It would be interesting to do brain scans of people when they are engaged in tasks like this. I know that if I am aware of words in my consciousness while drawing (I work mostly in pastel) or playing piano, then something is wrong, and my focus just isn't there. But I work mostly from life, and most of your work - at least most of what I have seen - is non-objective. Perhaps there are different processes going on. I'm curious as to whether you felt your internal processes were different when you painted your self portrait? FWIW, I think there are a lot of parts of life where I am most content when words are not present, from sex to logging... Cheers; Chris
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:58 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > Kate brings up the big question: Do I use words to describe what to do > next with > the brush? I think the answer is yes. I think our mental processing of > words > can be very fast, faster, in thought than in expression. When I speak or > write > I do try to be coherent and that usually means I test or sort words, change > them, or at least try to express myself clearly, in sentences. But I think > there's a level of language thought that underlies that more formal > processing > of words. That primary language level is the fast, wordy but not > necessarily > coherent language that goes on in all our conscious lives. It is mingled > with > mental images, too. I think the images and words are interconnected or > necessary to one another but first place goes to language. I think it's > hard > wired. Maybe even human infants are using that sort of sound-language > before > they learn actual words. Very often I will act seemingly instantly or > intuitively with the brush. Other times I do think out a move or mark and > then > proceed as though following directions I gave to myself. But even when it > seems > to be too quick for words or directions, intuitive, a gut feeling, or > 'automatic' I think the act is prompted in a linguistic form, and if i > think of > images, as I always do, they are already shaped by language. None of this > is to > say that whatever the process might be it is clear or good upon action. > Once > the mark is made, a new criticality occurs to affirm it or reject it or > wait and > see. > > I feel a little heretical saying that I think words are primary to thought, > indeed, are thought, even before thought is visual or imagistic. After > all, I'm > an artist. I've thought about this topic a lot. I need to say 'maybe' and > 'perhaps' and 'I think' because I'm not really sure if I'm right. I've > concluded, for now, that no matter what image we have in mind, it is > derived > from words and then evokes more words, perhaps more accurate words, and > certainly those cause the image to evolve, change and morph. > > Summary: When I feel the urge to paint a blue shape, I've already said to > myself, "put blue there". > > wc > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Thu, July 26, 2012 8:25:44 PM > Subject: Re: Henry Adams quote > > You and Charles Peirce. You use words to describe what to do next with > the brush? > Kate Sullivan
