Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 22:43:17 GMT
From: Julian Thomas <julian.thomas-AT-dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Warhol/sci-fi/turnips/sybil


At 13:07 23/11/96 -0800, you wrote:


>
>As for expressing themselves and "how these concepts meet." Are you asking
>how I think the self of the artist gets put into whatever is being made?
>If you are I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer, but often the
>thing made is the result of an interaction between the maker and the
>material that is intuitive, rational, irrational, practical, emotional,
>scheming, conniving, desperate, cocky, misguided, inspired, pathetic,
>confused and who knows what else. The stuff has a say in the proceedings as
>well as it is often more willing to proceed in one direction then in
>another, and can, through cunning and stubborness, wear its tormentor down.
>
>
>
>Mark O'Connell
>oconnell-AT-oz.net
>
>
I would say that the language of art is symbolic.The symbols are drawn from
cultural stock (the past) and the symbolism of the present. As I've tried to
show in previous posts, these signs and symbols are becoming increasingly
divorced of meaning. The terms you use above are all moods or emotions, they
are not related to a symbolic language through which the artist expresses
herself. If, (to bring it back to Baudrillard) the signs are divorced from
meaning, (and I still think my examples from previous posts stands), the
artist is creating something unreal, not as an object, but as a meaningful
manifestation of symbols. (wow, bad sentence!;-) ) Moods are an intention
and motivating force, signs and symbols are the language of art, hence B's
comments on simulacra.

Julian

--------------------------------
Julian Thomas,
Cambridge,
UK.
julian.thomas-AT-dial.pipex.com
phone: 01480 458744
mobile: 07050 017982