Andy's just nipped out to the shops for a packet of fags, but,
knowing him as I do (which is roughly), he would be wondering
whether we need to clarify what we mean by 'communicate'.
If we mean 'transmit' or 'impart', then surely all art does this, if
only in transmitting the artist's creative intent into the work itself.
How this communication is received will vary depending on the
receiver (viewer, reader, Bill Herbert, pizza chefs, Posh Spice,
multi-storey car park attendants with a gammy leg).
Can creative intent be equated with a desire to communicate to
A.N. Other? Perhaps not always. Might be an act of self-
communion which is subsequently overheard. But even then,
overhearing is allowed for, if not actively desired, within the act
itself. Otherwise why publish?
Perhaps we need to ask whether communication is a primary or
secondary feature, since anything made public is being
transmitted *somewhere*. It may be more primary or secondary
depending on the writer, perhaps.
Hang on -- Andy's back.
No, he disagrees with all of the above.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|