" I don't think artworks do anything..." I strongly disagree. How about ability to change quality of human lives?
"... and thus have no meaning but what is given to them -- " I agree. It does not have meaning that we are able linguistically describe, but it has existential meaning of a particular order. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 22:54:27 -0700 (PDT) Gee whiz, I go away for two days of trout fishing and examining ancient mounds and return to Miller's yelping about my having struck a nerve in his art persona. I don't recall saying he was ignorant or lazy, at least not in recent years (when he has shown ample interest in reading and looking quite carefully) but I did refer to his oft demonstrated preference for expecting all artworks to do the heavy lifting regarding content while he need do nothing but be present. I don't think artworks do anything -- and thus have no meaning but what is given to them -- and I do think the audience is responsible for wresting meaning from its experience of art. If that responsibility is taken seriously, a good work of art will enable the audience to experience contrasting or paradoxical kinds of content, again, sidestepping meaning. I certainly don't think critics or art schools should try to experience art for the audience. Sullivan's quaint remarks about listening to a building, etc., are appealing but of course they are also nonsensical statements alluding to the need for the audience to be open-minded. As for the remark "inevitable and resolved" I made it up. It's not that I heard it from someone else but that others hear it from me. I invented the phrase, even though I suspect others have made similar remarks. My intention was that inevitable refers to the composition or formal harmony of the work to itself and that resolved refers to the seeming conviction of that harmony, as if to close out other possible or tentative iterations as faulty. Come to think of it, trout fishing can be a wonderful metaphor of the art experience. Unlike, say, passively and cushioned sitting in a boat awaiting the fish to bite, trout fishing requires an enormous effort, physical and mental, adeptness at moving through rather inhospitable nature, being laden with clumsy waterproof clothing, heavy waders, very tiny lures about the size of a housefly, delicate instruments, easily tangled line, and a host of other exhausting and embarrassing confrontations amid thorny underbrush and deep mud. Trout fishing requires strenuous effort and promises nothing in the way of the silvery magician fish dangling from a barbed hook. wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2009 8:58:30 AM Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved >I would like to see your objections to the proposal rewritten without resorting to the personal characteristics of those conducting the discussion with you. (Kate) That's not possible, Kate, if we accept that proposals about "good art" can only be subjective. (unless we're just talking about price) Please note that William began his proposal with a personal reference to his interlocutor as ignorant and lazy: "Typical of Miller to reserve for himself the passive expectation that art will speak to him, as it were, without any effort on his part." Then, as you castigate my "ad hominem" while ignoring his, you move beyond subjectivity into group dynamics. Humans form alliances when we get together in groups, don't we? It's unavoidable, we're social animals, more like termites than eagles. And since personal references and group dynamics are unavoidable in discussions of aesthetics, I won't complain about them one teensy bit. But getting back to the discussion of "inevitable and resolved" - I found it exciting because this is the first time our listserv has seen these words in reference to that mysterious quality that separates good visual art from bad. As Michael writes, "Inevitable and resolved" implies completion and coherence, fittedness, proportion, all those things.". But "inevitable" also involves the powerful feelings associated with destiny and history. The idea that all this sturm und drang is eventually going somewhere; while "resolved" gives hope that our many frayed loose ends will eventually be tied. The quality that separates good art from bad is going to remain an unspeakable mystery, but unless something is said about it, there is no way to challenge the economic engines of the art and educational industries. I wonder where William got those words? From critiques with other artists, perhaps his teachers? From writers of art theory? I'd be interested to know. But unfortunately, no sooner had he introduced them as the make-or-break of visual art, than he retreated back into the dominant ideology of the contemporary art world and art school - where art needs to appear "confusing and paradoxical" so that authorities are needed to explain it. And where do you stand on this, Kate? Does the goodness of visual art jump out at you (if not at first sight, then maybe second or third) --- and are "inevitable and resolved" words that you might apply, or does it often require an explanation (provided by yourself or others) so that you can recognize it as clever/insightful/appropriate/whatever ? And if so -- do you consider the "genuinely good art" to be that which at first appears to be confusing and paradoxical? ____________________________________________________________ Let your voice be heard! Click here and get paid to participate in surveys! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxPqYaSowucuFzZfJLYWwNl4m t70eB3UeaxikPlAarkOSUrVPOZSTm/
