WHY - from Nancy Bell Scott

[Marie Wintzer]

I have received this wonderful piece by Nancy a few weeks back. Life hasn't been a long quiet river for her recently, and I know that this work was her first attempt at getting back to art, at finding her feet in the studio again, so I'm really touched and honored that she thought about me. 
Nancy is making great use of what I call her "islands", and to me this work is about connections being made and being broken. The inevitable cycles of life. Islands and continents drift apart, rifts deepen and fissures extend (sometimes abruptly and violently). At the same time new ties are created, new elements are added to the chain of interactions (what I see on the left of the card). WHY, well, I don't need to go there, you know that WHY that is relentlessly trotting in your mind some days...
I know Nancy is starting to send out mail again, and for what I have seen it is as fab as it ever was, I am really looking forward to more correspondence with her. Muchly arigatoo my friend!

[Nancy Bell Scott]

Can't people see what they see, think what they think, feel what they feel about a work of art and still respect the artist's intent once they find out what it is (if they find out)? I don't see these as mutually exclusive approaches. Either one is enriching, and the combination can be even more enriching.

Will someone--you, DVS!--define exactly what you mean when you talk about ether in discussions like this?

Sleep time. I hope Cheryl has a great morning very soon !

[Marie Wintzer]

I love your comments you two. That will give me food for afternoon thought. I know that "describing formal element" too ;-)) I do it quite a lot. Being afraid of saying something wrong, yes, for sure. A lot too. Pulling things apart and looking at elements and structures could be a very SSSAO way of analyzing ;-) I know the ever going "debate" about content/intent, it's a classic DVS vs Cheryl. May she sleep a few more good hours ;-))

(I wonder the pip is plotting)

[De Villo Sloan]

And Marie, this sort of thing is ethery. Isn't that a huge difference between scientific inquiry and analysis of art? No, there is no final answer; but in that milieu some answers are more equal than others. Formalist appoaches sidestep the whole issue by pulling the thing apart - looking at elements and structures. Ever notice when I really don't have anything to say about content I just start describing the formal elements? Oh well, we drift far afield.

 

I'd be careful about letting Dw get his hands on any of your official Empress Marie MinXus stamps. I think there is a new scheme hatching.

[De Villo Sloan]

Marie, you have gotten these blog comments because, IMHO, you have written a heartfelt & thoughtful response to a really interesting work. It shows. I didn't see anything you wrote about at first, but you illuminated it in terms of meaning. I was just admiring the Ys otherwise.

 

Definitely - I love it when the artist steps in these discussions. But you know Cheryl and I have gotten in some tangles over the "artist intent" thing. I gather she believes everybody should respect the artist's intention and what the artist is intended is the final word. I don't believe that's possible. I did even pull out the critical term "intentional fallacy" with her once, to no avail. Well, she has a few hours of sleep left.

 

Dw is "cutting" some new MinXus music.

[Nancy Bell Scott]

Marie, even if a viewer gets something completely different out of a piece from what the artist intended, to me that's just as valid. So long as something makes people think or sparks their imaginations or just speaks to them, it has fulfilled its purpose and is a beautiful thing.  To me there's no such thing as "you are completely off the track."

[Nancy Bell Scott]

Yes, it's a different song every night. How different depends on the elements/influences of the moment.

Art isn't really quarantined even though some try to make that happen, but people are afraid to really engage with it, afraid to be "wrong." That seems like a human condition across many experiences, though, not just with art. ?

Last summer after finding IUOMA, I was asking quite a few questions, probably wanting to do mail art in some "right" way, or at least not be stupid. At some point superhero yelled at me and said "Find your own frequency and CRANK IT UP!!!" I loved that.

Are most people at IUOMA reticent about engaging? No doubt some are, but others might just not want to use words about art. Someone quoted Henri Michaux the other day, "I started drawing to liberate myself from words."

Now my emails say Marie has already replied! Oh no! :--} 

[Marie Wintzer]

I Forgot one thing: one alternative it to ask the person: tell me about your piece... Cheryl does that a lot.

[Marie Wintzer]

Fantastic jazz analogy!!
I see what you mean. And I don' think there can ever be a right answer in interpreting any form of art. But maybe the experts will disagree, and who am I to tell. All I can do is write about what it means for me and myself only? I wanted to say that people have been good sports. I don't think anyone who has sent me something has ever told me OK Marie this is all good and fine but that's not at all what I meant, you are completely off the track ;-)) and I'm SURE that most of the time the sender had a completely different intention. Hmm, if only I could explain better....
(hi Dw)

[De Villo Sloan]

Darn, I'm struggling with this and will try again:

 

The PROBLEM is that art is quarantined. I think people are afraid to really engage with it. They think an "expert" has to explain the "right answer."

 

As much as people at IUOMA can clearly make this art, they are reticent about engaging. Expressing whatever they feel and think about the work is the "right answer." And all responses are accepted and eqaully valid. Know what I mean?

[De Villo Sloan]

Wow, great comments! I think it's important to establish this isn't criticism or analysis. We all react to art we receive. How it makes you feel, what it makes you think is vitally important - you do get to the bigger issues of how larger groups respond and reach consensus as well as impasse.

 

That is a wonderful question: Would I react the same way to the piece in a year? Or if it were in a different context? Probably not. And "meaning" is probably not fixed; it changes across space and time.

 

I read this fairly far out idea someone wrote specifically about jazz. First, with jazz improviation the same song is played differently every night, in response to a differnt audience, place, and mood of the musician. So is it a different song every night?

 

And even further, every time we listen to a recorded piece of music, we have different responses, hear different things. So, in a sense, is it really new each time? Highly subjective, but isn't art highly subjective?

 

"Beware of ether" - Dw