There's nothing contradictory in my original statement. I simply pointed out, too succinctly for Miller, that multiple references -- ambiguity-- help to provide a situation of meaninglessness and that a sense of meaninglessness is a good, if not essential, way to allow the experience of art. BUT meaninglessness is not art. Art remains undefinable as a condition or an experience.
As for being an artist who "wishes", etc., I don't wish, I am. And I don't seek "appreciation" from Miller, Kivy, or the hordes of others who approach art from a negative, suspicious, hostile, limiting, and wrongheaded point of view. Those people are legion. Their whole foolish ambition is to define something fundamentally inseparable from experience and therefore contrary to fully objective measurement. If Miller is misreading Kivy as he does my simple sentences, I'd prefer to move on to another author. Like Shiller. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 8:46:09 AM Subject: Re: Reading Kivy: Chapter 4 "On the Unity of Form and Content" - A. C . Bradley Usually William waits a few hours before contradicting himself, but below he has done it all within the same paragraph. "it doesn't matter how many evoked references he can think of" ---- followed two sentances later by ----- "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." And the problem with ineffability, is that even a single swatch of color or note of sound is ineffable. (i.e. the word "blue". regardless of how colorful adjectives precede it, really can't do the job) Which is probably why 'ineffable' doesn't appear in any of Kivy's discussions, except in his gloss of Kant - who presented it as additional content, above and beyond those ideas which can be spoken. Such speakable ideas are not sufficient, but they are necessary to "engage the imagination and understanding in free play" (p. 16), which is how Kivy distinguishes Kant from the formalists who will follow a century later. But all this discussion is really beside the point that both Mando and William continually wish to make -- i.e. that they are artists, and therefore should be appreciated for whatever they want to do, with no explanation necessary. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with a good, healthy ego. But for them to engage in the philosophy of art, they need to question why works, other than their own, should be considered profound, important, unique, or ineffable enough to be considered fine art. >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. ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=vi4auS2fUumnfLXAZHU4cgAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
