Intrinsic attributes of a work or art
emat...@tomatoweb.com
of art has cropped up frequently, I want to solicit viewpoints on this issue.
1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this work?
By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
2. Semiology, the 'science of signs' demonstrates that we understand the
'meaning' of an object by way of a process of sign, signifier, and
signified. The sign being the physical object (the work of art), the
signifier being the pyscholoigical process of mediation between object and
meaning, and the signified being the shopping list of associations that an
individual may need to render the sign meaningful and comprehensible.
3. Following this, the location of 'meaning' of the work of art is within
the signified, often spoken of as lexia, lexical index, sociolects, or
ideolects in semiotic theory. If this is not the case, where does 'meaning'
reside?
4. How could a work of art have 'intrinsic meaning' outside of the human
individual's capacity to ascribe meaning to the physical object?
5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
your views?
6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation, wherein the
'meaning' that any African might ascribe to the piece is subsidiary to our own
aesthetic imaginations?
Erik Mattila
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> 5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
> has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
> your views?
>
I was wondering if you would get to this one! Yes, semiotics is generally
a load of waffle that doesn't arrive anywhere. It all sounds very impressive,
but, when you examine the detail, it doesn't actually say anything new. Mind
you, if you need to fill up a paragraph to go on the wall next to a painting
at an exhibition, any arbitary clutch of 20 lines of semiotics is unlikely
to be questioned or considered much out of the ordinary.
If you wish to talk of aesthetics, you can use the language of philosophy,
aka English.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mark webber
> Since the evocation of the idea of an 'intrinsic' value or quatlity of a work
> of art has cropped up frequently, I want to solicit viewpoints on this issue.
Yes, it does make the headlines here, in one way or another, quite often,
and that's what I like best about this place. Its always fun to try to
approach it from different angles, so let's dance.
>
>
> 1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this
> work? By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
> inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
Let's try it this way: besides a work of art, does other stuff have
intrinsic qualities? (Not to imply that the intrinsic qualities of a
"well-made chair" or a "well-designed automobile" are measured or
experienced the same way as "good art".)
If chairs, why not art?
But if one agrees with the notion that there can be a well-made chair, one
needs to have experience of a few examples of poorly-made chairs and
well-made chairs to begin to asses a chair.
Sound good?
If art is about (for one individual) illustrating theory then the
intrinsic vlaue might be seen in how well it does that.
If it is, for another, about how realisticly something is rendered, then
the intrinsic value would be tied to that, and if, for another individual,
it has to do with transfixing a gazer with decisions relating to shape and
color, then there will be other criteria to work with.
>
> 2. Semiology, the 'science of signs' demonstrates that we understand the
> 'meaning' of an object by way of a process of sign, signifier, and
> signified. The sign being the physical object (the work of art), the
> signifier being the pyscholoigical process of mediation between object and
> meaning, and the signified being the shopping list of associations that an
> individual may need to render the sign meaningful and comprehensible.
I'm not sure about this, but I get the feeling that sometimes people shift
back and forth, when speaking of semiotics and art, between the sign being
the work and the sign being the subject matter within the work.
>
> 3. Following this, the location of 'meaning' of the work of art is within
> the signified, often spoken of as lexia, lexical index, sociolects, or
> ideolects in semiotic theory. If this is not the case, where does 'meaning'
> reside?
Which meaning? Meanings tied to the subject? the form? I suppose they all
reside somewhere within the the four edges. But I'm not sure I understand
your use of "reside."
>
> 4. How could a work of art have 'intrinsic meaning' outside of the human
> individual's capacity to ascribe meaning to the physical object?
Suppose for a moment that all a painting might have to offer an individual
is color decisions that seem stunning and paint application that seems
otherworldly. (I'm not saying it won't or can't do more or less for
someone else.)
Is this what you mean by "ascribing meaning?"
>
> 5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
> has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
> your views?
I don't think I hate theory, but I think it means less to me than to some
folks. I'm amused by the notion that everything is tied to theory - that
is a very dry notion.
I would hope that when we're all grown up we can chat about our views, our
preferences, our tastes without sounding like we are theorizing.
> 6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
> epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
> relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation,...
Can't they be both? Mustn't they be both?
> wherein the
> 'meaning' that any African might ascribe to the piece is subsidiary to our own
> aesthetic imaginations?
Isn't it very likely that *some* Africans are more sensitive to visual
experience than other Africans? Isn't it rather racist to think all
Africans reacted the same way to African sculptures?
Isn't it very likely that every culture, every continent has or had its
esthetes and its dim bulbs?
'Cept maybe Australia, where they're all dim. (Kidding. Really.)
Webber
Andrew Werby
> Since the evocation of the idea of an 'intrinsic' value or quatlity of a work
> of art has cropped up frequently, I want to solicit viewpoints on this issue.
>
[For any particular reason? Do you have your own opinions on these subjects
which you are holding in abeyance for the time being, giving us all enough
rope to hang ourselves? I don't care- gimme that noose!]
>
> 1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this work?
> By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
> inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
[Two questions here: It seems evident that a work of visual art can indeed
possess intrinsic qualities (plural) such as color, shape, size, weight,
texture- just like any other physical object, although if one subscribes
to the notion of non-corporeal "conceptual" art one would say that it isn't
essential that it should do so. The second question is unrelated- communication
of ideology can be subtle or overt, and depends on a pre-established frame of
reference in the mind of the viewer. Communication of an aesthetic is similar,
but doesn't require a referant- the aesthetic can be incorporated in the piece
itself.]
> 2. Semiology, the 'science of signs' demonstrates that we understand the
> 'meaning' of an object by way of a process of sign, signifier, and
> signified. The sign being the physical object (the work of art), the
> signifier being the pyscholoigical process of mediation between object and
> meaning, and the signified being the shopping list of associations that an
> individual may need to render the sign meaningful and comprehensible.
>
> 3. Following this, the location of 'meaning' of the work of art is within
> the signified, often spoken of as lexia, lexical index, sociolects, or
> ideolects in semiotic theory. If this is not the case, where does 'meaning'
> reside?
[Semiotic theory, as defined above, seems to refer to a small subset of what I
would consider "meaning". If one limits oneself to verbal, literary, or
narrative
ideas of meaning, this can "explain" a work of art in non-visual terms. This is
about as useful a method of describing art as a verbal narrative would be in
"explaining" Beethoven's 9th symphony to a deaf person might be. What can you
say about it? A "shopping list" of associations might indeed be evoked by the
music, but these will likely differ from person to person. One could say- "now
it's like a storm at sea" or "this is like the dawn coming over the mountains",
but the sum of these associations would be a woefully inadequate interpretation
of the piece. Unfortunately, the English language- and I suspect language in
general- has no way of accurately translating from music- or visual art- to
speech. While a piece of art may have things going on in it that have a
structure
and logic of their own, analyzing it by ascribing verbal concepts to
essentially
non-verbal constructs will not, in my opinion, provide a very deep insight into
what's really going on.]
> 4. How could a work of art have 'intrinsic meaning' outside of the human
> individual's capacity to ascribe meaning to the physical object?
[The capacity of each individual will vary. Some people exist who lack the
ability
to ascribe meaning to anything that can't be put into words. These
unfortunates,
unlike the deaf and blind, have a disability that isn't recognized or
treated in
our current verbally-oriented society. Some of these people even become
artists,
and often feel the compulsion to cram their works with the "signifiers"
that make
them meaningful in their view. However, there is no necessity for any of
that if
one can relate to forms and colors on their own terms. Every picture need
not tell
a story- it can work on an entirely different level.]
>
> 5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
> has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
> your views?
[Semiotics can be a useful tool for some things, like literary analysis. I
find it,
however, of limited helpfulness when addressing issues outside its
compass, like
visual art. Is it possible to "deconstruct" a natural object? Take a
quartz crystal,
for instance. It may have intrinsic qualities that appeal to ones
aesthetic sense,
but does it have "meaning" subject to analysis? Certainly one can analyze ones
reactions to it, or ones associations with it, but for insight into its
aesthetic
value one must, I fear, look elsewhere. I don't hate theory per se, although I
confess some impatience with most theory-based art. But I think it's
possible to
construct a theory of beauty that doesn't rely on the transmission of
verbal cues
as the basis of aesthetic appreciation.]
>
> 6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
> epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
> relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation, wherein the
> 'meaning' that any African might ascribe to the piece is subsidiary to our own
> aesthetic imaginations?
>
> Erik Mattila
[If all one values or can appreciate in a work of art are the
historico-cultural
ideas implicit in a piece, then one must confess oneself at a loss when
confronted
with art from outside ones own milieu. If one accepts that, the most
aesthetically
sophisticated viewer from outside must subordinate his or her impressions
to that of
the most naive viewer from within. But there is a lot more to a work of
art than the
hierarchical relationships, economic interests, religious dicta, and
sexual politics
inherent in a given culture, and this unverbal, non-narrative, and essentially
obdurate quality is readily perceived by open-minded and visually-oriented
viewers,
whatever cultural or socio-economic group they may represent. If we look
at Egyptian
art, for example, which is fairly remote from our cultural-historical
perspective, we
can still see that the objects made for the Pharohs are generally aesthetically
superior to those made for the common herd, which (to me, at least) would
seem to
demonstrate the continuity of this notion of intrinsic artistic merit
across the
widest cultural gaps.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
gotts...@my-dejanews.com
> > Since the evocation of the idea of an 'intrinsic' value or quatlity of a
work
> > of art has cropped up frequently, I want to solicit viewpoints on this
issue.
>
> Yes, it does make the headlines here, in one way or another, quite often,
> and that's what I like best about this place. Its always fun to try to
> approach it from different angles, so let's dance.
In which case, I hope you don't mind the addition of another dancer.
> > 1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this
> > work? By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that
way,
> > inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
>
> Let's try it this way: besides a work of art, does other stuff have
> intrinsic qualities? (Not to imply that the intrinsic qualities of a
> "well-made chair" or a "well-designed automobile" are measured or
> experienced the same way as "good art".)
>
> If chairs, why not art?
> But if one agrees with the notion that there can be a well-made chair, one
> needs to have experience of a few examples of poorly-made chairs and
> well-made chairs to begin to asses a chair.
>
> Sound good?
Or one could - conversely - start with a definition of the function of a
chair, for example, to sit someone comfortably. Of course, this is a broad
definition and would allow such things as large cushions to be considered
"chairs", but let us for the moment accept the definition. Does one need to
have had prior experiences with good and bad chairs, therefore, to say
whether the present chair one is considering is good or bad? Doesn't one
merely have to sit in it to find out, and then compare the result to the
defined purpose of a "chair"?
> If art is about (for one individual) illustrating theory then the
> intrinsic vlaue might be seen in how well it does that.
To paraphrase yourself: "Let's try it this way: besides a work of art, does
other stuff have such values?"
A work of art may indeed illustrate a theory - but so might a scientific
paper.
> If it is, for another, about how realisticly something is rendered, then
> the intrinsic value would be tied to that, and if, for another individual,
> it has to do with transfixing a gazer with decisions relating to shape and
> color, then there will be other criteria to work with.
These are all good starting points, but I imagine that many art-lovers would
not value art according to one criterion alone.
> > wherein the
> > 'meaning' that any African might ascribe to the piece is subsidiary to our
own
> > aesthetic imaginations?
>
> Isn't it very likely that *some* Africans are more sensitive to visual
> experience than other Africans? Isn't it rather racist to think all
> Africans reacted the same way to African sculptures?
It also raises the question of whether one's cultural background is vital in
the valuation of art - which leads us back to the question of whether art has
'instrinsic value'.
If the highest art is to be respected as something "otherworldly", would this
not also imply that such work is also "othernationalistic"? In other words:
might we not locate 'instrinsic value' in those works which seem to have some
universal appeal, regardless of whether or not we are African, American or,
indeed, Australian? Ergo, those art works which need a theory to impress
themselves on others become immediately less "othernational" and
"otherworldly" - they become, in fact, more rooted in personal symbolism.
> Isn't it very likely that every culture, every continent has or had its
> esthetes and its dim bulbs?
>
> 'Cept maybe Australia, where they're all dim. (Kidding. Really.)
Regards,
Seven Octaves
(I thought it was time I had a nom de plume - well, why not? Granted, though,
it is a borrowed one.)
emat...@tomatoweb.com
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
> In article <7ciupr$kuc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > Since the evocation of the idea of an 'intrinsic' value or quatlity of a work
> > of art has cropped up frequently, I want to solicit viewpoints on this issue.
> >
> [For any particular reason? Do you have your own opinions on these subjects
> which you are holding in abeyance for the time being, giving us all enough
> rope to hang ourselves? I don't care- gimme that noose!]
I have no rope, Andrew. The reason that I am interested is because I can't
grasp the idea that a 'thing' could have meaning in and of itself. I mean,
if someone asked me this question, I wouldn't be able to answer the question.
My view is that meaning and value are our part of the equation. But I want
to hear the argument against this. Sometimes I think that saying the work of
art has intrinsic meaning or value is just a manner of speech, and if the
proposition was scrutinized it would turn out to be inaccurate.
> >
> > 1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this work?
> > By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
> > inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
>
> [Two questions here: It seems evident that a work of visual art can indeed
> possess intrinsic qualities (plural) such as color, shape, size, weight,
> texture- just like any other physical object, although if one subscribes
> to the notion of non-corporeal "conceptual" art one would say that it isn't
> essential that it should do so. The second question is unrelated- communication
> of ideology can be subtle or overt, and depends on a pre-established frame of
> reference in the mind of the viewer. Communication of an aesthetic is similar,
> but doesn't require a referant- the aesthetic can be incorporated in the piece
> itself.]
I obviously misspoke. I'm talking specifically about 'meaning' and 'value'
attributes.
Yet there is visual semiotics, where the sign function of a picture operates
in the same manner as natural language. Here's a couple of www. resources on
this topic:
1. Pictorial Semiotics (Göran Sonesson) The state of the art in fourteen
pieces and charts.
http://www.bm.lu.se/~arthist/sonesson/pict_sem_1.html
2. The iconclass project, which is building up an electronic classification
scheme of visual material.
http://iconclass.let.ruu.nl/ At present the system contains approximately
24,000 definitions of objects, persons, events, situations and abstract ideas.
>
> > 4. How could a work of art have 'intrinsic meaning' outside of the human
> > individual's capacity to ascribe meaning to the physical object?
>
> [The capacity of each individual will vary. Some people exist who lack the
> ability
> to ascribe meaning to anything that can't be put into words. These
> unfortunates,
> unlike the deaf and blind, have a disability that isn't recognized or
> treated in
> our current verbally-oriented society. Some of these people even become
> artists,
> and often feel the compulsion to cram their works with the "signifiers"
> that make
> them meaningful in their view. However, there is no necessity for any of
> that if
> one can relate to forms and colors on their own terms. Every picture need
> not tell
> a story- it can work on an entirely different level.]
Yes, but it is still semiosis, regardless if it is natural language or another
symbolic form. As such, the sign will call up the lexical index in the
'reader's mind' and subsequently 'meaning' and 'value' is part of the reader's
share.
> >
> > 5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
> > has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
> > your views?
>
> [Semiotics can be a useful tool for some things, like literary analysis. I
> find it,
> however, of limited helpfulness when addressing issues outside its
> compass, like
> visual art. Is it possible to "deconstruct" a natural object? Take a
> quartz crystal,
> for instance. It may have intrinsic qualities that appeal to ones
> aesthetic sense,
> but does it have "meaning" subject to analysis? Certainly one can analyze ones
> reactions to it, or ones associations with it, but for insight into its
> aesthetic
> value one must, I fear, look elsewhere. I don't hate theory per se, although I
> confess some impatience with most theory-based art. But I think it's
> possible to
> construct a theory of beauty that doesn't rely on the transmission of
> verbal cues
> as the basis of aesthetic appreciation.]
>
I don't think that they need be 'verbal clues,' Andrew. What I'm trying to
look at is how an object, such as a crystal (a very good example) could have
intrinsic meaning and value. These seem to be very human things to me, so I
would say that we 'attach' meaning and value to the crystal. And somewhere
in our referencing system, we hold data about 'beauty' which we attach to
objects, for various reasons.
> > 6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
> > epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
> > relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation, wherein the
> > 'meaning' that any African might ascribe to the piece is subsidiary to our own
> > aesthetic imaginations?
> >
> > Erik Mattila
>
> [If all one values or can appreciate in a work of art are the
> historico-cultural
> ideas implicit in a piece, then one must confess oneself at a loss when
> confronted
> with art from outside ones own milieu. If one accepts that, the most
> aesthetically
> sophisticated viewer from outside must subordinate his or her impressions
> to that of
> the most naive viewer from within.
Unless the historico-cultural ideas in themselves construct the ideal of
beauty or significance, which I would argue is the case. What happens is
that we attach our own ideal onto the object, and it 'means' something else
to us than it did in its homeland. We could turn the proposition inside-out,
and think of works of art from other cultures that do not seem to be art to
us, because they fail to qualify to our cultural ideal.
But there is a lot more to a work of
> art than the
> hierarchical relationships, economic interests, religious dicta, and
> sexual politics
> inherent in a given culture, and this unverbal, non-narrative, and essentially
> obdurate quality is readily perceived by open-minded and visually-oriented
> viewers,
> whatever cultural or socio-economic group they may represent. If we look
> at Egyptian
> art, for example, which is fairly remote from our cultural-historical
> perspective, we
> can still see that the objects made for the Pharohs are generally aesthetically
> superior to those made for the common herd, which (to me, at least) would
> seem to
> demonstrate the continuity of this notion of intrinsic artistic merit
> across the
> widest cultural gaps.]
>
So too Florence, much less distant. It seems the majority of art produced
for 'the herd' would be regarded as Kitsch by our standards, yet the rank and
file really treasured it. But you see, I agree with you in many ways, it's
just that there is nothing intrinsic about it -- it just fits our
definitions.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > Since the evocation of the idea of an 'intrinsic' value or quatlity of a work
> > of art has cropped up frequently, I want to solicit viewpoints on this issue.
>
> and that's what I like best about this place. Its always fun to try to
> approach it from different angles, so let's dance.
>
> >
> > work? By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
> > inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
>
> intrinsic qualities? (Not to imply that the intrinsic qualities of a
> "well-made chair" or a "well-designed automobile" are measured or
> experienced the same way as "good art".)
>
> If chairs, why not art?
>
> But if one agrees with the notion that there can be a well-made chair, one
> needs to have experience of a few examples of poorly-made chairs and
> well-made chairs to begin to asses a chair.
>
> Sound good?
>
> If art is about (for one individual) illustrating theory then the
> intrinsic vlaue might be seen in how well it does that.
>
> If it is, for another, about how realisticly something is rendered, then
> the intrinsic value would be tied to that, and if, for another individual,
> it has to do with transfixing a gazer with decisions relating to shape and
> color, then there will be other criteria to work with.
>
> >
> > 2. Semiology, the 'science of signs' demonstrates that we understand the
> > 'meaning' of an object by way of a process of sign, signifier, and
> > signified. The sign being the physical object (the work of art), the
> > signifier being the pyscholoigical process of mediation between object and
> > meaning, and the signified being the shopping list of associations that an
> > individual may need to render the sign meaningful and comprehensible.
>
> I'm not sure about this, but I get the feeling that sometimes people shift
> back and forth, when speaking of semiotics and art, between the sign being
> the work and the sign being the subject matter within the work.
>
> >
> > 3. Following this, the location of 'meaning' of the work of art is within
> > the signified, often spoken of as lexia, lexical index, sociolects, or
> > ideolects in semiotic theory. If this is not the case, where does 'meaning'
> > reside?
>
> Which meaning? Meanings tied to the subject? the form? I suppose they all
> reside somewhere within the the four edges. But I'm not sure I understand
> your use of "reside."
If someone says to me that this object has intrinsic meaning I take it to
mean that the object somehow 'contains' meaning, which strikes me as 'magic.'
And the object can be transported from place to place, end up on Mars, and
it would continue to 'mean' by virtue of its intrinsic capacity to 'mean.'
In that case, I would say that 'meaning' resides in the object. (By the way,
"Mars' was used by Hilary Puntnam to make one of his arguments).
Conversely, my belief is that 'meaning' resides in the viewer. In either
case, by 'reside' I mean the location of meaning -- since 'intrinsic' to me
means something that is within the object, or human mind.
>
> >
> > 4. How could a work of art have 'intrinsic meaning' outside of the human
> > individual's capacity to ascribe meaning to the physical object?
>
> Suppose for a moment that all a painting might have to offer an individual
> is color decisions that seem stunning and paint application that seems
> otherworldly. (I'm not saying it won't or can't do more or less for
> someone else.)
>
> Is this what you mean by "ascribing meaning?"
Well, I didn't want to use the term 'signifyer' for simplicity's sake, but
now I'm using the work 'attach.' But yes, your examples reflect what I
meant. Perhaps it would be fair also to say 'are stunning' and 'are
otherworldly' rather than 'seems,' because insofar as out experience of the
painting goes, it is all very real -- as real as it gets, as a matter of
fact.
>
> >
> > 5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
> > has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
> > your views?
>
> I don't think I hate theory, but I think it means less to me than to some
> folks. I'm amused by the notion that everything is tied to theory - that
> is a very dry notion.
There seems to be some who do, to varying degrees. But I'm asking for an
alternative explanation, i.e. how can meaning and value be intrinsic to an
object. I believe that anyone who would hold that view, and take it appart
critically to see how it works, would ultimately agree that by definition the
'work of art' is in fact a complex process, which involves an object and an
audiance, and the audiance is responsible for providing meaning and value.
>
> I would hope that when we're all grown up we can chat about our views, our
> preferences, our tastes without sounding like we are theorizing.
But we do it all the time, regardless of our stated preferences. How can you
vote, for example, without theorizing? (flipping a coin is not a good
answer). The statement that the work of art has intrinsic meaning and value
is a theory, although it is so naturalized as a concept that it doesn't seem
to be.
>
> > 6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
> > epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
> > relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation,...
>
> Can't they be both? Mustn't they be both?
Boy, Mark, that clipping is as good as Robin William's editing of the Nixon
speeh in "Good Morning, Vietnam!" But I'll go along with the fragment and
your question. Sure, they are both...my sense, given the rest of the
sentence below, is that the African art was relevant to modern art due to the
meanings that mondern artists (and the art world) attached to them -- which
has nothing to do with Africa or African culture. Well, I can see that can
create a great debate, but "Africa' of the European imagination is not the
real Africa. The map is not the territory.
>
> > wherein the
> > 'meaning' that any African might ascribe to the piece is subsidiary to our own
> > aesthetic imaginations?
>
> Isn't it very likely that *some* Africans are more sensitive to visual
> experience than other Africans? Isn't it rather racist to think all
> Africans reacted the same way to African sculptures?
Probably a certainty, of course, there is always diversity of experience,
thought and opinion. Where do I say that all Africans reacted the same way?
The whole point is that whatever meaning and value Africans have towards the
work of art are not related to our readings of the same pieces.
>
> Isn't it very likely that every culture, every continent has or had its
> esthetes and its dim bulbs?
>
> 'Cept maybe Australia, where they're all dim. (Kidding. Really.)
>
> Webber
>
That was a downunderhanded thing to say. But HUGE beer cans do sort of have
intrinsic meaning and value.
Erik Mattila
mark webber
say and more. Very nice.
Webber
-N.
Andrew,
As I inched through your extensive responses, which I enjoyed, I threw
down so many penalty flags, that I found I had lost sight of the
ground...and realized that it was easier to toss the flags down than to
address each one individually, which to my horror concealed another
beneath it. To quell my own loss of morale at the magnitude of the
undertaking, I have instead choosen to respond by leaving the field of
play and entering the corridors of the stadium, grabbing a bite to eat on
my way back home.
Here is some food for thought.
Since I got some milage out of a Borges quote in another context, I'll use
him again. What follows is the first lines of Foucault's book "The Order
of Things", from his preface:
"This book first arose out of a passge in Borges, out of the laughter that
shattered, as I read the passge, all the familiar landmarks of my thought
-- OUR thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our
geography -- breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with
which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and
continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our
age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a
'certain Chinese encyclopaedia' in which it is written that 'animals are
divided into: (a) belonging to the Emporer, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d)
sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in
the present clasification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a
very fine camelhair brush, (l) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water
pitcher, (n) that from a far way off look like flies'. In the wonderment
of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing
that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of
another system of thought, is the limitations of our own, the stark
impossibility of thinking THAT".
€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€
(Eric)
> > 1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this work?
> > By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
> > inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
(Andrew)
> [Two questions here: It seems evident that a work of visual art can indeed
> possess intrinsic qualities (plural) such as color, shape, size, weight,
> texture- just like any other physical object, although if one subscribes
> to the notion of non-corporeal "conceptual" art one would say that it isn't
> essential that it should do so. The second question is unrelated-
communication
> of ideology can be subtle or overt, and depends on a pre-established frame of
> reference in the mind of the viewer. Communication of an aesthetic is
similar,
> but doesn't require a referant- the aesthetic can be incorporated in the
piece
> itself.]
One thing to consider, is what effect the 'pre-established frame of
reference in the mind of the viewer' has upon discerning, what in a given
societal/cultural context constitutes the 'intrinsic qualities (plural)
such as color, shape, size, weight, texture- just like any other physical
object'. This compounds and complicates the issues.
Food for thought, limited to just one element: let us visit the issue of
color for a moment...
Umberto Eco from his essay "How Culture Conditions The Colors That We See":
'Johannes Itten, in his Kunst der Farbe, distinguishes between pigments as
chromatic reality and our perceptual response as chromatic effect. The
chromatic effect, it seems, depends on many factors: the nature of
surfaces, light, contrast between objects, previous knowledge, and so on.'
And later...
'Our problem, to quote Sahlins agian, is, "how then to reconcile these two
undeniable yet opposed understandings: color distinctions are naturally
based, albeit that natural distinctions are culturally constituted? The
dilemma can only be solved by reading from the cultural meaning of color
to the empirical tests of discrimination, rather than the other way
around."
and
"Now a socio-semiotic study of national flags remarks that national flags
make use of only seven colors: red, blue, green, orange, black and white.
For physical reasons, the the proportions of these colors is as follows:
Red/white/blue 16.8%
Red/white 9.5%
Red/yellow/green 7.3%
Red/white/green 6.6%
Red/white/green/black 6.6%
Blue/white 6.0%
Red/yellow/blue 5.8%
--------------------
58%
Orange, hardly distinguishable from red, is rarely used. What counts in
the perception of a flag is categorization, not discrimination. If we were
to look up the flags of the Scandinavian countries, we would realize that
the blue of the Swedish and Finnish flags (which is light) is different
from the blue of the Icelandic and Norwegian ones (which is dark). Now
look at Sweden's yellow cross on a blue field - there is not a flag in the
world with a yellow cross on a DARK BLUE background, and for good reason.
Everyone would recognize such a flag as the symbol for Sweden. (And,
thinking of Norway's dark blue cross on a red field, a flag with a light
blue cross on a red field would similiarly be recognized as Norway's
symbol.) In national flags, categorization overwhelms discrimination. This
simplification exists not only for reasons of easier perception: such
"easier perception' is supported by a previous cultural coding by virtue
of which certain colours form a clear-cut system of oppositional units
which are, in turn, clearly correlated with another system concerning
values or abstract ideas."
and...
"In everyday life, our reactivity to colour demonstrates a sort of inner
and profound solidarity between semiotic systems. Just as language is
determined by the way in which society sets up systems of values, things
and ideas, so our chromatic perception is determined by language. You may
look up your flags again: suppose there is a football match between Italy
and Holland. One will distinguish the Dutch flag from the Italian one,
even though the red of either of them, or both, were looking orange. If on
the contrary, the match were between Italy and Ireland, the Italian flag
would be characterized by a dark red, since white, green, and orange are
the Irish colours."
€€€€€€€€€€€€
Your 'viewer' and your 'artwork' always already assume a very
sophisticated cultural language and system of codes.Why hang paintings on
walls in the first place, why face them...that seems already a highly
ordered and encoded act. Why not place them face to the ground and sleep
on them? Why not stuff them into holes in the ground and kick dirt over
them? Duchamp's work: To Be Looked At With One Eye, Close to, For Almost
An Hour. From Duchamp's writings: 'classify combs by the number of their
teeth', or 'the Clock in profile. and the Inspector of Space. Note: When a
clock is seen from the side (in profile) it no longer tells the time. -MD
58".
Why give a clean smile and hand someone a rose as a gift? Why when
confronted with an octogon of a specific size, red with white border and
white graphics, at a specific height, in a specific context do we know
it's meaning is STOP. Certainly you can interpret a stop sign to have any
number of resonances, memories, associations...but you still know it is a
visual symbol, and that it means for you to stop your vehicle.
Why do we abstract paintings in time and space, how can we view an object
or painting twice, at different times of the day or in a different local
and still refer to it conceptually as the same painting, as if it somehow
ends at it's framing borders, independent of context and sequencing,
floating in space and time, integral and intrinsic to itself...rather than
constructed as such by our minds and ideologies, never commensurate with
itself. I recall seeing a Robert Ryman exhibition at the Dia Foundation in
NYC several years ago. At first , I thought I was in the company of
particular, integral white paintings. I spent a while lingering with the
paintings, and was in the galleries at that magical shift in light that
happens at dusk. My perception already heightened, those works soaked up
such a spectrum of transmogrifying ambient light in a way that left me
with some of the most coloristically complex and rich paintings I have
ever had the occasion to gaze into. I was brought in my mind to Delacroix,
some sympathetic connection had been made between the color of Ryman and
the color of Delacroix (an aside: I was overwhelemd by the beauty of the
light in Delacroix's
'Harem Girls' painting [the title escapes me, it is the one with a tiled
room, women, reflected light, and a hookah] in the Louvre. Upon revisiting
the Louvre in 1997, Delacroix had little effect on me, the light seemed
vastly different. I pine for a studio and a skylight wherein I lay in
seige, waiting for the drama of parting clouds to shower my paintings with
light. Robert Irwin? Meow).
It brought my mind to pause and reflect, that such a thing as a specific
'painting' was an abstraction. Convienience dictates that we use such a
terminology and abstraction as a lingua franca but what does it signify?
An integral object? A unique (series of) space/time event(s) seemingly
infinite in scope, range, and effect? I was also brought to reflect on
David Salle's work entitled "What Was the Reason for Your Visit to Germany
(is that the title? My memory is sluggish tonight). As I stood alone in
the cavernous DIA galleries as the sky was preparing for the night
shift, (one of those rare perfecto NYC art moments that one stumbles
into occasionally that the rest of the world should envy and which graces
and justifies putting up with the endless proliferation of bullshit that
comes along with living in NYC) I came to understand contexts, had my
momentary epiphany that an artwork will always be part of a SPECIFIC
CONTEXT, and the fact that I can NEVER experience an artwork
otherwise...under stable objective circumstances. I felt like Heraclitus.
A painting gets shipped to Germany, is it the same painting? No, it is no
longer the set of specific variables that was incarnated in NYC. Artworks
are like the Argo, continually exchanging their own substance, never
commensurate even with themselves: title, provenance, description, and
history all just wishful thinking and a hysterical attempt to stay the
dread onslought of time and circumstance...mere 'appearences'...wrangling
with forms and ideas...Sotheby's appointed in patrician array, evoking
Plato, and auctioning atmospherics of past time/space events? Does that
make me a 'contextualist', lost in a labyrinth of specificity? Am I in the
right thread?
Uh oh. I'm getting carried away.
Cheers,
-N...
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Marilyn
a lot of stuff.
I'll respond to your mention of Borges.
Reading Borges in the eighties did more than
make me laugh out loud
and realize the absurdity of the human
condition, it also cured me of my desire
to read philosophy.
I think maybe he forsaw, a world falling apart while
millions of people sit in front of computers and type
in words, their backs to the chaos outside.
As for the politics of colour:
The head horticulturist at Government House, residence of
the governor general of BC (Queen's rep.) refuses to allow
orange flowers in the gardens. He is Irish.
I'm Irish, and have heard all my youth the evils of orange.
That has no effect on me as far as viewing art. That is an activity
which transcends politics and culture, in my opinion.
That's what an epiphany is, is it not? a transcendence?
The sun's shining, back to the chaotic world.
Marilyn
Ariane
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
(snip)
> If you wish to talk of aesthetics, you can use the language of philosophy,
> aka English.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
=== A bit of ethnocentric self-congratulations mon ami? Ironically, the
language of philosophy for the English is numeric for the most part. The
topic of aesthetics is best addressed by Gaston Bachelard and his `poetics
of space' and `aesthetics, memory, and reverie' are available in very fine
English translations. Unless it is the mathematical formula for
aesthetics which you are seeking!
adieu, A.
Peter H.M. Brooks
da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca "Ariane" writes:
I took it as read that, in an English speaking newsgroup this would be
taken as meaning the language of currend discourse.
I am certainly not of the opinion that aesthetics can be reduced to
mathematics, though mathematics certainly can be deeply aesthetically
satisfying.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mark webber
>
> In which case, I hope you don't mind the addition of another dancer.
Always a pleasure.
(snippin')
> > But if one agrees with the notion that there can be a well-made chair, one
> > needs to have experience of a few examples of poorly-made chairs and
> > well-made chairs to begin to asses a chair.
> >
> > Sound good?
>
> Or one could - conversely - start with a definition of the function of a
> chair, for example, to sit someone comfortably. Of course, this is a broad
> definition and would allow such things as large cushions to be considered
> "chairs", but let us for the moment accept the definition. Does one need to
> have had prior experiences with good and bad chairs, therefore, to say
> whether the present chair one is considering is good or bad? Doesn't one
> merely have to sit in it to find out, and then compare the result to the
> defined purpose of a "chair"?
Iian, mate, may I point out that a poorly designed chair might still lift
an ass off the ground - even comfortably? Likewise a painting that only
seeks to render precisely can be a very bad painting. In fact, that is
most likely going to be the result.
>
> > If art is about (for one individual) illustrating theory then the
> > intrinsic vlaue might be seen in how well it does that.
>
> To paraphrase yourself: "Let's try it this way: besides a work of art, does
> other stuff have such values?"
You needn't paraphrase "myself" for me. I can do that endlessly. However,
you are welcome to paraphrase "me" - providing you understand what I'm
saying. Otherwise it isn't paraphrasing, is it?
For example:
>
> A work of art may indeed illustrate a theory - but so might a scientific
> paper.
This is not paraphrasing me. In addition, I'm not sure why you want to
make this point to me. Perhaps if you weren't so determined to disagree
with me, you'd notice that I am not a supporter of theory illustration.
>
> > If it is, for another, about how realisticly something is rendered, then
> > the intrinsic value would be tied to that, and if, for another individual,
> > it has to do with transfixing a gazer with decisions relating to shape and
> > color, then there will be other criteria to work with.
>
> These are all good starting points, but I imagine that many art-lovers would
> not value art according to one criterion alone.
Good starting points? Oh, ok, build away. It was not, by the way, my
intention to imply using only one. In fact, I seem to remember suggesting
that you look to other criteria. I find it rewarding, somehow, that
someone interested in little more than rendering is advising me to broaden
my horizons. How generous of you.
(snippin')
> If the highest art is to be respected as something "otherworldly", would this
> not also imply that such work is also "othernationalistic"?
I hate to brake this to you, mate, but the use of "otherworldly" when
discussing art is metaphoric. Titian was a Venetian, not a Venutian.
It is a proven fact that extraterrestrials can't make art.
> In other words:
> might we not locate 'instrinsic value' in those works which seem to have some
> universal appeal, regardless of whether or not we are African, American or,
> indeed, Australian? Ergo, those art works which need a theory to impress
> themselves on others become immediately less "othernational" and
> "otherworldly" - they become, in fact, more rooted in personal symbolism.
This is a first rate idea. Much more democratic. I detest those "These are
my top ten paintings" lists. Yes, get right on it, and please post your
results when you are finished polling.
May I suggest that to save time, when you poll Australia, skip the
settlers. The Aborigines make art, but the settlers have made no
contribution, so they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
sincerely,
Mark
Andrew Werby
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
...I can't
grasp the idea that a 'thing' could have meaning in and of itself. I mean,
if someone asked me this question, I wouldn't be able to answer the question.
My view is that meaning and value are our part of the equation. But I want
to hear the argument against this. Sometimes I think that saying the work of
art has intrinsic meaning or value is just a manner of speech, and if the
proposition was scrutinized it would turn out to be inaccurate.
> >
> > 1. How can a work of art contain intrinsic qualiti4s? How does this work?
> > By what mechanism does a physical object, arranged in this or that way,
> > inherit the capacity to communctate to us a specific ideology or aesthetic?
>
> [Two questions here: It seems evident that a work of visual art can indeed
> possess intrinsic qualities (plural) such as color, shape, size, weight,
> texture- just like any other physical object, although if one subscribes
> to the notion of non-corporeal "conceptual" art one would say that it isn't
> essential that it should do so. The second question is unrelated-
communication
> of ideology can be subtle or overt, and depends on a pre-established frame of
> reference in the mind of the viewer. Communication of an aesthetic is similar,
> but doesn't require a referant- the aesthetic can be incorporated in the piece
> itself.]
I obviously misspoke. I'm talking specifically about 'meaning' and 'value'
attributes.
>
Yet there is visual semiotics, where the sign function of a picture operates
in the same manner as natural language. Here's a couple of www. resources on
this topic:
1. Pictorial Semiotics (Göran Sonesson) The state of the art in fourteen
pieces and charts.
http://www.bm.lu.se/~arthist/sonesson/pict_sem_1.html
[It seems strange that people so evidently concerned with the communication of
meaning should be so particularly poor at saying what they mean. Wading through
Mr. Sonnesson's many pages of turgid prose led me to conclude that
semioticians
have a lot easier time with "iconic" art, where they can see a picture of
a horse,
for instance and say "Aha, that's a horse- it signifies 'horseness'", than with
what they choose to call "plastic language", with which, in spite of their best
efforts, they seem unable to deal. This they are no better at decoding than the
"man on the street", and less articulate about what they did discover. I
quote one
of his more readable passages:
"If... we suppose there to be an autonomous plastic
language, then we are con-fronted with two problems.
First, we need to discover what kinds of meanings
could be contained in the configurations, shapes
and colours themselves. But in the second place,
since any visual configuration has a potentially
infinite number of properties, we need to know which
of these properties are most likely to be relevant to
our experience. Sonesson (1989a,I.4.3-7. and
II.3.6.) speculates on the possibility of there being
a small number of topological, bodily anchored properties,
whichpredominates in such plastic interpreta-tions.
Saint-Martin (1987) approaches the problem of topology
in a more systematic man-ner. Nevertheless, it seems to
us that on this issue, in particular on its second aspect,
very little is really known thus far. "
By the way, his pictures and charts all failed to load for me.]
2. The iconclass project, which is building up an electronic classification
scheme of visual material.
http://iconclass.let.ruu.nl/ At present the system contains approximately
24,000 definitions of objects, persons, events, situations and abstract ideas.
[None of the links on this page actually worked in Netscape, although I'm
not sure how useful these 24,000 definitions would have been, even if I
dedicated myself to memorizing them, which seems a rather formidable task.]
>
> > 4. How could a work of art have 'intrinsic meaning' outside of the human
> > individual's capacity to ascribe meaning to the physical object?
>
> [The capacity of each individual will vary. Some people exist who lack the
> ability
> to ascribe meaning to anything that can't be put into words. These
> unfortunates,
> unlike the deaf and blind, have a disability that isn't recognized or
> treated in
> our current verbally-oriented society. Some of these people even become
> artists,
> and often feel the compulsion to cram their works with the "signifiers"
> that make
> them meaningful in their view. However, there is no necessity for any of
> that if
> one can relate to forms and colors on their own terms. Every picture need
> not tell
> a story- it can work on an entirely different level.]
Yes, but it is still semiosis, regardless if it is natural language or another
symbolic form.
[That's the problem, it doesn't have to be a symbolic form to be beautiful, at
least for me. Can't you wrap your mind around the concept of a Thing in Itself
which appeals to us on a deeper level than language?]
As such, the sign will call up the lexical index in the
'reader's mind' and subsequently 'meaning' and 'value' is part of the reader's
share.
[I don't think everybody has the aforementioned 24,000 definitions coded
in their
brains, and if they did it would be a definite hindrance when trying to
appreciate
a piece of art or something from nature on its own merits. In my own work, I am
consciously trying to subvert the human urge to classify, categorize and reduce
verything to symbols, in favor of a more sensual perception of form on its own
terms- perhaps that's why I feel so strongly on the subject.]
> >
> > 5. If you think semiotics is bunko, how do you theoerize that a work of art
> > has 'intrinsic' value or qualities? If you hate theory, how can you explain
> > your views?
>
> [Semiotics can be a useful tool for some things, like literary analysis. I
> find it,
> however, of limited helpfulness when addressing issues outside its
> compass, like
> visual art. Is it possible to "deconstruct" a natural object? Take a
> quartz crystal,
> for instance. It may have intrinsic qualities that appeal to ones
> aesthetic sense,
> but does it have "meaning" subject to analysis? Certainly one can analyze ones
> reactions to it, or ones associations with it, but for insight into its
> aesthetic
> value one must, I fear, look elsewhere. I don't hate theory per se, although I
> confess some impatience with most theory-based art. But I think it's
> possible to
> construct a theory of beauty that doesn't rely on the transmission of
> verbal cues
> as the basis of aesthetic appreciation.]
>
I don't think that they need be 'verbal clues,' Andrew. What I'm trying to
look at is how an object, such as a crystal (a very good example) could have
intrinsic meaning and value. These seem to be very human things to me, so I
would say that we 'attach' meaning and value to the crystal. And somewhere
in our referencing system, we hold data about 'beauty' which we attach to
objects, for various reasons.
[Wrong and wrong. A magpie can attach meaning and value to a crystal too.
And our
feelings about beauty are not a bunch of data we hold in our "referencing
system"-
if it were, computers would be better than people at appreciating art. I
believe a
sensitivity to beauty is hard-wired into our brains, which is why we react
to it so
powerfully at times, even to the point of falling in love.]
mark webber
> If someone says to me that this object has intrinsic meaning I take it to
> mean that the object somehow 'contains' meaning, which strikes me as 'magic.'
> And the object can be transported from place to place, end up on Mars, and
> it would continue to 'mean' by virtue of its intrinsic capacity to 'mean.'
> In that case, I would say that 'meaning' resides in the object. (By the way,
> "Mars' was used by Hilary Puntnam to make one of his arguments).
Otherworldly, eh. My goodness.
Let's see. Magic. Yes, definitely, Magic. All that stuff that happens
between the four edges - that is the stuff that is *in* the painting. Our
interpretations are not in it, but are certainly elicited by it.
Now if it is easier to speak of the shapes and colors versus our
interpretations than "meaning" and intrinsic value, then perhaps we can
try to connect them somehow.
Intrinsic, though, by definition has little to do with that which we
interpret, right? If I interpret one way, and you another, then it can't
be intrinsic, right?
But there is something there, between those edges, that illicits a
response, an interpretation. That would be what we might call intrinsic
value, I guess. And in the case of good painitings, magic as well.
>
> Conversely, my belief is that 'meaning' resides in the viewer.
If meaning equals interpretation that is very easy to agree with.
> In either case, by 'reside' I mean the location of meaning --
> since 'intrinsic' to me means something that is within the object,
> or human mind.
Well, an intrinsic quality of a painting won't be in you're mind but on
the canvas. The interpretation will be in your mind. Right?
> > Suppose for a moment that all a painting might have to offer an individual
> > is color decisions that seem stunning and paint application that seems
> > otherworldly. (I'm not saying it won't or can't do more or less for
> > someone else.)
(See, that's a metaphor, Iian.)
> >
> > Is this what you mean by "ascribing meaning?"
>
> Well, I didn't want to use the term 'signifyer' for simplicity's sake, but
> now I'm using the work 'attach.' But yes, your examples reflect what I
> meant. Perhaps it would be fair also to say 'are stunning' and 'are
> otherworldly' rather than 'seems,' because insofar as out experience of the
> painting goes, it is all very real -- as real as it gets, as a matter of
> fact.
Well for me it is, and I get the sense from you that it is for you. This
is one of the truly amazing things about this forum though. There are
people who are actually confident that they can write at length about an
experience they quite clearly haven't begun to have.
(This is not to say that they won't, ever. I simply find it comic to
read.)
> I believe that anyone who would hold that view, and take it appart
> critically to see how it works, would ultimately agree that by definition the
> 'work of art' is in fact a complex process, which involves an object and an
> audiance, and the audiance is responsible for providing meaning and value.
Yes, but go ahead; pack up a Chardin still life. Send it into orbit. I
know the thing is beautiful in its box. I've seen people walk right by it
when it hangs on a museum wall and as an audience they aren't doing their
part.
If you know what I mean by this, does this affect your idea?
> >
> > I would hope that when we're all grown up we can chat about our views, our
> > preferences, our tastes without sounding like we are theorizing.
>
> But we do it all the time, regardless of our stated preferences. How can you
> vote, for example, without theorizing? (flipping a coin is not a good
> answer).
I don't flip a coin when I evaluate paintings, but I'm not theorizing
either. Theorizing simply isn't the same as judging. One may theorize as
to why a particular painting appeals to some and not others, or what the
next fashion in art should be, but these are not vital to a creative or
evaluative process.
One can look at a painting and, having seen other paintings, simply
compare the decision-making of the artist. That does not require theory -
on the contrary; it requires experience.
> The statement that the work of art has intrinsic meaning and value
> is a theory, although it is so naturalized as a concept that it doesn't seem
> to be.
I don't argue that. In fact, the fact that it is so naturalized is rather
telling.
>
> >
> > > 6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
> > > epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
> > > relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation,...
> >
> > Can't they be both? Mustn't they be both?
>
> Boy, Mark, that clipping is as good as Robin William's editing of the Nixon
> speeh in "Good Morning, Vietnam!" But I'll go along with the fragment and
> your question. Sure, they are both...my sense, given the rest of the
> sentence below, is that the African art was relevant to modern art due to the
> meanings that mondern artists (and the art world) attached to them -- which
> has nothing to do with Africa or African culture. Well, I can see that can
> create a great debate, but "Africa' of the European imagination is not the
> real Africa. The map is not the territory.
Sorry, I had hoped to leave the spirit of the thoughts intact, but you
were firing on automatic, and there were individual points worth
addressing.
And I don't disagree with the above reply either. Certainly Euros added
interpretation and meaning to what was already there. How could they not?
How could they, likewise, truly comprehend the work of another culture?
But that doesn't mean that some African sculptures were staggering things
- to some euros and some Africans.
> > Isn't it very likely that *some* Africans are more sensitive to visual
> > experience than other Africans? Isn't it rather racist to think all
> > Africans reacted the same way to African sculptures?
>
> Probably a certainty, of course, there is always diversity of experience,
> thought and opinion. Where do I say that all Africans reacted the same way?
You haven't - but that is very often implied in statements about what "we"
read into "their" work, especially when "we" see something in it which
"we" can't believe some of "them" might have seen in it.
(Even if there is pretty solid evidence that an artifact may have had a
cultural meaning other than "art" that doesn't mean some individuals
didn't think "hey, this particular fetish is pretty sharp looking."
> The whole point is that whatever meaning and value Africans have towards the
> work of art are not related to our readings of the same pieces.
How do you know? Do all Americans interpret and value American art the
same way?
> >
> > 'Cept maybe Australia, where they're all dim. (Kidding. Really.)
> >
> > Webber
> >
> That was a downunderhanded thing to say. But HUGE beer cans do sort of have
> intrinsic meaning and value.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
My mate Iian knows I'm kidding with him. If he ever comes to America, I'll
buy him a beer. In the mean time, I will FOSTER our relationship as best I
can.
ciao Erik!
Webber
John Haber
philosophy is doing quite well without math these days. Sometimes it
even goes too far, as when Martha Nussbaum takes Henry James as her
model for ethical philosophy. Still, on bad days I think the French
have fixated on the intuitive split between discourses, the precise
and the phenomenal, and erected two badly comic visions -- say,
Lacan's leaden system versus Irigary's goo.
In their own ways, art attains to a precision that's formidable, while
science and math have a beauty I miss so much since college. Somehow,
except for Derrida, the Americans capture these kinds of precision
better for me. Anyhow, if I had to choose between Michael Faraday's
"Natural History of a Candle" from a century ago (and with no math, of
which the scientist was incapable) and Bachelard's "Le Psychanalyse de
Feu," I know what would bring me to a state of contemplation faster.
Perhaps it's a little like loving the eerie precision of Jasper Johns.
Or like wanting to dive into the conceptual structure attached to each
discourse without wanting to oppose relativism and the unspeakable
certainty, or whatever the debaters here think they're doing.
The jh that is not one,
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 15 Mar 1999, Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > If you wish to talk of aesthetics, you can use the language of philosophy,
> > aka English.
> >
> > --
> > Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> === A bit of ethnocentric self-congratulations mon ami? Ironically, the
> language of philosophy for the English is numeric for the most part. The
> topic of aesthetics is best addressed by Gaston Bachelard and his `poetics
> of space' and `aesthetics, memory, and reverie' are available in very fine
> English translations. Unless it is the mathematical formula for
> aesthetics which you are seeking!
>
>
Cuidado, Ariane, don't pry open the casket of the French Semiotics vs.
English Semiotics, for fear of letting loose monsters. My bias is towards the
French species, but being a virtual dolt in learning another language, I
always read my French in English.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.4.10.990316...@alcor.concordia.ca>
> da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca "Ariane" writes:
>
> >
> >
> > (snip)
> >
> > > If you wish to talk of aesthetics, you can use the language of philosophy,
> > > aka English.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > === A bit of ethnocentric self-congratulations mon ami? Ironically, the
> > language of philosophy for the English is numeric for the most part. The
> > topic of aesthetics is best addressed by Gaston Bachelard and his `poetics
> > of space' and `aesthetics, memory, and reverie' are available in very fine
> > English translations. Unless it is the mathematical formula for
> > aesthetics which you are seeking!
> >
> taken as meaning the language of currend discourse.
>
> I am certainly not of the opinion that aesthetics can be reduced to
> mathematics, though mathematics certainly can be deeply aesthetically
> satisfying.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
>
But there have been several very intriguing attempts to do so, especially as
'geometry' although math has been used. I had the pleasure of taking some
seminars with Seymour Howard, who is an authority on the 'Elgin Marbles' and
other things Greek (as well as a DuChamp student--what's the relationship?)
Seymour has been able to uncover many mathematical design programs for much
of Classical Greek art, which of course is thought to have been intended.
And this study of his goes far beyond the 'golden mean idea' which engages
mathematics and geometry. Salvador Dali carried the project further with his
study of D'Arcy W. Thompson's "On Growth and Form" and Dali went so far as to
declare the pentagram as a geometric foundation of aesthetic righteousness,
in honor of the pentagram's being the polygon of choice of living organisms.
The examples can go on and on, of course. But this is but one aspect of
aesthetics, of course, so you can't say it's all mathematics.
I would have to say that I don't see much math in John Locke, George Berkeley
amd so on...so I don't agree the Brits are counters as opposed to thinkers.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> If someone says to me that this object has intrinsic meaning I take it to
> mean that the object somehow 'contains' meaning, which strikes me as 'magic.'
> And the object can be transported from place to place, end up on Mars, and
> it would continue to 'mean' by virtue of its intrinsic capacity to 'mean.'
> In that case, I would say that 'meaning' resides in the object. (By the way,
> "Mars' was used by Hilary Puntnam to make one of his arguments).
Otherworldly, eh. My goodness.
Mark--
Let's see. Magic. Yes, definitely, Magic. All that stuff that happens
between the four edges - that is the stuff that is *in* the painting. Our
interpretations are not in it, but are certainly elicited by it.
Erik-- Then what is it, beside our interpretation? How can you answer my
question "then what is it?" without resorting to interpretation? It appears
that you are claiming that something 'unknowable' exists. If it exists, how
do we 'know' it exists?
Mark-
Now if it is easier to speak of the shapes and colors versus our
interpretations than "meaning" and intrinsic value, then perhaps we can
try to connect them somehow.
Erik-
Agreed. That is what I am trying to do. This thread poses the question "how
can a work of art have 'intrinsic' meaning and value (which I misstated as
'attributes' -- but in a way that's ok because at some point we would have to
talk about phenomenology. (I could have said 'non-corporeal attributes, I
suppose).
Mark--
Intrinsic, though, by definition has little to do with that which we
interpret, right? If I interpret one way, and you another, then it can't
be intrinsic, right?
Erik -- But this happens all the time, even on this newsgroups, by those who
hold the view that a work of art has intrinsic meaning and value. Rothko,
Picasso, Pollack -- I'm sure I don't need to restate the various arguments
and points of view.
My particular viewpoint is that all meaning and value are in us, and the work
of art has no intrinsic value or meaning (it's almost a Berkelean notion:
"Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no one to hear
it? Essi es percepi, 'existence is being perceived).
And of course this is not my 'personal' view in the sense I invented it, but
it is rather that learning these concepts from others has led me to accept
this as true.
Mark--
But there is something there, between those edges, that illicits a
response, an interpretation. That would be what we might call intrinsic
value, I guess. And in the case of good painitings, magic as well.
Erik-- t's pretty difficult to debate magic, of course, but I do understand
what you are driving at. A good story has to be a good story to be a good
story. If it's found not to be a good story, it's probably because it wasn't
put together in the correct manner that would cause us to receive it as a
good story. So this is telling me that there is a 'grammar' involved -- a
set of principles of construction ,or rules, that must be satisfied in order
for it to gain notice as a good story. Literary Critics study pre-existing
'good stories' (that they already know are good stories because many agree
they are good stories--and some study bad stories also) so that they refine
the 'grammar' which is essentially literary theory.
All that I am arguing is that both attributes of 'meaning' and 'value' arise
out of the 'grammar' as these rules exist in culture. By extension, this
describes the 'artist' as more of a 'consumer' that a 'producer,' a thought
which is sure to raise some hackles.
> Conversely, my belief is that 'meaning' resides in the viewer.
Mark--
If meaning equals interpretation that is very easy to agree with.
That's all my question was about. How can meaning and value be intrinsic to
the work of art?
> In either case, by 'reside' I mean the location of meaning --
> since 'intrinsic' to me means something that is within the object,
> or human mind.
Well, an intrinsic quality of a painting won't be in you're mind but on
the canvas. The interpretation will be in your mind. Right?
Erik-- I'm going along with your word 'interpretation' but I have some
problems with it. It's more than 'interpretation.' It is perception itself.
But this really opens up a philosophical can-o-worms, of course. Hell, I'm
only a philosophy fan -- but I could regurgitate some of the ideas I'm
familiar with. There are many others on the newsgroup who could do a lot
better job than I.
But what I can say about your question is we are talking about meaning a
value - - and if it is so that these are intrinsic to the work of art, how
can the transfer to us? You know, I'm asking how the whole process works.
It's much easier for me to understand that I look at a painting and it
impresses me because I have learned that that painting, the category
painting, the locus of the painting, the monetary value of the painting, the
biography of the artist, and the group of human beings who regard the
painting highly, is both meaningful and valued. If I have an intellectual
understanding that this is what I am doing, it doesn't make me like the
painting any less, or deprive me of fresonne or any other benefit of art (it
actually embellishes my appreciation, to cite my own experience.) So I walk
away from the painting knowing that I am a cultural person. What's the big
fuss all about? I thought 'alienation' was supposed to be 'poo poo' in our
way of thinking, and 'belonging' a rather nice counter-force to the bleakness
of futility.
Iian--
> > Suppose for a moment that all a painting might have to offer an individual
> > is color decisions that seem stunning and paint application that seems
> > otherworldly. (I'm not saying it won't or can't do more or less for
> > someone else.)
Mark
(See, that's a metaphor, Iian.)
Erik--
Hi Iian. Glad to see you kicking in.
> >
> > Is this what you mean by "ascribing meaning?"
>
> Well, I didn't want to use the term 'signifyer' for simplicity's sake, but
> now I'm using the work 'attach.' But yes, your examples reflect what I
> meant. Perhaps it would be fair also to say 'are stunning' and 'are
> otherworldly' rather than 'seems,' because insofar as out experience of the
> painting goes, it is all very real -- as real as it gets, as a matter of
> fact.
Mark--
Well for me it is, and I get the sense from you that it is for you. This
is one of the truly amazing things about this forum though. There are
people who are actually confident that they can write at length about an
experience they quite clearly haven't begun to have.
(This is not to say that they won't, ever. I simply find it comic to
read.)
Erik-- I don't know if this is true. But you know, if you have the words to
an Italian Opera it can enrich the performance for you (assuming you don't
understand Italian). But that's not to say the Opera will be bad if you don't
understand what's being said. It's a matter of degrees. Wow, I just
realized that I became so used to listing to music in other languages that
when I hear an Opera in English is sounds exotic (initial impression only).
I'm just questioning that because it seems like a philosopher, critic, or
theorist who uses art to her/his own ends must at first recognize art's
importance, and broad significance , or else it would be a meaningless
theoretical object. On the other hand, I've known people who didn't like art,
and it seems as if the reason was mere disinterest.
> I believe that anyone who would hold that view, and take it appart
> critically to see how it works, would ultimately agree that by definition the
> 'work of art' is in fact a complex process, which involves an object and an
> audiance, and the audiance is responsible for providing meaning and value.
Mark--
Yes, but go ahead; pack up a Chardin still life. Send it into orbit. I
know the thing is beautiful in its box. I've seen people walk right by it
when it hangs on a museum wall and as an audience they aren't doing their
part.
If you know what I mean by this, does this affect your idea?
Well, that's probably why many schools use art appreciation classes as a
general education breadth requirement. But artists shouldn't be too
antagonistic against art theory professionals. There's a good chance that
your next painting sale will be to a client who was taught to appreciate art
by an academic. ("Do I by my Beamer, or that painting I love so much?")
But, no, even though I understand you, it does not affect my idea. It only
reinforces it. Art has a lot of competition today, largely with mass media
and visual culture generally. I believe in acquired taste and history.
Sushi Bars never would have made it in the US in 1955. But this isn't a new
idea, and subsequently we have high-brow and low-brow culture. Eggs Benedict
at Jack's on Sutter in 1929 was high brow, Eggs Benedict at Denny's in 1999
is proletarian (yet cheaper-the same ingredients-- or Jack's used a better
salt).
> >
> > I would hope that when we're all grown up we can chat about our views, our
> > preferences, our tastes without sounding like we are theorizing.
>
> But we do it all the time, regardless of our stated preferences. How can you
> vote, for example, without theorizing? (flipping a coin is not a good
> answer).
Mark--
I don't flip a coin when I evaluate paintings, but I'm not theorizing
either. Theorizing simply isn't the same as judging. One may theorize as
to why a particular painting appeals to some and not others, or what the
next fashion in art should be, but these are not vital to a creative or
evaluative process.
Erik-- Well, I don't vote when I am looking at paintings. Or one may
theorize about why a painting 'appeals' at all. But I reiterate, the claim
that a painting has intrinsic meaning and value is a theory, albeit
indefensible, it seems.
One can look at a painting and, having seen other paintings, simply
compare the decision-making of the artist. That does not require theory -
on the contrary; it requires experience.
I know of no rules or laws against t his, so one can…I think its great that
we are free to be cultural. There are all sorts of stories circulating in
culture about art, artists, creativity, genius and so forth that coalesce at
the point of viewing a painting. This is what its all about, in my view.
> The statement that the work of art has intrinsic meaning and value
> is a theory, although it is so naturalized as a concept that it doesn't seem
> to be.
I don't argue that. In fact, the fact that it is so naturalized is rather
telling.
Well, that's usually how a naturalized concept works. It appears as the
'given' in any situation, and is seldom questioned as such. This is where
theory earns its 'bad rap' in my opinion. When it starts trying to dig at
the 'givens' it can be disconcerting, especially if an individual has a lot
of stake in the concept, insofar as it being instrumental in her/his sense of
the world. It's a sacred-cow sort of thing.
>
> >
> > > 6. Finally, how do our ideas of meaning apply to other cultures and other
> > > epochs? Are African relics displayed at the Trocadero a hundred years ago
> > > relevant to modern art, or they simply a cultural appropriation,...
> >
> > Can't they be both? Mustn't they be both?
>
> Boy, Mark, that clipping is as good as Robin William's editing of the Nixon
> speeh in "Good Morning, Vietnam!" But I'll go along with the fragment and
> your question. Sure, they are both...my sense, given the rest of the
> sentence below, is that the African art was relevant to modern art due to the
> meanings that mondern artists (and the art world) attached to them -- which
> has nothing to do with Africa or African culture. Well, I can see that can
> create a great debate, but "Africa' of the European imagination is not the
> real Africa. The map is not the territory.
Mark--
Sorry, I had hoped to leave the spirit of the thoughts intact, but you
were firing on automatic, and there were individual points worth
addressing.
Erik-- Gosh, an intellectual Ouzi, eh? I thought I had some good points to
make about this, but I think they fell short, victim of end of post fatigue.
Mark--
And I don't disagree with the above reply either. Certainly Euros added
interpretation and meaning to what was already there. How could they not?
How could they, likewise, truly comprehend the work of another culture?
But that doesn't mean that some African sculptures were staggering things
- to some euros and some Africans.
Erik'-- Yes, they are, but probably for different reasons. You know, if you
read some of the surviving art contracts from the Italian Renaissance, you
begin to get the impression that a Cardinal was more concerned with the
amount of lapus that went into the painting than with Fra Lippo Lippi's
standing as an artist. It was expected that he would be able to paint well,
but the real concern was much a matter of the actual monetary value, in wages
and materials, that made the painting important. We see it with different
eyes, I think.
> > Isn't it very likely that *some* Africans are more sensitive to visual
> > experience than other Africans? Isn't it rather racist to think all
> > Africans reacted the same way to African sculptures?
>
> Probably a certainty, of course, there is always diversity of experience,
> thought and opinion. Where do I say that all Africans reacted the same way?
Mark--
You haven't - but that is very often implied in statements about what "we"
read into "their" work, especially when "we" see something in it which
"we" can't believe some of "them" might have seen in it.
Erik--
Certainly agreed.
Mark--
(Even if there is pretty solid evidence that an artifact may have had a
cultural meaning other than "art" that doesn't mean some individuals
didn't think "hey, this particular fetish is pretty sharp looking."
Erik-- There's a mask style from a group in the Cameroons that knocks my sox
off, really. They are absolutely exquisite. I think this because they look
like something the Star Trek production staff (which includes some very fine
artists, of course) would cook up as artwork of an alien culture from outer
space. I'm sure the people who make these also think they are significant (I
don't want to say beautiful, because sometimes these things are meant to
shock and frighten) but I'll bet you anything they don't associate these
works of art with science fiction. Besides, they throw them away after the
dance. (Until a market developed for them abroad--now many of these pieces
don't even make it to the dance -- which makes them lose their 'intrinsic'
value and meaning, isn't it?).
> The whole point is that whatever meaning and value Africans have towards the
> work of art are not related to our readings of the same pieces.
Mark--
How do you know? Do all Americans interpret and value American art the
same way?
Well, television, the great mediator, is alive and well in Africa, so I'm sure
everything has changed. Startrek may be important to the cultural life of the
Cameroons.
> >
> > 'Cept maybe Australia, where they're all dim. (Kidding. Really.)
> >
> > Webber
> >
> That was a downunderhanded thing to say. But HUGE beer cans do sort of have
> intrinsic meaning and value.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
My mate Iian knows I'm kidding with him. If he ever comes to America, I'll
buy him a beer. In the mean time, I will FOSTER our relationship as best I
can.
I hope you know that I was kidding too, Mark. At least that was my ABORIGINAL
intent.
Hasta la Vista, Erik
ciao Erik!
Webber
(how many artists does it take to sign a post?)