tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post116622519996920120..comments2024-03-04T04:12:57.650-05:00Comments on THEORY NOW: Reflections on the PlaygroundMark Cameron Boydhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1166803305117791302006-12-22T11:01:00.000-05:002006-12-22T11:01:00.000-05:00Emily: Perhaps the “mystery and revelation” that o...Emily: Perhaps the “mystery and revelation” that occurs as one “observes” my text [artwork] has something to do with the <I>indeterminacy</I> of “meaning” in any artwork. As the observer becomes a “part” of the “process” [experiment], their “objectivity” evaporates, i.e., the observation affects the experiment. Moreover, my “images” are derived from words yet my text-bisection reduces possible recognition of (possible) signifieds. Your insights on <I>discursus</I> are eloquent, and quite charming as you realize that “speech [like writing] is just a supplement to thought as well.” As is art, I might add.<BR/><BR/>Mr. Silverthorne: Your visits are welcome and I am honored that you have the time to critique my work. Were you able to see <A HREF="http://www.markcameronboyd.com/installations.html" REL="nofollow"><I>Logocentric Playground</I></A> at the American University Museum at Katzen Arts Center, or via my photographs on my website?<BR/><BR/>With appreciation for your erudition, a direct response to your question is not possible, given that the relationship between the “success” of my installation, or any work of art for that matter, is not dependent on the acquisition of the “meaning” of the artist. Indeed, visitors that interacted with my installation possibly did so to express a “belief that there is in fact some ‘meaning’ to the work” in the attempt to decipher my bisected text. I believe that you understand my views on the fallibility of “meaning,” yet I might add that the key contingencies to a perceptive “reading” of my work would have to address both the “play” of recognition of text and the ultimate realization of the inadequacies of the written word. In any case, belief in an “implicit meaning” in a work of art is an “unsuccessful” expectation, as “meaning” may not be found within the work itself, but resides instead within our constituted representational systems. <BR/><BR/>I disagree with you that walls of a public latrine have “no concrete sociolinguistic context,” as there is historical precedence that discourages this opinion. I respectfully suggest that although your analysis of the possible “directions” that viewers take in their interactions may seem opposed, perhaps your view overlooks similar actions undertaken within those two contexts, i.e., “the viewer either recognizes an implicit meaning” or “views the work as a public <I>blank slate</I>." Each of these two “directions” involve first, an individual’s <I>choice</I> of whether to “decode” or “disrupt” the code, and second, that any further actions taken, other than passively viewing the installation, might involve an inscription upon the blackboard panels, whereby the participant is placed firmly within the “sociolinguistic context” of writing.<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your introduction of the thoughts of Gadamer into our discourse, and although my knowledge of his views is second-hand, I have done enough investigation to note his belief that language is the “form in which understanding is achieved.” Perhaps our very discussion illustrates this hope, as we are in an ongoing struggle of “interpretation” here. However, as our “play” with language is always an “unfinished event,” these “horizons” within history that recede and are reborn within our consciousness through language may merely distract us from an apprehension of “meaning” as infinitely deferred. The egalitarian nature of an art that hopes for an “establishment” of meaning within any word, sentence, or specific work is outdistanced by the realization of the fragility of communication based on semiotics.<BR/><BR/>Shanthi: Thank you for your kind thoughts. I would only add that I had hoped that the urge to “understand” would provoke the viewer to become interactive with my text. This extends the definition of the “work” into the realm of “becoming,” as the process evolves.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1166732810546735842006-12-21T15:26:00.000-05:002006-12-21T15:26:00.000-05:00I would like to pose the following question: Is th...I would like to pose the following question: Is the ultimate success of this particular installation contingent on the viewers' belief that there is in fact some "meaning" to the work? <BR/><BR/>If we take your two directions of possible viewer interaction, we find that the viewer either recognizes an implicit meaning in the work or, in essence, views the work as a public "blank slate," similar in significant ways to the walls of a bathroom stall (public but relatively anonymous, no concrete sociolinguistic context, no clear communicative norms). These two "directions" seem to be in immediate conflict. The former will view instances of the latter as obstructions to the task of decoding and responding. The latter will view the former as "taking up space." In a way, does the concrete results of this conflict not appear as a kind of history of a failure of the "fusion of horizons" Gadamer speaks of (though only, of course, as a regulative ideal). <BR/><BR/>The thrust of my original question is this: Would it be fair to say that the more convinced the viewership as a whole was of a concrete (even if obscure) meaning to the work, the more likely it would be that the resulting discourse would begin to establish its own unique communicative norms and thereby, at least theoretically, find some ground in the regulative ideal of the fusion of horizons?Marcus Silverthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03406306780522212610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20239079.post-1166327881743949062006-12-16T22:58:00.000-05:002006-12-16T22:58:00.000-05:00Game, mystery, revelation – all possible when enga...Game, mystery, revelation – all possible when engaged in discourse with an artwork, especially those that explore “meaning.” <BR/><BR/>Even if scientific observation were read as analogous to “seeking meaning” in art, might that awareness of the “moment to moment evolution of an unfinished work” be something more just a desire for knowledge? I think that I have <I>delayed</I> the completion of my installation to avoid the “predictable path” to a complete “composition” by attempting an apprehension of this experience of art making as a “process” and sharing that process with the viewer /visitor.<BR/><BR/>It may be helpful to note that our word <I>discourse</I> issues from the Latin <I>discursus</I>, signifying <I>a running to and fro</I>. If a Katzen visitor glanced at my panels, they would undoubtedly “read” some text even though it was fragmented in bisection. Regardless of the interactions of viewers, whether finishing my sentences or making their own from “borrowed” letters, my writing is a <I>supplement</I> to my thought, therefore we are “speaking” in <I>discursus</I> with my panels plainly supplemental. However, the words I speak and the words I write cannot “say the same thing,” because our perceptions of speech and writing differ, i.e. both are subject to interpretation but the speech act commands more authenticity through the <I>presence</I> of the speaker.Mark Cameron Boydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697922195376438088noreply@blogger.com