And hence a man who chooses not to paint, is expressing just as much as a man who chooses to paint.
I once met a man who said he had no expression in his life (not really). I immediately thought about how this was even possible. There is always expression, even if there is no expressionistic details obvious. Say, we ask a painter what is the least amount of expressing you can do in a piece? I think there would be two problems that would arise, one being, can one express nothing at all? The second, can we measure how much is expressed? Do some artists express more than others in their work, and is this intentional or even possible? And I think like the painter, and most people would have a very hard time with answering these questions. I feel like the only contribution I could make is to say that, we must first start at the roots of what it means to express. And, no, I am not referring to the strict denotative meaning of the word `express`, but the strictly connotative meaning the gravitas it carries when said. And it is this connotative adaptability in language, that language itself becomes very subjective. For example, "I saw a red horse." That is rather objective don't you think? And remember that context has to do with connotative significance. Which leads me to tend to exclaim that everything in communication is subjective. Let's go back to the red horse. A simple sentence really, but there could be so much more depth and meaning behind what is said. For example, if we said this while we were fighting the Soviet Union on the battle field, seeing a red horse might denote a communist horse. However if we said this in North America thousands of years ago, when the Navajo didn't encounter the Golden Empire, an indian might have said in their native tongue, "I saw a red horse". Which could mean I saw a horse from a another village, one that dresses their horses in red. The same sentence has a alternative features depending on context. Thus when we communicate we are always going to have a context, and thus turns the connotative meaning (of the subject matter) into a plethora of different symbolic meanings or values that lead to other allusions that are attempting to be communicated.
And now we return to the lovely land of art, almost thought I had drifted away didn't you? Due to art being a style of communication that is different to any other medium of communication that we have. There are many types of communication, print, radio, pictures in the form of television. But still a picture is what we will remain on for breathe or two. You may say, that doesn't a picture have more context than just a simple sentence for example. If I showed you a picture of a red horse, which parallels with our said statement. I would evaluate the picture to have a large amount of different context surrounding the piece. I find it more telling than a simple sentence, although the context (which makes it subjective), is large as well. How did the person say it? Where did they say it? In what language did they say it? In what tone/pitch/manner did the person say it. And to juxtapose our picture (photo) of a red horse. There are also different context surrounding it. Like, how was the picture taken? In black and white or in color, or embossed or etched. What lighting was used? Is the horse light up and if so, in what direction? And one commonality we see with all other forms of communications where did subject matter happen to be communicated? I would think that not only what is inside the brim of the photo curate different layers of context, but also what is outside the frame. Did you see this photo in a back alley way where other graffiti is present, or did you see it in an art gallery. Imagine how important the context of location is on evaluating what is being communicated. This always reminds me of Banksy and his placement. In the art gallery is the picture (photo) framed highly or lowly? Is the picture framed outside ontop a building or below in a sewer. And how does that relate to the significance of the connotative meaning of the work. Also, if the picture is then painted, another added layer of context is that of brush strokes and blending of colors. I would think that, that poor painter that we gave a migraine to earlier and hop back on that train with a couple more questions. There are two man who stand in front of a canvas to paint. One starts painting a beautiful red horse (because I said so), and the other chooses not to paint anything at all. Which one expressed more? I think it would be really impressive if you could answer this question, because if you did, you would then be defining a value system upon which you are determining the quantity and the quality of an expression. Which I feel I have propositioned is a subjective identity, and thus related to every single one of us indepently based upon what we have been genetically designed to be attracted to.
The more questions I ask the more layered I become, and sometimes I need to claw my way out of all the pit of unknowledge I have created. I like to think the best way to do this is by simply restating a couple major premises, that will help get my thinking back on track to what is at hand.
It is impossible to be expressionless. Hence all expression is subjective along with communication due to connotative context, thus all interpretations are different.
And hence a man who chooses not to paint, is expressing just as much as a man who chooses to paint.
Having recently read George Orwell's 1984, I thought he was a master of irony in his satire. The main governing body outlawing and doing away with expression (Winston's writings), itself was an expression by the government. And of course we think why should the government be able to do more than we can, when is comes to expressing itself. I myself, consider expression to be a human right, and quality that can never be stricken down or imposed upon. Perhaps the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack exemplifies this ( Jan 2015). And perhaps the one thing George Orwell got wrong, was the idea that we could love Big Brother, as in we could lose our subjective basis for expression. All in all, I really love Orwell, and his diction. I am making a point to touch on English Literature now. Perhaps a Voyage to Arcturus, written in 1920, will do me good when examining the problems of good and evil, alongside Dostoevsky, I should be more precise and accurate in my quest to learn humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment