Wednesday, March 4, 2009


Does language have the mandate on meaning?

I’m thinking about the two commonly divided parts of the brain; right, left; verbal, visual; reptilian, modern, and wondering why we still cling so tightly to the superiority of the rational, verbal, analytical sub-routines at the expense of mystery, pleasure, and feeling? I see this as a continuation of the rational mind, let loose by the Enlightenment and evidence that humans must hold to knowable, quantifiable tid-bits out of evolutionary fear.

The old chestnut in art “form vs. content” which was widely discussed when I was going through school in the late 80’s and early 90’s, I believe hasn’t been answered, rather largely forgotten. I think the rationalists won. They categorized art as being interested in either form or content, with the majority of Abstract Expressionism art being formal and everything after being content (Pop, Minimal, etc.) I think the argument was the final blow to relegating Abstract Expressionism to the dust bin. But it also has taken a toll on what we should expect from art. Does a work of art have to have obvious signs and signifiers in order to have meaning? Is the meaning absent without these cues? Or is it merely too blurry for anyone but a select few to understand?

Idea is prime. Everything is an idea or collection of ideas. A plastic bag, the Mona Lisa, etc. Artists use ideas to re-present bits of the world back to an audience in order to reconstitute meaning. So, art can come from a gathered pile of carefully considered newspapers waded-up and scattered on the floor, as easily as it can come from cutting up the words on said papers and making whole new sentences. One yields and idea that is more “formal”, the other an idea that is more “verbal”. But both contain an idea.

Now the rationalists make the mistake of claiming only the verbal piece to have meaning because it has more accessible clues to it’s meaning. The lump of paper on the floor, has to be felt, like the land, a sun-set, etc. Therefore its meaning never goes through the language machine in our mind and as a result leaves no language in it’s wake, just sensations.

And why have the rationalists won? They own the very media they use to fight the battle. Words. Like taking your ball from the kickball field and going home. Game’s over when you say it’s over. Formalists, as a personality, may not care. We may be content to feel and know there is great reward in that, and choose to congregate with other “feelers” for company. But I think we feel less-than, or believe we’re less-than because we’ve been told so.

What’s to do? First, we must help our rationalist friends use their eyes, ears, and hands to understand the world through something other than language centers. And in understanding through the whole body, they might begin to see another vector of meaning, and might even take the risk to trust an entire industry that deals in this currency (us.) We’re not here to hurt you.

The recently passed veteran radio personality, (what does a long time in any industry have to do with fighting in a war?) Paul Harvey, gives a scathing critique of the visual sense when comparing it to the written word, stating that Shakespeare’s words offer far more for the mind to chew on than any movie could, or has (my paraphrase.) I associate his deep suspicion of the sensual, the body, with the Puritan/Protestant roots of our nation, especially in the Midwest. It seeks to vanquish the corporeal as just a temptation from the more important rational.

Bogus.

But dangerous when he preaches this hogwash to the semi-to-completely non-curious (we know who you are.) This is what leads a nation to believing that recess, visual art, music, gourmet food and the like should be looked upon with suspicion, even hatred, and definitely not funded with public monies for the public good. They then become entertainment and must compete with every other form of pass-time.

Be careful when you’re about to be swayed by an argument made by a rationalist. They will be very convincing because that’s what they’re good at, using language (much as I am here, maybe...) There are many ways to communicate, where would we be without the ability to read body language? (Besides engineering school) The list here is long and stands to justify that being human, and part of a “great nation” means we can make meaning from more than words and strong signifiers, we have a mandate to find meaning in forms, sounds, and good ole fashioned art too.

No comments:

Post a Comment