[MD] Art to me is....

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Steve]
So maybe a better question for the artist to replace, "what does this 
painting mean?" is, "is there anything you could tell me about this 
painting that may help me to appreciate it?"

[Arlo]
The problem with the first question, as Manson I think gets at, is that 
it implies there is a real, hidden or otherwise restateable meaning 
being concealed from the passive viewer. 'Art', in other words, is not 
co-constructive, negotiated or dialogic, but rather transmissive. And, 
if the transmission fails, a restatement (or indeed a "clearer" 
reframing) would alleviate the confusion.

In other words, 'art' is reducible to a more-clear, more-exact, 
more-direct 'meaning' that the art is somehow obscuring. "What does 'The 
False Mirror' mean?" implies a reducible restatement "It means the eye 
is blind to itself" (for example) conveys the exact same 'meaning' as 
the painting but in clearer, more precise language. Rather than hanging 
the painting on the wall, a posterboard with the 'meaning' typed onto it 
would not only transmit an identical meaning, but would do so better, as 
it would not need 'interpretation'.

Looking at your second question, I think this captures a distinction I 
was thinking about last night. Since Nietzsche is on my mind, I was 
thinking about what Manson could be saying in terms of Apollonian (form) 
and Dionysian (dissolution), and I think (although Manson is not 
explicit) there is a significant difference between saying "Art is '?'" 
and "Art is 'chaos'". A "?" implies (I think) that the art must speak 
enough via cultural-historical forms to be 'understood', dropping "The 
False Mirror" into an aboriginal community would likely not satisfy the 
"?" among those who interact with it. Manson is not saying that 'art' 
must ignore form, but that form must be useful to answer "?".

Given this, I think your second question is a fair one. What it says is, 
"my language is insufficient for me to produce meaning from this 
interaction, can you help me with some scaffolding of the contextual 
form so I can better interact with the art-object?". Not nearly as 
elegant, of course. But notice this is not a passive formulation. The 
second question is not asking about some hidden transmission, but 'help' 
in improving an interaction. I think that's key.

[Marsha]
I'm not sure about essays.

[Arlo]
When I first heard Manson say this, I thought immediately of the 
afterward to ZMM.

"The letters have been full of questions: Why? How did this happen? What 
is missing here? What was your motive? There's a sort of frustrated 
tone. They know there's more to this book than meets the eye. They want 
to hear all." (ZMM)

And then, "There really hasn't been any "all" to tell. There were no 
deep manipulative ulterior motives. Writing it seemed to have higher 
quality than not writing it, that was all." (ZMM)

I think, using Manson's words, the "meaning" is not hidden within ZMM, 
rather the "meaning" is the emergent reaction of your experience 
interacting with ZMM. You answer the "?" as you read and interact and 
experience ZMM. Or, ZMM is not the answer, the answer emerges as you 
experience with it.