PoMo and the impossibility of language
Luke
Lukas Schulze
Post-Modernism and the impossibility of language
The past fifty years have seen, some suggest, the erosion of modernist
narratives, and the subsequent ascension and possible decline of
"Post-Modernism." With this, the notions of style and language in Art
have become highly problematic. The last several decades have been
increasingly marked by the ideas (by now familiar terms) of contingency,
locality, play, personal voice, and finally, tribal hostilities.
Certainly it is the case that the demise of a number of previously
dominant artistic movements‹modernist architecture, serialism, abstraction
in painting‹has created space in many art institutions for styles and
discourses that had been previously excluded; various groups and peoples
that had been marginalized have found room for themselves in the
landscapes of the different artistic media. Technology, combined with
this increasingly diverse array of cultural perspectives, has made it
possible for a greater number of voices to be heard. Indeed, access to
artistic variety, a pluralism, has never been more possible.
This pluralism has raised a number of thorny issues: cultural
authenticity is under siege by market-place dilutions; manner, in art, has
at times taken on the tone of value-free caprice. Contingency and
locality has elicited a widespread renunciation of the burden of
collective consensus and agreement. As empowerment of marginalized
populations has taken place, the rifts in artistic society have not been
erased‹rather at times they seem to have become more clearly delineated.
The issues all lie at the core of the Modern/Post-Modern debate.
Arguments postulating effects of the impending millennial shift are
omnipresent‹we seem, however, to be increasingly at a loss to describe how
our current historical place has created our sensibility of
self-awareness. Indeed, the notion of "we" has become, for good reason,
suspect. Our contemporary cultural discourse in academe and surrounding
contexts has in the past roughly dozen years focused on the topics of
Post-modernity and its trappings, definitions, and issues, in its attempt
to locate itself in the strands of history. While these definitions and
commentaries are plentiful, the ways in which the predominant cultural
sensibility is problematized and configured by the issues that arise from
the different artistic media within the sphere of Post-Modern contexts are
largely unelucidated. I will suggest, through my own admittedly
personalized (and contingent) view, that Post-Modern thinking is not,
finally, the apocalyptic end-point it appeared; further, that it generated
a host of bizarre and malignant issues in the process of dealing with the
remains of what it dubbed Modernism, and that our conception of "language"
in the arts, has been rendered almost totally useless.
The media in which I have perceived tangible traces of Post-Modern aspects
most conspicuously have been Architecture, Visual Art, and Music. Though
the massive body of Literary Criticism poses as perhaps one of the most
imposing edifices of Post-Modern work, I will limit my discussions largely
to examples of Post-Modern "ART," as opposed to commentary, criticism, and
the like.
Architecture, it seems to me, has been the most facile art form in which
to peruse the outward manifestations of Post-Modern topics. While the
principles of Modernism had largely eschewed references to past models,
Post-Modernism heartily embraced surface nods to history. Modernity in
architecture, through what James Holston has called "an aesthetic of
erasure," smoothed the surface, and removed overt decoration. This move
was anticipated in sentiments early in the century by the Viennese
architect Adolph Loos in his famous 1908 essay "Ornament and Crime." While
the International Style that arose from the Bauhaus at Weimar, Germany, is
the most extreme and visible demonstration of this aesthetic, a host of
architects (Le Corbusier among them) participated in their own way in this
reductive sensibility, without necessarily advancing the rectilinear
model. What unifies these local divergences is the emphasis on a removal
of surface decoration (especially that derived from previously extant
modes of expression), and a focus on the abstract concept of geometric
space.
Post-Modernism by contrast, is conspicuously characterized by a return to
the very icons of historicity that Modernism had done away with. Often
these motifs are disconnected, distorted, and used in ways in which they
are set into rhetorical relief. The classical pediment which graces the
top of Philip Johnsonąs AT&T Corporate Headquarters in New York will serve
as a fine example: This pediment, which in its original source context,
would have acted in concert with columns and the like, simply sits here on
top of an otherwise relatively un-adorned building. In other examples by
the major Post-Modern architects (John Burgee, Michael Graves) similar,
seemingly random, and often whimsical references abound. Indeed,
Post-Modern architecture is often rich in humor in a way that high
Modernism would never permit (Mies Van Der Rohe isnąt exactly "fun").
The underlying shift here that has taken place, it seems to me, is that
Modernism in architecture, as we will note in other media, views itself as
a historical necessity just as it erases the past. It streamlines and
abstracts the past, but it acknowledges history as the set of events that
has created the present. Modernism seeks, logically, consensus and a
degree of homogeneity to affirm the rationality and weight of its own
existence. This Totality of narrative is one aspect of Modernism that
Post-Modernism challenges so dramatically. With the Post-Modern
sentiment, the homogeneity and streamlined sense of history, function,
design, and ultimately citizenry which later generations view, with some
justification as Fascist (Le Corbusier did seek to control the daily lives
of the residents in his apartment complexes), is undone. The un-doers
were hardly unaware of their enterprise, as Charles Jencks highlights in
his piece "The Death of Modern Architecture:"
"Happily, we can date the death of modern architecture to a precise moment
in time. Unlike the legal death of a person, which is becoming a complex
affair of brain waves versus heartbeats, modern architecture went out with
a bang.
...Modern architecture died in St. Louis, Missouri on July 15, 1972, at
3:32 p.m. (or thereabouts) when the infamous Pruitt-Igoe scheme, or rather
several of its slab blocks, were given the final coup de grace by
dynamite. Previously it had been vandalized, mutilated, and defaced by
its Black inhabitants, and although millions of dollars were pumped back,
trying to keep it alive (fixing the broken elevators, repairing smashed
windows, repainting), it was finally put out of its misery. Boom, boom,
boom.
Jencks goes on to describe the building complex:
...it had a separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, the provision
of play space, and local amenities such as laundries, crčches and gossip
centers‹all rational substitutes for traditional patterns. Moreover its
Purist style, its clean salubrious hospital metaphor, was meant to
instill, by good example, corresponding virtues in its inhabitants. Good
form was to lead to good content, or at least good conduct; the
intelligent planning of abstract space was to promote healthy behavior.
Jencks lists a series of by-now-typical (and warranted) indictments
against the attempt to design into the daily energies of residents in the
name of rationality, and describes how this outlook, as history has, in
some sense, shown, is doomed to failure.
It is this against which Post-Modern architecture responds socially, as
well as formally. The integration which the Modernists sought is hardly
ever a topic of Post-Modern architecture, and even later, in what is
called Deconstructivist architecture, the entire notion of human movement
within a space is called into question via hallways that lead nowhere,
unfunctional division of interior spaces, and a host of other attributes
that undo the concept of finished, functional, human building design.
Painting, while not as cooperative in the rambling narrative of Modern to
Post-Modern evolution, is not entirely free from it. Just as the
aesthetic of "erasure" typified modernist architecture, modernist painting
showed, for a time, the same dissection of its components into form, line,
hue, and the other basic formal components of painting.
While a return to historical reference was a benchmark of Post-modernity
in architecture, painting exhibits a somewhat different tendency, or
tendencies: first, a movement away from movement-mentality. That is,
throughout the century, major artistic innovations took place within
schools of thought. Dadaism, Surrealism, even Abstract Expressionism,
were movements carried out by large groups. This was replaced in some
sense in the 1970ąs with what can be termed the "cult of the individual,"
a scenario in which among other things, an individual connects him/herself
with a dealer or critic and launches a career thus. This is altogether
too simple a description, but the critic-championed artist is an entity
that had not been seen in such numbers prior to this time. Major figures
include Basquiat, Jeff Koons, and Keith Haring. Moreover, as in
architecture, contingency and personality find their way into the art work
in a way they had not prior to this time. Even Abstract Expressionism,
which might appear as a Post-Modern sort of approach, through the use of
the canvas as a site for explosive personal exploration, was both a)
homogenized and consistent from member to member, and b) connected itself
so assiduously with its ancestors (chief among these being Surrealism)
that it must be understood as being part of the Modernist sentiment. In
contrast, the painting of the last twenty years has shown a retreat from
the heroic abstraction common to many art movements of the century, as
well as the introduction of personal and contingent views of reality.
Thus, gender issues, race (and ethnicity), locality, and play have
characterized modern painting since the seventies. This, combined with
the mechanization and commercialization of the artist/critic/dealer
relationship has pluralized the landscape considerably. Moreover, as
the art industry has become grossly commodified with respect to "ethnic"
and "outsider" art, we have become familiar with the appearance of such
things as Australian Dream art in the lobbies of banks and movie houses,
and the entire poster phenomenon. We have, as I suggested at the outset,
immediate access to art styles from all periods and countries. This seems
highly typical of the Post-Modern scene.
Music, finally, is perhaps the most difficult to describe in this regard.
Music is, to begin with, inherently abstract. Meaning is almost always
suggested via metaphorical inference. That is, the representality one can
ascribe to an image, or a word, is absent in (instrumental) musical
discourse. One can, however, see in the apparent imagined musical
"progress" through the century in Europe, with the ascent of serial music
and in academe, the domination of the landscape by this language,
something akin to the modernism in architecture. That is, a removal of
narrative elements, an abstraction, a stripping down of musical discourse
to formal components: pitch, register, volume (this happens all the more
extremely in electronic music), can be seen to mirror these developments
in both architecture and painting. Just as the Le Corbusier misunderstood
the powerful function that decoration has in narrating urban landscapes,
formalist composers seemed to exhibit something of a disinterest in how
these works might actually speak, or transmit meaning. Of course it needs
to be mentioned that serialism is hardly the predominant discourse it is
suggested to be. This century has been, since the outset, characterized
my multiple styles and voices. Further, in all the media, "Modernism" is
a tricky thing to define‹my own definitions are admittedly simplified for
convenience sake‹and there are other figures, such as Stravinsky, Partch,
Nancarrow, that might just as well be given a modernist label (or no label
at all). However, if only for convenience, the type of aggressive
self-assuredness, and emphasis on a totalized landscape (and subsequent
demise of that idea) that one sees so easily in architecture is perhaps
best mirrored in the rise and subsequent erosion of the serialist impulse.
Certainly, the almost immediate retreat into academe of serial music in
America following the mid-century exodus of artists into the United
States, seems to suggest the same faltering of confidence that was to
later typify architecture. In similar ways, rigorous and systematized
modernity in music is enjoying a highly problematic relationship with the
art-loving public. Indeed, it is much easier for a reasonably sensitive
citizen to feel at ease with a Miesian building than it is for them to sit
though a piece by Boulez, Xenakis, or Ferneyhough. And in ways that
connect to the return of representation in painting, and decoration in
architecture, composers have adopted any number of "Neo" strategies in
order to make music more accessible, and it is these musics I would call
"Post-Modern." I would NOT call such musics as Jazz and world music
Post-Modern, since it would be difficult to suggest that they were part of
the Modernist conversation in the first place.
Technology has played no small part in this scenario. The television,
first, has brought an image conscious-ness to most people by the time they
are very young. We have long substituted artificial presence for
reality‹indeed we seem to prefer it. We are allowed to participate in and
access aspects of society we would never encounter, and we are robbed of
the content those encounters would lend us, as we watch police (real
police) kick in the doors of Watts Drug dealers from the comfort of our
living rooms. The internet has furthered this access, as we can literally
download culture from around the globe. Likewise, recorded music gives us
the ability to interact with musics from different periods, cultures, and
styles, most of it completely equalized in content via the apparatus of
its transmission, the stereo.
The social ramifications of these developments can be argued over. That
is, there are a number of important aspects to Post-Modern change‹powerful
benefits among them. Most importantly, it seems to me, is the erosion of
European-centered thinking. While Europe still dominates our collective
thinking (certainly it does in academe), institutions have begun to be
more open to cultural difference, personal perspective, gender, and
similar considerations. Further, popular culture, which had been almost
totally excluded from institutional practices, is now taken seriously as
having relevance to our lives, sensibility, and artistic work. The
intellectual and aesthetic market, perhaps, has become more equitably
competitive, and students, especially, are afforded access to a much wider
variety of perspectives in the materials they encounter.
Yet, I would suggest that with the pluralization of the cultural
landscape, and the in some sense new visibility of cultural stances, there
has been something of a backlash, as older, previously dominant groups
exhibit hostility and fear of the new. Certainly this can be seen in the
recent xenophobia in border policies, and the quasi-nazistic political
movements against gay culture (same sex marriages, protection under the
law). The very real task of negotiating difference has not proved to be
easy for contemporary society.
Cultural authenticity is at issue in this as well. As representations of
difference filter into the marketplace, we find increasing numbers of
dilutions and colonial cooptions of personalities and cultures. There
are, of course, obvious examples, as Charlie Parker, Jimi Hendrix, and the
Didgeridu are used to sell Saturn Automobiles, but there are more subtle
and perhaps more poisonous examples as well. Representations of culture
have taken on a supermarket aspect. Itąs all there, and we may use it and
refer to it at will. Though those who manipulate representations of
culture are in most cases those who have wielded the power in our society
since the beginning.
The Arts as well as society have their own difficulties. With the
plurality that has characterized contemporary art-doing, the ability of
many institutions to probe into individual enterprise for context,
content, and detail, has suffered. Criticism occurs increasingly on a
surface level. We have an "ism"-oriented mentality, and often things are
dismissed or lauded not according to how each work inhabits the boundaries
particular to it, but according to what "Kind" of a work it is. It
becomes very difficult for us to ascribe qualitative value within a work,
often because the discourse is unfamiliar. The analogy might best be one,
finally, of language: If one is in a room full of languages one doesnąt
speak, one is left simply with
"French...Swahili....German...Spanish...etc." The details and shadings
of meaning are often lost in the multitude of activities. It is in this
realm in which style and language become equivalent. To distinguish
between the two given our current artistic scene, is largely impossible.
Value, Meaning, and ultimately, the most important personal messages are
in danger of being unavailable to us, as we lose our apparatus for
extracting the details from the work.
M.
chosen to respond to the section on painting which is what
I know best. But before that, I would check the "index"
of painters. The ones you mention and include among
major painters of the postmodern age, are not interesting
to me, and I have not seen them described as major by any
of the critics I respect. Basquiat was a phenom sponsored
by Andy Warhol for example but not a major figure. (?)
Back to the gist of your paper,
later,
Marilyn
Peter Nelson
Luke wrote in message ...
> Criticism occurs increasingly on
a
>surface level. We have an "ism"-oriented mentality, and often things are
>dismissed or lauded not according to how each work inhabits the boundaries
>particular to it, but according to what "Kind" of a work it is.
Who cares how well the work inhabits the boundaries particular
to it? Art is not some kind of intellectual exercise where the
idea is to define an arbitrary perimeter and then see how well
you can it exactly into it. Art (including music, drama, literature,
etc) is an essential human expression which fails or succeeds only
on the basis of whether it resonates with other humans.
> It becomes very difficult for us to ascribe qualitative value within a
work,
>often because the discourse is unfamiliar.
The "discourse" is irrelevant except to academics. But art is not an
intellectual exercise which can be analyzed on the same grounds as,
say, physics or engineering. These latter fileds are subject to a
meaningful analysis only because they have an objective reality
which makes formalisms possible. Their formalisms are not artificial
or imposed by a group of academic egg-heads playing intellectual
games.
> The analogy might best
be one,
>finally, of language: If one is in a room full of languages one doesnšt
>speak, one is left simply with
"French...Swahili....German...Spanish...etc."
Human languages, such as the above are descriptive, not prescriptive.
Their meanings are not created artificially but arise from actual usage.
The "meanings" created in the artistic "language" of someone who is
having hs own private dialog with the canvas are purely artificial.
---peter
Marge Inal
says...
>Who cares how well the work inhabits the boundaries particular
>to it?
Children! Weren't you ever admonished to 'color
within the lines' ? Or in your case perhaps
to 'colour within' -- this post would seem to be
a holdover from youth or perhaps by someone who
is still enjoying that state...
mark webber
>
> Luke wrote in message ...
>
> > Criticism occurs increasingly on
> a
> >surface level. We have an "ism"-oriented mentality, and often things are
> >dismissed or lauded not according to how each work inhabits the boundaries
> >particular to it, but according to what "Kind" of a work it is.
>
> Who cares how well the work inhabits the boundaries particular
> to it? Art is not some kind of intellectual exercise where the
> idea is to define an arbitrary perimeter and then see how well
> you can it exactly into it. Art (including music, drama, literature,
> etc) is an essential human expression which fails or succeeds only
> on the basis of whether it resonates with other humans.
I interpreted this differently. It reads to me as a distinction between
judging a work based on an ism or the rhetoric behind it and judging a
work by examing the issues raised and how well they are
addressed/resolved.
In other words, lauding a work according to how it inhabits boundaries
particular to it is another way of saying "if you are making pictures
with paint you work with colored shapes or you somehow address the
tradition of working that way."
This makes more sense to me than lauding a work because of "what kind" of
work it is, or, praising a work because it illustrates a theory, is the
result of a dogma, a manifesto, an ism.
So I like the notion expressed. I think it is solid reasoning.
>
> > It becomes very difficult for us to ascribe qualitative value within a
> work,
> >often because the discourse is unfamiliar.
>
> The "discourse" is irrelevant except to academics. But art is not an
> intellectual exercise which can be analyzed on the same grounds as,
> say, physics or engineering. These latter fileds are subject to a
> meaningful analysis only because they have an objective reality
> which makes formalisms possible. Their formalisms are not artificial
> or imposed by a group of academic egg-heads playing intellectual
> games.
>
I'm not sure what an example of a "formalism" in physics would be. Are you
sure you don't mean "formulation"?
In art, all formalism is is an awareness/focus on the decision making
process as it is present in an individual work. It isn't a theory devised
by eggheads. Where does that notion come from?
> > The analogy might best be one,
> >finally, of language: If one is in a room full of languages one doesnšt
> >speak, one is left simply with
> "French...Swahili....German...Spanish...etc."
>
> Human languages, such as the above are descriptive, not prescriptive.
> Their meanings are not created artificially but arise from actual usage.
> The "meanings" created in the artistic "language" of someone who is
> having hs own private dialog with the canvas are purely artificial.
That is an excellent point, I think, and I would add further that art is
not a language any more than poetry is a language. Language makes poetry
possible, it is the form in poetry.
Likewise, visual art is not a language. But a language of shapes, colors,
etc., can be seen as the form in visual art.
Webber
Luke
<plne...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Luke wrote in message ...
>
> > Criticism occurs increasingly on
> a
> >surface level. We have an "ism"-oriented mentality, and often things are
> >dismissed or lauded not according to how each work inhabits the boundaries
> >particular to it, but according to what "Kind" of a work it is.
>
> Who cares how well the work inhabits the boundaries particular
> to it? Art is not some kind of intellectual exercise where the
> idea is to define an arbitrary perimeter and then see how well
> you can it exactly into it. Art (including music, drama, literature,
> etc) is an essential human expression which fails or succeeds only
> on the basis of whether it resonates with other humans.
>
>
> Well, I think we're just missing each other here: I didn't say arbitrary
perimeter, you did. What I'm talking about seems to me pretty fair--that
is, if one is doing architecture for example, one finds that there are a
number of issues that come up in the designing of a building. There are,
in other words, idigenous issues and criteria. HOW one deals with those
issues is key. I'm suggesting that by now, many people deal with broad
categories, such as MODERN ARCHITECTURE, or SERIALISM in music, or
ABSTRACT ART. And I'll further suggest that whether a painting is good or
not, has nothing to do with whether or not it's abstract, but HOW, and
WHY, the various local dimensions of doing THIS PAINTING, HERE and NOW,
are handled. This, it strikes me, has everything to do with how the work
resonates with other humans, and I agree, that is the principal measure of
success/failure.
>
> > It becomes very difficult for us to ascribe qualitative value within a
> work,
> >often because the discourse is unfamiliar.
>
> The "discourse" is irrelevant except to academics. But art is not an
> intellectual exercise which can be analyzed on the same grounds as,
> say, physics or engineering. These latter fileds are subject to a
> meaningful analysis only because they have an objective reality
> which makes formalisms possible. Their formalisms are not artificial
> or imposed by a group of academic egg-heads playing intellectual
> games.
Neither are those in substantive art. Don't try to pigeonhole what I
said--again you're the one here who's describing some obviously loathsome
ivory tower scenario. Discourse here refers to, well, the meaning of the
word: conversation, formal ordered exchange of ideas, etc. The point here
is that, when there is something like a "public style" that a large
portion of the population is familiar with, not only do they understand
that there is a style, but they understand, basically "what" is being
said. Not, perhaps, literally in terms of words, but in terms of th
manipulation of conventions that have been established. They can measure
and respond to devices, behaviors, formal gestures. For example, there
are reasons why classical music seems (and it may be a fiction, but it
still functions in a meaningful way) to SAY SOMETHING, and embody values
like, well, you pick it: nobility, truth, blah, blah, blah. If you hear a
dixieland jazz band playing, but each member is in a different key,
something sounds wrong. Why? because you know the basic conventions at
work, and everybody playing in a different key ain't one of them. If
however, you go to a culture you have zero familiarity with, and you hear
a piece of music played, and it lasts longer than two minutes and evrybody
in the audinece except you freaks out, you have no idea why. Later you
find that pieces in that culture never lasts that long so this piece was
the most shocking thing heard in a long while. Styles, in this sense,
have much the same dynamic as language in that a manipulation of
conventions allows meaning to be extracted. And I don't think it's only
academics who care about meaning in art.
>
>
>
>
> > The analogy might best
> be one,
> >finally, of language: If one is in a room full of languages one doesnšt
> >speak, one is left simply with
> "French...Swahili....German...Spanish...etc."
>
> Human languages, such as the above are descriptive, not prescriptive.
> Their meanings are not created artificially but arise from actual usage.
> The "meanings" created in the artistic "language" of someone who is
> having hs own private dialog with the canvas are purely artificial.
>
> ---peter
Peter Nelson
mark webber wrote in message ...
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
>
>> Luke wrote in message ...
>>
>> > Criticism occurs increasingly
on
>> a
>> >surface level. We have an "ism"-oriented mentality, and often things
are
>> >dismissed or lauded not according to how each work inhabits the
boundaries
>> >particular to it, but according to what "Kind" of a work it is.
>>
>> Who cares how well the work inhabits the boundaries particular
>> to it? Art is not some kind of intellectual exercise where the
>> idea is to define an arbitrary perimeter and then see how well
>> you can it exactly into it. Art (including music, drama, literature,
>> etc) is an essential human expression which fails or succeeds only
>> on the basis of whether it resonates with other humans.
>
>I interpreted this differently. It reads to me as a distinction between
>judging a work based on an ism or the rhetoric behind it and judging a
>work by examing the issues raised and how well they are
>addressed/resolved.
Exactly my point. What you describe is just an intellectual exercise.
It's the equivalent of mathematicians trying to solve Fermat's Last
Theorem. "Aren't I clever that I can devise a mental problem and
then solve it?" It's all very cute but it has nothing to do with art,
anymore than someone writing a computer program to generate
numbers in some sequence and then outputting those numbers
via a MIDI interface is "music", just because the numbers form
a mathematically interesting pattern.
>
> > It becomes very difficult for us to ascribe qualitative value within a
> work,
> >often because the discourse is unfamiliar.
>
> The "discourse" is irrelevant except to academics. But art is not an
> intellectual exercise which can be analyzed on the same grounds as,
> say, physics or engineering. These latter fileds are subject to a
> meaningful analysis only because they have an objective reality
> which makes formalisms possible. Their formalisms are not artificial
> or imposed by a group of academic egg-heads playing intellectual
> games.
>
I'm not sure what an example of a "formalism" in physics would be. Are you
sure you don't mean "formulation"?
In art, all formalism is is an awareness/focus on the decision making
process as it is present in an individual work. It isn't a theory devised
by eggheads. Where does that notion come from?
> > The analogy might best be one,
> >finally, of language: If one is in a room full of languages one doesnšt
> >speak, one is left simply with
> "French...Swahili....German...Spanish...etc."
>
> Human languages, such as the above are descriptive, not prescriptive.
> Their meanings are not created artificially but arise from actual usage.
> The "meanings" created in the artistic "language" of someone who is
> having hs own private dialog with the canvas are purely artificial.
That is an excellent point, I think, and I would add further that art is
Peter Nelson
mark webber wrote in message ...
On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
>
> The "discourse" is irrelevant except to academics. But art is not an
> intellectual exercise which can be analyzed on the same grounds as,
> say, physics or engineering. These latter fileds are subject to a
> meaningful analysis only because they have an objective reality
> which makes formalisms possible. Their formalisms are not artificial
> or imposed by a group of academic egg-heads playing intellectual
> games.
>
>I'm not sure what an example of a "formalism" in physics would be. Are you
>sure you don't mean "formulation"?
No I mean a formalism. One physicist can communicate with another
one using formal language and symbols and models but what gives their
formalisms its validity is that it references something objectively true.
>In art, all formalism is is an awareness/focus on the decision
>making process as it is present in an individual work.
In art (and literature) a formalism is when that awareness is
formalised. In other words when it is explicit (in the literal, not
colloquial sense of "explicit").
---peter
Peter Nelson
Luke wrote in message ...
>> The "discourse" is irrelevant except to academics. But art is not an
>> intellectual exercise which can be analyzed on the same grounds as,
>> say, physics or engineering. These latter fileds are subject to a
>> meaningful analysis only because they have an objective reality
>> which makes formalisms possible. Their formalisms are not artificial
>> or imposed by a group of academic egg-heads playing intellectual
>> games.
>
>Neither are those in substantive art. Don't try to pigeonhole what I
>said--again you're the one here who's describing some obviously loathsome
>ivory tower scenario. Discourse here refers to, well, the meaning of the
>word: conversation, formal ordered exchange of ideas, etc.
Exactly. "Formal ordered exchange of ideas". They key
being "formal". The formalisms in art are arbitrary. Invariably
what ends up happening is that the battle is joined over whose
formalisms to accept. And since there is no objective basis
to choose one, unlike, say physics where the formalisms are
chosen because they demonstrably work in some objective
sense, art ends up being debated not in terms of the art
itself, but in terms of the formalisms. I.e, someone criticizes
a piece of art but is told, "oh no this art is structured according
to System X and therefore your criticisms are invalid because
they are based on System Y. "
So, for instance, some painter is interested in red circles and
green triangles. And he executes dozens of paintings with
those shapes and nothing else. And someone criticizes them
as "boring" or "repetitive" and they are told that this is irrelevant
because the "red circles and green triangles art" is not about
anything EXCEPT investigating red circles and green triangles.
In other words the notion that art should actually have a
component that affects or moves or otherwise has some
impact on another human being is a value from some OTHER
system.
---peter
br...@wralaw.com
"Peter Nelson" <plne...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
> >surface level. We have an "ism"-oriented mentality,
To a certain extent postmodernism is we-have-no-more-Ideas-ism
so we'll call it postmodern-ism. Very seductive for those
of us who have no Ideas!(How profound!!)
>
> Who cares how well the work inhabits the boundaries particular
> to it? Art is not some kind of intellectual exercise where the
> idea is to define an arbitrary perimeter and then see how well
> you can it exactly into it.
Good point.
Perhaps what you describe is what art-criticism has turned into,
therefore 'art' is what you describe to those who know art as
what they have read.
> Art (including music, drama, literature,
> etc) is an essential human expression which fails or succeeds only
> on the basis of whether it resonates with other humans.
> ---peter
>
>
Bryn Ayers
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mark webber
(snipping to my comment)
> >I interpreted this differently. It reads to me as a distinction between
> >judging a work based on an ism or the rhetoric behind it and judging a
> >work by examing the issues raised and how well they are
> >addressed/resolved.
>
> Exactly my point. What you describe is just an intellectual exercise.
If this is an intellectual exercise then how do *you* evaluate art? By
how "realistic" it looks? My my. Why bother trying to exchange ideas in
usenet if doing so is "just an intellectual exercise" which I take to mean
useless?
> It's the equivalent of mathematicians trying to solve Fermat's Last
> Theorem. "Aren't I clever that I can devise a mental problem and
> then solve it?" It's all very cute but it has nothing to do with art,
> anymore than someone writing a computer program to generate
> numbers in some sequence and then outputting those numbers
> via a MIDI interface is "music", just because the numbers form
> a mathematically interesting pattern.
Ah, I begin to understand better now. You should understand, Peter, that
arguments based as far away from reason as yours leave us few options
beyond tiring ad hominem attacks.
Looking at the color choices and shape making in a painting, and enjoying
a work for the resonance those decisions produce, isn't remotely like
solving math problems. I will, however, patiently wait until you have
spent some time in a museum, gathered some experience, learned a bit about
the subject that *you* want to feel, as you put it, "so clever" about,
before dismissing you as a moron.
By the way, you may wish to edit replies more carefully. I'm sure you
woouldn't want the following two remarks credited to yourself. I wrote
them, but somehow you left them unquoted.
>
> I'm not sure what an example of a "formalism" in physics would be. Are you
> sure you don't mean "formulation"?
>
> In art, all formalism is is an awareness/focus on the decision making
> process as it is present in an individual work. It isn't a theory devised
> by eggheads. Where does that notion come from?
>
Webber
mark webber
>
> >I'm not sure what an example of a "formalism" in physics would be. Are you
> >sure you don't mean "formulation"?
>
> No I mean a formalism. One physicist can communicate with another
> one using formal language and symbols and models but what gives their
> formalisms its validity is that it references something objectively true.
Oh my, I was afraid of this. Perhaps you want to focus on visual art for a
few hours - become really, really brilliant at it - before showing us all
how physicists communicate.
Listen carefully now, this isn't as difficult as it may seem: Formalism is
not about "being formal". It isn't "formal speech" as opposed to casual,
unaffected or "informal."
(I don't put on black tie when I look at paintings.)
Formalism is an approach to looking at art that focuses on the way the
artist chooses to contrast shapes and colors. Form. Get it? (Not
likely, but we'll continue anyway, because what could be more fun?)
This approach can be applied to any art of any period. It is not, *not*,
tied to rhetoric.
Some more recent formalists have *added* gretaer concern for materials to
their approach - like Clement Greenberg - and decided that flatness is
more important than anything else. But that gets into rhetoric as quickly
as it gets away from esthetic response, so screw them, right?
But if spitting at "eggheads" is your passion, then formalism might be
more appealing than you realize. Of course, it would require knowing a
little about it first, but if you are supervising the communications of
physicists then you are surely capable of reading some esthetics.
>
> >In art, all formalism is is an awareness/focus on the decision
> >making process as it is present in an individual work.
>
> In art (and literature) a formalism is when that awareness is
> formalised. In other words when it is explicit (in the literal, not
> colloquial sense of "explicit").
Whoops! There you again, sounding like a buffoon. Nope, I'm beginning to
doubt the value of your correspondence. I'll give you one more chance, but
if you persist in sounding like a dolt I'm going to have to sever these
warm ties of ours.
in pity,
Webber
mark webber
> Exactly. "Formal ordered exchange of ideas". They key
> being "formal". The formalisms in art are arbitrary. Invariably
> what ends up happening is that the battle is joined over whose
> formalisms to accept. And since there is no objective basis
> to choose one, unlike, say physics where the formalisms are
> chosen because they demonstrably work in some objective
> sense, art ends up being debated not in terms of the art
> itself, but in terms of the formalisms. I.e, someone criticizes
> a piece of art but is told, "oh no this art is structured according
> to System X and therefore your criticisms are invalid because
> they are based on System Y. "
Peter, I suggest you study art with an artist, not a physicist.
The very best of luck!
Webber
Amanda Amante
You guys are one hot item... thanks for the good definitions... there is
some good information
being dispensed for anyone who wants to learn!
Amanda
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote in message
news:Pine.PMDF.3.96.9909250...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
>
> >
Erik A. Mattila
I'm confused about this debate. I tried to read Luke's paper, but I got
terribly confused. To me, it just wasn't all that clear, but it did seem
to have a point. I think the perspective Luke uses was Critical Theory
(to some extent) which means his paper was theory about theory, or
metatheory ( or criticism about criticism). The subsequent discussion
seems to jump from art to art criticism, and I'm having a bit of a
problem sorting it all out.
It seems to me that the 'formalism' of art is quite differnent from the
'formalism' of criticism. In art, I like to compare 'formalism' with the
lawyer's term "demurr." A motion to demurr is to raise questions about
'the four corners of the face of the complaint." (like whether or not
the complaint was processed correctly, or it had the correct dates on
it). This, to me, is equivalent to 'formalism' in art, i.e. 'the four
corners of the face ot the painting."
"Formalism' in criticism has to be somehow the same, and I think the most
important 'formal' quality of art criticism has to be methodology. Thus
we have "Marxist" criticism, "Russian Formalism," "Structuralist"
criticism, and so on. Wasn't Luke talking about PoMo criticism being
focused on the surface qualities of the object, or something like that?
I think another thing that happens here on RAF frequently that adds to
confusion is the use of the term 'criticism' itself. We have the popular
usage, which simply means evaluating something ususally in the negative.
However, 'criticism' in disciplines such as art criticism means something
quite different, which basically is an investigation into why somethng
exists and what are it's terms (as in critique)? Either usage is
legitmate, of course, but the author should indicate what usage is
germain to the discussion, just to avoid confusion.
Contrary to what Pete is saying below, "The formalisms in art are
arbitrary," I would argue the opposite, that they are never arbitrary.
But I may not understand what Pete means by 'formalism.' In the first
place, categories of art are primarily a product of formal criteria.
Painting, sculpture, prints, music, literature, poetry, film, performance
and so on. Such criteria is never arbitrary by the furthest stetch of
the imaginaiion.
Perhaps Pete's using 'formalism' in the context of art criticism. In
this case I would not agree either. For example, Frederich Docsteader
goes to a great lenth to 'define' Indian art, and distinguish it from
Euorpean art. So one formal quality of Indian painting that Docsteader
identifies is the shape of the carrier, and he concludes that the primary
distinction between Indian painting and European painting is the use of
an non-rectangular carrier and a rectangular carrier respectively. (I
hope nobody jumps up to oppose this - he was wrong, of course, but this
only serves as an example of formalism in art criticism). So
Docsteader's 'formalism' is not arbitrary at all. Now if you are a
Marxist Art Critic, you will be likely more interested in the effect a
painting has on people than the painting's 'intrinsic' attributes. This
refers to a 'formalism' of art criticism itself, rather than art
criticism refering to a 'formalism' in a work of art (such as
Docsteaders). In the Marxist example, the shift of interest from the
work itself to its reception (social meaning) is not arbitrary in the
least, as it is the logical extension of historical materialism into art
criticism.
Anyway, there I go again -- clamoring for clarifications. What the hell
are we talking about, and were are we standing when we speak?
Best,
Erik
mark webber wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
>
mark webber
> Hey Mark,
> You guys are one hot item... thanks for the good definitions... there is
> some good information
> being dispensed for anyone who wants to learn!
> Amanda
Shucks, thanks Amanda! That's real nice of you to say so.
Mark
Amanda Amante
mark webber
Hi Erik,
Through the broad, friendly smile on my face I am tempted to say that I
have left some questions for you in another thread, which you have replied
to by saying you haven't time to answer, but since you are one of the few
people here who *seem* more interested in bandying about esthetics than
the alt.brawlin' fiasco, I don't want to risk alienating you. Therefore,
let's see what you have to say:
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> I'm confused about this debate. I tried to read Luke's paper, but I got
> terribly confused.
Frankly, I couldn't get through the whole thing either. I make no claim to
being an intellectual - there are obviously smarter folks than me in this
group - but when something is divided into paragraphs and doesn't rely on
what look like very dry cliches I can get through it, dumb as I am.
However, the one part I did get - and agree with - was where Luke
(hey Luke! where are ya?) says that we don't look at art as individual
work anymore, we look at it as isms, part of a movement, and evaluate,
praise, condemn the movement instead of the piece. I think he is right to
see that as a current problem.
This is very much related to the discussion I was having with Andrew not
too long ago. Andrew replies, by the way, to posts addressed to him. You
and my friend Mr. Haber might take note of this little bit of netiquette.
>
> It seems to me that the 'formalism' of art is quite differnent from the
> 'formalism' of criticism. In art, I like to compare 'formalism' with the
> lawyer's term "demurr." A motion to demurr is to raise questions about
> 'the four corners of the face of the complaint." (like whether or not
> the complaint was processed correctly, or it had the correct dates on
> it). This, to me, is equivalent to 'formalism' in art, i.e. 'the four
> corners of the face ot the painting."
Hmmm. I do see formalist concerns as being related to the four edges of
the canvas, but your metaphor sounds more like dismissing a painting
because it isn't stretched properly, or because the wrong sort of brushes
were used.
>
> "Formalism' in criticism has to be somehow the same, and I think the most
> important 'formal' quality of art criticism has to be methodology. Thus
> we have "Marxist" criticism, "Russian Formalism," "Structuralist"
> criticism, and so on. Wasn't Luke talking about PoMo criticism being
> focused on the surface qualities of the object, or something like that?
>
You see, there are certain words that are very tricky in discourse of this
sort. Surface, for example, in other contexts means "without depth" or not
looking deep enough into the topic at hand. In painting, it could be
argued that what is on the surface is what is most germaine to the
discussion - in a literal sense.
But I'm afraid the biggest semantic problem we have is Formalist. Folks
are continually reading this to mean formal as in "not relaxed" or "not
casual" or rigid. As in formal education, as opposed to not going to
school. **This isn't what the word means in the context of art.**
Many people here may not like this, but it is a fact, and one that it
would behoove people to explore and understand more fully - especially if
they plan to go on the internet and make announcements about it.
I'll also remind those who are hystericly against this thing called
formalism (which they clearly have no acquaintance with) that this is no
thing of my own invention. The history of art has been appreciated by way
of looking at the "how", rather than the "what", for many centuries.
Looking at the way an artist achieves unity, pictorial concerns, visual
play - this has been going on at least as far back as Michelangelo, who is
quoted by Vasari as speaking of it as the only thing that distinguishes
great art from mediocre. I can't imagine how this can have changed.
Anyway, it is really intriguing and at the very least entertaining to try
to see how people differ in their views - as long as they can do so with
something approaching reason I'm all for it and eager to participate.
Peter, however, seems to be substituting experience of art with some sort
of bizarre chip on his shoulder. I don't have anything against brawling. I
love to fight - but I like to do it in person. Much more satisfying to
knock an ass on his ass than to try to do it with words. So the way I see
it, either Peter will have to get some reading done, get some education
in some museums, and understand what he is flapping about, or we should
hit a bar downtown and then slap each other around for an hour or so.
Right, Pete? And Erik, if you don't settle down and write some
responsible replies to my posts, I'm gonna slap you around too, ok?
warmly,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
> Hi Erik,
>
> Through the broad, friendly smile on my face I am tempted to say that I
> have left some questions for you in another thread, which you have replied
> to by saying you haven't time to answer, but since you are one of the few
> people here who *seem* more interested in bandying about esthetics than
> the alt.brawlin' fiasco, I don't want to risk alienating you. Therefore,
> let's see what you have to say:
Party On, Mark. I studied theory with a professor who pointed out to me that
I was stupid everytime I commented on anything - or she would go on to express
her idea of how 'concept-challenged' Americans were. Ha ha. So I could have
sat in classes and seminars shut-up (like some of the others) or keep blurting
out my inanities. I chose the latter, of course, and suffered for it.
Anyway, I won't be easily alienated. Everything is a downhill cruise since
then.
On Sat, 25 Sep 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I'm confused about this debate. I tried to read Luke's paper, but I got
> > terribly confused.
>
> Frankly, I couldn't get through the whole thing either. I make no claim to
> being an intellectual - there are obviously smarter folks than me in this
> group - but when something is divided into paragraphs and doesn't rely on
> what look like very dry cliches I can get through it, dumb as I am.
No, it's not a matter of being dumb or anything. Authors take a lot of
liberties with terminology. The problem with accusing someone with hyperbole
is that you should be fairly sure that they are using terms simply for thier
connotative ambiance, rather than for their meaning, unless you want to put
your foot in your mouth. But that means you have to understand the terms
yourself, in some sort of context, in order to discover hyperbole. I think a
lot of so-called PoMo writing does this - feeds this confusion.
A doctor gave a man a perscription for constipation, and explained that they
were suppositories and had to be take through his rectum. The patient didn't
understand what "rectum' meant, but he didn't want to appear ignorant by
asking. When he got home he asks his wife if they had a rectum around, and
she doesn't know what it means, so answers as vaguely as possible, not wanting
to appear ignorant: "No, we haven't had one of those is quite a while,
sorry." He goes next door to ask his neighbor, who also doesn't know the term
and doesn't want to appear ignorant, so says "Hell, no, I never even use those
things!" Well, the patient said 'what the hell, I'll just take them with
water." His constipation got worse, and he eventually got angry with his
doctor. He called up Doc and told him "for all the good the pills did me, I
could have shoved them up my ass!"
The Rx in this case is, of course, to really pay attention to writing
clearly. Explain concepts and terms for your reader. If you are writing
professionally, addressing a know audiance of professional - say a convention
of literary critics - you will know how generally you can use terms, and when
you need to define your usage.
> However, the one part I did get - and agree with - was where Luke
> (hey Luke! where are ya?) says that we don't look at art as individual
> work anymore, we look at it as isms, part of a movement, and evaluate,
> praise, condemn the movement instead of the piece. I think he is right to
> see that as a current problem.
>
> This is very much related to the discussion I was having with Andrew not
> too long ago. Andrew replies, by the way, to posts addressed to him. You
> and my friend Mr. Haber might take note of this little bit of netiquette.
But I did respond - at least with a point that could have served as a response
while the real response mounted (or died). That was that Shapiro could have
been talking about 'art' instead of just 'modern art.'
> > It seems to me that the 'formalism' of art is quite differnent from the
> > 'formalism' of criticism. In art, I like to compare 'formalism' with the
> > lawyer's term "demurr." A motion to demurr is to raise questions about
> > 'the four corners of the face of the complaint." (like whether or not
> > the complaint was processed correctly, or it had the correct dates on
> > it). This, to me, is equivalent to 'formalism' in art, i.e. 'the four
> > corners of the face ot the painting."
>
> Hmmm. I do see formalist concerns as being related to the four edges of
> the canvas, but your metaphor sounds more like dismissing a painting
> because it isn't stretched properly, or because the wrong sort of brushes
> were used.
Nope, just trying to distinguish between qualities of the object and qualities
of the subject. Remember, in that other thread I said that it really works
together, but as a theoretical object it was ok to seperate form and content.
I think you agreed.
> > "Formalism' in criticism has to be somehow the same, and I think the most
> > important 'formal' quality of art criticism has to be methodology. Thus
> > we have "Marxist" criticism, "Russian Formalism," "Structuralist"
> > criticism, and so on. Wasn't Luke talking about PoMo criticism being
> > focused on the surface qualities of the object, or something like that?
> >
>
> You see, there are certain words that are very tricky in discourse of this
> sort. Surface, for example, in other contexts means "without depth" or not
> looking deep enough into the topic at hand. In painting, it could be
> argued that what is on the surface is what is most germaine to the
> discussion - in a literal sense.
Right. We must always define these things. That's why I was trying to come
up with the Docsteader and Marxist example, for comparison. In a mongraph,
the author would probably spend a page or two defining 'surface' to eliminate
the possiblity of a reader misconstruing the intended meaning. This is what
makes theory writing so incredibly boring, sometimes (often). Well, I should
qualify that. It's boring to the casual reader. If you are keenly interested
in the subject, then these kinds of details are less boring - even
entertaining.
> But I'm afraid the biggest semantic problem we have is Formalist. Folks
> are continually reading this to mean formal as in "not relaxed" or "not
> casual" or rigid. As in formal education, as opposed to not going to
> school. **This isn't what the word means in the context of art.**
I liked your example of wearing a black tie to view paintings. I visualized
you standing before 'The Raft of the Medusa" stark naked, but for the black
tie.
> Many people here may not like this, but it is a fact, and one that it
> would behoove people to explore and understand more fully - especially if
> they plan to go on the internet and make announcements about it.
>
> I'll also remind those who are hystericly against this thing called
> formalism (which they clearly have no acquaintance with) that this is no
> thing of my own invention. The history of art has been appreciated by way
> of looking at the "how", rather than the "what", for many centuries.
> Looking at the way an artist achieves unity, pictorial concerns, visual
> play - this has been going on at least as far back as Michelangelo, who is
> quoted by Vasari as speaking of it as the only thing that distinguishes
> great art from mediocre. I can't imagine how this can have changed.
>
> Anyway, it is really intriguing and at the very least entertaining to try
> to see how people differ in their views - as long as they can do so with
> something approaching reason I'm all for it and eager to participate.
>
> Peter, however, seems to be substituting experience of art with some sort
> of bizarre chip on his shoulder. I don't have anything against brawling. I
> love to fight - but I like to do it in person. Much more satisfying to
> knock an ass on his ass than to try to do it with words. So the way I see
> it, either Peter will have to get some reading done, get some education
> in some museums, and understand what he is flapping about, or we should
> hit a bar downtown and then slap each other around for an hour or so.
>
> Right, Pete? And Erik, if you don't settle down and write some
> responsible replies to my posts, I'm gonna slap you around too, ok?
Responsible? How does that work?
Regardos,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
I'm enjoying this discussion - thanks for the lead...
Luke wrote:
> I suppose I should say that the real reason I posted the damn paper, which
> was, again, written a while ago, and pretty hastily, was that I've felt
> the "discourse" round these parts getting bogged down by minutia and
> personal attacks lately. After all, within the context of "fine art"
> there should be a few things to talk about. I'm glad and thankful for all
> the responses and I'll submit that this has been a lively, interesting,
> and respectful debate. Thanks to all.
The "damn paper' (tsk tsk). There's always going to me minutia and personal
attacks here, but that doesn't mean we can't go forward. I'm curious -- did
you write this paper for a class (course), and if so, what was it?
But I'll tell you my opinion -- I see discussions here developing pretty good
and then reaching an impasse -- a point of contention that is difficult to get
past. That's the challenge - to think of a way to get beyond a particular
ideological impasse. Maybe a form of plea bargaining would be appropriate.
> > Frankly, I couldn't get through the whole thing either. I make no claim to
> > being an intellectual - there are obviously smarter folks than me in this
> > group - but when something is divided into paragraphs and doesn't rely on
> > what look like very dry cliches I can get through it, dumb as I am.
>
> I had a hard time getting the paragraphs to show, sorry, and it aint that
> full of cliches, buddy...:)
I want to claim credit for writing a caveate to Mark about passing something
off as hyperbole when you're not exactly certain that the author doesn't know
what she/he is talking about. I think your paper did have a bit of hyperbole,
however, but....(no use riding a dead horse.)
> The formalism thing is, I guess, a little confusing, but I'm not sure why
> it needs to be so. In painting, formal concerns are those that deal with
> aspects of the painting that don't have to do with subject matter (the old
> dichotomy): that is, composition, hue, size, painting technique (brush
> stroke, drip, what have you), etc. In music, form usually refers to
> structural plan, or the division of the whole into parts, but this falls
> under form in painting as well. By surface aspects, especially as regards
> music, I'm talking about the most basic perceptable aspects of a music or
> musics--the sound that hits your ear, the instruments, and especially the
> identification of this piece as part of a larger group. Ideally, one
> hopes to move deeper into a piece and pay attention to how THIS piece
> works instead of that, paying attention to processes, relationships,
> rhetoric, reference, and ultimately, substance.
Well, previous discussion that have taken place on this newsgroup have reached
impasse over the issue to the relationship of language to art. This is
probably what needs to be hashed around a bit. It's problematical, however,
because one has to consider the possibility that such a 'connection' exists in
order to consider whether it is noteworthy or not. In order to consider the
possibility, one must indulge the question a bit, at least by being open to the
large body of theory that suggests the relationship is valid. We could easily
spend the rest of the century debating this fundamental point, possibly with no
tangible results. Want to try?
Best,
Erik Mattila
mark webber
Hi Erik,
I'm really glad to be having this conversation with you. I think you are
doing an extraordinary job, and with a little patience, I think we can
make some nice headway.
Would you do me a favor? When you reply, would you mind splitting it in
two parts, and emailing me a copy? Sometimes longer posts get filtered out
of my server. Thanks very much.
On Sun, 26 Sep 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> Mark, we might just as well continue the 'other thread' here, as it
> seems to be going in the same direction.
Ok. They all go that way, eventually, I think. I could be wrong.
>
> That's why I like Barthes so much (who isn't 'post-modern' necessarily).
> Where else can you read terms like 'stock of phrases, catechistic
> declarations?? I mean a lot of PoMo writers wouldn't dare use terms
> like that (yuk yuk yui).
Very handsome verbiage, yes. I'm not saying it isn't fun. It can even be
admirable in its invention. But it has little to do with visual
experience. Quite deliberately, I think.
>
> > Well, personally I think I do my fair share of defining and attempting
> > clarity. I'm not complaining - it simply doesn't seem to always help.
>
> I think you are clear - my comment wasn't aimed at you, but at one of the core
> problems of 'theory speak.' BTW, I got chastised frequently in grad school for
> this. Usually I was given the opportunity to correct the text, so I had some
> practice writing clearly - although I'm still challenged in this. I also studied
> Greek Art with Seymour Howard (recognized expert on the Elgin Marbles) and he would
> not accept a paper that was over 2.5 pages long (just long enough for a ten minute
> spot at a colloquium). It was really hard to write like that, and there was
> absolutely no room for hyperbole. A very good experience that I hated.
I'm really glad to hear that when it comes to expertise on the Elgin
Marbles, brevity and clarity make headway. I'm serious. I think those
things are among the most wonderful sculptures I've seen, and I rather
cringe at the thought of some boob trying to assimilate the embodiment of
their signage while contextualizing gender issues.
>
> > But if you feel I'm being unclear please say so.
>
> Ditto.
You usually seem pretty lucid. But I will call you on nonsense from now
on, if I may.
>
> But Mark, the Marxist 'consumption/production' also goes far beyond
> commerce. I would hate to get into a Marxism argument here - He's
> got such bad press lately (ha ha ha).
Yeah, well, here we go! Academic Marxism or Political Marxism, neither of
them address issues of quality. Don't both argue that individuality is a
myth? Do either have a nodding aquaintance with sensibility? If not, what
on earth do they have to do with looking at pictures?
Don't get me wrong, they are legitimate, fascinating excercises. But in
day to day gallery going, some stuff looks like shit, and some is
marvelous. You know, there is a huge possibility that in spite of his
genius, Marx didn't know good art from bad.
Furthermore, anyone who hasn't spent the time neccessary to distinguish
between insipid pap and stunning, authentic expression may well *resort*
to the sort of delightful meanderings offered in socio-political art
theory. But that doesn't make it more valid then looking at the work
itself, and how well it is made.
> But short of Marx, the proposition is that artists are coparticipants
> in culture,
> along with the patrons or viewers, ...
(interupting)
yes, I know; I don't disagree! But take it a step further! There are good
artists and bad artists, and informed viewers and uninformed viewers.
Quagmire of a situation, and for me, frankly, I have no interest in the
uninformed.
> and what they collectively percieve
> and select out of the 'all possible worlds' ...
(One of the most missed ideas in Voltaire is that in spite of Pangloss,
there is only *one* world. That is what made Candide satire.)
> is the creative stuff, and the authorship is held
> in question. True, this idea attacks, to some degree, the idea of invention and
> originality, but there are ways to remain appreciative of the artist's role and at
> the same time see a more collective authorship. We can argue this point also.
I understand, but I still feel it is absurdly anonymous to think that Joe
Blow, who buys into, say, Mattison's unending self hype, is as valuable a
contributer to our culture as someone in love with the Dekoonings of the
70s for the same reasons Dekooning made them.
[By the way, what on earth crawled up *her* ass? The last I heard from her
she was trying to get me to help her get a show. I'm not kiding. She
emailed me asking to help get her a show. I've never attacked her so I
have no idea why she wants to dance with me, and I don't usually play
those name calling games, but now she's saying I have a negative impact on
this group?
Let's try it this way: Hey Mattison! Go fuck yourself, art whore! If we're
all poseurs (and that, by the way is how one spells it) then why bother
with us?]
Anyway, where were we?
> >
> > Formalism addresses Form, not formats, formulas, formal dances,
> > form-fitted clothing, formosa, formication, or any other metamorphic
> > phormal manifestation of the letters F O R M.
> >
> > And Form is defined quite nicely in Websters; summed up it is the
> > relationship of the parts.
>
> So this is important - I think I disagree, but...
> In basic design we learn the terms 'line, form, and composition"
> as the components
> part of a visual design. I take all three to be terms which refer
> to the objects 'formal attributes.'
> Are you saying that only the 'form' part of this triad is a formal element?
No, neither I nor any of my sources are saying this. Your triad would
better serve, I think, if listed this way: line, *shape* and composition.
It would still be incomplete, but the confusion over the word "form" would
be reduced.
No, critics using the term form have generally meant it to include the
following: shape relationship, composition, contrast, line, as well as
color interaction.
I'll reiterate that these are not of my invention, but I do agree with
it.
Form is a step beyond composition. A composition can work in line alone.
And a simple line drawing can have an excellent composition and also
be seen as having excellent form. But poor color choices might spoil the
work, or contrasts without rhythm might make it seem less pleasing. Form
goes beyond composition in that it is the unity arrived at in a work.
> If you don't, and agree that all three (line, form, and composition) are
> all three 'formal
> elements' then you migh also agree that all three could be described as 'format'
> attributes. But I agree that formaldehyde is not - (except if we go over to the
> thread about corpses in art).
I see no reason why corpses could not be used with formal success. Really.
I don't think I'd care much for it, but that would be personal taste. But
formally, why couldn't corpse art work?
I know you're kidding, and I'm glad you are. I've seen some impatience
here, formally.
(snip bulk of very interesting summary of Russian formalism)
> and art in general (it should be noted that the Formalists were very associated
> with the leading plastic artists of the time, Malevitch, Kandinsky, Tatlin,
> Chlebnikov, Brik, Majakovskij, Meyerhold, etc (The Friends of the Formalists).
> This is just to underscore the fact that these artists had no problem seeing the
> relationship between plastic arts and language, as some of us today do.
In so far as literature, poetry etc, can be built on word choices that
work well together, absolutely! Yes, all of the arts succeed or fail based
on formal questions. That's just the way it works, whether you are
listening to the spontaneous *composition* of a Charlie Parker solo or the
*perFORMance* of a Bach fugue, whether you are watching the brilliant
*editing* of Eisenstein or the cmaera work of Hitchcock, whether you are
reading the composition of Nabokov, Joyce, Faulkner or Hemingway at his
best. It is form, *the relationships of the parts*, that holds a work
together - or not.
Now all these things may or may not be read socio-politically. All welcome
varied readings, whether as collective signs, psychological studies,
varying degrees of rebellion and reaction.
But here, here is the CRUX. The exact same can be said of any mediocre
noodling, any vapid cliche-ridden piece of "prose", any pointlessly
whining bit of angst parading itself as art. Any old piece old shit can be
read as signage. Who cares?
How does one regard the subject matter in literature, music, cinema, dance
as failing - *unless* one believes in approved subject matter. Gender
issues, for example. Very hot these days. Ticket to stardom. And in a few
decades? Just as likely it will be seen as reverse discrimination, a
dated point of view....
>
> Here's what is 'Formal" about Russian Formalism. To a large degree, the 'formal'
> is the product of a 'will to science' which, in the early decades of the 20th
> century, was very important across all academic fields.
(snipping)
Very fine. You know more of the history of these guys than I do.
Nevertheless, what you are describing is extra-pictorial. I have no qualms
about this sort of reading - it's no skin off my back. But one can't
determine the relative merit of individual works this way. Which Malevich
succeeds and which fails? As soon as we make this question irrelevent, do
we have something to wory about? Ever?
Of course, you are welcome to say no, but let me say this: I know of
absolutely no one who, once having learned form, has turned their back on
it.
The history of art has formal relationships as a common thread and try as
anyone might, that can't be changed.
>
> Formalism views the primary function of ordinary language as
> communicating a message, or information, by references to the world
> existing outside of language. In contrast, it
> views literary language as self-focused: its function is not to
> make extrinsic references, but to draw attention to its own "formal"
> features--that is, to interrelationships among the linguistic signs
> themselves.
> Literature is held to be subject to critical analysis by the sciences of
> linguistics but also by a type of linguistics different from that
> adapted to ordinary discourse,
> because its laws produce the distinctive features of literariness
>(Abrams, pp. 165-166).
Fine. Remember this: words, an element of form in literature, have
pre-attached meaning. Shapes, an element of form in painting, do
not necessarily.
Also this: Language does not equal art. Language does not equal poetry.
Nor is there an equivilence between language and visual art. There is
language *in* these things, yes, but art is not language. It utilizes
languages.
> Of course I'm aware that many here see no relationship between literature and
> plastic art. It's easy to see, if you are familiar with the history of thought in
> Western Civizalition in the 20th century that the Russian Formalist laid the
> groudwork of structrualism and semiotics, but if you can't accept that works of
> visual arts operate as semiotic systems then you are just out of the loop.
(I smile warmly across vapor at you.)
Let me do you the friendly service of modifying this remark so it is not
utter bullshit:
Works of visual art *can* be seen as semiotic systems. If one chooses to
look for something not subject matter oriented, one is not out of the
loop. If one opts to see visual art as a language with operating systems,
one may be taking part in a dialog with a built-in expiration date.
In addition to ignoring the fact that language is not the same thing as
art, and viual art works differently than literature (because those shapes
may not have meaning, need not have meaning.)
> I don't
> know what to say. If it gets to that 'impasse' there is simply nothing left to say
> about this. I mean we can only retrench and hash out the old argument that I
> believe has been settled already. (I'm talking very generically here, Mark, this
> isn't directed at you, personally. I just keep getting to the point where I
> realize that further discussion along these lines is completely moot if this one
> barrier cannot be toppled.)
>
I disagree. I have yet to see a solid reply in this group to fundamental
questions of evaluation in pomo theory. And I don't mean that I'm not open
to one. Everyone I've danced with here has quit and left my best questions
unanswered.
> So I should probably stop right here. To summarize, 'formalism' in the sense of
> Russian Formalism is the idea that meaning systems are systematic, measurable and
> predictable, and that grammars can be written which describe the operating rules of
> a system. The structure itself represents the 'object' by which scientific
> objectivity can be attained.
You are describing language - not art. They aren't the same thing.
> People who believe social science is not science
> don't seem to understand the objective qualities of a structure, even when it's
> physical manifestation is verbal utterance or splashes of paint on a ground. If
> you can show that the rules will be followed repeatedly and predictably, then you
> have a scientific hypothesis, right?
I think you could be a bit clearer here, frankly. Are you saying that
there is something predictable about the way people make art? What is it
about art-making that you find predictable?
I'm sorry this was so long. I should have split it up myself, but I was
having such a grand time, and editing is very tough in this program.
Thanks again, Erik!
Mark
Peter Nelson
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>> >I interpreted this differently. It reads to me as a distinction between
>> >judging a work based on an ism or the rhetoric behind it and judging a
>> >work by examing the issues raised and how well they are
>> >addressed/resolved.
>>
>> Exactly my point. What you describe is just an intellectual exercise.
>
>If this is an intellectual exercise then how do *you* evaluate art?
By how it moves me.
> By how "realistic" it looks?
You might be interested to know that most of the art I've bought in
recent years has been entirely nonrepresentational.
---peter
Peter Nelson
mark webber wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
>
>>
you
>> >sure you don't mean "formulation"?
>>
>> No I mean a formalism. One physicist can communicate with another
>> one using formal language and symbols and models but what gives their
>> formalisms its validity is that it references something objectively true.
>
>Oh my, I was afraid of this. Perhaps you want to focus on visual art for a
>few hours - become really, really brilliant at it - before showing us all
>how physicists communicate.
>
>Listen carefully now, this isn't as difficult as it may seem: Formalism is
>not about "being formal".
Neither is physics.
> It isn't "formal speech" as opposed to casual,
>unaffected or "informal."
Neither are scientific formalisms.
>
>(I don't put on black tie when I look at paintings.)
Neither do scientists.
Formalism in the arts occurs when there is an attempt to confine the
artistic expression to a intellectually-derived structure. The same
could be said for physics, except that A.) the structure for physics
is the objective world, and B.) Intellectual investigations are the
raison d'etre of science.
>Formalism is an approach to looking at art that focuses on the way the
>artist chooses to contrast shapes and colors. Form. Get it?
Wrong. The "form" in artistic formalism has nothing to do with the
"forms" that the art takes on the canvas. It has to do with the
structure ("form") of the CONCEPTS the artist is investigating. The
meaning of the term formalism is exactly the same whether the
subject is painting, poetry, or literature. You need to study more
art theory and art history.
---peter
Luke
> Well, previous discussion that have taken place on this newsgroup have reached
> impasse over the issue to the relationship of language to art. This is
> probably what needs to be hashed around a bit. It's problematical, however,
> because one has to consider the possibility that such a 'connection' exists in
> order to consider whether it is noteworthy or not. In order to consider the
> possibility, one must indulge the question a bit, at least by being open
to the
> large body of theory that suggests the relationship is valid. We could easily
> spend the rest of the century debating this fundamental point, possibly
with no
> tangible results. Want to try?
>
> Best,
> Erik Mattila
Well, I suppose I'll try a little. I wouldn't ever suggest that language
and art are analogous, or have strict parallels, or that meaning, whatever
that consists of, is handled the same way in both. I guess I prefer to
deal with this whole issue fairly loosely. In music (to a take a
circuitous route into this) I believe meaning is often intuited via
metaphorical association--that is, phenomena are seen to represent certain
things. This can be very general, for example, in classical music, a
massive loud coming together of instrumental sounds four fifths of the way
through a piece represents, often, a "climax" of a dramatic sort. Often
established conventions that are denied or tweeked suggest crisis, or
dysfunction. I think this is the case in visual art as well, at the most
basic level: that is, in representational painting, if one distorts the
human figure, it tends to make the effect less stable, not more. Now, one
has to recognize a human figure is being distorted. Just so in music, one
needs to be familiar with conventions to understand that they're being
messed around with. The language thing I'll take just this far--one needs
to be aware that not only is there an ordered (not neccesarily orderly)
and consistent syntax, but one needs to be able to understand something
about the conventions of that syntax for one to understand (the way one
understands that a human figure is being distorted, or that a pun is being
made or that the verbs are being left out) that these conventions are
being manipulated. I'm describing a situation here wherein one is able to
glean meaning in a fairly detailed, and complex way.
Of course, I'm not (repeat NOT) trying to say this is the way all art
should go, or that art that denies the above cannot have meaning. I do
think, however, that along with the wonderful opportunities that art and
music that move away from both representationalism ands tonality
respectively offer, problems arise as to how the artist or composer
creates situations from which the observer/listener can pull any meaning.
If one thinks of how complex and subtle the layers of rhetoric are in say,
late Beethoven, and Goya (these may not be the best examples), and compare
that to Stockhausen and Rothko, it's obvious that the former two have
richer layers of discursive meaning. NOW, I aint saying it's
better!!!!!Rothko pretty clearly has no interest in recreating the same
discursive content oriented stuff that Goya's into, nor should he. And
Rothko offers opportunities that Goya simply can't. I will suggest,
however, that whenever one deals with what I might call a prevalent
style--such as the classical/romantic style in music, swing jazz (bebop
too, for the cognescenti), figurative painting--where two critical things
can take place: 1) many people can be familiar with the conventions and
boundaries of the style, and 2) the artists can be working in the style in
what I would call authentic ways (by which I mean, for them, it's real,
organic, thay can do it and be totally themselves, you've got a pretty
cool thing going.
I believe that (and I think one would have to agree) that most of the
general populace doesn't really know what to make of much of modern art,
even architecture, music, experimental literature, theatre. And I think
this has much (not all) to do with the fact that the public has no real
road into the work, so you get these dumb pre-concert talks about what the
composer was TRYING to do. I think people like to understand things that
are being said to them. And it really is the responsibility of the artist
to define one's conventions in such a way that gives the public some
apparatus to understand, in ways that are vaguely, and I'll stick with
vaguely, akin to how we understand language. I want to make it clear that
I'm not trying to couch value judgements in here, and I think a return to
older methods of conventions are in general a bad strategy. I'm not
agreeing with Mani and crew here. I believe in artistic autonomy,
authenticity, and I suppose, evolution. As a composer, my stuff id
probably pretty hard for your basic season ticket subscriber to understand
(I'm not sure I understand it myself), but this is something I have to
face, think about, take an attitude toward, and not blame the public for.
They owe me no more than I owe them.
Maybe a bit too long? Sorry......it matters, yo.
Luke
Erik A. Mattila
> Hi Erik,
>
> I'm really glad to be having this conversation with you. I think you are
> doing an extraordinary job, and with a little patience, I think we can
> make some nice headway.
>
> Would you do me a favor? When you reply, would you mind splitting it in
> two parts, and emailing me a copy? Sometimes longer posts get filtered out
> of my server. Thanks very much.
No problem, Mark, will do.
> > That's why I like Barthes so much (who isn't 'post-modern' necessarily).
> > Where else can you read terms like 'stock of phrases, catechistic
> > declarations?? I mean a lot of PoMo writers wouldn't dare use terms
> > like that (yuk yuk yui).
>
> Very handsome verbiage, yes. I'm not saying it isn't fun. It can even be
> admirable in its invention. But it has little to do with visual
> experience. Quite deliberately, I think.
Sure it do. We're talking about talking about art here - unless you want to go brush to
brush on this (grrr.)
> (snip clarity comments)
> > But Mark, the Marxist 'consumption/production' also goes far beyond
> > commerce. I would hate to get into a Marxism argument here - He's
> > got such bad press lately (ha ha ha).
>
> Yeah, well, here we go! Academic Marxism or Political Marxism, neither of
> them address issues of quality. Don't both argue that individuality is a
> myth? Do either have a nodding aquaintance with sensibility? If not, what
> on earth do they have to do with looking at pictures?
Well, it's just pointing to the difference between practice and theory. It's pretty
hard to read the social sciences without some knowledge of Marx, since his work set so
much in motion. But in Zhivago, Pasternak (the dirty revisionist) said "There is no
personal life in the revolution" so I would say you are correct insofar as political
marxism is concerned. But on the other hand, the 'party-line' ideology asks for the
'supression' of individuality for the benefit of the collective, and you can't 'supress'
something that you think is a lie (myth).
Academic marxisms seems to me to be otherwise. At least a concept of the individual
(which may or may not be the same as yours or mine) is key to much of Marx's sociology.
Concepts such as historical materialism wouldn't make much sense without it, since it
basically says that history should be understood as meaningful to the individual, a real
influence on the life of the individual, rather than being displayed as a museum
artefact, as a spectacle with the status of a curio. If you can accept this, then it's
not too much of a jump to see that it can also relate to viewing pictures.
Walter Benjamin wrote a very interesting essay addressing these issues - "Edward Fuchs,
Collector and Historian." Fuchs, btw, was perhaps the first to undertake a serious
study of European pornography, treating it as a social phenomena that had some depth,
not merely as spectacle.
Walter Benjamin, "Eduard Fuchs: Collector and Historian" in The Essential Frankfurt
School Reader, ed. by A. Arato & Eike Gebhardt, NY: Urizen Books,1978, pp. 225 - 253.
> Don't get me wrong, they are legitimate, fascinating excercises. But in
> day to day gallery going, some stuff looks like shit, and some is
> marvelous. You know, there is a huge possibility that in spite of his
> genius, Marx didn't know good art from bad.
An interesting proposition. I honestly don't know what Karl considered good in art, but
I suspect that he had his favorites, and that a painting he liked 'spoke' to him in ways
which he would have trouble incorporating into his economics.
But here's where I run into trouble, even with the way I have things figured. I've
looked at those rifles in museums that have all the inlay work, filagree, exquisite
metal-work. They amaze me. I've wondered how the hell that anyone would ever take such
a fire arm out into the Renaissance woods to murder bunny rabbits - running the risk of
chipping the marquetry or soiling the patina with gun-powder residue. I finally decided
these were never inteded to be used, except for display, and for the ostentatious
display of wealth. They are in perfect condition because they were created to be works
of art, at least as a functional strategy. Their use was to merely exhibit themselves
to people. They were 'exhibited' in a banker's villa or baron's castle along with
paintings, sculpture, and the rest of the eclectic collections of curios housed in the
personal 'wunderkammern'. After the invention of the museum, a couple of centuries
later, these collections were simply move and remounted, and public access was broadened
to the spectacle.
To me, the viewing of these firearms is an aesthetic experience. The craftsmanship has
an etherial quality because it is difficult to imagine how a builder could be so
skillful. So there's an element of unbelievability in it, as if these were products of
magic elven agents or something. The aesthetic thrill heightens when I constrast this
to our contemporary standards of manufaturer. It's like the time that Sting, unwisely,
agreed to a TV concert with Pavaroti, Carrares and Domingo. By himself, Sting is a
great talent, but next to the Big 3 tenors he sounded like a frog with a trachyotomy,
suffering from bronchitis.
> Furthermore, anyone who hasn't spent the time neccessary to distinguish
> between insipid pap and stunning, authentic expression may well *resort*
> to the sort of delightful meanderings offered in socio-political art
> theory. But that doesn't make it more valid then looking at the work
> itself, and how well it is made.
I have to retreat again to the perspective argument. How about if I evoke Russel's
'Theory of Types?" You know, it was exemplified by the box that contained the words
"all statements in the box are false" to showcase the logical paradox that you arrive at
by speaking about a system from within the system. So philosophers, social scientists
and critiques say all sorts of things about art, but at least it is intended that they
are speaking from a position outside art. From this perspective qualitative statements
are simply unimportant, since the theorist is simply looking at art as a social
phenomena that operates according to a particular set of rules.
Our arguments about quality, what is good and what is bad, what flies and what sinks,
are always spoken from a position 'inside' art. Now honestly, Mark, and with the utmost
candor, I can't think of a reasonable basis to argue which is the superior position. I
see a huge distance between the theoretical perspective and the 'inside engagement' and
I just can't see where the two can connect except on a very superficial level of
generalities and synonyms. I see the two as discrete practices. On the other hand, I
could see a basis to argue vigorously against the position that one way is superior to
the other, or the position that there is an absloute, priveledged position to take on
the matter.
Since we were taling about clarity, I would also argue that the kind of distinction I am
making here would make the ensuing discussions clearer. I think it's important to start
a discussion, or debate, by clearly stating your position or perspective. Jeez, those
diplomats will argue about seating for three weeks before the peace talks begin. In the
discrete world of diplomacy, seating arrangements are important, as each entity seeks an
advantage, no matter how subtle.
Good etalking with you, as usual, Cherrios,
Erik
mark webber
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
> Formalism in the arts occurs when there is an attempt to confine the
> artistic expression to a intellectually-derived structure. The same
> could be said for physics, except that A.) the structure for physics
> is the objective world, and B.) Intellectual investigations are the
> raison d'etre of science.
I hate to do this to you, but give me a source, please. One book, just
one, that describes formalism in the arts this way.
> >Formalism is an approach to looking at art that focuses on the way the
> >artist chooses to contrast shapes and colors. Form. Get it?
>
> Wrong.
Oh really? Have you ever picked up a single book on esthetics?
> The "form" in artistic formalism has nothing to do with the
> "forms" that the art takes on the canvas. It has to do with the
> structure ("form") of the CONCEPTS the artist is investigating.
But I thought you said that intellectual excercizes of this sort were
verboten. Why would someone who only cares about art by how it moves him
worry about the investigation of concepts?
So help me, if you will; everyone walking around calling themselves a
formalist - or criticizing formalism - if they mean it the way I mean it,
they are wrong too?
> The
> meaning of the term formalism is exactly the same whether the
> subject is painting, poetry, or literature. You need to study more
> art theory and art history.
Ah. Well I await your reading list.
mark webber
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Peter Nelson wrote:
> >> >I interpreted this differently. It reads to me as a distinction between
> >> >judging a work based on an ism or the rhetoric behind it and judging a
> >> >work by examing the issues raised and how well they are
> >> >addressed/resolved.
> >>
> >> Exactly my point. What you describe is just an intellectual exercise.
> >
> >If this is an intellectual exercise then how do *you* evaluate art?
>
> By how it moves me.
>
And the above distinction is of no importance to you? Or it doesn't exist?
The fact that it is an intellectual excercise means it shouldn't take
place? I'm talking about seeing the above distinction, not any particular
way of looking at art.
By the way, *how* it moves one is just the point to formalism. I
understand that you don't want to use the word this way, but after you
have successfully made every critic and esthetician, dead and living, who
have used it as I am using it confess they have used it "incorrectly",
will it make looking less of an intellectual excercise?
> > By how "realistic" it looks?
>
> You might be interested to know that most of the art I've bought in
> recent years has been entirely nonrepresentational.
Well, frankly, no it doesn't really interest me. I'm not interested in the
taste of people for whom there is an important difference between
abstract and representational.
mark webber
On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> >
> > Very handsome verbiage, yes. I'm not saying it isn't fun. It can even be
> > admirable in its invention. But it has little to do with visual
> > experience. Quite deliberately, I think.
>
> Sure it do. We're talking about talking about art here - unless you
> want to go brush to brush on this (grrr.)
This may be one of those trip-up points, but I see a difference between
art talk about the visual experience in the work itself and art talk about
the work, the artist, the viewer and their relationships to each other.
I'm not saying one is more important than the other - I just mean one
*can* speak about the visual play itself.
Do you agree to that distinction? If so, do you want to say which type of
art talk is tied *more* to why a particular work is considered superior to
another?
> Academic marxisms seems to me to be otherwise. At least a concept
> of the individual (which may or may not be the same as yours or mine) is
> key to much of Marx's sociology.
> Concepts such as historical materialism wouldn't make much sense without
> it, since it basically says that history should be understood as
> meaningful to the individual, a real
> influence on the life of the individual, rather than being displayed
> as a museum artefact, as a spectacle with the status of a curio. If you
> can accept this, thenit's not too much of a jump to see that it can also
> relate to viewing pictures.
Ok, but I still don't see an evaluation application. Much of what one
writes can work in theory wihout having any day-to-day application. The
theory can still be enormously entertaining - and profitable. Theory
itself is a commodity, no?
(snip)
> But here's where I run into trouble, even with the way I have things figured. I've
> looked at those rifles in museums that have all the inlay work, filagree, exquisite
> metal-work. They amaze me. I've wondered how the hell that anyone would ever take such
> a fire arm out into the Renaissance woods to murder bunny rabbits - running the risk of
> chipping the marquetry or soiling the patina with gun-powder residue. I finally decided
> these were never inteded to be used, except for display, and for the ostentatious
> display of wealth. They are in perfect condition because they were created to be works
> of art, at least as a functional strategy. Their use was to merely exhibit themselves
> to people. They were 'exhibited' in a banker's villa or baron's castle along with
> paintings, sculpture, and the rest of the eclectic collections of curios housed in the
> personal 'wunderkammern'. After the invention of the museum, a couple of centuries
> later, these collections were simply move and remounted, and public access was broadened
> to the spectacle.
Really delightful speculation, but unlike your rifle I don't see an
alternative purpose to a painting. It just hangs there. Further some
people hang nice guitars on the wall and never play them. Other people
trash beautiful instruments, cars, other well-made things, because that is
how they enjoy them. And some people use beautiful objects very carefully.
It is my understanding that many objects like the rifle you speak of
*were* in fact used, but perhaps not often. It isn't difficult to see
contemporary analogous usage of well-made things.
But if some wealthy landowner has a collection of rifles and some are
pristinely preserved, I think we have evidence of connoiseurship. And
connoisseurship requires experienced looking. Does this lead us back to
familiar ground? Can one really explain this phenomenon with *only* social
theory?
> > Furthermore, anyone who hasn't spent the time neccessary to distinguish
> > between insipid pap and stunning, authentic expression may well *resort*
> > to the sort of delightful meanderings offered in socio-political art
> > theory. But that doesn't make it more valid then looking at the work
> > itself, and how well it is made.
>
> I have to retreat again to the perspective argument. How about if I evoke Russel's
> 'Theory of Types?" You know, it was exemplified by the box that contained the words
> "all statements in the box are false" to showcase the logical paradox that you arrive at
> by speaking about a system from within the system. So philosophers, social scientists
> and critiques say all sorts of things about art, but at least it is intended that they
> are speaking from a position outside art. From this perspective qualitative statements
> are simply unimportant, since the theorist is simply looking at art as a social
> phenomena that operates according to a particular set of rules.
I think it is impossible for me, and a good many other museum-goers to
artificially change our perspective. I still insist that when one learns
form, one doesn't turn one's back on it. There is no way for me to pretend
that I am not a part of this system. I don't augment my mental armory by
pretending to be above or apart from esthetic experience. After all, I'm
just a simple webber of marks, and benefit most from trying to see how
best to impress other such dabblers.
My first and continuing reaction to any work of art is "does it succeed?"
One day at play in the fields of social theory winds up being one day too
many in comparison to esthetic experience.
A marxist examination can be applied to anything in addition to art.
Esthetic experience comes from art alone.
>
> Our arguments about quality, what is good and what is bad, what flies and what sinks,
> are always spoken from a position 'inside' art. Now honestly, Mark, and with the utmost
> candor, I can't think of a reasonable basis to argue which is the superior position. I
> see a huge distance between the theoretical perspective and the 'inside engagement' and
> I just can't see where the two can connect except on a very superficial level of
> generalities and synonyms. I see the two as discrete practices. On the other hand, I
> could see a basis to argue vigorously against the position that one way is superior to
> the other, or the position that there is an absloute, priveledged position to take on
> the matter.
Complete agreement. I just like having art orgasms more than being in art
therapy. I'm not saying you are wrong to apply theory to art. I'm only
asking you if you wonder what makes a painting good.
So, let's put it this way: how do you feel about a position from which the
relative importance of art and plumbing are indistinguishable? Because if
art is *only* a reflection of the culture that produces it, then it is no
more important than how my shit is drained out of my house.
with great enjoyment,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
> On Mon, 27 Sep 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Very handsome verbiage, yes. I'm not saying it isn't fun. It can even be
> > > admirable in its invention. But it has little to do with visual
> > > experience. Quite deliberately, I think.
> >
> > Sure it do. We're talking about talking about art here - unless you
> > want to go brush to brush on this (grrr.)
>
> This may be one of those trip-up points, but I see a difference between
> art talk about the visual experience in the work itself and art talk about
> the work, the artist, the viewer and their relationships to each other.
> I'm not saying one is more important than the other - I just mean one
> *can* speak about the visual play itself.
>
> Do you agree to that distinction? If so, do you want to say which type of
> art talk is tied *more* to why a particular work is considered superior to
> another?
>
It is a trip-up point, Mark, but I'm not sure what we're tripping over. I have this horrible
deadline hanging over me, so I can't indulge myself too much right now. But it occcurs to me
that we're talking around an issue that is the most important for you, and certainly
interesting to me (although I don't know where it will go.) I'm talking about 'aesthetics'
or 'esthetics' itself -- a whole new can of worms. I think we can swing over to aesthetics
and drop off a lot of the various theoretical baggage we've been carrying (and pick up new
baggage.)
Anyway, I thought about this late last night when I was contemplating a reply. I even
started looking at 'aesthetics' with a search engine. I ended up reading Plato's "Ion" and
it was terrific. If you want to do the same (and others here who might be interested) "Ion"
is online at the Perseus Project at Tufts:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/text?lookup=plat.+ion+530a
I also read a Barnett Newman quote that I had completely forgotten: ""Aesthetics is for art
what ornithology is for the birds"
Anyway, let me know if you agree that we can swing this interesting discussion around to look
at aesthetics itself. Otherwise I have to disagree with the distinction you've made above,
simply because for a work of art to be considered, there must be a 'considerer.' which is an
agent which isn't part of the work of art (i.e. intrinsic attribute.)
Thanks,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Ok, but I still don't see an evaluation application. Much of what one
> writes can work in theory wihout having any day-to-day application. The
> theory can still be enormously entertaining - and profitable. Theory
> itself is a commodity, no?
I couldn't resist responding to this, Mark. I think theory can be a commodity. In my
perusing last night I also ran across a short essay by Lyotard which addresses some issues of
aesthetics, but also the essay comments on the intellectual fashion industry (where we can
extrapolate the commodification of ideas). Also some good angles on 'modernism' there, also
how 'modernism' quickly becomes kitsch once circulated in society.
http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/depts/english/coursework/raley/canon/Lyotard.html
Teaser:
"Fashion has an affinity with aesthetics. The latter develops in the middle of the nineteenth
century at the same time as poetics declines. The value of the work is determined by its
evaluation by its addressees (the "public"), and not by the respect that the sender (author,
artist, thinker) displays for the rules of the genre." -- J.F.L.
Try it, you'll like it. Or, you might hate it. Who knows? (the Shadow do).
Erik
mark webber
> > This may be one of those trip-up points, but I see a difference between
> > art talk about the visual experience in the work itself and art talk about
> > the work, the artist, the viewer and their relationships to each other.
> > I'm not saying one is more important than the other - I just mean one
> > *can* speak about the visual play itself.
> >
> > Do you agree to that distinction? If so, do you want to say which type of
> > art talk is tied *more* to why a particular work is considered superior to
> > another?
> >
>
> It is a trip-up point, Mark, but I'm not sure what we're tripping over. I have this horrible
> deadline hanging over me, so I can't indulge myself too much right now. But it occcurs to me
> that we're talking around an issue that is the most important for you, and certainly
> interesting to me (although I don't know where it will go.) I'm talking about 'aesthetics'
> or 'esthetics' itself -- a whole new can of worms. I think we can swing over to aesthetics
> and drop off a lot of the various theoretical baggage we've been carrying (and pick up new
> baggage.)
Well, I don't really see it as a big shift in discussion. And if you do
see a distinction between esthetics and social/content readings of art
then it is not a trip-up point. By all means, shift if you like - and I do
have a couple of rather large deadlines myself - but do you feel we've
resolved the issues already before us? Or come to mutual understanding?
> I also read a Barnett Newman quote that I had completely forgotten: ""Aesthetics is for art
> what ornithology is for the birds"
Now was that Newman or Rothko? I need to know that right away, because I'm
including that quote in an essay I'm writing, and I've just had it in my
head that it is Rothko.
>
> Anyway, let me know if you agree that we can swing this interesting discussion around to look
> at aesthetics itself.
Fine with me.
> Otherwise I have to disagree with the distinction you've made above,
> simply because for a work of art to be considered, there must be a
> 'considerer.' which is an agent which isn't part of the work of art
> (i.e. intrinsic attribute.)
Well, that's kind of obvious I think. Of course the viewer is not part of
the work itself, and of course the viewer, work and artist are each parts
of the experience. Frankly I don't understand why this concept takes up so
much time. It almost seems like the fruit of heavy pot-smoking. No offense
meant.
Yes, swing away!
Mark
mark webber
> > Theory
> > itself is a commodity, no?
>
> I couldn't resist responding to this, Mark. I think theory can be a commodity. In my
> perusing last night I also ran across a short essay by Lyotard which addresses some issues of
> aesthetics, but also the essay comments on the intellectual fashion industry (where we can
> extrapolate the commodification of ideas). Also some good angles on 'modernism' there, also
> how 'modernism' quickly becomes kitsch once circulated in society.
>
> http://humanitas.ucsb.edu/depts/english/coursework/raley/canon/Lyotard.html
>
> Teaser:
>
> "Fashion has an affinity with aesthetics. The latter develops in the middle of the nineteenth
> century at the same time as poetics declines. The value of the work is determined by its
> evaluation by its addressees (the "public"), and not by the respect that the sender (author,
> artist, thinker) displays for the rules of the genre." -- J.F.L.
First, I think Monsieur Lyotard is speaking of a very specific type of
esthetics - esthetic experiences were being written about by Pliny, so
they go back a bit further than the middle of the last century.
Second, I think observations like these can be wonderful stimulation, but
aren't a substitute for esthetic experience. In fact, I rather think they
are something to do while waiting for the next wonderful esthetic
experience to come along - they aren't always in front of us, right?
But the sort of writing that one reads in say, Art Forum, yeah, big time
fashion. With that built-in expiration date.
I do wish, though, that you wouldn't leap out of our thread without
answering a few of the questions I left for you - you are picking up good
friend John Haber's MO of drifting away from points I raise. It gives the
impression (very false, I'm sure) that you can't answer them.
(I mean, I only challenge folks who aren't afraid to appear intelligent,
so clearly, deadlines or no, you are capable.)
Here is one more: If someone has read a lot of art theory, things along
the lines of say, pomo writing or maybe Steinberg's "Other Criteria" - if
that sort of expanded thinking has been the primary diet of someone, but
they *haven't* spent a lot of time looking at old masters from many
periods... well, is it possible that this ficticious person could be
kidding themselves about how experienced, how thorough their understanding
is of art? Of where meaning resides?
I'm just wondering, because I do occassionally meet someone who is pretty
sure they are on top of art but in fact it appears to me they have missed
the best part. Possibility? And can we be sure that that best part was
*not* much more widely confirmed in the past, and now that we are
meta-theoried we aren't looking anymore?
warmly,
Mark
John Haber
Well, unless Mark is making more off teaching than he lets on, not the
most significant or profitable one. I hope that means he's serving
really good wine at his next opening.
Sorry, but this feels a bit PC to me, the puritanical side of pomo. (I
feel the same way when AbEx becomes in theory a tool of corporate
capitalism, racism, and sexism.) It's true, but in the sense that
EVERYTHING is a commodity. This is a proverbial late stage of
capitalism. That gives one a better tool to analyze things, much as
Lyotard did in tracing the evolution of poetics into theory. But that
also means it's too sweeping a connection to serve as a denouncement.
Erik A. Mattila
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
> > I also read a Barnett Newman quote that I had completely forgotten: ""Aesthetics is for art
> > what ornithology is for the birds"
>
> Now was that Newman or Rothko? I need to know that right away, because I'm
> including that quote in an essay I'm writing, and I've just had it in my
> head that it is Rothko.
Danto says it's Newman. I read it here, bottom of paragraph 1
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r1.html
E
Marilyn Welch
Actually
it was
"aesthetics is to me what orinthology must be to a bird."
though I don't have the reference in front of me.
Marilyn
mark webber
>
> Actually
> it was
> "aesthetics is to me what orinthology must be to a bird."
> though I don't have the reference in front of me.
>
> Marilyn
Thanks!
mark webber
> > Now was that Newman or Rothko? I need to know that right away, because I'm
> > including that quote in an essay I'm writing, and I've just had it in my
> > head that it is Rothko.
>
> Danto says it's Newman. I read it here, bottom of paragraph 1
>
> http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r1.html
>
> E
Thanks!
mark webber
Welcome back John; on Thu, 30 Sep 1999, you wrote:
> Erik & Mark, adapting Lyotard:
> > I think theory can be a commodity.
>
> Well, unless Mark is making more off teaching than he lets on, not the
> most significant or profitable one. I hope that means he's serving
> really good wine at his next opening.
The red will be a Montepulciano, honoring that fine Tuscan hill town where
I drank too much already. Who cares what the white will be.
I make precious little profit from theory - little more from practice.
What I had in mind was not my own profit, but that of the industry which
has somehow convinced a good number of very bright people that they need
know very little about art in order to pontificate about it. In lieu of an
art education is the simple ability to read, in many cases.
>
> Sorry, but this feels a bit PC to me, the puritanical side of pomo. (I
> feel the same way when AbEx becomes in theory a tool of corporate
> capitalism, racism, and sexism.)
I'm not sure I understand - it is PC to note that people earn a living
from interpretation? That was all I meant.
The AbEx "corporate tool" deal is only part of the theory/industrial
complex - only one of its manifestations. Right? Along with "the fallacy
of the author", the "impossibility of agreed meanings", etc.... Am I
mistaken?
> It's true, but in the sense that
> EVERYTHING is a commodity.
Well, of course. We don't want to claim that academia and its fruits are
some sort of pure, perfect culture, do we? There is tenure to be had, by
golly.
> This is a proverbial late stage of
> capitalism. That gives one a better tool to analyze things, much as
> Lyotard did in tracing the evolution of poetics into theory. But that
> also means it's too sweeping a connection to serve as a denouncement.
But it wasn't meant as a denouncement. It is perfectly alright to take the
process of identification to the nausienth degree when describing art, but
try to identify aspects of theory and we can sense some defensiveness. Not
on your part, of course, John. But you see what I mean, I'm sure.
great to have you back!
Mark
John Haber
in the library the whole day before my trip to London just reading
about Krasner and her generation.
It's a cute line, btw, but I never could make much use of it. For one
thing, it didn't stop B.N. from having a few opinions here and there
about art, like any true-born New Yorker. For another, I could write
it off to an artist's natural reluctance to feel he's being explained
away. For a third, parse it: birds can't cite ornithology, but no
one claims ornithology is no use to making sense of birds. So he
could just be saying he himself doesn't have to talk esthetics, much
like in Marilyn's version of it.
Alison A Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>The red will be a Montepulciano, honoring that fine Tuscan hill town where
>I drank too much already. Who cares what the white will be.
Hey I do !
--
Alison
John Haber
>I'm not sure I understand - it is PC to note that people earn a living
>from interpretation? That was all I meant.
Well, given that university teaching is the only job that pays less
than publishing, I'm a little suspicious. Talk about puritans. It's
too much like the neo-con stuff about academics and liberals taking
over the world. About time we woke up to the power of REAL commodity
and corporate culture.
>The AbEx "corporate tool" deal is only part of the theory/industrial
>complex - only one of its manifestations. Right?
I like that. A hall of mirrors. The theory is a commodity, and the
theory that the theory is a commodity is one such commodity, and .....
As I say, this is all true, and Lyotard uses it effectively to pull
apart culture and add insight. Of course we're part of the system we
analyze. But it so easily turns into reactionary garbage.
Great to catch you here, too. Hope last bit of polishing things up
for the show is going well.
Erik A. Mattila
> Welcome back John; on Thu, 30 Sep 1999, you wrote:
>
> > Erik & Mark, adapting Lyotard:
> > > I think theory can be a commodity.
> >
> > Well, unless Mark is making more off teaching than he lets on, not the
> > most significant or profitable one. I hope that means he's serving
> > really good wine at his next opening.
>
> The red will be a Montepulciano, honoring that fine Tuscan hill town where
> I drank too much already. Who cares what the white will be.
Whew Boy! That reminds me of the best red I ever did dirnk (considering my
price bracket). I found it on the shelf of a local Safeway. "Ser Nicolo"
and it was a pricey 9 bucks a bottle. Tuscan red it was too. So I bought a
bottle, next weet another, and another and so on until the case was gone.
Never heard of it since. The store manager said it was an anomoly - don't
look for more. It had that nutty aftertaste that a decent Rioja has.
However, if we study wine theory.....(hee he he) (I'm just trying to try art
thinking w/o theory here).
> I make precious little profit from theory - little more from practice.
...and I've never made a dime practicing theory.
> What I had in mind was not my own profit, but that of the industry which
> has somehow convinced a good number of very bright people that they need
> know very little about art in order to pontificate about it. In lieu of an
> art education is the simple ability to read, in many cases.
Mark, I thought we agreed that pontifiating about theory was pontificating
about theory, even though it may be a theory about art. That's why I
appreciate Danto so much when he wrote "Don't look to philosophy for lessons
about art....philosophy takes from art that which interests philosophy...(I'm
paraphrasing - don't remember the exact words).
> > Sorry, but this feels a bit PC to me, the puritanical side of pomo. (I
> > feel the same way when AbEx becomes in theory a tool of corporate
> > capitalism, racism, and sexism.)
>
> I'm not sure I understand - it is PC to note that people earn a living
> from interpretation? That was all I meant.
>
> The AbEx "corporate tool" deal is only part of the theory/industrial
> complex - only one of its manifestations. Right? Along with "the fallacy
> of the author", the "impossibility of agreed meanings", etc.... Am I
> mistaken?
>
> > It's true, but in the sense that
> > EVERYTHING is a commodity.
>
> Well, of course. We don't want to claim that academia and its fruits are
> some sort of pure, perfect culture, do we? There is tenure to be had, by
> golly.
>
> > This is a proverbial late stage of
> > capitalism. That gives one a better tool to analyze things, much as
> > Lyotard did in tracing the evolution of poetics into theory. But that
> > also means it's too sweeping a connection to serve as a denouncement.
>
> But it wasn't meant as a denouncement. It is perfectly alright to take the
> process of identification to the nausienth degree when describing art, but
> try to identify aspects of theory and we can sense some defensiveness. Not
> on your part, of course, John. But you see what I mean, I'm sure.
Snort, snort (scraping my forehooves in the dirt). As I said, we need to
shift gears and plunge into aesthetics. But immediatley there is an impasse,
since 'aestheitics' is a field of philosophical interest, another aspect of
theory. Of course it's pretty obvious that Newman's quote is quite tongue in
cheek, don't you think? I mean how theoretical can you get with color fields
and zips. It's a reduction of something, which infers the artist must have
had that someting in mind to begin with, and set out to eliminate all the
chaff and get to the 'bottom line.'
As Gallerius Criticus once said: "I came, I saw, I concurred."
Erikus Mattilicus
mark webber
> >The red will be a Montepulciano, honoring that fine Tuscan hill town where
> >I drank too much already. Who cares what the white will be.
>
>
> Hey I do !
Fair enough - there will be a bottle of pouilly fuisse, but not in plain
view so ask the guy or gal behind the desk to set you up with the good
white. I don't want Kimmelman driking the good stuff.
best,
Mark
mark webber
> Mark:
> >I'm not sure I understand - it is PC to note that people earn a living
> >from interpretation? That was all I meant.
>
> Well, given that university teaching is the only job that pays less
> than publishing, I'm a little suspicious. Talk about puritans. It's
> too much like the neo-con stuff about academics and liberals taking
> over the world. About time we woke up to the power of REAL commodity
> and corporate culture.
Well some people manage to augment teaching salaries pretty felicitously
with publications.... But, hey some academics are fascists and some are
commies. There probably aren't any in the middle, but your're right, we
don't want to waste energy on looking at the individuality of academics if
we can't do the same for artists.
>
> >The AbEx "corporate tool" deal is only part of the theory/industrial
> >complex - only one of its manifestations. Right?
>
> I like that. A hall of mirrors. The theory is a commodity, and the
> theory that the theory is a commodity is one such commodity, and .....
Intellectual property, right?
>
>
> As I say, this is all true, and Lyotard uses it effectively to pull
> apart culture and add insight. Of course we're part of the system we
> analyze. But it so easily turns into reactionary garbage.
Yup.
>
> Great to catch you here, too. Hope last bit of polishing things up
> for the show is going well.
Thanks John, I hope to not be too embarrassed. Its just around the corner
now. For anyone who missed previous plugs:
Mark Webber, Recent Paintings at the Prince Street Gallery, 121 Wooster
Street, (between Prince and Spring, 2nd floor) in Soho, NYC, October 15 -
November 3, ***Reception open to public Oct.15, 5:00pm to 8:00pm***
hope to see you all there,
Mark
mark webber
> ...The store manager said it was an anomoly - don't
> look for more. It had that nutty aftertaste that a decent Rioja has.
> However, if we study wine theory.....(hee he he) (I'm just trying to try art
> thinking w/o theory here).
Keep trying! I know you can do it!
> > I make precious little profit from theory - little more from practice.
>
> ...and I've never made a dime practicing theory.
>
> > What I had in mind was not my own profit, but that of the industry which
> > has somehow convinced a good number of very bright people that they need
> > know very little about art in order to pontificate about it. In lieu of an
> > art education is the simple ability to read, in many cases.
>
> Mark, I thought we agreed that pontifiating about theory was pontificating
> about theory, even though it may be a theory about art. That's why I
> appreciate Danto so much when he wrote "Don't look to philosophy for lessons
> about art....philosophy takes from art that which interests philosophy...(I'm
> paraphrasing - don't remember the exact words).
I do agree! Absolutely. And a semiotics student will take from Piero a
semiotics reading. And think he/she (the student) is a fucking genius at
the same time saying that "authorship is problematic". And never see the
beauty! And go on to teach an art history class and never bother to inform
his/her charges of what makes Piero special, great. And they matriculate
and continue the grand tradition of missing what is of value in art,
passing along this insipid reading until the next fashionable reading
forces them out.... Shucks.
Paul Resika once said that the only good thing about today's hip movement
is that it replaced yesterday's.
>
> Snort, snort (scraping my forehooves in the dirt).
One of the most distinctive advantages an actual Satyr has when being
satirical.
> As I said, we need to
> shift gears and plunge into aesthetics. But immediatley there is an impasse,
> since 'aestheitics' is a field of philosophical interest, another aspect of
> theory. Of course it's pretty obvious that Newman's quote is quite tongue in
> cheek, don't you think?
Yup. Or maybe he was tired of trying to make new pictures that looked
good. I don't know. Frankly, Newman bores me a bit now.
> I mean how theoretical can you get with color fields
> and zips.
Well, what *else* can you do with them? I mean, at a certain point they
become illustrations of a theory more than an esthetic experience. I can
look at thousands of Chardins - or Dekoonings for that matter, before I
gat as bored as I do after three Newmans.
> It's a reduction of something, which infers the artist must have
> had that someting in mind to begin with, and set out to eliminate all the
> chaff and get to the 'bottom line.'
Or he was looking for a signature image. In fact, I think that better
explains Newman, Rothko, Gottlieb and Still than any sort of reductioive
process.
Ok, Erik, they're playing our song...
very best,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
Wow. This was a quote I made in passing, since I found it amusing in the context
of our discussion. Now I'm getting emails at home about who said it, what was
the wording, whethere it was tongue and cheek. Jeez. I don't know or care. But
for the record, since some to be 'click' challenged, here's the reference again:
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r1.html
..." #1. Not very many years ago, aesthetics - understood as the philosophy of
art - was regarded as the dim, retarded offspring of two glamorous parents, its
discipline and its subject. Philosophy in the twentieth century had become
professionalized and technical, its methods formal, and its analytical aims the
discovery of the most fundamental structures of thought, language, logic and
science. Philosophical questions about art seemed peripheral and its answers
cloudy - far too cloudy for those caught up in the reinvention of painting and
music and literature to find much help in the dated, faded reflections of the
aesthetician. And students with a primary interest in art who may have registered
for courses in this condescendingly tolerated specialty found themselves
confronting a perplexingly irrelevant literature. In 1954, the philosopher John
Passmore published a paper with the accurate title "The Dreariness of
Aesthetics," and it must have been just about then that the wit and painter
Barnett Newman delivered one of his most quoted sayings: "Aesthetics is for art
what ornithology is for the birds" - a sneer whose edge is blunted today by the
fact that the vulgarism it echoes has faded from usage. "...
"Art, Philosophy, and the Philosophy of Art " by Arthur C. Danto, Humanities,
Vol. 4, No. 1 (February 1983), pp. 1-2
Arthur is responsible for the accuracy of the statement, the authorship, and the
context. Please refer your questions to him. Personally, I have no opinion.
Thanks,
Erik Mattla
Alison A Raimes
>
>Fair enough - there will be a bottle of pouilly fuisse, but not in plain
>view so ask the guy or gal behind the desk to set you up with the good
>white. I don't want Kimmelman driking the good stuff.
>
>best,
>
>Mark
>
Nice one ! Who the hell is Kimmelman though ? is he someone I should
give some of my internationally known attention to ???
While we are on the blatant self promotion run, as I land in New York on
Thursday, especially to come to your opening ;-), the Private View at
the group exhibition *Invest in your sole* at the Barley Mow Centre,
Chiswick High Road, London, will be in full swing .... without one of
its artists - me ! Anyone in that area please drop in from 6-8pm and the
curator, Lee Wiffen, will play host on my behalf.
Cheers !
--
Alison A Raimes
mark webber
> >Fair enough - there will be a bottle of pouilly fuisse, but not in plain
> >view so ask the guy or gal behind the desk to set you up with the good
> >white. I don't want Kimmelman driking the good stuff.
> >
> >best,
> >
> >Mark
> >
> Nice one ! Who the hell is Kimmelman though ? is he someone I should
> give some of my internationally known attention to ???
He's just a critic, for the NYTimes. Several people posted opinions about
his writing awhile back after he decided to give the world another gift -
his piano performances.
I actually don't have anything against him, personally, and I've even
enjoyed his writing at times. But he can be one of those writers who only
reports on the already well established. So he won't be paying much
attention to you or me.
>
> While we are on the blatant self promotion run, as I land in New York on
> Thursday, especially to come to your opening ;-), the Private View at
> the group exhibition *Invest in your sole* at the Barley Mow Centre,
> Chiswick High Road, London, will be in full swing .... without one of
> its artists - me ! Anyone in that area please drop in from 6-8pm and the
> curator, Lee Wiffen, will play host on my behalf.
Congrats!
best,
mark
John Haber
who called "resistance to theory." Mark isn't jumping up and down
about how ART is a commodity, but of course it's a much more
marketable one than scholarly prose.
John
mark webber
Hi John,
I still think it would be helpful if we knew exactly what you are
addressing. Just a snip of text here and there really helps.
I'll tell you what though, let's agree that neither of us is
defensive. The context of my original remark about theory as commodity was
maybe not quite the way you are reading it and certainly not a
"resistance."
Erik was, very adeptly, bringing into the discussion ideas about the
relationship of artist, viewer and product, and doing so with some Marxist
models. Very pleasurable to read, too.
I don't even remember now why I said the above, but Erik and I have been
smiling with each other the whole time - just as you and I do.
My questions remain this: Can one judge subject matter as failing or
succeeding and, specificly for Erik, why should we personalize art?
best,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
Hmmm. I'm trying to imagine the alternative, i.e. not personalizing art. It
seems to me that this would require a large dose of Zen detachment, wrought
from years of training. So I don't see it as a matter of 'should' (as that
seems to imply 'choice') but a matter of that's what we do. But I don't know
how to stay out of theory on this point. Maybe just some examples.
I absolutely love Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. But there's something that's
unclear to me. I don't know if I loved it that much before I saw John
Boorman's "Zardoz" flick (1973). The finale of this film was so compelling -
was it the music? the cinematography? a combination of both? Whatever the
reason the 'meaning' carries beyond the film - and the Seventh, a half a
bottle of Scotch whiskey, and a good stereo will send the tears rolling down
my cheeks as I'm caught in aesthetic ecstacy. (You know, the French have a
word for that aesthetic experience, like being knocked to your knees inside
of Chartres. It's something like 'fresonne' but I'm not sure. Do you know
it?)
Another example is the few paintings I've been enchanted with over the years,
and eventually I realized that there was just the right balance of red-orange
and lime-green to elicit a strong response. I didn't know why for a long
time, but I figured it out finally. As a young child I went with my folks to
visist friends across the Bay in Marin County. I snuck out to the bact, and
beheld a huge wall of nasturtiums - that exact color combination. Mom came
out looking for me and discovered that I was picking caterpillars off the
plants and eating them. She took a picture of me - with a messy mouth of
caterpillar fuzz. There may have been some trauma involved, I suppose. Why
would I store this experience in my 'suspense file' and reference the
'feeling' everytime those colors set off the mental chain of events?
By varying degrees, I believe we all associate art in some ways to our
experience with life in general. I don't like that term 'great art' but at
any rate these terrific paintings seem to have the ability to set off more
associations and create more meanings in a great number of people. Where we
would fall off into theory is when we begin to speculate, investigate,
experiment with the mediating specifics -- why does this painting do that to
so many - what's personal, what's cultural, what's political and so on down
the line.
Cheerios,
Erik
Dan Fox
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> quoted another source as saying:
<snip>
>it must have been just about then that the
> wit and painter Barnett Newman delivered one of his most quoted sayings:
> "Aesthetics is for art what ornithology is for the birds" -
This is incorrect. In the movie Painters Painting, Newman, in an interview,
says, 'Aesthetics is for ARTISTS what ornithology is for the birds.' (My
emphasis.) Big difference in meaning.
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
mdeli
snip
>Another example is the few paintings I've been enchanted with over the years,
>and eventually I realized that there was just the right balance of red-orange
>and lime-green to elicit a strong response.
That's a technical point isn't it?
snip
>By varying degrees, I believe we all associate art in some ways to our
>experience with life in general. I don't like that term 'great art' but at
>any rate these terrific paintings seem to have the ability to set off more
>associations and create more meanings in a great number of people.
That says more than ten convoluted books on theoretical aesthetic
bullshit. Now Its simply the artist's business to find out what
elements cause this phenomenon and then create an image that causes
this effect. .
>Where we
>would fall off into theory is when we begin to speculate, investigate,
>experiment with the mediating specifics -- why does this painting do that to
>so many - what's personal, what's cultural, what's political and so on down
>the line.
The reasons as to what paintings do to a viewer, where they can be
described are technical. Personal, cultural, political and down that
line are usually futile babblings which interests the few others who
babble on the same subject. The technical knowledge of these babblers
is usually pathetic.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Erik A. Mattila
> The reasons as to what paintings do to a viewer, where they can be
> described are technical. Personal, cultural, political and down that
> line are usually futile babblings which interests the few others who
> babble on the same subject. The technical knowledge of these babblers
> is usually pathetic.
I don't think there's any real doubt about this, Mani. In one essay (which I
don't have a handy reference) Edward Said wrote about the numbers of books
published on the subject of theory, becsuse the market for these is very smalll
(editions of 25K or so) worldwide. This is really a tiny reaadership, all things
considered.
But this also implies that individuals who are not within this small group of
readers will not understand what is being discussed in this academic niche. If
you see yourself 'outside' this group, it's understandable why you would
characterize these types of writing as 'futile babble.' Additionally, unless you
were acutely aware of the theory being discussed, you would not be able to
evaluate the level of technical expertise a theoretician brings to the table.
Isn't this just 'common sense?' Maybe you could describe 'the crisis of the
signifier' or reasonably critique 'Greimas' semiotic square,' for all I know. I
only suspect you couldn't make much sense of such things, and that you are not
the least bit interested in them in the first place.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
Good work, Dan. But answer me this: Why would the mailman on Seinfield say
that in the first place?
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<danf...@yahoo.com> writes
>This is incorrect. In the movie Painters Painting, Newman, in an interview,
>says, 'Aesthetics is for ARTISTS what ornithology is for the birds.' (My
>emphasis.) Big difference in meaning.
>
Here is the truth ...... Emile de Antonio, the documentary film maker
for *Painters Painting* had Newman change his original quote, which was:
"esthetics is for me like ornithology must be for the birds" to
"esthetics for the artist was as meaningful as ornithology must be for
the birds".
The context in which it was said was during the discussion on the
labelling of artists under the false issues raised by aesthetics that
have made him a typically American painter.
He originally said:
".. at a conference held in Woodstock between esthetes and the
artists, I said to these esthetes that even if they were right,
and even if they could build an esthetic analysis or an esthetic
system that will explain art or painting or whatever it is, it's
of no value really because esthetics is for me like ornothology
must be for the birds."
and then replaced it with the second quote as per de Antonio's
instructions.
The transcript of this interview, in its uncut state, is available on
CDrom, along with the edited film, is available from Countertop in a
five CDrom series called *A Love of Art*.
Dan Fox
>
> Good work, Dan. But answer me this: Why would the mailman on Seinfield
> say that in the first place?
>
> Erik
Erik - who is Seinfield? (I don't watch TV - a sitcom, right?)
mark webber
(snip)
> > My questions remain this: Can one judge subject matter as failing or
> > succeeding and, specificly for Erik, why should we personalize art?
>
> Hmmm. I'm trying to imagine the alternative, i.e. not personalizing art. It
> seems to me that this would require a large dose of Zen detachment, wrought
> from years of training. So I don't see it as a matter of 'should' (as that
> seems to imply 'choice') but a matter of that's what we do. But I don't know
> how to stay out of theory on this point. Maybe just some examples.
I tried to track down the original context of this question (you know, if
you and John would simply answer my questions as I ask them it would be a
hell of a lot easier - and I might even shut up and go away...) but I
couldn't find the post where you said something along the lines of content
being something you are able to personalize, and form being something that
retreats from personalization for you.
That is why I asked what the value of personalizing was. But I'm not sure
I have it right - it certainly *was* in response to my very non-zen,
ecstatic, visceral response to good form.
But why do you avoid my questions, anyway?
> I absolutely love Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. But there's something that's
> unclear to me. I don't know if I loved it that much before I saw John
> Boorman's "Zardoz" flick (1973). The finale of this film was so compelling -
> was it the music? the cinematography? a combination of both? Whatever the
> reason the 'meaning' carries beyond the film - and the Seventh, a half a
> bottle of Scotch whiskey, and a good stereo will send the tears rolling down
> my cheeks as I'm caught in aesthetic ecstacy. (You know, the French have a
> word for that aesthetic experience, like being knocked to your knees inside
> of Chartres. It's something like 'fresonne' but I'm not sure. Do you know
> it?)
Well, I would hope that you can get off on Beethoven without the help of
Boorman. And I don't think it takes a theorist to point out that the
experience, while exhilarating, has become sentimental; based in
association, and not in response to the sensibility of Beethoven but
instead assisted by other stimulus. You love yourself, buddy - nothing
wrong with that, but you are responding to the way *you* couple
experiences. Let Beethoven have a crack at it without your help.
>
> Another example is the few paintings I've been enchanted with over the years,
> and eventually I realized that there was just the right balance of red-orange
> and lime-green to elicit a strong response. I didn't know why for a long
> time, but I figured it out finally. As a young child I went with my folks to
> visist friends across the Bay in Marin County. I snuck out to the bact, and
> beheld a huge wall of nasturtiums - that exact color combination. Mom came
> out looking for me and discovered that I was picking caterpillars off the
> plants and eating them. She took a picture of me - with a messy mouth of
> caterpillar fuzz. There may have been some trauma involved, I suppose. Why
> would I store this experience in my 'suspense file' and reference the
> 'feeling' everytime those colors set off the mental chain of events?
>
Yes, you were a precious thing, I remember it well. A beautiful child. We
*all* love you, my boy. And in fact, there is nothing wrong with
associating the beauty of your childhood with a painting or two. Or
twenty.
But are these the only way you experience the awe of beauty? I have no
childhood associations - or associations from any period, frankly - that I
can tie to being transfixed by the architecture of Sant Chapelle, in
Paris, or the sculpture of David by Bernini in Rome, or paintings by
Corot, Chardin, Piero, Dekooning and many others. But I have been close to
tears when in front of these things, and it is in response to the
decision-making of the artist.
(I'm not trying to better you - I simply think some experiences are
sentimental and others not.)
Now I pause, because I realize that part of what impresses me so much
about a great painting is that I can't come nearly so close to such
inspired decisions. So to that extent I am coupling experience - but I
think you'll agree that this is not the same thing as personalizing
Beethoven by augmenting the meaning with a Sean Connery flick.
> By varying degrees, I believe we all associate art in some ways to our
> experience with life in general. I don't like that term 'great art' but at
> any rate these terrific paintings seem to have the ability to set off more
> associations and create more meanings in a great number of people. Where we
> would fall off into theory is when we begin to speculate, investigate,
> experiment with the mediating specifics -- why does this painting do that to
> so many - what's personal, what's cultural, what's political and so on down
> the line.
And I cetainly don't object to that at all: that is called esthetics. I
dig esthetics. And have you read Dewey on the living creature as an
explanation of why we find great art great? and most curiously, why don't
you like the term "great art"?
most, most curiously, and hoping you'll answer some of my goddam
questions,
Mark
mdeli
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>
>> The reasons as to what paintings do to a viewer, where they can be
>> described are technical. Personal, cultural, political and down that
>> line are usually futile babblings which interests the few others who
>> babble on the same subject. The technical knowledge of these babblers
>> is usually pathetic.
>
>I don't think there's any real doubt about this, Mani. snip This is really a tiny reaadership, all things
>considered.
>
>But this also implies that individuals who are not within this small group of
>readers will not understand what is being discussed in this academic niche.
This is a in part a cop out.
>you see yourself 'outside' this group,
I don't. I've read some theory and perused a bit more.
> it's understandable why you would
>characterize these types of writing as 'futile babble.' Additionally, unless you
>were acutely aware of the theory being discussed, you would not be able to
>evaluate the level of technical expertise a theoretician brings to the table.
>Isn't this just 'common sense?
Not Quite.
If a theory states that premise B follows premise A and premise A is
false or relatively meaningless I don't read on in detail to premise
Z.
That is why I don't study theological tracts explaining the assumption
of Virgin Mary, lengthily explanations of Genesis, creationist theory
or proofs of angle trisection.
Isn't this just 'common sense?
> Maybe you could describe 'the crisis of the
>signifier' or reasonably critique 'Greimas' semiotic square,' for all I know.
I doubt that you can.
> I only suspect you couldn't make much sense of such things, and that you are not
>the least bit interested in them in the first place.
Interested or not, broadly speaking I find Premise A in all but the
most simplistic art theory to be either meaningless or filaceous. I
also believe that time supports my argument. There are no art theories
that last (by this I mean the philosophical stuff). There is no
agreement on even the simplistic terms and I mean among scholars.
The only really valid, objective things one can say about art are
historical and technical. All else no matter how expressed is really
subjective. Art theories, which claim objective aesthetic
universality, have a half-life of about 20 years and eventually become
defunct.
Abstract Expressionism, the mother of all isms after 1940, is
primarily a product of Greenberg's writing and the style of Artspeak
he founded. His theory of flatness gave post-war Modern Academic Art
its establishment respectability. Now so called scholars claim
Greenberg defunct by means of their theories which I find no less
silly.
If someone wrote a long wordy treatise claiming to prove that
arithmetic is wrong because 2+2=5,
would you read it?
Erik A. Mattila
> On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
> (snip)
> > > My questions remain this: Can one judge subject matter as failing or
> > > succeeding and, specificly for Erik, why should we personalize art?
> >
> > Hmmm. I'm trying to imagine the alternative, i.e. not personalizing art. It
> > seems to me that this would require a large dose of Zen detachment, wrought
> > from years of training. So I don't see it as a matter of 'should' (as that
> > seems to imply 'choice') but a matter of that's what we do. But I don't know
> > how to stay out of theory on this point. Maybe just some examples.
>
> I tried to track down the original context of this question (you know, if
> you and John would simply answer my questions as I ask them it would be a
> hell of a lot easier - and I might even shut up and go away...) but I
> couldn't find the post where you said something along the lines of content
> being something you are able to personalize, and form being something that
> retreats from personalization for you.
I was expounding on my 'art as a spider's web' postulate, probably. You know - a
content that as so empty that the viewer's pourd theirs into it. Nature abhors
vacuum. Or nature adores a vacuum.
> That is why I asked what the value of personalizing was. But I'm not sure
> I have it right - it certainly *was* in response to my very non-zen,
> ecstatic, visceral response to good form.
This seems zenny to me, Mark. A friend of mine bought a painting in Japan from a
Zen painter once, and he asked the artist about a proper frame. The artist
sketched out a very clever frame, which would sort of display the painting as if
it were hanging in space. He told my friend 'when you get back to the states, any
frame maker will make it for you. But he couldn't fine a frame maker to do it,
since every frame shop seems to only want to make tinker toy frames our of
manufactured mouldings. So he hired me to do it. It was q nice frame. It was a
very lovely painting also. All subtle greys, sort of sumi-pointilism played out
in extreme subtlty. What you saw was like a gesture, a swish, barely there. Very
exciting. (Reminded me of the Mifune movies -- ha ha ha). But it was pure form,
I think, and pure zen. Zen is most formal, I think.
> But why do you avoid my questions, anyway?
Well, Grasshopper....I don't think I do. I'm just not giving you the right
answers. Forget answers, I say. We must do better questions.
> > I absolutely love Beethoven's Seventh Symphony. But there's something that's
> > unclear to me. I don't know if I loved it that much before I saw John
> > Boorman's "Zardoz" flick (1973). The finale of this film was so compelling -
> > was it the music? the cinematography? a combination of both? Whatever the
> > reason the 'meaning' carries beyond the film - and the Seventh, a half a
> > bottle of Scotch whiskey, and a good stereo will send the tears rolling down
> > my cheeks as I'm caught in aesthetic ecstacy. (You know, the French have a
> > word for that aesthetic experience, like being knocked to your knees inside
> > of Chartres. It's something like 'fresonne' but I'm not sure. Do you know
> > it?)
>
> Well, I would hope that you can get off on Beethoven without the help of
> Boorman. And I don't think it takes a theorist to point out that the
> experience, while exhilarating, has become sentimental; based in
> association, and not in response to the sensibility of Beethoven but
> instead assisted by other stimulus. You love yourself, buddy - nothing
> wrong with that, but you are responding to the way *you* couple
> experiences. Let Beethoven have a crack at it without your help.
I have no control over this. It's just the way the cards are dealt. I also am
dubious that anyone has the fortitude to not project their life's experiences on
the objects of the world. One might be cool on Bartok until hearing Menhuin play
his music, and then something wonderful happens. So whose the master, Bela Bartok
or Yehudi Menuhin, or both, or neither? In my view the art is in the crossing
paths - the composer, the performer, and the audiance. The Threefold Path of Zen,
no less.
> > Another example is the few paintings I've been enchanted with over the years,
> > and eventually I realized that there was just the right balance of red-orange
> > and lime-green to elicit a strong response. I didn't know why for a long
> > time, but I figured it out finally. As a young child I went with my folks to
> > visist friends across the Bay in Marin County. I snuck out to the bact, and
> > beheld a huge wall of nasturtiums - that exact color combination. Mom came
> > out looking for me and discovered that I was picking caterpillars off the
> > plants and eating them. She took a picture of me - with a messy mouth of
> > caterpillar fuzz. There may have been some trauma involved, I suppose. Why
> > would I store this experience in my 'suspense file' and reference the
> > 'feeling' everytime those colors set off the mental chain of events?
>
> Yes, you were a precious thing, I remember it well. A beautiful child. We
> *all* love you, my boy. And in fact, there is nothing wrong with
> associating the beauty of your childhood with a painting or two. Or
> twenty.
Wrong? Right? This is absurd, Mark. It's what we do. Did you ever read that
incredible essay in the New Yorker about 1986-7 about the guy from India who took
it on himself to promote the lost abstract expressionist Harold Sharpinski? It's
worth researching, if you haven't read it. Anyway, Sharpinski just happened to be
serving his 30 day stint in the Army Reserves when his buddies got discovered
(Pollack et al) and missed the train entirely. The Indian loved Sharpinski's
paintings because they reminded him of the flush of butterflys in the spring in
his area of India, when he was a child.
> But are these the only way you experience the awe of beauty? I have no
> childhood associations - or associations from any period, frankly - that I
> can tie to being transfixed by the architecture of Sant Chapelle, in
> Paris, or the sculpture of David by Bernini in Rome, or paintings by
> Corot, Chardin, Piero, Dekooning and many others. But I have been close to
> tears when in front of these things, and it is in response to the
> decision-making of the artist.
On the other hand, one of my favorite Hokusai's is 'Autumm Leaves' which was
actually the footprints of a Bantam chicken that walked through the artists ink
bowl and across the rice paper. His decision was to decide it was a painting.
> (I'm not trying to better you - I simply think some experiences are
> sentimental and others not.)
Well, I simply don't believe you have no associations. It took me years to figure
out the Threefold path of caterpillars, nasturtiums, and orange/green paintings,
and it was just an accident that I discovered the horrible truth. I was looking
at old photos, and there I was with my face smeared with caterpillar guts and
suddely I remembered the colors. It might have happened that I would go to the
grave without ever figuring this out.
> Now I pause, because I realize that part of what impresses me so much
> about a great painting is that I can't come nearly so close to such
> inspired decisions. So to that extent I am coupling experience - but I
> think you'll agree that this is not the same thing as personalizing
> Beethoven by augmenting the meaning with a Sean Connery flick.
My attitude about what you are talking about is that it is the 'dialog' about art
that we often address. I just can't put my finger on 'inspired decisions' or
figure out what that means. I mean I know what it means within the dialog, but I
don't know what it really means. You know, I just finished a hellish bunch of
design work -- a cover for an important science report that all sorts of high
mucky mucks will be reading. The order was to produce something that had
'prestige' but no one really knows what 'prestige' looks like. So I say, sure,
I'll give you 'prestige' without really having any real idea about it myself. But
I pulled it off, and what I produced is seen as projecting the idea of
'prestige.' But in my work I go through very arduous editing procedures, often in
concert with clients who have no idea what they are doing when it comes to design,
so when it comes down to graphically saying 'prestige' you have quite a bit of
opportunity for consensus building, and in the end the 'prestige' is a product of
consensus. So in the middle of my prestige building I had to meet certain
criteria - like typography, for example. Here's a real doozy. It's very
restricted -- tight. People respond to type subliminally -- because people are
very experienced with type. So I'm concerned about this -- meeting a standard
which could be thought of as 'prestige' through consensus. I have a line of type
to center on a page. Instead of simply measuring for the center, I roll my chair
back from the monitor and do it visually, because the mathematical center is
seldom the optimum. The visual center is much better, and it usually is not the
same as the math center. Then some goon comes along with a ruler and discovered
you missed -- and then it's too late. The visual center will never fly against
science. Your work will always be substandard. If you make the design argument,
people will just think you're making excuses. Once measured, everyone will see it
as off center, where before the ruler no one would notice because it is the
application of design experience that is opaque -- it doesn't show -- it seems
natural.
This is all said because I don't know what the 'inspired decision' is.
> > By varying degrees, I believe we all associate art in some ways to our
> > experience with life in general. I don't like that term 'great art' but at
> > any rate these terrific paintings seem to have the ability to set off more
> > associations and create more meanings in a great number of people. Where we
> > would fall off into theory is when we begin to speculate, investigate,
> > experiment with the mediating specifics -- why does this painting do that to
> > so many - what's personal, what's cultural, what's political and so on down
> > the line.
>
> And I cetainly don't object to that at all: that is called esthetics. I
> dig esthetics. And have you read Dewey on the living creature as an
> explanation of why we find great art great? and most curiously, why don't
> you like the term "great art"?
I read a small part of "Art as Experience" over and over, trying to fathom it. I
think if I reread Dewey now I would find it terrible, but historically
fascinating. I don't lkie the term 'great art' because it doesn't mean much to
me. My response to paintings is not consistent - it changes from day to day.
I've been totally bored with a painting one day and fascinated with it on
another. I've gone to museums and galleries and just walked quickly through, like
I was late for an appointment. Just to see if anything would grab me at a given
moment. Some of my own paintings that I liked the best were miserable ugly little
things - completely dispicable and I've loved them for it. But you know, I
remember reading something that Margaret Meade wrote, in response to a question
about a great culture in contrast to a lesser one. "I find the concept of
superiority rather dull" she said.
But you know, we should be talking about the Bower Birds. My idea is that these
are artists in every way we could define art. I'll dig up my research on them
soon...
> most, most curiously, and hoping you'll answer some of my goddam
> questions,
Well, did you read that Plato I gave you the URL on? But now I have to hit the
hay. I just did a 14 hour day and my eyes are falling out. Ooops, there they
go...
Best,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Why would I care one way or another? You're donig nothing to me - why
would you think so?
Now, if you wish to attack, why not attack me for saying that Newman's
quote was tongue in cheek? That has more possibilities.
Erik
Marilyn Welch wrote:
> I love to do this to you Erik the grouch:
>
> I was right. I got the quote from an uncut version of
> Painters on Painting aired on Canadian TV.
> I heard the man say it himself.
> Dan has the edited version.
>
> Marilyn
Lauri.L.
> most, most curiously, and hoping you'll answer some of my goddam
> questions,
>
> Mark
>
>
Mark, you devils advocate.
You are known of simple good questions, expecting simple good
answers. However, the simple questions are most difficult to
answer. The concepts seem simple, but have layers and layers of
vague meanings.
When you meet someone like Erik, whose thinking comes out of
different language - a different set of meanings, you hardly
see what is his answer. I have played that game with him, too
(and hope to continue it sometime - there still are missing
pieces in that puzzle, Erik).
Take the form, Mark. You regard it as an essence of formalism.
(And you get a lot of objections in this ng, too).
Let me ask about this form.
I know you see it in all great art. So tell me what it is
- in plain simple terms (you know I'm handicapped with a foreign
language :-).
What is that is common in all great art, in the list of examples in
your last message?
It must be something else than the feel of awe, it is it the
works and not in the eye of thebeholder.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.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/
Before you buy.
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
easily that who can ever know what the truth unless you ask the
originator.
Marilyn is right - Ewik IS a grouch and he ought to take responsibility
for making sure he knows the origin of a quote before using it,
especially if it is not directly from the artist ... and Marilyn
shouldn't manipulate the quote to give it a different meaning like she
persistently insists on doing.... oh yes, and artists shouldn't make
such statements !
Now you two kiss and make up won't you ;-)
mark webber
> > But why do you avoid my questions, anyway?
>
> Well, Grasshopper....I don't think I do. I'm just not giving you the right
> answers. Forget answers, I say. We must do better questions.
Well, answering with a question would be fine, there can be terrific value
in that. Simply addressing in any way would be terrific! But ignoring me
is making me so very very insecure. Look, I've started ridiculing Eicher
again.
> > ... but you are responding to the way *you* couple
> > experiences. Let Beethoven have a crack at it without your help.
>
> I have no control over this. It's just the way the cards are dealt. I also am
> dubious that anyone has the fortitude to not project their life's experiences on
> the objects of the world. One might be cool on Bartok until hearing Menhuin play
> his music, and then something wonderful happens. So whose the master, Bela Bartok
> or Yehudi Menuhin, or both, or neither? In my view the art is in the crossing
> paths - the composer, the performer, and the audiance. The Threefold Path of Zen,
> no less.
Let's pause to clarify a distinction: do you see a difference between
coupling the experience of Bartok with Menhuin and coupling the experience
of Bartok and your pajamas from forth grade?
> > And in fact, there is nothing wrong with
> > associating the beauty of your childhood with a painting or two. Or
> > twenty.
>
> Wrong? Right? This is absurd, Mark. It's what we do.
Its not *all* we do. While some people gaze at the Sistene Ceiling and
find joy because it illustrates the bible and that reminds them of what
good Christians they are, other people are just astounded by the
brilliance of Michelangelo. And you can't really mean we have *no* control
over this either. We *choose* to spend time in museums, we *choose* to go
to school, we *choose* to read esthetics, etc.
We can also choose to only sing praises for that which we can connect to
our precious past.
> ... The Indian loved Sharpinski's
> paintings because they reminded him of the flush of butterflys in the spring in
> his area of India, when he was a child.
Does this mean the paintings weren't any good to anyone else who didn't
have that memory?
> On the other hand, one of my favorite Hokusai's is 'Autumm Leaves' which was
> actually the footprints of a Bantam chicken that walked through the artists ink
> bowl and across the rice paper. His decision was to decide it was a painting.
I completely accept that. If a chicken walked across my paper and it
looked good, I'd present it. If it didn't, I would have the option to ask
the chicken to have another try at it. Or disregard it as chicken scratch.
But there is an evaluative process at work that doesn't rest on how
frequently my diapers were changed.
> > (I'm not trying to better you - I simply think some experiences are
> > sentimental and others not.)
>
> Well, I simply don't believe you have no associations. It took me years to figure
> out the Threefold path of caterpillars, nasturtiums, and orange/green paintings,
> and it was just an accident that I discovered the horrible truth. I was looking
> at old photos, and there I was with my face smeared with caterpillar guts and
> suddely I remembered the colors. It might have happened that I would go to the
> grave without ever figuring this out.
So, bottom line: Is there a caterpillar story for every work of art that
transfixes you? Or does some art impress you by the artist's sensibility
*alone*, without your generosity?
(snip)
> I just can't put my finger on 'inspired decisions' or
> figure out what that means. I mean I know what it means within the dialog, but I
> don't know what it really means.
Well, step by step, "inspired" I would reserve for the work of geniuses.
But decision-making that goes to creative success? Let's see, maybe I can
find something to help explain this to you... ah yes, right here, in your
own paragraph:
> I have a line of type to center on a page. Instead of simply measuring
> for the center, I roll my chair back from the monitor and do it
> visually, because the mathematical center is
> seldom the optimum. The visual center is much better, and it usually
> is not the
> same as the math center.
See what I mean? Did you find that center because of your pajamas? No,
your sensibility told you what looked good.
> > And I cetainly don't object to that at all: that is called esthetics. I
> > dig esthetics. And have you read Dewey on the living creature as an
> > explanation of why we find great art great? and most curiously, why don't
> > you like the term "great art"?
>
> I read a small part of "Art as Experience" over and over, trying to fathom it. I
> think if I reread Dewey now I would find it terrible, but historically
> fascinating. I don't lkie the term 'great art' because it doesn't mean much to
> me.
So, you wouldn't distinguish between Caravaggio and Jeff Koons? Both
equally wonderful?
> ... But you know, I
> remember reading something that Margaret Meade wrote, in response to a question
> about a great culture in contrast to a lesser one. "I find the concept of
> superiority rather dull" she said.
I would agree - when comparing cultures. Anyone who doesn't is leaning
toward something rather intollerant, something rather scary. But I don't
think that applies to individual works of art, and I think someone who has
read as much Plato as you knows a nice term for that sort of shift in
context.
best,
Mark
Alison A Raimes
<ali...@address.in.signature> writes
>While we are on the blatant self promotion run, as I land in New York on
>Thursday, especially to come to your opening ;-), the Private View at
>the group exhibition *Invest in your sole* at the Barley Mow Centre,
>Chiswick High Road, London, will be in full swing .... without one of
>its artists - me ! Anyone in that area please drop in from 6-8pm and the
>curator, Lee Wiffen, will play host on my behalf.
Due to various reasons relating to yesterday's rail disaster and the
close proximity of the centre to the crash, this private view will now
be held on Thursday 14th October from 6pm.
mark webber
Hi Lauri,
On Wed, 6 Oct 1999, Lauri.L. wrote:
> Mark, you devils advocate.
> You are known of simple good questions, expecting simple good
> answers. However, the simple questions are most difficult to
> answer. The concepts seem simple, but have layers and layers of
> vague meanings.
Yes, true. So we can try to define these layers, examing these meanings.
It is why we are here, no? That and to debunk misinformation. And maybe
have a few laughs....
> When you meet someone like Erik, whose thinking comes out of
> different language - a different set of meanings, you hardly
> see what is his answer. I have played that game with him, too
> (and hope to continue it sometime - there still are missing
> pieces in that puzzle, Erik).
I think Erik and I are doing alright. He makes real attempts, sometimes.
> Take the form, Mark. You regard it as an essence of formalism.
> (And you get a lot of objections in this ng, too).
I seem to get objections - but I don't see anyone backing them up with the
same passion or articulation that some people argue that such and such
isn't art. I'm not interested in "what is art?" I'm interested in "what is
great art?" because clearly some art is better than other art.
> Let me ask about this form.
>
> I know you see it in all great art. So tell me what it is
> - in plain simple terms (you know I'm handicapped with a foreign
> language :-).
>
> What is that is common in all great art, in the list of examples in
> your last message?
To me (and I welcome other points of view) the common thread to great art
is this thing called form, the way the artist combines the information -
not the information itself. The "how" not the "what." The relationships of
the parts and the visual meaning derived from this new unity.
It has less to do with the depiction than the orchestration.
In Piero, who seems never to have missed it, there is a unity arrived at
in the shape-making, the color, the rhythm of contrasts. He, and the
others on that partial list, are great not because of subject matter but
because of what they have done with it.
And I find comparison useful. A lesser painter dosn't create the sort of
visual play, the visual music, that a great painter does.
Is this helping? I think we can only understand what great form is in
relation to "not great form." Some pictures don't work as well as others.
Why?
> It must be something else than the feel of awe, it is it the
> works and not in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely - I agree. The feeling of awe is in me. It is in response to
the decisions of the artist who succeeds. The artist who succeeds makes
art that rivets, holds me, gives me something wonderful by making a thing
that seems perfect, unalterable.
If the beholder has looked at enough good and bad art the beholder sees
the difference. It is, of course, a matter of experience.
If the beholder has chosen to look only at the subject matter and find
"literal meaning" rather than the form and "visual meaning" then the
beholder will see no difference in value between a Raphael Madonna and a
lesser painter's Madonna.
I appreciate ANY rebutal - can you help me with one?
best wishes,
Mark
mark webber
A while back, I wrote:
> This may be one of those trip-up points, but I see a difference between
> art talk about the visual experience in the work itself and art talk about
> the work, the artist, the viewer and their relationships to each other.
> I'm not saying one is more important than the other - I just mean one
> *can* speak about the visual play itself.
>
> Do you agree to that distinction? If so, do you want to say which type of
> art talk is tied *more* to why a particular work is considered superior to
> another?
very best,
Mark
mark webber
Hello Erik! I found a portion of an old dialog - from back around
Mon, 27 Sep 1999, in which we had this tantalizing bit:
(you wrote)
> So I should probably stop right here. To summarize, 'formalism' in the sense of
> Russian Formalism is the idea that meaning systems are systematic, measurable and
> predictable, and that grammars can be written which describe the operating rules of
> a system. The structure itself represents the 'object' by which scientific
> objectivity can be attained.
You are describing language - not art. They aren't the same thing.
[Do you agree?]
> People who believe social science is not science
> don't seem to understand the objective qualities of a structure, even when it's
> physical manifestation is verbal utterance or splashes of paint on a ground. If
> you can show that the rules will be followed repeatedly and predictably, then you
> have a scientific hypothesis, right?
I think you could be a bit clearer here, frankly. Are you saying that
there is something predictable about the way people make art? What is it
about art-making that you find predictable?
warmest regards,
Mark
Erik A. Mattila
experience' in the work itself without the experiencee -- experience requires
an experiencee -- then this would put 'experience' itself into your second
category (although it could be just between the work and the viewer, without
the intervention of the artist's biography). So now, how many people can look
at a Van Gogh without referencing the well known, famous, biography, slashed
ears, Kirk Douglas and Anthony Quinn frisbeeing palletes gleefully in the
studio of the south (all or any of the above)?
Applying the possibility of your distinction to art talk (as distinct from
viewing paintings) there's yet another important feature that you've not
mentioned. That is, besides art talking about a painting, the intersection of
the work of art, the artist, and the viewer, there is also the problem that
'art talk' often talks about itself, that is 'art talk.' Dewey talks about
Berenson, Berenson talks about Ruskin, Derrida talks about Habermas talking
about Barthes talking about Shapiro, and so on... Oh, yes, and actual artists
and their works may be mentioned in passing.
But I think I have a sense of what you're driving at -- i.e. the autonomy of
the work of art. What does it 'say' and how does it 'say it' without the
intervention of a lot of peripheral associations. This is why I said before
it's kind of a Berkelian problem -- "Essi es percepi" (existance is being
perceived"). Or more correctly, it was what Berkeley argued against, which my
understanding is that 'things' have no independant existance outside of
perception. Sure, we can get into physics, but the legitimacy of Berkeley's
argument rests in making a distinction between the universe and the human
universe. To delve deeper, look at Ernst Cassirer. Casssirer proposes a sort
of human "GUI" (graphical users interface) which stands between us and the
world. What we know is an interpretation - and the interpretation is, in fact,
reality as we know it. The reality outside this interface is in fact
unknowable.
Mental operations are so complex that the mind scientists have little
understanding how it works, yet the 'little understanding' is huge, by
contrast, to our lay understanding. Just how a thought is formed is something
that many spend entire careers trying to get a reading on. So somewhere in all
the ganglia is the wellsprings of aesthetics and the aesthetic response. It
may be a very high level mental operation, or it may be neurotic reaction to
sensory material. It either case it is complex, and my understanding on the
state of the art for interpreting thinking has something to do with very
elaborate associations.
Anyway, I'm all ears to informtion on intrinsic attributes of painting that
exist outside the influence of these sorts of associations. My complaint, so
far, about that species of art talk that seeks to explain this is that the
ideas are very fluffy and depend on terms which are barely understandable in
any concrete sense. That's why when Ariane kept saying "beauty inheres in the
universe" I kept thinking of peanut butter.
Have I answered?
Best,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Hello Erik! I found a portion of an old dialog - from back around
> Mon, 27 Sep 1999, in which we had this tantalizing bit:
>
> (you wrote)
> > So I should probably stop right here. To summarize, 'formalism' in the sense of
> > Russian Formalism is the idea that meaning systems are systematic, measurable and
> > predictable, and that grammars can be written which describe the operating rules of
> > a system. The structure itself represents the 'object' by which scientific
> > objectivity can be attained.
>
> You are describing language - not art. They aren't the same thing.
>
> [Do you agree?]
Nope. I was trying to describe Russian Formalism, actually. It's true these guys
worked with the novel (they were hired by the government and charged with making
literature more accessable to the masses), but they were also intertwined with the
plastic artists of the time and place, i.e. the constructivists, Kandinsky, etc. and at
least they believed their ideas applied to visual art as well as literature.
I wish you wouldn't say that language is not art. I mean, if you want to make a
distinction between painting and poetry, ok, but literature, poetry, song lyrics are art
too.
"Grammar" means more that 'English Grammar." ..."the principles or rules of an art,
science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>" [Websters]. This is the sense of the
term I am using. When you get into structuralism, which derived to a large degree from
Russian Formalism, this term is used to describe the 'rules of formation" of a myth, a
novel, street talk, a musical composition, a painting, or for that matter, a theory
(nothing is immune).
The implication is that a work of art, if it must satisfy a grammer on a formal level,
can't be just any old thing. But this 'any old thing' discussion is interesting -- but
it involves in migrating the 'any old thing' from its original context to another, in
order to satisfy the rules. The most famous example is of course Pop Art. The formal
rule seems to be context, and context only (appearing in an Art Gallery instead of a
Supermarket). The claim is that the 'meaning' of the object changes with the context
('detournement" -- Guy Debord). Proctor and Gamble's Brillo means something different
than Warhol's.There's really nothing you can say about the intrinsic object attributes
to make a Brillo Box art. If you can't accept it as art then you cannot accept Pop Art
(and many don't - but many do). The really provocative thing about Pop Art is this very
question, in my opinion, since it sugests that on a less obvious level, all art is
affected by its context. A case in point is the 16c. German broadleaf print, which had
as an original context proto-mass media, and later made the trek from the street to the
art museum. Now we have little trouble with seeing the print as works of art, even
'Great Works of Art" (as in "Great Balls O Fire!" heehe he). There's a lot of other
examples. The Holbien factory 45-off series of Hank the 8th portraits, which Hank gave
away as Xmas presents to his cousins. Any of these now is, of course, great art, but
started as basically commercial products. Oh, hell, how about the famouse, sublime,
articulate, devine Greek vases, which also started their journys as commercial products
and were later detoruned to the art museum.
> > People who believe social science is not science
> > don't seem to understand the objective qualities of a structure, even when it's
> > physical manifestation is verbal utterance or splashes of paint on a ground. If
> > you can show that the rules will be followed repeatedly and predictably, then you
> > have a scientific hypothesis, right?
>
> I think you could be a bit clearer here, frankly. Are you saying that
> there is something predictable about the way people make art? What is it
> about art-making that you find predictable?
I think there is a very broad range of possibility within systems of constraint. In
other words, there are borders which cannot be successfully transgressed -- but there
are borders that can be successfully transgressed. So it becomes a question of scale
and perspective. Becasuse all art forms have their inherent grammars, there are
limits. Look at DaDa -- I think these artist went right to the edge and looked over,
but they couldn't go further. They came face to face with gibberish, and just trying to
valorize gibberish as art was all they could do -- I mean gibberish is gibberish. If
something is completely unintelligible, how could you develop it further to become even
more unintelligible? So there's a definite limit which is very absolute - gibberish.
That's probably why DuChamp chose to start backtracking, and rearrange gibberish into
code-structures that contained a lot of hard to attain intelligibility.
Art making is only theoretically predictable -- which must seem like a silly thing to
say. Is the lottery predictable? Just to an extent, and in terms of probabilities.
But there are only a finite amount of possibilities, even though we might spend our
lifetimes and not see six numbers repeat themselves on the draw (or see six numbers
repeat quite a few time).
But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in trying out to create
something completely original -- that's when you look into the terrifying eye of
predictability. It's all been done already, right? Look at the on-going response on
RAF when someone presents something as an 'original' idea -- a litany of 'it's been
done' which are, in fact, quite correct.
When Jamison wrote his "Prisonhouse of Language" he more or less presented this idea of
the futility of originality, and proposed it was language itself which created the
impassable borders and limits (given that thinking is language -- I know, there's an
argument there, also). So his critics complained about the awful futility of the book
-- it is almost oppressive. But we lose sight of the vastness of the world which exists
inside the borders. It's a very large playground with a lot of games going on. No need
to fret over the idea that every possible can't be played there - but the idea of limits
sort of challenges the schtick about the 'artist as shaman" and the infinitiy of genius
etc.
Best,
Erik
>
>
> warmest regards,
>
> Mark
Lauri.L.
<Pine.PMDF.3.96.9910061...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
lauri:
> > What is that is common in all great art, in the list of examples in
> > your last message?
Mark:
> To me (and I welcome other points of view) the common thread to great
art
> is this thing called form, the way the artist combines the information
-
> not the information itself. The "how" not the "what." The
relationships of
> the parts and the visual meaning derived from this new unity.
lauri
To be more precise, what is the common "how" in those works.
I think I know your how - have seen it. Sometimes in works
you didn't and in others I missed.
Very much it is the matter of experience, I have it less.
It may explain that I appreciate works with some but less of "how",
because I haven't learned to be so discriminate.
Isn't that the reason people by sofa art.
Still, if I compare Gronbach and Honour&Flemming, they seen to
appreciate the "how" in slightly different places. Still they have
huge amount of _similar/same_ experience. I haven't read Greenberg
but I suspect that his "how" deviates more.
Therefore I still have doubts that a part of the "how" lies in
the eye of the beholder. Could some genuine formalist
describe the "how" little more in detail,
so I could reckognize it to be the same
in two different masterpieces from two different periods.
A silly question, but you deserve it after these years.
yours
- lauri
different periods,
> It has less to do with the depiction than the orchestration.
>
> In Piero, who seems never to have missed it, there is a unity arrived
at
> in the shape-making, the color, the rhythm of contrasts. He, and the
> others on that partial list, are great not because of subject matter
but
> because of what they have done with it.
>
> And I find comparison useful. A lesser painter dosn't create the sort
of
> visual play, the visual music, that a great painter does.
>
> Is this helping? I think we can only understand what great form is in
> relation to "not great form." Some pictures don't work as well as
others.
> Why?
>
> > It must be something else than the feel of awe, it is it the
> > works and not in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Absolutely - I agree. The feeling of awe is in me. It is in response
to
> the decisions of the artist who succeeds. The artist who succeeds
makes
> art that rivets, holds me, gives me something wonderful by making a
thing
> that seems perfect, unalterable.
>
> If the beholder has looked at enough good and bad art the beholder
sees
> the difference. It is, of course, a matter of experience.
>
> If the beholder has chosen to look only at the subject matter and find
> "literal meaning" rather than the form and "visual meaning" then the
> beholder will see no difference in value between a Raphael Madonna and
a
> lesser painter's Madonna.
>
> I appreciate ANY rebutal - can you help me with one?
>
> best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
>
--
br...@wralaw.com
Lauri.L. <lauri....@nokia.com> wrote:
> In article
> Therefore I still have doubts that a part of the "how" lies in
> the eye of the beholder. Could some genuine formalist
> describe the "how" little more in detail,
What an individual thinks he likes in art is in that individual.
The arwork itself exists as an image on the retina of the viewer,
Art without intelligent viewers may not be anything more than paint
on a flat surface(or whatever). What the art means to that viewer
is what that viewer thinks, what we find out is what they say.
Thinking can extend into external theories, beliefs about culture
themselves, artists ego's unamed instincts and emotions. What a
person then says or thinks about the work is not Identical to the
work since it is a physical thing, but it is always what we come
to believe the work is. Ultimately, in all probability, the
intentions of the work are neither fully realized or understood,
If the original Idea is phenomenal then all that is usually
communicated is a fragment, if the Idea is non-existant all
meaning is missinterpretation,
> so I could reckognize it to be the same
> in two different masterpieces from two different periods.
Its the same and always different,eq=existance!
br...@wralaw.com
danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> To everyone concerned with the Barney Newman quote (except Erik):
> > wit and painter Barnett Newman delivered one of his most quoted
sayings:
>
> This is incorrect. In the movie Painters Painting, Newman, in an
interview,
> says, 'Aesthetics is for ARTISTS what ornithology is for the birds.'
(My
> emphasis.) Big difference in meaning.
I see
Aesthetics is a word
Your sight crashes like a drunk redneck on Tuesday
br...@wralaw.com
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
> I love to do this to you Erik the grouch:
>
> I was right. I got the quote from an uncut version of
> Painters on Painting aired on Canadian TV.
> I heard the man say it himself.
> Dan has the edited version.
Maybe your Hallucinating... Maybe we are all Hallucinating!
> Marilyn
Lauri.L.
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> When you get into structuralism, which derived to a
>large degree from
> Russian Formalism, this term is used to describe the 'rules of
formation" of a myth, a
> novel, street talk, a musical composition, a painting, or for that
matter, a theory
> (nothing is immune).
> The implication is that a work of art, if it must satisfy a grammer on
a formal level,
> can't be just any old thing.
L:
When we had similar discussion a couple of months ago, you described
structuralism as a theory of meaning. If anything, poetry or painting
is assumed to convay meaning, it can be structurally analyzed.
One question remained hanging when that discussion ended prematurally
for some reason: Is the meaning all that is there. In other words,
if you have grasped the meaning, have you got all of it?
I think like Mark, but for different reasons, that in art we deal with
immediate experience, some say emotions on a level much
deeper than the meaning. In fact, as you said, we fish afterwards from
an appropriate meaning from memories to the experience.
E:
But this 'any old thing' discussion is
interesting -- but
> it involves in migrating the 'any old thing' from its original context
to another, in
> order to satisfy the rules.
> The most famous example is of course Pop
Art. The formal
> rule seems to be context, and context only (appearing in an Art
Gallery instead of a
> Supermarket).
L:
It is easy to accept that if a Brillo Box should be art at all,
it must at least be moved to a gallery.
Then, where did you move the frescoes of the Sixtine chapel:-)
> Oh, hell, how about the
famouse, sublime,
> articulate, devine Greek vases, which also started their journys as
commercial products
> and were later detoruned to the art museum.
Guggenheim museum itself, as a piece of architecture is
both art and commercial product at the same time.
Where is your detourement?
E:
> But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in trying
out to create
> something completely original -- that's when you look into the
terrifying eye of
> predictability. It's all been done already, right?
L: It felt depressing in the beginning,
then I learned to be happy; i have not been completely wrong.
E:
> When Jamison wrote his "Prisonhouse of Language" he more or less
presented this idea of
> the futility of originality, and proposed it was language itself which
created the
> impassable borders and limits (given that thinking is language -- I
know, there's an
> argument there, also).
L: I still believe that language is the _result_ of thinking.
I can even see my cat thinking how to steal the cutlery from my
sandwich. Our radio sends daily news in latin,
they invent more language as needed.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.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
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <37FAFF5D...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >Please forward your message to Danto. Don't shoot the messenger.
> >
> >Why would I care one way or another? You're donig nothing to me - why
> >would you think so?
> >
> >Now, if you wish to attack, why not attack me for saying that Newman's
> >quote was tongue in cheek? That has more possibilities.
> >
> >Erik
> >
> >Marilyn Welch wrote:
> >
> >> I love to do this to you Erik the grouch:
> >>
> >> I was right. I got the quote from an uncut version of
> >> Painters on Painting aired on Canadian TV.
> >> I heard the man say it himself.
> >> Dan has the edited version.
Nope, Marilyn, Allosaurus' version contradicts yours -- you'll have to
hash it out with her. Dan's contradicts also. In fact, there's no
consensus in any of the now 5 versions offered:
Arthur Danto:
"Aesthetics is for art what ornithology is for the birds"
Marilyn - source not cited
"aesthetics is to me what orinthology must be to a bird."
Dan Fox -- cites Film
'Aesthetics is for ARTISTS what ornithology is for the birds.'
Allosaurus: source Film and.. it's unclear where the source is for #2 --
the original script?
1. "esthetics is for me like ornithology must be for the birds"
2. ""esthetics for the artist was as meaningful as ornithology must be
for the birds"
And now Allosaurus produced evidence that Newman contradicted himself,
right? Now what if Danto was at the Woodstock Conference, and it turns
out that Newman's original utterance was just as he wrote it down? But as
you know, the eyewitness account is classically the most unreliable.
A Black Star on your report card, sorry.
> Which only goes to prove how quotes are manipulated and changed so
> easily that who can ever know what the truth unless you ask the
> originator.
Which 'proves' absolutely nothing, Allosaurus. The truth of the matter
has not been reliably adjudacated. In both example you provide, Newman
was recalling something he had said in the past. Do you imagine he felt
the weight of some unseen authority that required him to say the thing in
the film exactly as he said it at Woodstock? So where is an account of
his original utterance at Woodstock? Maybe we should ask Danto.
> Marilyn is right - Ewik IS a grouch
Marilyn has her head as far up her ass as you do. You can't provide any
evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am
grumpy. Am I wrong? If I am, where's the beef? I think you are both
behaving like speed-freaks -- you know, symptomatically -- just because
you have an idea that makes it true (nondifferenciation). You need a
reality check.
> and he ought to take responsibility
> for making sure he knows the origin of a quote before using it,
> especially if it is not directly from the artist ...
Is anybody home over there? Do I need to say it a third time yet.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r1.html
Now coincidentally, that is a pretty strong indication that I know the
"origin of a quote before using it, especially if it is not directly from
the artist..." Furthermore, I even copied the full paragraph and posted
it. Now I am irresponsible, whoa boy. Are you saying that I shouldn't
have quoted Danto's quote of Newman because I didn't know where Danto got
the quote? That's pretty stupid. It reminds me of another great debate
in modern society. Did John Voight, in "Anaconda" say "donn move" or
"nobody moobe" in his strange Brazillain accent? Now since you don't know
Danto's source either (he may have attended the Woodstock Conference and
heard Newman say it that way), you have no way of knowing if the quote is
accurate. We already know that Newman said it three times (maybe more to
get some milage out of it) and probably each was a little different. I
mean you can bet on that in terms of probability.
But the heart of the issue is that Danto probably wasn't considering the
critique of anal-retentive self-agrandizing neurotics on a newsgroup when
he wrote this. If you read the text of his essay, you can see the exact
accuracy of the quote is absolutely trivial in terms of the context of his
writing. It is indeed a non-issue, and it is utterly amazing to see it
blown all out of proportion here.
So I'll leave the existential delimina to you all. As for me, I don't
give a flying fuck or a rats ass. Now whats grumpy or irresponsible about
that?
Erik
> and Marilyn
> shouldn't manipulate the quote to give it a different meaning like she
> persistently insists on doing.... oh yes, and artists shouldn't make
> such statements !
Are you the Emily Post of artists? Where does that rule come from?
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>And now Allosaurus produced evidence that Newman contradicted himself,
>right? Now what if Danto was at the Woodstock Conference, and it turns
>out that Newman's original utterance was just as he wrote it down? But as
>you know, the eyewitness account is classically the most unreliable.
When they were scripting _Painters Painting_ they ran an uncut version
where de Antonio interviewed all those included in the film. This then
became a film in itself. In it, de Antonio asks Newman to talk about the
quote *esthetics is for the artists like ornithology is for the birds*.
Newman, during the course of the interview spoke about its context. For
the purposes of the film, de Antonio suggested by changing the quote
from *esthetics is for me like ornithology must be for the birds*
(Newman's original quote) to one in which he said *artist* that it would
be more "inclusive". That is when Newman suggested *esthetics for the
artist was as meaningful as ornithology must be for the birds*. Newman
here confirms what he meant by that particular quote, in what ever
version it has been written - that is abundantly clear.
>Which 'proves' absolutely nothing, Allosaurus. The truth of the matter
>has not been reliably adjudacated. In both example you provide, Newman
>was recalling something he had said in the past. Do you imagine he felt
>the weight of some unseen authority that required him to say the thing in
>the film exactly as he said it at Woodstock? So where is an account of
>his original utterance at Woodstock? Maybe we should ask Danto.
>
Woodstock was transcripted and is available in print - Newman's words
were recorded - sections of that conference are often quoted. In terms
of debates on aesthetics, Newman had a lot of very important things to
say. My comments were intended to illustrate how often words can be
manipulated by simply changing one word and how important it is to be
aware of that when quoting. Everyone who quotes must take responsibility
for this.
>Marilyn has her head as far up her ass as you do.
Gosh Erik, what did Marilyn ever do to you ? didn't you like the lace in
the cave ?
>You can't provide any
>evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that I am
>grumpy.
Read yourself !!! oh, that won't work either ... you aren't being
reasonable at the moment. Are you having your period ????
>Am I wrong? If I am, where's the beef? I think you are both
>behaving like speed-freaks -- you know, symptomatically -- just because
>you have an idea that makes it true (nondifferenciation). You need a
>reality check.
Not at all. I have always been interested in Newman's quote and was
delighted that you resurrected it for me - I even pulled out a paper I
wrote on aesthetics in which I used that quote as a reference. The
subject of changing texts, for me, has extended to the belief that the
Bible has undergone several similar transitions during translation and
this exercise has been instrumental for me.
>Is anybody home over there?
Just leaving ... soon be on your side of the continent, which should
make you feel a warmth and joy
>Do I need to say it a third time yet.
>http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r1.html
I looked at it - and I read the book at University which I cited in my
paper. Thanks for the url.
>
>Now coincidentally, that is a pretty strong indication that I know the
>"origin of a quote before using it, especially if it is not directly from
>the artist..." Furthermore, I even copied the full paragraph and posted
>it. Now I am irresponsible, whoa boy. Are you saying that I shouldn't
>have quoted Danto's quote of Newman because I didn't know where Danto got
>the quote? That's pretty stupid. It reminds me of another great debate
>in modern society. Did John Voight, in "Anaconda" say "donn move" or
>"nobody moobe" in his strange Brazillain accent? Now since you don't know
>Danto's source either (he may have attended the Woodstock Conference and
>heard Newman say it that way), you have no way of knowing if the quote is
>accurate. We already know that Newman said it three times (maybe more to
>get some milage out of it) and probably each was a little different. I
>mean you can bet on that in terms of probability.
Good points. Actually YOUR reference from where you plucked the quote
was never at question for me - the accuracy of it was. Exactly why I
took up the gauntlet. Marilyn seemed to want to blow a raspberry at you
for some reason and thought she could prove you wrong. Instead she made
an idiot of herself, again.
>
>But the heart of the issue is that Danto probably wasn't considering the
>critique of anal-retentive self-agrandizing neurotics on a newsgroup when
>he wrote this. If you read the text of his essay, you can see the exact
>accuracy of the quote is absolutely trivial in terms of the context of his
>writing. It is indeed a non-issue, and it is utterly amazing to see it
>blown all out of proportion here.
I always smile when I read stuff like this. The art of debate IS to look
for issues and controversy and to, in whatever form one chooses,
challenge and argue them. Its damned healthy ! and some artists thrive
on it and get some amazing stimulation from it ... I suspect they are
the ones not content to skip through the fields collecting flowers to
immortalize in paint and laughing at the poor *tortured souls* of groups
like us.
>
>So I'll leave the existential delimina to you all. As for me, I don't
>give a flying fuck or a rats ass. Now whats grumpy or irresponsible about
>that?
Hee, hee ..... Ewik in his true light maybe ?
>
>Erik
>
>> and Marilyn
>> shouldn't manipulate the quote to give it a different meaning like she
>> persistently insists on doing.... oh yes, and artists shouldn't make
>> such statements !
>
>Are you the Emily Post of artists? Where does that rule come from?
What one should not do and what one actually does are not subject to
rules... as artist we should all now that ;-)
Kiss.
Erik A. Mattila
> Hi, Erik
>
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> > When you get into structuralism, which derived to a
> >large degree from
> > Russian Formalism, this term is used to describe the 'rules of
> formation" of a myth, a
> > novel, street talk, a musical composition, a painting, or for that
> matter, a theory
> > (nothing is immune).
>
> > The implication is that a work of art, if it must satisfy a grammer on
> a formal level,
> > can't be just any old thing.
> L:
> When we had similar discussion a couple of months ago, you described
> structuralism as a theory of meaning. If anything, poetry or painting
> is assumed to convay meaning, it can be structurally analyzed.
The example I've used before is electricity, which seems to be quite
difficult to define - to say exactly 'what it is' (and I don't know if it
is true any longer, I would have to ask the physicists). At any rate even
thown it was not know, clever engineers were able to study how it operated
in any of a number of contexts, and viola, we have our refrigerators,
lightbulbs, and computers. "Structuralism" in the social science presumes
that things such as human behavior will operate according to a set of rules
(which the social scientist seeks to unearth). So structuralism as a
project attempts to measure how the unknowable functions, and then produce
descriptions of the systems and their consequences. In some general way
this leads to a theory of meaning. And yes, I would say that anything that
generates meaning for human being does so within a structure.
> One question remained hanging when that discussion ended prematurally
> for some reason: Is the meaning all that is there. In other words,
> if you have grasped the meaning, have you got all of it?
"Meaning" may be someting different than you are meaning (hehee he). Maybe
a better term, so we don't confuse it with the simple equivalancy of the
dictionary definition, i.e. "X = Y," is 'significance." Some people who
grow roses actually are concerned with the history of the symbol in
culture, and roses 'mean' more to them than those who know nothing of the
symbolic life of the rose.
> I think like Mark, but for different reasons, that in art we deal with
> immediate experience, some say emotions on a level much
> deeper than the meaning. In fact, as you said, we fish afterwards from
> an appropriate meaning from memories to the experience.
F.S.C. Lathrop, in his "The Meeting of East and West" proposes a grand
scheme where the 'West" operates in a "Theoretically Postulated universe"
and the "East" operates in a "Immediately Apprehended Aesthetic
continuum." What I sense in these discussions is the belief that there are
two such 'methods' of lifestyle, or habits of the mind. I rather doubt it,
but you can always describe reality as you wish, and even make a convincing
argument for any number of divisions of the intellect, human culture,
politics and so on.
I didn't say 'we fish aftwards' for anything. What I was saying was that a
work of art appears significant to me because of my personal life - I was
making no temporal comments, or sequencial comments. The "immediate
experience" you speak of, in my mind, is the consequence of the type of
meaning sturcture a painting or sculpture happens to be. In the experience
of literature, which is also 'art,' meaning is derived by participating in
a sequencial and chronic (as in chronology) involvement with the work of
art. Paintings are achronic and non-sequencial, thus projecting the
appearance of immediacy. But it is only a question of scale. There is no
human perception that is immediate. Alfred North Whitehead more or less
proved this when he discovered and measured the time it took for nerve
impulses to travel from perceptors to processors -- which is finite. But
getting down to the fine points, a good part of the art of literture is, in
fact, the sequencial and chronic involvement. Film also.
So the perception of a painting is a complex operation. A lot goes on in
the brain. If I am pleased by a particular color combination, and later
discover some biographical data that has underwritten my pleasure, it
doesn't mean that I couldn't have been pleased before I remembered why. In
some sense all our memories are active at once -- it's just difficult
sometimes to bring the up to consciousness.
> E:
> But this 'any old thing' discussion is
> interesting -- but
> > it involves in migrating the 'any old thing' from its original context
> to another, in
> > order to satisfy the rules.
> > The most famous example is of course Pop
> Art. The formal
> > rule seems to be context, and context only (appearing in an Art
> Gallery instead of a
> > Supermarket).
>
> L:
> It is easy to accept that if a Brillo Box should be art at all,
> it must at least be moved to a gallery.
> Then, where did you move the frescoes of the Sixtine chapel:-)
Clever, Lauri, but that's pretty easy to answer. The gallery was brought
to the Chapel. If you don't believe me, station yourself outside the
entrance for a week and conduct a survey. How many arrive there to
experience art, and how many arrive there to pray or confess. You may find
that no one goes there for religious services, in fact. But it's not a
good example, since it was probably never intended to be other than art at
the time of the signing of the contract.
> > Oh, hell, how about the
> famouse, sublime,
> > articulate, devine Greek vases, which also started their journys as
> commercial products
> > and were later detoruned to the art museum.
>
> Guggenheim museum itself, as a piece of architecture is
> both art and commercial product at the same time.
> Where is your detourement?
No, the object must be originally have been 'not art' so this doesn't
work. However, if all the paintings were moved out, and Bill Gates used
the building for an extension of MIcrosoft Corporation, detournement would
be evident. The Gug has never been anything but an art museum. (why do
you say it is a commercial product? Admission charges?)
E:
> > But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in trying
> out to create
> > something completely original -- that's when you look into the
> terrifying eye of
> > predictability. It's all been done already, right?
>
> L: It felt depressing in the beginning,
> then I learned to be happy; i have not been completely wrong.
> E:
> > When Jamison wrote his "Prisonhouse of Language" he more or less
> presented this idea of
> > the futility of originality, and proposed it was language itself which
> created the
> > impassable borders and limits (given that thinking is language -- I
> know, there's an
> > argument there, also).
>
> L: I still believe that language is the _result_ of thinking.
> I can even see my cat thinking how to steal the cutlery from my
> sandwich. Our radio sends daily news in latin,
> they invent more language as needed.
>
I would say that thinking is the result of language. Don't
anthropormorphize your cat. I also am convinced that art appreciation is
the result of thinking, so by a simple syllogism, it is the result of
language. What's wrong with thinking, anyway. BTW, why is it hard to
think of emotions as thought, also, or perhaps the crises of thought?
Erik
mark webber
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> I wish you wouldn't say that language is not art. I mean, if you want
> to make a distinction between painting and poetry, ok, but literature,
> poetry, song lyrics are art
> too.
Ahh. You must have already begun the cocktail hour, because you can't
really mean what you've written here. Allow me to parse.
First: Yes - painting, poetry, sculpture, lyrics, drawings, literature,
music, dance - all ART, yes.
But Erik, look at how you are wording. Language is not art. Poetry doesn't
*equal* language. Literature doesn't *equal* language.
LANGUAGE IS NOT ART. Language is utilized in art. All arts. The language
of music is utilized to make music. Etc.
And this is problem number one when applying a semiotics reading to art.
Especially visual art.
>
> "Grammar" means more that 'English Grammar." ..."the principles or
> rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>"
> [Websters]. This is the sense of the term I am using. When you get
> into structuralism, which derived to a large degree from
> Russian Formalism, this term is used to describe the 'rules of
> formation" of a myth, a
> novel, street talk, a musical composition, a painting, or for that
> matter, a theory
> (nothing is immune).
( further snipping)
I disagree with none of this - but Language is not Art.
>
> I think there is a very broad range of possibility within systems of constraint. In
> other words, there are borders which cannot be successfully transgressed -- but there
> are borders that can be successfully transgressed. So it becomes a question of scale
> and perspective. Becasuse all art forms have their inherent grammars, there are
> limits.
Grammars are formulas, conventions. And Language is not art.
>
> Art making is only theoretically predictable -- which must seem like a silly thing to
> say. Is the lottery predictable? Just to an extent, and in terms of probabilities.
> But there are only a finite amount of possibilities, even though we might spend our
> lifetimes and not see six numbers repeat themselves on the draw (or see six numbers
> repeat quite a few time).
>
> But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in trying out to create
> something completely original -- that's when you look into the terrifying eye of
> predictability. It's all been done already, right? Look at the on-going response on
> RAF when someone presents something as an 'original' idea -- a litany of 'it's been
> done' which are, in fact, quite correct.
Why is it that sometimes art flourishes while doing nothing particularly
new?
I think the emphasis on originality somehow makes some people enured
to the idea of the sound of an individual's voice. There is a difference
between an original idea and a new voicing of an old one. The Italian
Renaissance offered few "new ideas" after Massaccio, but many new voices.
You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emoticons
and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
language arts".
By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
- they all share form.
very warmest,
Mark
jcab
mark webber wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> [a host of deletions]
>
> I think the emphasis on originality somehow makes some people enured
> to the idea of the sound of an individual's voice. There is a difference
> between an original idea and a new voicing of an old one. The Italian
> Renaissance offered few "new ideas" after Massaccio, but many new voices.
>
> You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
> care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emotions
> and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
> don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
> language arts".
>
> By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
> painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
> - they all share form.
Also in common: A requirement that those who write about them know that
enured is spelled inured, and types such as emoticons should be fixed.
(How's that for a snotty copy desk editor, who otherwise enjoyed your
fine argument on behalf of specificity in language, especially the vast
difference between language and language arts.)
You and Erik are interesting thinkers. I do not participate, but
enjoy.\
Best...
Joe B.
>
> very warmest,
>
> Mark
jcab
mark webber wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> [a host of deletions]
>
> I think the emphasis on originality somehow makes some people enured
> to the idea of the sound of an individual's voice. There is a difference
> between an original idea and a new voicing of an old one. The Italian
> Renaissance offered few "new ideas" after Massaccio, but many new voices.
>
> You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
> care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emoticons
> and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
> don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
> language arts".
>
> By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
> painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
> - they all share form.
Also in common: A requirement that those who would write about them
should know that enured is spelled inured, and typos such as emoticons
Erik A. Mattila
Russian Formalists, who primarily studied literature. To put it all in context, there's a
continuing discussion on raf re: semiotics etc. may apply to litierature, but not to
painting. I think you're splitting hairs -- although I have to agree with you that
language is not art. Paint is not are either, so... as a matter of fact, dog toenails are
not art either.
But if you want to jerk your statement completely out of the context of the discussion,
why did you say it?
Erik Mattila
mark webber wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>
> > I wish you wouldn't say that language is not art. I mean, if you want
> > to make a distinction between painting and poetry, ok, but literature,
> > poetry, song lyrics are art
> > too.
>
> Ahh. You must have already begun the cocktail hour, because you can't
> really mean what you've written here. Allow me to parse.
>
> First: Yes - painting, poetry, sculpture, lyrics, drawings, literature,
> music, dance - all ART, yes.
>
> But Erik, look at how you are wording. Language is not art. Poetry doesn't
> *equal* language. Literature doesn't *equal* language.
>
> LANGUAGE IS NOT ART. Language is utilized in art. All arts. The language
> of music is utilized to make music. Etc.
>
> And this is problem number one when applying a semiotics reading to art.
> Especially visual art.
>
> >
> > "Grammar" means more that 'English Grammar." ..."the principles or
> > rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>"
> > [Websters]. This is the sense of the term I am using. When you get
> > into structuralism, which derived to a large degree from
> > Russian Formalism, this term is used to describe the 'rules of
> > formation" of a myth, a
> > novel, street talk, a musical composition, a painting, or for that
> > matter, a theory
> > (nothing is immune).
>
> ( further snipping)
>
> I disagree with none of this - but Language is not Art.
>
> >
> > I think there is a very broad range of possibility within systems of constraint. In
> > other words, there are borders which cannot be successfully transgressed -- but there
> > are borders that can be successfully transgressed. So it becomes a question of scale
> > and perspective. Becasuse all art forms have their inherent grammars, there are
> > limits.
>
> Grammars are formulas, conventions. And Language is not art.
>
> >
> > Art making is only theoretically predictable -- which must seem like a silly thing to
> > say. Is the lottery predictable? Just to an extent, and in terms of probabilities.
> > But there are only a finite amount of possibilities, even though we might spend our
> > lifetimes and not see six numbers repeat themselves on the draw (or see six numbers
> > repeat quite a few time).
> >
> > But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in trying out to create
> > something completely original -- that's when you look into the terrifying eye of
> > predictability. It's all been done already, right? Look at the on-going response on
> > RAF when someone presents something as an 'original' idea -- a litany of 'it's been
> > done' which are, in fact, quite correct.
>
> Why is it that sometimes art flourishes while doing nothing particularly
> new?
>
> I think the emphasis on originality somehow makes some people enured
> to the idea of the sound of an individual's voice. There is a difference
> between an original idea and a new voicing of an old one. The Italian
> Renaissance offered few "new ideas" after Massaccio, but many new voices.
>
> You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
> care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emoticons
> and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
> don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
> language arts".
>
> By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
> painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
> - they all share form.
>
> very warmest,
>
> Mark
Erik A. Mattila
mark webber wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
>
>
> > I wish you wouldn't say that language is not art. I mean, if you want
> > to make a distinction between painting and poetry, ok, but literature,
> > poetry, song lyrics are art
> > too.
>
> Ahh. You must have already begun the cocktail hour, because you can't
> really mean what you've written here. Allow me to parse.
No, actually, I seldom indulge anymore. I'm suffering from extreme malaise -- it's so
severe that I've lost my interest in booze, if you can imagine that.
> First: Yes - painting, poetry, sculpture, lyrics, drawings, literature,
> music, dance - all ART, yes.
>
> But Erik, look at how you are wording. Language is not art. Poetry doesn't
> *equal* language. Literature doesn't *equal* language.
>
> LANGUAGE IS NOT ART. Language is utilized in art. All arts. The language
> of music is utilized to make music. Etc.
Alright already!
> And this is problem number one when applying a semiotics reading to art.
> Especially visual art.
But there is no problem applying semiotic readings to art. It's done all the time. The
problem is that some have a problem with this. But this is their problem, certainly not
the semiologists.
What I'd like to see is a substantial argument against the methodology. By substantial I
mean a functioning critique of the methodology. For example, " a painting is not a sign
because it does not meet C. S. Pierce's criteria, which is that..." Unfortunately the
only critic who could make the argument is one who has a technical understanding of
semiology -- most people don't, probably because it is a very dry, technical, and
conceptually difficult field. So short of an informed critique, there are just general
statements of antagonism against semiology, which can only be taken with a grain of salt.
Fair is fair, right?
> > "Grammar" means more that 'English Grammar." ..."the principles or
> > rules of an art, science, or technique <a grammar of the theater>"
> > [Websters]. This is the sense of the term I am using. When you get
> > into structuralism, which derived to a large degree from
> > Russian Formalism, this term is used to describe the 'rules of
> > formation" of a myth, a
> > novel, street talk, a musical composition, a painting, or for that
> > matter, a theory
> > (nothing is immune).
>
> ( further snipping)
>
> I disagree with none of this - but Language is not Art.
>
> >
> > I think there is a very broad range of possibility within systems of constraint. In
> > other words, there are borders which cannot be successfully transgressed -- but there
> > are borders that can be successfully transgressed. So it becomes a question of scale
> > and perspective. Becasuse all art forms have their inherent grammars, there are
> > limits.
>
> Grammars are formulas, conventions. And Language is not art.
Not true. "Formulas" are more or less an Rx one how to make something, like "how to write
a novel." "Conventions" are agreements, especially about meaning. "Grammars, " on the
other had, are observed sets of rule that govern systems. So Levi Strauss proposed a
grammatical rule for the myth in his work on Oedipus, which was that all the actants would
be expressed in systems of opposites. The rule is also verifyable, as other myths can be
looked at to see if opposites appear in the narrative. It you find too many myths that
don't have this, then the idea must be abandoned, since it obviously isn't a rule that
governs myth.
> > Art making is only theoretically predictable -- which must seem like a silly thing to
> > say. Is the lottery predictable? Just to an extent, and in terms of probabilities.
> > But there are only a finite amount of possibilities, even though we might spend our
> > lifetimes and not see six numbers repeat themselves on the draw (or see six numbers
> > repeat quite a few time).
> >
> > But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in trying out to create
> > something completely original -- that's when you look into the terrifying eye of
> > predictability. It's all been done already, right? Look at the on-going response on
> > RAF when someone presents something as an 'original' idea -- a litany of 'it's been
> > done' which are, in fact, quite correct.
>
> Why is it that sometimes art flourishes while doing nothing particularly
> new?
>
> I think the emphasis on originality somehow makes some people enured
> to the idea of the sound of an individual's voice. There is a difference
> between an original idea and a new voicing of an old one. The Italian
> Renaissance offered few "new ideas" after Massaccio, but many new voices.
Well, I agree -- I was just using the idea of origniality, which is so thematic in
modernism, to illustrate how an art idea operates within various systems, from the
specific confrontation with the blank canavas and outwards into broader and more general
systems of being i.e. the studio, the city, the region, the country, the world, the
universe. The same would hold true about the predictability of significant form. But art
flourishes for a variety or reasons, one important being the socio-economic context. The
availability of floating capital, which wasn't preordained to the coffers of the Royals or
the Church, probably had as great an influence on the flourishing of art during the
Renaissance as did God's neat little trick of waving his wand and bestowing a
disproportionate share of 'genius' on Italy and Flanders.
> You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
> care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emoticons
> and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
> don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
> language arts".
Now I'm puzszled why you said that in response to the Russian Formalist. I'll have to
declare my guilt in having 'interpreted' your statement -- for the reason I stated in my
previous post. In lieu of interpretation, however, all I could have said is 'yeah, so
what?"
> By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
> painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
> - they all share form.
They share form with anything that has a concrete substance in the universe. In fact,
this is why semiologists believe that art can be studied with the tools of their trade,
i.e. analytic semantics.
But we need to move on. We keep arriving at an important juncture -- and never getting
past it (deciding what road to take). Both you and Lauri are hedging around an idea which
may be very difficult to represent -- at least from my point of view. (It may be perfectly
clear to both of you.) So what is this 'intrinsic quality" -- how is it defined.
Definitions are usually arrived at by a process of elimination -- in other words, what
something 'means' is determined by understanding what it is not. Without this filtering,
we are left with a fuzzy notion of 'it is all one' which, intellectually, is a very broad
generalization (this is not to say 'it is all one' doesn't have a spiritual value).
I suppose my attraction to theory is based on the fact that I like to discuss things in a
way that at least appears to be substantial to me. I participated in group critiques
where nearly every student said "In this painting I am dealing with the ambiguity of
space" and when I would try to contribute by asking about content everyone would clam-up,
as if meaning was a verbotten tabuu. I realize that the programme was to slice the field
into two, form and content, and concentrate art teaching on the form side of the equation,
but I saw a notion such as 'the ambiguity of space' as a content issue -- you know, 'what
does that MEAN?' Unfortunately, the utterers were also using language formally, and
uttering the phrase simply for it's sound value, because nobody had a clue of what the
ambiguity of space meant.
So there's the challenge. Explicate, please. What kind of vocabulary do we have to talk
about art in the artificial space that has no viewer, has no content, has no biography,
has no semiosis. We should try to describe this world.
Best,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
the riddles. Spellchecking is ok too.
Best,
Erik
jcab wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> > [a host of deletions]
> >
> > I think the emphasis on originality somehow makes some people enured
> > to the idea of the sound of an individual's voice. There is a difference
> > between an original idea and a new voicing of an old one. The Italian
> > Renaissance offered few "new ideas" after Massaccio, but many new voices.
> >
> > You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
> > care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emoticons
> > and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
> > don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
> > language arts".
> >
> > By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
> > painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
> > - they all share form.
>
mark webber
And again, hello...
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, jcab wrote:
> Also in common: A requirement that those who write about them know that
> enured is spelled inured, and types such as emoticons should be fixed.
Spelling, at which I am quite terrible, is also only a convention. But I
do try respect it when I can. I think the award for most creative
spellings here in RAF clearly belongs to Mattison, though (desperately
trying to deflect attention from my own frequent errors...) I love her
"comited", among others. Each time she wants to tell us how committed she
is I picture her orbiting the earth, and wonder how many years we will be
without her before her trajectory returns her to us.
> (How's that for a snotty copy desk editor, who otherwise enjoyed your
> fine argument on behalf of specificity in language, especially the vast
> difference between language and language arts.)
Excellent. And thank you.
>
> You and Erik are interesting thinkers. I do not participate, but
> enjoy.\
Joe, you would be most welcome!
Mark
mark webber
> Also in common: A requirement that those who would write about them
> should know that enured is spelled inured, and typos such as emoticons
> should be fixed.
The last advice I don't grasp. How should typos such as emoticons be
fixed?
thanks again,
Mark
mark webber
> Aw, come on, Mark. Your statement "language is not art" was made in response to the
> Russian Formalists, who primarily studied literature. To put it all in context, there's a
> continuing discussion on raf re: semiotics etc. may apply to litierature, but not to
> painting. I think you're splitting hairs -- although I have to agree with you that
> language is not art. Paint is not are either, so... as a matter of fact, dog toenails are
> not art either.
I didn't mean to seem cavalier with context - it seemed to me that some of
your logic was based on a language = art statement. I do try to read you
carefully. I don't actually think you think language is art, but I have
seen semiotics arguments that rely on that premise.
>
> But if you want to jerk your statement completely out of the context of the discussion,
> why did you say it?
I didn't want to jerk it out of context - I was replying to the following
statement of yours:
> > > I wish you wouldn't say that language is not art. I mean, if you want
> > > to make a distinction between painting and poetry, ok, but literature,
> > > poetry, song lyrics are art too.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to have responded that way. Anyway, now
that we understand each other better I'd love to try rephrasing another
quibble we have.
Do you see a distinction between talking about *only* those aspects
present within the four borders of a canvas (which is something I like
to do, so please don't tell me it is impossible) and talking about the
work, the artist, the viewer and the culure that produced them all?
I ask this because we might find ourselves in a room with, say, five
Corots, and after we have talked about the extra-pictorial aspects we
might find ourselves saying something like "this one doesn't work as well
as that one."
Does how well one works compared to another have anything to do with the
culture that produce it?
And you might argue that judgements of this sort are part of the viewer,
and of course I wouldn't disagree. But after we agree that judgement takes
place within the viewer, can we look at the paintings and say one is
superior?
And we could look at it another way. Are the films "Grand Illusion" and
"Porkies" equal in stature? Or is it just my impecably good taste that
prefers "Grand Illusion"?
Do some cars look better than others? Do some meals taste better? Is
nothing more well conceived than anything else?
fondly,
Mark
mark webber
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> No, actually, I seldom indulge anymore. I'm suffering from extreme malaise -- it's so
> severe that I've lost my interest in booze, if you can imagine that.
Not in my wildest. I extend deep sympathies.
> > LANGUAGE IS NOT ART. Language is utilized in art. All arts. The language
> > of music is utilized to make music. Etc.
>
> Alright already!
Steady Trooper.
>
> > And this is problem number one when applying a semiotics reading to art.
> > Especially visual art.
>
> But there is no problem applying semiotic readings to art. It's done
> all the time.
You're right. I misspoke. There isn't anything wrong with it. I do wonder
how we can effectively read a sign in a picture from another culture,
though. But my point is that I greatly respect what were the clear
intentions of the masters - that is, putting it together well. And I think
sometimes a semiotics reading is not the issue. It is certainly
interesting - but such a reading can be applied to that which is *not*
art, like language and its use. An esthetic experience, a formal reading,
is more in keeping with what the big guns had in mind.
> The problem is that some have a problem with this. But this is their
> problem, certainly not the semiologists.
I guess if it is my problem it is my problem. I don't feel a need to
remedy it, though. However, in good faith I will say that not seeing the
greatness of a great painting is a problem too.
>
> What I'd like to see is a substantial argument against the methodology. By substantial I
> mean a functioning critique of the methodology. For example, " a painting is not a sign
> because it does not meet C. S. Pierce's criteria, which is that..." Unfortunately the
> only critic who could make the argument is one who has a technical understanding of
> semiology -- most people don't, probably because it is a very dry, technical, and
> conceptually difficult field. So short of an informed critique, there are just general
> statements of antagonism against semiology, which can only be taken with a grain of salt.
> Fair is fair, right?
Absolutely. I am not equipt. I don't resent the practice, I only wonder
what value it offers.
> > Grammars are formulas, conventions. And Language is not art.
>
> Not true. "Formulas" are more or less an Rx one how to make something, like "how to write
> a novel." "Conventions" are agreements, especially about meaning. "Grammars, " on the
> other had, are observed sets of rule that govern systems.
The distinction as you seem to describe it is that a formula or convention
is not necessarily culturally produced, while a grammer is. But if a
grammer can evolve - as they all seem to do - then how different is it?
I mean, a formula can be said to govern a system, a method. A convention
can be seen as an agrement of such a formula. They all mutate. Isee the
finer distinction you are making, but I also see a grammer as easily
described this way.
> So Levi Strauss proposed a
> grammatical rule for the myth in his work on Oedipus, which was that all the actants would
> be expressed in systems of opposites. The rule is also verifyable, as other myths can be
> looked at to see if opposites appear in the narrative. It you find too many myths that
> don't have this, then the idea must be abandoned, since it obviously isn't a rule that
> governs myth.
How broadly do we define "opposites" and have we abandoned the idea? I ask
in sincerity.
>
> > You once asked me how to make a responsible response. I would say that
> > care has to be taken - especially in this medium so reliant on emoticons
> > and BGs - to really use the words we mean to use. I can't believe you
> > don't see how important it is to distinguish between "language" and "the
> > language arts".
>
> Now I'm puzszled why you said that in response to the Russian Formalist. I'll have to
> declare my guilt in having 'interpreted' your statement -- for the reason I stated in my
> previous post. In lieu of interpretation, however, all I could have said is 'yeah, so
> what?"
I really wasn't saying it in response to the Russian Formalists. I have no
difficulty in comparing painting and literature. But clearly the Russian
Formalists were after something a little different than formalists like
Clive Bell or Berenson. It's different usage of the word. No big deal.
>
> > By the way, what do you suppose all the arts have in common? Music,
> > painting, dance, poetry, cinema, sculpture, etc (but not language)
> > - they all share form.
>
> They share form with anything that has a concrete substance in the universe.
That is not what I mean by form. "Anything that has concrete subsance in
the universe" is not necessarily the work of one sensibility. The form in
art can be seen this way. That is what I, and many others, mean by it.
I hope you don't read me as sarcastic if I remind you that I didn't coin
this usage of the word....
> In fact,
> this is why semiologists believe that art can be studied with the tools of their trade,
> i.e. analytic semantics.
And of course they can.
>
> But we need to move on. We keep arriving at an important juncture -- and never getting
> past it (deciding what road to take). Both you and Lauri are hedging around an idea which
> may be very difficult to represent -- at least from my point of view. (It may be perfectly
> clear to both of you.) So what is this 'intrinsic quality" -- how is it defined.
I am trying to be clear, really. I don't even think the notion of
intrinsic quality - which isn't my term - is so hermetic. But as artist
and viewer die, as culture moves and changes, the rhythms and shapes
between the four edges remain the same. That which does not alter, those
marks of colored grease on the surface of the canvas - they do not change.
Or if they do it is nature, not culture that does the changing.
There is something on the canvas that the viewer looks at. Yes, we have
identified the viewer, the artist, the culture. There is also a painting
on the wall. Is it any good?
> ...when I would try to contribute by asking about content everyone would
> clam-up,
> as if meaning was a verbotten tabuu. I realize that the programme was to slice the field
> into two, form and content, and concentrate art teaching on the form side of the equation,
> but I saw a notion such as 'the ambiguity of space' as a content issue -- you know, 'what
> does that MEAN?' Unfortunately, the utterers were also using language formally, and
> uttering the phrase simply for it's sound value, because nobody had a clue of what the
> ambiguity of space meant.
I understand and have had the same feeling of mild disgust with art rap.
>
> So there's the challenge. Explicate, please. What kind of vocabulary do we have to talk
> about art in the artificial space that has no viewer, has no content, has no biography,
> has no semiosis. We should try to describe this world.
Nicely put. But we don't need to ignor the viewer, the content, the
culture. I would simply wonder how we can determine which pictures work
and which don't. I don't know how we can proceed without looking at the
decision-making of the artist, and I'm not sure why we can't get past the
identification of viewer/artist/thing to do that.
I don't refute the obvious. There is a relationship between these three
components. Why should this relationship prevent us from seeing that
Titian was an astonishing painter?
Thanks again!
Mark
mark webber
(snip)
> Therefore I still have doubts that a part of the "how" lies in
> the eye of the beholder. Could some genuine formalist
> describe the "how" little more in detail,
> so I could reckognize it to be the same
> in two different masterpieces from two different periods.
I think the "how" is the work of the artist - but the viewer needs
experience looking to appreciate it. But it isn't so hard to see, in
Raphael, a concern for an asymetrical balance, a restful rhythm, a harmony
of shapes and colors, that one can also see in Picasso.
And the sort of ambling shapes in Piero can be seen in Arp, too.
I see Veronese in Gorky. An enormous amount.
>
> A silly question, but you deserve it after these years.
You are too kind, my friend.
Mark
mark webber
> But I think I have a sense of what you're driving at -- i.e. the autonomy of
> the work of art. What does it 'say' and how does it 'say it' without the
> intervention of a lot of peripheral associations. This is why I said before
> it's kind of a Berkelian problem -- "Essi es percepi" (existance is being
> perceived"). Or more correctly, it was what Berkeley argued against, which my
> understanding is that 'things' have no independant existance outside of
> perception.
You know, I always read you and reply to you with respect and a smile, but
sometimes it almost seems this sort of point of view is saying that we can
no longer perceive this perceived thing because we now have to perceive
the perception.
I would never argue that the world outside is knowable, but by the same
token, there are shapes and colors on those rectangles and some of them
hum and some don't.
> Mental operations are so complex that the mind scientists have little
> understanding how it works, yet the 'little understanding' is huge, by
> contrast, to our lay understanding. Just how a thought is formed is something
> that many spend entire careers trying to get a reading on. So somewhere in all
> the ganglia is the wellsprings of aesthetics and the aesthetic response. It
> may be a very high level mental operation, or it may be neurotic reaction to
> sensory material. It either case it is complex, and my understanding on the
> state of the art for interpreting thinking has something to do with very
> elaborate associations.
But that doesn't mean you don't like looking for good pictures does it?
>
> Anyway, I'm all ears to informtion on intrinsic attributes of painting that
> exist outside the influence of these sorts of associations. My complaint, so
> far, about that species of art talk that seeks to explain this is that the
> ideas are very fluffy and depend on terms which are barely understandable in
> any concrete sense. That's why when Ariane kept saying "beauty inheres in the
> universe" I kept thinking of peanut butter.
>
> Have I answered?
Yes, very well, I think. And I can't stress how much I agree. But this
isn't a convincing argument against having esthetic experience, is it?
Mark
Lauri.L.
<...>
> And yes, I would say that anything that
> generates meaning for human being does so within a structure.
>
I undestand that, because of your shallow denotation of thinking
[I do not say 'your superficial thinking' but your shallow concept
of thinking].
For me thinking involves much larger part of mental processes,
where language level - what we can say we are thinking
and conscious level - what we know we are thinking are only
top layers which most often reflect only the results we got by thinking.
So 'two plus two is four' is possible on verbal level, but
473+ 785 or XIV + VII takes a lot of thinking before you can verbalize
the result.
(Yes, I know, for you the numbers are words too. My point is the grammar
is the same. Structurally these tasks are equivalent)
See more below at antropomorfism.
E:
> "Meaning" may be someting different than you are meaning (hehee he).
Maybe
> a better term, so we don't confuse it with the simple equivalancy of
the
> dictionary definition, i.e. "X = Y," is 'significance."
l:
that has been my understanding of meaning.
l:
> > I think like Mark, but for different reasons, that in art we deal
with
> > immediate experience, some say emotions on a level much
> > deeper than the meaning. In fact, as you said, we fish afterwards
from
> > an appropriate meaning from memories to the experience.
E:
> F.S.C. Lathrop, in his "The Meeting of East and West" proposes a grand
> scheme where the 'West" operates in a "Theoretically Postulated
universe"
> and the "East" operates in a "Immediately Apprehended Aesthetic
> continuum." What I sense in these discussions is the belief that
there are
> two such 'methods' of lifestyle, or habits of the mind. I rather
doubt it,...
l:
And Betty Edwards, How to draw with the right hemisphere
(my backtranslation of the name, my edition is in Danish)
tells you practical exercises how to switch between these two modes at
will.
You can do it, and benefit of it even if you don't believe it :-)
E:
> I didn't say 'we fish aftwards' for anything.
l: the expression was sure mine, especially and intentionally I
emphasized the time factor.
E:
> What I was saying was that a
> work of art appears significant to me because of my personal life
l:
And I wholeheartly agree that this was a fine illustration
of the role of context. In the context of your history the significance
is diffent than in mine.
E:
> Paintings are achronic and non-sequencial, thus projecting the
> appearance of immediacy. But it is only a question of scale. There
is no
> human perception that is immediate. Alfred North Whitehead more or
less
> proved this when he discovered and measured the time it took for nerve
> impulses to travel from perceptors to processors -- which is finite.
L:
I'm ready to further than that: When you even make a conscious decision
to do something, the action begins a short time before you know you have
decided! ( about 0.5" according Libet. Libet, Benjamin: The Neural
Time-Factor and the Concepts of Perception, Volition and Free Will.
Revue de metaphysique et de morale, Paris 1991. )
Just to remind you that there has been a lot of thinking before you find
yourself thinking (..that you think).
<...>
> > L:
> > It is easy to accept that if a Brillo Box should be art at all,
> > it must at least be moved to a gallery.
> > Then, where did you move the frescoes of the Sixtine chapel:-)
E:>
> Clever, Lauri, but that's pretty easy to answer. The gallery was
brought
> to the Chapel.
L: No problem, I just couldn't resist.
E:
> But it's not a
> good example, since it was probably never intended to be other than
art at
> the time of the signing of the contract.
L:
Not good - is quite an understatement, Erik.
It is a really bad example because the work was detoured already
before making. (Do I see some temporality, sequentality in visual art
:-).
The Gug has never been anything but an art museum. (why
do
> you say it is a commercial product? Admission charges?)
I have a bitter experience that architects are expensive.
Did you get your house free. What I really intended, was that
the Gug was built with certain estetism in mind, but anyway
to be useful as Brillo, i.e. not 'pure'art.
> E:
> > > But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in
trying
> > out to create
> > > something completely original -- that's when you look into the
> > terrifying eye of
> > > predictability. It's all been done already, right?
> >
> > L: It felt depressing in the beginning,
> > then I learned to be happy; i have not been completely wrong.
<...>
E:
> I would say that thinking is the result of language.
E:> Don't
> anthropormorphize your cat.
L:
Okay, lets try something more difficult
and anthropomorhize you, Erik :-)
Have you ever ..eh .. paused to find the words?
What happens during that pause is thinking, I suppose.
A nice feeling in fact, if you know :-)
back to cats. Every cat owner knows that those damd creatures want
to go out sometimes. When you open the door, the cat sits down in the
doorway to decide if it is really out it wants to go. This phenomen
is as global as unpaired socks coming out in washing machine.
What the cats decision has to do with thinking. Do I anthropomorphize?
If *You* make decisions without thinking, you are in deep trouble.
A pre-emptive remark: Computers do not make decisions, but _perform
_premade_decisions. Thee same is true to hardwired organisms like
ants.
E:
> I also am convinced that art appreciation
is
> the result of thinking, so by a simple syllogism, it is the result of
> language.
Well, dear Watson...
The first suitable book I got in hands was the 20th Century Art Book.
A random example Arnulf Rainer:Bereavement. How hard I think, I
can't come to the conclusion that I appreciate that piece:-)
Finally to the immediate experience. Let's put aside the trivia that you
usually perceive red as red before thinking.
Perception of art usually takes time. You can spend a day
before a good work and see more.That is thinking (partly).
The moment it made you stop and look, took also some time.
You didn't think. All the visual information was preprocessed
and selected and presented to you as pleasant, worth of looking at.
No Zen mysticism here, simply the human animal, before the moment it
escapes and hides behind philosophy and disappears among explanations
and language.
language is much too crude tool for decision making. Tell me
the difference in taste between salmon sushi and smashed potato.
You have no trouble to discriminate, hardly any difficulty to decide
which one you like. Still you are awfull short of words when you tryto
describe something you know that well.
Lauri.L.
<...snip>
> What I'd like to see is a substantial argument against the
methodology. By substantial I
> mean a functioning critique of the methodology. For example, " a
painting is not a sign
> because it does not meet C. S. Pierce's criteria, which is that..."
Unfortunately the
> only critic who could make the argument is one who has a technical
understanding of
> semiology -- most people don't, probably because it is a very dry,
technical, and
> conceptually difficult field. So short of an informed critique, there
are just general
> statements of antagonism against semiology, which can only be taken
with a grain of salt.
> Fair is fair, right?
lauri:
That dodge is far below your level, Erik.
One is not entitled to criticize UFO's unless one has been abducted.
Everything else is general antagonism. Isn't it.
Fair is fair.
Our earlier discussion, which I loved, you started with the
statement that self-expression is a myth in Barthesian sense.
it was nice and polite to tell the context.
However, *if* it is not myth (I do not claim that, quite the opposite)
in *any other* context, who should care - except Barthes who *in that
case* has entangled in his language so badly he has lost all sense
(in Barthesian meaning).
If you draw conclusions from the semiotic discourse, and apply
them outside the domain, I'm inclined to
ask -with very little previous knowledge of that dicipline -
why and how you think they are applicable.
A simple example will do. If [a Rothko painting is a sign]
then [what] is not a sign.
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office E-mail address does not
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik:
> <...>
> > And yes, I would say that anything that
> > generates meaning for human being does so within a structure.
> >
> lauri:
> I undestand that, because of your shallow denotation of thinking
> [I do not say 'your superficial thinking' but your shallow concept
> of thinking].
>
> For me thinking involves much larger part of mental processes,
> where language level - what we can say we are thinking
> and conscious level - what we know we are thinking are only
> top layers which most often reflect only the results we got by thinking.
>
> So 'two plus two is four' is possible on verbal level, but
> 473+ 785 or XIV + VII takes a lot of thinking before you can verbalize
> the result.
> (Yes, I know, for you the numbers are words too. My point is the grammar
> is the same. Structurally these tasks are equivalent)
I agree with you on that. It's like an iceberg -- 90% is below the
surface. No matter if consciousness represents a small percentage of
neural activity, or is an expression of a small percentage, my statement
hold true. "Meaning' probably affixes to experience on the unconscious
level anyway, although it can happen also as a conscious process. That
might be what we're arguing about - i.e. the quality of 'meaning' that
affixes below the level of consciousness and above the the level of
unconsciousness. But was I was commenting on was that there is a
discernable sturcture to meaning -- it is even mesurable in a scientific
sense. Psychologists, motivational researchers, behavioralists etc. do
this all the time. Statistics is probably their strongest methodological
tool. That holds true regardless how we may define 'thinking' or any other
form of mentation. It's just saying that 'meaning' isn't arbitrary or
infinite.
> See more below at antropomorfism.
>
> E:
> > "Meaning" may be someting different than you are meaning (hehee he).
> Maybe
> > a better term, so we don't confuse it with the simple equivalancy of
> the
> > dictionary definition, i.e. "X = Y," is 'significance."
>
> l:
> that has been my understanding of meaning.
Ideas about 'meaning' have that quality, or suggestion, that it should be
easily understood by everyone. My experience has been the opposite. The
texts I've read (or attempted to read) on 'meaning' and how it works I've
found to be the most difficult to understand. The inquiry gets quite
complex, and controversial since there are several 'schools of thought'
about it. For example, semiotics and philosophy clash often over the issue
of meaning. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of researchers
agree that on the level of process, 'meaning' happens by associations. The
sentient subject relates one thing to another in order to produce meaning.
But this idea challenges the concept of the autonomy of the work of art,
since 'meaning' can only occur through the agent which associates the work
of art with something else in order to produce meaning. If this idea is
unacceptable, what is the alternative? How can something "mean" without
association?
> l:
> > > I think like Mark, but for different reasons, that in art we deal
> with
> > > immediate experience, some say emotions on a level much
> > > deeper than the meaning. In fact, as you said, we fish afterwards
> from
> > > an appropriate meaning from memories to the experience.
> E:
> > F.S.C. Lathrop, in his "The Meeting of East and West" proposes a grand
> > scheme where the 'West" operates in a "Theoretically Postulated
> universe"
> > and the "East" operates in a "Immediately Apprehended Aesthetic
> > continuum." What I sense in these discussions is the belief that
> there are
> > two such 'methods' of lifestyle, or habits of the mind. I rather
> doubt it,...
> l:
> And Betty Edwards, How to draw with the right hemisphere
> (my backtranslation of the name, my edition is in Danish)
> tells you practical exercises how to switch between these two modes at
> will.
> You can do it, and benefit of it even if you don't believe it :-)
I bought that book when it first came out, tried the method, and even had
students use the method. It works. But Edwards' neural physiology account
has suffered from harsh criticism from the medical community, I
understand. The right brain/left brain hypothesis has some pretty weak
points in it, at least when you see the it as the divide between the
'aesthetic and rational" function. But Edwards method works for another
reason, and that is by drawing upsidedown you escape your seeing bias --
since seeing is learned, it carries with it a lot of prejudice and
distortion, and her methods offers a very effective way to avoid this
bias. It may not have anything to do with hemispheres.
> E:
> > I didn't say 'we fish aftwards' for anything.
> l: the expression was sure mine, especially and intentionally I
> emphasized the time factor.
> E:
> > What I was saying was that a
> > work of art appears significant to me because of my personal life
> l:
> And I wholeheartly agree that this was a fine illustration
> of the role of context. In the context of your history the significance
> is diffent than in mine.
yes...
> E:
> > Paintings are achronic and non-sequencial, thus projecting the
> > appearance of immediacy. But it is only a question of scale. There
> is no
> > human perception that is immediate. Alfred North Whitehead more or
> less
> > proved this when he discovered and measured the time it took for nerve
> > impulses to travel from perceptors to processors -- which is finite.
>
> L:
> I'm ready to further than that: When you even make a conscious decision
> to do something, the action begins a short time before you know you have
> decided! ( about 0.5" according Libet. Libet, Benjamin: The Neural
> Time-Factor and the Concepts of Perception, Volition and Free Will.
> Revue de metaphysique et de morale, Paris 1991. )
>
> Just to remind you that there has been a lot of thinking before you find
> yourself thinking (..that you think).
I think so...
> ...>
> > > L:
> > > It is easy to accept that if a Brillo Box should be art at all,
> > > it must at least be moved to a gallery.
> > > Then, where did you move the frescoes of the Sixtine chapel:-)
> E:>
> > Clever, Lauri, but that's pretty easy to answer. The gallery was
> brought
> > to the Chapel.
> L: No problem, I just couldn't resist.
> E:
> > But it's not a
> > good example, since it was probably never intended to be other than
> art at
> > the time of the signing of the contract.
> L:
> Not good - is quite an understatement, Erik.
> It is a really bad example because the work was detoured already
> before making. (Do I see some temporality, sequentality in visual art
> :-).
I don't understand. Are you saying that Micealangelo's panels originally
appeared somewhere else? "GodMan" comics??? (I thought of this because
the panels do resemble a comic book, in many was, which makes it a
pictorial narrative.)
>
> The Gug has never been anything but an art museum. (why
> do
> > you say it is a commercial product? Admission charges?)
>
> I have a bitter experience that architects are expensive.
> Did you get your house free. What I really intended, was that
> the Gug was built with certain estetism in mind, but anyway
> to be useful as Brillo, i.e. not 'pure'art.
A lot of art is expensive. A lot of artist argue that it should be more
expensive. But architecture is an interesting example. I can imagine, for
example, that certain post modern building may be detourned objects. Like
the "Best Stores" -- one in Sacramento had the shape of a cereal box laying
down flat, and a jagged corner of it would break off and move forward to
expose the front door entrance every day at opening time. The original was
likely a kid's toy, and was recontextualized as architecture.
And what about commercial buildings like a donut shop in the shape of giant
donut, or the Big Orange fast-foods in the shape of a Giant Orange. I
think there's a certain detournement in that, and it is very old.
> > E:
> > > > But every artist meets the dragon when she/he gets caught up in
> trying
> > > out to create
> > > > something completely original -- that's when you look into the
> > > terrifying eye of
> > > > predictability. It's all been done already, right?
> > >
> > > L: It felt depressing in the beginning,
> > > then I learned to be happy; i have not been completely wrong.
> <...>
> E:
> > I would say that thinking is the result of language.
>
> E:> Don't
> > anthropormorphize your cat.
> L:
> Okay, lets try something more difficult
> and anthropomorhize you, Erik :-)
> Have you ever ..eh .. paused to find the words?
> What happens during that pause is thinking, I suppose.
> A nice feeling in fact, if you know :-)
I really resent you ascribing human qualities to me, Lauri (har har har).
Yes, I pause for words often, but it isn't such a nice feeling. Not a bad
feeling, thought. I could imagine that if I hated language it might be a
nice feeling. But I live under the threat of senility, so when I can't
think of a word I might even become frightened.
> back to cats. Every cat owner knows that those damd creatures want
> to go out sometimes. When you open the door, the cat sits down in the
> doorway to decide if it is really out it wants to go. This phenomen
> is as global as unpaired socks coming out in washing machine.
Yes, some cats are better in training their humans than others. Anyway,
Bronislav Malinoski called this kind of communication "phatic communion'
and not only can we communicate with our animals, we use it quite a bit
with each others. You know, gestures, facial expressions, tone of voice,
cryptic signs with our fingers.
> What the cats decision has to do with thinking. Do I anthropomorphize?
> If *You* make decisions without thinking, you are in deep trouble.
Yes, I've always been in trouble. But what is a hunch? Just because
you're not aware of thinking doesn't mean you're not thinking. Think about
it.
> A pre-emptive remark: Computers do not make decisions, but _perform
> _premade_decisions. Thee same is true to hardwired organisms like
> ants.
My computer does. It decided yesterday to destroy 'QuickTime 3." But be
careful about ants being hardwired. Did you ever read Eugene Marias, who
some call the "father of animal behavioralism." (Soul of the White Ant and
Soul of the Ape) One thing he observed was the individual ant (but he was
talking about termites) could not be conceived as an individual, since the
individual organism was the whole colony. So are our cells hard-wired?
> E:
> > I also am convinced that art appreciation
> is
> > the result of thinking, so by a simple syllogism, it is the result of
> > language.
>
> Well, dear Watson...
> The first suitable book I got in hands was the 20th Century Art Book.
> A random example Arnulf Rainer:Bereavement. How hard I think, I
> can't come to the conclusion that I appreciate that piece:-)
But the question is does your dislike of the piece result from thought
(even thought that may be below the threshold of consciousness). The
second question is does language have a role in thought below the threshold
of consciousness. There is a large number of people who think it does play
a major role.
> Finally to the immediate experience. Let's put aside the trivia that you
> usually perceive red as red before thinking.
> Perception of art usually takes time. You can spend a day
> before a good work and see more.That is thinking (partly).
> The moment it made you stop and look, took also some time.
> You didn't think. All the visual information was preprocessed
> and selected and presented to you as pleasant, worth of looking at.
>
> No Zen mysticism here, simply the human animal, before the moment it
> escapes and hides behind philosophy and disappears among explanations
> and language.
>
> language is much too crude tool for decision making. Tell me
> the difference in taste between salmon sushi and smashed potato.
> You have no trouble to discriminate, hardly any difficulty to decide
> which one you like. Still you are awfull short of words when you tryto
> describe something you know that well.
Yes, there are many experiences that challenge language. That's why we
have literature. But I don't feel satisfied with your explanation of the
immediate experience. We agree that it is not immediate, but it is very
fast. My question is how does it work and what role does language play?
Cheers,
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik:
> <...snip>
> > What I'd like to see is a substantial argument against the
> methodology. By substantial I
> > mean a functioning critique of the methodology. For example, " a
> painting is not a sign
> > because it does not meet C. S. Pierce's criteria, which is that..."
> Unfortunately the
> > only critic who could make the argument is one who has a technical
> understanding of
> > semiology -- most people don't, probably because it is a very dry,
> technical, and
> > conceptually difficult field. So short of an informed critique, there
> are just general
> > statements of antagonism against semiology, which can only be taken
> with a grain of salt.
> > Fair is fair, right?
>
> lauri:
> That dodge is far below your level, Erik.
> One is not entitled to criticize UFO's unless one has been abducted.
> Everything else is general antagonism. Isn't it.
> Fair is fair.
People may, and do, complain or denigrate anything they choose. Some
people actually are able to make 'substantial arguments' - meaning an
argument that has substance. In order to make an argument with substance
you have to have some knowledge about that which you are arguing against.
If you don't know anything about that which you are arguing against, your
arguement will have little or no substance. So it should be taken with a
grain of salt.
If this is a dodge, what is being dodged? So somebody comes up to you and
says "I really think Helsinki sucks." You say "Really, what don't you like
about it?" They say "I don't know, I've never been there. I only know it
sucks." Now, Lauri, are you going to take that argument seriously, or are
you going to regard it as 'a grain of salt,' meaning 'unimportant" ?
> Our earlier discussion, which I loved, you started with the
> statement that self-expression is a myth in Barthesian sense.
> it was nice and polite to tell the context.
> However, *if* it is not myth (I do not claim that, quite the opposite)
> in *any other* context, who should care - except Barthes who *in that
> case* has entangled in his language so badly he has lost all sense
> (in Barthesian meaning).
I think Mark is hedging around this same question - what are the uses of
theory. I think much of it has no practical application, except it is a
way of reducing the things of the world down to a level that they can be
compared -- or aspects of things can be compared.
I like law dictionaries because they attempt to define terms in both tlhe
abstract and the concrete. So an concept like 'to own" (something) is
completely abstract, by legal definitions, except for on aspect, which is
that you can call on the powers of the state to back up your control over
an object in relation to others in your society.
Unfortunately you'll never find the definition for 'art is self-expression'
in a law dictionary, where a concrete aspect might be defined. There is
probably very little of the concrete about it. And even in the abstract,
it is a concept that to me appears to be impoverished. So lets extend the
question about the utility of theory to the same question about the
utility of the term " art is self-expression." What interest is served by
uttering this phrase? What is it's purpose?
> If you draw conclusions from the semiotic discourse, and apply
> them outside the domain, I'm inclined to
> ask -with very little previous knowledge of that dicipline -
> why and how you think they are applicable.
> A simple example will do. If [a Rothko painting is a sign]
> then [what] is not a sign.
Nope, we're right back to where we were before. There is no way I could
write a treatise on semiology on a newsgroup, nor should I, since it would
be reinventing the wheel. If you are genuinely interested, you simply need
to pick up a text and indulge yourself. The first thing you would discover
is that even a simple example would become complex. And finally, I'm not a
semiologist -- it is only one of my interests. I'm not qualified by a long
shot to write the text.
Best,
Erik
Lauri.L.
Sorry for the layout. Due to some practical
constrains, I have to read in one fast newsreader,
and edit in the slow DeJa. It has the sobering effect
to reduce quotes for commenting. My apologies to
the hypothetical 3rd reader of this discussion.
Erik:
>That might be what we're arguing about - i.e. the quality of 'meaning'
>that affixes below the level of consciousness and above the the level
>of
>unconsciousness.
Lauri:
No problem here
E:
But was I was commenting on was that there is a
>discernable sturcture to meaning -- it is even mesurable in a
>scientific
>sense.
L:
Even here, I think, our thoughts differ mainly in timing.
You say something like meaning follows a syntax or structure,
which I understand preceed the actual instantation of meaning.
My understanding is that meaning creates structure. A piece in
a puzzle adds meaning to the picture if it is positioned
by the rules of the puzzle. A straw in a weawing creates
new structure. It was not a basket missing *that* straw.
Don't let your love in baskets mislead here. Most weawers
do work on prethouht patterns =syntax.
E:
> It's just saying that 'meaning' isn't arbitrary or
>infinite.
L: I'm not claiming none of those. When you raised the question,
I am inclined to think that meaning takes often place in the
hard-wired part of our mind. Definitely not arbitrary.
E:
>The
>texts I've read (or attempted to read) on 'meaning' and how it works
>I've
>found to be the most difficult to understand. The inquiry gets quite
>complex, and controversial since there are several 'schools of thought'
>about it. For example, semiotics and philosophy clash often over the
>issue
>of meaning. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of researchers
>agree that on the level of process, 'meaning' happens by associations.
> The
>sentient subject relates one thing to another in order to produce
>meaning.
L:
The little I have read of those texts makes me feel the same.
It is due to the grand French intellectual tradition in Russia
that they tend to raise the subject to so high level of
abstraction, that it seems not to touch the actual earthly instances.
E:
> The
>sentient subject relates one thing to another in order to produce
>meaning.
L:
Agreed, as long as you understand that this _new_ relation is the
meaninful product.
E:
>But this idea challenges the concept of the autonomy of the work of
>art,
>since 'meaning' can only occur through the agent which associates the
>work
>of art with something else in order to produce meaning. If this idea
>is
>unacceptable, what is the alternative? How can something "mean"
>without
>association?
L: Nor am I interested in the oriental thinking "if a tree falls
without nobody to hear, does it make noise."
Does it really matter? Nobody heard it anyway. If I on the other hand
hear the noise without any falling trees, I get nervous.
I understand that
Mark wants to say that there is something inherebnt in the painting
that has value independent _who_ "educated" person is looking.
This is some degree of objectivity.
He also claims that there is some certain 'form' recognisable, even if
you cannot pinpoint it. Something like there is a certain chairness,
even if you cannot enumerate the objects outside and inside the
definition of a chair.
What amuses me is that you argue the same point: There must be
certain signs used withina certain grammar, even if one cannot
pinpoint them in visual arts.
For me essential difference is in the philosophical framework
of terminology.
L:
Betty Edwards: I skipped the neurological blabla, but noticedthe
phenomenon of different states of mind. You call it seeing bias,
outlearning to draw sum of meanings (two eyes, stereotype of nose etc.)
Once more, going below language, conscuousness and all that.
Here I must note that sometimes you have the attitude of the chinese
scholastic who needed new shoes. He took carefull measures of his feet
and went to the shoemaker. Only to notice that he had forgotten
to tahe the measurements with him. The shoemaker tried to be helpful
"Your highness, sir, you have your feet with you, I can make the
shoes to match them." The scholastic answered "Why should I trust
my feet more than my measurements".
About Brillo and GUG,
(Those who came tothe channel later are referred three-four postins
backward - the sequence was too tangled to quote more).
L:
For my part I took up the case after Erik claimed - using Brillo
as example - that a piece must be detoured to a certain context,
to become art. My counter-example was that the Sicstine frescoes,
and Guggenheim museum have been there all the time. Especially
the latter is an object of use, not unlike Brillo and a piece of
architectural art
at the same time, without detour. Therefore the claim that detour
is an necessary condition does not hold.
L:
>> Have you ever ..eh .. paused to find the words?
>> What happens during that pause is thinking, I suppose.
>> A nice feeling in fact, if you know :-)
E:
>I really resent you ascribing human qualities to me, Lauri (har har
>har).
>Yes, I pause for words often, ... (Lauri's cut)
So you admit that you have to think without/before words.
That was my point. Language can be a tool for thinking, sometimes,
not a necessary condition.
(Erik's statement continued)
>but it isn't such a nice feeling. Not a >bad
>feeling, thought.
L:
Here you missed the point, I was quoting the joke
A: I thought...
B: Really, how does it feel
(That is really one of the Internet problems,
one is carried away to answer to a posting ,
not to the idea posted more or less clearly).
Thinking about cats
L:
>> What the cats decision has to do with thinking. Do I
>>anthropomorphize?
>> If *You* make decisions without thinking, you are in deep trouble.
E:
>Yes, I've always been in trouble. But what is a hunch? Just because
>you're not aware of thinking doesn't mean you're not thinking. Think
>about it.
Lauri:
*EITHER* you Erik is anthropomizing the cat to have a language
*OR* you accept that thinking does not need language,
is not dependent of language
(but can make good use
and abuse of it as well as be mislead by bad choice of words.
That is another story like Kipling says.
The POINT
*********
E:
>> > I also am convinced that art appreciation
>>> is
>> > the result of thinking, so by a simple syllogism, it is the result
>>>of
>> > language.
Lauri:
It was a nice and tough game,
want a revansh someday?
- lauri
--
//www.saunalahti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
Lauri.L.
>> However, *if* it is not myth (I do not claim that, quite the
>>opposite)
>> in *any other* context, who should care - except Barthes who *in that
>> case* has entangled in his language so badly he has lost all sense
>> (in Barthesian meaning).
>I think Mark is hedging around this same question - what are the uses
>of theory.
I love theoretisizing, as you know. My background is positivistic,
so I am questioning theories that cannot be falsified by experiment.
How to tell them apart from scam.
people make meanings by association, you know. Living in a little
democracy in the neighbour of great Emperors, the matter of clothing
raises interest :-D
L:
>> If you draw conclusions from the semiotic discourse, and apply
>> them outside the domain, I'm inclined to
>> ask -with very little previous knowledge of that dicipline -
>> why and how you think they are applicable.
E:
>Nope, we're right back to where we were before. There is no way I
>could
>write a treatise on semiology on a newsgroup, nor should I,
L:
Thanks, referates are a Band-Aid at best.
I am interested somewhat in semiology, and will continue reading
now and then. But i will also continue to ask: when you apply it,
does it make sense.
*******
A paraphrase:
>So somebody comes up to you and
>says "I really think Helsinki sucks." You say "Really, what don't you
>like about it?" They say "I don't know, Derrida says it sucks."
E:
>I like law dictionaries because they attempt to define terms in both
>the abstract and the concrete.
<...>
> So lets extend the
> question about the utility of theory to the same question about the
> utility of the term " art is self-expression." What interest is
> served by uttering this phrase? What is it's purpose?
L:
Are you trying to lead me on thin ice with the form "art is.."?
I am interested in the connotation of the term self-expression
(in wich circumstances it is used) and as much in the denotation
(to what pieces of art does it apply ..er...to what pieces of
art it is applied).
I wellcome the challence.
lan...@my-deja.com
As a neophyte painter, I was wondering what
kind of painting surfaces people use/prefer,
aside from the ubiquitous canvas?
Specifically paper-types that can be framed as
opposed to other surfaces (vases, walls,
whatever), and what goes best with certain
paints (oils, watercolors, acrylics or
airbrushing)? Advice would be appreciated,
thanks.
Lando
---------------------------------------