Wait a second

October 3, 2008

Okay but oh now come on.  Seriously.  First let’s talk about the intentional fallacy: it’s not a good thing.  It presumes the importance of the author over the work created by said author, and maybe where people want to rush in and assume the fallacy is because this is a blog, which we’re supposed to believe is almost entirely authorial in construction. 

Fuck that noise.

The purpose of this blog (and all my work) is to share bits and pieces of the world, not bits and pieces of myself.  If you want to know about me (and: why?) then contact me directly.  So, henceforth: a lot of stylistic changes around here.  A skinning and boning of the author.  If I’ve mentioned biographical stuff here it’s because I thought it had a larger social relevance about the epic fail of contemporary society to be able to handle its shit.  I’ma gonna go back and delete all that, though.

What’s really troubling is how a link or a written opinion seems to be suggestive of discourse but an image (still!) doesn’t function in that way.  That’s pretty fucked up.  If you can’t understand visual communication as fundamentally discursive, please do not read this blog. Everything is discursive, everything leads to further questions, everything is interesting.  So I won’t scotch the blog or screw the pooch but I can simplify things, a bit, by staying out of the way.



One Response to “Wait a second”

  1. Will Says:

    Semiotic theory (Saussure) holds that we represent the world by
    systems of signs, which gain meaning by our organizing them
    into categories, which have relationships to each other, and that
    the structure of language, as well as communication based on
    non-verbal images and gestures, reflects this. This categorization
    “is a discursive basis for practices of discrimination” (Roger Fowler,
    Language in the News). The cultural organization of groups in
    our minds is an ideological practice, as is the interpretation of

    The creation of images is a cultural process, but since viewers
    interpret them ideologically, I think the communication process
    could usefully include responses to what message was received,
    or what questions provoked. I assume that there are few “right”
    answers, though I (who have no fear of galleries) admit to
    wondering what message the artist was “sending,” if indeed he/she
    was doing that. Edward Hopper once said he just wanted to paint
    sunlight on the side of a house, and I think that an openness to
    questions/interpretations is necessary. Anecdotal evidence
    (and most accounts, are, to some degree) suggests that good people avoid galleries since they fear they won’t understand the “right” answer, that they won’t get the message the artist was trying to convey. This is a function of viewers’ ideologies, too, the idea that “artists” as a group use art to express ideas, and that
    there has to be a “point” to every piece, which viewers would
    get, if they were only smart enough (and how many artists
    support this elitist attitude?)

    I think demystifying art, while educating people as to its potential
    for meaning creation (while stressing that it is not always used
    in a clear communicative way) would win a lot more art lovers,
    and hopefully (in a purely humanitarian sense) more artists.

    Cut the biographical stuff if you feel you must, though I find that very powerful and worthwhile in the blogs I read.

    Isn’t one great purpose of blogs to try to allow us to communicate when we don’t feel we can in real life? Case in point: I just read
    today a blog post by a girl in NYC who discovered, through reading
    some guy’s blog post, that she wasn’t alone in seeing relationships
    the way she did. She was blown away, wanted to contact the guy,
    and yet they never would have spoken had they sat next to each
    other in class for 20 years. I only say this to point out that you
    are not the one who gets to determine whether or not you’re
    interesting to others, only to yourself. Maybe bury the biographical
    stuff in a separate, subtly disguised, section?

    Anyway, good luck with the restructuring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: