[Back to ART index]  [^^TERMS index]  [^^HOME page]
The Classics in the D3 | X-Box | H/L  era.

See also:

The Classics in the D3 | X-Box | H/L  era.
(or: Where no (modern) reader has gon before)

                __ Discourse & dialog
               /
              /
Expectations:    
              \ \
               \ \___ Explanation - spelling it out.
                \
                 \__ Authentic conversation, art, performance, etc

Compare for example the following two texts from the current era:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" [Lukas] and "The Tempest" [Shakespeare'].

We might consider these the extremes of English Language literature.
(I preclude things like Plato, Religious literature, etc - which 
are almost always given in translation. It is also important to
note that the SF film -[a href="../literature/sf/sf-film.html#forbidden-planet" target="_blank">"Forbidden Planet"]- is rougly based
upon "The Tempest".)

In both cases, we are "thrown into" the action. In the case of
Raiders, we almost immediately pick up the motif, since the 
"treasure map" is a form of literature (both written and vid'd) 
that we are readily familiar with. In the case of Tempest, we
hardly know what is going on - the language problem being of
course one of the primary problems with "learning the story".

The point now comes in *reading* Shakespeare: What are the
problems to over-come? In the first scene, we hardly know 
what is going on, and of course all of the names are foreign
to us and of course, hardly one of us even knows what a 
boatswain is and how he/she/ne differs from the Master of
the ship. And of course, in a vid presentation, we would have
the clue of *costume* to distinguish status; esp, the King Alonso.

But, then both of these works are *readily* accessible in both the
sense of being able to find a copy as well as to figure out what
is going on....

START AGAIN:  FIRST FANATICAL DIATRIBE

There is this tendancy (probably *reactionary* (and even more
probabaly to some extent predjudicial/radcial/nationalistic)
but definitely exclusionary) towards *precision*. Everyone
is supposed to write (and of course speak) "The King's English".
But, i notice (having gone thru several horrific years of intense
studying grammar and language to over-come what is euphemistically
called "a speech deficit") thatn *even* professors (white, anglo
saxon protestant/and-otherwise) routinely confuse simple words; 
eg, "scan" instead of "skim", "loud" instead of "loudly" - adverb
please!!! 

   Adverb! Not adjective!!! yellingly; which they often
   did; yell, but don't hit, pls.

At least one professor understood saying, "Whose language is it anyway?".

Exactly.

But, this brings us also to the way that we talk about art.

(You didn't think that i was going anywhere *else* did you? ;)

Take for example my work -["Summer, 2007"]-, the pure text 
-- and i've purposefully avoided poetry - trying to stay strictly
textual - ie: "just the facts Ma'am.". Thus, for the final
entry ("And now for our feature presentation") is confined in
such a way that the image is *least* searved by the exposition
- fanicful that it is; eg, speculating on each line and "who"
might be playing that part (eg, "G&G", Shella, etc).

But, up from this rather prosaic, level (and below that would of
course be poetry, analogical texts, etc), we ascend to what we
might call semi-formal descriptions of an art work.

This level has (i think) three or four clear sub-sections:

  Formal catalog (eg, insurance description) entries,
  - would probably require a photo of the work, as well.

  An essorteric review (but in the form of discourse in
  the language of art formalism, art history, etc). Usually
  in art text books.

  Traditional Journalism - dry content.

  Free-style &/or interpretive description/review.

Of course, the Free-style is "just-above" the poetic descripions,
reviews or "translations".

We might see this nexus/border as leading to the SIDE in two ways:

  Poetic/Wordic/verbal                    Artistic/visual/pictic

(and of course, at the extremes, these two approaches meet as well. 

It's on these side-tracks that i want to dwell in this essay. 
The poetic description/tanslation of the art work would be 
the EXACT OPPOSITE of Sonia Delaunay's "translation" of the 
poem into a painting; ie:

    Art -->  poetic

    poem --> art  (Sonia Delaunay's translation)


  -[superb page by Ekaterina Likhtik]-

  -[at the tate]- (sighs wistfully; tips towel to eyes)
   
  [<><>] (side bar to PDE entry on such) will go here
     temp image (the text is almost impossible to read -[here]-
                 since the painting is about 6-foot 
 
             Watercolour and relief print on paper
             support: 1956 x 356 mm
             on paper, unique

     (a text description - the museum label from The Tate)
 
And at another extreme (how many points does an iconosphere have???)
would be:

    the pic  --->  another pic

the second pic would be attempting to explain/interpret/describe
and of course: Tranlate the first pic.

Now, let's move along...

Take the Mona Lisa (the Lady La Giaconda; or more formally: joconde ;)
Here is such a translation (actually two of them, since in my 
note book, one is essentially a meta-picture of the actual picture,
but then what appears below isn't the mona lisa either, but 
a photograph, scanned, transmitted, pixelated, etc - well, you wags know ;)







                                      -[complete ALT/HOVER text here]-


Bibliography


Lukas, George (1981). "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (aka "Indiana Jones I").
                California: LucasFilm.
                Ref data:  -[www.imdb.com]- Downloaded on 2007/08/08.

Shakespeare', William. "The Tempest".
              Ref source: -[www. Open Source Shakespear]-
              (tips towel to Eric M. Johnson and all the fine folks at George Mason Univ)