Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:09:11 EDT

In a message dated 9/17/2002 11:51:43 AM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

<<
> I think it's erroneous to talk of "non-representational painting", a 
> painting
> being essentially a representation, though not perhaps of anything we can 
> see.
> "Non-objective painting" might be more appropriate. If a painting weren't
> a representation, it would be what Mark Twain said Whistler's painting was:
> a canvas covered with smears of tomato juice (or something to that effect).
>>
Yup. I had "non-looks-like" at one point, but that is too narrow (since 
cubism fails but is intended to be representational in the usual usage. My 
favorite story in art-fiction (hey, if you can have science -) is of a world 
where all physical characteristic and personaliyt types, etc. were coded into 
colored, shaped patches. A dossier on a person done in this form would be 
representational in the key meaning I want, but it would be odd (as happens 
in the story) for a police officer to shoot such a dossier of a bankrobber 
when he sees it in a bank. The problem is that the dossier is not 
representational in the common sense, though it is, strictly speaking.