I clearly and fully agree with Cheerskep.  

No one can begin an artwork
without some idea or intention even if that 
intention is limited to the first
mark, color, word, etc.  Then comes the next 
mark, and so on.  Each time the
intent may change as do the author's judgments 
and interpretations, however
slight.  Again, in the end none of this can be 
guaranteed  as 'conveyed' or
be assured to incite similar notions in the 
audiences.  How they and the
author ever happen to agree is due to broad and 
influential contexts of
culture-society in the sense that everyone is subject to 
the nature of their
era and the learned knowledge of facts.  By facts I mean the 
physical facts
of things in the world.

In the old-fashioned methodologies of art history,
for instance, students were 
taught to first take note of the physical facts
of an artwork: what is made 
from, what size, condition, and provenance it
has; then who made it, when, 
where, for whom, etc.  This can be an exhaustive
list and none of it is 
irrelevant. This is knowledge.  It is culturally
indifferent because it has 
little to do with interpretation. But it is also
recursive in the sense that any 
artwork embeds the traces of earlier artworks
in a range of ways both simple and 
very complex.  Interpretation involves
additional and more subjective issues. 
Interpretation is not knowledge
proper.  It is inventive, imaginative, often 
poetic.  Meaning is the
construction one makes by conflating knowledge with 
imagination.  And that's
where everything becomes discursive.
wc


----- Original Message ----
From:
"[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent:
Sat, October 27, 2012 8:53:33 AM
Subject: Re: "The problem with Hegelbs
aesthetics is the assumption that the 
truth of a work of art emerges
completely via its conceptual

Joseph quotes Christopher Willard:

> - Without
intent all painting is meaningless.
> 
> Depending on what he has in mind,
Willard's line sounds tautological, 
trivial, and, if it is interpreted as
saying you mustn't start a work without 
knowing "where it is going", in many
cases his dogma is damaging.

Reply via email to