Bryant on art

I enjoyed Bryant's post on art, and the linked article on art. One line reminded me of my old article, "Who decides what Wilber means?":

"The artist herself is an interpreter of her own work, not the authority of her work."

I also like his focus on the art as material medium. Often when enjoyed a work of art, say a painting, I don't look for a meaning or interpretation but rather just appreciate the brush or knife strokes, the texture, the color scheme, etc.


And his take on interpretation as creative co-enaction with an art object is preferable to interpretation as getting at the meaning of said object. As such they are "pluripotent." This is how I view rhetaphor, as both an art suobject in itself and as interpretative co-enaction with other suobjects.

And his point that, given the above, art suobjects affect and enact a change in the world, often revolutionary. For the open us to new worlds, new ways of being in the world, that both challenge and change sedimented ideologies. We are all familiar with the power of art to affect, a power that comes from its own virtual proper being and not from its origin or context.