A personal work of art symbolizing ambiguity is Like something
that Gives birth to the First Cause, or something that symbolizes
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. All of which I've tried.
mando
On Nov 27, 2009, at 7:12 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
In his discussion of intention (Chapter 8), Dutton did not deny
that "The
design or intention of the author is neither available nor
desirable as a
standard for judging the success of a work of literary
art" (Beardsley), he
just gives two instances, from literature, when intention must be
known
(irony and anachronism) plus the "ever present" issue that
involves the
identity of the author.
But further speculations concerning intention do seem unavoidable
in each of
his four characteristics of great art, especially #3 ("Purpose - a
sense that
the artist means it) and #4 (Distance: "There is a cool
objectivity about the
greatest works of art: the worlds they create have little direct
regard for
our insistent wants and needs; still less do they show any
intention on the
part of their creators to ingratiate themselves to us")
And he certainly did not require that great art "somehow symbolize
ambiguity,
too" by offering an "open ended potential for enlivened subjective
experience
for both the artist and his/her audience."
(but why should he, if he agrees with William that "Anything is
infinitely
complex or simple, as one chooses"? How can such an assertion be
denied?)
Does this mean that Dutton is proposing that a great work of art
is " a
machine intended to perform certain operations or a set of
directions" ?
That would make works of art seem a bit cold, limited and
mechanistic, unless
we allow that they are significantly different from all the other
things that
we call machines.
But perhaps, according to Dutton, they are, since nowhere does he
suggest
that a great work of art "is intended to lead one to a particular
goal." --
instead, he's only listing certain kinds goals that should be
apparent if we
are going to call something "great"
Does he "require the artist to have foreseen the broadest and most
profound
symbolization of subject matter, style, etc". ?
Evolution could only require that an artist impress the people he
knows, and
Dutton does suggest that the human attraction for the art of dead
people is
flagrantly counter-evolutionary.
But his "four characteristics of great art" would seem to require
that
artists present the "the broadest and most profound symbolization
of subject
matter, style, etc". in order to achieve greatness, though he never
uses the
word, 'symbolization', and he's such an easy going, amenable
fellow, it's hard
to imagine him requiring anyone to do anything.
Which is to say that Dutton would prefer to let evolved human
instincts do the
requiring, so he can be a cheerful scientist instead of a demanding,
proscriptive art critic
......................................................................
.......
..................
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
