richochet part 2.
Monday, June 29, 2009
with any semiotic artifact, the relevant ways to engage it are those that make you better understand [by your own standards of understanding] the artifact as a communicative action, on the same parameters by which we understand every action qua action: reasons, causes, intentions, techniques, impact, consequences [and the interrelations of each to each]. in this sense there isn't a difference between what we do when we read an artifact cooperatively and what we do when we read an artifact symptomatically -- to read is always to gather information [and form judgments] along these various parameters. reading is 'symptomatic' when the information it gathers about the communication ruins the communication's intended impact.to engage an artifact more comprehensively is to try derive from it a further understanding of the communicative action, in learning more facts or in developing more realized judgments. art is more 'artsy' the more this process bolsters its intended impact [not necessarily by being 'intended' itself, but by harmonizing with the intended impact].
so: artifact A is [successfully] artsy for reader R if any reading practice of which R believes that it substantially furthers his understanding of A [as a communicative action] bolsters for R what R believes to be the intended impact of A.
an e-mail from josh of 'josh blog' explains why-and-how our readerly mapping of relevant questions exceeds the questions we're presently asking:
i would reckon that two things our conception of a 'more
comprehensive reading' tracks are:
1) our awareness that the passive aspects of reading, like
the passive aspects of our relation to any speech, are
not always within our powerto notice, control, and
understand while they're happening - but that
we can sometimes do so after the fact, particularly
when there is aconcrete object existing independently
of our reading of it, for us to coordinate with.
2) books are just so long, and our (focal) attention
to them so variable, that it's too much work to always
give them such full attention from word to word. this
could be made into an epistemological point, but i think
it would be better as a point about response. just like
we don't draw on the complete depths of our capacities
for response to another in every conversation, every interaction
(many of which are routine anyway), we don't draw on them
for response to every moment in a book; but we recognize that
a more perfect encounter with the book would remain open
to that kind of total response, on every occasion that
calls for it. and unlike our responses to others, this
doesn't impose an impossibly, frighteningly high standard
on books that are to be met with this response. (they
won't shrink from it as another person might.)
And on his own platform adds:
Often, with the non-artsy, I am the one who shrinks away from more comprehensive understanding: I do not want to risk a disappointment great enough to make me give up on any engagement at all.
comprehensive reading' tracks are:
1) our awareness that the passive aspects of reading, like
the passive aspects of our relation to any speech, are
not always within our powerto notice, control, and
understand while they're happening - but that
we can sometimes do so after the fact, particularly
when there is aconcrete object existing independently
of our reading of it, for us to coordinate with.
2) books are just so long, and our (focal) attention
to them so variable, that it's too much work to always
give them such full attention from word to word. this
could be made into an epistemological point, but i think
it would be better as a point about response. just like
we don't draw on the complete depths of our capacities
for response to another in every conversation, every interaction
(many of which are routine anyway), we don't draw on them
for response to every moment in a book; but we recognize that
a more perfect encounter with the book would remain open
to that kind of total response, on every occasion that
calls for it. and unlike our responses to others, this
doesn't impose an impossibly, frighteningly high standard
on books that are to be met with this response. (they
won't shrink from it as another person might.)
And on his own platform adds:
Often, with the non-artsy, I am the one who shrinks away from more comprehensive understanding: I do not want to risk a disappointment great enough to make me give up on any engagement at all.
