I agree fully with Saul on this. I've said it here before several times: The artist may require an intention to do an artwork but there is no guarantee that this intention can be elicited by the resulting artwork in the minds of its viewers. It's the Intentional Fallacy. and as Saul points out many new, unanticipated 'conditions and circumstances' affect the work beyond the scope of the artist and the execution, and afterward, of the work.
wc ----- Original Message ---- From: saulostrow <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, October 26, 2012 1:57:26 PM Subject: Re: "The problem with Hegelbs aesthetics is the assumption that the truth of a work of art emerges completely via its conceptual let us try this instead - given I do not believe in meaning when it comes to visual art - I would suggests that what I have in mind is what I'd call "the painting's sense". I.e. we should not insist that the "sense that might be made " of a painting is solely the notion the painter had in mind. (This assumes a painter's "creative initiative", whatever they had in mind as they worked on the painting is always mediated by various conditions and circumstance that are not formost in the artists mind at the time of the works conception or execution. > > Therefore we do not need speak of the PAINTING'S "meaning" at all? I'm one > of those who > would agree a painter often has in mind "subjective associations" -- for > examples, a > clear visualization of what they assume will communicate their interests > that in turn are mediated by their aesthetic and style which determines > what their painting will look like; or even some > non-visual mediation they want their audience to contemplate (e.g. war is > hell). This is the reason that it is > delusional to think the physical painting is a sign - a signifier with a > fixed signified. It is not a singular signifier - but a multiplicity of of > signs that are joined in no linear manner - from their juxtaposition a two > types of text may be derived the first a continuous one(the work's > form/structure) - the other a fragmented one (the potential content that > may be derived from it various parts). In this way one makes sense of what > the artists has done - not by reducing the work to an image - but to a > multiplicity of decisions - each affecting one another forming a network of > interlocking possible understandings - some of these understanding given > the material we are working with come to be more privileged or likely then > others - > -- S a u l O s t r o w *Critical Voices* 21STREETPROJECTS La Table Ronde 162 West 21 Street NYC, NY 10011 [email protected] www.21stprojects.org
