11 july 2006
(originally written in an email to Gerrie van Noord)
Part of creating work which deals with the ineffable, is the restructuring of language as it exists currently, or a reinvention of language either written or aural/visual. Benjamin speaks of translation:
'While that ultimate essence, pure language, in the various tongues
is tied only to linguistic elements and their changes, in linguistic creations it is weighted with a heavy alien meaning.
We have had conversation about the role of the artist, lately in conjunction with the whole practice led research debate, but is the artist really a creator or is the artist a translator to some degree.
'a translation touches the original lightly and only at the infinitely small point of the sense, thereupon pursuing its own course according to laws of fidelity in the freedom of linguistic flux.'
If you were to use Benjamin's text as a structure, what then is the role of work, or rather what is the role of work which is attempting to create the ineffable. Is the pursuit to 'create' the ineffable the actual work, or is the ineffable something, which exists in the ether and the work created is an attempt to 'translate' it, if you will.
But the issue of the ineffable within the context of research. One must be able to explain, either the methods or the experience itself, and that is where language becomes a key factor. But if the argument is the work is the new language, the way within which the experience is both created but maintained, (depending upon context, but i surmising that the creation of a context which is specific to the work, is paramount). If language has not failed us, but rather provided us with an inability to fully comprehend and describe such experiences through language, how then is it researchable? It makes me think that the artist is both creator and translator, the role is to use the language or the pure language of the work, but then disseminate the experience as well.......
How does that work?
*perhaps it is worthwhile to use the term mediator instead of translator (email response from GvN on 12 July 2006)
(originally written in an email to Gerrie van Noord)
Part of creating work which deals with the ineffable, is the restructuring of language as it exists currently, or a reinvention of language either written or aural/visual. Benjamin speaks of translation:
'While that ultimate essence, pure language, in the various tongues
is tied only to linguistic elements and their changes, in linguistic creations it is weighted with a heavy alien meaning.
We have had conversation about the role of the artist, lately in conjunction with the whole practice led research debate, but is the artist really a creator or is the artist a translator to some degree.
'a translation touches the original lightly and only at the infinitely small point of the sense, thereupon pursuing its own course according to laws of fidelity in the freedom of linguistic flux.'
If you were to use Benjamin's text as a structure, what then is the role of work, or rather what is the role of work which is attempting to create the ineffable. Is the pursuit to 'create' the ineffable the actual work, or is the ineffable something, which exists in the ether and the work created is an attempt to 'translate' it, if you will.
But the issue of the ineffable within the context of research. One must be able to explain, either the methods or the experience itself, and that is where language becomes a key factor. But if the argument is the work is the new language, the way within which the experience is both created but maintained, (depending upon context, but i surmising that the creation of a context which is specific to the work, is paramount). If language has not failed us, but rather provided us with an inability to fully comprehend and describe such experiences through language, how then is it researchable? It makes me think that the artist is both creator and translator, the role is to use the language or the pure language of the work, but then disseminate the experience as well.......
How does that work?
*perhaps it is worthwhile to use the term mediator instead of translator (email response from GvN on 12 July 2006)
posted by Alexandra P. Spaulding at 4:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home