Do you mean associations are embedded in the image or evoked in the viewer regardless of the cues "put" into the image by its author.? And if there are few associations evoked, is it the fault/achievement of the image, its author, or its viewer?
In my view, all images are mere images, intrinsically, but we can never experience them so pure. We always perceive them as containers filled with our private and public (shared) associations. Otherwise, we may not even notice them at all for they would have no coherence as images. We project coherence from our ready supply of associative patterns and expectations. WC ________________________________ From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 12:54:56 AM Subject: RE: shoes I'm not speaking of just the literary narrative that one can attribute to a image - I'm talking about the relationship between form, subject, style, materiality, composition, point of view, scale, aesthetics, ethics, rhetoric, conception, etc. to say that something is a mere image does not mean you can not have associations - means that they are not complex and do not represent a knowing - a source of self reflective experience ____________________________________________ Saul Ostrow | Visual Arts & Technologies Environment Chair, Sculpture Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected]| http://www.cia.edu/ The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106 ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: shoes -----Original Message----- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 1:39 pm Subject: Re: shoes Saul, have any of these three writers suggested that is possible to have a "mere image" -- i.e. one that has nothing that can be unfolded or unpacked? And, have any of them proposed how one might objectively determine that one work has more to be unpacked than another? For example, Heidegger unpacked a great deal from that Van Gogh painting -- it's just that others have wondered whether it was ever there to begin with. I remember how an anthropologist once showed me how much could be unpacked from a book of matches. (it was even more than Heidegger found in those shoes!) >They all address why it is a work of art in that they all propose that the van gogh is not ta picture of shoes butmore and because of this as a painting it is more than a mere image - it is this more-ness that allows for a unfolding or an unpacking of the work that makes it art - - in that the work of art (its labor) resides in the fact that it can not be known in its totality and it can not be reduced to a singularity - but opens us to possibilities - potentialities that can not and are not bound by language - ____________________________________________________________ Compete with the big boys. Click here to find products to benefit your business. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUkjCGGQvBwcJfXFNeJzEqL9 ufbj3jhJZ5aSwOrSRk03JjCM1Xjqw/
