Thanks from a car wreck

Atli Ingólfsson

THANKS FOR A CAR WRECK[1]

Covers

Anyone who has their say in talking about aliens as if they are among us, I don't think he is either an agitation reporter or a philosopher? Neither would be particularly fortunate for a reader who just wants a realistic and insightful chat about an interesting issue.
He might be mistaken for something like this. Anyone who wants to speak with an easy-to-understand sense probably has his case in some other way. And hopefully we just don't have to think about it here.

All about that, I just met an alien and thought of asking about her shoe equipment. At the same time, it was an occasion for a little Icelandic teaching.

I said, „You have a steel cover in your shoes“ Then I explained, „There's a steel cover.“.
The creature was eager to learn, saying, „Yes, I understand Yesterday I heard about an umbrella. It's then a cover of rain.“
This I had to correct. „Actually, she's to spare rain.“
Since we were in a workshop, I pointed her to face shields if she needed to.
„Yes, I understand. To spare us from faces?“ Again, I had to correct.
Should I have managed to explain to her a steel cover, umbrella and face cover? What is a rollover cover?

Ah, the words. There doesn't seem to be any default way of understanding them It's almost as if we need to understand language in order to understand language It follows the words context necessary to understand them Cover is indeed an object made of some solid material that could be widely tailored to be described, but in combinations it takes on different meanings and it can be very fatal to confuse them Umbrella cannot join the role of steel shield.

Now let's take a look at a completely different place where there is a similar problem on the move A man was given permission to have a car cemetery on the property No such place is a special eye-opening or image of order, but the owner found his way around it well and knew where every single rim rose was to be found The fun, however, was caused when a supervisor was hired with the local cemeteries. Then inquiries about order, registration and organization began to be received that our man did not understand anything about The director of cemeteries also did not understand why such fuzzy answers were received, for example at the field „open for relatives“, it read „yes and no“ Soon after, the director himself got into a similar misunderstanding when the head of gardening in the locality announced the correct standards for planting, gauze and land improvement, this would be a garden„ At the field “The Icelandic flora's habitat„ wrote: “yes, and no.

Yes and no

Here I allowed myself to test the patience of the reader and air what seem like empty games in words They are the best entertainment but their motive is grave-serious; and thus end puns I would like to reflect on the word art collegeI find no shorter way to that subject than the introduction above and one more thing: An account of my interaction with an old partner who deals with research in biochemistry He is a university student.

We value the fellowship a lot and really feel that each of them grows from the education provided by the other The fascination of each of the other's specialties is constant and each is constantly inspired by the other's tidbits, as we both pretend to have a little insight into an article that we didn't think about in university though. I've still noticed certain landmarks in our interactions. It's the case that when I pretend to have figured out something remarkable in biochemistry, maybe I say, „So amino acids are passports of the genetic material“ Then he replies, „Yes and no, it's not quite that simple“ And so when he comments on music, „Are the rhythm tracks that kind of connection to that physically in music?“ Answer: „Yes and No, etc.“

It seems that when one has basic knowledge in a subject, it is easy to generalize about it without being totally wrong When specialist skills are achieved, however, it happens that the context of all statements becomes so broad that they are overdue unless they have countless appendices and footnotes. They become theoretically useless otherwise. That's why my partner is intolerable And indispensable. He is indispensable because it is the expert's responsibility to maintain the theoretical biomass of his article and not accept superficial generalizations, however sensible they may be.

But our mutual admiration is not only based on curiosity about another field of study Namely, it has been found that my specialty, art, is inherently different from biochemistry and unlike any scientific and scholarly discipline It is explicitly a different kind of organism, kind of like a fungus amidst lettuce plants This seems to be due to the fact that while the disciplines have all the theoretical discourse as their goal, something else is in the pipeline of art[2].
It has only added to my partner's fascination and surprise.

We agree that a man with his education would be reasonably quick to add to his expertise in various other sciences But to get a foothold in the semantic fen of art, he would need hours and it is uncertain whether it would succeed at all. Here, his basic education in science is possibly just a distraction.

I think in this regard that the College of Arts recently welcomed a woman from the health profession She addressed the staff and said she was unsure how to approach them She felt she didn't have enough understanding of the work of the school She said she did take on a rowdy and imagined a key concept in the job was creativity, that it was about being creative Then she sought confirmation in the roomI found the audience all thought the same thing: „Yes and no, it's not quite that simple“ Fortunately, artists are also intolerant in this respect.

But the visitor wasn't quite wrong: Creation? Well, well, that way. To a large extent, the artist's work is about creativity. But it's a creation of a special kind.

Semantic distortion

What kind of thing?! Is art really that scary different from science?

Now I'm going to try the impossible: To give an idea of what art does. This is a hypothesis. It will seem obvious to many readers at all but a gross simplification, and to others some kind of mental gymnastics of absurdity.I guess it won't be unbearable for both though? Then there's some.

figure 1: Now draw a horizontal line. Below it we put a symbol, but above it we have the symbol, an idea, concept, or cognate to which the symbol refers In a theoretical text, we try to have a direct and unambiguous connection from symbol to sign-middleI use the word „flower“ it refers to the image most people get in their heads when that word is used, as Figure 1 shows[3].

figure 2: It just so happens that the artist must distort this simple connection between symbol and symbol. This is actually universal in everyday language and is called metaphor, but to the artist this is a method of workWe distort direct meaning in order to produce a derived meaning Thus, for example, we say that the word „flower“ in figure 2 actually refers to some person Metaphor is a very simplistic form of this phenomenon, because what the symbol refers to is usually not so easily sayable But it can be presented like this for simplicity If that were all and some, it would not be remarkable, but let's check what happens next[4].

figure 3: The relationship of the direct meaning to the distorted meaning produces a new thing. There is a certain current, and in this picture let's call it love.

figure 4: The remarkable thing is, that even if the first sign deviates from the direct meaning, its idea can influence the development of the workWe saw that mysteriously the idea of love ignites inside the mind world, and even more oddly enough, now the first sign-ticket projects a new idea onto the „blade“ below a line It is an idea of what releases vegetation from its roots The symbol „lir“ is used on the paper This time, the meaning may not be distorted. Let's just say it applies to the real scythe.

figure 5: This new addition has a special effect on the mind world under construction In addition to love, a current is now created that could be called fear. Now the reference of symbol 1 has induced symbol 2 and its reference contacts the derived meaning of symbol 1 and generates a stream.

figure 6: Now here are two somewhat inverse currents, love and fear. Between them a particular feeling is formed They are distant but still live in relation to one common space That feeling produces a new symbol: Stairway has some of the same qualities, proximity but space, tension or distance between neighbors, etc. but many other things could be born there. There are mental connections at work here, as we are used to from everyday life, here we will be like fermenting in the heartbreak, and completely free from some reasoning. One of the methods of art is to jerk the ideas hard enough so that they roll over one circle further than they would in normal communication.

figure 7: Now we take a leap forward, as the reader is beginning to understand what kind of meaning drum we are in: Stairway has this shifted connection to love and fear, but then its direct meaning is distorted and becomes an idea of the life walk, but the idea of walking can produce a picture of worn shoes. Since we talk about stairwells, however, we switch to shoes that are often on the feet in the common: slippers. One of the concepts that came to light in the process was love. It could lead to worn slippers with embroidered hearts.[5]

Here we were looking at what might be work on making a work of art Trained creatively could thread this path unconsciously in a second, but it could also be a purposeful and conscious work processIt doesn't matter because here I want to focus on what happens rather than how or when it happens[6].

However, the pictures only show the preliminary work itself[7]. It is added to it type the artwork The symbols of the work are then collected and knotted, riveted, played, arranged, stacked, distributed or whatever it is that makes them work[8]. At that work, a skill comes to the documents that is quite different from this sponge described above. Let's call it artistic craft, and includes all means of presentation of the mind world There, the relationship of this representation with the recipient has the most to say. The artist wonders how the mind world should shine and develops methods for him to do so, whether he does it clearly or covertly, repeatedly, in large or small, and so on.

When the craft comes to the documents, a profession is created that is absolutely unique and does not resemble any other spiritual occupation of men There, the reasoning, engineering, or rhetoric that the craft embodies the fully free improvisation machine of ideas. And it is precisely the freedom that gives significance to the engineering and the engineering that gives significance to the improvisation.

The thread in between could be called intuition. Intuition is probably the gift of soul that determines whether the distortion of meaning above becomes fertile or just sillyIt is the hardest thing to teach but grows with the tireless practice of art.

Á figure 8 has simply been added to the bottom of the map a somewhat powerful horizontal line, a kind of firewall. She describes that the step from the work of meaning to the work can be quite large, and the difficult one is the wall that separates this. However, it is not a law of nature and we often witness a beautiful osmosis of the mind to a work. But it is undoubtedly a special subject. [9]

This was all. The brazen generalization presented here is that two things are borne in art: 1. That it constantly hacks on the direct path of a sign to meaning. 2. That it uses artistic craftsmanship to reveal the resulting stir of meaning.

This must not be taken too literally, but is hopefully clear enough. Here we are not necessarily talking about simple symbols and known symbols, but rather a specific way of being artistic thought, constantly turning out in order to expand the meaning of their symbols. Some have described art as symbols without references and it is a good attempt to handle this subject.

Here, it is not questioned that artists of all time often use symbols that the audience understands somewhat unimaginatively, Iconic, however, always gets a flicker when it comes to artwork. It would be too long to make this a sufficient return.

Electricity 

Now I ask the reader for an extended license for gross simplification.  

If there is anything to this above, the main difference between science and art would be this: Science is aimed at rational conclusions - temporary, blurred, limited, questionable... but always something that can be discussed in a rational way - but art is not aimed at results but at the lack of place. This is often the case that if the mind world is too smooth, the craft takes care to exaggerate it, but if it is very rude, the craft seeks to smoothen it up a little. But the result is some kind of nonsense.  

Obviously it is possible to discuss about art in a theoretical way and it is an important and enriching part of learning and culture to do so. But it is not to be confused with art itself,  practice her and training. 

In other words: Science takes something that is incomprehensible and seeks to make it understandable Art took the obvious rather, making it incomprehensible[10]. Those who do not know the profession may then think that it is only a matter of being blurred enough, of doing something odd (which many seem to associate with the word „creative“).It is not quite so simple The uncertainty of art is perfectly clear It is unrealistic in a very precise way[11]. It is not „perhaps“ or „a little bit“ realisticThere is a special kind of discipline at work; the conceptual work and craft work together for this outcome. 

And it is not that there is any sense in looking at a person and thinking „flower“ But in this action, electricity is generated in the mind, precisely on the edges where these two phenomena do not coincide, and it is this electricity that drives all living thinking, also the thinking that ultimately solves the mysteries of science. 

 In these placelessnesses of art lies a mission, a spark of life and its dissenting power. 

Athena's love affair 

In many countries, the educational system of art is now being honed together with the coordinated organization of universities. This is what we see in the very name change of many institutions: those that used to be called Hochschule or Academy now pick up the name Universität, University etc.  

Arts colleges undoubtedly benefit from community with other universities In addition, the academic debate on the arts is well established within them; there, after all, the proximity is greatest to the phenomenon itself, or the omnipresence of work to it The uniqueness of art colleges is nevertheless absolute and very valuable: They are the only institutions that safeguard the above „nonsense“ of art. Therefore, care must be taken that the coordination does not threaten this most important mission of theirs. 

The talk could fall prey to superficial generalizations For example, to add to the weight of creative disciplines, they are often lumped together into one broad array It can surely have political value but could turn into the hands of the artist: What if budgets for creative industries are listed as support for artistic practice? Here the yesandno still comes to the documents Saying that an artist is employed within creative industries is like saying that a carpenter is into sports Woodworking is also a sport, but this statement says very little about his work. 

Now I refer back to the relations with my fellow above He could explain and defend the importance of all disciplines taught in universities Their methodology largely overlaps with his own discipline But unfortunately, despite our great deal of communication and his good will, he is not equipped to speak with knowledge about the methods of art He is university student, no art university student. In this regard, the responsibility of art universities is therefore great. 

But aren't these unnecessary words? Is there anything that threatens art? 

Yes and no. She has two quite so aggressive fans: the Market and the Academy, and sometimes also the Politics, mis-invigor. Art certainly benefits from attention and should flirt with everyone without hesitation The problem is that these fans seem to want to own it and steer it must not happen. 

We all know the love poems they send to their goddess: „She gives the product added value She creates a new kind of knowledge She improves society“ She promotes business innovation. " Unlike many love poems, here everything is true and right. There's just a bit to add to this: 

Art is a multi-material for the market, but it does not comply with its rules.
Art is an inspiration for a better society, but it does not obey its moral principles.
Art is a fuel for business innovation, but it does not serve their purpose.
Art creates new knowledge, but it does not behave like a discipline.
Because if she did, she wouldn't be a multi-material, an inspiration or a fuel. 

I'll explain this quickly with a metaphor that my partner would be proud of. It comes from physics: In order for the energy level of a system to grow, energy must therefore be received from the outside.  

From the outside. 

On a car wreck away 

In order to have its place in society, an art college has to be careful not to belong to another place This may cause some identity problem: Does not need an institution called university to act accordingly and do what universities do?  

That can be answered with a reference to the word games here at the beginning. That something is called art college doesn't mean it's a university, any more than the name car cemetery is a cemetery The word simply means „a highest level arts institution“.  

This organization should focus on what the art does much more than what universities do. 

She doesn't have to discuss something else to prove her right to exist. It just showed doubt, as if art wasn't a complex and extensive subject.   

 It is safe to turn the professional's responsibility to an art university: He should be responsible for maintaining the professional biomass of its industry and shouldn't accept superficial generalizations. No other educational institution can be an advocate of art. 

It is surely neither an aesirist nor a philosopher who writes here but an artist. And finds most of what has been said here obvious And feels that the history of art for many centuries says so The person who stands for art education will hopefully take notice of it She brings us this nature described above This is in front of us and is why we feel it is worth stirring in her world despite the mixed results.  

So obvious should this be to those who organize an art education that one can think of an alien if they don't see it Like the one above who is in some sort of mess with the compound words of languageThe one I was telling let's protect; which does not understand that a word changes meaning depending on which word abstains from it. Just when we need solid shields from the encroachment of the hopefuls.  

Otherwise, the one who should be spared hits.  

PS.

Senior Reader 3: „But isn't this article just a superficial generalization?“ 

(T.O.N.

[1] The title may sound scary, but it primarily refers to the joy of a boy who gets to play unmolested amidst old useless cars. 

[2] This wording refers here to a discourse that has meaning and deals with ideas and factsso they can be debated or disproved.  

[3] This is some simplification and I am not going to claim that this relationship is unequivocal and hassle-free in science. I guess would be not correct saying the symbol „aims to“ refer to one image or concept? 

[4] Hopefully the reader is aware that although a word is taken as an example of a symbol, it actually means which one phenomenon that is: Everything can become a symbol. 

[5] I leave it to the reader to compose a poem out of this It might end with a poet on constant thans through the stairwell - on worn slippers with hearts on - looking for the right place for the potted plant left by a former lover, while an old scythe hangs for decoration by one flat.

[6] That is not the subject of this article, but this frivolous drawing of semantic distortion (and thus -formation), is marking it, removes all doubts about whether a machine can create a work of art: Semantic formation cannot happen without lives experience. That's what's behind all the turns of the example above. See also about intuition a little further down the text.

[7] It should be noted that what is here called pre-work is in fact largely contemporary with the construction itself Although this is „pre-“-work", this does not necessarily apply to the chronology of work elements.

[8] Here we are no longer talking about words but any subject, as everything can become a symbol.

[9] Although this is made to sound like first coming an idea and then a work, as with the preliminary work above, it cannot be fixed This can be created more or less at the same time.

[10] Here, „unintelligible“ is used in somewhat narrow understanding. It is not at all claimed that works of art are completely incomprehensible. Our senses „understand“ they are very well. 

[11] This must not be misunderstood so that I don't think art can be realistic in a sense This simplification also applies to realistic art.