[Steve]
So maybe a better question for the artist to replace, "what does this
painting mean?" is, "is there anything you could tell me about this
painting that may help me to appreciate it?"
[Arlo]
The problem with the first question, as Manson I think gets at, is that
it implies there is a real, hidden or otherwise restateable meaning
being concealed from the passive viewer. 'Art', in other words, is not
co-constructive, negotiated or dialogic, but rather transmissive. And,
if the transmission fails, a restatement (or indeed a "clearer"
reframing) would alleviate the confusion.
In other words, 'art' is reducible to a more-clear, more-exact,
more-direct 'meaning' that the art is somehow obscuring. "What does 'The
False Mirror' mean?" implies a reducible restatement "It means the eye
is blind to itself" (for example) conveys the exact same 'meaning' as
the painting but in clearer, more precise language. Rather than hanging
the painting on the wall, a posterboard with the 'meaning' typed onto it
would not only transmit an identical meaning, but would do so better, as
it would not need 'interpretation'.
Looking at your second question, I think this captures a distinction I
was thinking about last night. Since Nietzsche is on my mind, I was
thinking about what Manson could be saying in terms of Apollonian (form)
and Dionysian (dissolution), and I think (although Manson is not
explicit) there is a significant difference between saying "Art is '?'"
and "Art is 'chaos'". A "?" implies (I think) that the art must speak
enough via cultural-historical forms to be 'understood', dropping "The
False Mirror" into an aboriginal community would likely not satisfy the
"?" among those who interact with it. Manson is not saying that 'art'
must ignore form, but that form must be useful to answer "?".
Given this, I think your second question is a fair one. What it says is,
"my language is insufficient for me to produce meaning from this
interaction, can you help me with some scaffolding of the contextual
form so I can better interact with the art-object?". Not nearly as
elegant, of course. But notice this is not a passive formulation. The
second question is not asking about some hidden transmission, but 'help'
in improving an interaction. I think that's key.
[Marsha]
I'm not sure about essays.
[Arlo]
When I first heard Manson say this, I thought immediately of the
afterward to ZMM.
"The letters have been full of questions: Why? How did this happen? What
is missing here? What was your motive? There's a sort of frustrated
tone. They know there's more to this book than meets the eye. They want
to hear all." (ZMM)
And then, "There really hasn't been any "all" to tell. There were no
deep manipulative ulterior motives. Writing it seemed to have higher
quality than not writing it, that was all." (ZMM)
I think, using Manson's words, the "meaning" is not hidden within ZMM,
rather the "meaning" is the emergent reaction of your experience
interacting with ZMM. You answer the "?" as you read and interact and
experience ZMM. Or, ZMM is not the answer, the answer emerges as you
experience with it.
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/md/archives.html
