Much of when I create, happens ,not necessarily from experience or
deliberately, but by accident.
The important thing for me is to recognize that point and tread
lightly and carefully to the finish.
mando
On Mar 20, 2010, at 7:59 PM, William Conger wrote:
None of what you say goes beyond anecdotal talk. I want to know
what really distinguishes experience from expression, if anything.
This needs to be thought through. If experience relies on
expression, then is expression active or passive? If active then
it has an experiential source; that is, it is formulated and
conveyed in some fashion. But if passive, how can it be
formulated? I suppose you could say it's formulated by proxy, by
means of signs and cues of social norms, through the fashioning of
an artist, speaker, author or anyone else. But that is a hopeful
proxy, fraught with likely error on the part of the one making the
proxy and more error on the part of the one who imaginatively
reconstructs it and then experiences the reconstructed "expression"
as if it were located in the proxy. When you speak of something
being well made but not moving you, how do we know that you really
know it's well made and how do we know you are not projecting an
iconoclastic ego as if to say, "it's well made but not well enough
for me (and my higher standards)"?
I think the artwork, as a work of art but not an actual example of
art (an important distinction) is a proxy or proposition that
invites the viewer to "frame" it with a contextualizing idea or set
of standards or point of view ranging from the art historical to
the "unart" values of propaganda, commerce, you name it. The
framing of the work establishes the nature of its form and content.
When we experience artworks we are invited to pretend that we adopt
the framing seemingly proposed and then relish the surprising new
awareness we have. We have suspended our disbelief that our
experiences can be enlarged by means of the artwork. Even when you
say the artwork is no good, you have enjoyed the affirmation that
your experience is not enlarged by it, which, perversely, enlarges
it. Incidentally, I am wondering about perversion as a foundational
tactic of postmodernist art. It purports to be art while
aggravating against itself as art. Again, perversely,
by this means the cliche is demonstrated: The way to make an
artwork is to make something that's not art.
wc
----- Original Message ----
From: Michael Brady <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, March 20, 2010 8:32:43 PM
Subject: Re: Phenomenology of Signs
William wrote:
And how does a work "express" except by what is experienced? How
can we say
that what is expressed is at all different from what is experienced?
I've had the reaction many time. I see a painting or a typeface
design, a
piece of music or an article of clothing and think that it is well and
stylishly made, but it doesn't move me, it doesn't spark a great
deal of
affective interest in it. You can know what is good and what you
like, and
they don't have to be the same, or conversely, you can dislike
something you
know is good. I've had the experience of losing interest in a
painting, just
running out of steam, although in many ways it's good and well
made. Sometimes
(not often) this happens after I finish one. Initially, I liked it
but within
a short span of time it lost its ability to elicit anything more
than courtesy
from me.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
