Quivers notwithstanding, there is always something enlightening about good art. It can put you in an unexpected state of mind, either surprising you with experiences you didn't expect or thought you would have dismissed as trivial. The best conceptual art does this with our opinions. I mean it evokes paradox, enabling you to value a statement or image-thought in at least two ways, each one negating the other. It's like Gombrich's famous use of the rabbit-duck image. Here's a recent example. At an exhibition one was confronted by a large book and a feather-pen. The directions were to list the person you'd like to kill. Rather horrifying, but the pages were filled by visitors' choices, the usual political and criminal suspects mostly. One stood out: "Couldn't Wouldn't". Now does this mean that the author wouldn't and couldn't kill anyone or does it mean he or she would kill the person who hesitates to kill, that is, Mr or Ms. Couldn't Wouldn't? In this entry you recognize yourself holding the first view and then the other, more shocking view. Art has a way of putting you in unexpected frames of mind, or experiencing unexpected feelings. The delight-awakening is recognizing your capacity to do that. WC
--- On Fri, 9/5/08, armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: armando baeza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Inspirations and intentions > To: [email protected] > Cc: "armando baeza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Friday, September 5, 2008, 10:30 PM > I think a work of art is judge by the parts that shine/that > stand > out, the parts that say design, > but justify the parts that don't, that distinctive > taste, when the > Melody lingers on, when one feels that quiver between the > eyebrows. > And so on............ > mando > > On Sep 5, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > Cheerskep wrote: > > > > "So the response to the quote from Chris above is > this: In general, > > writers > > will "please themselves" the most when a bit > works for BOTH > > themselves and the > > audience." > > > > > > ... and I'm wondering if we can't just replace > the word "writers" > > with the > > phrase "professionals of any kind" --- to > include not just painters > > and > > musicians -- but anyone who is responsible to a client > - whether > > that client > > is an investor or a consumer. > > > > Responsibility is testable --- it's either there > -- or it isn't -- > > the client > > is either pleased or he's not --- which is more > than could be said > > about > > inspirations and intentions which seem to flicker on > and off with > > personal > > whimsy. > > > > And then Cheerskep wrote: > > > > But Chris appears not to appreciate that both clarity > and ambiguity > > are a > > matter of degree. Every work of art is a composite of > many bits > > ("No work is > > ever just a single work.") > > > > There are bits that are themselves composites of bits > -- and it > > appears to me > > that only the smallest bits can be understood with > clarity. > > Did the Richard Gere character learn some fighting > techniques on > > the streets > > of Manilla ? Yes -- he did -- that much is clear. But > what that > > says about > > his relationship with a martial arts tradition -- and > his character > > -- that > > can only be ambiguous -- as well as the big question > of why we > > should care > > about his story at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > Click for free info on online masters degrees and make > up to $150K/ > > year > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/ > > Ioyw6ijmifsIxd2TwHlxVMkgN2bdP5 > > scD44eY9cHJFPg1lQOK4o2U0/
