely to read the word 'reify' or seeing the abstract as
concrete. In anthropology there's a lot of discussion about 'primitive'
people being unable to distinguish between phenomena and ideas.
So the work of art exists in nature, a concrete object, but the work of art
that we 'know'. like all other phenenomena, is a representation. The only
part of the process that can be 'direct' in anyway is the physics of our
senses - hearing, smelling, seeing, feeling etc. That's wall physics and
neurology - light waves, sounds waves, airborn molecules, bioelectricity,
nervous systems. Any 'understanding' that arises from the collission of a
human being with an object in space happens as an interpretation of these
physical phenomena and their interaaction with the nervous system.
The focus of semiology today is on this point - when all the sensory data
is collected and the representation is formed in the mind. There's a lot
of controversy and academic debates about this, and in the sturctue, this
is the area of the 'signified' in sign, signified, and signifier." The
question is, then, how 'direct' is 'direct experience'. One thing that
biology and medicine have discovered is that 'preception' is not
instantaneous, but rather involves time. The time light travels from the
object to the eye, the time the nevrve impulse takes from the retina to the
brain, etc. These are mesurable phenemona. Modern neurology has also
discovered that the brain does not function in a linear mode, but in a mode
where many things happen at once. It networks, in other words.
So if you want to define 'direct experience' as that time when all the
sensory data is collected and transported to the brain, just before a
representation is formed, then what ever is 'experienced' is
unintelligible. Subsequently some say 'nature is unknowable.' But if you
are defining 'direct experience' at some point after the representation is
formed, but before any 'meaning' is assigned, you are probably in trouble,
since it looks like these things happen all at once as the representation
is formed due to neural networking - a whole sequence of brain events
popping off all at once. Let's call these 'contents.' The emotional
content is likely to be one among other contents, such as symbolic content,
nomnative content, various evaluative contents, and all these conbine to
form the representation.
I think some contents can overpower others, depending on the makeup of the
individual. It is well known that the word 'communism' has caused
physiological reactions in people, for example. Agitated Propoganda, which
has visual as well as verbal manifestations, is based on manipulating
emotional contents by various technologies.
I have had an emotional reactions to a combination of red-orange and green
in paintings I have seen for most of my life. It is nostalgia, some what
pleasurable, but mostly emotionally compelling. I finally remembered that
at a very young age I visited some place, it may have been a house in Marin
County, across the bay from San Francisco. In the back yard, there was a
large wall of Nasturtiums growing. I saw a black & white photo of myself
standing in front of this wall, and I had something smeared all around my
mouth. My mother told me that she caught me eating the catapillars from
the nasturtiums (the little caveman that I was). I realized that it was
the proportions of the red-orange flowers to the green leaves that had left
me the legacy of an emotional response to paintings that had this same
proportion of the same colors.
So is that response a 'direct experience?' Absolutely not. It is rather a
very complex biographical meaning content that my mind assigns to certain
pictures, by what we have called 'semiosis.' But my point is that this
'emotional' response overshadows other kinds of responses, such as an
'intellectual' response. It is just more 'meaningful' to me, and takes
some kind of priority.
> Just now i am looking at a highway throuh the office window.
> For me it is a SIGN that Turku is to the left and Helsinki at right.
> If I take it only as a sign, I'll never get home.
>
> - lauri
Yes, but by magic you know that the sign doesn't mean that Turku is more
liberal (left) than Helsinki (right) even though that is probably true.
Erik - always committing semiotic self-abuse.
Lauri.L.
> > Without any description how or why
> > your theoretical stucture might apply there.
> >
> > A few times you have carefully evaded this question.
> Abuse? How is this so?
>
> 1. The idea of art as self expression is a myth, qualifying the word
> 'myth' in terms of Barthean semiotics. I stated that clearly.
> 2. This use of 'myth' is defined as the signifier being inscribed in
the
> sign, which changes the status of the 'sign' to 'signal'.
>
> 3. A signal is 'understood' by conditioned reflex, rather than
semiosis.
With your own example describing, how f.ex. advertising *conditioned*
the reflex.
The question is - once more - who and how and when conditioned
the self-expressive reflex. How the signal emerges without
prior sign repeated ad nauseam?
E:
> How have I carefully evaded the question? What is the question? Is
it
> 'how does this theory apply?" What I've been talking about is a
> theory itself,
...not how it applies to your provocative statement.
Once more, Erik
Thanks for good mental calisthenics. These questions are
far from simple and superficial, so shold the answers be.
I feel guilty to mislead your 'defence'. In the beginning I knew
too little to formulate the question. I only felt that something was
wrong.
Erik A. Mattila
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> With your own example describing, how f.ex. advertising *conditioned*
> the reflex.
> The question is - once more - who and how and when conditioned
> the self-expressive reflex. How the signal emerges without
> prior sign repeated ad nauseam?
I see. Well, the idea of 'self-expression' is embedded in the discourse
of fine art, and is more or less cultural. So you could say that culture
is responsible for mythologizing the concept. When? Fairly recently, in
historical terms. I would guess mid 19th century, but the idea has become
more popular since Van Gogh and the rest of Expressionism.
How? It works like this:
Art Critic. "That painting is so self-expressesive"
Critic Critic: "What do you mean?"
Art Critic: "I mean the artist has managed to express himself with this
work."
CC: "How can you tell"
"Well, look at the work. Look at the angst. Look at the furious
brushstokes"
CC" "But why is that 'self-expressive"
"The artist is obviously emotionionl, you can see that"
CC: "I can't really see that. How do you know the artist painted that in
a state of calm?"
"Because you can tell from the work that he was emoting"
CC: "But he may have been contriving the whole thing, carefully creating
wild brushstokes and jagged angles while in deep Zen meditatin?"
"No, if you know what you're looking at, you can tell the difference".
CC: "The difference between what?"
"Between self-expression and it's forgery"
CC: "How so?"
"Listen, asshole, if you would take the time to read some art magazines
you would understand what I'm talking about. Otherwise its useless trying
to explain it to you. EVERYBODY knows what self expression is!"
So what's happening here in this imaginary conversation? Putting
semiotics aside for the moment, look at if from the point of view of
classic logic. Here you can see, hopefully, that 'self-expression',
whatever it may be, is the 'given' of the argument that the Art Critic is
making. In a very formal logic construction, such as x = y, where x=2 is
'given' therefore y - 2, the presence of a 'given' is perfectly
legitimate, since that's what logicians do. But in natural language, the
'given' creates problems. In a statement like " I enjoy owning this
Jasper Johns painting" the 'given' is the meaning of the verb 'to own'
since very few English speaking people have a clear idea of what it means
to 'own' something in a descriptive sense. Sure, EVERYBODY understasnds
'to own' -- it means 'to have something' or to 'possess something' (and it
is contiunally defined by words that mean the same thing.) "To own means
to own something" sort of thing.
Law dictionaries are very interesting because in litigation there is a
real need to distinguish between athe abstract and the concrete, because
in most legal procedings (unless it is a totaliarian court that persecutes
persons for their thoughts) must address the concrete. In Law
dictionaries the verb "to own" is defined as purely abstract, except for
one important instance of concreteness. That is that 'ownership' is a
'right', granted by the state, and the 'owner' can call on the power of
the state to control other's access to the thing that is 'owned'. The
rest of the meaning of 'to own' is very abstract - yet socially
functional. The extreme example is the concept of "manna' in the South
Pacific Islands, which is a qulity of 'ownership' that these cultures
assign to objects and ideas. This person 'owns' this song, canoe, story,
or coconut tree. The object is said to contain 'manna' subsequently. The
anthropologists claim the 'manna' is in the heads of the Islanders, of
course, and not in the object. But functionally, it makes no difference
where the idea is located, since its effect on culture will be the same.
The same is true of the concept of "self expression' and 'expressionistic'
art. Again, putting semiotics aside, in Critical Theory this is called a
'naturalized concept". What is meant by 'naturalized' is that the
concept, value or attribute is thought of as something that exists in
nature independant of human will, history or culture. The idea of 'human
nature' is such a concept. It assumes there is some universal standard,
or basis, for human behavior that is outside of cultural specifics. "Art"
is another naturalizec concept, when it is assumed that there is something
about 'Art' that is independant of specific histories of discrete human
societies. You can see by these examples that doors of contention and
heated debate are being opened, because anyone who holds naturalized
concepts close to their feeling of order in the world has a very vested
interested in upholding to validity of his or her concepts.
In the Republican National Convention a few years back, in Texas as I
recall, the slogan of the day was "Return to Good Old American Family
Values" or something like that. I was watching it on TV, and a reporter
asked a woman who was carrying a banner that said that "What are the Good
Old American Family Values? She answered "I don't know, but I know that I
am for them!"
But a much better example of how the 'myth' operates in society is in
Roland Barthes "Mythologies." It is very enjoyable to read. The book is
in two sections. The first is a series of short essays that are example
of myths in society. "The Brain of Einstein" "The Face of Garbo"
"Soapsuds and Detergents" "Wrestling" and many more. Each essay brings
the reader to a confrontation with 'truth', more or less, about the
particular subject under examination. It is quite clever and humorous.
The second section is theory, explaining how 'myth' works in the
theoretical mode. It is challenging, but Barthes is a wonderful writer
and can carry the readers interest along very eloquently.
Incidentally, I think your 'River' sculpture is a tour de force.
Wonderful. It says something to me about geology -- I mean 'the science
of..." because of the way it presented. The earth is taken apart and
examined, and the conflict between primal forces, water and stone, are
considered and examined. It seems very intellectual and analytical. But
there is a Zen quality there, and I think that is the reduction of nature
to two opposing/yielding forces. While the more yielding force wins, the
enormity of the contest speaks of forever. (I mean there's so much rock
on our rock, the earth.} Anyway, just to let you know what the work
'means' to me.
But you've given me a good idea. I was trying to figure out how to depict
the geology of the area I am living in to show the 'big' picture of the
Salton Sea, Colorado River, Colorado River Delta, Laguna Salads and the
Gulf of California. Up until this time I've been working with photos from
space, GIS mapping, and such, and I have really been disappointed with the
results. After seeing your work I think it would be better to do a much
more ideographic approach, using a 3D application.
The Christ sculptures weren't that accessible to me. This is no comment
on the success or failure of your work. I just can't get past the
proliferation of Christ in Art -- I find it impossible to look at
representations and not get overwhelmed with mountains of imagery. But
that's my problem, certainly not yours.
Erik
>
Lauri.L.
Was it Marilyn, who in her first response said
you sound like Money DeLight.
In article <37949E4C...@tomatoweb.com>,
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Lauri.L." wrote:
How the signal emerges without
> > prior sign repeated ad nauseam?
Erik:
> How? It works like this:
>
> Art Critic. "That painting is so self-expressesive"
>(...)
> "Because you can tell from the work that he was emoting"
> EVERYBODY knows what self expression is!"
> if you would take the time to read some art
> magazines
> you would understand what I'm talking about. Otherwise its useless
trying
> to explain it to you. (...)
* * *
Now is the time to confess our mutual agreement.
There is plenty of artzyfartzy artspeak,
that is only myth. The modern art makes mythical heroes
like DeKoonig and Rotko who cannot even paint.
No anal-retentive craftmanship no art.
That is something I tried to refer with the example
of Scandinavian art histories. We take continental
concepts what is art at the moment. The local artists
make use of accepted schema, because they have
learned, indoctrinated conditioned to believe
this is what is called art. Many of them here, and no doubt
even there, hardly have a self to express.
> Here you can see, hopefully, that 'self-expression',
> whatever it may be, is the 'given' of the argument that the Art Critic
is
> making.
> The same is true of the concept of "Myth' and
'mythical' art.
As you felt forced to admit, at the time of van Gogh and
expressionism, the critics had a gift to see something as
genuine self-expression, as it were not worn out
to a style, a myth.
I cannot, however, agree with the common notation
that art can be made only of revolutionary, novelty.
Most of that kind belong to curiosity shops,
not to galleries.
* * *
For me,
art is very much a craft. To produce objects
that please or tease the eye and mind.
( I like Escher).
Usually there is some kind of skill
involved, like in Rothko.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
Jonathan Clift
>
>"Lauri.L." wrote:
>
>> With your own example describing, how f.ex. advertising *conditioned*
>> the reflex.
>> The question is - once more - who and how and when conditioned
>> the self-expressive reflex. How the signal emerges without
>> prior sign repeated ad nauseam?
>
>I see. Well, the idea of 'self-expression' is embedded in the discourse
>of fine art, and is more or less cultural. So you could say that culture
>is responsible for mythologizing the concept. When? Fairly recently, in
>historical terms. I would guess mid 19th century, but the idea has become
>more popular since Van Gogh and the rest of Expressionism.
>
>How? It works like this:
>
>Art Critic. "That painting is so self-expressesive"
>Critic Critic: "What do you mean?"
I think I'm having the same problem as Lauri with this. I have a hunch
that it might be because your original example to explain the basics of
semiotics may have been, necessarily, oversimplified.
With the Stop sign, you described a sign which triggered links to a
lexicon of ideas. Then, for a myth, that collapses. Lauri seems to be
saying that, if we follow the process backwards, at some time it wasn't
a myth, and if that was the case then, then why shouldn't it also not-
be-a-myth for some people now. There seem to me to be two usages of the
word 'myth' floating around here. Since I don't know anything of
semiotics (is this structuralism, or is semiotics just a part of that
subject?) that's about as far as I can get.
One major problem I think I see with the line you are taking is that
when it is operating as sign/signifier/signified it is all very
relative, because it depends on the individual's own unique lexicon, but
once it collapses you seem able to state in absolute terms that it's a
myth. Am I just tilting at a windmill of my own ignorance here, or is
this something that semioticians have difficulties with?
I have some more thoughts on this, but I need some time to get them in
order. Hope you and Lauri don't mind me butting in on what has the
potential to be an interesting discussion.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Clift
E-mail (at=@, dot=.) - jc at ipsart dot demon dot co dot uk
Lauri.L.
Jonathan Clift <j...@institute.of.curiosity> wrote:
>
> I have some more thoughts on this, but I need some time to get them in
> order. Hope you and Lauri don't mind me butting in on what has the
> potential to be an interesting discussion.
>
> Jonathan
> --
> Jonathan Clift
> E-mail (at=@, dot=.) - jc at ipsart dot demon dot co dot uk
>
welcome Jonathan,
for my part the discussion is almost over.
When a dialog is between two
persons who are more intellectual than intelligent
it turns so easily to "yes, but" which
helps no-one.
-lauri
Erik A. Mattila
> for my part the discussion is almost over.
> When a dialog is between two
> persons who are more intellectual than intelligent
> it turns so easily to "yes, but" which
> helps no-one.
I'm a bit troubled by that statement, Lauri. I've really spent a lot of
time and effort presenting these ideas. Are you saying that you are just
an intellectual tourist? --and why include me in that. I happen to be
very serious about theory, which is both rigorous and challenging.
Hopefully I'm just not understanding you correctly, but you seem to dismiss
it off as if it had no value other than your personal entertainment.
Anyone can sit around on their ass and wish for instant enlightment and
push-button knowledge -- that's what they invented TV for.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
some one misrepresents, you don't say "You're a @###!**&^^ Myther!
Abraham Lincoln didn't say "I cannot tell a myth." I know that sounds
silly, but that how I test meanings. You know, try them out in context.
My sense of the vernacular is that it distinguishes between fact and
fiction. My guess is that it came to be used this way was when
'science' began to stand for 'truth' in culture. It's probably a
component ot the Enlightenment, not unrelated to the idea of a gulf
between neoclassicism and scientific reason.
In this sense I see a strong relationship between myth, myth and myth.
Mythology, vernacular 'myth' and Roland Barthes 'mythologies.'
What's truely ambiguous is 'truth." What the hell does that mean? A
statement whose contradiction is self-contradictory? Are we talking
Kozmic Truff here, swearing in at a court of law, true love, to the best
of my recollection, to thine ownself be true, a carpenter's true (the
window frame is plumb and true) True Lies, true blue or whaaaat?
When Paul Simon sang "the myth of fingerprints" what did he mean?
Your true friend, Erik
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> I was wondering when the word 'myth' came to mean an untruth,
> a lie, in the vernacular. Not everything we imagine is untrue.
> It always meant to me, a story containing a truth.
>
> Just skimmed through the posts on RAF to distract myself from
> my dental appointment, now, I think I'm looking forward to seeing
> the dentist.
>
> Marilyn
>
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca
> Victoria BC Canada
Lauri.L.
our conversation, too. I know you are serious,
close to religious fervor.
Exchanging opinions, however, seldom endin an situation
where you have mine and I have yours.
Once more, thanks.
So I welcome Jonthan
Lauri.L.
> I'm a bit troubled by that statement, Lauri.
Still feeling guilty.
I did take that discussion seriously,
I learned a lot,
I believe it has affected my way of thinking,
but not yet sure.
There was however, a uncomfortable feeling.
Maybe I used too harsh language, the
nuances of English are not so easy.
It is exactly that kind of pondering
that keeps me reading A.br.
* * *
I read Kay's goodbye,
I feel scared and lonely
Erik A. Mattila
a little disagreement here and there. Usually my anger episodes last
six or seven minutes, then I get distracted. What was I mad about....?
By the way, I'm not fervent about this stuff. I just find it very
interesting.
Anyway, put your 'guilt' to rest. Your 'crimes' are not greater than
mine.
Erik
"Lauri.L." wrote:
> In article <379651C7...@tomatoweb.com>,
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit troubled by that statement, Lauri.
>
> Still feeling guilty.
> I did take that discussion seriously,
> I learned a lot,
> I believe it has affected my way of thinking,
> but not yet sure.
>
> There was however, a uncomfortable feeling.
> Maybe I used too harsh language, the
> nuances of English are not so easy.
>
> It is exactly that kind of pondering
> that keeps me reading A.br.
> * * *
> I read Kay's goodbye,
> I feel scared and lonely
>
paulp...@my-deja.com
term.
What do I care about how an artist feels? I care
about his ideas and whether or not he can
communicate them.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/