Expression
Magritte said that a painting of a weeping face does not express grief. To believe so, he thought, would be as naive as believing that a cake expresses what the baker was thinking when she created it.
So art is not a window into the soul of the artist, though it may create the occasion for the viewer to become aware of her own soul, though said soul may itself be a creation of the work of art in the same way ripples in a pond are creations of the dropping pebble.
I'll posit that what Magritte said wouldn't make any sense if we didn't understand what it means for a person to express his or her thoughts. But how does that work?
Here's a scheme: with some degree of intention, a Bob speaks or writes in order to express his thoughts. Jim recognizes Bob's frame of reference and looks through Bob's eyes, so to speak. Jim aligns his own frame of reference with Bob's and then just applies some conventions. In the process, he gathers some idea of what Bob's is trying to express. He can check with Bob to make sure his interpretation is correct.
I've noticed from time to time that some posters on this forum misunderstand that the contemporary meaning of "proposition" is not Bob's speech. It's that thing that Jim grasped after aligning himself with Bob's frame of reference.
What's the propositionless version of Bob and Jim's story? Is it similar to what Magritte was saying?
Thoughts @Terrapin Station ?
So art is not a window into the soul of the artist, though it may create the occasion for the viewer to become aware of her own soul, though said soul may itself be a creation of the work of art in the same way ripples in a pond are creations of the dropping pebble.
I'll posit that what Magritte said wouldn't make any sense if we didn't understand what it means for a person to express his or her thoughts. But how does that work?
Here's a scheme: with some degree of intention, a Bob speaks or writes in order to express his thoughts. Jim recognizes Bob's frame of reference and looks through Bob's eyes, so to speak. Jim aligns his own frame of reference with Bob's and then just applies some conventions. In the process, he gathers some idea of what Bob's is trying to express. He can check with Bob to make sure his interpretation is correct.
I've noticed from time to time that some posters on this forum misunderstand that the contemporary meaning of "proposition" is not Bob's speech. It's that thing that Jim grasped after aligning himself with Bob's frame of reference.
What's the propositionless version of Bob and Jim's story? Is it similar to what Magritte was saying?
Thoughts @Terrapin Station ?
Comments (32)
This seems to me to be similar to the idea that a painting isn’t complete and have meaning until it has an observer: the painting being Bob and the observer being Jim.
I have to rewrite this as “Magritte statement makes sense because we understand what it means for a person to express his thoughts.”
This is the contemporary meaning of ‘proposition’.
You’re asking for the ‘propositionless’ version of this. Is that correct? does the ‘propositionless’ version mean its not necessary to understand what it means for a person to express his thoughts to believe the painting expresses grief?
Propositionless communication is what I was thinking of.
Which is that, as an example, a painting of a weeping women does express grief. That the ‘proposition’ is not necessary?
Imagine that you know Magritte, and you have reason to believe he's trying to tell you something using paint as his vehicle of communication. How would you go about interpreting the painting? What would be necessary for interpretation?
I suppose some looks from my wife are propositionless but they convey meaning. I now know something I did not before the look. Because the look is not referring to something, but is part of that something. Let's say her anger at what her mother just said. (this may be missing the whole point of the thread, but hey...)
Language elicits experiences. At least that's one way of looking at language. I think in a way you are in the areas of Reddy's conduit metaphor for language, which goes into hidden folk theories of language where it is a conduit, a container for knowledge rather than something that can, but does not necessarily, elicit certain thoughts in the other person.
https://msu.edu/~orourk51/800-Phil/Handouts/Readings/Linguistics/Reddy-TheConduitMetaphor-1979.pdf
Sure. Exclamations, commands, etc. are propositionless. To have completely propositionless communication, we need to get rid of truth-apt statements.
One solution is behaviorism.
Quoting Coben
I hadn't heard of that. A proposition is an abstract object, though. It has no location.
Isn't the idea here that art, perhaps to count as art in the first place, amounts to not taking things in their literal, everyday, mundane senses?
We're intellectual, emotional, and bodily. Feeling is important, but can't cover all.
Quoting tim wood
Why?
Magritte rejected art as communication. Since art has long been a form of communication, his view is a model of behaviorism, which rejects communication as communication.
But then I feel art probably doesn't have an essence, so there's also a message-conveying way of looking at it and also a behavior-eliciting way and also a perception-inducing way and a patronage-securing way and a self-marketing way and a smuggling-reflexivity-into-the-gallery way and a virtuosic way and a self-differnentiating-to-secure-identity way etc.
Quoting frank
We should not understand his words literally.
Magritte’s entire project was about the deconstruction of the ordinary, conventional perceptions and the building of a new frame of reference, where visible, ostensible, and sayable would function differently.
the conduit metaphor is a folkmetaphor for language, so it's not literal.
Things like 'I put my ideas in words and sent off the letter. He read the letter but he didn't get my ideas from it.'
https://msu.edu/~orourk51/800-Phil/Handouts/Readings/Linguistics/Reddy-TheConduitMetaphor-1979.pdf
Reddy's point is that this metaphor is problematic and other metaphors for language might be better. Not so we speak/write more accurately, but because the way we think metaphorically about language makes us less useful and knowledgable, when using it. That we are actually confused about what language does and is.
More on smuggling reflexivity into the gallery?
Is it? Do you mean thinking is a sequence of propositions?
You may be right, but he said he painted because life seemed to require that he do something. Maybe he was joking.
Ok, but I spoke of aligning frames of reference as a model, not sending something down a tunnel.
Like Duchamp's fountain and all the stuff the came after, esp conceptual art. Art that's less about the artwork itself than how it makes you think about art. (imo this whole trend has metastasized now, but at the time I'm sure it was fresh)
Words.
To express is to press it out. SO Magritte may be right.
Perhaps the face shows grief.
To show means to make known. Is that the meaning you were thinking of? Or what?
More than pointing goes into showing. We first assess the pointer for her frame of reference.
I don't understand.
Context matters. If I suspect this person is trying to get money from me for drugs, that will influence my interpretation. If the person turns toward me and I see his arm is dangling by a tendon, I'll change my mind.
Look at the bolded part. It's a proposition. The eyeball does not see. The mind does.
What's the difference between expressing emotion and showing emotion?
Do you look at the jerking, back arching, teeth gritting, and press out that they are in pain?
Or is it right there to be seen in front of you?