Hey Jeff, Greetings again, we've bumped minds before. I'm not concerned at all about copyright infringement. . . ha, ha, it's all been written, right? I do note merits where source of origin is important, however. Simply good training (and respectful and proper current convention).
Honestly, I think the relationship between sign (or object), perception (on the part of an agent or subject), and content is a serious can of worms that no 'philosopher, writer,' or maybe even, 'artist or critic' has been able to hash out adequately over the course of recorded history -in a full, explained, 'tecnik' (sp, Gr.) sense similar to Kant's exhaustive methodology/approach to explaining the relationships between art/work/artist/critic/public. The Greeks said they understood it (art), but what do we have left of their understanding? Mimetic echoes of retranslated, second-hand, subject material. Same problem with the Bible, Quraan, etc.. And the same goes for a lot of critics/artists/philosopher's 'original' work right up until the 16th, 17th, and 18th C.'s. This was why I was so interested in literary theory, per se, as when I graduated from undergrad, those topics/areas of discourse were where the 'cutting edge' of theory were going -the philosophy of language, dialects, idiom, regionalisms, and even (god forbid) sentential (or even quantitative) logic! There was a move going on to understand the essential elements of communication on a theoretic level, in the hope that it would help shed new light on the actual experience of the subject that included all (or some or few) of these basic elements. Now maybe therein lies the catch-22, i.e., that words fail. Interesting concept -the concept that does not innately work. Telling that we can theorize a concept that conceptually contradicts itself/doesn't work. And if you ask me, paradox is one of THE signs of the 'real' foundation of the conscious (and subjective) world we live in. Followed closely by irony, tragedy, and maybe a few others. Across the spectrum of theoretic concepts, these are obviously closely tied (if not directly identified) with the notion of human. But to stay on-topic, from a more broad perspective, that medium fail to capture the WHOLE of an artistic experience, that something is always 'left over,' is right-on-track with how art is experienced by the subject. The artistic experience can always be particular to me, qua subject -right? I'm conceptually speaking about a more Derridean-oriented outlook on surplus and what-is-left-over here (ultimately a Nietzschean idea, to be sure, but Jacques brought a lot of 20th C. attention to originally-Nietszchean ideas, if you ask me -Spurs? C'mon. I mean his dealing with 'The Other' -another obvious Nietzschean overlude). Ultimately, there has to be some sort of unexplainable element to the artistic experience (whatever the particular example of an artistic moment may fall under -standing before a painting, listening to a song, or a combination of perceptual channels that mix/match visual/tactile/auditory stimuli). Conceptually, art is SUPPOSED to bear an abstract, if not even an absolutely conceptual abstract relationship to an agent -whether they be the creator or the onlooker (or somewhere in-between along that spectrum of potential agents involved in the 'artistic experience'). These are some of the rubrics under which current (?) discourse take place (at least here), I have little doubt. But will they ever be enough? No, and I hope not, because I'm a pretty devout member of the, "when there's no more discourse on a subject, the subject is dead" camp. Cheers, you did a nice job of fishing this out of me. When I compose my Treatise Aestheticus Warrenus, you'll be the first e-copied! Tom _______________________________________________ etree.org etree mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://mail.etree.org/mailman/listinfo/etree Need help? Ask <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
