On May 1, 2008, at 3:02 PM, Derek Allan wrote:
Well you have just said that art is 'fiction' and you endorsed
William's
view that it is meaningless. What then is real (ie not fiction) and
meaningful? Answer must be: 'real life'. No?
I'm afraid your substituting of "real" and "not fiction" is wrong. The
opposite of "fiction" is not "real," but "non-fiction," and those two
terms are not synonymous.
I've explained my use of "fiction" on this list before. I mean that
the representation in a WoA does NOT have to conform in all
particulars to the model, as a representation would have to in other,
non-artworks.
Consider a map. A "real" map, i.e., a "nonfiction" diagram, is
expected to have a degree of accurate conformity to real objects in
real space. Road lines on a map should (generally, within the range of
the scale of drawing) correctly portray the actual location of the
road, and likewise with building, rivers, mountains, etc. That is the
first criterion of a map: fidelity and accuray. After that, qualities
of color, linear marks, symbols, etc., are embellishments that add to
the pleasure of looking at the map. Now, consider the map of Treasure
Island: It can show almost anything at all, but granted it must show
the locales and details mentioned in the story. So, it's contingent,
too, on the story, which itself is a free creation. You can't sail to
Treasure Island by following the map on the endleaves of the book (the
edition I remember reading as a boy), so in that sense, it's not a
true map.
There are many examples of this boundary of fiction between art and
nonart, no matter how narrow Jasper Johns wanted to make it.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
