e Markle wrote:"It is the task of the artist to create--paint, sing, write, sculpt, what have you--not to ascribe "meaning." This, in the end, must be left to an interpretive community, and ultimately to history."
(Todd's Part 1 entry)
I wish I could pin-point the reason, but I tend to reject this out of hand. I subscribe to a more teleological approach which emphasizes the artist's intent.
Lots of people reject this out of hand, and it's usually because they take an historical positivist approach to everything they view. If you look at texts, sculpture, etc., though, you'll be confronted by the fact that those things have "
meant" differently--if objects can "mean" at all--throughout the centuries. Since you're using traditionally Christian binary terms--"relativism" and "absolute truth"--perhaps the history (and geography) of Biblical hermeneutics would be a good example. The parable of the prodigal son "means" differently at various points in history and in various geographical locals. In Africa, for instance, it's often exposited as a story about poverty and famine. The prodigal son is not reviled for his "wanton" behavior. It's just sort of a side-point. In the West, rather than the global South, it's a story about the son's greed and licentiousness. These are just two of many "meanings" for the parable. I suppose you could look at your own contemporary and geographically specific hermeneutic and say, simply "well yes, but all those other readings are wrong," but that's a pretty arrogant space to inhabit.
It seems to me that we, the audience, could view the atomic bomb as an inspiring work of art (such sublimely stunning lines!), but I think the purpose is much more important than those sleek lines. Maybe I'm playing too casual with your words, so forgive me if I'm taking that too far, but my point is that most, if not all, things are created for a purpose.
The ridiculous example of the atomic bomb notwithstanding, I agree with you. Many things are created for a "purpose," but that does not limit the scope of their significance outside the context of that
original purpose. One of my degrees is basically in ancient epistles, and when one person writes a letter to another, I think it's important to try and understand the writer's "intent." It does give us a jumping off point for determining its contemporary significance within our own community (if it is to have one). The problem is that limiting such texts to their "original intended meaning" makes them irrelevant to us. For instance Paul admonishes the Christian community not to eat meat sacrificed to idols alongside a "weaker brother" lest it make him "stumble." If that's all it means, then for those of us in the modern West, the text is dead. If, however, we extrapolate broader principles from the text, it remains relevant and continues to speak to us. In brief, it "means" differently to us now than it did in the 1st Century world.
That purpose gives us a starting point, a context, from which any and every interpretation flows. Without understanding the seminal inspiration (cut me a bit of slack on that) couldn't we find ourselves seeing beauty in something that was created not only to kill, maim and destroy but even in something designed to be kitsch?
Yes, Andy Warhol comes to mind. Why you've paired kitsch with the atomic bomb, however, I can't quite understand.
From several posts here and entries on your blog, I've learned you're more or less a postmodernist (I believe you once referred to yourself as a "good postmodernist"
). I am not. Although I may not call myself a modernist, I tend to identify with that side of the spectrum. I believe in absolute truth and even correct interpretations. I think that intent is paramount in both creation and interpretation.
It's nice that you
believe those things, but you present no real argument for why "intent is paramount in both creation and interpretation." Sometimes I arrive at what I consider a beautiful end merely by a confluence of luck and intuition. Does it matter that a pipe wound up that way without my specific intent? If it's beautiful, isn't it just beautiful? Do you have kids? Have they ever painted something for you that blows your mind? Mine have, and I doubt they had specific intentions to do so.
My analysis: I think it's an interesting piece. Why? Because you set out to create a pipe that melded two distinct shapes, and you succeeded (in melding those shapes). I wouldn't call the pipe beautiful, but I think a primary reason for that is that it seems to me (can a modernist even say that???) that your primary goal was to meld these two shapes, not create a beautiful pipe. I say this because I don't think this would have been your primary choice in shapes had you set out with beauty as your primary goal. Is it cool? Sure. Would I buy it? Probably not, and certainly not based on a standard of beauty. If I were a collector looking to round out my collection with some pieces of interest, then, sure I'd pick it up.
Thanks for the analysis.
You've dredged up all that curiosity from my philosophy classes, and although this is getting lengthy, I do want to ask, where is our point of divergence? Are you crazy enough to believe that monstrosity is beautiful?
But seriously, do you believe in absolute truth?
I think that's probably neither a relevant nor an appropriate question, but I will simply say I do not believe that this pipe has one absolute "interpretation," or is capable of "meaning" one specific thing. In your analysis, you brought your own "meaning" to it. Someone else will bring another, and someone else another.
TJ
Folk art perhaps, but not real art.
