Friday, May 11, 2007

ten questions

I have a guest questionnaire up today at simpleposie ("functional, sincere and from Toronto"). The subject matter is the role of verbal description in understanding visual art. Go and participate.



Blogger Wil Murray said...

I still find the use of "verbal" confusing, as it hangs there so strangely next to the critic's principal medium: writing.
I am as much questioning my own preference for one definition of a word as you use of another.
Am I out to lunch connecting verbal so strongly to that which is spoken?

I have also been wrestling for the past year with personal pronoun use in my own work and the host of imaginary mes and wes and theys that speak in my painting. I was so excited to think I'd found a critic dealing with these things. Maybe it is the gulf between that initial excitement and disappointment that sticking me here.

9:42 PM  
Blogger arthur said...

According to this source, both my definition and yours are acceptable. Sorry for any confusion though. At any rate, my use of the word verbal ("reading a verbal description...") was probably needlessly redundant.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're talking about multiple "voices" as a metaphor for painting communicating on different levels. Sounds intriguing...

12:07 PM  
Blogger Wil Murray said...

Maybe not a metaphor? Not sure.
Mostly dealing with the illusory internal plurality described in phrases like "I told myself....". Many selves and others, all constructed within a singular self.
In painting, I find that over the months a painting is worked on, selves that made marks one day are others the following week. To be confronted o applauded, but still not accessible as a self, always another. By the same token, the very notion of working "on" a painting requires me to situate the painting and the work outside of myself, as if it were another....
There's tons on my blog about all this, check the tags "Narrative In Painting" and maybe "Personal Pronoun Use".

12:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home