Karen Sullivan on sun 12 sep 10
I spent an interesting day yesterday...
The talks were from faculty at the
Grad school...one talk was from
The prof who teaches a class in art
Theory...
So read the lines as complete
Sentences...and as though they
Are complete thoughts...
With a declarative emphasis on
The single line....
Important principles:
1. Theories about Art,
are theories about art.
....so the art came first, and
Theories came second...
Criticism came from theories.
2. Theories are not facts
And can't be proven
3. One wants to put the cart (theory)
Before the horse (art)
There was a discussion about unhitching
The horse to let it run free....
A metaphor about art making....
One of the more profound comments
I heard yesterday and which
I think has confused a lot of the discussion
On clayart about art is the following....
Theory and criticism use WORDS
Much art does not use words..
The process of the
discussion is about the conflict between the
Verbal and the visual
There is a struggle between
Words and the visual.
I am just offering these thoughts...
They are perhaps obvious....
Be well
karen
Snail Scott on mon 13 sep 10
On Sep 12, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Karen Sullivan wrote:
>
> Theory and criticism use WORDS
> Much art does not use words..
> The process of the
> discussion is about the conflict between the
> Verbal and the visual...
Just picked up a book by Leonard Shlain: 'The
Alphabet Versus The Goddess', which enlarges on
the theme of the visual and the written in broader
cultural terms. (Of course, it is written in words.)
When changing medium or format, something is
always lost in translation: from French to English,
from novel to movie, from experience to memory.
Ideally, we may hope that the change, while losing
something, gains something else in the process.
As with movies based on novels, this is the case
more seldom than we wish. Yet, it does occur.
The deconstructionist ideas in literature and
philosophy have notoriously crept into art, and
led critics to say that there is in fact no artwork
without criticism to complete it, and an ascendency
of 'text' over 'form'. Still, we can discuss things in
words that would be intractable or unclear in purely
visual form. Words are rather valuable for their
specificity and linear expression, even when
discussing the very different understanding of
visual art.
-Snail
paul gerhold on mon 13 sep 10
Karen,
"Theories are not facts and can't be proven " is not quite correct.
Theories can definitely be proven (not necessarily will be) at which time
they become facts not theories. If they are not yet proven or disproved
they remain theories.
Paul
James Freeman on mon 13 sep 10
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:52 PM, paul gerhold wr=
=3D
ote:
> Karen,
>
> "Theories are not facts and can't be proven " is not quite correct.
> Theories can definitely be proven (not necessarily will be) at which time
> they become facts not theories. If they are not yet proven or disproved
> they remain theories.
>
Paul, Karen, et alii...
This is another example of where words can fail us. "Theory" has two
very different meanings as it applies to science and to the
humanities.
In science, one starts with a hypothesis, which is a fancy word for an
educated guess. It's just an idea we have come up with to possibly
explain an observed phenomenon. Once the hypothesis survives proper
experimental or other empirical testing, that is, makes a prediction
based on scientific or mathematical law, which prediction is then born
out by properly conducted experiments, the hypothesis is elevated to
scientific theory. When a theory survives repeated experiments, it
becomes a theory with a high degree of certainty. This is as close to
a "fact" as science comes, as science always recognizes that a set of
circumstances may possibly arise which the theory cannot explain.
Science is always open to the possibility that it is wrong. In any
case, one can think of a scientific theory as being pretty darned
close to a "fact", and in any case, as a useful tool. (The above is a
bit simplified for the sake of brevity.)
In the humanities, a theory is merely a belief which can guide action
or behavior. Such theories are merely opinions, with no basis in
experiment, prediction, or testing. Such philosophical theories are
not theories at all in a scientific sense, or even in a "truth" sense.
A philosophical theory is more akin to a hypothesis, simply an
educated guess.
This problem with words, as others have pointed out, is a common
source of tsoris on clayart, where each participant in a thread
employs a different, and possibly even unique and personal, definition
of a word.
For whatever it's worth.
...James
James Freeman
"All I say is by way of discourse, and nothing by way of advice.=3DA0 I
should not speak so boldly if it were my due to be believed."
-Michel de Montaigne
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jamesfreemanstudio/
http://www.jamesfreemanstudio.com/resources
Kathy Forer on mon 13 sep 10
On Sep 13, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Snail Scott wrote:
> The deconstructionist ideas in literature and
> philosophy have notoriously crept into art, and
> led critics to say that there is in fact no artwork
> without criticism to complete it, and an ascendency
> of 'text' over 'form'.
There's also the notion that the viewer in context has primacy in how an =
=3D
object is seen and interpreted. So there's text about the work, text =3D
about the experience of the work and text about text.=3D20
There's always been text and form. It's how they interact that's most =3D
telling. =3D20
> Still, we can discuss things in
> words that would be intractable or unclear in purely
> visual form. Words are rather valuable for their
> specificity and linear expression, even when
> discussing the very different understanding of
> visual art.
Words are wonderful. It would be hard to build bridges without them!=3D20
Kathy Forer
www.foreverink.com
| |
|
