From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 17 10:09:19 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 17 Sep 2002 17:09:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 94757 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2002 17:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 17 Sep 2002 17:09:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r01.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.97) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 17:09:17 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.10.251968af (26116) for ; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:09:11 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10.251968af.2ab8bbb7@aol.com> Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:09:11 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10.251968af.2ab8bbb7_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_10.251968af.2ab8bbb7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/17/2002 11:51:43 AM Central Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com 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. --part1_10.251968af.2ab8bbb7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/17/2002 11:51:43 AM Central Daylight Time, jcowan@reutershealth.com 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.
--part1_10.251968af.2ab8bbb7_boundary--