Decay

Comment

Comment by Linda French on February 21, 2015 at 1:30am

DVS, I have not read the essay, but will do so later. For now, I say, and believe, that intention is a quality to itself, and the degree to which intention is a part of a work of art depends on the success or failure of the artist to embody that intent within the work. Ineptitude, naivete, or whatever, may prevent the manifestation of the artist's intent.

That said, I believe that to the most discerning eye, the artist cannot hide who she/he is in their work. And then, beyond even that, is the work itself, sort of suspended in space, turning and seen from all directions as a thing of power and meaning. Or not.    Linda

Comment by De Villo Sloan on February 21, 2015 at 12:19am

The view of the majority of critics is that the intention of the artist or author has little or no impact on the meaning of the work of art. That meaning is a construct of social, cultural, economic, blah blah forces. Comes from a well known essay from 1940s which is pretty much universally accepted now.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intentional+fallacy

Comment by Linda French on February 20, 2015 at 11:58pm

Andrea, I was thinking about what you said of "the intent of the artist (if it persists over time or not)." Do you think of intent as a concrete thing? Or is artistic intent also ephemeral, not a point on a line, but a morphing of the artist's wisdom?   Linda

Comment by Linda French on February 20, 2015 at 11:46pm

Paper ephemera is something I use a lot in art -- it's nearly my favorite thing to use. The expectation of impermanence and the daily deterioration of papers helps me feel the immediacy of a project; its transient quality and the freshness of execution necessary.

The Japanese have a similar approach and philosophy behind some of their art and culture: the transient nature of life, and the beauty of its decay and change, though it seems their sensibility is more bittersweet than mine. To me, impermanence, transience, immediacy and necessary freshness give cause for celebration and joy: babies are wondrously beautiful, but they do turn into us. Oh my.   LInda

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 20, 2015 at 9:21pm

Very interesting what you write, FinnBadger, and very true. I would say that we could expand in this way the discussion: distinguish between the problem of "conservation", the intent of the artist (if it persists over time or not), and finally the impermanence physical, material, of the art "object".

Comment by FinnBadger on February 20, 2015 at 1:39pm

And I think that impermanence in mail art is particularly true. Open mail art, read mail art, blog mail art, put it in a draw. Sometimes put it on a wall. Sometimes repurpose it. How many times does anyone look at mail art received or blogged yesterday? Last week? Last year?

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 20, 2015 at 11:45am

I think it's so interesting the discussion about impermanence, also in art. It fits well with your consideration about the one-time-only experience.

Comment by Linda French on February 20, 2015 at 3:06am

I will try to see this decay series a little bit more as natural transformation. Maybe, for me, it will be a one-time-only experience.  Linda

Comment by Andrea Roccioletti on February 19, 2015 at 11:11pm

Maybe you're right, Linda.

However, you can consider that the decay is only from a human point of view.

For nature, it's just transformation :)

Comment by Linda French on February 19, 2015 at 5:27am

I think I maybe feel a little bit sick. oooo. really.  Linda

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page