i never suggested that artist have "little idea, and even less control of what they
do".
but you interpreted it that way........thats what i'm talking about.
more that artist have little idea or control over how it is viewed. or just that intent
is no authority on meaning. obviously M. Duchamp would be a special case
as he just manipulated these intent and result discrepancies through
experiments. but his knowledge of the artistic process came from empirical examination
that
is often absent in most art (prior to him anyway). his knowledge didn't
come from his intent. more so his intent came from his empirical
observation of results. so generally kind of ass backwards as far as most
art goes.
jason
At 3:02 AM -0700 5/30/01, FLUXLIST-digest wrote:
>fair enough, but don't we still 'intend' to do this? A silly rebuttal, I know. but on
>the scale of rhetorical balance between describing artists (and yourselves) as either
>having too much agency and having too little agency, you and Jason are both narrating
>about the same story. you both present a well organized picture in which the person
>(in this case the artist) has little idea, and even less control, of what they do
>(clearly not too little agency as to be a puppet, but curiously not enough to be able
>to have any self direction when it comes to the co-production of
>meaning). Isn't is possible to maintain intentions (for the meaning of their work,
>and otherwise) while at the same time recognizing that there may be other
>connotations, functions, and significance that others may derive from it... and that
>this is beyond the control of even the most careful, thoughtful and skillful
>manipulator of materials and meanings?
