"There are no alternatives to metaphorical thinking". We agree on that. Metaphorical thinking, in my view, differs in degree of a creative quality. The highest put in the work of art by great artist. When we are exposed to that work of art we use metaphorical thinking which is inferior to the one artwork is created of.
Talking about metaphor. This is what V. Nabokov said about art. "Literature was not born the day when a boy crying "wolf, wolf" came running out of the Neanderthal valley with a big gray wolf at his heels: literature was born on the day when a boy came crying "wolf, wolf" and there was no wolf behind him." Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:19:51 -0700 (PDT) I agree that things in the real world constitute information, some of which humans can sense, some of which humans cannot sense. Of that latter type, some of it is available through technology and some isn't. Further, some which is not directly sensible can be construed hypothetically. But we disagree on the other parts of your reply. I hold that no matter what type of information is made sensible, or guessed at, it must be processed by the brain, consciously or unconsciously and if we act on it in other than unconscious ways (which can be non-conscious, like blood flow and digestive functions). When the brain processes information as thought it is a metaphorical process by which we basically tell ourselves, such and such is like such and such. or it reminds me of...or it has the qualities of...etc., etc. There are no alternatives to metaphorical thinking. See Philosophy in The Flesh, by Lakeoff and Johnson. ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 10:57:08 PM Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved Yes, human presence is required as an active receptor. It is not animation doing work, it is information contained in the artwork of any kind. You know what books, movies and music Cd's do to us. The same with paintings, but through different sensors. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:07:17 -0700 (PDT) I can't understand how artworks have ability, unless they are animate beings. Artworks made of inanimate materials can't do anything. We project what we know (and choose) into them by metaphor and then imagine them projecting to us in return as a way to justify our evocations. The particular formal properties of artworks, being fashioned by a human being (always a simplification of natural form), facilitates the projection and increases its bounce back to us because we then imagine that another person, the artist, speaks through the artwork. Artists make something that serves as surrogates of themselves and others. When we like an artwork we like ourselves being mirrored and idealized by it. Or, so I think today. WC ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:12:30 PM Subject: Re: inevitable and resolved " 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
