William: You seem to be suggesting that greater clarity, or a greater work
of art, is achieved by avoiding intention as much as possible. It is my
experience that clarity of communication, in speech or email, requires
considerable intention in terms of considering various meanings which might
be inferred by a reader or listener and selection of words and phrases which
are most likely to avoid one or more implications not intended. (One recent
email which I received recounted a tennis announcer/commentator who was
claimed to have said on air something like: "One of the reasons for X'
success may be that he has his wife kiss his balls before each match".) I
view it as a romantic conceit that simply putting information out for the
public to deal with is "artful" or honest. If the work is graphic or three
dimensional, different standards may apply. However, in terms of language, I
would submit that much effort is required if one wishes to be "clear" in
communicating a particular message.
Geoff Crealock
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Inspirations and intentions
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 07:39:45 -0700 (PDT)
Our disagreement rests on our using the term art differently. I am
suggesting that a work of art is the special status of something that can't
be achieved by means of artistic intention. By that I place greater
emphasis on its subjectivity, its reception, than on its matgerial status.
On the related issue regarding representation, I quickly agree that there
are no truly abstract forms even though all forms are essntially abstract
(nameless in themselves, as Cheerskep may affirm). The seeming
contradiction in that suggeston is that we can't perceive anything without
either naming it or inventing a likeness for it. So everything looks like
something else (or evokes the metaphorical "as-if"). The problem is that
anything can look like many other things which are themselves multiply
evocative of still other things, and so on. So an incredibly complex
ambiguity is built into every perception. This is where Cheerskep and I
part company. He would say the author has the duty to be as clear as
possible in stirring another to perceive what he or she intends to convey.
I say that some authors, artists, etc., have the duty to remove as many
barriers as they can from the natural ambiguity of perception. I know this
is not suitable to
expository communication for it exposes paradox, alternative perceptions,
free-ranging fictionalizing, and even incoherence. The benefit, however,
is a greater awareness of the sheer magnitude of how we think and feel. It
is an invitation for the fullest possible self-reflectivity, which is
simply another way to achieve oneness with Being.
While you conclude that abstractness leads to non-referentiality, I propose
that non-referentiality is impossible (as does Amando) because, as stated
above, everything looks like something else (or perhaps like everything
else in some respects and certainly in its evocative capability for nothing
prevents me from likening it to anything else no matter how strange or
perverse). Abstraction is simply the degree to which form maintains its
ambiguous evocative nature in our perceptions, or, more plainly, to subvert
our habitual associations and open us to others.
Because I imagine the role of some artists to be that of revealing the
fullest possible ambiguity of form, its suggestive capacity to evoke
likeness to anything and everything while always being itself, for the sake
of "stirring" feeling of Beingness (or oneness -- with nature, God, or
cosmos), I reject the notion that (all) art should convey (stir) some idea
or translation of language or coherent thought or lesson, or, finally,
intentionality. Any intentionality consciously imposed will, by necessity,
reduce ambiguity. Any conscious effort to reduce ambiguity may be
essential to science and exposition, "truth", "meaning" and the like, but
it is opposite of artistic endeavor. Art is ambiguity exposed. The ideal
art intention is none at all. The ideal meaning is none at all --
impossible to achieve yet worthy to seek. It is what the Renaissance era
called Divine.
WC
