Miller's got me there. Whatever can be said about a work of art never explains its ineffability. So it doesn't matter how many evoked references he can think of in looking at a junk painting by Kinkasskade --but I'm sure his references will be prettier than mine. As for my own paintings, they are much better than I am able to say they are and they're in another far far away universe for Miller. Referentiality does not make a work of art art. But with multiple references one can clear away specific meanings, and move toward zero so that if the work has value it can be experienced as art; that is, as the ineffable.
............................................................................. ....................................................................... >Every sound will evoke reference, just as every shape does, and every color. In fact, the more 'abstract' the more references there are. There is no such thing as non-representational. The quest for meaninglessness is simply the quest for the maximum evocations. Some people can't perceive or project many references, some can. The fewer references one senses the dumber that person is...or, more likely, the more conditioned that person is. Nevertheless, we all need to use conditioned references most of the time (as when that tree is in my path so I must move around it). But once we realize that we can operate (think) in multiple metaphorical tracks at once, some rational and sequential or logical, some imaginative, non-sequential, poetic, then we can realize how wonderful experience and consciousness can be. So, the more you approach meaninglessness, the closer you get to imaginative and creative freedom and...paradoxically...meanings. It's so simple that it is too opaque for Kivy and many others. (WC) ____________________________________________________________ Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxYFS5dQ9l5Sq1TEo7oKN1ox3 qxtJdjzYSN7Hprc7tJZIk6e9hKbxW/
