Wright Chat

 
FAQ FAQ Register Register
Search Search Profile Profile
Memberlist Memberlist Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups Usergroups Log in Log in

>> Return to SaveWright Home Page

Wright and the Creative Mind
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wright Chat Forum Index -> Click Here for General Discussion Posts
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 9582

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It does not please me that these contraptions cost as much as they do considering how short a time they work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 18262
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. I wasn't about the pay Apple prices for an exquisitely designed and made keyboard; this one was less that $50 and seems to work just fine
---even if it has an irrelevant circus of alternating LED colored lighting (which spills unattractively around each key). Jony Ive would plotz . . .

I set it on steady white---or blue, on holidays---and flame on. Flat keys are still a novelty for me.

S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
jay



Joined: 02 May 2016
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The process of creating art and the experience of it after the fact are two different subjects.


"In particular, the experiences of the author during the creation of the work do not constitute any part of the created work. It may happen––and one should not dispute this––that there are various close relations between the work and the psychic life and individuality of the author. The genesis of the literary work in particular may be conditioned by the author's determinate experiences, and it may be that the whole structure of the work and its individual qualities are functionally dependent on the psychic qualities of the author, his talent, and the type of his "world of ideas" and his feelings, and that the work thus carries the more of less pronounced traces of his total personality and in this way "expresses" it. But all these facts in no way change the primary and yet frequently unappreciated fact that the author and his work constitute two heterogeneous objects which, already on the basis of their radical heterogeneity, must be fully differentiated." (italics added)
--Roman Ingarden, "The Literary Work of Art"

For me, this passage alone sums up how we can easily separate the art from the artist.

Sadly, for this discussion at least, created works have been analyzed far more often than the creative process itself..... If anyone has any recommendations for books that dig deep into the function of the imagination, generally or specifically to any artist, I'd be very interested.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 18262
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Wed Dec 04, 2019 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good. If not "how" we can differentiate between the two, the quoted passage at least makes clear that we must try to make that distinction . . . ?

S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 9582

PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have never had the slightest idea how to differentiate between what was going on in the head of an artist and the art produced as a result. It cannot be deduced without a complete understanding of the mind of the artist in general, before, during and after the work being examined, which, even with the cooperation of the artist, is a subjective determination. It would necessarily involve some sort of psychoanalysis, which may be presumed to be a scientific methodology, but which is definitely not rigorous.

With respect to FLW specifically, add to this difficulty the complete unwillingness (if ever it had come up) of him to subject himself to such examination, and you get nowhere.

I am not convinced that it is necessary, or, if it is at all possible, desirable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 18262
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll buy that.

It seems to be the job of religion to answer the unanswerable; perhaps there's a faith or a philosophy that can provide a clue ? I suppose not . . .

In the meantime, the discussion raises the question, always of interest to me, of whether the viewer of art needs extraneous input---data not visible
to the casual observer---in order properly to "appreciate" the work. I have in mind, for instance, painting (a purely visual art) when asking myself this
question.

Does one need more than the work itself to get something from, say, a Jackson Pollock ? Does it help to know what came before, and after, the
work in question ? Can one understand the work better after reading about how Pollock came to make such a painting; to know specifically how
the work was made; to learn what the artist himself may have said or written, on any subject related to this work or to his output in general ?

Finally, what would Pollock have said if asked whether one needed anything beyond the painting itself, to understand and/or to enjoy it ?

S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wright Chat Forum Index -> Click Here for General Discussion Posts All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP