RE: Crappy/Krappy

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/03/05-05:46:09 PM Z
Message-id: <Pine.NEB.4.61.0501031357570.22679@panix2.panix.com>

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Schuyler Grace wrote:

> .... what I was trying to say was that art,
> at its root, is about communication.

That "definition," alas, fails to define, and if it did, it wouldn't work.
What is "communication" ? Why must I "communicate" to you -- or anyone
beyond my own muse? Why can't I "communicate" randomness, screw up, the
effect of moonbeams on a plastic lens, the mind of Diana, or loss of
control !?

>... The artist is communicating an idea
> via his/her medium of choice. This presupposes the artist has a "picture"
> (although it may be a picture of words or some other form of communication)
> already in his/her head of how the idea will be presented,

Like Ansel Adams and "previsualization"? If I already know what it's going
to look like, why bother -- just to show off? True, I may want to express
something already in mind, but not necessarily or directly. (Writers often
comment that they write to find out what they think.) IMO mental
presentation in advance of the camera is a mistake.. What the camera in
its wisdom (or malice) provides may be more interesting.

Wasn't it Garry Winograd who said "I photograph to see what things look
like photographed"?

>... and what really
> makes the artist an artist is how well s/he presents that concept to the
> world. That's where control over the medium comes into play.

I doubt that ! Artists often have very different ideas of what they're
doing than their audience -- as critics explain and explain. But I doubt
anyway that either you or I can define "artist." Only time can do that,
and time keeps changing its mind.

cheers,

Judy
Received on Mon Jan 3 17:46:26 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:07 AM Z CST