Re: Inspirations and intentions

[armando baeza]

The quiver I wrote was meant to read quivering, But makes little  
difference, quiver between the
eyebrows also works, for me.
I'm working on a new sculpture of a cactus fruit, symbolized by a  
female form, bringing endless
thoughts to mind.
mando

On Sep 6, 2008, at 7:38 AM, William Conger wrote:

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: aesthetics-l@mh.databack.com
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/