We can agree that one needs to understand a language to know what might be
expressed, that abstract expressionism, for example, is opaque to many, and
that someone who has never arrived in a capital might have trouble
distinguishing Mombasa from somewhere else. But surely these are arguments
about fluency or comprehension rather than capability? In a few weeks I'll be
sitting in thesis orals in the art college where I work. Students will try to
explain what "idea" their work aims to explore. My colleagues' notion of an
"idea" and a philosopher's may differ, but if it's impossible that an assembly
of this and that or a performance or an ever-looping tape can express an idea,
then the students are being asked to undertake what cannot be done, which
doesn't reflect well on us.
David
On Apr 8, 2015, at 8:50 AM, Omar Kusturica wrote:
Eh, it's not clear to me what 'abstraction' is. Arabesque may be abstract in
the sense that it is not representational, but that is probably not what is
meant. I wouldn't take it for granted that paintings of abstract concepts
exist, as opposed to paintings that provide concrete examples of these
concepts. For example, Munch's "Melancholy" is a painting of a melancholic
face, not really a painting of melancholy. At the very least, it is something
that can be assumed without discussion.
About a painting that will tell me by way of hints that Paris is the capital
of France, I strongly suspect that these 'hints' will be readable only by one
who knows it already, and quite a few other facts about Paris and France
besides.
Perhaps we can take Mombasa instead and see how you lead me toward it by
hints that must surely be understandable to us both.
O.K.
