Yes, Somewhere I read that Lacan reversed the usual signify-sign concept to argue that the word is not the sign but the signified.. But in my quest for meaninglessness the relationship between sign and signified is not even reversed, but broken altogether. I'm not sure if that's entirely possible but we do seem to experience it, often unexpectedly, maybe only for a moment, before we are compelled to explain and put the sign/signified relation back together again.
The "metaphysical" painters of the 1920s tried to induce the sensation of meaninglessness by staring at objects until they seemed to acquire (now we say produce) a strange, meaningless objecthood. The surrealists would aim for the same thing by repeating a word over and over until it lost its meaning. But what I'm trying to understand is the suddenness of the "disconnect" and the sense that it is unwilled. I suppose there is some state of mind that does allow it. The best I can say now is that it's a passive lack of purpose or utility. What others have called "The Flow". How 1960s! WC --- On Fri, 1/16/09, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Work creates the taste > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, January 16, 2009, 12:17 PM > You said once that you aspired to meaningless in your > painting,and I put > it aside as one of those things I didn't understand and > consequently could > not respond to. But your story of the morning light returns > me to the > question. > The surprise of things transformed by light is what I > do,and I see now that it > is not something which inherently contains > "meaning" in a cultural > sense,even if you can recognize everything in the work. > There are mornings and > afternoons when everyone should be walking around agape at > the transformation > of the > ordinary. > KAte Sullivan > In a message dated 1/16/09 11:26:47 AM, > [email protected] writes: > > > > You can't think your way to the aesthetic. > The aesthetic is not > > reasonable or rational. I'm not at all sure why we > expect works of art, of > any > > medium, to produce the aesthetic response, any more > than any other > experience. > > A few weeks ago, in traffic, I was stunned momentarily > by the patterns of > > light and shade on a truck chassis rolling along next > to me. Then for a few > > minutes everything seemed so "enchanted" by > a display of morning light. > > Nothing was really different, it was the same old > dreary Chicago expressway > and > > heavy traffic, but all utility or purpose seemed to > vanish and I was left > with a > > sensation of the beautiful. I say I experienced a > moment of > > meaninglessness, a stripping away of purpose and > utility. I was not nuts, > or drugged or > > unaware of the vexing traffic. And later, I > couldn't even figure out why I > was > > so affected by the sunlight and shadow on a mundane > clump of steel and > > wheel. There was nothing there I had not already seen > > countless times. My mind was open, maybe, to just > accepting the reality I > > experienced without any judgment (or pre-taste). For > a moment I was shadow > > and sunlight. It was the fleeting oceanic union of > self and other. The > moment > > of pure make-believe. > > > > WC > > > > > > - > > > ************** > A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 > easy > steps! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http > ://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=D > ecemailfooterNO62)
