From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a mind, never in an object.
To: [email protected]
Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 11:27 PM
Approbation by others is never part of my intent in art.
Validation
of it comes from my inner being, it tells me it's
done. I love
every work when I finish, knowing It may not be forever. I
feel taste
was never meant to be a science.
Some of my work that i don't like any more is liked by
people that I
respect and vise versa. Yet I respect all my work,
because it was made by the being that I was, then, a
probable reason
why some people keep buying my work.
I've always felt like you felt that same way.
mando
On Aug 30, 2008, at 5:29 PM, William Conger wrote:
How you you know that what you like about your design
is the
implication that it will be well received by those
whom you
respect...and might provoke those you don't? In
other words, are
our art intentions really our own or are they
collectively fostered
by others from whom we want approbation? It's
fine by me if
intentions are not our own. I think artists must have
intentions
to be motivated to do their work and to guide its
completion but I
don't think intentions can validate or invalidate
the work as art.
Thus I think intentions are necessary but not
sufficient.
WC
--- On Sat, 8/30/08, armando baeza
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Meaning" is always in a
mind, never in an object.
To: [email protected]
Cc: "armando baeza"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, August 30, 2008, 7:19 PM
When I finally arrive at a design that I'm
excited
about, my intent
is finished. What others sense, is irrelevant to
me.
So where does the truth lie?
mando
On Aug 30, 2008, at 3:25 PM, William Conger wrote:
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
