Re: ART: "Art and Cognition" exchange in Arts Journal, the continuing saga

From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Feb 09 2003 - 19:48:59 MST

  • Next message: avatar: "some Australia nanotech news from 2002"

    On Sunday, February 09, 2003 4:44 PM Natasha Vita-More
    natasha@natasha.cc wrote:
    > "As it happens, I even like some abstract work -
    > for its elements of color and design. In the light
    > of the cognitive revolution, however, I find the
    > extravagant claims for its meaningfulness, and
    > for its ultimate cultural value, more and more
    > unconvincing. The widely held notion that
    > abstract art should henceforth be immune from
    > all criticism because totalitarian dictators
    > attempted to obliterate it is simply a case of
    > cock-eyed reasoning." -- Michelle Kamhi
    >
    > Michelle Kamhi comments that she (?)

    She's a she.:)

    > even likes some abstract art. However, it
    > seems that she is reducing it to decorative
    > work by commenting about the elements of
    > color and design. She leaves out the
    > symbolism which is part and parcel to
    > abstract art as expressed by de Kooning,
    > Vassily Kandinsky, and Miro of the abstract
    > genre.

    I'm not so sure.

    > Abstract art, and all "art" cannot be meaningless.
    > If so, it would not be "art."

    I think Kamhi would agree that art cannot be meaningless. However, the
    question here would be what kind of meaning does an abstract work have.
    If it's purely symbolic, then it's more like a code than an art work.
    The symbols in a code need bear no direct relation to their underlying
    meaning. An artistic image -- using "image" loosely to cover all art
    forms from music to painting -- on the other must pretty much have a
    direct relation, even if it's somewhat fuzzy or loose, to what it means.
    A word, e.g., does not -- save for the case of onomotapoeia and that's
    debatable:) -- represent the same way an art work does -- at least, not
    a representational painting, say. Words, in fact, seem only arbitrarily
    related to the things they designate. Art works do not -- again, not
    representational paintings and sculptures and the like.

    > Further abstract art, like any "art" cannot
    > be immune from art criticism which is so
    > familiar to artists and art that to not have
    > criticisms would be foreign.

    I don't think Kamhi would disagree here. After all, she was responding
    to the other guy's comment here...

    > In any open discussion and or critique of
    > art, there is a tendency for rigid application
    > and theory and sometimes an unwilling to
    > see the obvious.

    Just in art?:) I think this is likely here, though I tend to side with
    Kamhi. A better way to approach this subject might be to select a bunch
    of representative samples of art and try to find what they all have in
    common and see if there are subcategories as well as what impact they
    have on people. Such a method might yield results none of suspected --
    including me. However, I'm not smart enough to figure how to do this,
    so I'll just throw the idea out here for others to examine and maybe
    use.

    > "It is possible, in fact, that abstract art became
    > more appropriate as scientific insights became
    > more inclusive and abstract since the two
    > disciplines often work in complimentary
    > accord." -- Kirk Hughey
    >
    > Excellent statement and I think Hughey makes
    > the more percipient point.

    Kamhi's reply seems to find some problems with this view, though I don't
    feel she completely refutes Hughey here. For the benefit of the others
    she responds:

    "Mr. Hughey suggests that the very "multireferencial" character of
    abstract art is a virtue. When the viewer's references are completely at
    odds with the artist's intent, however - as is so often the case with
    abstract work (see the numerous cases cited in Chapter 8 of "What Art
    Is" [her and Louis Torres' book on esthetics]) - the purported virtue
    seems more like a vice."
    (http://www.artsjournal.com/letters/20030208-3517.shtml)

    I do feel she has weakened his case here a bit. Also, it was not the
    intention of most early Abstract artists to find such patterns.
    Kandinsky was pretty much a mystic and looking for otherworldly things.
    That said, an artist's intentions should not be the sole criterion for
    judgment here. I'll have to think on it some more...

    Cheers!

    Dan
        See "Splitting Hares" at:
    http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SplittingHares.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 19:46:34 MST