What you're talking about below is what Winnicott called "Transitional Space". His main work in psychology and psychoanalysis centered on what he called "Tansitional Objects" and "Potential Space". Very broadly, what he thought was that infants gradually adopt objects that stand for the mother, thus effecting a transition from the sense of unity (everything as an extension of themselves) to a sense of separatness (self and other objects). The transitional space is a kind of "play space" a make believe space in which objects are alternating or exist co-dependently on their independent object status and their being subject to the authority of the player. So when you or I draw we create a potential space for our make believe objects in play. Complicated but profound and very useful for a way to examine aesthetics. See Winnicott and also Peter Rudnytsky (who has an anthology of commentary on Winnicott and aesthetics). WC
--- On Fri, 1/9/09, Michael Brady <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > Subject: See what I mean? > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 7:42 AM > When I draw a representational picture--for example, a > room--I think > (quite consciously, btw) that the ceiling line **goes back > in space**, > although all I've done is draw a flat diagonal line on > the paper. Or > when I draw the model's arm, I think of the line that > **goes around > the wrist**, although it is merely an elliptical arc. > > One could say that the notion that the ceiling line > "goes back in > space" or the other line "goes around the > wrist" is *the meaning* of > the line, although in reality the line is only a > two-dimensional mark > on a sheet of paper. It doesn't "mean" > anything, now does it? After > all, the human viewer "interprets" the line to > "mean" a room or figure. > > I believe this experience is pretty much universal. We see > the > representation as we make it, rather than the mediating > entity. One > way in which a trained artist is different from an amateur > or student, > as I've seen, is that the artist can shift his > attention between the > represented thing in the picture (i.e., the line that > "goes back in > space") and the actual form of the representation (the > diagonal > charcoal line). > > Generalizing a bit: When I extend my arm, I consciously > will my arm to > reach outward. I can then decide to pronate or supinate it, > to bend my > arm at the elbow, etc. To a small degree, I can control > individual > muscles. I can show off my buff physique by intentionally > tensing my > biceps or deltoids or pectorals. But I cannot control all > the muscles > specifically: I can rarely intentionally cause a specific > muscle to > tense up. I have to choose to execute an end result (extend > the arm) > rather than consciously give instructions to all the > muscles involved > in the action. > > How is this related to drawing? In this way: In both cases, > I am far > more conscious of choosing the result (extend arm, draw > line that goes > back in space) rather than choosing the instrumental > intermediate > thing (tense the triceps, relax the biceps, tense the > deltoids, relax > the brachioradialis; or draw a diagonal line from upper > left to lower > right). > > Even more obvious than these examples is the way I react to > hearing or > reading words in English. I simply cannot hear spoken > English without > immediately (a) recognizing that it is English; and (b) > grasping the > content (i.e., "meaning") of what is being said. > Equally so with > written English. Now, I am quite adept at playing around > with the > sounds of words, so I can manipulate the intermediate form > (the > sounds) to produce different results (puns, jokes, > ambiguities, etc.), > but I hear the meaning of the spoken words first, before I > manipulate > them. And likewise, I read the "meaning" of words > before I look at > their spelling or the typeface they are set in. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [email protected]
