Friday, January 27, 2006

Trying to befriend desparate parts of the reading.

Ok, so like, the readings:

"It is out of participtation in the general system of symbolic forms we call culture that participation in the particular we call art, which is in fract but a sector of it, is possible. A theory of art is thus at the same time a theory of culture, not in autnomous enterprise." Geertz 115

and

""We are interested in the intention of picutures and painters as a means to a sharper perception of the pictures, for us. It is the picture as covered by a description in our terms that we are attempting to explain; the explanation itself become part of a larger description of the picture, again in our terms." Baxandall 245

Though these are not in direct dialect, it is clear that they obviously dissent in several ways from each other. What is said that maintains continuity between the two (at least in my own phrasing) is the following:

Culture is an inevitable part of art, and an inevitable part of communication, and also of any representational system. So when we see a piece of art on our 'own terms,' their is an inference that we seek culture. Our opinion and perception, even prior to viewing the art is set by culture, and we are (as individuals) products of our culture. So when we set art interms of ourselves, and our view we both are culturally biased towards it, and it is culturally biased back towards us. Thus, if the culture we project upon the art is an object version of the cultural bias we innately possess, it will be prone to certain emphatic rejection or integration of the art.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home