stm31415 wrote:
> Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>We have a current IRTC topic.
>>
> 
> ooh. I haven't been povving recently, so I hadn't looked. I may have to get
> in on this one ;)
> 
Eeeee!  Well if I generate one convert it will all have been worthwhile ;)


> 
>>>but can anything involving text truely be minimal?
>>
>>You can certainly go to more reductive extremes.  But text can be a
>>vehicle for reductive strategies too I would think.
>>
> 
> I would agree, with the caveat that text can be reductive ONLY if you manage
> to force past the previous meaning of the words FIRST, then bring the
> viewer back to what it says. Dada writings often made text meaningless;
> you'd have to then return the meaning afterword - that would be a true
> trick, and an excellent piece of art.

These mock clever little design plays don't really reach such heights I 
admit.  But what if you leave the meaning of the word in but make it 
self-referential to the point of vacuity?


> 
> Niether is the problem. The problem is that the format of your work
> *itself*, that's the format, mind you, already has multiple, deep-seated
> associations attached to it in everyone's mind. Whether or not they are the
> same doesn't really matter; you are "thinking of a finger pointing at the
> moon," not the moon itself.
> 

ll

The question, 'is this "two" or does it mean "two?"', has an immutable 
fascination that the question, 'how did it come to mean "three" or 
"eleven" instead of "two?' will never have.

Anyway I take your point and recognized the potential for your complaint 
  and other ones too.  But I can always take the cheap way out and say I 
am only making posters. :P




> 
>>Anyway, the whole story of how computers came to produce meanings is
>>certainly an interesting one.  Haven't some argued that the breakthrough
>>came with the realization that symbolism would be necessary?
>>
> 
> Oh, absolutely. That's actually rather brilliant. You'll be doing bookstore
> coffeeshop poetry readings in no time ;). 

Now, now. ;)


>  The computer had not associations, no meaning was put behind
> 0 and 1. It was much more austere than building a machine whose assembler
> was english.
> 

But to increase its power something had to persist,...and the race got 
started.



> 
> OK, I confess. Worst definition ever. Go back to the whack from a Zen
> master. That is more like what I mean, I just wish I could say it
> concisely.
> 

Okay I'll give you your sword back, you're obviously a gentleman and 
it's not *such* a bad definition.


>>
>>So are you saying that painting is the only valid medium for a
>>minimalist enterprise?  I don't really believe you are but it seems we
>>should agree at this point that a more artificial and contrived thing
>>than oil paint on stretched canvas is hard to imagine.
> 
> 
> Now where did I say that? 

You seemed to be saying that the enterprise requires a medium with the 
special qualities needed to access pre-linguistic meaning.  I suppose 
where *I* get confused is that I do believe that painting, the bodily 
act of externalizing, does have those special qualities, but when 
reduced to its basic components, what seems to emerge more clearly is a 
set of conventions, not big meaning.

Post a reply to this message