Private language and art as communication
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> > > Art is communication - if it is only self-expression that can be
> understood
> > > by the self, then it isn't communication, so isn't art.
I don't agree. I have seen a lot of modern art that the artist has a
specific idea or story relating to their picture - it helps to know what
that is to fully appreciate the picture. But it is not necessarily required.
A picture may still have an aesthetic value which makes it art above and
beyond whatever idea may be behind the picture.
For an example, there is aboriginal art. Each image can represent
something - different animals represent some aspect of life rather than just
being an animal, and so a picture can represent a story. We may not be able
to decipher what the story is without the knowledge, but the picture is
still art and it still has value.
The same kind of thing goes for music. Much of the classic works have quite
interesting stories behind them. The Surprise Symphony was written as the
composers audience would usually drift off to sleep and he wanted his music
to be listened to , so he introduced certain passages to wake them up.
There's another piece where it is written in to the score that the musicians
gradually go off stage one at a time. Back then they would snuff out the
candle lighting their score, making ofr an interesting visual spectacle. The
idea behind it was that the musicians were due a pay some time off. (or was
it a pay rise?) Anyway, the point is the music still has virtue without the
story.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Steve Marshall" <s...@atmos-nomorejunk.plus.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > Art is communication - if it is only self-expression that can be
> > understood
> > > > by the self, then it isn't communication, so isn't art.
>
> I don't agree. I have seen a lot of modern art that the artist has a
> specific idea or story relating to their picture - it helps to know what
> that is to fully appreciate the picture. But it is not necessarily
required.
> A picture may still have an aesthetic value which makes it art above and
> beyond whatever idea may be behind the picture.
>
the painting of a sunset is communicating the feeling that the real sunset
gave the artist.
--
You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness
consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of
life." --Albert Camus
Philip Preston
>
>I agree. It wasn't my point that the communication had to be a narrative -
>the painting of a sunset is communicating the feeling that the real sunset
>gave the artist.
A painting of a sunset evokes sunsetty feelings in the viewer but those
feelings are likely to vary from one viewer to the next, hence are not
necessarily the same as the artist's.
Regards,
Philip.
pb125
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > > > Art is communication - if it is only self-expression that can be
> > understood
> > > > by the self, then it isn't communication, so isn't art.
>
> I don't agree. I have seen a lot of modern art that the artist has a
> specific idea or story relating to their picture - it helps to know what
> that is to fully appreciate the picture. But it is not necessarily
required.
> A picture may still have an aesthetic value which makes it art above and
> beyond whatever idea may be behind the picture.
I'm not sure if the intention of the artist has any importance what so ever,
if they present a piece of art and it induces feelings into the audience
then it is successful, however these feelings must be different to the
artists, since they are looking at it /hearing it with their eyes/ears not
the artists. If further information is provided (the story, or whatever)
then this becomes part of that piece of art, it is not a separate thing. The
art becomes more effective by the addition of a more communicative medium.
If it was about communicating something specific between the artist and the
audience then there are more accurate methods of doing this.
If you wish to dispute this, why not paint me a response?
There is always the question on what constitutes a 'good' piece of art, and
people are for ever telling us.
Some ask, "is it art?" I would say "Only if it is produced by an artist, but
then what is an artist?", simply anybody who produces art..
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> I agree. It wasn't my point that the communication had to be a narrative -
> the painting of a sunset is communicating the feeling that the real sunset
> gave the artist.
But what of more abstract work ? Artisist use imagaes to represent moods or
aspects of life to tell a story. If you don't know what the images are, what
they are trying to say is lost, but the image may still have appeal.
I was fascinated by a program about Dali. I never knew quite the extent of
hte sexuality contained in much of his work. The images have a certain
appeal for their bizarre nature - I still appreciated the them as art before
knowing the background.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Philip Preston" <phi...@preston20.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:aj5f5r$eke$2...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
involved in art is less precise and even more ambiguous than spoken or
written language, it is still, I believe, succeptible to the argument
against private language.
I am sure that we all have very similar (if not exactly the same) qualia
associated with sunsets.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > I agree. It wasn't my point that the communication had to be a
narrative -
> > the painting of a sunset is communicating the feeling that the real
sunset
> > gave the artist.
>
> But what of more abstract work ? Artisist use imagaes to represent moods
or
> aspects of life to tell a story. If you don't know what the images are,
what
> they are trying to say is lost, but the image may still have appeal.
>
abstraction from reality, and decorative pictures, which are not. The former
is a communication, the latter probably not, just as it is not art.
>
> I was fascinated by a program about Dali. I never knew quite the extent
of
> hte sexuality contained in much of his work. The images have a certain
> appeal for their bizarre nature - I still appreciated the them as art
before
> knowing the background.
>
of the artist to receive the communication - though, with narrative art
there may be more of an argument for it. A painting of Daniel in the lion's
den wouldn't make much sense to somebody unversed in the story - though the
painting would probably seem peculiar as Daniel would not have the normal
composure expected in such circumstances. Somebody unaware of the mythology
of Daniel might hypothesis that it is a painting of a lion tamer, or of
Androcles.
Dali was a brilliant showman - we visited his museum in Northern Spain,
Figueres, which was a most enjoyable afternoon. The 'lips' sofa, and the car
filled with dolls were there, along with many paintings - some of which
seemed more a pastiche of Dali than Dali! I have a calendar from the Muse
d'Orsay on my bathroom wall that has a Dali for each month - this month is
Narcissus, an entertaining painting, also one that doesn't really need the
title to communicate its intent.
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> I see that there is a clear division between abstract work, which is an
> abstraction from reality, and decorative pictures, which are not. The
former
> is a communication, the latter probably not, just as it is not art.
Why not ? Decorative pictures can communicate something in a way similar to
an abstract. A B&W photo of ripples on a calm lake as the sun sets strongly
compels most people - even if they can't put in words exactly what the
message is.
Is the work of Constable not art ?
I would argue that much of the abstract work doesn't communicate - or at
least not very well.
> Dali was a brilliant showman - we visited his museum in Northern Spain,
> Figueres, which was a most enjoyable afternoon.
I am most envious. I find his work fascinating, if at times repellant.
Perhaps one of the interesting points is the obvious representation of a
mind that works a bit differently.
> You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness
> consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of
> life."
I would say there is no reason for life, but it is up to each of us to give
our lives meaning.
Steve M
Lance
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote: (See below).
Some points that seem relevant to me.
1. The original meaning of 'art' and of 'craft' is a made object. (Yes I
know about 'found objects' as art, but am setting that aside). Now almost
everything that an individual makes, as opposed to a machine, is individual.
Consider handwriting, speaking and writing (statistically one person can be
distinguished from another if you have enough text), even walking (I can
recognise many people just by hearing the pattern of their walk), and so on.
So in the sense that art is about crafted or made things, each work will be
distinctive of the someone who made it - and in this sense art is
undeniably "self-expression".
2. I think most of the arts (as opposed to the crafts) are about "world"
making. This is most obvious in a novel, but I think it is true of poetry,
painting and music too. Since the art-object world is a constructed thing
this world will be self-expressive, as in point 1 above. A world is not only
about meaning in a purely semantic or word-meaning sense - a world is a self
contained or self-sufficient entity in which our consciousness can reside
for a while. And such worlds express not only meaning but also emotion and
attitude and desire. I don't think any of these things is simply
"communication" or language -- private or public. If you think of Auden's
poem about pain - the patient in the hospital - we experience how the
patient's world shrinks to just his pain. Saying this in worlds like I am
now saying it is not however equivalent to the poem - the poem puts us in
that world for a while. We live there for a while. So I don't think art is
equivalent to language, although some arts can use language as a medium.
Rather an art is about constructing a world, with all the self-expressive
characteristics of point 1 applied to that construction, where that world is
able to allow us to experience emotion and desire as well as thought in a
particular way. It is channel or vehicle for our consciousness.
3. The possibility of making such "worlds" depends not only on the artist
and his powers but on our common human characteristics - we have a power of
imagination that does a great deal of the work in building the artist's
constructed world. (This point was well understood by folk such as Coleridge
and the romantics). Absent such a power and art would be helpless except to
point to the real world as it is. But even the real world (as we know from
recent perceptual studies) is more than half imagination for us. So we see a
line on a page, and immediately "see" a horizon, we listen to the rhythm of
words of a poem and "hear" a horse, and the like. So while no artist can be
certain that everyone will experience precisely the same world when
interacting with his art work, the world created is not entirely arbitrary
either - for it depends upon a common shared power that all human beings
have. The artist's work is not private - but not because it necessarily
partakes in the conventions of a shared symbols system, though that is
always an aspect of an artistic tradition, but because it depends upon a
common human perception, a common human power of imagination. Literally, if
Lions could write poetry we might not understand them because we would not
have the imaginative capacity of Lions.
Lance
> > > Art is communication - if it is only self-expression that can be
> understood
> > > by the self, then it isn't communication, so isn't art.
> > >
> > > However, just as Wittgenstein established that there is no private
> language,
> > > so there is no non-communicative self-expression - even if you want
> there to
> > > be. So, if something does not communicate, then it isn't
> self-expression, it
> > > is simply aping it.
> >
>
> Basing it on:
>
> 7 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
>
> inter alia.
>
> I remember, in discussion with my brother, wishing to buck this point with
a
> strong desire. I am now constrained to accept it.
>
> The question is if it also applies to aesthetics - though I have asserted
> that it does.
>
> I can't see how it could be otherwise, but Brooke Lundquist argues:
>
> Like a private language, art is a medium through which inner sensations
are
> "named". My point of contention with drawing such a parallel, however, is
> that a private language by definition is a
> linguistic concept, whereas aesthetics is not meant to be so. Although it
> will be proven that a private language cannot exist, I do not think that a
> non-linguistic aesthetic meaning also cannot exist.
>
> I find this difficult to accept. Though art is indeed a non-lingustic
medium
> of communication it is possibly even more symbolic than language - there
> being so many more symbols than those that language can provide. So I
would
> see the private language argument applying even more strongly to art.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> --
> You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness
> consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of
> life." --Albert Camus
>
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > I see that there is a clear division between abstract work, which is an
> > abstraction from reality, and decorative pictures, which are not. The
> former
> > is a communication, the latter probably not, just as it is not art.
>
>
> Why not ? Decorative pictures can communicate something in a way similar
to
> an abstract. A B&W photo of ripples on a calm lake as the sun sets
strongly
> compels most people - even if they can't put in words exactly what the
> message is.
>
>
> Is the work of Constable not art ?
>
>
> > Dali was a brilliant showman - we visited his museum in Northern Spain,
> > Figueres, which was a most enjoyable afternoon.
>
> I am most envious. I find his work fascinating, if at times repellant.
> Perhaps one of the interesting points is the obvious representation of a
> mind that works a bit differently.
>
trip from Lyon to Barcelona.
I am not sure Dali's mind is that different - maybe he is more honest about
it!
>
> > You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness
> > consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of
> > life."
>
> I would say there is no reason for life, but it is up to each of us to
give
> our lives meaning.
>
If we need it.
--
You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness
consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of
life." --Albert Camus
Peter H.M. Brooks
"Lance" <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
news:aj6mq4$h8f$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote: (See below).
>
> Some points that seem relevant to me.
>
> 1. The original meaning of 'art' and of 'craft' is a made object. (Yes I
> know about 'found objects' as art, but am setting that aside). Now almost
> everything that an individual makes, as opposed to a machine, is
individual.
> Consider handwriting, speaking and writing (statistically one person can
be
> distinguished from another if you have enough text), even walking (I can
> recognise many people just by hearing the pattern of their walk), and so
on.
> So in the sense that art is about crafted or made things, each work will
be
> distinctive of the someone who made it - and in this sense art is
> undeniably "self-expression".
>
were simply immitations of a simple artistic point.
Indeed, I'd agree that it is 'self-expression', certainly, even the most
highly crafted narrative painting is still 'self-expression' - I was arguing
this point just last week!
>
> 2. I think most of the arts (as opposed to the crafts) are about "world"
> making. This is most obvious in a novel, but I think it is true of poetry,
> painting and music too. Since the art-object world is a constructed thing
> this world will be self-expressive, as in point 1 above. A world is not
only
> about meaning in a purely semantic or word-meaning sense - a world is a
self
> contained or self-sufficient entity in which our consciousness can reside
> for a while. And such worlds express not only meaning but also emotion and
> attitude and desire. I don't think any of these things is simply
> "communication" or language -- private or public. If you think of Auden's
> poem about pain - the patient in the hospital - we experience how the
> patient's world shrinks to just his pain. Saying this in worlds like I am
> now saying it is not however equivalent to the poem - the poem puts us in
> that world for a while. We live there for a while. So I don't think art is
> equivalent to language, although some arts can use language as a medium.
> Rather an art is about constructing a world, with all the self-expressive
> characteristics of point 1 applied to that construction, where that world
is
> able to allow us to experience emotion and desire as well as thought in a
> particular way. It is channel or vehicle for our consciousness.
>
I am not arguing that it is equivalent to language, simply that, like
language, it communicates. It is, to me, as you say above, a very different
communication medium and one where the imagination has freer rein.
Absolutely! I agree completely.
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> The photo' of ripples is an abstraction.
> >
Well some with just ripples appear more abstract than those images that have
the background. But by definition they aren't really abstract.
> > Is the work of Constable not art ?
> >
> Indeed it is, and it is abstraction rather than decoration.
Huh ? How is Constable not decoration ? The Haywain has sold more copies
than any other painting. (Not sure if that is still correct). It isn't
abstract - those images are of real things. He may have used a little
artistic license here and there but much of his work is decorative.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > The photo' of ripples is an abstraction.
> > >
> Well some with just ripples appear more abstract than those images that
have
> the background. But by definition they aren't really abstract.
>
discussion.
An image that is an abstraction from reality is an abstract - so images of
ripples, no matter how distorted, are abstract, even if they may not be art.
>
> > > Is the work of Constable not art ?
> > >
> > Indeed it is, and it is abstraction rather than decoration.
>
> Huh ? How is Constable not decoration ? The Haywain has sold more copies
> than any other painting. (Not sure if that is still correct). It isn't
> abstract - those images are of real things. He may have used a little
> artistic license here and there but much of his work is decorative.
>
Oh, sorry, you get me wrong! I am not saying that art, even abstract art, is
not decorative, certainly not. However, not all decorative craft is art.
I would go far enough to say that not all art is decorative, but certainly
most is.
It's the old if..then, rather than if and only if... then (iff).
Lance
>
Oh wow, Peter! I'll go and break out the champagne!
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> > >
> > Absolutely! I agree completely.
> >
> Oh wow, Peter! I'll go and break out the champagne!
>
pretty often!
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> By what definition?? Photographs are not art, but that is another
> discussion.
I think photography can be art. Your typical snaps aren't any more than your
average art class painting might not be art. But when a great deal of effort
and planning , manipulating the image to suit the photographer etc then the
results can be art.
Abstract is not representational - only existing in the mind - or as my
dictionary says, "(of art) achieving its effect by grouping shapes and
colours in satisfying patterns rather than by the recognizable
representation of physical reality."
I know the kind of image you may be thinking of - of just ripples - which
can be an abstract, but with the rest of hte image it isn't so abstract as
you can tell what it is.
> I would go far enough to say that not all art is decorative, but certainly
> most is.
Well yes, certainly most art serves to decorate, but what of the kind of
stuff we've seen in the Turner prize ? - Unmade beds, half a cow etc ? What
of the pile of bricks ?
A don't think any of these are abstract though they are sometimes claimed to
have some sort of abstract meaning or relevance. I don't find them
decorative though they seems to be presented in that way.
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
>
> > By what definition?? Photographs are not art, but that is another
> > discussion.
>
> I think photography can be art. Your typical snaps aren't any more than
your
> average art class painting might not be art. But when a great deal of
effort
> and planning , manipulating the image to suit the photographer etc then
the
> results can be art.
>
manipulation of an image can be - whether a black and white job in the
darkroom or a photoshop job.
>
> Abstract is not representational - only existing in the mind - or as my
> dictionary says, "(of art) achieving its effect by grouping shapes and
> colours in satisfying patterns rather than by the recognizable
> representation of physical reality."
>
> I know the kind of image you may be thinking of - of just ripples - which
> can be an abstract, but with the rest of hte image it isn't so abstract as
> you can tell what it is.
>
call decorative.
>
>
> > I would go far enough to say that not all art is decorative, but
certainly
> > most is.
>
> Well yes, certainly most art serves to decorate, but what of the kind of
> stuff we've seen in the Turner prize ? - Unmade beds, half a cow etc ?
What
> of the pile of bricks ?
> A don't think any of these are abstract though they are sometimes claimed
to
> have some sort of abstract meaning or relevance. I don't find them
> decorative though they seems to be presented in that way.
>
idea and are as artistic as the thousanth impression of Elvis Presley on
velvet.
Steve Marshall
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote
> Again, I agree. The instances you mention are simply copies of the urinal
> idea and are as artistic as the thousanth impression of Elvis Presley on
> velvet.
So which bits of art do you think communicate without knowledge of the
artisits intent ? Works like 'The Scream' just look like a bit of a poor
halloween sketch - but when you know the story behind it, it takes on a
whole new effect. People that know what it depicts find it a harrowing image
and it is one that has been much copied. would it have the same impact
without the story ?
Steve M
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bible - many halloween sketches are derivative of Munch.
--
If bread is the staff of live then
the life of the saff is a loaf - Molesworth?