"meaning" in a photograph ?

[removed account4]

It's common to equate acting and existence and meaning and intention, to one degree or other.

I am confusing meaning with intent. my intent was to photograph my lunch. sure, ascribe any meaning to it you want.

 

[Don_ih]

A lot of the confusion comes from the desire on the part of many (including, apparently, Umberto Eco) to preserve the notion of art as expressive. There's good reason for that, from an aesthetic viewpoint, because it distinguishes objects that are "art" from objects that are purposive or otherwise practical or incidental adornment or whatever sorts of things we want to see as normally meaningless but necessary or useful. So, the art object is meaningful, that meaning is artistic expression, and the artist is the one doing the expressing via whatever medium chosen, to create the meaningful object. It's like a dog chasing its tail - all to preserve a miniature model of God creating the world.
Another way it is expressed is as the artist has an Idea (with an upper-case i, signifying that it is actually a little spiritual and mystic in nature). The artwork is an expression of that Idea. The vehicle of expression is intent - the gas that vehicle uses is ability.
Unfortunately, these bright and shiny notions don't seem to have much to do with meaning. If you think about the way a sentence is meaningful, you can assign an intent to the writer that is roughly equivalent to the meaning as you understand it. But no amount of intent will make an unintelligible sentence (say, one made up of random scribbles that happen to look like words) meaningful. In order for my sentence to mean what I intend it to, I need to construct it in a way and using words that are already meaningful to whoever reads it. This correlates to my having an idea (lower case i) that I express (however I want) using symbols that are already meaningful. That can be seen as how meaning in art works, but it becomes a bit of a stretch once you get past the point of straightforward representation.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A lot of the confusion comes from the desire on the part of many (including, apparently, Umberto Eco) to preserve the notion of art as expressive. There's good reason for that, from an aesthetic viewpoint, because it distinguishes objects that are "art" from objects that are purposive or otherwise practical or incidental adornment or whatever sorts of things we want to see as normally meaningless but necessary or useful. So, the art object is meaningful, that meaning is artistic expression, and the artist is the one doing the expressing via whatever medium chosen, to create the meaningful object. It's like a dog chasing its tail - all to preserve a miniature model of God creating the world.
Another way it is expressed is as the artist has an Idea (with an upper-case i, signifying that it is actually a little spiritual and mystic in nature). The artwork is an expression of that Idea. The vehicle of expression is intent - the gas that vehicle uses is ability.
Unfortunately, these bright and shiny notions don't seem to have much to do with meaning. If you think about the way a sentence is meaningful, you can assign an intent to the writer that is roughly equivalent to the meaning as you understand it. But no amount of intent will make an unintelligible sentence (say, one made up of random scribbles that happen to look like words) meaningful. In order for my sentence to mean what I intend it to, I need to construct it in a way and using words that are already meaningful to whoever reads it. This correlates to my having an idea (lower case i) that I express (however I want) using symbols that are already meaningful. That can be seen as how meaning in art works, but it becomes a bit of a stretch once you get past the point of straightforward representation.

Actually, Eco says nothing about expression or expressivity. He is talking about intent, and talking about meaning - all this wonderfully explored in his "History of Beauty".

Moreover, intent is not limited to that of the artist. The viewer also has intent, and the work itself survives both the artist's and the viewer's intent.

 

[Don_ih]

Actually, Eco says nothing about expression or expressivity. He is talking about intent, and talking about meaning - all this wonderfully explored in his "History of Beauty".

Moreover, intent is not limited to that of the artist. The viewer also has intent, and the work itself survives both the artist's and the viewer's intent.

I didn't say he was talking about expression. I said his position preserves the idea of art as expressive. What he's doing in his discussion is using the standard philosophical trick of using homonyms - the multiple meanings of the same word - to make an equivocal definition of intent. But artistic intent (which produces the work) is not the same as audience intent (which is to experience the work). The work itself is intentional by nature (within all possible experience) - so that it "survives" is just a way to make sure that it remains meaningful even after the artist's intent is dead (along with the artist).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I didn't say he was talking about expression. I said his position preserves the idea of art as expressive. What he's doing in his discussion is using the standard philosophical trick of using homonyms - the multiple meanings of the same word - to make an equivocal definition of intent.

"His position preserves the idea of art as expressive." Actually no. That's what you've decided. Not his intent.

(See what I did there? )

And honestly, dismissing his work by saying that he uses "standard philosophical tricks"? Really? Have you actually read Eco?

 

[Don_ih]

"His position preserves the idea of art as expressive." Actually no. That's what you've decided. Not his intent.

(See what I did there? )

And honestly, dismissing his work by saying that he uses "standard philosophical tricks"? Really? Have you actually read Eco?

I said "his position". You can talk about the things someone says without talking about the person who said them. Anyway, even if I said "him", talking about intent with regard to communication makes sense.
And I didn't dismiss his work by mentioning standard philosophical tricks. Those tricks have been admired since before Plato. They're genuine philosophy magic.