In a message dated 10/26/12 2:57:24 PM, [email protected] writes:
> 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. > > To address the second part of your posting first: I agree that what a painter had in mind when creating a work may be interesting, but it's solely a (morphing) notion in his head. That notion is not something "in" the painting. Granted, some painters and their followers may say such things as "This painting EXPRESSES what the painter wanted it to," the way, say, a poem is often said to EXPRESS a particular feeling well. But at base this judgment is an assertion that when the parts of the work are contemplated by an audience, the notions likely to arise in most of the audience minds are likely to be similar feelings of a certain kind. This is because certain of the poet's word-sounds have a certain memory feeling in mots of the audience. For example, take John Doone's line, "Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." I claim the formal, solemn "feel" of that line for most of us hinges (on among other things) Donne's effective choice of the word "tolls" conjoined with 'death'; and it's effect arises because our history of hearing/reading about bells tolling has so often involved the end of things death (Even Thomas Gray's line, "The curfew tolls the knell of parting day..." contributes to the feeling some of us conjure.) (Thus what a poem is said to "express" for some of us is different from its "echo" for others.) Back to the first part of your posting. The phrase "the painting's sense" gives me trouble for two reasons. It suggests the sense is in the painting. It's not. It's in me. Paintings are insensate. A painting no more has a "sense" than it has a "meaning". The word 'the' tends to do what the philosophers call "reify", it sort of connotes a definite, existent thing. (Bertrand Russell once wrote a whole chapter on this mischievous potential of 'the'.)
