samstevens Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 For some there is no power to these works. It doesn't resonate, end of story for them. I agree there’s nothing mandatory here, IMO. I think for a viewer of a visual medium that recognition of a symbol or The intent of the artist is most often not necessary. Some work communicates an abstraction with some clarity without requiring a viewer to be informed of the mechanisms at work. Yes, a viewer is entitled to the magic of art and an artist is entitled to secrets that no one may know. _______________________________ Many things happen and are known or not. The artist’s intent informs the work. Accidents, aside from intent, also may inform the work. The artist may be more or less aware of all his intentions, some remaining very sub-conscious. A viewer may or may not know and even when known may consider to varying degrees the artist’s intent. A viewer may simply want to form a personal relationship with the work … or not. Symbols get their power from their universality and their particularity, the way they strike the individual. They may be recognized but not felt personally and they may be felt personally but not recognized … and all things on the spectrum between those two. I think of Warhol and others. Artists are often being asked questions that boil down to the public wanting to know their secrets. They are often cleverly evasive even while those seemingly sarcastic or cynical or humorous evasions reveal something as well. I think of Warhol’s great quotes as important accompaniments to his art. In a sense, Warhol was his art. He was also his secrets and so was his art. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 "conversion" expresses my thoughts better than transformation :) i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 "conversion" expresses my thoughts better than transformation :) I’ll see your :) and raise you … :):) And I’ve got another one for you, lol … What would you think of co-presenting instead of or in addition to re-presenting. We do often speak in terms of either representing or re-presenting, but this transubstantiation business makes me want to explore the idea that an artist is often co-presenting. This seems well illustrated by Duchamp’s Fountain as well as photos that present both their subject and that which relies on but also transcends the subject, and as they present what’s in the photo as well as what is the photo. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 26, 2022 Share Posted March 26, 2022 (edited) i am still chewing & digesting on this one, "I think the physical differences of the objects remain and are significant even as we accept the conversion of one substance to another. Especially as regards photography is the idea that the subject in the photo 1) may be representative of what it pictures and simultaneously other than what it pictures, and 2) may be both subject and not-subject as a viewer moves back and forth between thinking in more literal subject-object terms and more abstract photo-as-subject-and-object terms." which may for me relate to your last post. Edited March 26, 2022 by inoneeye 1 i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 (edited) While thinking about abstractions and symbols - represent or re-present does strike at the core of this discussion imo. Copresenting doesn't lead Me in to thoughts of transubstantiation. Perhaps you can expound . Edited March 27, 2022 by inoneeye i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 ^ co-presenting i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
je ne regrette rien Posted March 27, 2022 Author Share Posted March 27, 2022 As a matter of fact the transubstantiation was introduced when "an oak tree" was first mentioned. And it was not even Craig-Martin who mentioned it, but rather his critics. The water glass on the shelf are certainly not symbolic, and I have some serious doubts about their abstraction. Possibly its Craig-Martin's act that turns these objects into something completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 As a matter of fact the transubstantiation was introduced when "an oak tree" was first mentioned. Indeed. And it fit the flow. Transubstantiation if not a direct path to the OP it is an organic sidetrack for this conversation. An interesting one for me as means to expand, explore a new concept that I think I will find useful along the way. i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samstevens Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 ^ Co-presenting Perhaps you can expound. Co-presenting seems to comport well conversion. When I think of representation, I tend to think inside the frame. This photo of a pipe represents the pipe the camera was pointed at. The cross represents religion, sacrifice. The tear represents sadness, ecstasy, awe ... I'm thinking transubstantiation comes in when I step outside the frame to deal with the photo as object. The bread is the body (the inner reality of the body, though without the same external characteristics and manifestations of the body). If the photo, as object, is the artist's perception (emotion, thought, etc.), then it seems to me it's not so much just representing or re-presenting the inner workings of the artist, it's a duality of substance sharing an essence. The photo and the artist's perception both still exist as they are and the photo also is the artist's perception. So the co-presentation would keep this duality at play. The artwork is the presentation of the art object and the presentation of the artist's perception. Representation is typically defined using such words as portrayal, stand-in, on behalf of, likeness. I was thinking representation might leave out the is-ness of transubstantiation. "You talkin' to me?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inoneeye Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 (edited) Representation is typically defined using such words as portrayal, stand-in, on behalf of, likeness. I was thinking representation might leave out the is-ness of transubstantiation. well pointed out. I think that is what intrigues me. When I think of representation, I tend to think inside the frame. and what about re-presention... ? i think I feel less bound by the frame. maybe. Certainly transubstantiation takes me way beyond the frame and the objectness. Edited March 27, 2022 by inoneeye i n o n e e y e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now