On Jul 8, 2009, at 8:51 AM, Saul Ostrow wrote:
Might I inquire that when it comes to art - what you believe its
usage and
utility are so that I may view your prism of "truthfulness" the
requirements
that a thing must satisfy to fulfill its role as art in accord with
its
usefulness and utility
First off, I wrote the text you quoted, not William.
If I can discern that the object is representational in any way, that
it stands in for something else or points to something else, then I
will want to know whether it is most important that it accurately
represent the other thing in a directly functional way. (Does the
photograph correctly represent the crime scene? Does the digital image
accurately represent one moment or state of the patient's brain
activity? Does the model of the building reliably show its
proportions, internal structures, and site contours? Does the map
depict the roads fairly so that I will not get lost or misguided?
Etc.) Or whether it is most important that I perceive how the
representation is constructed, and that means *first* that the artist
could choose freely from any material or concept and form the result
in any way to achieve some intended end. Even the story or image is
chosen and formed freely.
Amateur snapshots are reportorial, like crime-scene photos, and often
people disregard their poor photographic qualities because they are
engaged in the represented accuracy of the image. And by contrast,
it's hard to sell paintings of a recognizable face or bust because it
looks like a portrait and "who wants the portrait of a stranger in
their house?" Unless you point out that the picture is "a
Mapplethorpe" or "a Hockney," and then the response will be more
respectful because the other person will understand that the denoted
accuracy (who the person is) is less important than how it was made
and by whom. And William, it's not as simple as using a Conger as a
doorstop, which you once said.
If the object seems to be nonrepresentational, then I will want to
know what its purpose is. Is "Tilted Arc" a large object to look at,
or just an annoying barrier that cut across a city square and
frustrated lunchtime pedestrians? Duchamp pretty much cut right to the
chase with Fountain: do I pee in it or admire it as a nominal work of
art?
Btw, this isn't merely a conditioned behavior that seeks to see things
as either A or B. It could well be Proposition A or Proposition B. But
it seems to me that in order to engage one set of questions (Can I
rely on this representation for external reasons?) means that I have
to suspend the other set of questions.
This entire question of "truth conditions," as I phrase it, begins to
dovetail with the notion of play (what is play? What is a game? How
are they different from non-play? Is work non-play? Is play non-work?
If play is non-work, what about sports? etc.).
And this suggests to me that there is a large taxonomic divide between
utility/utilitarian purpose and non-utility. Much of law and social
mores have developed on the basis of utility and instrumentalism: U is
good or bad (legally) because it produced the effect Uu. Sometimes the
argument is U is good or bad because it is intrinsically so, but the
rebuttal is that U cannot be said to be intrinsically qualified until
something happens.
But that's for another day!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[email protected]
http://considerthepreposition.blogspot.com/
