Is't this the same meaning on what i wrote to kelly and others, off
and on, that the fact that we can only create objective art art that
always turns into a subjective thing to others. I wrote:
Since the essence of anything is unreachable, taking freedom with
it's essence as we perceive it, changing it's
color,form,sound ,meaning, etc. ,to one's pleasure, but,leaving it's
perceived essence intact, but. with a new design... may be a worthy
goal in art .
Universal Brotherhood by all means. better to kill turkeys than each
other........
May I say ,that on my mother side (Apache)we stopped counting how
many generations we have live in america. On my fathers side, one
might say; since the Malinche's got pregnant
from those ombres from the Mediterrannan area.
mando
On Nov 26, 2009, at 9:17 AM, William Conger wrote:
Intentionality is workable in mechanistic ways, such as machine is
intended to perform certain operations or a set of directions is
intended to lead one to a particular goal. Even artworks can
express intentionality and as they are recognized so they might
lead to some particular knowledge or experience. But what of the
associative thoughts, experiences, etc., surrounding those
intentions, despite their being hidden, ignored or overlooked? We
can never say that they are fully irrelevant to our experience even
when they may deter us from the supposed correct intentions.
If I notice the artist's intentions that guided the making of art,
what am I supposed to do with them except to follow them as a set
of directions, presumably to lead me to some subjective experience
that imitates that of the artist? I suggest that this possible
only in general terms, in superficial terms, if not actually banal
terms. No one can fully convey his or her subjectivity to another
because, obviously, subjectivity is not objective. So let's say a
given artwork can convey an intended subject matter and it can even
evoke the cultural memory or narrative associated with it, and
perhaps the artist can slant it a bit one way or another to evoke
some lesser associations, perhaps unique to him or her, and let's
say I get it because I'm versed in both the subject matter and its
associative content and am able to imagine myself experiencing
something akin to the artist's subjectivity conveyed through some
uniqueness of presentation. But in the end
I am still awash in my own subjectivity and nothing can fence it
out from my efforts to remain caged in the artist's intentions
through his/her artwork. I think this is what E. Gombrich had in
mind when he wrote, "There is no wrong way to experience an artwork."
David Hume insisted that we cannot escape our objectivity and thus
all that we know is a sense impression and ideas constructed with
them, shaped largely if not exclusively, by "cultural habits and
customs". That was the basis of his famed skepticism. We can't ,
he argued, ever know anything with real objectivity because all our
knowing is subjective. So we symbolize the objectivity and those
symbols rely on patterns and associations, only some of which have
a seemingly causal relationship to the supposed (make-believe)
reality. This is what led Hume to question the truth of
causality. How can we be sure that A causes B when we are limited
to symbols and our associative subjectivity? A may cause B, and
C,D,E,F, etc., in any combination or inclusion or exclusion. Only
by pragmatic experience can we assume, ultimately through belief
alone, that A can cause B. Thus even when causality is extended to
natural Laws, we must withhold ultimate certainty.
If I can't be certain that the sun will rise or that gravity is
eternal or that even the eternal is not relative to my
subjectivity, and must rely on symbols, which are "as-if" metaphors
that require my leap of belief and are not exact copies because
they are subjective, how am I to be sure that I can notice
another's intentions, or even imitate them, or be sure that the
other has those intentions or is even aware of them? And that is
the substance of the Intentional Fallacy.
To approach art as if it was a machine, something to be examined
and used according to the implicit directions for its use and goal,
is, to me. alarmingly naive and superficial. Yes, a real machine
may not work as intended if I try to impose another use and goal
for it, but perhaps it will do another job better. Artworks, if
they symbolize proscriptive intentions, are merely illustrations,
like ordinary signs or maps. But if they somehow symbolize
ambiguity too, by which I mean additional symbols of subjectivity,
(only a few of which the artist can symbolize due to the fact that
subjectivity cannot be fully exemplified), then there is at least
an open ended potential for enlivened subjective experience for
both the artist and his/her audience. The point is that the best
intentions are those which symbolize far more than are intended.
None are excluded and thus all are relevant and all are "truthful"
and all are causal without defined or limited
effects.
My trouble with Dutton's notion of intentionality is that he
requires the artist to have foreseen the broadest and most profound
symbolization of subject matter, style, etc. That's impossible due
to the cage of subjectivity and the inability of anyone to have
full experience or acquaintance with "cultural habits and customs"
that invisibly shape our symbols and associations, most of which
normally evolve over generations or even millennia, far beyond the
life experience of any individual. I would respond to him that
the best approach regarding intentionality, which is the container
word for meaning, is to avoid intentionality, to try to contradict
meaning at every turn, because in this sense, "none" is equal to
all, or "one" is equal to "any".
I have been ridiculed here for years because of my interest in
meaninglessness. Yet I see it as the most profound concept, the
widest open door to associative experience and symbolization by
means of metaphor. Intentions are necessarily proscriptive,
preferring this but not that, directing this but not that, wrongly
assuming the certainty of causality, and so on, but even for
Dutton, the most profound meaning is also the most inclusive, and
that is the same as saying all intentions are better than some. I
go further and say that since symbols as metaphors are the only way
to provoke associations, then the most provocative, the most
diverse and fullest associations will be the most meaningful. Deny
all meaning to a cup (all uses and symbols, all habits and customs)
and you have a potential symbol of anything at all. Include all
intentions and associations by choosing none. Create the most
potential for subjective associative experience by means of the
"meaningless" symbol. An empty cup can hold any drink or serve an
infinitude of symbolic functions. The job of the artist is to
offer an empty cup. A big one. But even the biggest and seemingly
emptiest cup will retain something, an aroma at least. No cup is
truly ever empty. No symbol is totally free from evocative
"meaning". But we try, and it's a noble effort. We blur and mask
the residue. We contradict it by any means we can. We try try try
to empty the cup. Whoever succeeds best produces the best art.
The best, the most profound art is the most meaningless, the most
contradictory, the most paradoxical, and thus finally, the most
meaningful. Real art is not only a machine, not only a map, not a
only set of directions, illustration, prescriptions and
proscriptions. It is the composite amplification and contradiction
of all of that. If we could possibly symbolize and therefore evoke
all the subjective associations of every person who
ever lived and will live, we will have made the greatest work of
art, the biggest empty cup, the totality of "make-believe".
Courbet famously said, "Show me an angel and I will paint it" to
affirm his commitment to the objective world. But in fact he had
already "seen" the angel by mentioning it, and had already evoked a
host of the associative subjectivity the cultural customs and
habits of symbolizing angels. I say that Courbet had already
painted the angels when he denied the possibility of doing so. I
know because I "see" them, I construct them, through associative
subjectivity, when I look at his paintings: his tangled leaves,
foamy water, and rocky ground, because I believe that anything can
look like something else. Look and perhaps you too will "see
Giotto's putti frolicking in Courbet's woodsy grottos.
Now we celebrate our American Thanksgiving. It's my all-time
favorite holiday for two reasons. One is that it symbolizes the
aspiration for universal brotherhood and peace and the other is
that John Alden and Priscilla Mullins were my direct 12th
generation American ancestors. Imagine their joy.
WC
----- Original Message ----
From: Chris Miller <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, November 26, 2009 8:36:00 AM
Subject: Re: Reading Dutton: Chapter 10 - Four Characteristics of
Great Art
Yes, "Anything is infinitely complex or simple, as one chooses.",
but Dutton
is concerned with that complexity which has been presented rather
than just
any complexity that can be found.
Here's the quote, again:
"presenting audiences with the highest degree of meaning-complexity
that the
mind can grasp"
