Art and Artifice

Every art has something of art and something of artifice. There is no artifice without art, and no art without artifice. Without both, neither would be possible.

What then is the relation between intention and meaning in art? The artist speaks best that message which he does not intend. Intending to speak a message, he rarely ever succeeds in affectively communicating it. But some arts are more receptive to the intentional impression of meaning than others. As a general rule, the more an art is based in artifice, the easier it is to effectively communicate a meaning intended. But just as the accidental is not inessential or subordinate to meaning, so too is artifice not without its art.

The art of artifice is its technique. Since artifice is artificial, it is superordinate to the content inscribed within it. As method, it structures that which is without structure. As technique, it works upon dead matter so as to present it in a way, so as to re-present it as what it is not. A diamond as itself will not sparkle, and gold of itself does not shine. Only when it has been worked upon can it be seen for what it is, that is to say, for what it is not.

At the same time, the spirit of art is something wholly other from technique. It is that spirit which moves in music, soaring with our heart and plummeting into our soul. It is that tear which rolls down our cheek as we are touched by the marvelous sensuality of flowing drapes locked into marble. But none of this should mistake us into thinking that the purpose of art is merely to move us to feeling. Beauty is not grounded in emotion; it is grounded in spirit. The end of art is not to move us to feeling; it is to move us to meaning.

Intentionality

Every act of communication effects both an intended and an unintended meaning, and there is no reason that the intended should be given priority in the metaphysics of meaning. And why should intention be appointed the godhead of meaning? Why should we think that the unintentional has no role to play in the comprehension of meaning? Should the accidental be less meaningful, simply for want of an intending mind?

There is meaning in the unintended, for only that meaning may be discovered. For the counter-movement of intention is attention, which minds nothing for what the mind imbues into meaning, but rather attends to discover the essentially new. To paint a complete picture of what meaning is, we must admit a place for both attention and intention, for both play a role in the advent of meaning. Not only is intending responsible for the advent of meaning, but so also attending, for only an attendant is responsive from the first to the coming of meaning and therefore capable of its discovery.

Don't You Know?

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² And the Word was Bird, and Bird Bird Bird, Bird is the Word.

³ There was a man sent from God whose name was John. ⁴ He came as a witness to testify of the Word, so that through him all might know that the Bird is the Word. ⁵ He himself was not the Bird; he came only as a witness to the Bird.

⁶ And John testified, saying: "Don't you know about the Bird? ⁷ Everybody knows that the Bird is the Word. ⁸ Bird Bird Bird! Bird is the Word."

⁹ Now the Holy Spirit came to John, and he began speaking in tongues and prophesying. ¹⁰ And suddenly there was a multitude of the heavenly host of angels praising God and singing with him: ¹¹ "Papa-ooma-mow-mow, papa-ooma-mow-mow. ¹² Hallelujah! Papa-ooma-mow-mow."