[Steve] What about abstract visual art which endeavors to elicit an aesthetic experience without using symbols? Would you still consider these works intellectual patterns?
[Arlo] Sure. And I'm not sure I would agree that abstract art does not use symbols. I think here is a case where the word "symbol" can be a little confusing, as its use by painters and its use by metaphysicians tends to be somewhat different. For example, a cultural symbol common in the west is the association of "swirl" as some pointer to "chaos". So when an artists "swirls" colors of paint, she is, in fact, deliberately manipulating at least one symbol. Likely, she has other cultural associations in mind (perhaps red symbolizes war or love or discord). Also, with slightly higher focus, we can say that the abstract painting, like a traditional painting (and like a motorcycle or rotisserie), becomes itself a symbol, and it is this "larger" symbol that acts as a catalyst between the interactants to potentially induce an pattern-shattering aesthetic experience. On the extreme, I suppose, is the attempt to create painting using only ONE symbol. Like "black" or "field". I've seen one painting of an entirely black canvass called "View from the Womb". Of course, now that I think about it, this is at minimal TWO symbols, the black canvass and the title. A pure semiotic read would include the canvass size and shape and texture as symbols, as well as the height from the floor, the color of the wall behind, the lighting used, the painter's signature, etc. Even an empty canvass, untitled and unsigned, still is made up of symbols, from the cultural "potential" to the (again) size, shape, texture, etc. of the canvass. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
