> From: David Moon <DMoon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: apposition
> Urged on by my grammatical foundations, I untangled the words and arranged
> them as follows: I appose a new talent to a copy.
here we are.
without thinking to the nouns position, i exactly wanted to write a word
about some new "something" added, apposed,placed on some previously made
"thing", anything. Making such thing a new original , adapting a prior idea
with THE NEW something a new "idealist" can combine with the anterior..
> These abstract beginnings, however, frustrated my sensibilities, so I decided
on a concrete iteration of your sentence: I appose Dali [new talent] to his
version of the Leonardo Da
> Vinci's last supper, The Sacrament of the Last Supper [copy].
ok
> Next comes the most difficult step. Appose refers to a grammatical structure,
before following, let me put here something. in my mother language, apposer
can also "mean" placing something on something else to change his visual
aspect. actually you finely deduce from the grammatical english one similar
fact, using the speech as basic reference.
> so one must then transform your sentence into an actual example of speech.
(just wondering: why transform a written sentence into an example of speech?
You can just read/spell such sentence without any transformation . just
using plain "passive" actuation without interpretation...)
> Using our first example as a guide, I deduced that the framework for this
> would entail: the [copy] [new talent]; or, conversely, the [new talent]
> [copy]. This is where I ran into trouble, for I arrived at: the Dali Sacrament
> of the Last Supper; or, perversely, The Sacrament of the Last Supper Dali. I
> expect you intend the former, for the latter does not make sense to my ear,
> though it requires us to understand "the Dali" as the painting, not the [new
> talent]. I can accept that adjustment, but I am not sure what you are trying
> to accomplish. It seems fairly uncontroversial, even obvious. Of course it's
> Dali's Sacrament of the Last Supper...that's what he called it, but it does
> not tell us anything about "originality."
I would say here I suppose any new talent "superposed,juxtaposed,based
on,(apposed)" (to) some anterior piece or "art" would give a new original.
"working hard" to attain a new (h)artifact (?) is the job of the artworker.
(just playing with words)
i was not thinking of a word's play between copy=new talent and their
position in some text,actually; I'm not a specialist in grammar and or
dialectical work on the importance of the position of each word in a
sentence.
Following with your comparison, Dali's work is partially inspired/copied
from the Da vinci's work. Dali once saw it , and decided to "appose" his own
talent to some already original work originated in another context, other
artistic tendances, a.s.o. Why did he decide to make his own Last judgment ?
Ask any talented or not artist for his reasons to do that.
How could Dali, in this case , have been avoiding the influence
-visual-artistic-any kind- of the leonardo's work and Invent a complete new
last scene without beeing considered a copist ? A molderer(?) ? A re-maker,
as movie makers frecuently are?
>
> I decided that perhaps you mistakenly transposed some words and intended the
> apposition of the new talent -now the new work- with the old work.
Exactly mi idea. even said in incorrectly used english, but i like to use
wods in unsensed senses, why not.
So let's appose to the old idea, making a re-interpretation under another
new kind of standards. going to a new kind of visionary work. Like when the
apostats did something similar when they added some new religious thinking
to a preexisting "original"(?) one.
>Here we
> engage the foundations of intertextuality - Dali meets Leonardo. I arrived at:
> the Dali Last Supper. We make the same grammatical concession and adjustments
> as above, but again, fairly uncontroversial. It may be unclear as to whether
> one has identified the subject or the predecessor, but it makes sense. It
> introduces Dali and establishes a relationship between Dali's and a
> predecessor's work, but it does not define the dimensions that relationship.
> It is hardly startling and barely informative. What does it tell us about
> "originality"?
i must stop here. Was Andy Warhol original when he re-invented, reenacted,
reconsidered the campbell soup cans in some of his art-works ?
was he a creator or just a plain arranger of preexisting art-ifacts ?
Who or what is "introducing" Dali, anyway ? Da Vinci ? in which sense?
then was Warhol "introduced" by the Campbell's soup industrializer, or at
least by the designer of this can's logo, many decades ago?
I don't see any introduction from a prior experience to a newer one when an
artist re-does a good quality work basing such on a preexisting one. Except
for the viewer, who can realte the new art with the "older"(?) one ( as if
art could become "old", i donno how...)
where is the difference between art-work and art(e)(i)facts ?
between work-ing or fact-ing with art ? just plain vocabulary variances ?
>
> More broadly defined, "apposition" refers to a placing side by side or next to
> each other. I would suggest that we have done essentially this with each
> exercise. We have placed Dali next to his own or another's work. In each case
> we identified an undefined relationship between them, but we have not
> communicated anything about originality or the originality of these works.
why "undefined" ? Is't possible to identify something undefined ? where are
we going here ?
> Perhaps, however, I have misread your message or mislaid my analysis.
donno where is the start block in such analysis.
First I disagree with your writing " We have placed Dali next to his own or
another's work". He placed himself there. He never ask me, you or nobody to
place him next,in front,behind, his OWN work. He produced because he felt
the necessity and loved his art. He was certainly his own critic,
disregarding his "bad" production. His relationship with his work or his
realtionship with da vinci's work doesnt' matter at all. The important was
what he saw before and kept seeing finishing each of his canvas. If we
later feel like he did feel, he did good art/good work.He became an artwork,
art factor, art factory by his own talented brain.
If we need to reinvent his work to find some extravanganza there, that's our
right as spectators. he didn't exactly care of what each spectator would see
in his Last judgment. he wanted to paint that, he tought probably the Da
Vinci's work was a interesting starting block for some running visionary new
concept.
I suppose the basic idea, (mine) was that any artist can re-invent "old
talented artwork" using the "apposition", to such, of his own talent. A kind
of re-vision (viewing again).By him for Us, spectators, viewers.
As for the concept or the word original it seems secundary. In this case at
least.
where is the original of let's say the Statue of the Liberty ? In a scaled
model used to check the proportions ?
Of the Buddha who was recently destroyed by the talibans? Was such an
original or a copy ?
but originality as "novelty" is important. original as if the expression of
some peculiar personal distinct vision on some-thing who seems interesting
in someone's mind.Eventually later into others, if the artist succeeds in
his "transmission" of concepts to such receptors.
the "thing" can then be an "older" work, not "original" for beeing there for
some centuries. Even if such "old work" can have been very innovative when
produced first.
There possibly a reason for Dali's "copy" ( would better say
re-interpretation) of Da Vinci's Last Judgment. he was feeling the
necessity to confront this work and give his own vision of it, even with his
new ideas. To re-invent it.
He (Dali) apposed then in front of Us, over the wall of our visual fields,
like a poster, his new interpretation of the original.
Like an "affiche" on a brick wall.
Many musicians, artists, photographers,architects,a.s.o , do frecuently
that, they "adopt", make their own, as Dali did, a good interesting idea
adapting it to their own ideas.
Meaby i'm completely out there. just tell me if i'm wrong. Give me a good
idea. Appose it there ( as the antonym of Oppose it there ? Or finally is it
quite the same ?)
(funny, just remembering some masters degrees in France are the result of a
"concours d'opposition", because of dialectical discussion over contents
with eventually opposed arguments, but enriching the final, global result of
the teorical exchange.)
"Du conflit naît le progrès,
car de la routine l'ennui."
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
appreciate such answer. too frecuently i write without analyzing all
aspects of the words used. also translating from french toughts to misused
or unused or desused english words. mestized with Spanish ones...
how many originals created Rodin who were never seen ? never copied ?
how many paintings were burned,or destroyed, by Van Gogh or Modigliani?
who cares ? does' THAT matter ?
Patrick
¼?ß
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:59:37 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at LISTS.PSU.EDU (1.8e)"
<LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: File: "DESIGN-L LOG0202"
To: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-ELNK-AV: 0
> Subject: Re: apposition
> Urged on by my grammatical foundations, I untangled the words and arranged
> them as follows: I appose a new talent to a copy.
here we are.
without thinking to the nouns position, i exactly wanted to write a word
about some new "something" added, apposed,placed on some previously made
"thing", anything. Making such thing a new original , adapting a prior idea
with THE NEW something a new "idealist" can combine with the anterior..
> These abstract beginnings, however, frustrated my sensibilities, so I decided
on a concrete iteration of your sentence: I appose Dali [new talent] to his
version of the Leonardo Da
> Vinci's last supper, The Sacrament of the Last Supper [copy].
ok
> Next comes the most difficult step. Appose refers to a grammatical structure,
before following, let me put here something. in my mother language, apposer
can also "mean" placing something on something else to change his visual
aspect. actually you finely deduce from the grammatical english one similar
fact, using the speech as basic reference.
> so one must then transform your sentence into an actual example of speech.
(just wondering: why transform a written sentence into an example of speech?
You can just read/spell such sentence without any transformation . just
using plain "passive" actuation without interpretation...)
> Using our first example as a guide, I deduced that the framework for this
> would entail: the [copy] [new talent]; or, conversely, the [new talent]
> [copy]. This is where I ran into trouble, for I arrived at: the Dali Sacrament
> of the Last Supper; or, perversely, The Sacrament of the Last Supper Dali. I
> expect you intend the former, for the latter does not make sense to my ear,
> though it requires us to understand "the Dali" as the painting, not the [new
> talent]. I can accept that adjustment, but I am not sure what you are trying
> to accomplish. It seems fairly uncontroversial, even obvious. Of course it's
> Dali's Sacrament of the Last Supper...that's what he called it, but it does
> not tell us anything about "originality."
I would say here I suppose any new talent "superposed,juxtaposed,based
on,(apposed)" (to) some anterior piece or "art" would give a new original.
"working hard" to attain a new (h)artifact (?) is the job of the artworker.
(just playing with words)
i was not thinking of a word's play between copy=new talent and their
position in some text,actually; I'm not a specialist in grammar and or
dialectical work on the importance of the position of each word in a
sentence.
Following with your comparison, Dali's work is partially inspired/copied
from the Da vinci's work. Dali once saw it , and decided to "appose" his own
talent to some already original work originated in another context, other
artistic tendances, a.s.o. Why did he decide to make his own Last judgment ?
Ask any talented or not artist for his reasons to do that.
How could Dali, in this case , have been avoiding the influence
-visual-artistic-any kind- of the leonardo's work and Invent a complete new
last scene without beeing considered a copist ? A molderer(?) ? A re-maker,
as movie makers frecuently are?
>
> I decided that perhaps you mistakenly transposed some words and intended the
> apposition of the new talent -now the new work- with the old work.
Exactly mi idea. even said in incorrectly used english, but i like to use
wods in unsensed senses, why not.
So let's appose to the old idea, making a re-interpretation under another
new kind of standards. going to a new kind of visionary work. Like when the
apostats did something similar when they added some new religious thinking
to a preexisting "original"(?) one.
>Here we
> engage the foundations of intertextuality - Dali meets Leonardo. I arrived at:
> the Dali Last Supper. We make the same grammatical concession and adjustments
> as above, but again, fairly uncontroversial. It may be unclear as to whether
> one has identified the subject or the predecessor, but it makes sense. It
> introduces Dali and establishes a relationship between Dali's and a
> predecessor's work, but it does not define the dimensions that relationship.
> It is hardly startling and barely informative. What does it tell us about
> "originality"?
i must stop here. Was Andy Warhol original when he re-invented, reenacted,
reconsidered the campbell soup cans in some of his art-works ?
was he a creator or just a plain arranger of preexisting art-ifacts ?
Who or what is "introducing" Dali, anyway ? Da Vinci ? in which sense?
then was Warhol "introduced" by the Campbell's soup industrializer, or at
least by the designer of this can's logo, many decades ago?
I don't see any introduction from a prior experience to a newer one when an
artist re-does a good quality work basing such on a preexisting one. Except
for the viewer, who can realte the new art with the "older"(?) one ( as if
art could become "old", i donno how...)
where is the difference between art-work and art(e)(i)facts ?
between work-ing or fact-ing with art ? just plain vocabulary variances ?
>
> More broadly defined, "apposition" refers to a placing side by side or next to
> each other. I would suggest that we have done essentially this with each
> exercise. We have placed Dali next to his own or another's work. In each case
> we identified an undefined relationship between them, but we have not
> communicated anything about originality or the originality of these works.
why "undefined" ? Is't possible to identify something undefined ? where are
we going here ?
> Perhaps, however, I have misread your message or mislaid my analysis.
donno where is the start block in such analysis.
First I disagree with your writing " We have placed Dali next to his own or
another's work". He placed himself there. He never ask me, you or nobody to
place him next,in front,behind, his OWN work. He produced because he felt
the necessity and loved his art. He was certainly his own critic,
disregarding his "bad" production. His relationship with his work or his
realtionship with da vinci's work doesnt' matter at all. The important was
what he saw before and kept seeing finishing each of his canvas. If we
later feel like he did feel, he did good art/good work.He became an artwork,
art factor, art factory by his own talented brain.
If we need to reinvent his work to find some extravanganza there, that's our
right as spectators. he didn't exactly care of what each spectator would see
in his Last judgment. he wanted to paint that, he tought probably the Da
Vinci's work was a interesting starting block for some running visionary new
concept.
I suppose the basic idea, (mine) was that any artist can re-invent "old
talented artwork" using the "apposition", to such, of his own talent. A kind
of re-vision (viewing again).By him for Us, spectators, viewers.
As for the concept or the word original it seems secundary. In this case at
least.
where is the original of let's say the Statue of the Liberty ? In a scaled
model used to check the proportions ?
Of the Buddha who was recently destroyed by the talibans? Was such an
original or a copy ?
but originality as "novelty" is important. original as if the expression of
some peculiar personal distinct vision on some-thing who seems interesting
in someone's mind.Eventually later into others, if the artist succeeds in
his "transmission" of concepts to such receptors.
the "thing" can then be an "older" work, not "original" for beeing there for
some centuries. Even if such "old work" can have been very innovative when
produced first.
There possibly a reason for Dali's "copy" ( would better say
re-interpretation) of Da Vinci's Last Judgment. he was feeling the
necessity to confront this work and give his own vision of it, even with his
new ideas. To re-invent it.
He (Dali) apposed then in front of Us, over the wall of our visual fields,
like a poster, his new interpretation of the original.
Like an "affiche" on a brick wall.
Many musicians, artists, photographers,architects,a.s.o , do frecuently
that, they "adopt", make their own, as Dali did, a good interesting idea
adapting it to their own ideas.
Meaby i'm completely out there. just tell me if i'm wrong. Give me a good
idea. Appose it there ( as the antonym of Oppose it there ? Or finally is it
quite the same ?)
(funny, just remembering some masters degrees in France are the result of a
"concours d'opposition", because of dialectical discussion over contents
with eventually opposed arguments, but enriching the final, global result of
the teorical exchange.)
"Du conflit naît le progrès,
car de la routine l'ennui."
>
> Best,
>
> Dave
>
appreciate such answer. too frecuently i write without analyzing all
aspects of the words used. also translating from french toughts to misused
or unused or desused english words. mestized with Spanish ones...
how many originals created Rodin who were never seen ? never copied ?
how many paintings were burned,or destroyed, by Van Gogh or Modigliani?
who cares ? does' THAT matter ?
Patrick
¼?ß
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:59:37 -0500
From: "L-Soft list server at LISTS.PSU.EDU (1.8e)"
<LISTSERV@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: File: "DESIGN-L LOG0202"
To: John Young <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-ELNK-AV: 0