I'm not referring to the actual word ,I'm referring to an actual image of art in all cases. To me the image of a human has an " essence' that no one can dispute. I completely understand that words don't have it, And so it goes , thanks
AB On Aug 17, 2012, at 11:12 AM, Tom McCormack wrote: > Mando -- Don't worry about my following academic ramble. If your criteria > confidently guide you in your art, you keep at it. My comments (and William's > which on the whole I agree with) are messages from nerdland. > > Your remarks here consistently use terms that you believe convey what you have > in mind. But I'd claim they don't, in this sense: When you write 'expression', > 'form', 'essence', and even 'stand for' and 'abstract', I realize I can't be > replicating in my mind what you have in yours. For example, it's exactly the > notion behind the word 'essence' that 's under attack here, but you use the > term in an unquestioned way that suggests you believe we'll all conjure the > same idea as you do when we hear "essence". William and I are saying that > though the word occasions a tumble of thoughts in the head there is in fact, > in the "real world", no entity that "corresponds to" the term 'essence'. It's > rather like the term 'soul'. I myself believe the alleged entity "soul" is > imaginary. We may claim we have an "idea of it", but I'm convinced that's all > it is -- an idea, a mental entity of kinds, with no more non-mental existence > than unicorns. > > Please don't say, "Oh, everyone knows what 'expression' and 'form' MEAN." I > claim words don't "mean". When I hear "apelsin", or "milk", or "democracy", > or "Cleopatra", what comes into my head are solely bits of memory retrieved > and mosaicked by my racy brain as it processes the familiar sounds. If you > say "Milk!" every time you put a glass of the white stuff in front a child, > she'll associate the word-sound with the white stuff, and recall the white > stuff the next she hears "milk". That's not because 'milk' "has a meaning". > It's simply because we have memories associated with the word-sound. Take the > word 'expresses'. When we hear or read it, what comes to mind are scraps of > memory of prior occasions when we've heard it, and the brain goes to work > arranging an interpretation, a would be replica of what the speaker has in > mind. We've heard it used about a man's action -- "He expressed his boredom > with a yawn." "He expressed his reasons in a long speech." We've heard it used > about an alleged action by a word or painting, even by a physical scene: > "Nothing expresses the power of the tornado better than the scene of > desolation at Joplin." The point: There is no THE meaning of anything in > itself. Not even of 'essence'. When we ask about the "the meaning of the > writer", we're usually asking about the notion in his mind, and we're seeking > to replicate that notion in our own mind. > > > On Aug 16, 2012, at 11:40 PM, ARMANDO BAEZA wrote: > >> I'm referring to say, thirty different abstract expressions of the human >> form, >> all, not so abstract that they can suggest something else,or even if >> some do >> stand for some thing else. >> Is that not the essence of the human in >> a different form? >> >> AB >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: William Conger >> <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, >> August 16, 2012 5:06 PM >> Subject: Re: Can art continue to exist without an >> aesthetic criteria? >> >> Essence: It's not there. You can't put a ribbon around >> it. You can't send it >> to your friend. >> >> You can't say it's shared by all >> humans because you can't test all humans for >> it...or any human for that >> matter. >> >> But...you can name anything at all as the essence of something. It's >> a value >> judgment, except in the few cases where the word serves as a >> scientific term >> denoting a particular, measurable substance of condition of a >> substance. >> wc
