about Art
before we dive head first into this thing
The concept of Art is an entirely human construct
which means
that all the meaning of Art is imposed from outside
by us incorporating that concept into our being
There is, as you can see,
an internal/external dichotomy:
Art is imposed on an object
by the incorporation of Art into our being
both of which happen simultaneously
put forever in motion
by the first utterance of Art
The utterance is the coming-into-being of all things
so,
every utterance is a coming-into-being
within the history of all like utterances
while simultaneously
manifesting itself as an entirely singular utterance
The utterance exists
both within and without
the continuum
it is itself and not itself
all inclusive and entirely exclusive
All of which is mediated by the Art object
represented in the Textual Chain
as the Productive Object
The Object catalyzes the utterance
All utterance starts with the Subject
engaging the Productive Object
the utterance itself is an Imposition
of the Subject's Intent in uttering
on a Receptive Object
i.e.
The spoken word
The Canvas
The Marble
The Other
As the utterance is an Imposition
it can never be the Productive Object
only Signify it
In turn,
the manifestation of the utterance
in conveyance
takes the place of the Productive Object
within the Totality,
thus the Textual Chain reinitiates,
and
in conveyance of the utterance
the utterance replaces the Productive Object
within the Totality
simultaneously
Accordingly
the Subject/Object dichotomy
has become impossible to separate
Both function simultaneously
in engaging the utterance
As Art is no different than any other utterance
the Productive Object (Art Object)
catalyzes the engagement of all interested parties:
i.e.
"The utterance of Chair"
The Subject (Artist)
looks at a chair (The Productive Object)
(That chair is perceived via the utterance of chair
for
the knowing of Chair is the reception of its utterance)
he creates an utterance of that chair
on the Receptive Object (Canvas)
The utterance of Chair has reproduced itself
via the Productive Object (the (C)hair)
The artist's utterance of Chair
is at once
its own marked utterance of Chair
while concurrently
absorbed in the Total utterance of Chair
(Chair's utterance within the Totality)
In Reception
the Totality engages the marked Chair
The marked Chair
is both
its own Productive Object
(The utterance of Chair)
and a reproduction of the Total utterance of Chair
In this way the Totality absorbs the marked Chair
The Productive object is visible only in the Totality
accordingly
All Subjects engage the Totality in utterance
conveying (as above) marked utterances
which are Received only via the Totality
That is to say,
All conveyance fails to communicate
the truth of the Productive Object
because of the Imposition of the Subject
In the Metaphysics of Text
Art exists in the Productive Process
which is
the marked utterance of Chair
coming into being
within the Totality
(Remember the Totality is Subjectively Constructed)
and Go!
And you Said:
ReplyDeleteSounds pretty simple. Almost a little too simple.. Is it saying that art "is" the manifestation of a new instance of a symbol within the totality of that symbol's meaning as it exists within the understanding of the artist and the witnesses of his/her art, or is it simply saying that art exists there?
If it's the former, that's seems really circular (might be the point), and if it's the latter, then duh.
It is saying both.
ReplyDeleteLets look at your points and see what we come up with:
1. Art "is" the manifestation of a new instance of a symbol
2. within the totality of that symbol's meaning
3. as it exists within the understanding of the artist
4. and the witnesses of his/her art
OR
Z. Simply art is there
1. Don't think "symbol."
These are things that are being engaged.
Due to our conscious engagement being mediated
by our own linguistic imposition
it also simultaneously manifests
within a kind of symbolic order (our consciousness).
That manifestation is too an object
(the utterance)
which triggers the above process
in the Reception of the Totality
These processes happen concurrently
with the utterance
2.Within the Totality, yes. Symbol and Meaning, no.
And its coming into being within the Totality
happens at the same time as its individual utterance
Both of which are mediated by the Object
The Object is the utterance
and the utterance of a thing
is always every utterance of itself
simultaneously
3. This is where you lose it
The Object is always the thing
Let me see if I can do this another way:
1.
The painter paints a chair
his knowing of the chair
(the knowing of chairs)
is the knowing of Chair
(the construct of Chair)
2.
The painter
therefore
paints a Chair
(the object obscured by its utterance)
and in so doing
manifests Chair
in his utterance (the painting)
3.
In reception of the Object
(the painting of Chair)
by the Totality
(this means the TOTALITY,
not simply "the public" or "the other,"
this includes the Totality of the utterance,
as well as everything else.
This is the coming-into-being of the utterance.)
the Object is subsumed by the Totality
4.
So,
The Painter paints Chair
(The Object marked by Imposition)
the painting of Chair
(The utterance of Chair)
in coming into being
is Chair objectified
at once
the construct of Chair
and its utterance
The point here is that
the utterance of Chair
and its individual utterance of Chair
manifest in the coming into being
of the utterance
Neither has primacy
The utterance is paradoxical
It is Reproducing itself AS IT IS Produced.
Z.
The utterance of Art
as an utterance
functions as above
cyclically
but
cyclically
only in that it is
ever changing and never changing
simultaneously
(the nature of the Paradox)
I don't know if this is really a duh moment
maybe it is
it seems simple enough
but apply it to the Object
the Art Object
(though any Object will do)
and things get more complicated
If you haven't read
some of the earlier Metaphysics of Text
this might be a chance to explore
I might be taking things for granted
but understand this:
Existence is not the same as our Consciousness
All we can talk about is our own Consciousness
The Metaphysics of Text
addresses the First Causes of Text
the Object (as it is in Existence)
which is to say
We aim to perceive the Object
though our perception
is mediated by the Text
therefore:
The utterance as Object
The Art Object
exists outside of the Text
though it manifests via Text
while simultaneously defining the Text
(the utterance)
The Object obscures itself
due to the Imposition of our Being
which is to say
the utterance is not the Object
though it proxies it
in our consciousness
The Signifier ≠ The Signified
because of our consciousness
our Imposition
our utterance
our Being
If the effects this has on Art
is not immediately clear
than maybe I will write some more on Art
before moving on to Minimalism
Let me know.
By "Text," you pretty much mean the language that we build our consciousness upon, yeah? And to engage anything in existence, we must do so through that consciousness? So, our engagement with the Art Object (in existence) can only be mediated through the consciousness?
ReplyDeleteThe utterance of the Art Object simultaneously brings into being our own utterance about it, which is purely a textual creation of individual consciousness (and not the object itself as it simply exists).
You say we impose our Being on the Art Objects, which is good, but I think the aesthetic moment generated by good Art is also a simultaneous imposition of itself on our Being, altering us in whatever way we let it (as it is obscured by our Being and because we can choose to not engage with the Object).
Lol, you let me know.
You've got it right, essentially, the problem, as with most problems, is language. Though, if we don't address it now, I'd be afraid that further discussion would make even less sense due to certain semiotic assumptions.
ReplyDeleteBy "Text" I mean the language which constitutes our consciousness.
Saying the language comes before consciousness, i.e. "the language that we build our consciousness upon" is a bit of a false starter. The Text only exists because there is consciousness, and consciousness constantly redefines the Text. The Text is the mediator between "Reality" and our consciousness. Make sense?
To engage existence, because we have a consciousness, is to engage the Text. The Text stands for the Objects of "Reality."
So, our engagement with the Art Object is mediated by the Text (as a result of our being/consciousness).
"The Object itself as it simply exists" is never engaged, only the utterance of the Object. Every subsequent utterance is its individual moment, i.e. "Look at that chair" subsumed by the Totality of Chair.
The individual utterance is taken for itself within the Totality.
"look at that chair" in utterance evokes Chair in conveyance. I must know of Chair before I can look for "that chair." However, "that chair" still retains its autonomy in that the conveyance did indicate the individual utterance, through evoking the Totality.
Its crucial to note the cyclical nature of these thing, their always-happening-simultaneously nature.
Don't mistake Imposition for alteration, or affectation. Think of it more as being-in-relation to the object. Either way, you're getting close to what makes this interesting:
If my Consciousness is constituted in Text, and my Being likewise composes the Text in imposition, and the utterance (Art Object) is both constituted by the Text (the utterance in Totality) and in coming-into-being composes the Text, then when I perceive the Art Object, it both constitutes my Consciousness and marks my consciousness with its singularity, which I in turn reciprocate.
Now understand, nothing is both itself and its totality, because the totality is all that-which-is-not-the-singular-instance, so nothing can be both itself and not itself. Your consciousness is no exception, through the process of engaging the Object, the consciousness is destabilized by this paradox, itself and not itself.
The act of Being in the Text is the state of this paradox.
If we can accept that
at least logically or hypothetically
then we can say that our determinable state of truth
exists in this paradox
The truth of the Object is that which it is in paradox
The when-it-is-and-is-not-itself of the Object
Understanding that the relationship between
Subject and Object is reciprocal (omni-constitutional)
Then know that the truth of the Object
is in turn
the when-it-is-and-is-not-itself of the Subject
Now,
I like to think that Art's job
is to show us the Truth.