civilized ku # 2869 ~ nothing if not wordy
Friday, February 13, 2015 at 09:25AM 
ultraviolet mini golf ~ Burlington, VT • click to embiggen
...the above is a bit rich, given that a good deal of the writing on your blog seems to be courtesy of Susan Sontag or some other high-falutin curator or other worthy. The "above" which Paul thought was "rich" was my prattling on, re: those from the academic lunatic fringe who turn the viewing / making of every picture into "an academic critical analysis, intellectual labyrinth, psycho-analytical exercise." Paul also mentioned that I am "nothing if not wordy", which, true be told, isn't that far off the Mark inasmuch as my talk radio nom de I mention Paul's comment, not because I have any problem whatsoever with it, but because I am once again loading up the canon cannon with the words of a high-falutin' master artspeak slinger (Jeff Wall) in order to make a point (or two) .... A. I'm aware that the subjects I choose do have meaning, but over the years I've found that understanding these meanings is less important for me ... People are going to take it where they want. All I can do is make my picture, and meanings will flow out of it. But I can't control them. B. ... the everyday is a space in which meanings accumulate, but it's the pictorial realization that carries the meanings into the realm of the pleasurable. item A. (point 1) I have always believed that there are 2 kinds of art. That is, fine art which stimulates the eye as well as the mind, and, decorative art which also stimulates the eye but functions to relaxes the mind. Each form of art serves a valuable function. Which one a viewer prefers is a strictly personal choice. My operative assumption, and I believe it to be a reasonable one, is that the primary difference between fine and decorative art is the complexity and diversity of meaning(s) to be intuited / found / implied in fine art is well beyond that of decorative art. And, or so the conventional wisdom goes (especially so in the academic lunatic fringe where Meaning is King), if one is dedicated to the creation of fine art, one must also be aware of the idea of meaning(s) in art. However, like Wall, I too have come to the conclusion that all a good artist can do is to create their art. That art may have meaning(s) for the creator and be a driving force in making of his/her art - a passion for making art - but that meaning(s) may or may not 'translate' into the eyes and minds of the beholders of his/her art. IMO, that lost-in-translation is not a bad thing inasmuch as art which strives to make its, most often singular, meaning(s) obvious and unavoidable is more akin to propaganda than it is to fine art.** Therefore, I believe that the greater the diversity of meaning(s) to had in a picture, the richer it can be and consequently that it falls into the realm of fine art. item B. (point 2) Therefore, if artist concentrates on the making of his art and not so much, if at all, on the meaning(s) which can be crammed / forced into it, I think it to be quite probable that the resultant "pictorial realization", both on its surface and in its ability to instigate a wide range of meaning(s) - meaning(s) specific to the individual viewing the art - will carry any meaning(s) to be had in a given picture "into the realm of the pleasurable". (point 1 + point 2) Or, if I weren't given to such bloviation (sorry Paul, I just can't help myself), I could have simply written - just make the damn pictures and let the meaning chips fall where they may. *Paul left no link but I did find this which may or may not be the same Paul Bradforth.
**which is not to write that some propaganda driven art has not reached, over the passage of time, the status of fine art (goggle "propaganda art" for examples).plume parler was Blovius. A self-adopted and self-deprecative name derived from the word bloviate - to speak or write verbosely and windily.
Reader Comments (2)
Hmm… Jeff Wall, a "high-falutin' master artspeak slinger"? Really? The man is far too modest to be described as such.
Also I would suggest that you are quoting Wall a little out of context but to argue the point would simply end up being a difference in opinion (or what you call an "operative assumption" — sorry but I had to laugh at that one).
I've always thought that for Jeff Wall, the only thing that matters in his photographs is the inherent aesthetics or beauty of the scene. For him, the aesthetic quality is the meaning. He has no need for anything deeper. If some viewers require or sense a deeper meaning then that is up to each individual viewer even if they be from "the academic lunatic fringe". As it should be for all art and regardless of how many "kinds of art" we imagine exist.
By the way, what is your reason for providing a link "which may or may not be the same Paul Bradforth"? It seems somewhat presumptuous and unnecessary.
I took no offence at Mark's 'may or not be' me link. In fact, it *is* me. I left no link because, although I have a site of my own, paulbradforth.com, it is moribund at the moment and contains almost nothing of interest.
I hadn't got around to replying to Mark's post earlier; I think my main grouch was that you, Mark, spend so much time talking about the finer points of what 'pictures' or 'art' is, while producing, at the same time, so much nice still-life work that I often think you lower the tone of it all with your proselytising. I keep wanting to say 'for god's sake stop talking about it and just keep 'em coming'. I agree totally with Cedric's comment re: Jeff Wall: "the aesthetic quality is the meaning.".