Subject: Re: Percy and the Categorical Imperative, etc.
From: Dave Duty (daveduty@FLASH.NET)
Date: Sat Jun 26 1999 - 16:23:49 EDT
My original "quote" that "in the movement of art no one is alienated is more
fully and accurately reflected in the quote from The Man on the Train in Message
in the Bottle:
"There is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a literature of alienation. In
the re-presenting of alienation the category is reversed and becomes something
entirely different. There is a great deal of difference between an alienated
commuter riding a train and this same commuter reading a book about an alienated
commuter riding a train. (On the other hand, Huck Finn's drifting down the
river is somewhat the same as a reader's reading about Huck Finn drifting down
the river.) The nonreading commuter exists in true alienation, which is
unspeakable; the reading commuter rejoices in himself, the alienated character,
and the author. His mood is affirmatory and glad; Yes! that is now it is! --
which is an aesthetic reversal of alienation. It is related that when Kafka
read his work aloud to his friends, they would all roar with laughter until
tears came to their eyes. Neither Kafka nor his reader is alienated in the
movement of art [the source of my "quote"], for each achieves a reversal through
it re-presenting...."
So with regards to Pollack's art -- say as opposed to Monet -- if one is "moved"
one is not alienated. The co-constitution of a shared experience between I and
Thou via the intention of the art somehow connects you and me (the artist and
the viewer) -- and for a fleeting moment, we are not alone!
Make sense??
Nikki Barranger wrote:
> Dear Mr. Riddick,
>
> Here is a second response to your post on J. Pollock.
>
> It seems to me that the chief painters of this century addressing issues of
> alienation are the very connotative ones (Tooker and Edward Hopper are
> excellent examples) rather than the abstract expressionists like Pollock
> whose work seeks to engage the viewer in a far more direct manner. Perhaps
> you are caught up in the Santayana notion of the dehumanization of their
> painting as being an equivalent of alienation. If so I would simply disagree
> as I did with Santayana who I think misinterpreted the nature of the visual
> experience as a pleasureable exchange between painter and viewer.
>
> Nikki Barranger
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 11 2001 - 12:52:14 EST