Isn't that true of anything experienced, art or not? WC
----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 7:03:53 PM Subject: Re: Phenomenology of Signs It is getting interesting. I could not say YES. The reason is that I consider painting is 'fixed' and 'stable' only as a physical entity, but as generator of information it can change depending on our psycho-physiological state and experience. Even if it is our own work. Boris Shoshensky ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Phenomenology of Signs Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:04:56 -0400 Yes. The range of feelings a person feels is multivariate, constantly in flux, and never definitive. On the other hand, the painting is fixed and stable. It "expresses" (a poor word to use here) what can be "expressed" *in paint and pictorial means*. Paintings are physical embodiments of some notion of the artist's that can only be rendered that way. Otherwise, the artist would tell you something or sing it or not. Pantings also evoke viewers' feelings in response, but they are beside the point. Furthermore, I suspect that the painting (song, sculpture, etc.) doesn't express/embody a preexisting feeling of the artist's. That feeling may well have been the inspiration and motive to start the painting, but I believe--based on my own experiences--that the final state of the painting "realizes" (as the French say about moviemaking) the initial feelings as they were modified in many ways, in fact, overtaken and commandeered by the feelings that are provoked during its making. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
