!n my sixty years or more of art making i truly feel that all things have a refective power to make one form a feeling of some kind, specially when it's a human made expression in any form that is recognize or not every thing i do has an Immediate reflective power as i do it, to me and others around me, even if it's not exactly the same as mind , It is sensed.
armando ________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2012 10:02 AM Subject: Kate Sullivan's excellent queries In fact, I think Kate's queries raise some interesting, excellent questions that I never thought of before. I've been laboring at my keyboard to produce a much-deserved response. As usual, I've been shoved off my forum course by a series of "real life" emergencies (the Frankenstorm was the least of them for me). I'm determined to get back to Kate's remarks as soon as I can. -- Cheerskep In a message dated 11/3/12 12:48:27 PM, [email protected] writes: > If the object is only an object ,a lump pf canvas and paint,then > what is the image and why is it reproduced? Is copy more important than > the object? Does the reproduced image contain the value the object > had? And what was that value if it existed? > > Further if words like Lincoln release a flood of notions composed of > bits and pieces of past experience etc etc-it is quoted below-then what > is the difference between this description of a flood of notions and > the terser meaning? Or does the word meaning represent a Platonic ideal > while the flood of notions is common and everyday. Are information > and " meaning" the same thing? > Kate Sullivan > -----Original Message----- > From: lslbsc2 <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Oct 26, 2012 10:10 am > Subject: Re: "The problem with Hegelbs aesthetics is the assumption > that the truth of a work of art emerges completely via its conceptual > > Tom wrote:When you say, " 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" it is glumly clear to me that you think an object "has a > meaning", > that you think there are two distinct entities out there the object > and "its > meaning". No. All of what you call "meanings" are (varying) mental > entities > inside heads. Paintings do not have mental entities inside their > frames. > > Paintings also have colors which are not inside anyone's head. They > have shapes,also not inside a head. When you have never seen a > painting before you have no memories of it to depend on.You will > doubtless say that memories of other paintings will come to mind,that > notions of artiness will float to the fore,but none of these are seeing > the painting. They are assumptions about an object which a cursory > glance has classified as a painting. Paintings are intended to carry > information. It is difficult to separate the information from the > painting. Never mind the meaning, about which I know you can spend > countless hours quibbling over and explaining various things you have > decided I think. How do you get the information from the painting if > you don't look at it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom McCormack <[email protected]> > To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Oct 25, 2012 4:20 pm > Subject: Re: "The problem with Hegelbs aesthetics is the assumption > that the truth of a work of art emerges completely via its conceptual > > Please delete the posting that came from me a minute ago. My wandering > thumb > accidentally hit 'enter'. > > > > Kate writes: > > > > "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." > > > > I'm woefully aware that the hardest thing about my position to explain > is that > it's an error to assume that a painting, poem, play, dance or ANYTHING > "has a > meaning". > > > > I don't question that, when we contemplate such things, notions arise > in our > minds. And I realize how often we are all inclined to call those > notions "the > meaning for me". And we then tend to feel it's obvious we "got the > meaning" > from the object. "Where else could it have come from?" From which it > follows > the object "must have that meaning", otherwise it couldn't give us that > meaning. > > > > But I claim that what comes into our mind is solely bits of memory we've > associated with the object during past experience (the object could be > something we're seeing, it could be a word-sound, etc). Consider: If I > say > Lincoln to you where else except your memory could the various flooding > notions come from? > > > > Granted, we tend to say the likes of, "The word 'milk' means this white > stuff." But if I say "milk" to you, why does what comes to your mind > differ > from the meager flickers that would come to a shepherd in the Andes? > Don't > say, "It's because the shepherd hasn't learned the meaning of the > word." If > you think about it, that's simply saying the shepherd has no associated > memories with the sound "milk". > > > > If someone says, "The word Taliban has come to mean" he is, in > philosophical > terms, overreaching. What the speaker has in mind is that many people > in the > West like him will retrieve similar dire memories associated with that > word. > Those "thoughts" will be quite different from the ones that come to > locals in > the north of Afghanistan. > > > > Picasso may have had fierce thoughts when he was painting "Guernica", > but what > thoughts the painting occasions in millions of other contemplators will > depend > on their own receiving apparatuses (some may be color blind) and > experience-memories. > > > > When you say, " 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" it is glumly clear to me that you think an object "has a > meaning", > that you think there are two distinct entities out there the object > and "its > meaning". No. All of what you call "meanings" are (varying) mental > entities > inside heads. Paintings do not have mental entities inside their > frames.
