Good morning
What if proof is the natural enemy of art, as well as a false home for philosophy?
What if susan Sontag was onto something when she said criticism is intellects'
revenge on the creative process?
I am thinking here of the tension between doubt and imagination, as we struggle to
create meaning.
Is ego coterminous with agenda? Possibly, in the sense that the strong poet wars
against influence and judiciously misreads as a path to authenticity of
origination.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have some thoughts about color, with apologies for those who feel this subject
has been exhausted. Prior to the Renaissance, many artists felt that color was a
minor spect of art, superceded by compostion, pespective, line and subject. At the
same time, color was not easy to come by - you didnt go to an art store and find it
in labeled tubes. And it was notoriously fugitive, so there was little certainty
that the color you produced would retain it's hue and vibrancy over time.
Color was connected to Dionysian tendencies, feminine emotions, and the primitive
immediacy of the unreflective mind. Apollonian vlaues were considered more suitable
to serious artists and the serious (religious, intellectual, academic) context of
Art. Before Impresionism, artists began with values, and ended with color; Monet
and others reversed that process, to the great scorn and alarm of the critics.
Color is also treacherous in another way. It is the sensation that elludes
measurement and consensus.
Outside of the realm of art, cultures often regulate the use of color
in organizing social position ( clergy in darks, royalty in purple, peasants in
drab.
Flags are "colors," and a rallying point for patriotism.
There are also neurological differences in the way color and line are processed.
So, a few historic notes. Perhaps no longer of relevence in the bright and color
drenched world of now.
Jude
JMC wrote:
> Mark, if only you could be as simple as you claim to be: "I was only suggesting
> that ALL images are equally suspect when looked to as representations of any
> kind of reality. No agenda behind the thought." Now prove that you don't have an
> agenda. (The truth may be that your agenda is as simple (or complex) as your
> ego.) Now prove that all images are equally suspect in all situations. You're on
> a film philosophy list after all.
>
> My point is that certain situations privilege certain certain images. When freed
> from certain contexts, I agree that "ALL images are equally suspect," but that's
> not usually the case. Life does not always present us with the freedom required
> for Kantian judgment. We find images in context.
>
> JMC
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|