On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:59 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.
How can expression be passive? Perhaps you are referring to a
quality in
the
work that is an embodiment of something, which is colloquially
said to
"express" X or Y. But that just points back to the origination of
whatever
is
in the work that you refer to. "Expression" as it relates to art
occurs as
an
activity of the maker, not of the work (except by linguistic
conventions of
casual usage), and certainly not of the third-party viewer. When
one says,
"That Goya painting expresses the drama of the revolution, etc.,"
one is
pointing to the proxies and cues and signs you mention. I don't
understand
what you mean by "experience relies on expression."
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)"?
What difference does it make what *you* know about what I know? If
I say
the
Kinkade is well made but doesn't move me, you can look at the Kinkade
yourself
and then form an opinion about my judgment. I said several years
ago that I
didn't much care for Ed Paschke's paintings, but I recognized
their quality
and had to "take them into account" (I think that's how I put it).
You have
read into my comment far more than I wrote, and you chastise me for
something
I did not say. I said I recognize something is good (i.e., well
made) but I
don't like it. "Projecting an iconoclastic ego"? Please.
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.
Yes, I believe you are correct. The viewer adopts or steps into the
"framing"
of the work, as much as one can by inferring the range and nature
of the
frame
and contextualizing idea.
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.
Again, there is a big distinction between judging a work to be "no
good"
and
acknowledging that you "don't like it." You seem to place a great
deal of
importance on the self-affirming effect of viewing (passively
experiencing)
a
work of art, whether you deem the work to be good or not good.
Perhaps that
takes place, but I don't see how that acts as an important factor.
