Nov, ’23. disclaimer to my research.
in the case of my research, the most faithful/honest rendering of my approach to interpreting other composers’ words/aesthetics/works is to refrain from outright subscribing to their ideologies, thereby reemphasizing that my work is equally subjective/unfactual, and that it should not be treated as anything but as another epistemological approach to understanding our reality.
I merely interpret the oeuvres of writings to make sense to me, as this model is equally shareable amongst all creators. Thus, as I find value to the approximations attempted by others, some may find the same in the words of my own.
my approach is anti-essentialist; inclusive as not to take authority from the artist in the discussion of what quantifies the art. it is utmost important that any single observer of art should not have their credibility questioned.
/
the reader should read as if they were blindfolded. many times it’s spoken that only when it is silent, do we listen.
//
1. an objective record of esoteric practices will fail to accurately represent any part of a said process, due to
the ineffability of the artistic process itself. a true account could only be understood should the entire
history of the artist be simultaneously accounted for.
2. works of art are equally as dynamic to us (Deleuze). Much of the meaning of art remains latent
not only to the observer, but the artist themselves.
3. attempting to reduce works of art into palpable academic/empirical observations demystifies the
work, doing a disservice to any attempt to classify what’s happening. per Weitz, the only unifying
argument to what is is its ineffability, its shapelessness, and its impetuous search for one.
maybe in faces do we see.
/