These days I have been thinking about what words cannot impart. I live in a mixed-language household and the issue of nuance and cultural interpretation arise, probably more frequently than I’m even aware. To put a Rothko into the country of the OED takes away its passport, for me.
This current demand to describe, to interpret, to demystify artwork for easy consumption, predigestion (for the internet) can feel tyrannical to the non-verbose. There is a world beyond “storytelling.”
The striving for meaning, interpretation, exists in the land of nouns and verbs. I’m thinking of the frisson where color cannot meet language.
Yes, language is necessary, but what of Pollack reminding me of childhood? He makes me think of playing hide and seek amongst brambles, where the brain is in pattern recognition mode, taking us back to the uhr-hunt where the visual and aural reign. That is the power of abstraction, particularly the unphotographable. The Pollack and the Rothko are experiential.
I leave the words to others, except this morning, as I sit by the water and have my coffee, as the perpetuity of waves move far beyond human history, of language.
As an artist who has also made my living as a designer, I have always known (at least for myself) when I make art and when I do design work. Both have been enriching in my life although art is what really does it for my deep self! So I appreciate especially these lines from your post, "Works qualify as works of art only if they resist the protocols of certitude. A competent illustration makes its meaning clear and may even convey the truth about something. An honest documentary image does the same. But the point of an artwork is to remain forever open to interpretation." Thank you Carter, so eloquently put....
Thank you for making your beliefs so clear. Certainly, Art and Religion are distinct disciplines and operations too. Religious Art is very different from 'spiritual ' art or 'theological works'. It really is a simple thing: Religious art depicts its principles and beliefs; it advocates directly; we are instructed how to believe without words ( think of the Raphael Mother and Child works or Buddhist works ). Dicates is not the right word, but directives to a principle like "sacred family" or " nirvana", is the clear operation of such works. On the other hand, art works induce feelings and meanings suggestive of other states of mind, "infinite", "elusive","sublime", "memorial"--- as each viewer may perceive and share.
The Late Baroque Aestheticians and Philosophers went to much trouble confounding these matters, evidently to entitle fine art that was Not religious with values that need not have been transcribed--- the non religious works had their own values and meanings anyway. !
This is a fine essay and contribution to a complex subject . Your thinking is clear and helpful. Thanks !
These days I have been thinking about what words cannot impart. I live in a mixed-language household and the issue of nuance and cultural interpretation arise, probably more frequently than I’m even aware. To put a Rothko into the country of the OED takes away its passport, for me.
This current demand to describe, to interpret, to demystify artwork for easy consumption, predigestion (for the internet) can feel tyrannical to the non-verbose. There is a world beyond “storytelling.”
The striving for meaning, interpretation, exists in the land of nouns and verbs. I’m thinking of the frisson where color cannot meet language.
Yes, language is necessary, but what of Pollack reminding me of childhood? He makes me think of playing hide and seek amongst brambles, where the brain is in pattern recognition mode, taking us back to the uhr-hunt where the visual and aural reign. That is the power of abstraction, particularly the unphotographable. The Pollack and the Rothko are experiential.
I leave the words to others, except this morning, as I sit by the water and have my coffee, as the perpetuity of waves move far beyond human history, of language.
As an artist who has also made my living as a designer, I have always known (at least for myself) when I make art and when I do design work. Both have been enriching in my life although art is what really does it for my deep self! So I appreciate especially these lines from your post, "Works qualify as works of art only if they resist the protocols of certitude. A competent illustration makes its meaning clear and may even convey the truth about something. An honest documentary image does the same. But the point of an artwork is to remain forever open to interpretation." Thank you Carter, so eloquently put....
Thank you for making your beliefs so clear. Certainly, Art and Religion are distinct disciplines and operations too. Religious Art is very different from 'spiritual ' art or 'theological works'. It really is a simple thing: Religious art depicts its principles and beliefs; it advocates directly; we are instructed how to believe without words ( think of the Raphael Mother and Child works or Buddhist works ). Dicates is not the right word, but directives to a principle like "sacred family" or " nirvana", is the clear operation of such works. On the other hand, art works induce feelings and meanings suggestive of other states of mind, "infinite", "elusive","sublime", "memorial"--- as each viewer may perceive and share.
The Late Baroque Aestheticians and Philosophers went to much trouble confounding these matters, evidently to entitle fine art that was Not religious with values that need not have been transcribed--- the non religious works had their own values and meanings anyway. !
This is a fine essay and contribution to a complex subject . Your thinking is clear and helpful. Thanks !
Are you ever not spot on?
This post clarified for me the motivation behind all my lifelong pursuits, which from the outside look very different. Thank you!