On 15/8/10 3:58 PM, "William Conger" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Michael; > I defined my use of ambiguity in the poetic sense by which one interpretation > through metaphor reveals (enables us to construct) another and so on, and that > these can be contradictory. Because these "layers" of metaphor are like > strata, > they can be interpreted "at the same time" as in saying, let's imagine, while > the rabbit comes to mind in this context, the duck comes to mind in another. > But in fact the image of the rabbit duck always has the signs of both rabbit > and duck, and many other referents as well, if not in actual marks, in evoking > associations. > > I have said that meaninglessness is an ideal, unattainable, since any > perception > or thought is embedded in an idea or subject. But it is desirable, in my > view, > to attempt to go as far as one can in stripping meaning from perception, not > only through reduction but also through multiplication. When we try to > perceive > something as it is, without any sense of its use or value (or name-definition) > then we are able to perceive it aesthetically. In saying this I am imitating > Panofsky. It is a way to contemplate form instead of subject and aside from > content. > > I don't like my name being ridiculed as "conjurer" for two reasons. One is > that > it parodies my mental efforts, as if I dream up my ideas from mists and > without > reasoning; the other is that it suggests an alliterative J sound in my name > with > in the word "conjurer". A retort is we don't say "longer" as "lonjer" so why > imply that my name is pronounced Conjer instead of Conger? I say this with a > smile since I know that you are a Scholastic and thus not responsible for > your > pedantry, usually supported by contradictory wit and humor. > > wc > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, August 14, 2010 9:48:59 PM > Subject: Re: Validity of Cheerskep's Argument > > William wrote: > >> Listers know how strongly I've advocated ambiguity, in the poetic > metaphorical >> sense of "multiple meanings" as relevant to art expression. In other words, >> nothing kills art faster than "one-liner" content. In fact, I have long >> asserted that the more complex the content, the more associative meanings >> evoked, the more seeming contradictions they put into play, the better. Of >> course, this sort of ambiguity and meaninglessness can be very clear and >> powerful. > > William the Conjurer uses "meaningless" in a meaningful way, meaning > "ambiguous." A nice sleight of terms. Ambiguity is not meaninglessness; it's a > lack of singularity, it's poly-"the"-ism (that's for CSKP), it's > openendedness, it's an ambi-pamby word. <g> > > Some ambiguities, such as the Necker Cube, the Duck-Rabbit, or Rubin's Vase > (the face-vase figure-ground illusion), provoke at least two equally probably > interpretations, but both interpretations cannot be held simultaneously > without contradiction. There are a few pairs of identical words (in English) > that are exactly contradictory, e.g., "cleave." (Actually these two words > aren't syntactically identical: "cleave," to split, is transitive and takes a > direct object directly, whereas "cleave," to join, is immediately followed by > a prepositional phrase introduced by "to.") > > "More associative meanings" doesn't necessarily imply "more seeming > contradictions," merely doubt about interpretation. > > Saul's comment, "Art and language are best when they are imprecise," barely > rises above a bumper-sticker aphorism but it touches on a fundamental aspect > of representation, namely, that the representation is less than the referent. > It reduces the referent in many ways and by many degrees of magnitude. In > fact, a more precise version of Saul's aphorism would be "Art and language are > always imprecise." > > The moment when the maker or viewer notices the differences between the image > or word on one side and its referent on the other is the moment when > reinterpretation, realigning of the parts of the comparison begins. And next > comes ambiguity, doubt, and eventually the moment of explicit fiction, when > non-existent referents are just 'made up' by the speaker or artist to test > what the new creation (horse + horn on forehead) proposes. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > please unsubscribe
