Does Dabney describe seeing ostriches and a one-legged sea captain with a harpoon?
Is the painting Dabney describes revealed to be a still life of a bowl of fruit?
Yes, yes, and yes.
While individual interpretations of a creative work may certainly vary, there is nonetheless such a thing as “creator’s intent”, i.e. what the artist/writer intends the audience to experience. The Sistene Chapel ceiling is not a Rorschach blot.
There are those, however, who cannot see another’s creation on any but the terms they want to see. There are also, conversely, those who cannot perceive any work on other than the most literal level. They may be mentally disturbed, like Dabney here, or they may be so set in their notions of how things ought to be that they shut their eyes to or attempt to shout down anything that goes against their preconceived notions. Or they might simply be fools.
Much representational art is nonetheless in no way realistic. Cartooning comes to mind. There is also much art created where something looks like one thing at first glance but like another from a closer study, or where the apparent meaning is different from (sometimes the complete opposite of) the artist’s intended meaning. Cartooning comes to mind again, as do surrealism, allegorical paintings, iconography, trompe l’oeil, and so on. Not at all abstract, but with meanings far exceeding mere representation.
Of course, you have to have the capacity to perceive nuance and irony to fully understand such works; literal-mindedness is severely limiting when it comes to art appreciation.
runar almost 14 years ago
My neighbor has a mower like that.
lewisbower almost 14 years ago
You see art, I see lunch.
jimcos almost 14 years ago
Kinda sucks the validity out of Clyde’s assertion that “all views are valid”, eh?
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Does Clyde assert that all art is subjective?
Does Dabney describe seeing ostriches and a one-legged sea captain with a harpoon?
Is the painting Dabney describes revealed to be a still life of a bowl of fruit?
Yes, yes, and yes.
While individual interpretations of a creative work may certainly vary, there is nonetheless such a thing as “creator’s intent”, i.e. what the artist/writer intends the audience to experience. The Sistene Chapel ceiling is not a Rorschach blot.
There are those, however, who cannot see another’s creation on any but the terms they want to see. There are also, conversely, those who cannot perceive any work on other than the most literal level. They may be mentally disturbed, like Dabney here, or they may be so set in their notions of how things ought to be that they shut their eyes to or attempt to shout down anything that goes against their preconceived notions. Or they might simply be fools.
jpozenel almost 14 years ago
Dabney is just trying to point out how ridiculous and pretentious Clyde’s “expert art advice” really is.
MisngNOLA almost 14 years ago
fritz, or they might simply be otra vez
Dirty Dragon almost 14 years ago
Dabney was at the original Woodstock, wasn’t he?
runar almost 14 years ago
How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
I know two answers to that, runar:
1) A fish!
2) Two. One to change the light bulb, and one to fill the bathtub with brightly-colored appliances.
Clyde’s advice isn’t ridiculous or pretentious, jtp, it’s just overstated.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
^Simplified to the point of uselessness.
Much representational art is nonetheless in no way realistic. Cartooning comes to mind. There is also much art created where something looks like one thing at first glance but like another from a closer study, or where the apparent meaning is different from (sometimes the complete opposite of) the artist’s intended meaning. Cartooning comes to mind again, as do surrealism, allegorical paintings, iconography, trompe l’oeil, and so on. Not at all abstract, but with meanings far exceeding mere representation.
Of course, you have to have the capacity to perceive nuance and irony to fully understand such works; literal-mindedness is severely limiting when it comes to art appreciation.
Saucy1121 Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Maybe it was drawn by Thom over at Birdbrains and Dabney is seeing faces.