But why speak of the PAINTING'S "meaning" at all? I'm one of those who would agree a painter often has in mind his "me-meaning" -- for examples, a clear visualization of what he wants his painting to look like; or even some non-visual notion he wants contemplators to conjure (e.g. war is hell). But it's a delusion to think the physical painting has a "notion" or "meaning".
I think I need you to explain clearly why it is that if the only way you can see a painting is because it has a physical existence the physical existence has nothing to do with the meaning. How do you propose to establish the meaning if you don't look at the painting? It is clear that the physical existence of a book is not the same as its meaning, but the physical existence of a lot of paint on canvas would seem a little different. -----Original Message----- From: Cheerskep <[email protected]> To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 1:32 pm Subject: Re: "The problem with Hegelbs aesthetics is the assumption that the truth of a work of art emerges completely via its conceptual In a message dated 10/25/12 12:58:33 PM, [email protected] writes:
I do not think we should reduce the work of art to the individual creative initiative of its author either - the key word I think is the idea of revealing the text - which implies that the text is concealed within
what
the author does I'm not sure what you have in mind here, Saul.
To avoid dispute about the notion behind the word 'art', -- no, I said that wrong. There is no "THE" notion behind that word. Try again. To avoid dispute about your notion behind the word 'art', let's replace 'the work of art' (and to restrict it to visual works) and say, "I do not think we should reduce a given painting to the individual creative initiative of its author". My reading of that sentence suggests what you have in mind is what you'd call "the painting's meaning". I.e. we should not insist the "meaning" of a painting is solely the notion the painter had in mind. (This assumes a painter's "creative initiative" is whatever he has in mind as he is working on the painting.) But why speak of the PAINTING'S "meaning" at all? I'm one of those who would agree a painter often has in mind his "me-meaning" -- for examples, a clear visualization of what he wants his painting to look like; or even some non-visual notion he wants contemplators to conjure (e.g. war is hell). But it's a delusion to think the physical painting has a "notion" or "meaning". Bu the most baffling term in what you wrote is here: "the key word I think is the idea of revealing the text". Again, what sort of thing is this "text"? Your phrasing here suggests you believe that in some way the painting "has a text". This prompts me to guess you feel the painting itself DOES have a "meaning", something like a "message", and this message is not identical to what the painter has mind. Can you clarify?
