Wiliam: You infer, I imply. I assure you I intended no, utterly no,
implication of condescension toward you in particular or artists in general,
around either a specific quality or any general tendency.
I do cringe at times at responses to Chris' postings but that is a different
matter.
Your comments are helpful in my refining what for me was an appearance that
certain art forms (plays, architecture) are more vulnerable to coercive
intervention. I DO understand now that all art forms may be subject to
coercive efforts but I continue to believe that larger scale works
(particularly architecture) are particularly vulnerable. It is that
vulnerability and any implications it might have that was in the "back of my
mind". I have been clear that artists have benefitted for centuries by their
exposure to the works of other artists and techniques and even scientific
and mathematic developments, keeping in mind that there may sometimes be
adoption of tested approaches and at other times, clear rejection of or
rebellion against techniques or perspectives.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Is art sacred?
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 23:02:13 -0700 (PDT)
> I do recognize the position you and Mando have taken that
> you are not
> interested/willing to have your work altered. What did I
> miss?
> Geoff C
Your statement has an unintended condescending odor. I excuse it as the
commonplace opinion to presume that artists are unable to compete in
serious discourse. It implies that artists cannot think outside of their
self-interest. Allow me to boldly announce my eagerness for a variety of
intellectual exercises and am in fact wishing for a informed layman's
discussion of psychology, evolutionary biology, neurology, the main
philosophical problems related to art and aesthetics, and the history of
art. I am also awaiting Cheerskep's take on Dickinson and Whitman
regarding the mind-body problem. And for true adventure I'd be happy to
explore ideas of aesthetics reflecting the American (now global) mass
culture mythology of frontier, utopia, even Goshen and "puritanism".
I think you miss the most important point in comparing the arts and it led
you to use a misleading term in trying to identify the uniqueness of some
artworks. Again, some artworks, for instance some paintings and some
sculpture, are made by individuals who control most or all the whole
production process. Some other artwork, like architecture and plays or
movies, or large scale public art, are made by groups or investors in
collaboration and all of them might affect the production. Neither of both
categories of artworks may or may not be "sacred" both in the "hands off"
sense you mean and in the more literal sense of holiness, secular or
otherwise.
The point is that while all artworks may share some attributes, even those
that qualify them as artworks, they do not all share the same modes of
production. And the mode of production is never a stand-alone qualifying
feature of art. Your question regarding the "sacredness" assumes a false
privileging of one mode of production that is not essential to art.
However, there are more subtle ways by which artists are subject to others'
affecting their work. In that regard, we might say the scale ranges from
coercion to influence. A coercive effect would be when a person of power
(control over production) urges the artist to change an artwork or create a
specified image, etc. An influential effect would be one that causes the
artist to become aware of some likely improvement to the artwork.
Generally, artists resist coercion and accept influence whether or not they
work collaboratively.
In fact, most good artists are always open to influence and sometimes seek
critical opinion. I have been influenced by many others and have sometimes
deliberately changed my work in response -- and an artist's work is always
evolving through influence of all sorts, a new idea or way of seeing.
Edward Albee once came to my studio and suggested something I might do to a
painting I was working on. I didn't follow his suggestion but his idea
continued to work on me, partly because I respected his insight. Since
then I have thought of his suggestion many times and it has probably
affected me even if I never implemented it directly. I could say the same
about hundreds of other incidents, from my viewing artwork in museums,
other studios, to responding to intelligent criticism and to arguing with
myself. I do most certainly believe that artmaking is a "sacred" activity
because it is a process of urges and hunches, guessing and giving up
self-interest for
the sake of being one with something ineffable, incomprehensible,
meaningless, and mysterious. Any true artist will understand that. Call
it the aesthetic experience. It is shared through the artwork.
WC
