tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post7891061895378617336..comments2024-03-16T17:43:25.784-04:00Comments on DanielMaidman: The Ratjen Collection IV: EisegesisDanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-90402977068609780682010-12-11T09:50:27.517-05:002010-12-11T09:50:27.517-05:00Ed - the hand things are definitely cool. I would ...Ed - the hand things are definitely cool. I would say suspiciously cool - they happen so much that I think that hundreds of years ago, they probably turned into a stylistic tic, that artists put in on purpose to let people know they *really thought hard* about those hand positions. I mean, I know artists who put in slightly different head positions and alternate hand close-ups in these kinds of drawings, and I'm like, "Really? You couldn't figure out where you wanted the chin and the hand? You just *had* to draw them a few times on the same sheet of paper?" <br /><br />Fred - that is really interesting. I hadn't thought about deliberate ambiguity, which I think is a valid quality to try to place in the work. I do think there is a fair distinction to make between legitimate ambiguity, and trying to pack in concepts the work cannot sustain. For instance - I could claim that there is as much profundity in any given shot in a Michael Bay film, as there is in a given shot in a Tarkovsky film. And I could make a pretty good argument for this position. But ultimately, I'm being a jerk, because the Michael Bay film wasn't meant to, and can't sustain, the burden of the conceptual complexity that is so natural to a Tarkovsky film. So in that instance, I would be crossing the line from partaking of the ambiguity inherent in the work, to abusing the idea. Similarly, there's an entire subgenre of maybe-Judas-was-really-the-best-apostle-after-all storytelling, which I think is an abuse of any legitimate reading of the text. Clearly the text is saying that Judas is not the good guy here. You can come up with all kinds of philosophical tangles to reverse that, but at that point, you're well inside the territory of eisegesis.<br /><br />On the other hand, we have a continuously evolving version of Mary Magdalene because the text has so little about her, and yet gives her such a fundamental role, that every age is able to concoct the Magdalene it needs - and to me, this partakes of legitimate ambiguity, although Dan Brown is pushing it in my opinion.<br /><br />I do think eisegesis is a real flaw once you get down to serious scholarship - or, in other words, that the scholars have a point. Fortunately, as an artist I'm able to say whatever I please about a picture and then add, "P.S. This isn't scholarship. Ha ha ha, scholars!" And that is, in part, the approach I am taking on this blog.<br /><br />As usual, your comment has opened a new dimension of analysis of the problem - thank you again for taking the time to share your thoughts here.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-75810603385669999662010-12-10T23:39:48.332-05:002010-12-10T23:39:48.332-05:00Interesting distinction about exegesis and eiseges...Interesting distinction about exegesis and eisegesis.<br /><br />I don't know much about the Tarot, but years ago I went through a period of intense study of the I Ching. It started when I compared different translations of the core texts of the bronze age oracle, and noticed that the translators' interpretations could be wildly different from each other. I got fascinated enough to pore through doctoral dissertations on the I Ching and lexicons of bronze age Chinese. What I concluded from all this study is that I believe the original core verses of the I Ching, which are simply odd images described in a few terse characters, were constructed to be deliberately ambiguous. The translators erred, in my opinion, in trying to determine the correct interpretation of the cryptic verses rather than trying to capture their essential blankness. Of course the same is true of three thousand years of philosophical commentators, ever since Confucius named the I Ching as one of China's canonical ancient texts. But from the point of view of the professional diviner, too specific an answer constricts your interpretation of the question the client has asked you to divine upon. You need something evocative enough to serve as a seed for your imagination, but flexible enough to allow you to steer your response with your own sagely wisdom. <br /><br />If I am right then, that would make the I Ching a text designed for eisegesis. I don't think this is such a wild thesis. Many kinds of art, especially poetry and painting, make deliberate use of ambiguity. Being evocative can be more powerful than being explicit, because it calls on the imaginative capacity of the reader or viewer.<br /><br />Scholars generally hate the idea of eisegesis because if you admit that any subjective interpretation is valid there's nothing to argue about any more, and scholars are out of a job. But I think it's inherent in how we respond to art things, and maybe deserves a little more respect.Fredhttp://fredhatt.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-85180939242234521042010-12-10T12:22:31.636-05:002010-12-10T12:22:31.636-05:00I've noticed in a lot of these sketches in pre...I've noticed in a lot of these sketches in preparation for painting, the artists often have that extra detail study of a hand or foot or other feature. I like seeing those artifacts of the artists' thought process, like experimenting with a different position of the fingers in this most recent post. Maybe another reason to find the prep drawings sometimes more interesting than the finished painting.Ed.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08992347401319922675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-10966397809634974752010-12-10T08:52:53.806-05:002010-12-10T08:52:53.806-05:00Thanks Ed - I'm glad you think so. I'll pu...Thanks Ed - I'm glad you think so. I'll put up the painting when it's done, too.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-13474905524579891672010-12-10T08:17:11.059-05:002010-12-10T08:17:11.059-05:00Worthwhile? Hell yeah. Very interesting thoughts a...Worthwhile? Hell yeah. Very interesting thoughts and as always I'm glad you shared them here.Ed.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08992347401319922675noreply@blogger.com