Robert Frank's photos and films are known precisely because they convey a raw, unadorned view of how people unintentionally manifest their social habits and styles. Which is to say he achieves what he set out to do. His disclaimers are honorific. Besides we can never assume that what the artist (author) says about intentionality is true. See The Intentional Fallacy. WC
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, joseph berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: joseph berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object. > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 5:01 PM > - My photographs are not planned or composed in advance, and > I do not > anticipate that the onlooker will share my viewpoint. > However, I feel that > if my photograph leaves an image on his mind, something has > been > accomplished. > Robert Frank > > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:25 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an > object. > > > > Whenever we look upon (or hear, or taste, or smell, or > even palp) an > > object, > > the sense data each mind receives is more or less > different from the next > > mind's receipt, and each mind then > "processes" it differently. > > > > The processing is largely a matter of associating the > immediate sensations > > with other notion already stored in memory. That > inventory of memories, > > plus the > > intricacies of our associating apparatus, result in > new notion that can be > > of > > wide variation from mind to mind -- variation and > degree of "recognition". > > > > If confronted by an elaborate mathematical formula, > many of us can go no > > further than perhaps "recognizing" it as a > mathematical formula, while a > > mathematician's mind goes bounding on to all sorts > of new notion. When > > confronted with > > a scription in a foreign alphabet, many of us may > think, "Well, it's > > eastern > > Asian," -- and be wrong because it turns out to > be ancient African or > > something. > > > > What most of us have in mind when we talk of an > object's "meaning" is > > solely > > in our heads, a somewhat "recognizable" > notion. Thus when confronted with a > > scription we are told is Attic Greek, we may say with > a chortle, "It's all > > Greek > > to me!" Or, more seriously, "Well it's > meaningless to me." When we say > > that, > > what we have in mind is the fact that our associating > mind has not come up > > with notion that we can "get a grip on", > grasp, recognize to some degree. > > > > And that's where our lingo begins to mislead us. > We commence saying it's > > the > > scription -- or poem, or painting, or strange sound -- > that is with or > > without > > meaning. > > > > If a scholarly woodsman sees elaborate markings on a > tree, he may wonder > > what > > "their meaning" is. If the markings turn out > to be the clawings of a bear, > > he > > may say, "Ah! So they're meaningless." > But a second woodsman may demur: > > "Oh, > > no. The markings mean a lot. The only a bear does that > is when..." And > > their > > young companion from the city may say, "I'll > tell you what they mean. They > > mean > > there are bears around here. Let's go home." > > > > > > ************** > > It's only a deal if > > it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal > here. > > > > > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
