Ambiguity is the beginning of Art ?

Question

Careful striking of a balance between ambiguity and clarity keeps the art interesting and thoughtful. What you have got to say?

Answer 1

"Man is endowed with the equipment of senses, reason, feelings, passions and detachment, so that he may keep away from the enticement of pleasures and spend his life in helping, serving, sustaining and saving his fellow men. He has to live in Seva not Bhoga (food)."

Answer 2

I'm not sure that's true in all cases. Realist art aims for total clarity, for absolute verisimilitude and complete representation. Abstract or minimalist art may take abstraction or minimalism to the point of ambiguity. These are extremes that don't seem to be striking a balance between ambiguity and clarity--they seem to be eschewing one or the other. Yet, despite lacking balance between ambiguity and clarity, both realist and abstract art can be very interesting, and very thought-provoking. Realism might seem to lack any room for imagination or thought, but you can ask yourself why that subject or scene was chosen, why that angle, why that time of day, etc. Context, subject, etc. are all factors which can be discussed. Abstract art takes it, of course, in the other direction--why that color, why that form. Realism, to me, seems to take the mind in a journey of expansion, encouraging the exploration of the world beyond the boundaries of the piece of art. Abstract art, again in my mind, encourages more of a focal, introspective viewpoint. Yes, in abstract art there is expansion from the shapes and lines to a fuller mental representation of the subject, but the focus may remain on that particular subject, and not move at all into any realm beyond that.

Just my perspective.

Answer 3

I think even that puts too much restriction on the art.
Yes I agree with you, and personally I favor work that stimulates me in that way but, who are we to say what stimulates the next man?
What is ambiguous to me, may not be to you.
It's hard to be specific in this area. Personal tastes get in the way.
Works of art that draw me are the ones that seem to have a connection with me somehow on a different level. When I look at it I can say, "Yes, I know that also" .
Where does that come from?

Answer 4

I believe that what keeps art interesting is the extent to which it succesfully incorporates artefactual elements within its frame, or to which it returns to the level of the artefact. By this I mean, drawing on Adorno, the extent to which they successfully function as both social products of labour with a certain use-value, and how successfully what is contained in a work of art communicates with what it rejects empirically.
An interesting piece of art will transmit its aesthetic structure as sedimented meaning, and in a highly original way, which challenges the communicative code as taken for granted. Take minimalism on the one hand. It's all about aesthetic form and structure. Forms in minimalism strike one powerfully as artefacts. A structured form, ie, a defined shape strongly connotes the idea of sedimented content. Indeed, you might almost say shape in minimalism aims to refer directly to content as use-value. What greater use for a square than to build a chair? (And of course, we can also go in the other direction and say that minimalism makes problematic the very act of connotation itself; but even where even where nothing is represented, there is still a use in the code for nothing: the code needs its zero.)
On the other hand, take surrealism. Whatever its technical merits, it appeals because it traverses the code while piercing it at every moment. Its aesthetic form almost screams out sedimented meaning, while simultaneously making meaning oblique, as in dream structures. Every artefact in surrealism wants to preach to the unconscious while seducing the viewer. A highly interesting and inventive way of communicating, as social product, with the empirical, which is, of course, rejected totally in surrealism.

Answer 5

exciting. an area poet in my small city has self-printed a e book of poetry. My lady pal runs a small used e book save. we inventory the e book--with all proceeds to author--and it sells slightly, gets regarded by way of periodically. regrettably, in lots of cases, i think of this is study as Mr. Wexler says: to relish a competent one, nonetheless, takes expertise and dedication. As a society, we lack this expertise and dedication. human beings do no longer own the persistence to study a poem 20 cases till now the sound and sense of it takes carry. they don't seem to be keen to enable the words wash over them like a wave, stressful relatively for the meaning to flow for sure and at once. they choose narrative-pushed varieties, stand-on my own paintings that doesn't require an expertise of the better context. yet nonetheless, that may no longer anybody. some do make an effort. Poetry won't be an paintings variety for each individual, like rap or precis portray or what have you ever; notwithstanding this is for some. continuously would be. i think of the flaw in Mr. Wexler's thinking is that he's finding society as an entire--maximum anybody likes the Simpsons, so this is good and representative of our lifestyle and desires; poetry isn't favored with the help of maximum, for this reason this is beside the point. acceptance isn't fee: do you particularly think of that Britney Spears is the main proficient musician in the worldwide? Stephen King the main proficient author? Jerry Brukheimer (sp?) the appropriate filmmaker? i think of poetry is eternal, like maximum styles of paintings. I additionally think of people who view issues on mass are lacking an excellent deal, yet this is their decision.

Answer 6

Fair enough.

Normally I appreciate an abstraction of a well known idea and the piece having more than one idea - layering of ideas.