Kule Ingoze - Blood Simulacra: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Kule Ingoze - Blood Simulacra » Kule Ingoze - Blood Simulacra

Kule Ingoze - Blood Simulacra
Does materia and medium change how we consider art?

Page: 1 2

Kule Ingoze - Blood Simulacra

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/28/08 - 02:19 AM: Subject: Kule Ingoze - Blood Simulacra	#1
Among the currently 'hot' topics in art philosophy today is the question of material and medium as conveyers or conduits of meaning. Below is a link to the Saatchi gallery page of works by ex-child soldier from Sierre Leone Kul Ingoze. His work consists of stark nightmarish sketches and constructions which are in part made from 'African soil, African blood and African bone'. From this reading three main interrelated questions arise: 1. The message is quite clear but does the depth of the meaning intensify or does it actually undergo metastasis through the use of such mediums? 2. Are we now to consider classical works using egg tempera as vivisectionist? 3. Can there be art which does not transform through a cognisance of its medium? Personally I think there must be a cutoff point where material becomes insignificant, but where this is may also be objective depending on the viewer and his present state of mind. http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/yourgallery/arti... Edited by Fergus Currie on 01/28/08 - 06:11 AM
Attached Files: Blood jpeg.jpg (103 KB, 15 downloads) _____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 01/28/08 - 06:37 AM:	#2
Material can never be insignificant. To show I would like to ask you a counter question, can form at some point become insignificant? I guess you would say no, but that raises the question about the distinction between matter and form. Why would we accept that matter becomes insignificant and form does not? I think that whole distinction should be questioned. Funny thing is that this kind of art can rise only because the form / matter distinction is being questioned. In the past no one would think of it as art, only accepting painting or most "idealistically', kaligraphy. Now the use of materials indicate a resurgence in interest for matter and rightly so. A lover can not only be form, you want his or her matter as well.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 01/28/08 - 07:37 AM:	#3
Tobias wrote: Material can never be insignificant. Yes, but can that significance become negligible in the face of overwhelming form? And when the form is very open does the material use metastatize (change the state i.e. social comment, decoration, memorial, revolt etc) the art? Tobias wrote: Can form at some point become insignificant? I guess you would say no, but that raises the question about the distinction between matter and form. Once again, absolutes are not in question here. The real question here is about types of matter and their implications. Danto in his 'the Transformation of the Commonplace' tells us of three works all consisting of a completely red painted canvas all apparently the same. One is titled 'Red Sheet', another 'Red Square', and the third is titled 'Blood Bath'. He claims (and rightly so) that the works are not all the same by virtue of the idealism of the artists. Could we not reverse this in a materialistic process and ask if one was painted with oil paint, another with African Blood and the third with AIDS infected blood? Surely they are not the same by virtue of material or medium. Well, no they are different by virtue of the sociopolitical implications of the material used. Tobias wrote: Why would we accept that matter becomes insignificant and form does not? I think that whole distinction should be questioned. Indeed, but should one be detrimental to the other? Is the 'Red Square' in African Blood telling us something or can only 'Blood Bath' in african blood be considered high art or at least worthy of social consideration? Tobias wrote: Funny thing is that this kind of art can rise only because the form / matter distinction is being questioned. In the past no one would think of it as art, only accepting painting or most "idealistically', kaligraphy. Now the use of materials indicate a resurgence in interest for matter and rightly so. A lover can not only be form, you want his or her matter as well. I love you for your mind but your body 's not bad either! FC Edited by Fergus Currie on 01/29/08 - 01:47 AM
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 02/03/08 - 01:13 AM:	#4
Tobias wrote: Material can never be insignificant. I would agree with Tobias because material is an important part of the narrative that comes with a work. Certainly, viewing Ingoze's work without the story behind it, that it is made of Arfican blood and bones, I would not know to differentiate that it is the blood of an African, not of a caucasian, or other people, and for what reason it is an African blood. I would see it is blood and bone, and so my next question is "What is the story behind using blood and bones to make that painting?" Meaning is intensified with a narrative, usually describing the material chosen, no? It adds another dimension to the work -- political, sociological, scientific, and historical period. I wouldn't think the Olympian gods sculpture would look most beautiful and awe-inspiring if made of material other than marble, and warriors of material other than bronze.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/04/08 - 03:18 AM:	#5
Caldwell wrote: I wouldn't think the Olympian gods sculpture would look most beautiful and awe-inspiring if made of material other than marble, and warriors of material other than bronze. Here is a curious thing, though. The idea that Greek sculpture was intended to be seen in naked marble is a misconception. A recent exhibition at the National Archeological Museum in Athens claims that these sculptures where painted in what seems to us like garish colors. I attach some photographs which I took at the exhibition. I think they are quite gross! One shows the head of a statue as it was found and how it would have been originally. I think this suggests that material is also subject to historical transformation. To go beyond the pale here - What if Bone was to become an acceptable medium like acrylic paint? Would Ingoze's work lose it's impact or be alleviated some how by changing social norms? I think so. So what permanency does material inscribe?
Attached Files: archer.jpg (299 KB, 10 downloads) Head.jpg (207 KB, 9 downloads) _____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 02/05/08 - 01:15 AM:	#6
I like those pics! Yes, they are quite different, "un-godly", than looking at freezes and monuments, which I never knew to be painted the same way. But to general viewers like me, it only takes to know the trouble the artists go through in working with a medium like marble to appreciate the value of the material and the figure they try to present, or represent. If it was revealed that beneath those painted figures was a limestone, easy to crumble and very soft indeed, what do you think history tells us, and of the artists who sculpted them? What does it say of their tools? Fergus Currie wrote: I think this suggests that material is also subject to historical transformation. Yes, I agree and I see this as supporting the idea that material is, finally, always an important part of the work. To go beyond the pale here - What if Bone was to become an acceptable medium like acrylic paint? Would Ingoze's work lose it's impact or be alleviated some how by changing social norms? I think so. So what permanency does material inscribe? But I thought material impacts meaning. So, in effect, if Bone has become as common as acrylic paint, why? Whether a material has achieved the status of permanency, such as gold and diamond in jewelry, or has undergone change, it affects the narrative of a work: historical, political, geographical, sociological, even religious. Art, after all, is a wonder, or at least its beginning, like philosophy, begins as a wonder. It has a narrative, a question for which an answer is sought, and then it communicates to people what it is, and isn't.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/05/08 - 02:18 AM:	#7
Caldwell wrote: Art, after all, is a wonder, or at least its beginning, like philosophy, begins as a wonder. It has a narrative, a question for which an answer is sought, and then it communicates to people what it is, and isn't. A neat Derridean observation! I truly believe that art is alive. It inscribes it's history and changes with the social climate. This goes to my second question in the original post: When does the ecologist and anti-vivisectionist require the burning of the Mona Lisa because of its use of unborn chickens? We react to Ingoze's work as a result of it's use of controversial organic material; Is not egg-tempera controversial to the anti-vivisectionist? Personally I work at a company whose policy now is not to use paper that involves first-cut trees. At what point and to what extent, does this paper 'add' to a drawing made on it? Is, as you suggest, Leonardo rallying us to recycle by means of philosophical deconstruction of his medium? I doubt it. On the other hand Ingoze definitely relays a message of peace and the futility of war by his use of wars products (i.e. dead body parts).
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 02/05/08 - 06:55 AM:	#8
Aren't we than not all agreeing with each other. Matter is a vital part of the work. If it is, than it doesn't make much sense to distinguish between matter and form. (Well trivially it does of course, when you buy your materials for instance, but other than that they are interrelated. Blood bath imparts a different meaning, but so does "red square" painted in African blood. A striking contrast between the abstract work, the inoccuous title and the bloody material. In this sense of course it makes sense to distinguish form from matter, but in the artwork it doesn't. The form of "Red square" is determined by its material "African blood" because that creates the contrast that gives the name its inoccuousness and that leaves the abstraction of the work as nothingness compared to the striking material. I saw the same exhibition, it passed through the Amsterdam Archeological museum.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/05/08 - 08:00 AM:	#9
Tobias wrote: Aren't we then not all agreeing with each other. Agreement is always nice but it does not always lead us to the truth. I think in general terms we agree but my questions are directed at identifying specific turning points in ideology and why they occur. Tobias wrote: Matter is a vital part of the work. If it is, then it doesn't make much sense to distinguish between matter and form. Form is not just material and its application. Form in art philosophy refers to motion, rhythm, intensity, sensibility, space etc. As Henri Focillon puts it in "Vie des Formes" - 'Form is not at all the mere dressing of the content.' and by this he implies that the medium is not at the aid of form but somehow separate and superficial to it. It is possible to make a study of just art mediums without dealing at all with form, content or ideals, but when linking this study to form or 'truth content' (Adorno's term) they must be clearly distinguished. Tobias wrote: Blood bath imparts a different meaning, but so does "red square" painted in African blood. A striking contrast between the abstract work, the innocuous title and the bloody material. Yes, and the Dadaists and Surrealists made this a main point of their manifesto. Abstraction is however not an appropriate term here since there is no necessity for surrealism in abstraction, and Red Square is not abstracted from anything here. (in Danto the work with the title Red Square, if I remember correctly, represents an 'urban Russian townscape'. Only when interpreted as such is it true abstaction. Tobias wrote: In this sense of course it makes sense to distinguish form from matter, but in the artwork it doesn't. It certainly does, but also in the artifact itself. Artworks do not exist to justify themselves all aspects of them must have an effect on the viewer if we are to understand them. Tobias wrote: The form of "Red square" is determined by its material "African blood" because that creates the contrast that gives the name its innocuousness and that leaves the abstraction of the work as nothingness compared to the striking material. I guess it's all he could muster up! I really can't get my head round what this kid went through! Tobias wrote: I saw the same exhibition, it passed through the Amsterdam Archeological museum. Yeah? It blew me away emotionally!
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 02/05/08 - 01:23 PM:	#10
It still doesn't tell me why rhithm, sensibility, space or whatever is qualitatively different from the material that is used. It seems to me the two are locked into each other. The terms you use, like 'truth content', I have no idea about. Can you give me a short summary of what that would mean in this context? I would be suspicious of 'idea' in art. As if there is the work of art and the idea behind it. A work of art may express ideas, or may lead to ideas in relation to the subject. If you want specific turn in ideology look at Aristotle. The form matter distinction is basically his. In this discussion it is visible even. The material talked about is scary, heinous, plastic, bloody. Like matter in Aristottle is in fact rebellious, nihilating, passive, garish. Form here is associated with thithm (order) sensibility (gentleness) and intensity (energy).
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Jesroy
Cluth Magistrate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 22, 2005
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 132

Posted 02/05/08 - 08:24 PM:	#11
I propose the significance of form but not material in the following way: First "Proof": What material is used is something that is known. Art, however, does not consist of knowing things. Rather, it consists (at least in one of its conceptions) of being absorbed into some representation. This representation can be an idea, of varying artistic merit. Form does not have to be known. Form, for instance with a cube, is simply present before the viewer, and he must not know anything in order to behold the cube. However, in order to know firstly that the cube is made of metal, and secondly devise what implications this might have, are each forms of knowledge Second "Proof": A form beheld by a viewer, for instance the cube, may be granted its artistic merit independent of its subjectivity. Even though its existence or coming into being is made possible only by the viewer, its merit nonetheless is independent of the viewer. However, to create art based on materials is really to create nothing at all independent of the viewer, because the essence of the material is something developed entirely within the mind of the viewer. It might be said that art could be created by making various constructions of these concepts developed inside the mind of the viewer. Likewise, perhaps a certain grouping of materials might stimulate such a construction within the viewer, and it might even be that it was intended for this purpose. Nonetheless, the artistic merit lies entirely in the construction of the concepts, and not in the construction of the materials themselves. Qualification: What might still be considered art in the material is what can be called the form of the material: Hard, soft, mushy, spungy, foamy, coarse, etc. This is usually called texture. Whether or not this is a property of the material itself or is something added by the viewer is up for debate. But even if it is property of material, it is art not because of this but because it is also form. Second qualification: While I find no "actual" art in the use of materials, I do believe in such a thing as the artistic use of a material, which was spoken of in the second "proof." This is when the artist uses materials that are so well-known to produce certain effects in the viewer, that there can be no doubt they will lead to the construction of some set of concepts within the viewer, and thus produce this artistic construction of concepts. In this case the artistic construction is really that of the concepts, but it is done through the medium of the material. Likewise, when a person sees wild brush strokes, this merely adds to the idea of the painting, and are intuited by the viewer as a sign of frenzy, thereby heightening the effect of the painting. It is not necessarily the case that the form of the stroke, which may be fringed on the edges instead of cleanly blending into the rest of the painting, possesses some merit within its form. But one must guard against searching for art through knowledge, for instance in thinking, "There are wild brush strokes, therefore there is a frenzy, therefore this painting possesses the attribute of frenzy, and therefore it has achieved its goal as an artwork, to possess some attribute." Edited by Jesroy on 02/05/08 - 08:44 PM
_____________________ "There's no Tuesday like tomorrow" - Picador Vaseli "All roads lead to Amber" - Random

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 02/06/08 - 12:51 AM:	#12
Fergus Currie wrote: A neat Derridean observation! I truly believe that art is alive. It inscribes it's history and changes with the social climate. This goes to my second question in the original post: When does the ecologist and anti-vivisectionist require the burning of the Mona Lisa because of its use of unborn chickens? This requires a bit of an explanation on what goes on in our heads when we talk of animal rights and so on. To a certain point, our ethical or moral principles must have a distinguishing characteristic: a point in which all human actions must come to a stop if we are to interpret all our ethical notions absolutely and without exception, and the other point in which because we are humans with needs and wary of dogmatism, we must deliberate on what constitutes unethical actions, like vivisection. We break eggs right directly into a heated pan and let it fry, without guilt. So now because eggs are used in tempera we feel guilty? Because it isn't to fill our stomach that it is unethical? So, is art shallow that it doesn't deserve chicken eggs, while our desire to eat eggs isn't? So, which quality makes it a "guilt"? A vivisection? No, not the breaking of the egg. .... I lost what I was going to say further. I will get back to this. My apologies.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/06/08 - 02:07 AM:	#13
Tobias wrote: Can you give me a short summary of what truth content would mean in this context? In Aesthetic Theory, Theodore Adorno coins the term 'truth content' to indicate the cognitive part of a work of art which remains untouched by the intention of the artist or by the subsequent reaction of the viewer on a subjective level. Adorno claims also that this is where any lasting subjective beauty is to be found - as a mediator between artist and viewer and thus 'lives' between the two. Here my intention was to say that certain aspects of art can be studied independently but so can the relationships between them. As for rhythm and intensity being formal aspects independent of medium, there comes a point where practicality intervenes either at a quantum or universal level - I would like very much to to produce a work of art the size of the Andromeda galaxy made of vaporized aluminum but no gallery would be able to house it! However on a practical scale a work made of vaporized aluminum has meaning when the idealism of the artist is revealed. (giving it a title like 'Columbia Gone' for instance) I am preparing a lecture on the sequential levels of interpretation and comprehension in postmodern art at the moment. I will post a copy on the forum when and if it is ever finalized. FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/06/08 - 02:12 AM:	#14
@ Caldwell (interesting name... Patrick Moore's middle name did you know there is a list of celestial bodies with your name on it?) As they say: You can't make an omelette.... ( I hate using these emoticon things but I think it's kind of appropriate with the color etc.) @Jesroy I have copied and pasted your post into Word and will look at it very carefully later today. At a first glance it seems very neat but you employ many absolutes, some of which need examined. More soon. FC Edited by Fergus Currie on 02/06/08 - 02:18 AM
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 02/07/08 - 12:33 AM:	#15
In Aesthetic Theory, Theodore Adorno coins the term 'truth content' to indicate the cognitive part of a work of art which remains untouched by the intention of the artist or by the subsequent reaction of the viewer on a subjective level. Adorno claims also that this is where any lasting subjective beauty is to be found - as a mediator between artist and viewer and thus 'lives' between the two. Here my intention was to say that certain aspects of art can be studied independently but so can the relationships between them. I don't think I understand this much. It seems to me to reintroduce the notion of essence. I find that difficultin art as well as in everyday objects. Is this truth content permanent or historically formed? If it is historic I might be sympathetic to the notion, but if it is something timeless I would be highly sceptical. Isn't the mediatioon between artist and view not the artwork itself? But even more than that, the place it hangs, the entrance fee paid and so on? This seems inconsistent because is the artwork a mediator between artist and viewer, than there is nothing truth content wise in it, if it mediates than it is the medium by which artist and viewer communicate and so can never be apart from the intention of the artist or the mood of the viewer. If on the other hand it has indeed truth content, a life of its own and an idea of its own, than it doesn't mediate anymore but than it is itself a pole in the relation between artwork and viewer. regards Tobi
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/07/08 - 01:53 AM:	#16
@Tobias That is Adorno's point. Real truth is immutable. it is not the cost of the ticket or the color of the gallery wall it is not that which cam be deteriorated by history. One of my main indicators of art is a permanence in the face of history. Again I believe that aesthetic beauty can be partially judged form art's impregnability to historical interpretation. Polarity in this case is between subject (intention) and object (interpretation) the conduit or mediator here is indeed the work itself but, according to Adorno, only 'truth- content' can be consistent in this r�le since anything else is forced to sustain historical inference, fashion attitudes, style etc. This is not to say that only truth-content is significant. On the contrary I believe, and I say as much above, that what is left exists as an ever mutating historical commentary. I know you want an example! Let's take a well-know, celebrated work from history like the David by Michael-angelo. The present statue outside the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence has been criticized throughout it's history. The subject matter (biblical metaphor) does not concern us here, rather the aesthetic value of the work is to be found in its form - dimension, proportion, spacial relationships, rhythm, tension, etc. . The disproportionately large head was subject to criticism in the C18th especially by the French who were trying to define a realistic school of sculpture but latter this view was overturned showing that this was not the artists failed attempt to correctly represent the bodily proportions of a the child David, but in fact was a dynamic method of bringing the work into perspective when viewed from below. This view may change again and again through history and thus, the actual impact this work exerts on the viewer is subject to historical change. The coolness of the marble and the tension in the lifted foot, the stare in his eyes, the slings loaded and ready all add to the 'truth-content' of the work. These will not change with historical interpretation. On the other hand the biblical metaphor is currently under attack since the debate about creationism has placed biblical works under the microscope. Is the David about to become a punk vandal waiting to break a shop window in a nudist riot? I don't know, but this is part of the life of the work which is separate from its truth-content'. Can we see a future where the David is seen as symbol of revolt against social oppression? I think so since this would indicate the vitality of its ability to mediate in a historical context despite its ultimate aesthetic value. Does that make more sense? FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 02/07/08 - 02:08 AM:	#17
The coolness of the marble and the tension in the lifted foot, the stare in his eyes, the slings loaded and ready all add to the 'truth-content' of the work. These will not change with historical interpretation. On the other hand the biblical metaphor is currently under attack since the debate about creationism has placed biblical works under the microscope. Is the David about to become a punk vandal waiting to break a shop window in a nudist riot? I don't know, but this is part of the life of the work which is separate from its truth-content'. I disagree. How is it possible to seperate the stare in his eyes and his loaded sling from the David and Goliath story? I would take exactly the opposite view and say that David is precisely great art because he is so infintitely adaptable. When I see that loaded sling I think of Palestinian youths hurtling their stones at a tank. The David and Goliath story has an idea and a very dynamic one, it shows the process of overturning of the old by the new. The work of art though, has no a historical truth content, a la essence, (this leap of Adorno surprises me I must say) but a historic meaning that is shaped and shapes history dependent on its viewers. There is no Davidness to David, only a David which continues to speak to us. Until one day it is either destroyed or lies forgotten in a hallway.
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/07/08 - 03:35 AM:	#18
Actually you don't disagree. You say there is a dynamic idea in the story of D&G. I suggest that this is divorced from the aesthetic value of the work. The very fact that the viewer is invited to embed the work in biblical metaphor shows its distance from it. I cannot say 'come into my house' if you are not outside. The knowledge of the story allows us to interpret the work on a subjective cognitive level beyond the pure aesthetic. This is the whole principle of truth-content. Your reference to Palestinian youths only serves to uphold the idea of a living historical reference. Lorenzo di Medici would have had no knowledge of this, and so we can say that the art has grown in stature through connotation - Walter Benjamin's third level of communication - through latently inscribing a more modern history. A principal idea of truth-content is that it defies history. Do not be mislead by the use of the word truth. Adorno makes no claim that we will gain some higher knowledge but rather that some part of a work remains constant, 'non-historical'. As you rightly say there can be no 'historical truth-content' since history is a record of change. I wonder what an african Bushman would make of David's stance - his eyes, the sling? With no preconceptions about biblical metaphor or political, historical implications concerning Palestinian youths would he behold the aesthetic beauty of the work in its pure form or would he too superimpose his personal cultural framework on it. 'Young Boy with Big Head and Hands off to Kill a Lion' he might say. So be it. But the 'Davidness' of the statue called 'David' and the Davidness of the conscious reference we make to biblical metaphor are not the same. FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/07/08 - 04:32 AM:	#19
Well Tobias, I just had to go hunting! And shoot myself in the foot in the process! Here is the appropriate paragraph lifted in its entirety form the Harvard Dictionary of Philosophy (part of the entry on Adorno: Harvard Dictionary of Philosophy wrote: Arguably, the idea of "truth content" (Wahrheitsgehalt) is the pivotal center around which all the concentric circles of Adorno's aesthetics turn (Zuidervaart 1991; Wellmer 1991, 1-35 ; Jarvis 1998, 90-123). To gain access to this center one must temporarily suspend standard theories about the nature of truth (whether as correspondence, coherence, or pragmatic success) and allow for artistic truth to be dialectical, disclosive, and nonpropositional. According to Adorno, each artwork has its own import (Gehalt) by virtue of an internal dialectic between content (Inhalt) and form (Form). This import invites critical judgments about its truth or falsity. To do justice to the artwork and its import, such critical judgments need to grasp both the artwork's complex internal dynamics and the dynamics of the sociohistorical totality to which the artwork belongs. The artwork has an internal truth content to the extent that the artwork's import can be found internally and externally either true or false. Such truth content is not a metaphysical idea or essence hovering outside the artwork. But neither is it a merely human construct. It is historical but not arbitrary; nonpropositional, yet calling for propositional claims to be made about it; utopian in its reach, yet firmly tied to specific societal conditions. Truth content is the way in which an artwork simultaneously challenges the way things are and suggests how things could be better, but leaves things practically unchanged: "Art has truth as the semblance of the illusionless" (AT 132). Here I feel that I may have misled you as regards to its total irrelevance to history. The reference (AT 132) is to Adorno's work 'Aesthetic Theory' I had always considered truth-content as divorced from history. Perhaps I can re-calibrate! No, I don't think so - history IS arbitrary. All art is tied to societal conditions and deconstucting these conditions to support a 'way of improving things' is just our 'take on the truth' in art. So there is a mediator between form and idea but surely this is the construction - the work itself. Is there truth to be learned from the materials, the construction, the medium of art? I look to Ingoze's work and find this to be indisputable. As for egg-tempera being a pro-vivisection, I will wear a bag over my head lest some accuse me of indecent exposure! FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 02/07/08 - 04:36 AM:	#20
The knowledge of the story allows us to interpret the work on a subjective cognitive level beyond the pure aesthetic. This is the whole principle of truth-content. This presupposes what I claim isn't there, the pure aesthetic. What is the pure aesthetic of the David, the davidness of it, in what does it reside? Where is the ahistorical core that makes it the David? Even the name only has meaning because of the historical context of the D&G story. Why would the African bush man behold the pure aesthetic without superimposition, how would it be possibe? Maybe there is something like it, I once saw an abstract work of art and thought that it was beautyful. The material played a big part of it by the way, it was a big roster of squares, surfaces and lines in wrought iron, hanging on a white wall of my grandfathers house. I thought "this is beautyful" but I couldn't say why. The problem is, if we can say it it connects to our ideological framework and so we interpret historically. Even if I'd say it was the peculiar order in the work of art I superimpose my preference for order. So I think this truth content is not a very workable idea. It is just a phantom of the immediate. regards Tobi
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/07/08 - 04:59 AM:	#21
There is no ahistorical core which makes it David. The fact is, the name 'David' imprisons the work into a historical/biblical context. There is however a 'ahistorical' core that makes the work permanent. This is its pure aesthetic value, not the connotation of the social or implications of religious significance - just the statue which may or not be admired by a Bushmen who, in turn places his own connotations upon it. This is the curse of man; he lives in society filled with presuppositions about everything and they infect his interpretation. 'Truth is in the void' says Krishnamurti (don't judge me by that! I am quite widely, but unfortunately also indiscriminately read) and here he is right. Our thirst for order blinds us to pure aesthetic beauty. Here's some more colourd sqaures from the Pompidou Centre gallery Paris. (my photo this summer) http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1265/1355274892_92...
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Caldwell
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Under the banana tree, with Zuleiha.
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 1311

Posted 02/08/08 - 12:08 AM:	#22
Fergus Currie wrote: I truly believe that art is alive. It inscribes it's history and changes with the social climate. This goes to my second question in the original post: When does the ecologist and anti-vivisectionist require the burning of the Mona Lisa because of its use of unborn chickens? We react to Ingoze's work as a result of it's use of controversial organic material; Is not egg-tempera controversial to the anti-vivisectionist? Personally I work at a company whose policy now is not to use paper that involves first-cut trees. At what point and to what extent, does this paper 'add' to a drawing made on it? Is, as you suggest, Leonardo rallying us to recycle by means of philosophical deconstruction of his medium? I doubt it. On the other hand Ingoze definitely relays a message of peace and the futility of war by his use of wars products (i.e. dead body parts). Fergus, to continue with my interrupted post, at what point the ecologist and anti-vivisectionist require the burning of the Mona Lisa because of its use of unborn chickens? At no point can they require the burning of Mona Lisa. The painting has now become a global treasure, it would be almost unethical to burn it. But to focus on the vivisection issue, vivisection is to cut into a live animal: unless vivisectionists count eggs as live animals, I think we can draw the line between live animals and eggs. (I'm assuming that "require" is used here to point out that among themselves, it is a violation of their principle, so they can require it.) I don't know if I could put it in that way: does this paper 'add' to a drawing made on it? I don't know if "add" is the word. But certainly, the choice of material is an intent, influenced by a lot of things. About the Leonardo question -- if Leonardo's intent in a particular work is to convey ideas of recycling, yes, that is what he probably wants us to think. Although, he can also say, 'look, only recycled materials were used to create this painting because at the period I was painting, it was against the law, it was scarce, it wasn't available, etc.' Incidentally, I saw a house made entirely of recycled or re-used materials (bottles, tires, cans, drums, plastics, etc). And that is the meaning it wants to convey: the creator of that house lives his environmental principles. Fergus Currie wrote: Caldwell (interesting name... Patrick Moore's middle name did you know there is a list of celestial bodies with your name on it?) No, I didn't know a celestial body named Caldwell. As they say: You can't make an omelette....smiling face ( I hate using these emoticon things but I think it's kind of appropriate with the color etc.) No, you can't make an omelette without an egg. But yes, use emoticons to accompany your posts. They're cute.
_____________________ So, you've finally figured out how reality works. Have a glass of muriatic acid, everyone.

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/08/08 - 02:16 AM:	#23
Caldwell wrote: Fergus, to continue with my interrupted post, at what point the ecologist and anti-vivisectionist require the burning of the Mona Lisa because of its use of unborn chickens? At no point can they require the burning of Mona Lisa. The painting has now become a global treasure, it would be almost unethical to burn it. But to focus on the vivisection issue, vivisection is to cut into a live animal: unless vivisectionists count eggs as live animals, I think we can draw the line between live animals and eggs. (I'm assuming that "require" is used here to point out that among themselves, it is a violation of their principle, so they can require it.) Point taken. For a social group to require the infringement of rights of another group is unethical. I'm not a crazy, activist vegan but for the argument lets suppose I am. How can art lovers claim a right to slaughter just so they can derive pleasure from looking at the results. A curious ritual of foetal execution followed by indicative abuse of the remains and then public display. Back to me now! This seems quite far fetched but the reasoning is that ethical limits are not the same for everyone or every historical era or community. I deliberately chose this extreme case in order to show where lesser errors are going unseen. I agree by the way that the Giaconda is a global treasure and its contribution to humanity far outweighs any claims for its destruction by anti-vivisectionists. Caldwell wrote: I don't know if I could put it in that way: does this paper 'add' to a drawing made on it? I don't know if "add" is the word. But certainly, the choice of material is an intent, influenced by a lot of things. About the Leonardo question -- if Leonardo's intent in a particular work is to convey ideas of recycling, yes, that is what he probably wants us to think. Although, he can also say, 'look, only recycled materials were used to create this painting because at the period I was painting, it was against the law, it was scarce, it wasn't available, etc.' Incidentally, I saw a house made entirely of recycled or re-used materials (bottles, tires, cans, drums, plastics, etc). And that is the meaning it wants to convey: the creator of that house lives his environmental principles. Actually The Leonardo question follows from your 'neat Derridean observation'. Leonardo is not aware that by using fresh, non-recycled material he is allowing the viewer to deconstruct (and derive a phantom opposite of) this unintentional choice. Derrida says that we can change or intervene in the interpretation of something by, as you say showing not only what it is but what it isn't. His very ignorance of C20th recycling morality gives rise to a new historical (relating to the C20th viewers point of view.) reinterpretation. This part of what is alive in art as I tried to explain in the conversation with Tobias above. Caldwell wrote: No, I didn't know a celestial body named Caldwell. Its not one, its a list of objects compiled by Sir Patrick Moore. Caldwell wrote: No, you can't make an omelette without an egg. But yes, use emoticons to accompany your posts. They're cute. [/quote] They are, aren't they? FC
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Fergus Currie
Blind watcher of the sky

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 11, 2008
Location: Athens Greece
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 143

Posted 02/08/08 - 02:20 AM:	#24
Here's your list. https://subdomainname.yurisnight.net/messier/xtra...
_____________________ ...and so Achilles never reaches the tortoise. ...so never send Achilles to get fags!

Tobias
metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: The world has moved on
Total Topics: 52
Total Posts: 4816

Posted 02/08/08 - 01:30 PM:	#25
This is the curse of man; he lives in society filled with presuppositions about everything and they infect his interpretation. This is I think the crux of the discussion, at least for me. I don't think that presuppositionless standpoint is at all possible. Imagine, you have never looked in a mirror, never noticed you had hands. Your whole life has been one immediacy to the next, tactile, hot cold, wet, hunger, but no conceptualisation whatsoever. Howe than will such a figure recognise the David as a work of art? If we want to make anything of the David as an aesthetic work a whole scheme of presuppositions must be in plkace, all of which cultural. To recognise the David as a male figure we have to see ourselves as such, otherwise it cannot tell us anything. We also have to view it asd man made and not natural. We may see an oddly shaped rock, but if we do not think it is man made, we do not consider it art. We must be able to admire craftsmenship and so know how hard it is to use tools etc. There is not "curse of man", no rubble we can clear away to see the Truth. (I am starting to sound like Dunamis ) A work of art is not a work of art despite our historical interpretation, but because of it. Because we reflect on it and through it. Art helps us reflect. Good art invites our interpretation and makes us in turn look at the presuppositions we have in place. David, sling, Goliath, biblical myth, look at how life like, actually larger than life, David holds his sling. We can only make such judgement when we know it is a sling. If you would be write childeren would be the greatest appreciators of art. Well when I was young I had to be dragged to museums, unless they had a large display of medieval weaponry... Art is something you need to be eductaed in. You are educated in it, that is why it has value so much so that you think it holds some 'truth content'. For the child it is nothing but a 'stupid statue'. Can I play now? So there is no Permanence to the David either. Everything passes into nothing. regards Tobi
_____________________ The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you The power of Kant compels you "Im tiefen, tiefen Wald Da steht ein Krankenhaus, Darin tauscht ein kleiner Doktor Liebenden die Herzen aus." Samsas Traum - Stromausfall im Herzpital

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.