PDA

View Full Version : Do an artist's intentions matter?



Darin Boville
10-Mar-2015, 22:40
A nice little article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/books/review/should-an-authors-intentions-matter.html?hpw&rref=books&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

We've discussed this sort of thing here before. My own views are closer to that of the first writer, after having explored the other side in younger days.

My favorite line, and the most revealing of what I see to be the error of the second author's argument is where he writes:

"What Shakespeare himself thought about Hamlet is unknowable, and really it doesn’t matter; the words on the page constitute his final statement." [My emphasis added.]

Which sort of says to me that certain academics are so language focused that they simply lose site of the art form itself. They don't feel it. Not really. Shakespeare's final statement surely occurred somewhere on stage, sadly unrecorded. Not in the text, cobbled together from various sources after his death. Whether Shakespeare intended Hamlet to be a "conscience-stricken intellectual" or a "victim of the Oedipus complex" would have been, I think, quite clear from the performance.

--Darin

Iluvmyviewcam
11-Mar-2015, 06:31
Sorry, I got ADD. I couldn't get through all that BS.

If you want to give a short easy to understand summation with examples of your question I will give you my 2 cents.

Pawlowski6132
11-Mar-2015, 07:49
I think an understanding of an artists intentions is insightful. It helps in evaluating a piece to judge whether you think his expression was successful.

If you are interpreting a piece and making a personal connection, it doesn't matter. But, it's not fair to attribute any of your conclusions back to the artist.

dasBlute
11-Mar-2015, 08:13
Intentions completely matter. Yet, we live in a world of imperfect knowledge, often uncertain enough of our own intentions let alone someone else. That we know -or at least hope- that there is purpose, method, and deep understanding behind art is what keeps us looking, and reading.... longing to bridge the gaps between us.

Alan Gales
11-Mar-2015, 10:18
Intentions can be interesting and give you insight into the photographer but the photograph still looks the same whether you know the intention behind it or not.

I do admit that occasionally I appreciate a piece more after I know the artist's intentions. Maybe that's the artist in me.

Jim Galli
11-Mar-2015, 12:23
Of course not.

mdarnton
11-Mar-2015, 12:53
If the artist's intentions matter so much that he thinks he needs you to know them to appreciate his work, then he'd better put them somewhere on the artwork. Otherwise, no. The whole point of art is communication; if the artist can't communicate from within his art, I personally think he's a pretty poor artist.

This question of the surroundings of art, the background of the artist, etc, in regard to the product, if I remember correctly, is a new one in criticism, an idea that popped up in criticism within the last century. With that in mind, I'm betting that Shakespeare probably never had the idea that you needed to know more of his work than what he put there on the stage for you to see, so I suspect he might find the question interesting but irrelevant.

Taija71A
11-Mar-2015, 12:57
___

No!

"Art never expresses anything but itself."
~~ Oscar Wilde. ~~

_________

jp
11-Mar-2015, 13:00
I skimmed it. I don't really care about what some authors I haven't read might have meant.

If the intentions in art turn out to be some sort of "I never would have guessed" backstory, I supposed they haven't mattered much. I think it is possible to integrate intentions and artistic output if done methodically to make something that matters a little more. (eg. pro-environment landscape photography or documentary work). A possible pitfall is if intentions were vague and should have been more evident in intention such as when if people, who should know, can't tell if a photo was meant to be a classic figure study full of symbolism or something homoerotic and it becomes a rorschach test rather than a means of communication.

Darin Boville
11-Mar-2015, 13:09
>>If the artist's intentions matter so much that he thinks he needs you to know them to appreciate his work, then he'd better put them somewhere on the artwork.<<

But I think the point of that side of the argument isn't whether artists succeed or fail in putting their intensions in the work in any discernible way, the point is that it really doesn't matter.

--Darin

Vaughn
11-Mar-2015, 13:10
Yes -- to the artist. That is why the piece of art was made in the first place...because that was the intention of the artist.

Without artists' intentions, there would be no art.

Heroique
11-Mar-2015, 13:26
If anyone thinks intentions matter, don't be embarrassed, you have many of the greatest thinkers about art in Western civilization on your side.

I'll take Dryden, Diderot, Goethe, Coleridge, Carlyle, Ruskin, Delacroix, Berlioz, Poe, Yeats, Wilde, Shaw, etc., over [what's that French guy's name?] any day.

Wow, it just occurred to me that all the people I just named didn't just think about and discuss artistic intentions (free of abominable jargon); they actually knew something about creating art, too.

Jac@stafford.net
11-Mar-2015, 13:35
If art is communication, then why do we not all understand its language? Well, art is something that engages us in ways we probably cannot communicate. That's why it is art and not conversation, not literate discourse.

An artist's intent expressed, for example, in his statement is necessarily mired in his time and experience, and it is incorrect to judge a person from outside his time and culture.

So to me, the artist might not understand his intent, and he does not have to, but he must perform, make art, engage humankind. As Douglas N. Adams once said, "I rarely ended up where I was intending to go, but often I end up somewhere I needed to be."

There are things the brain experiences that cannot be known to the language center. An example is body or kinetic knowledge, and another is talent. We have all heard an accomplished athlete's response to an interviewers question about the game, or how he does what he does. The response is rambling blabber because the athlete's ability is not available to the language center. It is too complex to fathom. (I'd love to write a piece in which an athlete goes on forever as critics tend to. It would be his last interview, ever.)

Talent? Ask a child how he learned to play the piano. "Just did" works for me. Talent. Or as a stand-up commedian once said, "Oi! I've been working on humor for fifty years! I'm an old man! Then this kid pops up on stage and is a super star at 23 years old! Talent they call it. I call it a cheap trick!" (It does not matter what we call it if it is engaging.)

Peter Lewin
11-Mar-2015, 16:46
I think it makes a difference whether the artist had a specific intention in mind. Two examples, one painting, one photography. From what I'm reading in "f.64," Weston's only intent in making Pepper #30 was to produce the essence of a pepper. So if we want to read anthropomorphic ideas (nude body?) into it, fine. But when Picasso painted "Guernica," he had a specific anti-war image mind, following the deaths that occurred when Guarnica was bombed. To not see an anti-war message of some sort says that either the viewer misses the point, or Picasso did not convey his intent clearly enough. But I don't think one can discount his intent entirely. So in the end, context matters; some work has more intent than others. (IMHO, roughly 99% of the art that we post on this site has minimal "intent"; we are photographing scenes or images which we think look nice, people we either know or think look striking, and so on. Since our intent is minimal, we can discount "the artist's intent" without diminishing the work.)

Kirk Gittings
11-Mar-2015, 17:49
All art is a many layered evolving experience both in the making and the viewing. Intent is not fixed at conception nor is the process of understanding it finished at completion. Does the initial viewing of a piece of art lock in a specific meaning for the viewer forever? Are later insights less important than initial ones? Understanding of one's own intent can grow and change through the years as one gets the perspective of age and distance just as it can be for the viewer. Personally I think it is fun and illuminating to know the "backstory" behind art that interests me-just as I do do important events and people from history. Like a piece of prehistoric pottery, art can be appreciated just for what it is or enriched by knowing more about it time and creator.

Old-N-Feeble
11-Mar-2015, 17:50
No... not in today's emotionally shallow society.

photonsoup
11-Mar-2015, 19:22
YES
and
MAYBE
and
NO

Yes, it matters to the artist. (but not always)
Maybe, if the art makes me feel something, I might care to learn the artists intention.
No, if the art does not make me feel anything, the artist intention is irrelevant.

Some artists care about other artist intentions or motives. This may or may not have anything to do with the art itself.
Most non artist audiences only care if they feel something from the art.

Just my observation as a really bad artist. Well actually, I've never thought of myself as an artist.

lecarp
11-Mar-2015, 20:29
The true Artist knows the answer and leaves the pondering of it to those who are not.

BrianShaw
12-Mar-2015, 06:29
... Like a piece of prehistoric pottery, art can be appreciated just for what it is or enriched by knowing more about it (sic) time and creator.

+1 (or x2)

DrTang
12-Mar-2015, 07:23
since 'art' is always defined by 'the other'. I imagine it's meaning is too

which means what the creator thinks doesn't matter as much or any vs what those who have defined his craft as art and himself as an artist


I would thing the most successful 'artists' are those where the definer and the artist vision come together

and hey..that might be years and years after the creators death

JChrome
12-Mar-2015, 10:50
YES
and
MAYBE
and
NO

Yes, it matters to the artist. (but not always)
Maybe, if the art makes me feel something, I might care to learn the artists intention.
No, if the art does not make me feel anything, the artist intention is irrelevant.


I think the question "Does the Artists intention Matter?" is an incomplete question. To whom does it matter? To the audience? To the artist?

But then I don't think you can answer in binary Y/N form either. It's a question of how much.

Jmarmck
12-Mar-2015, 11:04
As to the artist. Sure it matters. As you all noted it is what drives the creation. As to the viewer, maybe not. A person appreciates a piece of art for what it does to them. It is an intensely personal and unknowable thing, very ethereal thing to grasp. In my opinion, the only way the photographer can portray the intent is by means other than photographic. A title is a perfect example. That is the only way photographer is able to insert any connection to the intention to the viewer: plant a seed, if you will.

But you may say image content is the main method of communicating intent. Take a cartographer. The intention of the map is to transfer the map message to the viewer. I won't go into the "average map viewer" BS, but there are tools cartographers use to relay the proper message, symbolism, colors, legends, titles, etc. These are very solid concepts that influence the reader. The most helpful of the cartographers tools is an understanding of how people see and read, what relationships are most common i.e. blue is cold, red is hot. The same exists in photography as well but not nearly in such a literal sense as a map.

Despite all the efforts to relay a message there are people who will see it for what they think and not what is intended. It is the individuals essence that determine if the intent is successfully transferred. Add to that the fickle nature of the human emotion. There are countless discussion of how a weak image taken today may be powerful in the future.

So given all that I will say no.

djdister
12-Mar-2015, 11:09
An artist's intention might make an interesting backstory, but it rarely helps my appreciation or lack of appreciation of the work. And sometimes, when an artist expresses his "intent" in writing to accompany the artwork, I lose all interest in the artwork. Often it is better to try not to explain a visual work through mere words.

Heroique
12-Mar-2015, 11:50
Okay, time to say the "F" word.

Freud.

There, I said it, and I'm remorseful for omitting his name in my earlier post, right after Shaw.

If we take his ideas into account (short of swallowing them whole), intentions are everything, whether you're conscious of them or not. That's right. One's biographically-based intentions not only create art work, they interpret art work, too. If you don't fully understand these intentions – yours and other people's – you might very well enjoy art (by you and others) to some degree, but you will never fully understand it. Never. Let's just say it's going to take some responsible self-analysis, or expensive professional analysis before you do.

You want to enjoy art with a full understanding? Then hit the couch!

Jim Galli
12-Mar-2015, 13:19
Okay, time to say the "F" word.

Freud.

There, I said it, and I'm remorseful for omitting his name in my earlier post, right after Shaw.

If we take his ideas into account (short of swallowing them whole), intentions are everything, whether you're conscious of them or not. That's right. One's biographically-based intentions not only create art work, they interpret art work, too. If you don't fully understand these intentions – yours and other people's – you might very well enjoy art (by you and others) to some degree, but you will never fully understand it. Never. Let's just say it's going to take some responsible self-analysis, or expensive professional analysis before you do.

You want to enjoy art with a full understanding? Then hit the couch!

And . . . if you think sigmund was entirely wrong about almost everything . . and you have no respect for him or his theories . .

Then what?

JChrome
12-Mar-2015, 14:28
And . . . if you think sigmund was entirely wrong about almost everything . . and you have no respect for him or his theories . .

Then what?

Easy. one should first offer substantive reasons and criticisms that buck Freud's theories. Then, one offers another framework to use (and there are many other psychological theorists to use).

So you don't respect Freud's work. Then whose work do you respect and why?

Darin Boville
12-Mar-2015, 14:40
Easy. one should first offer substantive reasons and criticisms that buck Freud's theories. Then, one offers another framework to use (and there are many other psychological theorists to use).

So you don't respect Freud's work. Then whose work do you respect and why?

My impression is that Freud's work is still highly respected in university English departments.

--Darin

Jim Galli
12-Mar-2015, 15:11
Easy. one should first offer substantive reasons and criticisms that buck Freud's theories. Then, one offers another framework to use (and there are many other psychological theorists to use).

So you don't respect Freud's work. Then whose work do you respect and why?

Won't be going there any time soon on this forum. Sorry.

Heroique
12-Mar-2015, 15:37
Easy. one should first offer substantive reasons and criticisms that buck Freud's theories. Then, one offers another framework to use (and there are many other psychological theorists to use).

So you don't respect Freud's work. Then whose work do you respect and why?

Very well said.

For anyone interested, three easy-to-find works to sample Freud's typical brilliance about the mental act of artistic creation would be:

Creative Writers and Day Dreaming
Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of his Childhood
The Moses of Michelangelo

I'll repeat "brilliant," and add "deeply influential" and "justly controversial."

paulr
12-Mar-2015, 16:18
If anyone thinks intentions matter, don't be embarrassed, you have many of the greatest thinkers about art in Western civilization on your side.

I'll take Dryden, Diderot, Goethe, Coleridge, Carlyle, Ruskin, Delacroix, Berlioz, Poe, Yeats, Wilde, Shaw, etc., over [what's that French guy's name?] any day.

I think by "that French guy" you mean T.S. Eliot, Wimsatt and Beardsley, Welleck and Warren, Jacques Derrida, Cleanth Brooks, John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, Gilles Delleuze, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault ...

Before you dismiss these guys, you might want to read the arguments. The seminal ones are Wimsatt and Beardsley's "Intentional Fallacy" and Barthes' "The Death of the Author." The ideas are more nuanced than just "intention doesn't matter." If you read them, I seriously doubt you'll continue to put so much credence in your assumptions about any artist's intention.

Heroique
12-Mar-2015, 16:31
I think by "that French guy" you mean T.S. Eliot, Wimsatt and Beardsley, Welleck and Warren, Jacques Derrida, Cleanth Brooks, John Crowe Ransom, Allen Tate, Gilles Delleuze, Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault ...

Before you dismiss these guys, you might want to read the arguments. The seminal ones are Wimsatt and Beardsley's "Intentional Fallacy" and Barthes' "The Death of the Author." The ideas are more nuanced than just "intention doesn't matter." If you read them, I seriously doubt you'll continue to put so much credence in your assumptions about any artist's intention.

Lots of good ideas from the people in your selection, but they should fit into a greater perspective than the relatively few decades you're covering.

The ideas from the people I listed (Diderot, etc.) anticipate, confirm, and discredit a lot of these ideas of the future, especially those about artistic intentions.

(Paul, I bet you hate Camille Paglia, whose famous "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders" discredits half the people in your list. :D)

paulr
12-Mar-2015, 16:32
My impression is that Freud's work is still highly respected in university English departments.

--Darin

Well, yeah, but "respect" doesn't mean "agree with everything he said."

In psychology he's respected as a pioneer, although his important contributions, in retrospect, are seen more in the broad strokes (there's this thing called the unconscious!) than in the details (any of them).

In English departments, he's considered important because 1) late 19th and early 20th Century authors had a field day with his ideas; and 2) his ideas on language were a major influence on postmodern linguistics.

Alan Gales
12-Mar-2015, 19:08
I loved Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Back to School. In college he had to read Kurt Vonnegut and do a paper about the writer's intentions. Not understanding Vonnegut, Rodney Dangerfield hired the writer to come and explain his work. He ended up getting an F on the paper because his professor said that he obviously was clueless about Vonnegut.

I know it's just a movie but I think that there is a lot of truth there about how we "understand" art sometimes.

Darin Boville
12-Mar-2015, 19:42
I loved Rodney Dangerfield in the movie Back to School. In college he had to read Kurt Vonnegut and do a paper about the writer's intentions. Not understanding Vonnegut, Rodney Dangerfield hired the writer to come and explain his work. He ended up getting an F on the paper because his professor said that he obviously was clueless about Vonnegut.

I know it's just a movie but I think that there is a lot of truth there about how we "understand" art sometimes.

There's a similar sounding scene in a movie line in Annie Hall. Very funny stuff.

--Darin

paulr
12-Mar-2015, 20:03
...Which sort of says to me that certain academics are so language focused that they simply lose site of the art form itself. They don't feel it. Not really. Shakespeare's final statement surely occurred somewhere on stage, sadly unrecorded. Not in the text, cobbled together from various sources after his death. Whether Shakespeare intended Hamlet to be a "conscience-stricken intellectual" or a "victim of the Oedipus complex" would have been, I think, quite clear from the performance.

This might be the case if Shakespeare had been the director (a role that may not have formally existed back then). But even then I see it offering as many questions as answers. Would he have directed it the same way always? What if he felt differently about the play, about the character, about life in general 10 years later and had an opportunity to direct it again? What if people in the audience of the same performance walked away with different understandings? What if Shakespeare didn't have anything like a simple, concise intent? Isn't it easy to imagine him refusing to answer questions about what a play means, or how a character should be understood? (There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy ... one could say the same thing to an author who's too certain of what his play is about ...).

And what about all the factors that exist outside the play and the person? Shakespeare was a fount of cultural memes and shared language. We live in a world formed in part by the interpretations of generations of Shakespeare critics.

And then let's suppose Shakespeare was not the director . Then we have an added layer of interpretation, presided over by a human being as biased and fallible as you or me. This is the state we more often find ourselves in with other art forms, where that mediating role is occupied by a curator, or editor, or critic.

It's something to consider when that unkillable debate over artist's statements crawls back from the grave, looking for more brains to eat ... even those of us who hate writing them could consider them an opportunity to do some of the directing of our work. Artist's intentions will always matter ... to the artist. If we want any say in how other people wee the work, we need to be willing to take control of the context surrounding it.

Kirk Gittings
12-Mar-2015, 21:06
It's something to consider when that unkillable debate over artist's statements crawls back from the grave, looking for more brains to eat ...
:)

Darin Boville
12-Mar-2015, 21:15
This might be the case if Shakespeare had been the director (a role that may not have formally existed back then). But even then I see it offering as many questions as answers. Would he have directed it the same way always? What if he felt differently about the play, about the character, about life in general 10 years later and had an opportunity to direct it again? What if people in the audience of the same performance walked away with different understandings? What if Shakespeare didn't have anything like a simple, concise intent? Isn't it easy to imagine him refusing to answer questions about what a play means, or how a character should be understood? (There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy ... one could say the same thing to an author who's too certain of what his play is about ...).

And what about all the factors that exist outside the play and the person? Shakespeare was a fount of cultural memes and shared language. We live in a world formed in part by the interpretations of generations of Shakespeare critics.

And then let's suppose Shakespeare was not the director . Then we have an added layer of interpretation, presided over by a human being as biased and fallible as you or me. This is the state we more often find ourselves in with other art forms, where that mediating role is occupied by a curator, or editor, or critic.

It's something to consider when that unkillable debate over artist's statements crawls back from the grave, looking for more brains to eat ... even those of us who hate writing them could consider them an opportunity to do some of the directing of our work. Artist's intentions will always matter ... to the artist. If we want any say in how other people wee the work, we need to be willing to take control of the context surrounding it.

I guess when you boil it down this is my (cynical) view.

You have these academic departments at universities. As the years go by the science departments start making amazing progress, getting all sorts of attention (and money, and facailities, and stature). Physics departments are the home of the gods. Biology departments want to be like physics departments. Economics departments dream of being like the hard sciences. Political Science departments dream of being like Economics departments.

So you have these English departments. They look sort of lame next to the other departments. One department just detonated a hydrogen bomb and ended a war, the other, what?, wrote a sonnet? So you bring in Freud, you bring in French philosophers, etc. You jazz up the syllabus. Make it harder. Try to make it more political, make it have something more to do with society, with the social tensions. Some of this stuff, like Freud, starts off in the sciences and is adopted by the English department but stays on after the sciences no longer refer much to Freud. Marx lives on as well, past its due date.

The author doesn't matter anymore because you are not really studying books anymore. You are studying society. Books are texts. Texts are just inputs that perturb the system and your analysis is key. Author's intension doesn't matter because you are studying what *is* not what the author wanted. If they overlap so what? The professor moves to the center here, the one who perceives patterns, the who who decodes the texts and discerns hidden meanings, makes connections, and reveals the social and political underpinnings of society as revealed through the texts. This is the kind of stuff you can talk about with a straight face in multi-department academic meetings. This is the kind of stuff you can publish in academic journals.

The rest is all "connoisseurship." Ugh.

Meanwhile, the academics lead themselves into absolute irrelevance outside their insular echo chamber. It's not that what they do is oh so hard to figure out. It is just that what they do doesn't matter. Deep down doesn't matter.

And art departments? They dream of being English departments.

--Darin

Alan Gales
12-Mar-2015, 22:09
Ya'll ever open up one of them Aperture magazines? They got lots of purty pictures in them. They also got lots of words around them there pictures. Don't understand what it is they be talkin bout. Don't make a lick of sense to me. All I know is it can't be about them purty pictures.


Sorry. Just my lame attempt at Andy Griffith style humor.

Heroique
12-Mar-2015, 22:26
Ya'll ever open up one of them Aperture magazines? They got lots of purty pictures in them. They also got lots of words around them there pictures. Don't understand what it is they be talkin bout. Don't make a lick of sense to me. All I know is it can't be about them purty pictures.

Sorry. Just my lame attempt at Andy Griffith style humor.

A great summary of what Darin is saying – people trained in the humanities to be ... scientists!

That is, I think what Darin is trying to say is that since the 1880s or 1890s, the prestige of science in the universities has grown and grown, and the humanities (such as language or art studies) have tried to rival this prestige by getting "scientific" too -- analysis, specialization, quantification...

They've gone a long way in destroying themselves, if Aperture is any indication.

Old-N-Feeble
13-Mar-2015, 07:14
Art is in our hearts,
Works it's way down,
Through our gut parts,
Turns a smile from a frown,
Moves then to back parts,
It there can be found,
Comes out now as *** farts,
Shared by all near 'round,
The atmosphere it imparts,
Turns those smiles upside down.

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 07:51
I guess when you boil it down this is my (cynical) view.

You have these academic departments at universities. As the years go by the science departments start making amazing progress, getting all sorts of attention (and money, and facailities, and stature). Physics departments are the home of the gods. Biology departments want to be like physics departments. Economics departments dream of being like the hard sciences. Political Science departments dream of being like Economics departments.

This isn't just your cynical view; it's widely held. Although I'm not alone in thinking it misses a lot. Which isn't to say that there's no B.S. in the humanities; without the rigid standards and peer review protocols of the sciences, it's more difficult to sort the B.S. from the vital (for an extreme and hilarious example, wallow a while in the Sokal Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)). But I'd also humbly recommend a wonderful book (http://www.amazon.com/Plato-Googleplex-Philosophy-Wont-Away/dp/0307378195) that argues the opposing view, in defense of the humanities (philosophy, specifically, but it's easy to extend the ideas from there).



The author doesn't matter anymore because you are not really studying books anymore.

Be careful with this interpretation. The "author" continued to matter quite a bit, at least as a fulcrum or point of contention. Barthes never proposed the death of the writer. Or artist. He never denied that there was a person who put the words together, and who was perhaps uniquely able and willing to put particular words together in a particular way. What's at issue is is the idea of authorship, or more specifically, authority—something more akin to what this thread is about.

Authority in this sense means that the person who made something is in a unique position to dictate what it means. Barthes ideas on this (along with many of his contemporaries and followers) is that authority is an illusion, and constitutes an almost totalitarian claim over meaning. It ignores the profound meaning-making powers of social contexts and traditions, the individual reader, and language itself.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Barthes wrote this in 1967, and since then, views on the topic have become much more diverse and nuanced. If you're looking for a consensus (good luck!) you'll probably find that the author is no longer considered dead, but that her role is seen as much more complex, and much less dictatorial, than it once was.

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 07:53
Art is in our hearts,
Works it's way down,
Through our gut parts,
Turns a smile from a frown,
Moves then to back parts,
It there can be found,
Comes out now as *** farts,
Shared by all near 'round,
The atmosphere it imparts,
Turns those smiles upside down.


Everyone pack it up and go home now.
The final words on the topic have been uttered.
Nothing more to see here.

Jac@stafford.net
13-Mar-2015, 07:58
A great summary of what Darin is saying – people trained in the humanities to be ... scientists!

Then there is the new media, for example a scholar's statement (http://english.uchicago.edu/faculty/jagoda).

No fear, the transitioning academics, critics, gatekeepers are alive and well. The Concept of Artistic Volition (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1343204?sid=21105635768451&uid=2&uid=3739736&uid=4&uid=3739256).

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 08:55
Maybe the last word goes to Google.
Top hit for the search "death of author Barthes"
is:

Traffic collision
Roland Barthes, Cause of death

Jac@stafford.net
13-Mar-2015, 09:20
Maybe the last word goes to Google.
Top hit for the search "death of author Barthes"
is:

Traffic collision
Roland Barthes, Cause of death

OMG! Is time to thread-out to the dangers of AI? The Death of Authority?

Bernice Loui
13-Mar-2015, 09:27
Matter of who determines what a given work is worth to society and culture.

Art is often an expression of what the soul and heart of a culture could be. There is a lot one can learn about the heart, soul and history of a culture by studying it's art and literature. Consider for a moment why Hitler was driven to steal and own French art or why Mao banished any art or items of cultural expression he deemed un-worthy during China's cultural revolution.

Nukes happened as a product during WW-II, it was not by the choice of those scientist and others who worked on THE bomb. They all knew if America did not develop the Nuke before the German's, the German's would have used their version upon the world instead of America using Nukes on Japan which resulted in ending that area of WW-II in very short time. Much of what happened can be embodied in the words of Professor Robert Oppenheimer, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixb7MdeR8yU

Post Nuke bombing of Japan, Oppenheimer and many of his fellow scientist who worked on the first Nuke wanted to stop it as they knew what kind of weapon they have unleashed upon humanity and how it could be used by the military, social elites and politicians. For those who opposed any further development of Nukes, they were branded as Communist, stripped of their academic and social status and basically banished from society.

Much of why industry and society has a percieved value of science and engineering is based in economics, building wealth and their ability to control society and culture. Mercenary prostitution of science via engineering is viewed by bankers, investors, social elites, politicians, militarist as a means to their goals.... Or, why funding Academic endeavors of science and technology can results in developments that further their specific agenda.

How does art and literature fit into this overall scheme of bankers, investors, social elites, politician and militarist who throw artist, writers, poets crumbs to create entertainment novelty for them?

Academia has become it's own agenda where a University or similar academic institution's status is based on impressing those within their echo chamber and winning Nobel prizes. There was a time when the value of academic work was based on potential direct benefits to humanity. Too many times today academic papers and research has a political agenda funding it. This un-holy alliance has rotted the very foundation of the scientific method. Consider for a moment, if professors do not publish papers, win grants for their institution and create status for their institution, how many other professors are waiting in line to replace them? There is also a demand of conformity within academia...

In many ways, art and science is much the same. Both rely on observation and sensitivity to nature and how nature actually works. Tools like photography, mathematical analysis and others are mere tools as a means to an end. As for what is considered significant or beauty, that is much a matter of individual interpretation.



Bernice









I guess when you boil it down this is my (cynical) view.

You have these academic departments at universities. As the years go by the science departments start making amazing progress, getting all sorts of attention (and money, and facailities, and stature). Physics departments are the home of the gods. Biology departments want to be like physics departments. Economics departments dream of being like the hard sciences. Political Science departments dream of being like Economics departments.

So you have these English departments. They look sort of lame next to the other departments. One department just detonated a hydrogen bomb and ended a war, the other, what?, wrote a sonnet? So you bring in Freud, you bring in French philosophers, etc. You jazz up the syllabus. Make it harder. Try to make it more political, make it have something more to do with society, with the social tensions. Some of this stuff, like Freud, starts off in the sciences and is adopted by the English department but stays on after the sciences no longer refer much to Freud. Marx lives on as well, past its due date.

The author doesn't matter anymore because you are not really studying books anymore. You are studying society. Books are texts. Texts are just inputs that perturb the system and your analysis is key. Author's intension doesn't matter because you are studying what *is* not what the author wanted. If they overlap so what? The professor moves to the center here, the one who perceives patterns, the who who decodes the texts and discerns hidden meanings, makes connections, and reveals the social and political underpinnings of society as revealed through the texts. This is the kind of stuff you can talk about with a straight face in multi-department academic meetings. This is the kind of stuff you can publish in academic journals.

The rest is all "connoisseurship." Ugh.

Meanwhile, the academics lead themselves into absolute irrelevance outside their insular echo chamber. It's not that what they do is oh so hard to figure out. It is just that what they do doesn't matter. Deep down doesn't matter.

And art departments? They dream of being English departments.

--Darin

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 10:00
Everyone likes to beat up on the poor academics. The word has somehow become a pejorative. I think the real problem is that there are so few venues for serious thinking in society at large. And it doesn't pay. Mainstream magazines and newspapers don't support it. Contemporary pub culture and office water-cooler culture doesn't sopport it. Alas, internet forums forums and other informal subcultures rarely do.

The academy may have become a kind of ghetto for people whose ideas and values seem separate from those of the rest of society. I'd suggest some of the blame for this falls on the social institutions that have purged themselves of serious thinking. These would include mainstream presses, lower education, politics ...

If you're going to build a ghetto, you can't blame the people stuck there for being stuck there.

Beyond that, there's a particular prejudice that I find disingenuous—that someone who spends their life studying and teaching and writing about something must not love the topic as much as the rest of us ... that the professionalization of their pursuit has somehow sucked the soul out of it. How does this follow? Why is professionalization via the academy more soul-sucking than professionalization via the broader market? What is the moral superiority of Thomas Kinkaide and Us Weekly over Stephen Shore and Roland Barthes?

P.S.
I only have a bachelor's degree.

djdister
13-Mar-2015, 10:09
Getting back to the original question, I would say 99% of the time the artist's intent does not matter one bit to me. I either like it or I don't, and reading what they have to say about their "intent" is not going to change my opinion about their art.

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 10:33
Lots of good ideas from the people in your selection, but they should fit into a greater perspective than the relatively few decades you're covering.

The ideas from the people I listed (Diderot, etc.) anticipate, confirm, and discredit a lot of these ideas of the future, especially those about artistic intentions.

(Paul, I bet you hate Camille Paglia, whose famous "Junk Bonds and Corporate Raiders" discredits half the people in your list. :D)


Sorry, I missed this.

The idea of authority that Barthes attacks is actually a modern invention. It didn't exist (according to his argument) before the renaissance. Diderot was perhaps defending his authorial ideas from the past more than for the future.

And I rather like Camille Paglia. I think she's ferocious, smart, and can rarely be taken at face value. I don't know what she actually believes about anything. But I enjoy sifting through the aftermath when she stirs things up. At least I used to ... haven't heard much from her since the '90s.

Jac@stafford.net
13-Mar-2015, 10:50
Getting back to the original question, I would say 99% of the time the artist's intent does not matter one bit to me. I either like it or I don't, and reading what they have to say about their "intent" is not going to change my opinion about their art.

Llearning of a creator's intent is often enlightening in regards other than their art - it tells me a bit of how they think they think, what their world is like. This doesn't work for early deceased artists because I'm not much of a historian.

Similarly when I read "...either I like it or I don't" I wonder about the motive, or intent of such a statement, and I double-down on that wonder when it is made by an artist. What is the person expressing, something like a consumer value principle?

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 11:03
The whole "I like it" / "I don't like it" proposition stirs up a lot of questions for me.

Is liking art the point?
What does it mean to like a piece of art?
What if the art is about something horrible, unsettling, or otherwise moving in a negative way? What if I'm moved or enlightened but don't like it?
Is liking art like liking the flavor of the medicine?
Or is liking art like being healed by the medicine?
What if it's healing but tastes bad?
Or tastes good but makes you sick?

Frank Zappa (I think) said that we should replace the word "art" with "news." People would stop thinking it exists to please them. They wouldn't dismiss something because they don't like it. Instead of like/dislike, it would be "that's good news." Or, "whoah, that's bad news." Both could be important!

Jac@stafford.net
13-Mar-2015, 11:21
The whole "I like it" / "I don't like it" proposition stirs up a lot of questions for me.
[... snip great article ...]
What if the art is about something horrible, unsettling, or otherwise moving in a negative way? What if I'm moved or enlightened but don't like it?


Would disturbing images of social realism be struck down for being political?

picture of people dancing with delight - good.
.... upon corpses - bad

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 11:28
Would disturbing images of social realism be struck down for being political?

picture of people dancing with delight - good.
.... upon corpses - bad

It comes up all the time on Facebook. Someone posts a link to an important story on some underreported political scandal or genocide.

The only response available is the Like button. There's no Dislike button, Like-With-Reservations button, or Thank You for Posting this Unlikeable But Important Thing button.

Everyone faces that uncomfortable moment of deciding what the Like button might mean in that situation.

Heroique
13-Mar-2015, 12:34
Frank Zappa (I think) said that we should replace the word "art" with "news."

A good idea to start, but I'd hate to invest my time in art with the useful life of a news cycle – now about 30 minutes or so in these glorious days of the Internet!

Let's improve upon Zappa and quote Ezra Pound:

"Literature is news that stays news."

Drew Wiley
13-Mar-2015, 12:35
Whether the intentions matter or not is largely a moot point. It's just damn difficult to get into any great artist's or photographers head and know what they were
truly thinking, unless they are still alive and you ask them - and then they might BS you themselves. Unless someone is plodding along in a deliberate studio setup,
there are numerous instances when we simply don't have time to think the whole thing out. If you do, it's too late! So a lot of this becomes something subconscious, more a feeling of the shot, which we might or might not have the ability to articulate afterwards. That's a job for the art critics, who specialize in
imagining what we are thinking, and have all kinds of specialized terminology to give their dialogue a bit of superficial legitimacy. Sometimes a few of them do
seem to land a dart somewhere actually on the board.

Heroique
13-Mar-2015, 12:48
So a lot of this becomes something subconscious, more a feeling of the shot, which we might or might not have the ability to articulate afterwards.

Hmm, sounds like you want to use the "F" word, but you're being polite.

Me, I was unable to hold my tongue in post #24, and so were several others.

Go ahead, let it out. You'll feel better. I promise. ;^)

jnanian
13-Mar-2015, 12:52
A nice little article in the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/books/review/should-an-authors-intentions-matter.html?hpw&rref=books&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

We've discussed this sort of thing here before. My own views are closer to that of the first writer, after having explored the other side in younger days.

My favorite line, and the most revealing of what I see to be the error of the second author's argument is where he writes:

"What Shakespeare himself thought about Hamlet is unknowable, and really it doesn’t matter; the words on the page constitute his final statement." [My emphasis added.]

Which sort of says to me that certain academics are so language focused that they simply lose site of the art form itself. They don't feel it. Not really. Shakespeare's final statement surely occurred somewhere on stage, sadly unrecorded. Not in the text, cobbled together from various sources after his death. Whether Shakespeare intended Hamlet to be a "conscience-stricken intellectual" or a "victim of the Oedipus complex" would have been, I think, quite clear from the performance.

--Darin

hi darin

i think it is important to know where an artist is coming from and the reasons behind making
whatever artwork is being discussed. but often times those words and essays are overlooked or overshadowed
by what others suggest is the reason behind the artwork.


i remember when i was a student we would go to the MFA in boston to study the works.
there was one painter who's still lifes were always beautifully composed, beautiful light he painted but all the fruits and vegetables
were in various states of decay. someone came up to us and told us how the artist was making
a statement about one thing or another ... but it turns out the painter was living in poverty and all he had to eat was a bunch of rotting fruits and vegetables.

interesting thread you have here ..

john

Iluvmyviewcam
13-Mar-2015, 12:56
The whole "I like it" / "I don't like it" proposition stirs up a lot of questions for me.

Is liking art the point?
What does it mean to like a piece of art?
What if the art is about something horrible, unsettling, or otherwise moving in a negative way? What if I'm moved or enlightened but don't like it?
Is liking art like liking the flavor of the medicine?
Or is liking art like being healed by the medicine?
What if it's healing but tastes bad?
Or tastes good but makes you sick?

Frank Zappa (I think) said that we should replace the word "art" with "news." People would stop thinking it exists to please them. They wouldn't dismiss something because they don't like it. Instead of like/dislike, it would be "that's good news." Or, "whoah, that's bad news." Both could be important!

Art is any creative effort by a human, animal or nature that humans distinguish as noteworthy. Liking something like 'art' is a personal thing. No once can argue taste.

A good question to ask is this...if someone found a small print of your treasured pix on the sidewalk would they save it and hang it up...or just walk by it or trash it? If someone likes you pix enuf to pick it up, take it home and possibly hang it up...it is art. If they walk by it and forget it as fast as they can...it is trash.


"Looking at photographs, like taking them, can be joyful, sensuous pleasure. Looking at photographs of quality can only increase that pleasure." Pete Turner

"A photograph that has not been shared or at least printed is almost an unexistent photograph, is almost an untaken picture." Sergio Garibay

Drew Wiley
13-Mar-2015, 13:08
Well, Heroique. I just finished spotting the last of my own "Moonrise" prints, based on a shot last fall, and indeed a potential classic. What was I thinking? They'll
never guess. We were crossing that damn Salt Lake causeway right at sunset on the way to Wyoming, and my buddy just had to take a pee, without a tree in sight, of course. So we pulled off when all the other headlights were still a long ways away. Way across the salt pan a nice rainbow was forming. So I said, What the heck... won't bother with the 4x5, and just reached for the 6x7 with color film in it. It got off a couple of interesting snapshots and began to put the camera away. Then almost behind me there's a strange glow. I realize a full moon is coming up right above an absolutely wild row of clouds, and that the whole scene is going to reflected in the calm saltwater, with the salt flats beyond absolutely glowing themselves. I yank out that color roll and put in b&w. No time to even think, let alone focus a 4x5. Have mere seconds. At least 50% sheer dumb luck, along with enough experience to pull off the shot technically. I have no intention
of taking a shot like that the entire trip, or maybe of being accused of shooting it in any manner someone particularly more famous might have once done it.
At least he didn't have MGWT to print on - so I actually like my version better! (But wish I had shot it on 8x10 instead). I'm an opportunist. What the heck. Can't
figure out myself, let alone the minds of artists far better than me.

Heroique
13-Mar-2015, 13:33
Well, Heroique...



Drew, our first session together has been very encouraging, but our time is already up for today.

Yes, this session has, in my professional opinion, allowed you to open-up, find greater understanding, and feel more happiness. Before our next session, I want you to think deeply about that salt pan and the rainbow, what they [i]really mean in the context of your artistic intentions, and if they even matter.

See you next week, right here in my office – same time. :cool:

Jac@stafford.net
13-Mar-2015, 13:59
Art is any creative effort by a human, animal or nature that humans distinguish as noteworthy.

Art transcends nature.

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 14:26
Art is any creative effort by a human, animal or nature that humans distinguish as noteworthy. Liking something like 'art' is a personal thing. No once can argue taste.

What's "noteworthy?"
Is that similar to "liking" something?
If this is a definition of art, does it say anything about how to evaluate it? About how to interpret it?
About the value of "liking" it?
What's a "creative effort" by nature?
What do you even mean by "nature?"

Off-the-cuff answers to the tough questions rarely do more than propagate more questions ...

Drew Wiley
13-Mar-2015, 15:49
Art transcends nature? Show me the Notre Dame cathedral and I'll take you to a granite tower that puts any human cathedral to shame. It appears that God is the greater architect! Yeah, I know... that's an unfair fight. But at least I got a good picture of it, even if it is nowhere near as sublime as the actual scene.

Jac@stafford.net
13-Mar-2015, 16:23
Art transcends nature? Show me the Notre Dame cathedral and I'll take you to a granite tower that puts any human cathedral to shame.

A work of art that transcends nature does not imply a human's impression is superior.

For the sake of conversational liveliness I will say that so much 'fine art landscape' photography is DOA, romantic bullshit which is to benefit the photographer rather than celebrating The Thing Itself.
.

paulr
13-Mar-2015, 19:12
I didn't know a cathedral could feel shame.

But here's another case where language is full of ambiguities. A classic dualism in philosophy, art, religion, etc.: immanence vs. transcendence. Is meaning innate in the natural object, or does it lie outside it, the product of outside agents (gods, humans, etc...)? To say art transcends nature would be to say that art attaches human meaning to it.

In Robert Adams' example, he posits that most people would rather spend 30 minutes with Edward Hopper's "Sunday Morning" than with the street corner that it depicts.

This is not to say that one thing puts another to shame.

Michael Clark
13-Mar-2015, 19:53
Art is in our hearts,
Works it's way down,
Through our gut parts,
Turns a smile from a frown,
Moves then to back parts,
It there can be found,
Comes out now as *** farts,
Shared by all near 'round,
The atmosphere it imparts,
Turns those smiles upside down.
Would that be a quote form Shakespeare or Freud ?

Old-N-Feeble
13-Mar-2015, 19:56
Would that be a quote form Shakespeare or Freud ?

They are one and the same.

Darin Boville
13-Mar-2015, 21:22
Would that be a quote form Shakespeare or Freud ?

It doesn't matter. Just the academic's analysis of the text holds any real interest.:)

--Darin

Heroique
13-Mar-2015, 21:52
I didn't know a cathedral could feel shame.

I think Drew meant guilt, not shame – Catholic guilt, since we're talking Notre Dame Cathedral. Notre Dame Cathedral definitely feels guilt. Or maybe all the people inside are projecting their guilt onto it. Only the best Freudian theorists know for sure.

Anyway, what's all this talk about art transcending nature?

Art doesn't transcend nature, art imitates nature!

Just ask Hamlet, the melancholy prince, since he keeps coming up.

Yes, open thy Shakespeare to the beginning of Act III, Scene II, where Hamlet shares this view with the players – you know, the famous bit about "holding the mirror up to nature" (or the artist's duty to faithfully imitate the objective world out there). Fancy people say this is the mighty theory of art – or maybe it's meaty, or maybe mimetic, or something along those lines. Anyway, these fancy people are quick to add that it's the oldest theory of art around, going back to Plato and his cave...

Of course, we all know this mighty (or meaty?) stuff is just plain non-sense. Don't believe me? Try holding up a mirror to Notre Dame Cathedral and see for yourself. You won't see a cathedral in the reflection. You'll see guilt, just like Drew suggests – and just like all the best modern theorists insist.

Which goes to show that when artistic intentions are guilty, they matter a great deal.

Jac@stafford.net
14-Mar-2015, 06:47
To say art transcends nature would be to say that art attaches human meaning to it.

I think I understand what was meant in context. The sentence implies that art acts through humans to attach meaning to nature and make 'art' which goes beyond nature's limits, presuming there are limits.

M. Duchamp's Woman Descending, or Picasso's Cubist works, and Marey's photographic series (http://www.understandingduchamp.com/author/marey/) transcended what we perceive in everyday nature. No?

Oh, I'm just having fun with language.

Aside on M. Duchamp: Andrew Stafford's Understanding Duchamp (http://www.understandingduchamp.com/), in particular Andrew's animated explanations of The Large Glass contributes to scholarship.

JChrome
17-Mar-2015, 20:03
Won't be going there any time soon on this forum. Sorry.

No need for apologies. I really don't mind.

But you basically told us you don't respect Freud and asked what to do and I answered.

Toyon
17-Mar-2015, 20:19
And . . . if you think sigmund was entirely wrong about almost everything . . and you have no respect for him or his theories . .

Then what?

To say that someone who's theories were as broad reaching as Freud, particularly because they evolved and changed over time sometimes radically, that he was "wrong about everything" is one of the funniest things I have ever read. I love it when people are as pompous as they are preposterous. If your "intention" is to be a brilliantly ironic performance artist, Galli, you have succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.

Old-N-Feeble
17-Mar-2015, 21:04
All I can say is Freud messed up Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' with his warped overthinking nonsense.

BrianShaw
18-Mar-2015, 06:53
... For the sake of conversational liveliness I will say that so much 'fine art landscape' photography is DOA, romantic bullshit which is to benefit the photographer rather than celebrating The Thing Itself.
.

I admire your huevos for actually writing these words. I somewhat agree, but not totally. Maybe 82% agree.

Toyon
18-Mar-2015, 07:28
A work of art that transcends nature does not imply a human's impression is superior.

For the sake of conversational liveliness I will say that so much 'fine art landscape' photography is DOA, romantic bullshit which is to benefit the photographer rather than celebrating The Thing Itself.
.

"celebrating The Thing Itself". Some might say that is a romantic notion. I am curious as to how you might argue that taking a photograph of a landscape might "benefit" the landscape, rather than the photographer. Maybe "celebrating" the landscape (The Thing Itself) is of benefit to it?

Can you give an example? Perhaps, two photographs of a waterfall. Explain how one "benefits the photographer" and how the other "celebrates The Thing Itself".

Toyon
18-Mar-2015, 07:32
All I can say is Freud messed up Shakespeare's 'Hamlet' with his warped overthinking nonsense.

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether someone else is "overthinking" or you yourself are "underthinking".

paulr
18-Mar-2015, 07:38
There's an awful lot of underthinking in general when it comes to landscape. Most of what I hear (w/r/t photography in the 20th Century American tradition, which persists in little pockets) is received ideas that haven't been questioned much in the last hundred years.

Drew Wiley
18-Mar-2015, 09:39
When I'm trudging uphill sweating with a heavy pack to see my granite cathedral, my reward is to see it in person, just sit there and admire the shifting nuances of the day, and, of course, as an ulterior motive, to get a nice print which reflects my personal impression of it (which took three such trips to get the specific light I wanted). If I had to trudge around with a heavy load building Notre Dame, I would have just been getting a medieval paycheck. Clock in, clock out, though they did have guilds back then and no doubt some civic pride in what they were doing. Nowadays even your union would get busted up, and you'd have to watch the cathedral getting built with plastic Lego blocks from the window of your minimum wage McDonald's job, where they'd serve the same fake escargot burgers that Hamlet had in mind: "double-double toil and trouble, cauldron burn and kettle boil, eye of new and toe of frog... ". Oh oh, I better shut up of McD might sue me for releasing their secret ingredients. Duchamp would have smoked the newt eye to get his inspiration.

cowanw
18-Mar-2015, 10:54
Would that be Hamlet, the Prince of Scotland?

Randy Moe
18-Mar-2015, 11:02
Artist intention is only important to the Artist, after that critics take over and spoil the meat.

Jac@stafford.net
18-Mar-2015, 11:09
Artist intention is only important to the Artist, after that critics take over and spoil the meat.

Worse if the critic is British. He would boil it.

Richard Wasserman
18-Mar-2015, 11:42
As always, for an entertaining yet serious look at the state of critical thinking about art I recommend Roger Kimball's "The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art". Art gets boiled, steamed, stir-fried, and left out in the sun...

Drew Wiley
18-Mar-2015, 11:42
Artistic license allows me to quote Hamlet in relation to both hypothetical French fast food and stoned Surrealist painters, all illogically spliced together. The literary equivalent of Photoshop.

paulr
18-Mar-2015, 13:28
I would rather be boiled by a British critic than read anything by Roger Kimball.

Drew Wiley
18-Mar-2015, 13:41
The British boil everything. That's why their food is so bland.

Jac@stafford.net
18-Mar-2015, 16:58
Artistic license allows me to quote Hamlet

Artistic license means one can pull it out of his butt. It does not mean its good.
.

Drew Wiley
20-Mar-2015, 08:54
Precisely. Which is why I posted something utterly stupid in order to parallel my contempt for any kind of self-conscious self-inflated "creativity".

cowanw
20-Mar-2015, 14:34
Precisely. Which is why I posted something utterly stupid in order to parallel my contempt for any kind of self-conscious self-inflated "creativity".

Yah, but you got to get Hamlet and Macbeth straight or it ain't funny!

steveo
23-Mar-2015, 03:01
The British boil everything. That's why their food is so bland.

Nonsense most foods consumed by Scots must be deep fried before they can be considered kosher. ;)

paulr
23-Mar-2015, 08:16
There's actually a lot of world-class cooking coming out of the British Isles these days. Heston Blumenthal, etc...

BrianShaw
23-Mar-2015, 09:04
There certainly is, but there is also a lot of "older British cookery influence" both in the UK and outside. Just the other day I gave m'mum some freshly harvested vegetable. With her sincere thanks she announced that she'd boil them for supper. I cringed but she enjoyed the entire experience. My mother-in-law, who has no British ancestry at all, would do the same thing... but being from the Southern US she'd boil them until done and then boil a little longer.

Sometimes it makes me wonder if a cooks intentions matter. :o

paulr
23-Mar-2015, 09:15
The real problem with that much-maligned old school British cooking isn't boiling, it's boiling-to-death. If you quickly boil some green veggies in a lot of boiling water, you'll have some of the brightest, crispest, best tasting cooked greens imaginable. Leave them in for another five minutes and you'll have gray mush. Even if the plan is to finish by other methods (sauté, stir-fry, roasting, etc.) restaurant chefs typically blanch first in boiling water to set the colors and get a consistent texture. It also par-cooks them, so the final cook can be quick and easy to time for service.

But Heston probably cooks most of his veggies sous-vide.

Kirk Gittings
23-Mar-2015, 09:33
My wife is a professional chef, senior emeritus Executive Chef member of the American Culinary Foundation. She is very picky about food and extraordinarily talented at reverse engineering the food she eats. So she was in Vegas last week for a convention and ate at Gordon Ramsey's high end British pub. She is no fan of him a s a person but thought the food was extraordinary. Which bodes well I think for British cuisine-my wife is half British and we go there to visit her family as often as we can and generally prefer small rural pubs or ethnic restaurants to British urban "fine dining".

BrianShaw
23-Mar-2015, 11:55
Ramsay's pub grub (Caesar's) pales in comparison to the food in his Gordon Ramsay Steak (Paris LV) or even BurGR (Planet Hollywood). I'm no fan of his "American TV" persona, but in great awe of him as a chef and restaurateur. For all of his restaurants he definitely has "artist's intentions" that matter. :)

BrianShaw
23-Mar-2015, 12:03
p.s. Interestingly, if one looks at YELP ratings...

Steak: mostly 5-star
BurGR: mostly 5-star
Pub & Grill:
5-star = 235
4-star = 281
3-star = 210
2-star = 232
1-star = 192

That's a LOT of people having sub-par experiences at that restaurant!

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 07:18
I haven't read an entire piece of fiction of any meaningful length since where the red fern grows or perhaps hatchet..but I know I didnt actually read hatchet...just enough to bs my way through whatevr simple report we were assigned in 3rd grade
I faked lied my way through the book it club in 2nd grade to the tune of maybe 2 or 3 personal pan pizzas at pizza hut

I never have enjoyed reading
What I refer to as anothers imagination
When I have one just as good
...but I dont write mine down, either
No, I dont. I dont really buy the nption that literature is any kind of actual knowledge. It's more of a game imo. Pastime
Im just as sophisticated as the readers and writers
But theyve done well in selling themselves and attaining enough power to fool the world into believing that what they do is actually important
Theyve actually done well selling themselvesTWICE

As soon as you begin reading that womans column you know shes actually just selling herself and not truly giving a shit about whether what she's done all her life was a waste or not
What is she going to do? Change.
?
Of course not. She's going to continue. She's going to rail. Shes going to secure herself a spot on the other side of the argument.

What is the end result?
A DRAW!
Never ending game. Power play of the greasy wheels.
There is no debate. There's no answer. Just empty space and everyone wanting a job or at the very least bonus points is going to attempt to publish their own version
...as though there hasn't been one book etc with their same exact sentiments having been published in all of time


Why read if the reader can does or should come to their own conclusion as to the meaning

Exactly
The only purpose is to perhaps fast forward to the/A topic instead of busying away with day to day tasks never getting around to the mental exercise of questioning your own beliefs



Does an artist's intentions matter

Does an artist really have any intentions in the first place
Or is it just bs to cover over the fact that they do and have done ONLY what feels good at rhe moment

When a kid daydreams do they have some intention behind it all
I mean
Perhaps the only intention is to question yourself and better form ever evolving ideas

There are no answers
I'm pretty sure if there were we would have em all by now.

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2015, 08:36
Which is boiled and which is fried? Hamlet or Macbeath? I don't eat anything containing wool of bat myself.

paulr
25-Mar-2015, 10:50
I dont really buy the nption that literature is any kind of actual knowledge. It's more of a game imo. Pastime
Im just as sophisticated as the readers and writers But theyve done well in selling themselves and attaining enough power to fool the world into believing that what they do is actually important

If you're going to write a manifesto against art (which this amounts to) you should try to make it coherent. Or at least interesting.

I guess I'm interested in this "power" wielded by fiction writers. I'm friends with a few who would love to know how to get their hands on it.

Jac@stafford.net
25-Mar-2015, 11:52
I never have enjoyed reading
What I refer to as anothers imagination
When I have one just as good
...but I dont write mine down, either
No, I dont.


That is genuinely funny.

I suppose it is safe to say that you never read Mark Twain's, “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2015, 12:36
Brian - you did know that Yelp rating are often deliberately skewed, didn't you? Businesses can pay to have things added or deleted. Not exactly objective. My wife
is a good cook, so we rarely eat out. But I've entered my gout years anyway, so am forced to cut back significantly on anything beef or pork.

Randy Moe
25-Mar-2015, 12:38
Mostly important tool humans have is imagination, without it, we would still be swimming.

However, I suspect Dolphins are actually wiser to have stayed at sea.

djdister
25-Mar-2015, 12:41
There are no answers


So why did you bother to write 429 words of meaningless rambling? Why should anyone read what you wrote?

Richard Wasserman
25-Mar-2015, 13:09
Mostly important tool humans have is imagination, without it, we would still be swimming.

However, I suspect Dolphins are actually wiser to have stayed at sea.


John Lilly might have agreed with you— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly

BrianShaw
25-Mar-2015, 13:11
Brian - you did know that Yelp rating are often deliberately skewed, didn't you? Businesses can pay to have things added or deleted. Not exactly objective. My wife
is a good cook, so we rarely eat out. But I've entered my gout years anyway, so am forced to cut back significantly on anything beef or pork.

Well, well, well... Ramsay should get into the game and pay a bit more to skew the ratings of his Pub and Grill then. :o Sorry about your gout. My favorite brother has a raging case of gout and only eats meat at the finest (and most expensive) places. He especially enjoys eating meat when I'm paying. What a great brother... want him?

BrianShaw
25-Mar-2015, 13:12
So why did you bother to write 429 words of meaningless rambling? Why should anyone read what you wrote?

You not only read it but counted the words too? I keep getting distracted at the question about kids intentions when daydreaming. I'm embarrassed by what I daydreamed about as a kid, and as a teenager, and sometimes as an adult. Shame, shame, shame.

Randy Moe
25-Mar-2015, 13:22
John Lilly might have agreed with you— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Lilly

Actually, I agree with him.

Heroique
25-Mar-2015, 13:37
Mostly important tool humans have is imagination, without it, we would still be swimming.

However, I suspect Dolphins are actually wiser to have stayed at sea.

This sounds suspiciously Lamarckian and falsely explained by intentions, not Darwinian and properly explained by chance mutations.

And forgive me for adding this, too, in the service of truth: dolphins and whales were once land mammals who returned to the sea – not creatures who never left it.

My apologies ... the naturalist in me can never stay quiet. ;^)

Randy Moe
25-Mar-2015, 13:45
Proof is often elusive, witness constant change in science and theory.

We surely have no idea what we have done or are doing.

Yet...

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/03/end_the_hype_over_epigenetics__lamarckian_evolution.html

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 14:54
That is genuinely funny.

I suppose it is safe to say that you never read Mark Twain's, “The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.”

Im not lying. never read a full story of any real length. I have read the few short stories etc but they just don't interest me and never have

I find it ironic that those judging me based on an assumed lack of desire to learn through reading didnt comprehend that I said fiction

Show me a truth that came throug fiction writing

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:12
If you're going to write a manifesto against art (which this amounts to) you should try to make it coherent. Or at least interesting.

I guess I'm interested in this "power" wielded by fiction writers. I'm friends with a few who would love to know how to get their hands on it.

You must have never watched jeopardy
3 out of every 5 categories is about authors of the great American novel
Painters? Barely a mention. Photographers? Ever?
That's power. Social power. Social wealth.

Is someone smarter than me because they're a geek who binge reads Stephen king or William saroyan and I practice the kinesthetic arts...sports?

Difference between ballet and athletics? One group wants power and the other just wants the fun.


Against art?
Why would I be on this site? Thats the most ridiculous thing a person could say against aother on this site.
Thays crazy.
I take photos
I paint
Play sports
Listen to rap
Listen to hendrix
Listen to szell
Adrian boult
Karajan
Chopin
Bach
Dvorak
Mahler
Enoch light
Windham hill
The eagles
Conway twitty
Ella fitzgerald


Everybody

But im no art geek

There is a difference
I just enjoy things
Some want something for their enjoyment

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:18
So why did you bother to write 429 words of meaningless rambling? Why should anyone read what you wrote?

Now thats funny

Because I do not want to partake in the charade I must sit quiet?

Allowing it to go on confusing those who havent yet been consumed by the powers that be

Thats lame

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:22
So why did you bother to write 429 words of meaningless rambling? Why should anyone read what you wrote?

You do realize this quote works just as well in support of my viewpoint

Why should I read all this nonsense
Nobody agrees on anything
Just sides being taken for eons in defense of something unknowable

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:22
Do artist's ever even have intentions?

Vaughn
25-Mar-2015, 15:24
There can a lot of truths in fiction, and a lot of lies in non-fiction.


Difference between ballet and athletics? One group wants power and the other just wants the fun.

Which group wants which one? Trick question, both want both.


Do artist's ever even have intentions?

Yes, of course.

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:26
Maybe the coherence comes from the viewer. You think about the issible intentions of the artist

And that is not only what matters most
But thats all there can be
Because there are no universal truths

Vaughn
25-Mar-2015, 15:29
Because there are no universal truths -- including this one. :cool:

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:32
There can a lot of truths in fiction, and a lot of lies in non-fiction.



Which group wants which one? Trick question, both want both.



Yes, of course.
When was the last time you saw a pickup recital?
Super rare. Probably pretty cool.
But theyd likely wear official looking outfits

I said knowledge that came fro fiction. Not just a retelling of knowledge or vietue ir morality that all are capable of

RSalles
25-Mar-2015, 15:32
The artist intention matters to the art work - more the intention is toward the audience less an art work it is, except, of course, when art is done with political intentions.

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 15:34
Do artists create art with prior intentions ir do they write the story up as they go

Randy Moe
25-Mar-2015, 15:35
Oops! Gotta jump back in.

I consider all Art political.

Drew Wiley
25-Mar-2015, 16:00
Chance mutations? Isn't that what produced digital photography? Too many little pixels exposed to too many cosmic rays. Besides, Mr Lamarck has quite a lovely mountain named for him, right above Sapphire Lk in Evolution Basin.

Vaughn
25-Mar-2015, 16:10
When was the last time you saw a pickup recital?
Super rare. Probably pretty cool.
But theyd likely wear official looking outfits

I said knowledge that came fro fiction. Not just a retelling of knowledge or vietue ir morality that all are capable of

You will have to decide between truths and facts -- not always the same thing.. Fictional work can be filled with truths, non-fiction can be filled with facts, but neither have knowledge. Knowledge is something a person has and then sometimes shares through truths and facts...by example, teaching, the written word, songs, and other forms of art.

tractor recital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDHzK3Xe7Yw

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 16:58
You will have to decide between truths and facts -- not always the same thing.. Fictional work can be filled with truths, non-fiction can be filled with facts, but neither have knowledge. Knowledge is something a person has and then sometimes shares through truths and facts...by example, teaching, the written word, songs, and other forms of art.

tractor recital: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDHzK3Xe7Yw

What is the purpose of fiction
How high do you rank it in life exp princes
What makes it more valuable than athletics

I ff going an article
Myth of artistic intention by hamish mcpherson

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 17:04
Someone do a search and find how many sites dealing with classical artists wanting to be considered athletes and gauge the support the receive

Compare those results against people considerong whether athletes are artists and gauge their levels of support

Ill take a guess right now and you can test my instincts

Favor artists being athletic over athletes being artistic

Eh...
Well ill go with greater than 4 to 1
7 to 1?


If that stands up what are the possible reasons for the discrepancy

Jac@stafford.net
25-Mar-2015, 17:25
son of sand:

You have chosen the perfect venue for your posits if you hate reading and disrespect writing.
No more language games.
Shut up and post URLs to your photographs, and nothing more
.

Vaughn
25-Mar-2015, 17:37
Fiction, or story-telling, is one of the first human arts. I believe the purpose of fiction is to lift us out of our limited personal viewpoints and expand our possibilities. So it ranks very high on list of important life experiences.

Your comparison of art to sport makes no sense to me whatsoever. Using the number of websites as a measure of anything important is quite suspect.

Jac@stafford.net
25-Mar-2015, 17:42
Your comparison of art to sport makes no sense to me whatsoever.

With great respect, Vaughn, I disagree. Athletes have what is called body-knowledge, or kinetic-knowledge which is unavailable to the language part of our brains. Some artists have the very same disconnect.
.

Vaughn
25-Mar-2015, 17:54
With great respect, Vaughn, I disagree. Athletes have what is called body-knowledge, or kinetic-knowledge which is unavailable to the language part of our brains. Some artists have the very same disconnect.
.

Oh, I agree, but I do not understand the purpose of SoS's desire to compare the two, especially one becoming the other. Our society places a lot of importance on sport and gives a lot of lip service to art. I have been an athlete and I am an artist. I love the art of movement (one of the things that making love so wonderful!)

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 18:14
Fiction, or story-telling, is one of the first human arts. I believe the purpose of fiction is to lift us out of our limited personal viewpoints and expand our possibilities. So it ranks very high on list of important life experiences.

Your comparison of art to sport makes no sense to me whatsoever. Using the number of websites as a measure of anything important is quite suspect.

Of course thats the sole purpose. I said as much myself earlier. But what if youre willing to think for yourself early and often? Quakers didnr own slaves.
They didnr need a heart wrenching tale and 30 years to soften up.
Im sure plenty of people wrote fictional stories or texts to influence people into accepting the behavior

That person would be considered an author
An artist

Ill get back to that

If you put yourself in anothers shoes is there a need for fiction beyond the simplest escapism
Thats hardly classical artistry
So why bother



Am I case and point
Am I the answer to this thread?

Ive written here
Ive done something of some effort and creativity
Ive put enough time into to dispel most beliefs that im simply trolling or being a nuisance

So
Am I to be consideted an artist of ANY depth
Have these posts qualified for being my art

How many have given the time to TRY and interpret what I have meant? Could possibly have meant

Im incoherent
Shut up
Why have you
What is your purpose here
Etc

To me
It seems clear intentions of the artist mean nothing
Only what the viewer deyermines to have been revealed matters
No matter the scholarly time spent

If you can dismiss outright in a flash
You have

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 18:17
I didnt mean a simple count of webhits or whatever rheyre called
I meant an in depth analysis of the internet

Why do you think I challenged somone to do it instead of doing it myself to support my beliefs

sun of sand
25-Mar-2015, 18:25
Who deserves to be rich more
Michael jordan or oprah

Bad example perhaps

Lebron james. Or even some new rookie nobody jas even heard of before
Or oprah
Or spielberg
Or stephen king

Ask 50 people and youll know you could have stopped at 10

Jac@stafford.net
25-Mar-2015, 18:30
Who deserves to be rich more
Michael jordan or oprah

Silly comparison. As an imaginative person you know what value is. No? Why honor outside honorariums as important? Be you, be happy.
.

djdister
25-Mar-2015, 18:33
Who deserves to be rich more
Michael jordan or oprah

Bad example perhaps

Lebron james. Or even some new rookie nobody jas even heard of before
Or oprah
Or spielberg
Or stephen king

Ask 50 people and youll know you could have stopped at 10

What is clear is a cloud that cannot cry

Or, can a dog appreciate the finest cigar

Oprah has the better dunk

Can it possibly be internet?

paulr
25-Mar-2015, 20:23
131434

sun of sand
26-Mar-2015, 10:42
Silly comparison. As an imaginative person you know what value is. No? Why honor outside honorariums as important? Be you, be happy.
.


I don't agree that's silly
Asking this question
Or just observing what people say all the time throughout he day forever shows you people have no appreciation for artistry
All they see is behavior and compensation of the
"Other guy"

That punk all covered in tats looking Like a criminal with 6 children makes millions of dollars for dribbling a basketball

When did you e ever hear someone ripping apart spielberg or whomever for making money

Martha Stewart
Went to prison
Billionaire
Decorates homes and cakes for a living
And has a magazine

Who complains

Which is the better artist?
People don't really give a
tuck

Vaughn
26-Mar-2015, 10:50
131434

Nice...

sun of sand
26-Mar-2015, 10:52
Why hasn't anyone written anything on whether im the answer to this thread or not
I believe that to be extremely valid

One guy spent
Perhaps
More time counting the letters or brushstrokes in one of my posts than he probably spent reading it
Trying to understand it
Which I think is more important than simply reading

Read all the responses to my posts

I'm e either an idiot
Or maybe I'm presenting a s salon full of Gustave courbets a dekooning

Peter Lewin
27-Mar-2015, 05:42
Boy, how this thread has gone off the tracks! I have a hard time understanding how sports has anything to do with an artist's intentions.

But, having had my share of Olympic dreams growing up, it is fun to respond to irrelevant questions anyway, for example does the athlete have any more right to be wealthy than the artist? Both sports and art are forms of entertainment in our society. People watch football games (either the American version, or the one followed by the rest of the world) for enjoyment, and they go to galleries and museums for enjoyment. We pay for enjoyment. So whoever provides enjoyment to more people can expect to receive the most wealth. That applies equally to Steven Spielberg or Oprah Winfrey, who are also in the entertainment business. The stereotypical starving artist may believe that he or she is contributing more to society, but that isn't the way capitalism works. And like it or not, that is the system in which we live (well, at least most readers of these threads).

Another weird tack this thread took was into the value of literature and reading, which brought to mind a quote I just read: "If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales." - Albert Einstein. Of course it is everyone's choice whether they want to agree with Einstein or not; I do. I also agree with that set of posts which argued that there can be as much knowledge conveyed in fiction (or even a fairy tale) as in a textbook. The word "metaphor" comes to mind.

And as a final non-connected thought (i.e. connected to this weird thread, but not to photography or the original question about artist's intent), someone posted something about ballet, and also about kinesthetic-knowledge. My mother was a professional ballerina who performed all over the world. I don't remember her ever referring to herself as an artist, merely as someone who knew from an early age that she loved ballet. So I suggest that the definition of art and who is an artist is a very personal one, and in fact the "outside world" may render a judgment different from that held by the individual themselves.

sun of sand
27-Mar-2015, 08:25
Anyone ever watch 12 angry men
Ok then

Facts about a boys upbringing seemed irrelevant to the jurors in that events happening years prior or just generally previously could have no bearing on future events
In that case an assault
A crime

We all know this argument can be valid

That boy was perhaps not guilty in the movie but the outcome isn't important for this thread

You can't prove some thing is irrelevant just by saying it is
It's lazy
Sorry
Prove the things cannot be interconnected

You mention metaphor but for some reason it isn't urged for me to use
Or analogy


And there is an entire branch referred to as the perform ing arts
When that term came into being I don't know
But some one must have pushed for theater to be included in the arts
Why
Why not sports
Just because a score is kept
Didn't prove the athletes aren't artists
And of the highest order

Lol
How many athletes have win dancing with the stars compared to performance artists

sun of sand
27-Mar-2015, 08:28
Waiting for someone to go nuts over how the hell a popular tv show can be brought up in this thread about artistic intentions

Jac@stafford.net
27-Mar-2015, 09:42
[...]
And there is an entire branch referred to as the perform ing arts
When that term came into being I don't know
But some one must have pushed for theater to be included in the arts
Why
Why not sports
Just because a score is kept
Didn't prove the athletes aren't artists
And of the highest order

Yes! Why not sports as art? It is not as if the athletes are using a mechanical/electronic instrument to make images and call it art and even blind artists make images with the same machines.

But once again are we not elevating art to a position of unrealistic heightened status?

An aside: professional American football - aren't the players all college graduates?

Old-N-Feeble
27-Mar-2015, 09:49
Waiting for someone to go nuts over how the hell a popular tv show can be brought up in this thread about artistic intentions

:rolleyes: :p ;)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_hLvWmytTo

Randy Moe
27-Mar-2015, 10:19
SOS, your poetry is nearly impenetrable and I attempt similar occasionally and I know I am misunderstood.

I suppose most make Art because they have to. It is a sickness, which I enjoy, despite non recognition among peers?

Peter Lewin
27-Mar-2015, 10:52
All of which raises the question
of whether responding to
blank
verse accomplishes anything
except generating
more

sun of sand
29-Mar-2015, 13:46
Yes! Why not sports as art? It is not as if the athletes are using a mechanical/electronic instrument to make images and call it art and even blind artists make images with the same machines.

But once again are we not elevating art to a position of unrealistic heightened status?

An aside: professional American football - aren't the players all college graduates?

I have some elephant art
Most believe their 3yr olds in poopy diapers can produce a pollock

Yet an athlete who interacts with an object in ways
And sometimes with an object with another object with such perfection that that level of control seems incomprehensible to most anyone watching

Just gets some oohs


But a somwhat decent novel out of thoudands of other decent ones within the same year could become a hit
A bestseller
Talk show
Game show
Popular

Culture


But the athlete
The best play of the year
All time besties type

...
Mostly forgotton about after the news highlights

Why
Because that level of competency is everywhere in the leagues
Its expected
Commonplace
It is almost impossible to celebrate

But a book
Its permanent

And perhaps other more average wannabe high order cultural elite artists cant ecactly pull off an amazing display of athletic brilliance as easily as one could merely cut and paste and rearrange into a seemingly
Novel idea

mcherry
6-Apr-2015, 12:36
I guess when you boil it down this is my (cynical) view.

You have these academic departments at universities. As the years go by the science departments start making amazing progress, getting all sorts of attention (and money, and facailities, and stature). Physics departments are the home of the gods. Biology departments want to be like physics departments. Economics departments dream of being like the hard sciences. Political Science departments dream of being like Economics departments.

So you have these English departments. They look sort of lame next to the other departments. One department just detonated a hydrogen bomb and ended a war, the other, what?, wrote a sonnet? So you bring in Freud, you bring in French philosophers, etc. You jazz up the syllabus. Make it harder. Try to make it more political, make it have something more to do with society, with the social tensions. Some of this stuff, like Freud, starts off in the sciences and is adopted by the English department but stays on after the sciences no longer refer much to Freud. Marx lives on as well, past its due date.

The author doesn't matter anymore because you are not really studying books anymore. You are studying society. Books are texts. Texts are just inputs that perturb the system and your analysis is key. Author's intension doesn't matter because you are studying what *is* not what the author wanted. If they overlap so what? The professor moves to the center here, the one who perceives patterns, the who who decodes the texts and discerns hidden meanings, makes connections, and reveals the social and political underpinnings of society as revealed through the texts. This is the kind of stuff you can talk about with a straight face in multi-department academic meetings. This is the kind of stuff you can publish in academic journals.

The rest is all "connoisseurship." Ugh.

Meanwhile, the academics lead themselves into absolute irrelevance outside their insular echo chamber. It's not that what they do is oh so hard to figure out. It is just that what they do doesn't matter. Deep down doesn't matter.

And art departments? They dream of being English departments.

--Darin

The sciences can teach us how to build (and detonate) a hydrogen bomb, yes, but it is the humanities that teach us why we shouldn't....

Peter De Smidt
6-Apr-2015, 13:52
The sciences can teach us how to build (and detonate) a hydrogen bomb, yes, but it is the humanities that teach us why we shouldn't....

If we need the humanities for that, then we're in serious trouble.

Greg Miller
5-Aug-2015, 14:12
The Artists Statements of the Old Masters: http://hyperallergic.com/227007/the-artist-statements-of-the-old-masters/ (http://hyperallergic.com/227007/the-artist-statements-of-the-old-masters/)

;)

John Kasaian
5-Aug-2015, 18:00
IIRC my Classical Studies, Poetry is (was) one of the Sciences.

Drew Wiley
6-Aug-2015, 12:49
Well, the experts have spoken! That "Artist's Statement" link pretty much sums it all up. I presume each given statement was taken from their NEA grant application.

TXFZ1
6-Aug-2015, 12:51
Probably from the artist statement generator, http://www.artybollocks.com/

David

Drew Wiley
6-Aug-2015, 13:37
Oh my! Another bulls-eye link.