With respect to your point 1), you are quite wrong. Armando's words to me indicated that he might be thinking about many of the same things I think about, in a visual sense, such as how far can one bend a human form in the interests of expression while maintaining a sense of the humanness of the expression. Though (if he works as many artists do) it's not researched by verbal processes, but by physically reshaping the figure - for example through drawing, or sculpture.
Which leads to why your point 2) is also wrong. I have no desire to challenge Armando to think the way I do, or to force his thoughts into conformance with some ideal process that I think is right. What would I gain from that? How could that possibly extend my understanding of how he sees the world, or how I might see it better? The little of his work I have seen I find to be emotionally resonant with myself. In a perfect world I would ask to visit him in his studio, and spend significant time watching him as his work unfolds, or (second best) find out where his work might be showing, and go see it. In either case, I would try and copy bits and pieces his work from life, because that is the only way one can really come to an understanding of artistic decisions. Alas, money and other commitments intrude, and I have to make do with the poverty of communication typical of the internet. I guess in short, rather than yelling "Get off my lawn!", I prefer to step outside and see what's going on. http://halifaxcb.blogspot.ca/?zx=986e85cf302ba496 Cheers; Chris On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris writes: > > "when I say "why not try and understand what > they are getting at, from their viewpoint", I am simply suggesting applying > a little philosophical charity (don't leave home without it), and assume > that within the framework of their own natural language (art, science, > whatever) their statements have validity." > > Chris, two points. 1) Your position assumes that whenever you hear/read a > lister's words you see what notion he has in mind, what his "statement" was > intended to "express". I've noticed how often people on the list > consistently > assume they're doing that when they're not. How would I know? By observing > how often they don't get what I myself was trying to convey -- because I > had > been too dimwitted to find the words that would occasion the desired notion > in the reader's mind. That's why I urge that we take the time to describe > as clearly as we can the notion we have in mind with key words. I grant > that > this can make for tedium, and I regret that. I don't think any other lister > exceeds me in making people reach for Preparation-H. > > But I find it more tedious when I perceive people talking past each other > because it's obvious to me they have different notions in mind even though > they're using the same words. > > 2) You urge: "assume that within the framework of their own natural > language (art, science, whatever) their statements have validity." I can't > be > totally sure what you have in mind with "validity", but, off my > interpretation of > your intent, I have to respond that this I can't do. Consider the muddled > or incomplete notions that many listers have recently had in mind when they > used the word 'essence'. One lister defined it as "the minimum needed to > distinguish one thing from another". When it was pointed out that 'thing' > was > ambiguous there -- did he mean distinguish a tiger from a lion, or one > tiger > from another -- he felt he should improve his "definition" to make clear he > meant "kinds", not individuals. But that merely introduced another > ambiguity > -- the word 'kind'has been the subject of reams of argument in > philosophical journals. Our lister would not accept that "Ted Bundy is a > different kind > of person from Mother Teresa" because, in the lister's view all persons are > of the "same kind". In other words he tended toward the notion "natural > kinds" that Kripke et al maintain. However, most of us would use the very > general word 'kind' to talk about all sorts of differences other than > "natural > kinds". I was sure his original notion of "essence" was confused, so I > questioned it. This is different from your position that I initially > should have > accepted that "within the framework of his own natural language (art, > science, > whatever) his statements have validity". Questioned, the lister immediately > changed his definition. Boorish though it may seem to you, Chris, I'll > stick with my position.
