"I think we always have the capacity -- if not the ready ability --  
to experience the world as inevitable and resolved, as beautiful as a  
mirror of our metaphorical perceptions.   If that's right then it's  
our responsibility, not the mountain's and not the painting's."
wc

I completely agree with that, to create one's perception may be  
difficult, but projecting in other minds is next to impossible.
mando

On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:00 AM, William Conger wrote:

> The mountain is not inevitable and resolved; that is, the mountain  
> is not a quality.  What is inevitable and resolved is the state of  
> mind or the feeling or the aesthetic experience of the viewer of  
> the mountain.  We might say that the mountain is beautiful or seems  
> to have a sense of being inevitable and resolved but of course the  
> mountain is neither, it is just there. It is meaningless.  It is an  
> empty container, as Lakoff and Johnson say, and we fill it up with  
> metaphorical meaning.
>
>  Now, instead of saying mountain, say art, or painting , or  
> something else.  It's still the same relationship between something  
> empty and the filled up perceiving mind that is a churning cauldron  
> of metaphorical potentiality, instantly offering up a plethora of  
> meanings and allusions to still more meanings at every instant of  
> experience -- if we allow it.
>
> Sometimes, a perception of metaphorical meaning seems to correspond  
> so well to what we call the formal attributes of something, the  
> subjective comprehension of its physical attributes, that we feel a  
> sense of rightness so strongly that we say it's inevitable, it's  
> resolved, it's "right" or that it couldn't be otherwise and still  
> feel so right.  But none of this is proving that the thing itself  
> has the meaning or the rightness or anything other that its  
> physical substance -- meaningless but present.  Is this feeling  
> possible with anything at all, I mean the sensation of the  
> inevitable and the resolved?  Maybe it is.  When we don't have that  
> experience in relation to something in the world, a mountain or a  
> painting, is the problem with us, our unwillingness or inability to  
> let the "churning cauldron" of metaphoric possibilities bubble  
> over, as it were?  Maybe.  I think  so.
>
>  I think we always have the capacity -- if not the ready ability --  
> to experience the world as inevitable and resolved, as beautiful as  
> a mirror of our metaphorical perceptions.   If that's right then  
> it's our responsibility, not the mountain's and not the painting's.
> wc
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:51:32 AM
> Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved
>
> William made it up?
>
> Well, a fine phrase it is - especially regarding images that are  
> recognizable
> scenes or  people.  As every mark within them doesn't feel  
> "inevitable and
> resolved", they deserve to be called "mere illustration".
>
> But even if nothing is recognizable, still  -- if "inevitable and  
> resolved" is
> not the first response that comes to mind,  such images deserve to  
> be called
> "mere decoration" or "mere self expression"
>
> As Mando agrees - "inevitable and resolved" is a very high bar   
> (and he's not
> even sure that all of his own work can clear it)
>
> It's the quality found in natural things: mountains, canyons,  
> flowers, birds
> and such.  (and to return to Louis Sullivan - I think this is why  
> he suggests
> that great architects will only be those who grew up in the  
> countryside rather
> than the city)
>
> Is  any kind of special knowledge or  ability   required to  
> recognize this
> quality ?
>
> I think it's  only necessary to keep such a concern foremost in the  
> attention
> - although with so many possible distractions -- perhaps that is  
> not always so
> easy.  And the longer that attention has been practiced, the more  
> demanding
> (though not necessarily more narrow)  it is likely to become.
>
> Is such an effort similar to what William calls "heavy lifting  
> regarding
> content" ?
>
> I have no idea how he distinguishes "content" from "meaning".    
> Does anyone
> else?
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Want to work all of your life?  Click here for investment  
> information and
> start saving today.
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/ 
> BLSrjnxQyrslAXurUuAStMfXRlsOqN
> FC11KbErcSx8unI4gqHQKM9GJJ8FS/

Reply via email to