Josh:
You know, the writer you quote wasn't saying that art is the only thing that has
meaning; she was essentially saying that the meaning of art-intended gestures is
inflected by their relationship to the art-meaning realm. Meaning is always dependent
on the mutually agreed upon context in which a communication is made. If one person
intends the communication to be made and understood in one context, and the other
person doesn't know this or disagrees, then confusion results. Now, the thing that
makes so many oddities happen w/art communications is this: artists, at least since
1900 and maybe long before, tend to deliberately mess around with this context of
understanding, sometimes with a view to enlarging the understood realm of meaning, and
sometimes just for sheer mischievous cussedness. No doubt there are other reasons too.
So anyway, intention (intending something as an artbased communication) places
that end of the transaction in the artworld, but whether the entire communicative
transaction occurs in the artworld depends upon others as well as the artist: the
provider of the site of communication, such as the gallery or the museum (in the case
of the street or other more neutral site other considerations apply--some
streetcorners are "owned" by their denizens); the audience members; casual passers-by;
critics talking about the event after the fact; historians even later; and on and on.
Release some act into the realm of communication, and it ceases to be only yours, it
becomes public property, and many others will have their way with it.
Really, these questions should probably not be thought of as a special case of art
communication, but be understood in terms of social communication in general. There's
nothing sacred about art; it just has the potential to be the limit case of
experimental meaning making. Lots of other meaning making works similarly.
AK
Josh Ronsen wrote:
> jason pierce writes:
> >
> >i agree with everything josh says or will say on the issue
> >of "anti art".
>
> I disagree with everything Jason says or will say on the issue of anti-art,
>including the above statement.
>
> I think Jason is making fun of me b/c I haven't (yet/recently) made any statements
>on the issue, just asking questions about what people think.
>
> About Born's comment about something has to be art to be "meaningful"... I really
>like thinking about the limits of art, or the perceptions of art. Perhaps before
>talking about anti-art, I should have asked what is art? Suppose I had an event score
>"Give $10 to a homeless person." I do this. Does the homeless person think it is art?
>Probably not. Is it meaningful? Probably so. Suppose I have an event score "Send a
>nasty letter to someone you don't know." I do this. the person reads the letter. Does
>he think it is art? Probably not. Does he find it meaningful? Probably so.
>
> This afternoon I spent hours going through boxes of tapes from hundreds or people
>around the world, really really bad noise music tapes, much of them existing
>seemingly for the sole purpose of using the word "shit" in the title. I am sure all
>of this was intended to be art. I view it as such. Did I find it meaningful? No I did
>not.
>
> Someone comes up to you and gives you a flower.
>
> Is it art?
>
> Is it meaningful?
>
> -Josh Ronsen
> http://www.nd.org/jronsen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --== Sent via Deja.com ==--
> http://www.deja.com/
