[Matt]
That sentiment is essentially Harold Bloom's definition of the artistic
process: artists respond to the art work with another piece of art work.
[Arlo]
I am not a fan of the label "artist", I don't know it's just so
restrictive. I know you don't mean it that way, and I am not familiar
with Bloom, but it implies an almost "profession" like bounding. What's
he? Or he's a plumber. And what's she? Oh she's a programmer. What about
him? Oh, he's an artist.
"Art" is what a plumber, programmer or painter or dancer or engineer or
whatever DOES in response to experience. But I am responding not to you,
but to the popular usage of "artist".
[Matt]
we shouldn't ever assume that someone is implying an ultimate reference
point for their "meaning."
[Arlo]
I wasn't making any comment about anyone in particular, but I think this
Platonic "ultimate reference" is really behind a lot of the
non-philosophic talk about 'meaning'. When YOU ask that, okay I know you
are coming from a different vantage, but the larger problem of SOM is
that this "ultimate reference" is something a large amount of people not
only do look for, but find it impossible to de-conceptualize. And
'meaning' is a good meta-topic to engage that.
Heck, even IN philosophical discourse, looking specifically at
'metaphor' one still hears the reducible/replaceable advocates arguing
strongly. And since I've been reading on this heavily lately, its been
on my mind. Sorry if you felt I was unfairly pointing to a particular
person, I was speaking very generally.
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
